Skip to main content

Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1974"

See other formats 


No.  1 


Ontario 


Eegiglature  of  Ontario 


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


Tuesday,  March  5,  1974 

Afternoon  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 
PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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,  March  5,  1974,  being  the  first  day  of  the  fourth  session  of  the  29th  Parliament 
of  the  Province  of  Ontario,  for  the  despatch  of  business  pursuant  to  a  proclamation  of  the 
Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald,  Lieutenant  Governor  of  the  Province. 


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  legislative 
assembly,  on  behalf  of  our  Sovereign,  I  wel- 
come you  to  the  opening  of  the  fourth  session 
of  the  29th  Parliament  of  Ontario. 

As  hon.  members  were  reminded  earlier 
today,  continued  improvement  in  the  prosper- 
ity of  our  province  was  slowed  to  some  extent 
last  year  by  inflation. 

In  1974,  the  economy  of  Ontario,  as  with 
most  of  the  major  economies  of  the  world,  is 
faced  with  uncertainties  of  the  real  and  poten- 
tal  impact  of  the  energy  situation.  In  my 
government's  view,  however,  the  prospects 
appear  more  favourable  here  than  elsewhere. 
Despite  projections  of  slower  economic 
growth  this  year,  combined  with  the  con- 
tinued rapid  growth  of  the  province's  labour 
force,  it  is  still  hoped  that  the  level  of  em- 
ployment achieved  in  1973,  which  produced 
a  record  of  149,000  new  jobs,  will  be  main- 
tained. 

[While  my  government  will  employ  all 
practical  means  at  its  disposal  to  alleviate  the 
causes  and  effects  of  inflation,  nevertheless  it 
bears  repeating  that  the  problem  can  only 
be  dealt  with  in  a  national  context,  with  all 
governments  co-operating. 

[In  recognition  of  the  fact  that  science, 
research  and  innovation  play  such  an  important 
role  in  an  advanced  and  diversified  economy, 
the  government  of  Ontario  will  establish  struc- 
tures to  develop  and  co-ordinate  science  policy, 
both  within  our  province  and  in  co-operation 
with  the   government   of   Canada  and  other 


TxJESDAY,  March  5,  1974 

provinces.  Strong  emphasis  will  be  placed  on 
the  practical  application  of  science  to  main- 
tain our  leadership  in  high-technology  in- 
dustry. This  is  a  key  component  in  my  gov- 
ernment's efforts  to  preserve  our  national 
economic  independence  and  to  ensure  that 
maximum  social  benefits  are  achieved. 

[A  comprehensive  programme  to  improve 
essential  services  in  remote  areas  of  the  prov- 
ince will  be  introduced.  This  will  include 
an  extension  of  the  electrification  process, 
and  improved  telecommunications,  especially 
for  emergency  purposes.] 

Improvements  in  telephone  and  communi- 
cations systems  in  remote  areas  will  benefit 
the  residents  and  provide  a  firmer  base  for 
economic  development.  The  co-operation  of 
the  federal  government  and  of  industry  will 
be  sought  to  develop  reliable  communications 
systems  for  the  north. 

A  feasibility  and  engineering  study  will  be 
undertaken  for  a  road  link  to  James  Bay 
through  Moosonee.  This  will  include  an  en- 
vironmental impact  study  and  full  public 
hearings. 

Priority  consideration  will  be  given  to  the 
supply  of  electric  power  to  northern  com- 
munities. A  power  line  to  Moosonee  will  be 
the  first  project  in  this  undertaking. 

Northern  communities  in  unorganized  terri- 
tories will,  through  enabling  legislation,  have 
the  opportunity  to  establish  local  coromunity 
councils.  Fire  protection,  water,  roads  and 
other  such  services  wfll  become  the  respon- 
sibility of  these  community  councils.  Imple- 
mentation of  this  plan  will  follow  fuU  con- 
sultation with  residents  of  commimities  that 
wish  to  participate. 

[In  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  north, 
with  its  great  distances,  requires  a  first-rate 
highway  system,  high  priority  has  been  given 
to  rebuilding  and  widening  Highway  17  be- 
tween Sault  Ste.  Marie  and  Sudbury. 

[Following  the  success  of  norOntair,  four 
more    communities    in   northwestern   Ontario 


[Editor's  Note:  Copy  within  brackets  was  not  read  but  is  contained  in  the  formal  Throne  Speech.] 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


will  receive  air  services  in  the  first  phase  of 
an  expansion  programme.  In  addition,  funds 
will  be  made  available  for  improvements  to 
certain  existing  airports  to  bring  them  up  to 
the  standard  required  for  a  regular  scheduled 
air  service. 

[The  Ontario  government  is  negotiating  an 
agreement  to  participate,  through  an  appro- 
priate agency,  in  the  Polar  Gas  project  to 
Ijring  natural  gas  from  the  Arctic  Islands  to 
Ontario. 

[Studies  will  be  made  regarding  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  port  facility  in  the  James  Bay 
areas  to  bring  potential  supplies  of  gas,  oil 
and  minerals  from  sources  in  the  eastern 
Arctic] 

The  proposals  for  energy  management  an- 
nounced last  June  indicated  my  government's 
long-term  goals  for  the  continued  social,  in- 
dustrial and  economic  progress  of  this  prov- 
ince. Developments  in  the  Middle  East  in 
recent  months  have  further  underlined  the 
pressing  need  for  a  co-ordinated  energy  policy 
for  Canada,  which  the  Ontario  government 
has  been  urging. 

The  government  will  shortly  outline  On- 
tario's policy  on  the  control  and  development 
of  uranium  as  a  provincial  and  national 
resource. 

A  general  development  agreement  between 
the  federal  government  and  the  Ontario  gov- 
ernment has  been  signed.  The  agreement  has 
a  duration  of  10  years  and  is  intended  to 
improve  opportunities  in  those  areas  of  On- 
tario which  are  in  need  of  special  assistance 
and  to  realize  greater  development  potential. 

The  community  of  Cornwall  is  the  first  to 
benefit  from  this  agreement,  and  joint  ex- 
penditures of  approximately  $14  million  will 
be  provided  for  such  projects  as  the  com- 
pletion of  servicing  for  an  industrial  park, 
construction  of  a  civic  centre,  and  the  de- 
velopment of  a  tourist  and  recreational  area. 

[Tourist  operations,  small  businesses  and 
service  industries  will  benefit  from  improved 
loan  programmes  and  financial  assistance  from 
the  three  provincial  development  corpora- 
tions. Operators  of  small  business  establish- 
ments will  receive  more  help  and  advice  in 
solving  management  problems. 

[The  Ontario  Council  for  the  Arts  will 
undertake  a  programme  through  which  prac- 
tising artists  in  the  creative  and  performing 
arts  may  work  in  and  with  local  communities. 
Emphasis  will  be  placed  on  visits  to  schools 
in  remote  areas,  and  on  programmes  in  public 
libraries. 


[A  wide  variety  of  extension  programmes 
will  be  offered  at  provincial  cultural  facilities. 
The  Art  Gallery  of  Ontario  will  establish  an 
internship  programme  to  prepare  fine  arts 
students  for  art  gallery  careers,  as  well  as 
programmes  to  promote  the  visual  arts 
throughout  the  province. 

[In  response  to  the  recommendations  of 
the  Commission  on  Post-Secondary  Education, 
my  government  proposes  to  expand  academic 
and  cultural  opportimities  in  the  open  sector. 
This  will  include  the  extension  of  educational 
broadcast  services  within  the  province,  along 
with  the  development  of  new  and  innovative 
educational  support  materials  for  school  and 
college  students  as  well  as  for  persons  learn- 
ing at  home.] 

You  will  be  asked  to  consider  legislation 
concerning  negotiations  between  the  teaching 
profession  and  school  boards,  as  well  as  pro- 
posals for  the  consolidation  of  all  legislation 
respecting  elementary  and  secondary  educa- 
tion. 

In  keeping  with  my  government's  deter- 
mination to  introduce  programmes  on  a 
selective  basis  to  meet  those  areas  of  greatest 
need,  an  income  support  programme  will  be 
proposed  which  will  assist  in  achieving  a 
greater  measure  of  security  for  Ontario's  older 
citizens  and  for  the  disabled. 

A  proposal  will  be  made  for  a  prescription 
drug  plan  for  our  senior  citizens. 

Ontario's  younger  children  are  presently 
served  by  kindergartens,  daycare  services  of 
approved  agencies  and  special  programmes 
for  the  handicapped.  My  government  will 
continue  to  support  these  services  and  will 
initiate  a  new  programme  of  assistance  for 
co-operative  daycare  centres  in  low-income 
areas.  The  use  of  school  and  other  com- 
munity facilities  for  child  care  will  be  en- 
couraged, and  accommodation  and  stafiing 
regulations  will  be  reviewed  with  the  aim  of 
removing  unnecessary  impediments  to  the 
creation  of  new  services.  Resources  will  be 
made  available  to  expand  high-priority  ser- 
vices such  as  those  for  handicapped  children, 
children  from  low-income  families  and  native 
children. 

Rehabilitation  services  will  be  strengthened 
to  provide  assistance  to  a  larger  number  of 
physically  and  mentally  disabled  persons. 
Special  efforts  will  be  made  to  encourage 
local  initiatives  for  community-based  mental 
retardation  services,  including  new  community 
residences. 

Amendments  to  the  Health  Insurance  Act 
will  provide  a  formal  review  mechanism  for 


[Editor's  Note:   Copy  within  brackets  was  not  read  but  is  contained  in  the  formal  Throne  Speech.] 


MARCH  5,  1974  T 


claims  for  services  by  non-medical  practi- 
tioners, paralleling  the  system  now  used  for 
claims  by  physicians. 

The  report  of  the  health  planning  task 
force,  which  has  been  chaired  by  Dr.  Fraser 
Mustard,  has  been  received  by  my  govern- 
ment. During  the  course  of  this  session,  pro- 
posals will  be  placed  before  you  for  further 
development  of  a  comprehensive  health  plan 
for  the  people  of  Ontario. 

My  government  will  present  proposals  for 
extensive  new  sports,  fitness  and  recreation 
programmes  that  will  offer  more  opportu- 
nities for  the  improved  health  and  enjoyment 
of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

A  health  education  programme  will  be 
prepared  providing  information  on  such 
health  hazards  as  alcohol,  tobacco  and  other 
drugs,  arid  to  encourage  better  use  of  our 
public  health  care  system.  - 

[You  will  be  asked  to  approve  a  major 
educational  and  enforcement  programme  de^ 
signed  to  reduce  the  highway  accident  toll 
caused  by  irnpaired  drivers.  / 

[With  regard  to  the  Ontario  Law  Reform 
Commission's  report  on  administration  of  the 
courts,  my  government  will  proceed  with  a 
planned'  programrtie  of  implementation  for 
judicial  areas  and  for  the  rotation  of  judges 
and  trial  centres  throughout  those  areas  in 
consultation  with  those  affected. 

[My  ^gdvemment  is  reviewing  legislative 
and  common  law  rul6s  affecting  the  family  as 
an  institution  in  such  matters  as  occupational 
and  property  rights  in  the  home  and  laws 
concerning  children,  '  . 

[A  legislative  progranime  will  be  introduced 
ensuring  that  family  law  in  Ontario  reflects 
today's  social  and  economic  realities.  The  ulti- 
mate objective  is  a  code  of  family  law,  with 
special  attention  to  the  status  of  women  and 
for  the  provision  of  a  legal  framework  that 
will  strengthen  the  family  unit  in  our  society. 
Attention  will  also  be  given  to  citifying  the 
legal  rights  of  married  persons.  " 

[My  government  will  create  a  new  oflBce 
for  women  Crpwn  employees  in  order  to  im^ 
prove  perspnn,el  a^ministratiop  ^^di  hiring 
practices.]  ;        ,'    J, 

My  government  intends  to  promote  the 
development  of  small  community-based  adult 
residences  in  place  of  traditional  correctional 
institutions.  These  centres, will  be  used  in  the 
rehabilitation  of  selected  offenders  prioi'  to 
their  release  and  as  residences  for  thos'e  who 
are  working  of  studying  under  the  temporary 
absence  programme.  In  northern  areas  of  the 

[Editoi^s  Noteii  Coisy  within  bniiekets  was  not  read 


province,  centres  will  be  located  closer  to 
communities  with  potential  employment  op- 
portunities. 

A  new  system  will  be  introduced  to  place 
juveniles  in  training  schools  closer  to  their 
own  homes  and  to  provide  better  integration 
of  group  homes,  probation,  aftercare  and  in- 
stitutional services. 

Negotiations  are  under  way  for  operation 
and  supervision  by  private  business  of  an 
industrial  enterprise  within  a  correctional 
centre.  This  innovative  experiment  should 
provide  inmates  with  realistic  employment 
and  training  experience.  The  labour  force 
would  consist  of  those  serving  short  terms 
under  minimum  cuistody,  who  would  be  paid 
competitive  wages.  My  government  is  confi- 
dent that  with  the  support  and  co-operation 
of  labour  unions  and  industry,  the  concept 
can  play  a  worthwhile  part  in  correctional 
services  in  the  years  ahead. 

My  government  will  introduce  legislation 
with  regard  to  consumer  product  warranties 
and  guarantees  in  order  to  provide  bettei; 
protection  for  consumers,  new  redress  pro- 
cedures and  more  flexible  means  of  admin- 
istration. Legislation  vdll  also  be  introduced 
to  protect  the  cojasumer  from  unfair  and 
unacceptable  trade  and  business  practices. 

Hon.  members,  you  will  be  asked  to  con- 
sider provisions  for  the  mandatory  use  of 
automobile  seat  belts. 

Legislation  will  be  presented  to  establis}^ 
an  inter-regional  public  transportation  author- 
ity for  the  Toronto  area;  My  government  be- 
lieves tljis,  legislation  will  maintain  regional 
autonorny -and  .provide  a  model  that  may  ]b^ 
adapted  to, other  areas  of  the  province.  ' 

i  f-yon  will  [  be  asked  to  approve  legislation 
which,  will;  require  an,  environmental  assess-; 
ment  of  major  new  deivelopment  projects.     . 

A  permarient  advisory  committee  on  solid 
waste  management;  will  be  estabhshed  in 
order  to  achieves,  closer  consultation  with  mu- 
nicipal governments?,,  environmental  groups 
arid  industry,  whose  co-operation  is  essential 
to  the  solution  of  problems  created  by  in- 
creasing waste  of  energy  and  material  re- 
sources and  the  difficulties  of  waste  disposal. 

My  government  will  also  propose  other 
measures  for  the  control  and  reduction  of 
litter  and  solid  waste. 

My  government  bdicves  that  positive  steps 
must  be  taken  to  conserve  and  improve  our 
visual  environment.  To  this  end,  your  views 
will  be  sought  with  respect  to  placing  limita- 
tions and  controls  on  outdoor  advertising. 

but  is  contajiied  in  the  f onaaal  Throne  Speech.] 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


For  the  second  consecutive  year,  dwelling 
starts  in  Ontario  have  exceeded  100,000  units, 
a  rate  of  construction  which  is  consistent  with 
the  government's  overall  objective  of  one 
million  new  dwelling  units  in  10  years. 

[To  assist  in  this  achievement,  a  wide  range 
of  programmes  and  approaches  in  housing 
development  and  community  planning  will 
be  proposed,  including  housing  for  Tower- 
income  earners.  These  programmes  will  be 
implemented  within  the  legislative  framework 
of  a  revised  Planning  Act,  amendments  to  the 
Condominium  Act  and  die  establishment  of 
a  new  building  code  for  Ontario,  and  will 
be  characterized  by  a  closer  partnership  with 
other  levels  of  government,  the  private  sector 
and  citizens*  groups. 

[It  is  proposed  to  increase  spending  on  the 
construction  of  sewage  and  water  treatment 
facilities  from  $81  milhon  in  1973  to  $115 
million  this  year.  The  funds  will  be  used  for 
anti-pollution  control  and  high  quality  water 
soipply  programmes  and  servicing  needs  for 
new  home  construction. 

[In  cases  where  land  is  designated  by  the 
government  for  necessary  housing  or  is  being 
held  by  the  private  sector  for  future  develop- 
ment, the  government  will  make  proposals  to 
ensure  continued  agricultural  production  on 
all  suitable  lands  until  they  may  be  required 
for  other  purposes.! 

Twenty-three  communities  have  been  desig- 
nated as  neighbourhood  improvement  areas 
eligible  for  federal-provincial  assistance  for 
planning  and  improving  physical  and  social 
facilities.  My  government  will  urge  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada  to  extend  assistance  for 
commercial  and  industrial  renewal. 

The  private  sector,  in  consultation  with 
local  and  regional  governments,  will  be  en- 
couraged to  increase  the  supply  of  serviced 
lots  and  to  work  toward  stabilization  of  land 
and  housing  prices.  The  government  looks  to 
the  private  sector  for  even  greater  co-opera- 
tion than  in  the  past  in  the  construction  of 
public  housing,  involvement  with  rent  supple- 
ment and  integrated  community  housing  pro- 
grammes, the  preferred  lending  programme 
and  condominium  building,  so  that  the  hous- 
ing needs  of  a  large  segment  of  the  popula- 
tion can  be  met  within  a  moderate  price 
range. 

A  provincial  home  renewal  programme  will 
be  introduced  with  grants  to  homeowners  and 
municipalities  for  preserving  and  upgrading 
the  quality  of  existing  housing  in  rural  as 
well  as  urban  areas. 


Cet  automne,  le  Premier  ministre  de 
rOntario  sera  I'hdte  de  la  conference  annuelle 
des  premiers  ministres  des  provinces  cana- 
diennes.  Cet  evenement  se  produit  a  un 
moment  particulierement  important  de  notre 
histoire  ou,  en  raison  des  difficultes  qui  nous 
assaillent  au  Canada  et  des  problemes  de 
portee  internationale,  un  renouveau  de  coope- 
ration et  de  comprehension  entre  les  provinces 
s'impose  si  nous  voulons  raflFermir  notre  nation 
et  rehausser  notre  sentiment  national. 

This  autumn,  the  Premier  of  Ontario  will 
be  host  to  the  aimual  conference  of  provin- 
cial premiers.  This  comes  at  a  particularly 
important  time  in  our  history  when  challenges 
facing  us  within  Canada  and  problems  of 
world-wide  significance  will  require  a  new 
level  of  interprovincial  co-operation  and 
understanding  to  strengthen  our  nation  and 
to  maintain  and  enhance  our  sense  of  national 
purpose. 

May  Divine  Providence  guide  you  in  these 
tasks  and  in  the  discharge  of  your  respon- 
sibilities. 

Hon.  members,  I  wish  to  take  the  oppor- 
tunity on  this  occasion  to  state  that  it  has 
been  my  pleasure  and  privilege  to  have  per- 
formed this  duty  over  the  past  five  years.  To 
my  successor,  one  of  Ontario's  most  renowned 
and  distinguished  citizens,  may  I  express  all 
good  wishes  for  her  forthcoming  term  of 
office. 

God  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  will  now  read. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Oppiosi- 
tion):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order,  if 
you  will  permit  me,  sir;  before  we  go  ahead 
with  the  usual  dispensation  I  would  draw 
your  attention  and  perhaps  to  the  attention  of 
the  Premier  that  according  to  the  copies  of 
the  speech  made  available  there  were  certain 
omissions  in  His  Honour's  speech.  Perhaps 
the  collation  has  been  faulty  and  it  may  be, 
in  fact,  that  not  all  of  the  government's  pro- 
granune  has  been  presented.  . 


[Editor's  Note:  Copy  within  brackets  was  not  read  but  is  contained  in  the  formal  Throne  Speech.] 


MARCH  5,  1974 


Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker^i 
I  still  think  we  could  dispense  with  the 
reading  of  the  Throne  Speech.  I  think  there 
were  several  matters  that  perhaps  were  caught 
when  the  pages  were  being  turned.  The  full 
text  of  the  Throne  Speech  will  be  made  avail- 
able. I  really  don't  think  there  is  any  purpose 
in  rereading  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  hasten  to  add  that 
doesn't  mean  the  Throne  Speech  isn't  worthy 
of  repetition  on  many  occasions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  agreed,  then,  that  the 
reading  of  the  speech  be  dispensed  with? 

Some  hon.  members:  Agreed. 

Reading  dispensed  with. 


;  '     UNIVERSITY  EXPROPRIATION 
POWERS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  University 
Expropriation  Powers  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis  moves  that  the  speech  of 
the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  to 
this  House  be  taken  into  consideration  on 
Thursday  next. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  3.30  o'clock,  p.m. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


^-i^     ^  ly    '  ■'       -'  ^        ■'  '         APPENDIX 

ALPHABETICAL  LIST  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE 

LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 

(117  members) 

Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Parliament 
Speaker:  Hon.  Allan  Edward  Renter  Clerk  of  the  House:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C. 


Member  Party  Constituency 

Allan,  James  N PC  ...! :  Haldimand-Norfolk 

Apps,  C.  J.  S :.;.:..;.;  FC'  ...  Kingston  and  the  Islands 

Auld,  Hqn.  James  A^  CvM-  -  V .     ^  ^C  Leeds 

Bales,  Dalton  A PC  York  Mills 

Beckett,  Dick  PC  Brantford 

Belanger,  J.  Albert  PC  Prescott  and  Russell 

Bennett,  Hon.  Claude  PC  Ottawa  South 

Bernier,  Hon.  Leo  PC  Kenora 

Birch,  Hon.  Margaret PC  Scarborough  East 

Bounsall,  Ted NDP  Windsor  West 

Braithwaite,  Leonard  A L  Etobicoke 

Breithaupt,  James  R L  Kitchener 

Brunelle,  Hon.  Rene  PC  Cochrane  North 

Bullbrook,  James  E L  Sarnia 

Burr,  Fred  A NDP  Sandwich-Riverside 

Campbell,  Margaret  L  St.  George 

Carruthers,  Alex  PC  Durham 

Carton,  Gordon  R PC  Armourdale 

Cassidy,  Michael  NDP  Ottawa  Centre 

Clement,  Hon.  John  T PC  Niagara  Falls 

Davis,  Hon.  William  G PC  Peel  North 

Davison,  Norm  NDP  Hamilton  Centre 

Deacon,  Donald  M L  YorkCentre 

Deans,  Ian NDP  Wentworth 

Downer,  Rev.  A.  W PC  Dufferin-Simcoe 

Drea,  Frank  PC  Scarborough  Centre 

Dukszta,  Dr.  Jan  NDP  Parkdale 

Dymond,  Dr.  Matthew  B PC  Ontario 

Eaton,  Robert  G PC  Middlesex  South 

Edighoffer,  Hugh L  Perth 

Evans,  D.  Arthur  PC  Simcoe  Centre 

Ewen,  Donald  Wm PC  Wentworth  North 

Ferrier,  Rev.  William NDP  Cochrane  South 

Foulds,  James  F NDP  Port  Arthur 

Gaunt,  Murray  L  Huron-Bruce 

Germa,  Melville  C NDP  Sudbury 

Gilbertson,  Bernt  PC  Algoma 

Gisbom,  Reg NDP  HamiltonEast 

Givens,  Philip  G L  York-Forest  Hill 

Good,  Edward  R L  Waterloo  North 

Grossman,  Hon.  Allan  PC  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick 

Guindon,  Hon.  Fern PC  Stormont 


MARCH  5.  1974 


Member  Party  Constituency 


Haggerty,  Ray  L Welland  South        .  ...^, 

Hamilton,  Maurice   PC Renfrew  North    .    f|,| 

Handleman,  Hon.  Sidney  B PC .., Carleton  /.,        .; 

Havrot,  Edward  M PC Timiskaining.,y  ;.;f    ,4 

Henderson,  Lome  C PC Lambton     •  , 

Hodgson,  R.  Glen  PC       Victoria-Haliburton 

Hodgson,  William  PC York  North 

Irvine,  Hon.  Donald  R.  PC       Grenville-Dundas 

Jessiman,  James  H PC       ., -Fprt  William      '  f   ,,  /. 

Johnston,  Robert  M PC       St.  Catharines      ' 

Kennedy,  R.  Dougks  PC       Peel  South 

Kerr,  Hon.  George  A PC       Halton  West 

Lane,  John  PC       Algoma-Manitoulin 

Laughren,  Floyd  NDP Nickel  Belt 

Lawlor,  Patrick  D NDP Lakeshore 

Lawrence,  A.  Bert  R PC       Carleton  East  *'*'^ 

Leluk,  Nicholas  G PC       Humber  '-' ^ 

Lewis,  Stephen NDP    Scarborou^  West ' 

MacBeth,  John  P PC       York  West 

MacDonald,  Donald  C NDP    York  South 

Maeck,  Lome  PC       Parry  Sound 

Martel,  Elie  W NDP    Sudbury  East 

Mcllveen,  Charles  E PC       Oshawa 

McKeough,  Hon.  W.  Darey  PC       Chatham-Kent 

McNeil,  Ronald  K PC       Elgin 

McNie,  Hon.  Jack  PC       Hamilton  West 

Meen,  Hon.  Arthur  K.  PC       YorkEast 

Miller,  Hon.  Frank  S PC       Muskoka 

Morningstar,  Ellis  P PC       Welland 

Morrow,  Donald  H PC       Ottawa  West 

Newman,  Bernard  L         Windsor-Walkerville 

Newman,  Hon.  William  PC       Ontario  South 

Nixon,  George  PC       Dovercourt 

Nixon,  Robert  F L         Brant 

Nuttall,  Dr.  W.  J PC       Frontenac-Addington 

Parrott,  Dr.  Harry  C PC       Oxford 

Paterson,  Donald  A L         Essex  South 

Potter,  M.D.,  Hon.  Richard  T PC       Quinte 

Reid,  T.  Patrick  L-Lab   Rainy  River 

Reilly,  Leonard  M PC       Eglinton 

Renwick,  James  A NDP    Riverdale 

Reuter,  Hon.  Allan  E.  PC       Waterloo  South 

Rhodes,  Hon.  John  R PC       Sault  Ste.  Marie 

Riddell,  John       L         Huron 

Rollins,  Clarke  T PC       Hastings 

Root,  John  PC       Wellington-Dufferin 

Rowe,  Russell  D PC       Northumberland 

Roy,  Albert  J L         Ottawa  East 

Ruston,  Richard  F L         Essex-Kent 

Sargent,  Edward L         Grey-Bmce 

Scrivener,  Mrs.  Margaret  PC       St.  David 

Shulman,  Dr.  Morton  NDP    High  Park 


10  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Member  Party  Constituency 

Singer,  Vernon  M L         Downsview 

Smith,  Gordon  E PC       Simcoe  East 

Smith,  John  R PC       Hamilton  Mountain 

Smith,  Richard  S L         Nipissing 

Snow,  Hon.  James  W.  PC       Halton  East 

Spence,  John  P L         Kent 

Stewart,  Hon.  Wm.  A PC Middlesex  North 

Stokes,  Jack  E NDP    Thunder  Bay 

Taylor,  James  A PC       Prince  Edward-Lennox 

Timbrell,  Hon.  Dennis  R PC       Don  Mills 

Turner,  John  M PC       Peterborough 

Villeneuve,  Osie  F PC       Glengarry 

Walker,  Gordon  W PC       London  North 

Wardle,  Thomas  A PC       Beaches-Woodbine 

Welch,  Hon.  Robert PC       Lincoln 

Wells,  Hon.  Thomas  L PC  Scarborough  North 

White,  Hon.  John  PC       London  South 

Winkler,  Hon.  Eric  A.  PC       Grey  South 

Wiseman,  Douglas  J PC       Lanark 

Worton,  Harry  L         Wellington  South 

Yakabuski,  Paul  J,  PC      Renfrew  South 

Yaremko,  John  PC       Bellwoods 

Young,  Fred  NDP    Yorkview 


MARCH  5,  1974  11 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COUNCH. 

Hon.  William  G.  Davis Premier  and  President  of  the  Council 

Hon.  Robert  Welch  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  and 

Attorney  General 

Hon.  Allan  Grossman  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  Development 

Hon.  William  A.  Stewart Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 

Hon.  James  A.  C.  Auld  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

Hon.  Rene  Brunelle  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 

Hon.  Thomas  L.  Wells Minister  of  Education 

Hon.  Fern  Guindon ., Minister  of  Labour 

Hon.  John  White  Treasurer  of  Ontario,  Minister  of  Economics 

and  Intergovernmental  Affairs 

Hon.  George  A.  Kerr  Solicitor  General 

Hon,  Leo  Bernier  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 

Hon,  Eric  A.  Winkler  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 

Hon.  James  W.  Snow Minister  of  Government  Services 

Hon.  Richard  T.  Potter  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

Hon,  John  T,  Clement  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations 

Hon.  Jack  McNie Minister  without  Portfolio 

Hon.  Margaret  Birch  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 

Hon,  Claude  Bennett Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 

Hon,  W.  Darcy  McKeough Minister  of  Energy 

Hon.  Arthur  K.  Meen Minister  of  Revenue 

Hon.  William  Newman  Minister  of  the  Environment 

Hon.  Sidney  B.  Handleman Minister  of  Housing 

Hon.  Frank  S.  Miller Minister  of  Health 

Hon.  John  R.  Rhodes  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications 

Hon.  Donald  R.  Irvine  Minister  without  Portfolio 

Hon.  Dennis  R.  Timbrell Minister  without  Portfolio     ' 


PARLIAMENTARY  ASSISTANTS 

Mr.  John  R.  Smith  (Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Education) 

Mr.  Leonard  M.  Reilly  ( Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism ) 

Mr.  Gordon  W.  Walker  (Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Revenue) 

Mr.  Robert  G.  Eaton  (Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food) 

Mr.  Dick  Beckett  (Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications) 


12  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  March  5,  1974 

Speech  from  the  Throne,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  3 

University  Expropriation  Powers  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Welch,  first  reading  7 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Davis,  agreed  to  7 

Appendix:  Alphabetical  list  of  the  members  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Ontario  8 


No.  2 


Ontario 


Hegtslature  of  Ontario 
debates 

OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Wednesday,  March  6,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT   BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


15 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leadter  of  the  Opposition): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

In  the  absence  of  the  Minister  of  Ed^uca- 
tion  (Mr.  Wells),  I  wonder  if  the  Premier 
could  report  to  the  House  the  status  on  the 
negotiations— the  protracted  negotiations— be- 
tween the  secondary  school  teachers  and  the 
York  county  board? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  minister,  I  expect,  will  be  here  shortly 
and  could  probably  give  to  the  House  a  more 
detailed  description,  not  as  to  the  state  of  the 
negotiations  in  any  detail,  but  some  of  the 
history  of  it  and  his  own  activities  and  that 
of  the  ministry. 

The  parties  are  meeting— I  believe  they 
reconvened  at  10  o'clock  this  morning— at  the 
request  of  the  minister,  and  I  can  only  assume 
that  negotiations  are  going  on  at  this  precise 
moment  unless  they  are  still  having  lunch; 
and  I  expect  the  minister  will  be  here  very 
shortly. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  will  be  here? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  expect  the  minister  will 
be  here  very  shortly. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  It  took  the 
Premier  a  long  time  to  answer  that  one. 


ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  was  hoping  the  minis- 
ter would  be  here.  I  would  like  to  put  another 
question  to  the  Premier  arising  out  of  a 
section  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  yes- 
terday. Can  he  give  the  House  the  assurance 
that  the  proposal  in  the  speech  calling  for  an 
objective  assessment  of  the  environmental  im- 


Wednesday,  March  6,  1974 

pact  of  public  works— and  I  presume  private 
development  as  well— will  be  used  to,  let's 
say,  either  delay  or  change  the  government's 
announced  decisions  on  the  Amprior  dam  and 
also  on  the  Hydro  high  tension  corridor  in 
western  Ontario,  coming  from  Douglas  Point 
down  into  the  Wingham  area  and  then  over 
to  Georgetown?  Can  the  minister  give  the 
House  the  undertaking  that  the  concept  en- 
visaged in  the  speech,  which  I  believe  to  be 
an  excellent  one,  will  be  used  to  have  an 
effect  on  these  circumstances,  which  are  about 
to  go  forward  unless  a  change  in  policy  is 
stated? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  agree  with 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  as  to  the  excel- 
lence of  the  concept. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Only  if  the  government  is 
prepared  to  use  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  one  we  are  pioneer- 
ing to  a  certain  extent  with  this  kind  of  pro- 
posed review  agency,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  think  it 
is  fair  to  state  that  if  there  had  been  such 
an  agency  a  period  of  time  ago,  some  of 
these  projects  obviously  would  have  been 
referred  to  it.  I  certainly  can't  undertake  to 
the  member  for  Brant  that  projects  already 
under  way  would  be  referred  to  any  en- 
vironmental review  agency. 

I  would  point  out  to  him— and  I  can't  be 
too  specific  here— that  a  portion  of  the  trans- 
mission line  as  it  relates  to  the  corridbr  re- 
ferred to  has  been  a  matter  of  study  by  Dr. 
Sol'andt. 

Actually,  I  think  one  could  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  decision'— 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  No,  not 
that  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —perhaps  not  that  line, 
but  a  part  of  the  connection  there  with  the 
500  kv  line— to  appoint  Dr.  Solandt  to  review 
the  500  kv  corridor  from  Nanticoke  to  Picker- 
ing is  in  essence  a  form  of  review  procediue. 
As  I  said  to  the  press  two  or  three  days  ago, 
it  is  our  hope  that  we  will  have  Dr.  Solandt's 
report  veiy  shortly.  What  will  flow  from  that 
—well,  electricity  ultimately— in  terms  of  sug- 
gested location,  I  can't  tell  the  House  at  this 


16 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


moment;  but  I  think  really  that  is  one  indica- 
tion of  how  this  review  agency  could  work. 

The  details  of  the  legislation,  and  the 
timing  of  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  matters  of  gov- 
ernment policy.  I  would  not  want  to  say  to 
the  member  for  Brant,  as  it  relates  to  projects 
already  under  way,  that  one  can  reverse  the 
situation  and  have  them  a  subject  of  review. 
There  is  no  question  in  my  mind  that  certain 
future  transmission  corridors  obviously  would 
be  a  matter  that  would  be  referred*  to  such  a 
review  board. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary  for 
clarification':  Since  the  high  tension  line  from 
Douglas  Point  to  Bradley  Junction  and 
Georgetown  is  not  under  construction,  and 
since  it  has  not  been  reviewed  by  Dr. 
Solandt,  does  the  Premier  then  mean,  since 
it  is  not  under  construction,  it  will  be  re- 
viewed? And  since  Dr.  Solandt  has  been 
associated,  let's  say,  with  the  Georgetown  end 
of  it,  will  the  Premier  or  his  minister  be  ask- 
ing him  to  review  the  alignment  that  is  under 
discussion,  particularly  since  the  farmers  have 
brought  forward  the  information  that  the 
present  alignment  is  supposedly  using  80  per 
cent  class  1  and  2  land  and  that  an  alternative 
alignment,  even  proposed  by  Hydro  itself, 
uses  about  half  that  much  class  1  and  2  farm 
land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it's 
the  kind  of  thing  that  it  would  be  perhaps 
wise  to  refer  to  the  proposed  environmental 
review  board  or  whatever  terminology  is  used. 
As  I  say,  there  is  one  aspect  of  it,  and  that  is 
the  connection  with  the  500  kv  line  some- 
where in  the  area  in  Hal  ton  or  Peel  as  it 
crosses  the  escarpment.  I  think  this  part  of  it 
has  been  a  subject  of  some  consideration,  but 
as  for  the  balance  of  the  transmission  line 
location  or  suggested  location  it  might  be 
handled  very  properly  by  the  review  board. 

This  is  really  what  we  are  endeavouring  to 
do.  The  only  observation  I  make,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  that  the  Solandt  review  covered 
a  good  portion  of  the  riding  that  I  represent, 
is  that  one  of  the  things  we  must  always  re- 
member is  that,  while  there  may  be  better 
places  for  a  transmission  line,  I  am  sure  there 
can  always  be  improvements  which  will 
satisfy  people  where  the  line  was  perhaps 
intended  to  go  initially.  If  it  is  moved,  I  am 
somewhat  reconciled  to  the  problem  that  will 
be  created  in  the  new  alignment  that  is 
suggested,  wherever  that  may  be.  This  is 
one  of  the  diflBculties  that  we  face. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Hopefully  there  is  an 
alternative  that  will  not  bring  that  problem 
forward. 


Mr.  Lewis:  There  are. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  I  can't  find  any  way 
to  have  that  particular  500  kv  line  not  cross 
the  county  of  Peel  somewhere. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It  can't 
be  done. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And,  unfortunately,  I  am 
told  it  is  too  expensive  to  put  imderground 
across  that  great  county  too. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  supple- 
mentary, if  I  can,  given  the  number  of  angry 
and  anxious  meetings  held  by  the  farmers  with 
Ontario  Hydro  over  the  last  several  months 
on  the  line  from  Douglas  Point  to  George- 
town, can  the  Premier  give  an  undertaking, 
rather  than  being  vague,  that  the  line  v^dll 
not  be  proceeded  with  nor  will'  Hydro  con- 
tinue to  deal  vmpredictably,  as  they  have  been 
dealing  with  the  farmers,  on  dollar  amounts 
and  routes,  until  the  government  has  made 
an  independent  study— independent  of  Hydro 
—or  reviewed  it  all,  so  diat  they  can  be 
appeased  in  a  way  that  is  not  now  the  case? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't  at 
this  stage,  without  some  review  of  it  and 
until  we  see  the  legislation  and  know  how 
it's  going  to  work,  give  that  firm  a  commit- 
ment. I  think  it  is  obvious  that  it  is  the  land 
of  situation  which  the  environmental  review 
board  or  agency,  whatever  term  is  used,  is 
anticipated  to  cover.  But  to  say  to  the  hon. 
member  at  this  point  that  I  can  give  a  firm 
commitment,  I  can't  do  that  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):   Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  By  way  of  further  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  If  I  can  turn  to  Amprior— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Who  are  you  recognizing, 
Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition.  Then  I  will  come  back  to  the 
hon.  member  for  Ottawa  Centre. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Premier,  since  the  hearings  of  necessity  under 
the  Expropriations  Act  are  going  on  right 
now,  today,  would  he  undertake  to  discuss  the 
matter  with  the  Minister  of  Energy'  (Mr. 
McKeough)  as  a  matter  of  some  priority  so 
that  if  in  fact  an  objective  hearing  is  decided 
upon,  which  is  certainly  urged  by  the  farmers 
concerned,  that  these  hearings  can  be  stood 
down  or  stopped  completely  until  an  objec- 
tive assessment  is  available? 


MARCH  6,  1974 


17 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  cer- 
tainly an  undertaking  I  can  give.  I  vdll  dis- 
cuss it  with  the  Minister  of  Energy  very 
shortly. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  can  turn  to  Amprior.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  environmental  hearing  board  pro- 
posed by  the  government  will  not  be  estab- 
lished for  some  time,  and  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  about  $10  million  out  of  an  $82-million 
project  has  now  been  spent— maybe  $7 
million  or  $8  million-but  $70  or  $75  milhon 
has  yet  to  be  spent,  will  the  Premier  agree 
to  an  independent  inquiry  into  that  project 
because  of  the  valid  points  which  have  been 
made  to  date  about  the  erosion  that  may 
occur  behind  the  dam,  about  the  economic 
inadequacies  of  the  project,  and  about  the 
loss  and  mistreatment  of  farmers  whose  land 
has  not  yet  been  expropriated',  but  which  will 
be  flooaed  by  work  currently  under  con- 
struction? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't  give 
any  such  undertaking  to  have  an  inquiry 
related  to  those  matters.  I  can  only  say  to 
the  hon.  member  that  Ontario  Hydro  is  aware 
and  the  government  is  aware  of  potential 
problems  that  may  or  may  not  arise,  and 
obviously  they  vdll  take  these  into  account. 
But  1  must  say  to  the  hon.  member,  we  do 
not  propose  to  have  an  inquiry  in  that  sense 
of  the  word  as  it  relates  to  the  Amprior 
project. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  One  more  supplementary.  The 
hon.  member  for  Timiskaming  would  like  a 
supplementary. 

Mr.  BounsaU:  Windsor  West. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Windsor  West,  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  hon.  member  for  Timis- 
kaming, God  forbid. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  With  reference  to  the  orig- 
inal question  about  the  line  across  south- 
western Ontario,  regarding  that  portion  of 
in  between  Wingham  junction  and  Kitchener, 
would  the  Premier  speak  to  Hydro  vidth  a 
view  to  seeing  that  they  purchase  only 
enough  land  required  for  the  power  that  can 
be  transmitted  along  that  corridor,  which  is 
two  lines,  rather  than  the  three-line  width 
which  they  are  attempting  to  purchase? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  under- 
standing is  that  a  route  hasn't  been  selected. 


so  I  can't  give  an}'  commitment  on  this  at 
all.  Quite  obviously  one  can't  do  it. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  But  the  Premier  knows  what 
width   they're   trying   to   purchase. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  we  don't  know  the 
route. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

Interjection  by  hon.  member. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr,  Speaker,  now  that 
the  Minister  of  Education  is  in  his  place,  I 
wonder  if  he  would  report  to  the  House  on 
the  status  of  the  negotiations  in  York  and  in 
the  Windsor  area. 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be  very  pleased  to. 

In  regard  to  the  York  county  dispute  be- 
tween the  secondary  teachers  and  that  board, 
talks  began  again  this  morning  and  are  pres- 
ently carrying  on,  with  the  help  of  a  Ministry 
of  Labour  mediator,  at  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  oflBces  on  University  Ave. 

In  regard  to  the  Windsor  situation,  this 
was  something  that  came  up  because  of  a 
misunderstanding,  a  misinterpretation,  a  fail- 
ing of  the  two  parties  to  get  together  on 
the  wording  of  the  final  memorandum  to  send 
the  matters  to  voluntary  arbitration. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  pretty  land.  The  min- 
ister is  in  a  generous  mood. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon,  Mr.  Wells:  The  facts  of  the  matter 
actually  are  that— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  board  is  nuts.  That's  the 
fact  of  the  matter. 

Hon.    Mr.    Wells:    —an    agreement    was 
signed,  that  I  and   one  of  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  negotiators  wrote  out  on  a  piece  of 
hotel  paper  in  pencil- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Would  the 
minister  care  to  specify  which  location  and 
the  hotel? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  won't  mention  the  name 
of  the  hotel  for  fear  of  giving  any  free 
publicity. 


18 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  they  don't  have  to— 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  I'll  bet  they're 
in  the  Royal  York, 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  they  aren't,  as  a  matter 
of  fact.  They're  down  in  the  town  of  my 
friend's  colleague  from  Windsor. 

Mr.  Lewis:  In  a  non-union  hotel,  I  might 
say. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  actual  statement  that 
was  signed  by  both  the  board  and  the 
teachers  said  that  because  they  had  failed 
to  reach  any  agreement,  they  would  submit 
the  matters  still  in  dispute  to  arbitration 
which  would  be  final  and  binding  on  both 
parties.  I  think  there  is  no  question  that 
that  was  the  intent.  That  was  my  intent,  that 
was  the  teachers'  intent  and  I  had  assumed 
it  was  the  board's  intent.  There  seems  to 
have  developed  some  misunderstanding  after 
that  concerning  whether  an  award  of  a  board 
of  arbitration  could  be  appealable  or  not. 
Certainly,  I  have  made  it  very  clear  to  the 
board  that  there  is  no  question  that  an  arbitra- 
tion board  set  up  in  a  dispute  such  as  this, 
which  is  essentially  a  labour  management  dis- 
pute, is  not  appealable. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Does 
the  minister  think  they  are  bargaining  in 
good  faith? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think,  though,  that  the 
matter  will  be  straightened  out  today.   Our 
people  have  been  meeting  with  both  sides- 
Mr,    R.    F.    Nixon:    That's    the    Windsor 
matter. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  think  he's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes.  Our  people  have 
been  meeting  with  both  sides  and  I'm  pretty 
well  assured  that  they  will  now  sign  an  agree- 
ment and  will  get  on  with  the  arbitration. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  about  York? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I'm  just  as  hopeful  about 
York. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  What 
about  the  York  business?  Has  the  minister 
taken  part  in  the  negotiations  himself?  Does 
he  intend  to  do  so?  What  is  the  story  about 
these  sort  of  secret  meetings  that  have  been 
reported  where  the  minister  does  come  for- 
ward with  alternatives  but  says  that  he  is  not 
participating  himself  in  the  negotiations? 
Why  doesn't  he  participate? 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well  actually,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  fact  of  the  matter  is— and  I'm 
sure  my  friend,  if  he's  done  any  of  this  kind 
of  mediating,  knows  there  are  times  when  I 
can  participate  and  there  are  times  when  I 
cannot— I  did,  in  fact,  participate  in  the  nego- 
tiations toward  the  end  of  January- 
Mr.  Lewis:  He  did  indeed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Toward  the  end  of  Janu- 
ary when  we  were  dealing  with  many  of  the 
boards  and  at  that  time- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Why  didn't  the  minister  appoint 
the  member  for  York  Centre  (Mr.  Deacon)? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  —we  were  attempting  then 
to  avert— 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  That  would  be  total 
failure. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  were  attempting  to 
avert— 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  could  settle  a  year  from 
now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  were,  in  fact,  attempt- 
ing to  avert  a  walkout.  Unfortunately,  at  the 
11  ^th  hour,  this  just  didn't  come  about  and 
at  that  time,  as  I'm  sure  the  hon.  member  is 
very  aware,  I  was  very  involved  and  I  issued 
a  statement  at  the  end  to  both  parties  calling 
upon  them  to  go  to  vollmtary  arbitration, 
which  was  rejected  and  which  I  also  called 
for  because  they  failed— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  minister  called  them 
both  irresponsible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  and  I  think  they  both 
were  at  that  time,  because  they  failed  to  pre- 
vent a  walkout  by  going  to  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion. I  don't  put  the  blame  on  either  side  but 
that  didn't  come  about,  and  I  felt  it  would 
have  been  more  responsible  if  the  walkout 
hadn't  occurred— 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  That's  one  of  the 
problems. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  —and  that  time  arbitration 
had  come  about.  Once  the  strike  took  place 
it  became  obvious  that  for  all  concerned  a 
negotiated  settlement  would  be  a  much  better 
arrangement,  and  certainly  there  is  no  place 
for  me  in  the  negotiations  that  were  going  on 
to  arrive  at  a  negotiated  settlement.  The  Min- 
istry of  Labour  mediator,  who  of  course,  is 
also  part  of  the  labour-management  negotiat- 
ing process  of  this  government,  has  been  in 


MARCH  6,  1974 


19 


at  all  their  meetings.  As  a  matter  of  fact  he 
told  me  that  he  spent  more  time  on  this  dis- 
pute than  he  had  on  any  major  labour  dis- 
pute in  this  province. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  shows. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  He's  still  sitting  at  the 
table  with  them  and  I  stand  ready  to  be  of 
help  on  the  thing  at  any  time  that  I  can,  but 
at  the  moment,  I  think  it  is  best  served  to  let 
both  the  parties,  with  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
mediator,  carrying  on  negotiations. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  Has  the  minister  informed  the 
hoard  of  York  county  in  no  uncertain  terms 
that  pupil-teacher  ratio  is  a  negotiable  con- 
dition, as  he  envisages  it  to  he  in  Bill  275, 
and  should  be  in  this  dispute? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  had 
discussions  with  the  board  there.  They  know 
my  personal  opinions  and  I  think  it  should 
suffice  that  that  is  the  extent  that  I  should 
mention  at  this  time  while  negotiations  are 
going  on. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  A  supple- 
mentary. 

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

Mr.  Deacon:  Since  there  is  an  indication 
that  the  York  county  school  trustees  will  move 
to  resign  tomorrow  if  a  settlement  has  not 
been  reached,  is  he  prepared  to  set  up  a 
trusteeship  in  York  and  get  the  teachers  back 
in  the  classrooms  pending  a  new  election  of 
trustees? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  hate  to  answer  these 
hypothetical  questions. 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  think  he  needs  to  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  My  friend  knows  too  that 
there  certainly  has  been  no  indication  from 
the  majority  of  trustees  that  they  are  inter- 
ested in  resigning  at  this  point  in  time.  Now, 
if  they're  aM  going  to  tender  their  resigna- 
tions, certainly  we'll  take  steps  to  see  that  a 
new  board  or  new  trustees  are  elected  or 
appointed. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Is  the  minister  in  favour 
of  mass  resignations  in  this  instance? 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  re- 
fuse  to  accept  the  resignations? 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  But  I'd  say  we'd  better 
wait  and  see.  I  might  also— 

An  hon.  member:  Do  they  have  the  right  to 
strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  might  also  indicate  to 
my  friend  that  I  think  the  School  Act  says 
that  a  trustee  can  only  resign  with  the  con- 
currence of  a  majority  of  his  colleagues. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  What  if  they  all  resign? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  There's  also  something  in 
the  School's  Administration  Act  that  prevents 
everybody  from  resigning  and  leaving  the 
board  without  a  quorum. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  to  administer  it? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Bill  274A. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Windsor 
West  with  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  With  reference  to  the  situa- 
tion in  Windsor,  in  the  last  day  or  two,  or 
even  prior  to  that,  has  the  minister  made  it 
very  clear  to  the  Windsor  separate  board 
that  pupil-teacher  ratio  and  working  condi- 
tions are  both  proper  subject  matters  for 
arbitration? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
not  been  asked  that  question.  The  only  ques- 
tion I  have  been  asked'  is— 

Mr.  Foulds:  He  just  was. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  only  question  I  have 
been  asked  is  whether  the  Arbitrations  Act 
applies  to  the  arbitration  in  the  Windsor 
situation.  We  have  offered  a  legal  opinion  to 
that  board  that  it  does  not  and  that  the  de- 
cision of  the  board  of  arbitration  is  not 
appealable  on  the  matter  of  the  decision. 
There  are  still,  of  course,  certain  points  of 
law,  human  rights  and  so  forth,  and  any 
violations  of  those  can  be  taken  to  the  courts 
in  any  situation. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Is  the  minister  not  aware 
that  those  are  the  very  two  areas  that  the 
Windsor  separate  board  is  wishing  to  appeal 
on,  should  they  go  to  arbitration? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  that  has  never  been 
made  known  to  me,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  under- 
stood there  were  12  items  in  dispute  that 
were  appended  to  the  recommendation  or  the 
agreement  that  was  signed  to  go  to  arbitra- 
tion, and  that  both  parties  agreed  they  were 
the  matters  to  go  to  arbitration.  I  think  they 
are  the  ones  that  should  go. 


20 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

Mr.  Roy:  A  supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  perhaps  further  dis- 
cussion would  only  constitute  a  debate.  The 
hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition? 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 

COST  OF  LAND  FOR  HOUSING 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  I  ask  the  new  Minister  of 
Housing,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  specifics  he  has 
in  mind  to  take  the  land  supply  factor  out  of 
the  cost  of  housing  by  1976? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  made  some 
general  statements  about  our  programme  in 
the  future,  and  obviously  specifics  will  be 
announced  in  the  House  in  due  course. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Since 
one  of  the  specifics  that  has  already  been— 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  The  min- 
ister learns  fast. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  it  is— 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  the  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development  isn't  even  in  the 
House,  Mr.  Speaker.  Can  the  minister  give 
us  some  guarantee  that  the  increase  in  hous- 
ing prices  in  Metropolitan  Toronto  alone— 
which  have  jumped  from  $31,357  at  the  time 
of  the  Throne  Speech  of  two  years  ago  to 
$46,210  at  the  time  of  the  Throne  Speech 
this  week— will  now  cease  its  upward  spiral 
by  the  announcements  he  wall  make,  pre- 
sumably, momentarily? 

Mr.  Roy:  Let  him  put  his  career  on  the 
line. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will 
guarantee  only  one  thing— that  my  ministry 
will  do  everything  possible  to  see  that  that 
happens. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supple- 
mentary question:  Since  one  specific  figure 
was  mentioned  in  the  speech  and  that  is  the 
funds  the  government  is  prepared  to  commit 
—the  extra  funds  it  is  prepared  to  commit  to 
servicing  land— is  the  Minister  of  Housing 
satisfied  that  an  extra  $15  million— I  believe 
that  was  the  amount- 
Mr.  Deacon:  Municipalities  haven't  money 
to  service  land. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —is  in  fact  going  to  im- 
prove the  stock  of  serviced  land  to  the  extent 
that  it  is  going  to  stabilize  prices? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Obviously  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
hon.  member  will  read  the  speech  again,  he 
will  note  that  that  was  an  amount  of  money 
which  would  be  spent  by  my  colleague,  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  W. 
Newman).  When  our  estimates  are  tabled 
he  will  see  the  amount  of  money  that  we 
have  in  our  housing  programme. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary;  surely— 

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

Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston  (St.  Catharines):  Why 
don't  those  members  pitch  a  tent? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  does  the  minis- 
ter's pledge  to  stabilize  the  price  of  land  by 
1976  mean  that,  with  the  present  trends  of 
land  prices  in  cities  like  Toronto  and  Ottawa, 
which  vdll  lead  to  the  cost  of  a  lot  at  about 
$20,000,  that  will  be  the  price  at  which  he 
intends  to  stabilize  land  prices? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Stabihze  at  $20,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't 

give  the  House- 
Mr.  Lewis:  No,  he  can't.  The  whole  Throne 

Speech  was  bogus. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No,  I  can't  give  the 
House  any  specifics  of  a  programme  which  has 
not  yet  been  announced. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right,  There  is  no  programme. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  When  the  pro- 
gramme is  announced,  our  goals  will  be  an- 
nounced at  the  same  time. 

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

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Mr. 
Speaker,  by  way  of  supplementary,  can  the 
minister  tell  us  if  any  of  the  supply  of  knd 
for  the  building  of  the  new  homes  referred 
to  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  is  going  to 
come  from  land  presently  designated  as  park- 
way belt?  In  other  words,  is  the  parkway 
belt  going  to  be  removed  entirely  or  in  part 
or  interfered  with  at  all? 

Mr.  Lewis  He  doesn't  know  yet. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  doesn't  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
administration  of  the  parkway  belt,  of  course, 
is  not  under  my  ministry. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


21 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  There  are  discussions 
taking  place  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  minister  is  trying  to  get 
some. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  An  announcement 
will  be  made  in  due  course. 

Mr.  Johnston:  They  are  going  to  call  them 
parkway  homes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary:  Why, 
when  the  minister  spoke  to  the  Toronto  Real 
Estate  Association  on  the  auspicious  occasion 
of  his  first  public  pronouncement- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  His  maiden  speech. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —his  maiden  speech  as  a  min- 
ister, why  did  the  minister  say  that  the  gov- 
ernment would  join  with  the  private  sector  to 
create  more  housing,  using  precisely  the  same 
programme  that  his  predecessor  had  impugned 
—had  said  didn't  work— just  before  he  resign- 
ed or  just  before  he  was  moved,  before  he 
ascended  or  whatever  he  did? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Shuffled  sideways. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  didn't 
think  this  is  the  occasion  to  repeat  the  speech, 
but  for  the  clarification  of  the  hon.  member 
I  did  say  that  it  is  going  to  be  a  tripartite 
arrangement- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Tripartite? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —between  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario,  the  municipalities  and  the 
private  sector,  and  when  the  programme  is 
announced  the  hon.  member  will  have  an 
opportunity  to  criticize  its  specifics. 

Mr.  Speaker:  One  more  supplementary. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Supple- 
mentary: Since  it  was  the  hon.  minister  who 
said  in  his  speech  that  it  was  the  lack  of 
serviced  land  which  was  causing  the  problem 
in  housing  today  in  the  Province  of  Ontario- 
something  which  we  have  known  here  for 
years- 
Mr.  Roy:  Didn't  the  minister  say  that? 

Mr.  Good:  —what  is  he  going  to  do  about 
it? 

Mr.  Singer:  That  is  a  good  question. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Stabilize  at  $25,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Just  a  mild  correc- 
tion. I  did  say  that  the  lack  of  serviced  land 


was  one  of  the  major  factors  in  the  price  in- 
flation factor.  And  what— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Better  get 
the  shovel  out. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  has  been  reading 
Hansard. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —we  are  going  to 
do  about  it,  I  have  already  stated,  Mr.  Speak- 
er; we  will  announce  a  programme  in  due 
course. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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


NORTH  PICKERING  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Lewis:  Here  is  a  question  for  the  Min- 
ister of  Housing  he  can  answer.  Is  he  going 
to  undertake— 

Mr.  Singer:  Give  him  a  file,  he  will  answer 
that  in  due  course. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  he  going  to  use  more  com- 
mon sense  than  the  blunderbuss  approach  of 
his  predecessor  and  allow  for  an— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —inquiry  into  the  government's 
expropriation  of  land  in  North  Pickering  and 
its  suspension  of  the  inquiry  procedure  under 
the  Expropriations  Act,  which  is  surely  un- 
precedented? -        .    - .,   -. , . 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment will  be  interested  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  be- 
lieve that  is  a  two-part  question. 

In  answer  to  the  first  part,  I  never  did 
begin  to  beat  my  wife;  and  the  second  part, 
we  are  studying  the  question  with  the  North 
Pickering  people  at  the  present  time.  I've 
already  met  with  them  and  I  believe  that 
they  have  agreed  that  the  procedure  we  are 
now  following  is  almost  necessary  under  the 
circumstances. 

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

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  Premier  proud  of  the  min- 
ister? 


22 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  That  was  question  No.  7  on 
housing.  I  think  we've  had  enough. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  was  a  separate  question, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Look  at  what  has  been 
asked. 

Mr.  Deacon:   Will   the  minister   advise  us 

then- 
Mr.    Breithaupt:    Like    an    end   man    in    a 

minstrel  show. 

Mr.  Deacon:  —whether  or  not  he  will  pat- 
tern his  procedure  with  North  Pickering  after 
the  procedure  used  in  the  airport,  where  the 
people  have  got  some  advances  on  land  that 
has  been  expropriated  but  where  they  are  not 
necessarily  expropriated  until  there  is  a  full 
inquiry  and  there  is  a  decision  by  the  inquiry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  not  right. 

Mr.  Deacon:  It  is,  it  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handelman:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  understanding  of  the  Expropriation  Act 
that  a  hearing  of  necessity  is  only  required, 
or  should  only  be  held,  when  there  is  a  pos- 
sibility of  the  hearing  being  allowed.  Under 
the  circumstances— there  being  no  plan  for 
development,  because  we  wish  to  involve  the 
people  in  the  area  in  the  developing  of  the 
plan— a  hearing  of  necessity  would  simply  be 
useless,  because  it  vv'ouldn't  be  a  plan  against 
which  they  could  appeal. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  supple- 
mentary— 

An  hen.  member:  He's  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —the  statute  requires  a  hearing 
of  necessity  unless  the  minister  removes  it 
in  the  so-called  public  interest  and  a  hearing 
of  necessity  is  to  see  if  the  expropriation 
conforms  with  the  objects  required.  Now  why 
has  the  government  taken  away  the  right  to 
a  formal  hearing  for  all  of  those  people 
whose  land  it  is  expropriating? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  be- 
lieve I  answered  that  question  in  my  previous 
remarks. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Is  it  true 
that  the  minister's  previous  answer  indicated 
that  the  people  who  now  own  the  land  agree 
with  him  that  a  hearing  is  not  required? 
Surely  that  is  nonsense? 

Mr.  Good:  That  is  nonsense. 


Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  nonsense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  what  I 
said  was  that  we  have  explained  to  them  the 
reasons  why  the  hearings  of  necessity  were 
cancelled  and  they  understand  the  reasons 
why.  I  didn't  say  that  they  agreed  necessarily 
with  them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Power!  Raw  power. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  sup- 
plementary- 
Mr.    Speaker:    Order,    order.    There    have 
been   eight   or   nine   supplementaries,   which 
surely  must  be  sujEBcient. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 

An  hon.  member:  Be  my  guest. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  How  many  questions  does 
this  fellow  get? 


SEMINAR  ON  MAINTAINING 
NON-UNION  STATUS 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour.  Is  the  Minister  of  Labour  aware 
that  Executive  Enterprises  Inc.,  based  in  New 
York,  is  having  a  seminar  on  how  to  maintain 
non-union  status— a  union-busting  seminar  or 
an  effort  to  prevent  unions  in  Ontario— at  the 
Royal  York  Hotel  in  April  of  this  year  and 
has    he    looked    into    their    programme? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  George  Meany  is  the  guest 
speaker. 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  No, 
Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  the  first  time  that  this  has 
come  to  my  attention. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  by  way  of  supplementary, 
when  the  minister  examines  it,  would  he 
look  at  the  outline  of  the  programme,  includ- 
ing topics  like  "making  unions  unnecessary" 
and  "preventing  the  formation  of  unions"— 
and  it's  not  George  Meany  who  is  the  guest 
speaker— but  could  the  minister  ask  himself 
about  the— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —propriety  of  a  seminar  leader, 
K.  B.  Dixon,  director  of  personnel,  Hamilton 
Civic  Hospitals,  and  president  of  the  Hospital 
Personnel  Relations  Bureau  for  Ontario;  and 
perhaps  that  makes  it  a  little  clearer  to  the 
minister  why  there  is  so  much  discrimination 
and  difiiculty  in  the  hospital  worker  sector 
in  this  province. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


23 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  I  will  be  glad  to  look 
at  that. 

Mr.   Speaker:   Does   the   hon.   member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  today,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.    Speaker:    If   not,    I   believe   the   hon. 
member  for  Windsor-Walkerville  has  one. 


AUTOMOTIVE  INDUSTRY  OVERTIME 
PERMITS 

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

In  light  of  the  ever-rising  numbers  of  un- 
employed in  the  automotive  industry— at 
General  Motors  and  Ford,  particularly— and 
in  light  of  the  fact  that  there  is  a  continual 
request  of  the  ministry  for  overtime,  is  the 
minister  considering  either  not  issuing  any 
more  overtime  permits,  or  at  least  hingeing 
the  number  of  overtime  permits  being  given 
according  to  some  percentage  of  the  number 
of  unemployed  in  the  industry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  We 
have  of  course,  two  types  of  overtime  per- 
mits. Some  have  to  do  with  general  permits 
which  will  allow  100  hours  of  overtime  for 
employees  for  one  year.  We  don't  think  that 
this  will  have  any  effect  at  all.  However,  we 
also  have  special  permits— and  I'm  looking  at 
this  at  the  present  time  to  see  if  it  does 
affect  employment  in  the  area. 

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


PRICE  REVIEW  OF  FARM  SUPPLIES 
AND  EQUIPMENT 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food: 
Since  the  premiers  of  the  four  western  prov- 
inces decided  last  week  at  their  meeting  that 
they  were  going  to  set  up  a  mechanism  to 
review  prices  for  the  two  major  farm  inputs 
of  fertilizer  and  farm  machinery  in  order  to 
protect  their  farmers,  is  the  Province  of 
Ontario  contemplating  similar  action  here— 
and  if  not,  why  not? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
is  a  conference  on  the  fertilizer  industry, 
which   is   a   national   conference,   that   starts 


here  in  Toronto  on  Monday  morning  next. 
It  will  last  for  two  days.  But  as  far  as  a  price 
review  of  fertilizer  and  machinery  parts  is 
concerned— no,  we  have  not  contemplated 
this. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
return  if  I  might  by  way  of  supplementary: 
Obviously  the  western  premiers  were  aware 
of  this  national  conference  next  week  and 
deemed  this  to  be  an  appropriate  action  for 
the  protection  of  their  farmers.  Does  the 
minister  not  think  there  is  an  obligation  on 
the  part  of  this  government  to  protect  Ontario 
farmers,  or  is  it  going  to  let  the  governments 
of  western  Canada  do  it  incidentally  to  the 
extent  they  can? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Well,  perhaps  we'll  see 
what  the  results  are,  Mr.  Speaker.  Unfor- 
tunately, the  three  western  provinces  that 
have  NDP  governments  have  never  suc- 
ceeded in  anything  yet,  and  I'll  be  surprised 
if  they  do  so  on  this. 

Interjections    by    hon.    members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  It's  almost 
a  political  partisan  reply. 

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

Mr.    MacDonald:    Supplementary:    Is    the 

minister- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 

River. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  I  have  a  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  the  hon.  member  for 
York  South  asked  a  supplementary.  I  will 
come  back  to  him. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  that  was  a  political  answer. 

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

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  minister  being  so  sharp  I  hate  to  take  him 
on,  but  I  wonder  if  the  minister  can  give  us 
any  indication  of  what  his  department  is 
doing  about  the  high  cost  of  things  like 
fertilizer  and  also  twine,  which  I  understand 
is  in  short  supply?  And  would  the  minister 
not  agree  that  the  Province  of  Ontario  should 
have  a  prices  review  board  in  which  these 


24 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


prices  can  be  reviewed  by  a  committee  of 
this  Legislature  to  justify  the  increases  in 
these  commodities? 

An  hon.  member:  It  is  NDP  policy— the 
member  has  taken  it  up  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  all 
hon.  members  know,  we  are  vitally  concerned 
in  the  cost  of  the  inputs  of  agricultural  food 
production. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  believe  that  one  of 
the  ways  to  resolve  the  matter,  as  my  hon. 
friend  so  rightly  brings  to  our  attention  and 
with  which  we  are  all  concerned,  is  to  gener- 
ate increased  sources  of  supply,  and  how  that 
is  accomplished  is  the  main  objective  that 
I  would  like  to  see  tackled.  I  believe  we  have 
to  recognize  that  for  a  great  many  years 
in  the  matter  of  twine,  we  will  say,  which 
is  a  commodity  that  very  seldom  is  raised 
on  the  floor  of  this  House,  is  a  matter  that 
simply  is  reflected  on  the  low  cost  of  pro- 
duction over  a  great  many  years. 

With  the  cheap  steel  prices  of  a  few  years 
ago,  Japan  went  into  the  production  of  wire 
for  baling  purposes.  They  undercut  all  the 
markets  by  the  introduction  of  this  cheap 
baler  wire.  The  result  was  that  many  of  the 
hemp  or  twine  manufacturing  operations  just 
couldn't  compete  and  they  dropped  out  of 
the  business. 

Along  with  that,  plastic  twine  came  on  the 
market  and  with  the  shortage  of  energy  that 
we  are  all  very  much  aware  of  today,  the 
byproducts  of  the  oil  industry  are  not  avail- 
able for  the  continued  manufacture  in  volume 
of  plastic  twine. 

The  problem  is  further  complicated,  Mr. 
Speaker,  by  the  fact  that  steel  prices  now 
have  escalated.  There  is  a  general  apparent 
steel  shortage  throughout  the  world.  Japan 
is  no  longer  interested  in  prodlicing  cheap 
wire  twine  for  baling  purposes  and  that 
product  is  off  the  market. 

'Now  where  do  we  go?  The  hemp  industry 
is  largely  out  of  business,  or  at  least  not  in  a 
position  to  produce  as  it  has  been  in  the 
past,  and  with  the  apparent  scarcity  the  price 
has  escalated  to  about  three  times  what  it 
was  a  year  ago.  Now  we  are  trying  to  get 
that  resolved. 

Largely  the  same  thing  applies  as  far  as 
fertilizer  is  concerned  and  I  would  hope  we 
would  be  able  to  get  somewhere  with  that. 

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


Mr.  MacDonald:  A  non-partisan  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker,  to  parallel  the  minis- 
ter. Since  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of 
Lougheed  was  an  enthusiastic  participant  in 
that  decision  involving  the  four  western  prov- 
inces, isn't  it  possible  that  the  minister  might 
catch  up  with  him? 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Just  for 
the  record,  he's  a  separatist  statesman. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Does  the  minister  mean 
he  is  going  to  do  nothing? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  any  further  answer 
to  that  supplementary?  If  not,  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  East  was  on  his  feet  pre- 
viously. 


INQUIRY  ON  BUILDING  INDUSTRY 

Mr.  Roy:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour. 

Undoubtedly  the  minister  is  familiar  with 
the  evidence  given  before  the  royal  commis- 
sion on  organized  crime  in  the  construction 
industry  in  the  Ottawa  area.  Evidence  was 
given  that  certain  Montreal  unions  are  trying 
to  move  into  the  Ottawa-Hull  sector,  using 
intimidation  against  not  only  union  oflBcials 
but  certain  Ottawa  contractors.  Has  the  min- 
ister considered  getting  together  with  his 
colleague  in  Quebec,  the  Hon.  Mr.  Cour- 
noyer,  and  possibly  working  out  this  problem 
by  attempting  to  get  him  to  put  pressure  on 
unions  to  stop  this  intimidation  against 
workers  on  the  Ontario  side? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did 
get  in  touch  with  the  Minister  of  Labour  and 
Manpower  of  Quebec  on  several  occasions 
already,  not  only  on  this  matter  but  on  other 
matters  as  well. 

Mr.  Roy:  By  way  of  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker,  might  I  ask  the  minister  to  give 
consideration  as  well  to  discussing  with  that 
minister  the  fact  that  Ontario  tradesmen  are 
not  allowed  to  work  in  the  Province  of 
Quebec,  whereas  the  Quebec  tradesmen  are 
allowed  to  work  in  this  province?  Would  he 
consider  discussing  that  problem  with  them, 
as  it  is  a  problem  not  only  in  Ottawa-Hull 
but  in  the  minister's  area  of  Cornwall? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  That's  right.  The  prob- 
lem exists  all  along  the  Ottawa  River,  I 
would  say.  I  have  spoken  to  the  Minister  of 
Labour  of  Quebec. 

il  think  it  is  the  intention  of  the  con- 
struction industry  commission  of  Quebec  to 
do   away  with   the   credit  system.    It  is   my 


MARCH  6,  1974 


25 


understanding  that  presently  there  are  hear- 
ings being  held  in  the  Province  of  Quebec 
and  the  Quebec  Federation  of  Labour  is,  of 
course,  opposing  it  for  perhaps  other  reasons. 
iBut  in  any  event,  we  do  correspond  and 
it  is  my  intention  to  meet  with  the  minister 
fairly  soon  to  try  to  resolve  this  problem.  It 
is  really  a  problem  which  has  existed  for 
some  time,  but  is  perhaps  more  acute  in 
recent  months. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Nickel 
Belt. 


ARBITRATION  BOARD  FOR 
CAAT  DISPUTE 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question,  in  the  absence  of  the 
Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities  (Mr. 
Auld),  of  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development:  Is  the  provincial  secretary 
aware  that  a  picket  line  has  been  set  up  pro- 
testing the  makeup  of  the  Public  Service 
Arbitration  Board,  which  was  to  arbitrate  a 
dispute  between  the  Colleges'  of  Applied  Arts 
and  Technology  faculties  and  the  Council  of 
Regents  representing  the  Crown? 

Hon.  M.  Birch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  that,  but  I  understand  that  the 
Treasurer  has  a  report  on  that. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Well  then,  Mr.  Speaker;  if 
I  could  redirect  the  question  to  the  Treasurer? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Chairman  of  the  Management 
Board. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  He's  pre- 
pared to  answer  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Chairman  of  the  Manage- 
ment Board? 

An  hon.  member:  That  should  be  good. 

Mr.  Stokes:  He  is  not  the  Treasurer,  he  is 
the  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Is  the  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  aware  of  the  picket  hne 
that  has  been  set  up  and  why  it  has  been  set 
up?  And  further,  would  he  make  a  recom- 
mendation, or  at  least  make  a  commitment, 
that  the  Public  Service  Arbitration  Board 
will  be  reconstructed  in  such  a  way  that 
there  will  be  an  appointment  from  each  side 
in  this  dispute;  and  then  that  the  chairman 
be  a  mutually-agreeable  selection,  'not  one 
appointed  by  the  government  so  that  it  is 
weighted  two  to  one  in  favour  of  the  Crown? 


Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
aware  of  the  fact  that  such  a  picket  line  has 
been  established  outside  of  the  Royal  York 
Hotel  where  the  meetings  were  arranged  to 
begin,  I  believe  this  morning.  Prior  to  the 
committee  convening  the  picket  line  was  es- 
tablished and  the  employees'  team  that  was  to 
discuss  the  matters  currently  in  dispute  de- 
cided they  would  not,  under  these  circum- 
stances, continue. 

Now  we,  as  the  government,  are  satisfied 
with  Judge  Anderson.  I  might  say  that  Judge 
Anderson  was  appointed  with  agreement  of 
the  CSAO  and  the  government,  and  I  am 
confident  that  he  can  solve  the  present  matter. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  only  a  few  minutes 
remaining  and  there  are  numerous  members 
who  want  to  ask  a  question.  I  think,  if  the 
members  will  bear  with  me,  I  will  restrict 
the  supplementaries  at  this  time.  The  hon. 
member  for  Grey-Bruce  is  next. 


NUCLEAR  ENERGY  PROGRAMME 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Energy:  In  view  of  the  minister's  impressive 
display  of  knowledge  in  the  debate  with 
Ralph  Nader- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  understand  Nader  wants  to 
recycle  the  minister. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Would  the  minister  investi- 
gate, if  he  is  concerned  enough,  why  the 
Atomic  Energy  Control  Board  in  Ottawa  re- 
fuses to  meet  with  nuclear  scientists  in  the 
USA  on  a  TV  debate  to  show  the  people  the 
danger  of  radiation  and  contamination  by 
nuclear  power;  and  secondly,  will  he  tell  us 
the  wisdom  of  investing  $38  million  in  a  new 
coal  mine  in  Green  county,  Pennsylvania,  and 
consorting  with  US  Steel? 

The  minister  is  talking  about  cheap  power, 
nuclear  power;  but  a  $15  billion  programme 
is  $5  million  in  interest  today.  How  is  that 
cheap  power?  So  those  three  questions,  I 
would  like  the  minister  to  answer. 

An  hon.  member:  He  has  30  seconds. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


26 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer  to  the  first 
question,  I  would  suggest,  might  better  be 
sought  by  the  member  from  some  of  his 
friends  in  Ottawa.  I  am  certainly  not  about 
to  answer  in  this  House  for  the  emanations 
of  the  Atomic  Energy  Control  Board,  which 
is  a  federal  government  board. 

The  answer  to  the  second  question,  as  to 
why  we  invested  $38  million  in  a  coal  mine, 
is  because  we  wanted  the  coal. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Thun- 
der Bay. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary. 


Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  of 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  subject  matter  of  the  hon.  member's  ques- 
tion is  still  being  investigated.  I  am  really  not 
prepared  to  expand  on  that  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Singer:  How  long  does  this  investiga- 
tion go  on? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Until  such  time  as  it  is 
completed. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


WEEKEND  ROAD  xVIAINTENANCE 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minis- 
ter of  Natural  Resources. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  Minister  of  Energy  didn't 
look  so  good  with  Nader. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Will  the  minister  undertake  to 
fin  1  out  why  a  road  that's  under  the  re- 
sponsibility of  his  ministry  is  not  taken  care 
of  on  weekends,  namely  the  road  between 
Gull  Bay  and  Armstrong?  Has  he  had  no 
complaints  that  the  road  is  impassable  on 
many  weekends  because  the  contract  that  the 
ministry  has  now  doesn't  provide  for  week- 
end maintenance? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be  glad 
to  do  that. 

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


INQUIRY  ON  BUILDING  INDUSTRY 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Attorney  General.  Is  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral now  able  to  advise  us  on  results  of  the 
police  investigation  into  the  statements  made 
by  Mr.  Ab  Shepherd,  counsel  for  the  royal 
commission  on  building,  the  inquiry  which 
is  being  conducted  by  His  Honour  Judge 
Waisberg,  concerning  gifts  made  to  senior 
civil  servants  of  the  Ontario  Housing  Corp.? 
Have  any  charges  been  laid,  or  are  there 
going  to  be  charges  laid?  Are  the  terms  of 
reference  given  to  His  Honour  Judge  Wais- 
berg going  to  be  expanded  and  is  there  go- 
ing to  be  any  further  investigation  ordered  by 
the  government  into  the  continuing  affairs  of 
the  Ontario  Housing  Corp.? 


STAFF  UNREST  AT  OAK  RIDGES 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  A  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker.  What 
is  the  Minister  of  Health  doing  about  the  un- 
rest in  the  staff  at  Oak  Ridges,  as  set  out  in 
a  letter  by  the  Civil  Service  Association  of 
Ontario  last  week? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Just  since  his  appointment, 
too! 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  not  as  yet  had  an  opportunity 
to  see  that  letter,  but  I  would  be  pleased  to 
look  into  it. 

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


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Would 
the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications explain  why  there  has  been  a 
delay  in  the  awarding  of  the  guideway  and 
stations  contracts  for  the  Krauss-Maffei  ex- 
periment at  the  CNE,  which  were  promised 
for  December  and  January? 

Mr.  Good:  Because  he's  the  minister  of 
the  automobile. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  be  glad  to  take  it  as  notice  and  per- 
haps answer  later. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That's  a  good  idea. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  s'hows  aplomb. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


27 


COMPENSATION  OF  VICTIMS 
OF  SILICOSIS 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sand\vich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour 
regarding  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board. 

Has  any  agreement  yet  been  reached  with 
British  Columbia  and  Quebec  to  enable  On- 
tario victims  of  silicosis,  whose  exposure  was 
in  those  provinces,  to  be  compensated  through 
the  Ontario  Workmen's  Compensation  Board? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Good  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot 
say  for  sure.  Did  the  hon.  member  say 
British  Columbia? 

Mr.  Burr:  British  Columbia  and  Quebec. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  And  Quebec.  Well,  I 
know  that  at  one  point  there  had  been  nego- 
tiations with  some  of  the  provinces  to  try  to 
compensate  victims  of  silicosis,  based  on  the 
number  of  years  or  months  that  they  have 
lived  in  one  province  or  the  other.  As  of 
late,  I  don't  think  there  has  been  any  change, 
but  it  is  my  understanding  that  the  WCB 
are  still  negotiating  with  some  of  the  prov- 
inces. 

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

Mr.  Roy:  Could  we  move  to  extend  it  about 
an  hour,  Mr.  Speaker?  We  haven't  got  any- 
thing else  to  do  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  might  inform  the  hon. 
members  that  the  Clerk  has  received'  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources, 
but  the  member  who  placed  the  question  did 
not  indicate  his  name  on  the  question.  Per- 
haps he  would  so  advise  the  Clerk. 

Petitions. 
Presenting  reports. 

IHon.  Mr.  White  presented  the  Public 
Accounts,  1972-1973,  volume  two,  "Financial 
Statements  of  Crown  Corporations,  Boards 
and  Commissions,"  and  volume  three,  "Details 
of  Expenditures." 

Mr.  Biillbrook:  What  does  the  Treasurer 
think  of  the  report  of  the  Ontario  Economic 
Council? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  presented  the  report  of  the 
Public  Service  Superannuation  Board  for  the 
year  ended  March  31,  1973. 


Mr.  Lewis:  They'll  never  publish  another 
report  like  that,  now  that  they're  in  his 
ministry. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Government 
Services):  The  member  had  better  read  those 
before  endorsing  them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  would  be  critical. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  the  standing 
committees  of  the  House  for  the  present 
session  be  appointed  as  follows: 

II.  Procedural  affairs  committee. 

2.  Administration  of  justice  committee. 
Committees  1  and  2,  combined  under  the 

chairmanship  of  the  chairman  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice  committee,  will  function  as 
the  private  bills  committee. 

3.  Social  development  committee. 

4.  Resources  development  committee. 

5.  Miscellaneous  estimates  committee. 

6.  Public  accounts  committee. 

7.  Regulations  committee. 

Which  said  committees  shall  severally  be 
empowered  to  examine  and  inquire  into  all 
such  matters  and  things  as  may  be  referred 
to  them  by  the  House,  provided  that  all 
boards  and  commissions  are  hereby  referred 
to  committees  No.  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  the 
power  to  send  for  persons,  papers  and 
records. 

That  there  be  no  duplication  of  member- 
ship among  committees  No.  1  to  4  inclusive, 
or  between  committees  No.  5  to  7  inclusive. 

That  substitutions  be  permitted  on  any 
committee  while  considering  estimates  re- 
ferred to  it,  provided  that  notice  of  the 
substitution  is  given  to  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  prior  to  commencement  of  the 
meeting. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want 
to  speak  briefly  on  the  motion.  We're  aware 
that,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Camp 
commission,  an  additional  whip  has  been 
provided  for  each  of  the  parties  with  the 
understanding  there  is  going  to  be  a  consider- 
able increase,  if  we  follow  the  recommenda- 


28 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tion  of  the  Camp  commission,  in  the  work  of 
the  committees,  something  that  is,  in  my 
view,  desirable. 

The  point  is  that  these  whips  are  presently 
available.  Their  services  will,  I  hope,  show 
an  improvement  in  the  work  of  these  com- 
mittees during  this  session. 

In  specific  reference  to  the  work  of  the 
committees,  I  would  have  this  to  say.  To 
begin  with,  the  regulations  committee  has 
been  shown  to  be  completely  useless.  The 
terms  of  reference  that  have  been  laid  down 
by  the  majority  on  that  committee  have  for- 
bidden the  members  to  examine  into  the  use- 
fulness of  the  regulations.  Their  application 
is  only  as  to  whether  the  statutes  to  which 
they  refer  have  specific  authority  for  the 
promulgating  of  regulations. 

I  think  you're  aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
that  committee  has  been  essentially  function- 
less.  I  stand  to  be  corrected,  but  I  believe 
that  it  meets  only  sufficiently  often  so  that 
the  chairman  would  get  the  additional  in- 
demnity associated  with  it.  In  my  view,  that 
committee  should  have  its  terms  of  reference 
improved,  amended  and  changed  so  that,  in 
fact,  it  can  review  the  law-making  powers 
that  apparently  go  to  the  government  with 
the  passage  of  certain  statutes  and  that  show 
themselves  in  the  formulation  of  regulations. 

We're  aware  in  many  areas  that  the  lack 
of  regulations  prohibits  and  retards  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  concepts  and  principles  of 
the  laws  passed  by  this  Legislature.  This  ap- 
parently is  a  matter  of  policy  on  the  part 
of  the  government,  particularly  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  things  as  a  new  welfare 
policy.  The  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  (Mr.  Brunelle)  is  aware,  I'm 
sure,  that  the  postponement  of  the  establish- 
ment of  these  regulations  has,  in  fact,  nulli- 
fied the  decisions  taken  by  this  House  with 
regard  to  certain  programmes  that  he  himself 
has  put  before  us.  I  would  say  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  we  should  not  approve  the 
establishment  of  a  regulations  committee 
unless  its  terms  of  reference  are  brought  up 
to  date  so  that  it  can  be  useful. 

The  second  thing  I  would  like  to  refer  to  is 
the  fact  that  we  in  this  Legislature  are  going 
to  be  concerned  not  only  with  important 
legislation  pertaining  to  education,  but  also 
with  far-reaching  and  important  legislation 
pertaining  to  health  services.  In  both  of  these 
particularly  important  ministries,  spending  by 
far  the  largest  share  of  our  provincial  budget, 
there  are  going  to  be  new  pieces  of  legisla- 
tion brought  forward,  compendiums  and 
omnibuses  of  old  legislation  with  many  new 
principles  involved. 


An  hon.  member:  Omnibi! 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Omnibi?  Pardon  me!  If 
we  are  going  to  have  our  work  in  this  Legis- 
lature restricted  by  the  fact  that  important 
legislation,  not  the  least  of  which  is  the  pro- 
posed legislation  governing  the  negotiations 
between  teachers  and  school  boards,  is  going 
to  be  channelled  into  a  bottleneck  in  a  single 
committee,  which  is  apparently  going  to  have 
to  deal  with  much  more  important  legislation 
than  any  other  committee,  then  the  associated 
public  hearings  will  be  inadequate. 

I  personally  feel,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we 
should  establish  a  committee  on  education, 
and  that  it  is  a  serious  matter  indeed  that 
our  rules  have  not  provided  for  this  over  the 
last  few  years.  I  have  spoken  about  this  be- 
fore, but  this  year  it  is  particularly  necessary, 
when  the  school  administration  statutes  are 
going  to  be  put  together,  when  the  bills 
pertaining  to  teacher-board  negotiations  will 
undoubtedly  have  lengthy  and  important 
public  hearings. 

Although  a  health  disciplines  Act  is  not 
referred  to  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne 
it  is  expected  to  be  brought  forward'.  Surely 
we  would  be  wise  indeed  if  we  made  an 
amendment  now  to  the  particular  motion  that 
the  House  leader  has  put  before  us,  setting 
up  committees  which  could  meet  concurrently 
to  handle  the  tremendous  load  of  important 
legislation  which  will  be  put  before  us. 

I  would  like,  further,  to  suggest  that  utiliz- 
ing Wednesdays  for  committee  work  can  be 
justified  only  if,  in  fact,  we  are  prepared  as  a 
Legislature  to  send  a  far  higher  percentage 
of  bills  to  standing  committee  so  that  the  com- 
munity at  large,  and  experts  in  particular ,- 
can  bring  forward  their  owti  views  to  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  who  have  special 
committee  responsibilities.  We  have  been 
equipped  with  additional  facihties,  party  by 
party,  to  accept  these  responsibilities. 

We  are  going  to  have  legislation  which  will 
fall  particularly  heavily  on  one  of  these  com- 
mittees—the social  development  committee.  I 
would  suggest  to  the  House  leader  that,  rather 
than  have  an  amendment  now  and  a  debate 
on  it,  he  might  very  well  consider  taking  the 
steps  that  I  believe  will  have  to  be  taken 
some  time  during  the  session  to  establish  an 
additional  committee  to  handle  the  volume 
of  work  expected  to  be  sent  to  them. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  make 
just  one  comment  in  one  area.  I  think  much 
of  what  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  said 
is  true.  It  may  well  be  we  are  moving  to- 
v^ards  the  position  where  we  will  be  dealing 
vdth  much  more  of  the  legislation  outside  of 


MARCH  6,  1974 


29 


the  House  than  we  had  in  the  past.  I  have 
arjTued  each  year  that  we  should  have  free 
substitution  on  committees,  not  only  in  the 
areas  of  dealing  with  estimates  but  also  in 
dealing  with  legislation. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  the  government  that 
the  opposition,  because  of  its  numbers,  can't 
have  a  sufficient  number  of  people  in  any  one 
c^mmittee  at  any  given  time.  Therefore,  if 
there  is  a  bill  before  a  committee  that  has 
the  responsible  member  not  on  the  com- 
mittee, it  is  extremely  difficult  for  him  to  be 
there  and  to  actively  take  part  in  the  dis- 
cussion. I  have  never  understood'  why  the 
government  hasn't  agreed  to  allow  for  free 
substitution  on  any  committees,  providing  that 
substitution  is  made  prior  to  the  beginning 
of  the  sitting  on  the  day  in  which  it  is  to  be 
applicable. 

I  know  last  year  when  I  raised  it  the 
Premier  indicated,  as  did  the  House  leader 
of  the  government,  there  was  a  possibility 
that  that  would  be  done.  It  wasn't  done.  It 
has  caused  us,  and  I  am  sure  it  has  caused 
the  ofiicial  opposition,  considerable  aggrava- 
tion. It  has  even  caused  the  government 
aggravation.  Why  not  extend  that  section 
dealing  with  substitution  to  include  substitu- 
tion in  the  committees  for  any  purpose,  pro- 
vided it  is  done  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the 
sitting  on  the  day  during  which  the  substitu- 
tion is  applicable?  Then  we  won't  have  the 
hassle,  time  after  time,  of  worrying  and 
trying  to  get  the  appropriate  person  to  the 
committee  to  dteal  wdth  the  fegislation. 

It  seems  to  me  to  make  a  lot  of  sense.  I 
don't  understand  what  possible  problems  it 
could  bring  about.  I  would  ask  the  House 
leader  to  accept  that  very  simple  change  to 
what  he  is  proposing  in  order  that  we  can 
have  a  more  responsive  and  a  more  satis- 
factory working  of  the  various  committees 
dealing  with  matters  that  are  of  importance 
to  the  public. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  Normally,  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
is  a  routine  matter,  and  it  goes  without  too 
much  debate.  But  during  the  course  of  the 
remarks  by  the  hon.  member  for  Wentworth, 
my  colleague  from  Waterloo  North  (Mr. 
Good)  said  to  me:  "Do  they  want  the  stand- 
ing committee  system  to  work  or  do  they  not 
want  it  to  work?" 

Mr.  Deans:   Who?  Me?  No,  no. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  No,  the  government.  I 
speak  of  the  government. 

Mr.  Deans:  Oh,  I'm  sorry. 


Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  want  to  say  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  without  reservation,  they  don't  want 
it  to  work. 

I  stood  in  this  House  some  months  ago 
and  pointed  out  that,  in  1966,  44  per  cent  of 
all  legislation  went  to  standing  committees. 
We  had  the  public  come  before  us  and  make 
significant  input.  Think  of  the  Landlord  and 
Tenant  Act;  think  of  the  Expropriations  Act, 
the  Corporations  Act,  the  University  of  To- 
ronto Act;  where  we  had  the  public— lay 
people  and  experts— come  before  us  and  assist 
us  in  passing  legislation.  And  the  legislation 
was   all   to  the  better  because   of  it, 

Mr.  Singer:  And  Arthur  Wishart  encour- 
aged it, 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  And  Arthur  Wishart,  who 
was  then  Attorney  General,  encouraged  that 
type  of  public  participation.  Now,  I  want  to 
tell  the  House  what  happened  under  this 
Premier,  In  the  first  year  of  the  Davis  regime, 
nine  per  cent  of  all  legislation  went  to  stand- 
ing committees.  Let  me  tell  you  what  hap- 
pened last  year, 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Shameful. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  should  be  ashamed. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Three  per  cent  of  all  bills 
tabled  in  this  House  went  to  a  standing  com- 
mittee. The  fact  of  the  matter  is— and  the 
answer  to  the  member  for  Wentworth  is— 
the  government  doesn't  want  the  standing 
committees  to  work.  They  don't  want  any 
public  input.  What  they  want,  under  the  new 
superstructure  of  horizontal  development  put 
forward  by  COGP,  is  the  development  of 
some  type  of  think  tank.  The  now  Attorney 
General,  as  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development,  certainly  did  not  want,  in  con- 
nection with  any  of  his  legislative  respon- 
sibilities, any  public  input. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:   That's  irresponsible. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That  is  correct.  He  doesn't 
want  it.  He  wants  to  sit  vdth  Wright  and 
these  intellectuals  upstairs  and  think  in  the 
abstract. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  One  hundred  and  seven- 
teen of  us  that  have  been  elected. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Well  listen,  let  me  tell  the 
House  about  the  hospital  situation  in  Sarnia. 
I  wrote  to  him  about  it  and  I  never  even  had 
the  courtesy  of  a  reply  from  him,  because 
when  it  comes  to  something  that  is  very 
practical  he  doesn't  know  what  is  going  on, 
and  I  really  worry  that  the  justice  portfolio 


30 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


might  become  inert,  as  social  development 
did  under  him.  We  had  wonderful  Attorneys 
General  here.  The  minister  knows  that— 

Mr.  Singer:  One  has  to  go  back  a  couple 
of  years  to  find  them. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —the  executive  assistant  to 
the  Premier  was  the  best  we  ever  had  and 
he  was  the  one  who  wanted  this  public— 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  member  is  being 
very  personal. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  am  not  being  personal. 
I've  never  been  personal  with  the  minister  in 
my  life.  I  don't  even  know  his  name;  I 
haven't  called  him  by  name. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  member  is  far  too 
subjective. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  called  him  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development.  Is  that 
personal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  member  is  being 
smart. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Certainly  I  am  being  smart. 
I'm  giving  the  minister  the  figures. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I'm  giving  him  the  figures 
that  he  knows  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Make  the  point. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Three  per  cent  of  all  legis- 
lation went  to  standing  committees.  He 
doesn't  want  the  public  to  be  involved. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Right. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  He  wants  that  superstruc- 
ture system— 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  The 
member  can  ask  for  it  to  go  to  standing 
committee. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:   —that  took  away,  for  ex- 
ample,  from  the   cabinet,   a  very  intelligent 
man- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  That  is  embarrassing  to  the 
Attorney  General. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —who  was  sterilized  by 
them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:   He  is  right  on,  Mr.  Speaker. 


Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  don't  know  why  we  go 
through  this  charade  of  establishing  these 
committees  if  the  government  is  not  going  to 
have  the  legislation  referred  to  them.  Heark- 
en back,  if  you  will,  in  a  moment  of  seri- 
ousness, if  that's  possible,  to  the  planning 
legislation  that  was  debated  in  this  House 
after  being  brought  in  at  the  eleventh  hour 
—very  significant  legislation  as  far  as  develop- 
ment in  the  Province  of  Ontario  is  concern- 
ed. Did  the  minister  have  anything  to  do 
with  that?  I  don't  think  he  did,  no. 

Mr.  Roy:  He  wouldn't  understand  it. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  But  if  you  recall,  we  had  to 
attempt  to  digest  that  legislation  over  a  two- 
day  period  without  any  issuance  of  any  kind. 
It  was  run  through  by  a  parliamentary  as- 
sistant. I  remember  my  colleague  from 
Downsview  sitting  here  and  writing,  in  an 
extemporaneous  fashion,  amendments  to  the 
bill  which  were  accepted  by  the  parlia- 
mentary assistant.  Why  not  give  us  the  op- 
portunity of  taking  our  time,  going  down  be- 
fore a  standing  committee?  Let  the  lawyers 
let  the  accountants  who  helped  us  in  the 
Corporation  Act,  assist  us.  Let  the  lay  people 
who  assisted  us  in  the  Landlord  and  Tenant 
Act  assist  us  again. 

An  hon.  member:  Let  the  public  assist  us. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Let  the  public  have  an  op- 
portunity, as  they  do  in  Ottawa  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  to  participate  in  the  legislative 
process. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  fact,  as  I  recall  it,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  Planning  and  Development 
Act  did  go  to  committee. 

Mr.  Singer:  No  it  didn't. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Yes,  with  the  Treasurer  there. 

Mr.  Singer:  Not  to  standing  committee.  It 
was  here,  the  committee  of  the  whole  House. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  committee  of  the  whole 
House  was  here. 

Mr.  Good:  No— the  amendments  to  the 
Planning  Act. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  certainly  one  of  those 
Planning  Acts  went  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  It  might  have  been  one  of 
the  three  per  cent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Look  ahead  fellows,  look 
ahead. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  think  I'm  right,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  think  I  am  correct. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


31 


Mr.  Roy:  I  am  telling  the  member  he  is 
correct. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  telling  me  I  am?  If  the 
hon.  member  for  Ottawa  East  is  telling 
me  I  am  correct,  clearly  I  am.  I  think  that  in 
a  sense  puts  the  problem  in  a  nutshell.  It 
isn't  a  matter  of  the  percentages,  because  it 
is  very  rarely,  if  the  opposition  parties  put 
the  pressure  on,  that  the  government  resists  a 
bill  going  to  committee.  There  are  not  that 
many  bills  which  it  refuses  to  send  to  com- 
mittee and  I  concede  that.  The  problem  is 
that  the  government  sends  them  to  com- 
mittee at  the  last  minute  when  there  is  ab- 
solutely no  time  to  mobilize  the  kind  of 
public  contribution  which  would  make  the 
committee  process  valid. 

My  colleague  from  Windsor  West  (Mr. 
Bounsall)  reminded  me  of  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Act  amendments,  which  were 
very  crucial  amendments  I'ast  year.  They  hap- 
pened to  come  up  for  second  reading  on  a 
Friday.  Only  because  we  had  the  weekend 
were  we  able  to  arrange  for  any  representa- 
tives from  the  unions  or  from  the  injured 
workmen's  consultants  to  appear  before  the 
committee  on  the  Monday  and  make  repre- 
sentations. 

There  is  a  serious  tendency  developing  in 
the  government— in  fact,  it's  kind  of  a  critical 
failine— to  bring  in  legislation  sufficiently  late 
or  sufficiently  haphazardly  so  that  the  com- 
mittee work  is  compressed  into  a  matter  of 
days  without  any  adequate  public  notifica- 
tion at  all.  That's  because  the  government 
doesn't  see  the  committee  system  as  a  valid 
system.  It  sees  it  as  a  ritual  appendage  to 
the  Legislature.  If  the  government  saw  it  as 
a  valid  system,  this  motion  today  would  have 
in  it  provision  for  the  kind  of  support  stajBF 
for  the  committee  system  which  would  make 
it  work. 

I  want  to  express  something  else  that  isn't 
often  expressed.  I  saw  Douglas  Fisher  under 
the  gallery,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  as  I  recall, 
the  Camp  commission  has  been  sitting  now 
for  something  more  than  a  year;  is  that  fair? 
I  think  it's  something  more  than  a  year;  sig- 
nificantly more  than  a  year.  It  bothers  me  that 
we  come  to  yet  another  year  and  yet  another 
Throne  Speech  debate  and  we  are  still  trap- 
ped in  the  old  system  which  all  of  us  find 
so  blessed  rigid  and  frustrating.  Nothing  has 
changed  in  the  operation  of  this  agency  and 
its  adjuncts;  nothing. 

The  business  of  the  House  is  still  chaotic. 
The  committee  system  won't  work  any  better 
now  than  it  did  before.  The  legislation  isn't 
guaranteed  in  advance.  All  of  the  things  that 


we  presumed  would  flow  from  the  Camp 
commission  have  not  yet  flowed.  My  colleague 
from  Thunder  Bay  (Mr.  Stokes)  tells  me  that 
the  commission  is  now  dealing  with  the  oper- 
ation of  the  Legislature  and  that  doubtless 
the  next  report  \vill  have  something  to  say 
about  the  way  in  which  this  peculiar  structure 
functions.  All  right,  but  we  have  another 
whole  year  on  the  old  basis  and  that  really 
cripples  the  parliamentary  system  around  this 
place. 

The  House  leader  brings  in  this  setup  of 
committees  again;  it  is  absolutely  no  different 
from  the  previous  year.  Everybody  knows  in 
advance  what  an  artificial,  frustrated  non- 
sensical piece  of  structure  it  is  and  we'll  go 
through  the  same  confrontation  in  the  House, 
the  last  minute  ordeals,  all  the  rest  of  it. 
The  simple  truth  about  it  is,  apart  from  the 
indifference  and  contempt  that  it  tends  to 
show  for  some  opposition  members— and,  I 
may  say,  for  backbench  government  members 
who  would  like  to  participate— what's  really 
so  frustrating  about  it,  the  truth  that  lies  be- 
hind it  is  that  the  government  doesn't  see  the 
Legislature  of  Ontario  as  an  open  forum  to 
which  the  public  should  have  access. 

It  is  completely  indifferent  as  a  govern- 
ment to  the  emergence  of  public  groups,  com- 
munity-centred groups,  pressure  groups,  all 
over  Ontario.  It  forces  them  to  mass  at  Maple 
Leaf  Gardens  or  on  the  lawns  of  Queen's 
Park  because  there  is  no  systematic  funnel 
provided  by  this  House  for  the  expression  of 
citizen  discontent.  None  at  all.  Only  at  the 
11th  hour,  under  extreme  pressure,  will  the 
government  ever  allow  a  group  of  people  to 
gather  to  voice  their  views.  But  on  really 
contentious  issues,  whether  it's  land-use 
planning,  regional  government— the  regional 
government  bills  didn't  go  to  standing  com- 
mittees for  examination;  none  of  them— or  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Act,  for  those 
things  there  is  never  time  because  the  gov- 
ernment doesn't  see  the  public  dimension  of 
our  role. 

That's  the  problem  with  this  Legislature. 
It's  such  a  kind  of  self-centred  apparatus;  so 
much  is  focused  inward  and  it  so  little  appre- 
ciates that  there  is  a  world  outside.  This  little 
resolution  today  simply  reinforces  all  the  old 
patterns.  This  is  a  privileged'  club.  We  open 
our  doors  only  selectively.  We'll  not  allow 
the  public  to  come  as  of  right.  They  will  only 
be  here  intermittently  by  invitation.  We  will 
not  give  to  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
the  kind  of  authority  to  examine  legislation 
which  they  should  have.  We  don't  believe  in 
public  accessibility  to  the  political  process. 
We    see    ourselves    as    the    perpetuation    of 


32 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


divine  right,  occasionally  going  to  the  electo- 
rate for  approval  but  largely  making  decisions 
independent  of  their  pressure,  or  forcing  them 
to  express  their  pressure  in  the  most  extreme 
fashion  through  public  demonstration  rather 
than  the  channels  of  normal  debate. 

It  will  catch  up  with  the  government.  Its 
abuse  of  the  process  doesn't  matter.  The 
government  has  got  over  70  seats;  the  opposi- 
tion has  40,  or  41.  But  the  public  will  catch 
up  with  the  government  because  it  can  frus- 
trate their  interest  in  social  issues  only  so 
long  before  it  collapses  around  its  ears— 
whether  it  is  North  Pickering  or  whether  it 
is  Arnprior,  or  whether  it  is  transmission 
corridors,  or  whether  it  is  Highway  402,  or 
whether  it  is  the  Algonquin  Wildlands 
League. 

They  are  all  forced  to  work  out  there  be- 
cause the  government  closed  this  process  up 
to  them  which  should  be  theirs,  inchiding,  let 
me  remind  the  minister,  the  incorporation  of 
the  town  of  Durham.  That  is  going  to  be  his 
personal  downfall,  because  even  the  Tories 
in  Durham  were  not  consulted  in  advance  of 
what  was  done  in  the  regional  municipality; 
nor  have  they  had  any  access  to  the  Legis- 
lature because  he  would  not  allow  them  to 
go  to  standing  committee,  so  they  are  forced 
to  do  battle  in  the  courts. 

Does  the  minister  think  the  use  of  the 
public  in  that  fashion— to  force  the  public  to 
demonstrations  and  to  the  courts— is  the 
proper  use  of  the  parliamentary  process?  The 
government  believes  in  confrontation;  it  has 
become  ad'dicted  to  confrontation.  We,  on 
the  other  hand,  believe  in  moderation.  We 
believe  that  a  more  conciliatory  approach 
can  be  taken. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  What  a  facetious  state- 
ment that  is. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  it  had  a  faint  ring  of 
unction  about  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  which  I  caught 
myself— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Talk  about  a  credibility 

gap- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  and  a  little  problem  of 

credibility.  Nonetheless,  that  is  my  problem. 

Mine  at  least  is  solvable;  the  government's  is 

beyond   repair— and   this  resolution   shows  it 

yet  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker  I  have 
listened,  of  course,  with  interest  today.  It  is  a 
little  early  in  the  session  for  me  to  allow 
the  members  across  the  way  to  raise  any 
hackles  on  the  back  of  my  neck,  but  I 
would  like  to  say  to  the  leader  of  the  Liberal 


Party  in  regard  to  his  remarks  on  the  stand- 
ing  committee    on   regulations,   that   it   is    a 
statutory  requirement- 
Mr.  Roy:  Who  makes  statutes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Now  just  a  moment, 
will  the  member  let  me  conclude? 

Mr.  Roy:  Okay,  go  ahead. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  That  particular  situa- 
tion will  have  to  be  changed  that  way.  I 
assure  him  that  I  will  take  the  suggestions 
that  have  been  made  today  under  considera- 
tion and  we  will  bring  together  at  the  time 
of  the  commission  on  the  Legislature's  report, 
those  matters  which  we  feel  are  necessary  for 
the  proper  functioning  of  this  Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  say  right  now  that 
as  far  as  this  government  is  concerned  I 
think  the  remarks  that  were  made  by  the 
leader  of  the  NDP  are  totally  "facatious."  I 
don't  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  think— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Point  of  order,  point  of  order; 
point  of  personal  privilege— 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  don't  think,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  any  government  has— 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  may  be  fallacious,  or  that 
may  be  facetious,  but  it  is  not  "facatious." 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  —sent  more  of  its  min- 
isters and  its  committees  out  across  this  prov- 
ince to  communicate  with  the  people;  and 
therefore  his  argument  falls  away  short. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  go  back  to  the  electors 
of  Durham,  but  they  won't  give  the  minister 
a   vote;    they   won't   give   him    a   vote. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Nor  do  we  allow  our- 
selves to  get  trapped  into  the  sort  of  organ- 
izational  trap   that  the  leader  of  the   NDP 


Interjection    by    an    hon.    member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  And  let  me  say  a  word 
about  the  town  of  Durham.  I  am  continually 
and  totally  accessible  to  the  people  in  Dur- 
ham, which  they  know- 
Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  not  accessible; 
they  have  rejected  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  —each  and  every  week 
of  the  year.  If  the  member  wants  to  continue 
with  his  kind  of  nonsense  they  will  know 
he  is  lying  like  other  people  I  know  as  well. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Resign. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


33 


Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  all 
I  have  to  say.  But  I  offer  my  co-operation 
on  behalf  of  the  government  in  the  sugges- 
tions that  were  made. 

Mr.  Lewis:  There  go  the  hackles. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  made  the  same  re- 
marks last  year— last  year  he  told  us  the 
same  thing  about— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  electors  of  Durham  will 
do  him  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Don't  worry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  am  not— 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  not  certain  that  I  heard 
the  comments  of  the  hon.  House  leader  but— 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  who  they  vote  for  that 
worries  me. 

Mr.  Speaker:  But  I  think  if  there  had  been 
something  wrong  the  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  would  have  risen  on  a  point  of 
order. 

Those  in  favour  of  the  motion  will  please 
say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  a  select 
committee  of  13  members  be  appointed  to 
prepare  and  report  with  all  convenient 
despatch  a  list  of  members  to  compose  the 
standing  committees  ordered  by  the  House, 
such  committee  to  be  composed  as  follows: 

Mr.  Carmthers.  chairman;  Messrs.  Allan, 
Deans.  Beckett,  Henderson,  Hodgson  (Vic- 
toria-Haliburton),  MacBeth,  Maeck,  Newman 
(Windsor-Walkerville),  Smith  (Simcoe  East), 
Stokes,  Worton  and  Yakabuski. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Singer:  What  about  the  business  of 
bills  and  stuff? 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  were  dealing  with  mo- 
tions. Introduction  of  bills. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  the  government  doesn't  have 
any  bills  ready,  we  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  bills  to  introduce? 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  I  have  a  bill,  Mr.  Speaker. 


Mr.   Speaker:   The  hon.   member  for  Sud- 
bury was  on  his  feet  with  a  bill. 


DENTURE  THERAPISTS  ACT 

Mr.  Germa  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  to  amend  the  Denture  Thera- 
pists Act,  1972. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudboiry):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  amendment  removes  the  dental  hygienists 
and  the  dental  technicians  from  the  Denture 
Therapists  Licensing  Board  and  replaces 
them  with  two  more  denture  therapists,  in- 
creasing the  number  of  denture  therapists  on 
the  board  to  four. 

In  section  2,  the  amendment  removes  a  re- 
quirement that  the  denture  therapists  work 
under  the  supervision  of  a  dental  surgeon. 
It  would  also  allow  the  denture  therapists  to 
deal  directly  with  the  public,  but  only  where 
the  patient  can  produce  a  certificate  of  oral 
health  signed  by  a  dental  surgeon  or  a  legally 
qualified  medical  practitioner. 

In  section  3,  the  limitation  period  for  com- 
mencing a  proceeding  under  clause  (b)  of 
subsection  1  of  section  16  of  the  Act  is 
changed  from  two  years  to  one  year. 

And  in  section  4,  the  amendment  provides 
that  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  may 
make  regulations  setting  fees  to  be  charged 
by  denture  therapists. 


DENTISTRY  ACT 

Mr.  Genna  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  to  amend  the  Dentistry  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  is  com- 
plementary to  the  Denture  Theraoists  Amend- 
ment Act,  1974,  which  would  allow  denture 
therapists  to  deal  directly  with  the  public. 


MEDICAL  COMPLAINTS  PROCEDURES 
ACT 

Mr.  Singer  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  the  Medical  Complaints  Procedures 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  provide  a  system  in  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  whereby  people  who  believe 
that  they  have  complaints  about  medical  pro- 
cedures   affecting   them    are    going    to    have 


34 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


available  to  them,  when  this  bill  passes,  a 
board  which  can  review  them. 

The  boaid  will  consist  of  medical  people, 
legal  people,  members  of  the  public.  The 
board  will  have  the  power  to  review  and 
suggest  remedies  and/or  award  damages. 
There  will  be  reasonable  limitation  periods 
for  these  complaints  to  be  brought  forward. 
There  will  be  a  panel  of  doctors  maintained 
who  will  be  available  to  give  independent 
evidence  when  matters  of  this  sort  cpme  up, 
and  who  will  be  available  to  those  people 
who  believe  they  have  complaints  to  make. 

These  suggestions,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  not 
arrived  at  lightly,  but  emanate  from  a  series 


of  debates  in  the  estimates  of  the  Minister  of 
Health  over  several  years.  The  ministry  has 
done  nothing  in  this  regard  at  all.  The  situ- 
ation is  difficult  and  presents  great  hazards 
to  many  members  of  the  pubhc  who  have  no 
way  of  coping  with  what  they  feel  on  occa- 
sion are  very  serious  personal  problems.  The 
bill  will  remedy  many  of  these  difficulties. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  3:25  o'clock,  p.m. 


MARCH  6,  1974  35 


CONTENTS 

Wednesday,  March  6,  1974 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  15 

Environmental    impact   of   public    works,    questions    of   Mr.    DavK:    Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon, 

Mr.   Lewis,   Mr.   Cassidy,   Mr.   Bounsall   15 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Foulds, 

Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Deacon,  Mr.  Boimsall  17 

Cost  of  land  for  housing,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon, 

Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Good   20 

North  Pickering  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.   Lewis,  Mr.   Deacon, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  21 

Seminar  on  maintaining  non-union  status,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Lewis  22 

Automotive  industry  overtime  permits,  question  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  B.  Newman  23 

Price  review  of  farm  supplies  and  equipment,  questions  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  MacDonald, 

Mr.    Reid    23 

Inquiry  on  building  industry,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Roy  24 

Arbitration    board    for    CAAT    dispute,    questions    of  Mrs.    Birch    and    Mr.    Winkler: 

Mr.    Laughren    25 

Nuclear  energy  programme,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Sargent  25 

Weekend  road  maintenance,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Stokes  26 

Inquiry  on  building  industry,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Singer  26 

Staff  unrest  at  Oak  Ridges,  question  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Shidman  26 

GO-Urban  system,  question  of  Mr.  Rhodes,  Mr.  Givens  26 

Compensation  of  victims  of  silicosis,  question  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Burr  27 

Presenting  report,  Public  Accoimts:  Mr.  White  27 

Presenting  report,  Public  Service  Superannuation  Board:  Mr.  Snow  27 

Motion  to  appoint  standing  committees,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  27 

Motion  to  appoint  select  committee  re  standing  committees,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  33 

Denture  Therapists  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Germa,  first  reading  33 

Dentistry  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Germa,  first  reading  33 

Medical  Complaints  Procedures  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Singer,  first  reading  33 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  34 


No.  3 


Ontario 


Hegfelature  of  Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Thursday,  March  7,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


39 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville ) : 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  east  gallery  we  have 
guests  from  the  fine  city  of  Windsor  and  the 
great  riding  of  Windsor- Walkerville. 

An  hon.  member:  Good!  Good! 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  They  are  the  first  school 
to  visit  the  fourth  session  of  this  Parliament. 
They  are  55  fine  students  from  grades  7  and 
8  of  the  Ada  C.  Richards  School,  who  are 
accompanied  by  their  principal,  Mr.  Pyke; 
two  members  of  the  staff,  Mr.  Noble  and  Mr. 
Thompson;  and  two  parents,  Mrs.  Baia  and 
Mrs.  Shelson.  I  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Legis- 
lature extends  them  a  cordial  welcome. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Mr. 
Speaker,  may  I  introduce  to  you,  also  in  the 
east  gallery,  the  fourth  such  delegation  that 
has  appeared  here  in  this  Legislature  from 
the  great  city  of  Thunder  Bay,  the  grade  8 
students,  75  in  number,  from  the  Westmount 
Public  School  in  the  south  ward  of  the  city 
of  Thunder  Bay. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  gives  me  a 
good  deal  of  pleasure  to  welcome,  from  the 
riding  of  Sudbury  East,  some  33  students 
from  Ecole  St.  Matthieu,  a  bilingual  school 
from  that  great  riding— I  reiterate,  that  great 
riding— of  Sudbury  East. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  And  its 
great  member. 

Mr.   Speaker:   Statements  by  the  ministry. 


ROUTE  OF  PETROLEUM  PIPELINE 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  when 
the  government  of  Canada  announced  that  a 
pipeline  would  be  necessary  to  move  petro- 
leum products  to  Quebec  and  the  eastern 
markets,    it   stated    its    intention    to   build    a 


Thursday,  March  7,  1974 

pipeline  across  southern  Ontario  from  Sarnia 
to  Montreal. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Who 
won? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Several  ministers  have 
quite  properly  expressed  legitimate  concerns 
over  the  possible- 
Mr.    M.    Cassidy    (Ottawa    Gentre):    They 
gave  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —adverse  effects  that 
such  construction  would  have,  particularly  on 
the  high  quality  agricultural  lands  that  would 
be  in  the  path  of  the  pipeline.  They  have 
been  joined  by  a  number  of  concerned  groups 
of  citizens,  and  at  least  two  federal  cabinet 
ministers.  The  consensus  of  these  concerned 
ministers,  groups  and  indivduals  was  that 
the  pipeline  should  more  properly  be  built 
across  a  more  northern  route  from  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  to  the  Ghalk  River  area  and  thence 
through  Quebec  to  Montreal. 

Since  the  ultimate  responsibility  for  the 
construction  of  the  line  rests  in  Ottawa,  we 
have  pressed  the  government  of  Ganada,  the 
National  Energy  Board  and  the  Interprovin- 
cial  Pipeline  Co.  for  information  on  these 
two  alternative  routes.  Within  the  last  two 
weeks,  we  have  been  able  to  obtain  more 
complete  information  on  these  possible  routes, 
which  clarifies  why  the  federal  government 
has  decided  on  a  southern  route  from  Sarnia 
to  Montreal. 

Mr.  Gassidy:   This  government  gave  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  These  reasons  include 
costs,  potential  reversibility  of  oil  flow,  and 
timing  in  terms  of  the  urgent  need  for  de- 
livery of  oil  to  Montreal  and  eastern  Canada. 

On  the  last  point,  the  most  optimistic 
estimate  of  the  federal  government  indicates 
that  a  northern  route  cannot  be  in  operation 
before  two  years,  and  therefore  no  crude  oil 
could  flow  through  the  line  to  Montreal 
before  the  1976-1977  heating  season.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  been  led  to  believe  by 
the  government  of  Canada  that  if  the  south- 
ern route  is  undertaken,  crude  oil  will  be 
flowing  to  the  east  by  the  1975-1976  heating 
season. 


40 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  am  tabling  a  fact  sheet  in  connection 
with  this  statement  which  sets  forth  con- 
cisely the  relative  merits  of  both  pipeline 
alignments,  an  analysis  of  which  tends  to 
justify  the  decision  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment. I  might  add  here  that  we  would  sup- 
port the  federal  government  in  its  ultimate 
national  goal  of  an  all-Canadian  pipeline. 

This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  we 
have  abandoned  the  concerns  which 
prompted  us  to  question  the  southern  route 
in  the  first  place. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  we'll  table  the  facts. 

Hon.    Mr.    Grossman:    We    are    concerned 
with  environmental  impacts  in  general- 
Mr.  Martel:  Stop  the  flow  of  oil. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —and  particularly  with 
the  disruption  of  food-prodticing  lands  in 
southern  Ontario. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  I  guess  the 
Wafilers  are  with  the  government  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  realize  the 
southern  route  will  cause  much  greater  in- 
convenience and  dislocation  to  citizens  and 
to  personal  property  than  the  northern  route. 
Our  greatest  concern  is  the  potential  losses 
of  agricultural  prodtiotion  along  the  rights  of 
way. 

Mr.  Roy:  How  many  acres? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  recognize  that  the 
pipeline  from  Samia  to  Port  Credit,  with  the 
exception  of  some  10  miles,  will  be  built  on 
existing  rights  of  way.  Regardless  of  whether 
we  are  speaking  of  an  existing  pipeline  right 
of  way  or  of  a  right  of  way  to  be  used  in 
eastern  Ontario,  we  do  not  accept  the  proposi- 
tion that  this  can  be  accomplished  without 
disruption  to  adjacent  property. 

The  casual  observer  may  not  be  aware  of 
the  inconvenience  which  such  construction 
brings  to  property  owners  in  terms  of  fence 
removal,  drainage  disruptions,  soil  compaction, 
loss  of  food'  production  during  the  construc- 
tion period,  reduced  production  in  succeeding 
years  and  other  factors.  It  is  true  that  com- 
pensation is  provided,  but  it  is  difiicult  to 
compensate  in  dollars  for  disruptions,  many 
of  which  may  not  become  apparent  for 
months  and  even  years  after  the  actual  con- 
struction period. 

Ontario  farmers  are  concerned  about  this. 
We  have  had  discussions  with  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  relating  to  these 
difficulties  and  I  want  to  make  it  clear  that 
the  Federation  of  Agriculture  is  quite  objec- 


tive about  the  need  for  this  utility.  However, 
they  are  insistent  that  such  matters  as  fair 
compensation,  and  the  protection  of  indi- 
vidual rights  be  assured. 

These  requests  are  valid,  and  we  intend  to 
intervene  at  the  National  Energy  Board  hear- 
ings for  assurance,  among  other  things,  that 
competent  inspectors  be  provided  along  the 
pipeline  route  to  ensure  that  the  concerns  of 
property  owners  are  met. 

We  have  noted  in  recent  decisions  emanat- 
ing from  the  National  Energy  Board  on  pipe- 
line construction  in  western  Canada  that  en- 
vironmental concerns,  including  agriculture, 
are  to  be  given  much  greater  attention  in  the 
future  than  has  been  the  case  in  the  past.  We 
are  encouraged  by  this  new  position  of  the 
National  Energy  Board  and  have  submitted 
to  the  board  for  its  consideration  environ- 
mental guidelines  for  pipeline  construction 
and  maintenance. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  government  had  better 
convince  the  farmers  first  that  the  southern 
route  is  necessary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  These  guidelines, 
which  I  am  also  tabling  with  this  statement, 
are  those  currently  being  followed  by  the 
Ontario  Energy  Board  for  those  pipelines 
which  are  under  its  jurisdiction. 

Energy  is  a  vital  need  in  these  critical 
times,  second  only  to  our  continuing  depend- 
ence on  food.  Of  all  the  material  things  which 
man  utilizes  these  two  are  by  far  flie  most 
important.  We  want  the  citizens  of  Ontario— 
indeed  of  all  Canada-to  know  that  Ontario's 
priorities  vdll  recognize  these  needs.  We  in- 
tend to  maximize  the  food  production  poten- 
tial in  Ontario  and  we  intend  to  seek  security 
of  energy  supplies  within  a  national  context 
while  paying  due  regard  to  the  environment. 
We  shall  do  everything  in  our  power,  there- 
fore, to  ensure  that  the  construction  of  an 
oil  pipeline  through  southern  Ontario  not 
conflict  with  our  goals. 

Mr.  Roy:  Did  the  minister  prepare  that  or 
was  it  his  predecessor,  the  member  for  Carle- 
ton  East  (Mr.  Lawrence)? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  surely  went  to  somebody 
on  that  one. 


ARBITRATION  BOARD 
FOR  CAAT  DISPUTE 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  in'  order 
that  members  of  the  House  will  have  a  better 
understanding  of  the  events  which  led  up  to 


MARCH  7,  1974 


41 


the  current  situation,  I  would  like  to  reply  at 
some  length  to  the  question  asked  on  March 
6  by  the  member  for  Nickel  Belt  (Mr. 
Laughren). 

As  the  members  of  the  House  will  recall, 
the  Crown  Employees  Collective  Bargaining 
Act,  the  Act  which  sets  out  the  bargaining 
procedures  for  Crown  employees,  came  into 
force  on  Dec.  29,  1972.  The  Act  provides 
that  where  the  parties  are  unable  to  effect 
an  agreement  the  matters  in  dispute  shall  be 
decided  by  arbitration,  and  also  provides  in 
section  10(1)  that: 

A  person  shall  be  appointed  by  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  for  a  re- 
newable term  of  two  years  to  be  the  chair- 
man of  every  board  of  arbitration  estab- 
lished under  this  Act. 

The  members  may  be  interested  in  knowing 
that  under  the  Act  which  governs  federal 
public  servants  the  chairman  of  the  arbitra- 
tion tribunal  is  appointed  by  the  Governor  in 
Council  to  hold  office  during  good  behaviour 
for  such  term,  not  exceeding  seven  years,  as 
may  be  determined  by  the  Governor  in 
Council 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Civil  servants  have  the  right 
to  strike  in  Ottawa  but  they  haven't  got  it 
here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  His  Honour  Judge  J.  C. 
Anderson  of  Belleville,  Ontario,  whose  expe- 
rience in  labour  relations  arbitration  matters 
in  both  public  and  private  jurisdiction  covers 
a  period  of  more  than  30  years  and  who  is 
generally  regarded  by  unions  and  employers 
alike  as  an  extremely  competent  and  impar- 
tial adjudicator,  was  appointed  as  chairman 
of  the  Public  Service  Arbitration  Board  for 
the  two-year  period  from  Jan.  1,  1973,  to 
Dec.  31,  1974. 

The  members  will  recall  that  Judge  Ander- 
son had  performed  a  similar  service  for  the 
public  service  of  Ontario  since  his  first  ap- 
pointment under  the  Public  Service  Act  as 
early  as  1964.  His  most  recent  appointment 
was  discussed  with  and  was  acceptable  to  the 
bargaining  agents  which  represent  Crown 
employees. 

It  is  acknowledged  there  is  an  honest  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  to  the  merits  of  ad  hoc 
arbitration  as  opposed  to  the  system  where 
the  chairman  is  appointed  for  a  fixed  term. 
But  it  is  the  very  firm  view  of  this  govern- 
ment, and  obviously  the  view  of  the  federal 
government  as  well,  that  a  chairman  ap- 
pointed for  a  fixed  term  who  has  an  oppor- 
tunity to  become  familiar  with  the  issues 
that  the  parties  bring  before  him  is  able  to 


issue  more  satisfactory  awards  than  a  series 
of  chairmen  who  may  never  be  exposed  to 
the  problems  more  than  once. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  There  is  no  forced  arbitra- 
tion in  Ottawa.  It  is  chosen^ 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Meetings  for  the  pur- 
pose of  renewing  the  agreement  in  effect  for 
the  academic  staff  of  the  colleges  of  applied 
arts  and  technology  began  in  May,  1973. 
The  Civil  Service  Association  of  Ontario  and 
the  faculty  members  of  the  bargaining  team 
for  the  colleges  were  certainly  aware  that  if 
any  impasse  were  reached  the  matters  in 
dispute  would  be  referred  to  arbitration. 
They  also  would  have  known  that  the  chair- 
man of  the  arbitration  board  would  be  Judge 
Anderson. 

The  members  of  the  government  find  it 
extremely  difficult  to  understand  why  a 
small  group  of  faculty  members  waited  until 
this  late  date  to  challenge  the  makeup  of  the 
board- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): They  don't  like  compulsory  arbitration. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  —which,  as  I  said 
earlier,  is  established  by  an  Act  of  this 
parliament. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  shouldn't  be  sub- 
jected to  it  either. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  It  is  the  feeling  of  this 
government  that  the  Province  of  Ontario  has 
been  extremely  fortunate  in  acquiring  the 
services  of  a  chairman  with  the  experience 
and  stature  of  Judge  Anderson,  and  it  is  higUy 
regrettable  that  his  capacity  to  act  in  a  com- 
pletely impartial  manner  should  be  ques- 
tioned in  this  way. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  government  is  completely 
satisfied  with  the  manner  in  which  the  Public 
Service  Arbitration  Board  is  constituted. 
There  is  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  government  that  the  vast  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  academic  staff  of  the 
community  colleges  are  prepared  to  abide  by 
the  laws  of  this  province  and  will  not  con- 
done the  actions  of  those  few  who  are  pre- 
pared to  flaunt  the  law  in  an  attempt  to  force 
the  government  to  give  in  to  their  demands. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  It  is  a  bad 
law. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Is 
picketing  against  the  law? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  We  trust  that  the  Civil 
Service  Association  of  Ontario,  the  bargaining 


42 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


representative  of  the  employees  involved,  will 
accept  its  responsibilities  to  proceed  with  the 
arbitration  hearings  without  delay. 

Mr.    I.    Deans    (Wentworth):    This    doesn't 
help. 

Mr.     Laughren:     The     minister     has     just 
polarized  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  It's  too  weak. 


ANGLO-CANADIAN  PULP  AND  PAPER 

EXPANSION  IN  NORTHWESTERN 

ONTARIO 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  the  Throne  Speech  there  was  some  refer- 
ence to  northern  Ontario  and  I  was  interested 
in  some  of  the  observations  about  certain 
visions.  I  don't  often  comment  on  cartoons 
in  papers  but  there  was  one  in  this  morning's 
Globe  and  Mail,  and  I  hope  there  are  some 
representatives  from  that  paper  here  today. 

Mr.  Lewis:  There  always  are. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Premier  really  worries 
about  the  Globe,  doesn't  he? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  rest  of  the  press  can  rest 
their  pens. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Let  the  Premier  tell  us 
about  his  pulp  mill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  When  they  showed  the 
great  activity  that  one  was  envisaging  for 
the  north,  they  somehow  neglected  that  part 
of  the  Throne  Speech  referring  to  billboards 
or  there  would  have  been  fewer  billboards 
in  the  cartoon  itself. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state  that  the  economic 
development  of  the  north  will  not  be  pre- 
dicated on  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  Martel:  Not  on  that  Throne  Speech 
either. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  It  won't 
be  predicated  on  that  Throne  Speech. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  However,  in  order  to 
give  some  practical  reality  to  what  was  said 
just  two  days  ago,  or  within  48  hours,  I  wish 
to  inform  the  members  that  the  board  of 
directors  of  Anglo-Canadian  Pulp  and  Paper 
Mills  Ltd.  has  given  approval  to  the  first 
phase  of  a  plan  to  create  two  modern  inte- 
grated forest  product  complexes  in  north- 
western Ontario,  and  has  authorized  extensive 
feasibility   studies   for   a   second   phase. 

The  first  phase  will  involve  increasing  the 
company's  sawmilling  capacity  from  34  million 


to  225  million  board  feet  per  annimi  by  con- 
structing sawmills  at  Dryden  and  in  the  Red 
Lake  area.  It  will  involve  the  installation  of 
additional  modfem  effluent  control  systems  at 
the  Dryden  kraft  mill,  and  the  modernization 
and  expansion  of  the  Dryden  kraft  mill  from 
630  to  750  tons  per  day. 

By  late  1975  the  new  sawmilling  capacity 
will  be  phased  in,  as  will  the  installation  of  a 
new  effluent  treatment  system.  The  expansion 
of  the  Dryden  mill  is  schedliled  to  come  on 
stream  in  mid- 1976. 

The  first  phase  of  this  new  programme 
will  involve  the  expenditure  of  about  $63 
million. 

Last  week  the  company  anounced  the  con- 
struction of  a  $2.5  million  chloralkali  plant  at 
Dryden,  using  new  non-mercury  teclmology; 
this  will  meet  the  objectives  of  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment. 

A  second  phase,  involving  an  investment 
of  $190  milhon,  would  mean  the  construction 
of  a  second  integrated  forest  prodlicts  com- 
plex in  the  Red  Lake  area.  If  the  preliminary 
studies  are  confirmed  it  would  result  in  the 
construction  of  a  900-ton-per-d!ay  kraft  pulp 
mill  operating  exclusively  on  sawdaist,  chips 
and  fines  from  the  company's  sawmills.  In 
addition,  during  this  second  phase,  the  com- 
pany would  expand  its  sawmilUng  operations 
again,  this  time  from  225  million  to  500 
miUion  board  feet  a  year. 

The  company  is  also  studying  the  feasibility 
of  including  a  fibreboard  plant  and  a  speciality 
chemical  plant. 

As  part  of  phase  two,  the  company  has 
pledged  a  $500,000  performance  bond  to  the 
government  of  Ontario  in  connection  with  its 
proposal  to  expand  its  existing  timber  limits 
for  this  phase  with  the  understanding  that 
construction  must  begin  by  December,  1976. 

If  all  projects  prove  feasible  and  are  pro- 
ceeded with  there  would  be  a  total  invest- 
ment of  $253  million  resulting  in  approxi- 
mately 1,800  new  jobs  by  1978  in  the  pulp 
mills,  in  the  sawmills  and  in'  the  woodlands. 
This  would  be  double  the  number  of  people 
the  company  now  employs  in  northwestern 
Ontario. 

The  government  intends  to  ensure  that 
sufiicient  serviced  housing  lots  are  made 
available  in  the  communities  affected. 

iThese  projects  are  consistent  with  the 
growth  objectives  outlined  by  the  govern- 
ment's Design  for  Development,  northwestern 
Ontario  region  report.  As  members  will  recall, 
that  report  called  for  the  creation  of  4,000  to 
5,000  new  jobs  in  the  pulp  and  paper  indus- 
try in  northwestern  Ontario  over  the  next  20 


MARCH  7,  1974 


43 


years.  Today's  announcement,  coupled'  with 
the  announcement  I  made  a  few  months  ago 
with  regard  to  the  Great  Lakes  Paper  Co.'s 
expansion  plans,  puts  the  achievement  of  that 
target  well  within  reach. 

Close  co-operation  between  Anglo-Cana- 
dian and  the  Ontario  government  will  be 
maintained  to  ensure  that  all  necessary  efforts 
are  made  to  protect  the  environment. 

I  am  sure  all  members  of  this  House  join 
me  in  welcoming  this  announcement,  the  re- 
sults of  which  will  bring  a  significant  boost  to 
the  economy  of  the  province,  especially  to 
the  north. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions;  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


ANGLO-CANADIAN  PULP  AND  PAPER 

EXPANSION  IN  NORTHWESTERN 

ONTARIO 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Further  to  the  Premier's 
statement,  isn't  it  true  that  Anglo-Canadian, 
which  owns  Dryden  Paper,  was  responsible, 
through  pollution,  for  completely  destroying 
the  game  fishing  in  the  Wabigoon  River 
system  and  the  English  River  system  to  such 
an  extent  that  it  can  never  be  restored?  Were 
they  not  under  government  supervision  as  far 
as  environmental  effects  are  concerned  during 
those  days  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  Speaker,  unlike  the 
member  for  Brant  this  government  lives   in 
the  future,  not  in  the  past.  This  announce- 
ment makes  it  very  clear- 
Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  The 
Premier  has  five  ministers  who  were, 
formerly. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  Premier  has  a  short  memory 
when  it  comes  to  problems. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  This  announcement  makes 
it  very  clear  that  all  future  expansion  plans 
of  Anglo-Canadian  will  meet  the  environ- 
mental requirements  of  this  government. 
While  the  member  for  Brant  may  wish  to 
be  derogatory  about  that  particular  com- 
pany, we  are  very  optimistic- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  Promise  never  to  do  it 
again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —as  to  what  it  will  achieve 
for  employment  and  the  general  economic 
development  of  northwestern  Ontario;  and 
we  are  encouraged  by  their  activity. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  In  con- 
nection with  this  tremendous  investment  of 
dollars  in  this  expansion,  which  is  obviously 
for  the  good  of  the  north,  can  the  Premier 
indicate  to  the  House  what  steps  are  being 
taken  to  clean  up  the  mess  that  was  left  there 
by  the  industry  in  the  past? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  matter 
has  been  debated.  As  I  said  in  this  particular 
statement,  the  company  has  already  an- 
nounced, and  it  is  part  of  their  planned  pro- 
gramme for  Dryden,  that  the  mercury  part 
of  whatever  the  process  was  some  time  ago 
is  to  be  completely  removed.  There  wall  be 
just  no  mercury  pollution  in  their  operation. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  about  the  damage  done  in 
the  past?  Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Can't 
stand  progress. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  wanted  to  ask  a  supple- 
mentary question.  It  is  Mr.  Jones  who  is 
involved  in  Anglo-Canadian.  As  I  recall  he 
is  one  of  the  chief  executive  ofiicers.  Is  he 
also  a  senior  adviser,  perhaps  chairman  of 
the  advisory  committee  to  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources? 

Hon.  L.  Bernier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): No. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  not  an  adviser  to  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  He  is  on  the 
committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  He  stepped  down  last 
November. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  stepped  dovm  in  Novem- 
ber? That  answers  my  question. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Okay,  that's  what  I  wanted. 
All  right. 

An  hon.  member:  He  got  what  he  wanted. 

Mr.  Deans:  Just  before  the  arrangement 
was  concluded. 

An  hon.  member:  What  is  the  member's 
point? 

Mr.    Lewis:    I   just   wanted   to   know. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Provincial   Secretary  for  Resources  Develop- 


44 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ment.  In  line  with  the  very  proper  concern, 
a  new  concern,  for  the  protection  of  class 
1  and  2  arable  land,  is  he  now  prepared  to 
follow  up  on  what  was  a  partial  commitment 
given  by  the  Premier  yesterday  in  requiring 
that  the  expropriation  hearings  with  regard 
to  the  hydro  lines  in  the  western  part  of 
the  province  be  stood  down,  pending  an 
objective  assessment  as  to  other  locations  for 
the  line  which  would  use  only  half  as  much 
class  1  and  2  land?  Would  the  minister  not 
indicate  as  much  concern  for  projects  under 
provincial  jurisdiction  as  he  very  rightly  shows 
for  projects  in  the  province  under  federal 
jurisdiction? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
quite  properly  I  think  that  question  should 
be  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr. 
McKeough).  I'm  doing  my  best  to  stay  within 
the  terms  of  reference  of  a  policy  secretary. 
That  is  to  co-ordinate  matters  which  overlap 
various  ministries. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Oh,  that  is 
what   the   terms   of   reference   are, 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  will  meet  the  fate  of 
the  member  for  Carleton  East. 

Hon.   Mr.   Grossman:   This   specific  matter 
is  one  in  which  my  colleague,  the  Minister  of 
Energy,  I'm  sure  would  be  glad- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  will  wither  away  before 
our  eyes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Do  the  members  want 
information  or  don't  they?  If  they  want  the 
information,  that's  where  it  belongs. 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Does  the 
member  want  an  answer? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary,  if  I 
may.  The  minister  is  fully  experienced  in 
these  matters,  wouldn't  he  agree  that  the 
statement  he  made  with  remark  to  the  pro- 
tection of  class  1  and  2  land  with  regard 
to  the  pipeline  intrusion  would  in  fact  cover 
the  hydro  line,  the  Arnprior  dam,  the  new 
town  in  Pickering  and  other  provincial  pro- 
grammes which  must  surely  be  covered  by 
the  same  umbrella  of  policy  and  not  subject 
to  the  whim  of  the  Minister  of  Energy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
know  why  the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
makes  such  an  issue  of  it. 

Mr.  Roy:  It  is  important. 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  If  the  hon.  member 
wants  the  information,  and  I'm  directing  him 
to  the  minister  who  would  have,  in  my  view 
and  the  government's  view,  that  specific 
information- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Is  the  provincial  secretary 
going  to  be  just  like  Allan  Lawrence  and 
have  nothing  to  say  about  policy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —why  not  get  to  the 
point  as  quickly  as  possible?  I  tell  the  mem- 
ber that  that  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Energy,  because  the  member  has  ask- 
ed a  specific  question- 
Mr.  Roy:  If  he  keeps  it  up  he  will  be  fired. 
He  will  be  fired  just  like  the  member  for 
Carleton  East. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Just  a  signpost. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —which  relates  to  his 
ministry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'd  like  to  redirect  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Minister  of  Energy,  with  your 
permission,  sir. 

Mr.  Lewis:  About  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Could  have  saved  three 
minutes  because  he  has  been  ready. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  will  make  a  seat  for  the 
member  for  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  next  to  the 
member  for  Carleton  East. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me  that  yes- 
terday we  were  dealing  with  three  different 
hydro  lines.  Perhaps  to  put  them  in  context 
we've  talked  about  the  Pickering  to  Nanticoke 
line,  which  I  think— 

An  hon.  member:  At  length. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —as  the  Premier  said 

yesterday- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  the  one  that  goes 

through  Peel. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  just  happens  to  be  the  rid- 
ing he  represents. 


An  hon.  member:  And  Halton,  and  Bramp- 


ton. 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —could  be  considered 
to  be  under  some  sort  of  an  environmental  im- 
pact review  process  at  the  present  moment 
with  Dr.  Solandt,  and  we  await  that  report. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


45 


The  second  series  of  lines  which  was  talk- 
ed about  yesterday  was  from  the  Bradley 
junction,  which  is  near  Bruce,  to  George- 
town. In  that  particular  instance,  selection  of 
the  correct  route— or  the  Tightest  route,  or  the 
least  damaging  route,  depending  upon  your 
point  of  view  I  suppose— is  going  through  the 
process.  Hydro  have  undertaken  a  large- 
scale  programme,  which  I  may  say  is  un- 
precedented in  North  America  in  terms  of 
trying  to  involve  the  public- 
Mr.  Singer:  Naturally. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —in  that  kind  of  de- 
cision-making process. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Another  one  of  those. 

Mr.  Singer:  Or  in  the  world— the  western 
world. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  It  will  be,  I  think, 
some  months  before  Hydro,  through  that  pro- 
cess, comes  to  some  conclusions.  After  that 
it  will  report  its  conclusions  to  the  govern- 
ment and  the  government  at  that  point  will 
decide  whether  it  is  necessary  to  have  some 
further  environmental  hearing  a  la  Dr. 
Solandt  or  not.  If  there  is  obviously  an  en- 
vironmental hearing  board  fully  empowered 
at  that  point,  then  that  would  presumably 
be  the  route  we  would  go  rather  than  a 
royal  commission  under  Dr.  Solandt. 

What  the  member  was  talking  about  yes- 
terday, and  what  I  assume  he  is  referring 
to  today,  is  a  50-mile  stretch  of  line  from 
the  Bradley  junction  to  Seaforth,  which  line 
was  selected  as  early  as  1969  and  which  it 
is  crucial  to  have  in  place,  as  I  understand 
it,  for  the  opening  of  the  first  unit  at  Bruce, 
which  should  take  place— if  it  is  on  schedule, 
and  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  it  won't 
be-in  July  of  1975,  barely  14  months  from 
now. 

Hydro  went  through  what  they  then 
thought  was  a  form  of  public  participation 
and  which  for  many,  many  years  was  thought 
to  have  been  adequate— although  I  think 
events  have  proven  otherwise.  This  has  been 
the  route  up  to  this  point  and  they  are  now 
down  to  the  point  where  it  is  necessary  to 
expropriate  some  remaining  properties. 

There  are  three  different  routes  that  we 
are  talking  about  and  there  are  others  in 
the  province  which  are  in  various  stages. 
Obviously,  the  announcement  in  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne  concerning  environmental 
impact  and  giving  that  authority  to  someone, 
depending  on  the  disposition  of  the  green 
paper,  cannot  be  retroactive.  The  world  can't 


stop  and  turn  the  clock  back,  three  and  four 
and  five  years  in  some  instances. 

Nevertheless,  having  said  that,  the  good 
farmers  of  that  particular  area  in  Bruce  were 
in  to  see  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  and  his  ofiBcials— brought 
in,  I  think,  in  part  by  the  member  for  Huron- 
Bruce  (Mr.  Gaunt)— and  they  met  with  them. 
The  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  arrang- 
ed for  those  farmers  to  meet  with  the  re- 
sources policy  field  and  they  did,  I  think 
three  weeks  ago  today.  Subsequently,  a  meet- 
ing has  been  held  by  the  resources  policy 
field  with  Ontario  Hydro,  with  other  gov- 
ernment ministries  and  with  concerned  agen- 
cies of  the  government. 

The  matter  is  under  review,  and  hopefully 
within  the  next  two  or  three  weeks  some 
definite  position  can  be  attained  with  regard 
to  the  position  of  the  farmers  and  the  route 
of  that  Hydro  line.  But  we  are  not  in  a  posi- 
tion to  say  what  the  ultimate  disposition  of 
the  review  will  be  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  other  question  re- 
lated also  to  the  Amprior  project,  which  is 
also  affecting  farm  land  and  farmers,  does  the 
minister  consider  that  there  was  an  ade- 
quate environmental  study  and  there  was  ade- 
quate information  provided  to  local  residents; 
or  whether  there  was  adequate  public  par- 
ticipation in  the  choice  of  that  particular  pro- 
ject and  the  way  it  was  to  be  built?  And  if 
not,  what  will  he  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  it 
was  the  subject  of  an  exhaustive  review.  Ob- 
viously the  member  from  Ottawa  doesn't  think 
so  and  we  might  debate  that  at  some  other 
time. 

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

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I  have  a  supplementary  to  the  minister. 
In  relation  to  the  Huron-Bruce  power  Hne, 
since  this  matter  is  now  under  review,  would 
the  minister  undertake  to  talk  to  Ontario 
Hydro  with  respect  to  the  rate  of  compen- 
sation for  the  farmers  in  that  hydro  line 
corridor,  particularly  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
Ontario  Hydro  has  been  offering  rates  which 
are  50  to  75  per  cent  of  current  market  value, 
as  opposed  to  the  rates  being  offered  for  the 
pipeline,  which  I  understand  are  about  150 
per  cent  of  current  market  value? 


46 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:  A  difference  in  government,  I 
guess. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
don't  know  that  it  would  be  proper  for  me 
to  talk  to  Hydro  about  individual  properties. 
I  think  the  member  might  well  wish  to  speak 
about  specifics  to  the  member  for  Simcoe 
Centre  (Mr.  Evans),  who  is  a  member  of  the 
Hydro  board  of  directors.  I  can  only  say 
this:  In  various  situations  which  I  have  look- 
ed at  from  time  to  time,  Hydro  have  had  the 
benefit  of  outside  appraisals.  They  have  had 
the  benefit  of  outside  appraisals,  for  example, 
at  Amprior,  and  in  that  instance,  I  think,  in 
one  out  of  something  like  12  properties  the 
outside  appraisal  was  higher  than  the  oflFer 
which  Hydro  had  made.  I  think  in  11  cases 
the  Hydro  off^er  was  higher  than  the  outside 
appraisal,  in  some  cases  substantially  higher. 

I  recognize  that  if  my  property  were  being 
taken,  or  if  I  were  going  to  sell  a  piece  of 
property,  I  would  have  a  very  high  view  or  a 
very  inflated  view— inflated  might  be  better 
than  high,  I  think— that  view  might  be  some- 
thing higher  than  Hydro  are  prepared  to 
ofi^er. 

Hydro  are  in  the  position,  of  course,  of 
attempting  to  provide  power  at  cost  to  the 
people  of  Ontario.  To  do  that,  they  have 
to  not  only  provide  fair  prices  but  prices 
which  are  commensurate  with  market  value. 
And  if  farmers  or  land  owners  anywhere  in 
the  province  feel  aggrieved  and  that  they  are 
not  receiving  a  sufiBcient  price,  then  we  have 
in  this  province,  thanks  to  the  foresight  of 
this  government,  one  of  the  finest  pieces  of  ex- 
propriation legislation  that  will  be  found 
anywhere, 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Certainly  in  the  eastern 
hemisphere! 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  We  have  a  Land 
Compensation  Board  which  will  deal  ade- 
quately and  fairly  with  those  being  expropri- 
ated, and  in  the  public  interest  as  well;  and 
I  put  my  faith  there. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary: 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  farmers  and 
others  who  have  looked  into  the  Arnprior 
project  are  not  satisfied  about  the  exhaustive 
review  referred  to  by  the  minister,  will  the 
minister  undertake  to  table  soon  in  the  House 
all  of  the  relevant  documents  that  under- 
pinned the  government's  review,  including  the 
engineering  feasibility  study  prepared  for  the 
dam,  which  is  now  being  denied  to  people 
who  request  it. 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  think  the  hon.  mem- 
ber could  make  some  of  the  copies  which  he 
has  received  from  Hydro  available  to  his 
friends. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary: 
If  I  could  have  a  direct  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, will  the  minister  undertake  to  table  in 
this  House  documents  referring  to  the  Arn- 
prior dam,  which  are  now  being  denied  to 
those  who  requested  them  directly  from 
Hydro? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  num- 
ber of  documents  have  been  tabled  in  the 
House  and  certain  documents  have  been  given 
to  people  who  want  them,  and  they  are  avail- 
able for  inspection.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
the  hon.  member  has  got  all  he  is  going  to  get. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  He's  over 
on  the  island! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  hon.  member  attempt- 
ing to  get  more  information? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  seek- 
ing to  raise  a  point  of  privilege,  which  I  think 
is  quite  important,  particularly  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  Ontario  Hydro  has  this  week 
become  a  Crown  corporation  that  is  directly 
accountable,  one  assumes,  to  this  House. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right.  It  is  running 
roughshod  around  Ontario. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  The  minister 
has  no  right  to  refuse  that  information. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  question  of  accountabil- 
ity is  at  stake,  it  seems  to  me,  when  basic 
information- 
Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  the  point  of  privilege? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  privileges  of  this  House, 
Mr.  Speaker,  are  affected  when  members  of 
this  Legislature  are  denied  information  by  the 
ministry  and  by  a  Crown  corporation  respon- 
sible to  the  House,  which  directly  reports  to- 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  is  no  privilege 
that  has  been  abused  by  the  minister;  no 
privilege  whatsoever.  The  hon,  member  will 
be  seated.  There  is  no  point  of  privilege. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order,  I  submit  to  you,  sir,  that  there  is  a 
point    of    privilege    or    order    for    your    con- 


MARCH  7,  1974 


47 


sideration.  Can  a  minister,  just  oflF  the  top  of 
his  head,  d^eny  any  further  information  to  a 
member  of  this  House,  particularly  when  it 
pertains  to  a  pubhc  project? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Only  if  it  is  the  Minister  of 
Energy.  There  is  another  embarrassment. 
They  always  do  it, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
is  a  matter  that  Should  give  you  some 
personal  concern, 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sure  the  hon.  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  is  familiar  with  the  provisions 
pertaining  to  the  question  period  in  which 
the  minister  may  or  may  not  answer.  He  need 
not  answer  a  question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  was 
seeking  information  from  Ontario  Hydro, 
which  is  now  a  Crown  corporation  respon- 
sible to  the  House- 
Mr.  Ruston:  The  member  voted  for  it, 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right!  And  in  a  vindic- 
tive, splenetic  outburst,  typical  of  the  minis- 
ter, he  personally  denies  access.  Well,  that 
destroys  Hydro's  accountability,  and  that  is  a 
point  of  privilege  in  the  House,  Mr,  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  comes  from  out  of  his 
hip  pocket, 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr,  Speaker,  surely  it  is  not 

the  right  of  a  minister- 
Mr.  Ruston:  Listen  to  who  is  talking!  The 

speculator. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  number  one  capitalist 
over  there, 

Mr.  Shulman:  —of  an  arrogant  minister,  to 
come  in  here  and  tell  the  members  of  this 
House  they  cannot  get  information  on  matters 
which  are  directly  our  responsibihty. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  '  ' 

Mr.  Lewis:  When  we  take  power  well 
nationalize  Hydro. 

Mr.  Roy:  Don't  hold  your  breath! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  I'm  not  at  all 
certain  of  the  precise  words  used  by  the  hon, 
minister. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh,  come  on!  You  heard  what 
he  said. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  not  at  all  certain  of  the 
precise  words  used  by  the  hon,  minister.  I'll 
undertake  to  review  Hansard,  and  if,  in  fact. 


there  is  any  way  in  which  I  can  see  that  the 
question  period  has  been  abused  I  will  cer- 
tainly take  further  action.  But  as  far  as  I  am 
concerned  there  has  been  no  misuse  of  the 
question  period  on  the  part  of  the  minister. 
He  need  not  reply  to  any  question  and  he 
may  reply  in  any  manner  ne  sees  fit. 

The  hon.  Leadfer  of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Throw  him  in  the  tower. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South): 
Which  one? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  not  the  question  about  the  use  or 
misuse  of  the  question  period.  It  is  the  ques- 
tion of  the  privileges  of  members  of  this 
House- 
Mr.  Shulman:  Right! 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —in  receiving  information 
from  ministers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  I've  ruled  on 
that.  My  ruling  is  not  debatable.  The  hon, 
member  for  Brant, 


PROSECUTION  OF  DENTURISTS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Attorney  General  how  he  dbcides  which 
denturists  are  going  to  be  raided  and  then 
charged  and  brought  before  the  courts;  be- 
cause presumably  all  of  the  practising  den- 
turists are  breaking  the  ridiculous  law  that 
was  put  through  the  Legislature  just  a  few 
months  ago— 

Mr.  Shulman:  It  is  done  by  lot, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —even  though  the  law 
did  not  conform  to  the  Attorney  General's 
stated  principle. 

An  hon.  member:  Depending  on  the  quahty 
of  their  character. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr,  Speaker,  knowing 
how  anxious  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  is 
to  have  this  particular  matter  answered^ 

Mr.  Shulman:  We  can't  hear. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —I  would  indicate  at  this 
time  that  he  will  recall  that  my  predecessor 
made  the  position  quite  clear,  that  if  anyone 
knew  of  anyone  who  was  breaking  the  law 
with  respect  to  that  statute,  that  if  we  had 
that  information  we  would  give  it  to  the 
Crown   Attorney   having  jurisdiction   in   that 


48 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  But  which  ones  does  the 
government  put  the  bite  on? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Does  the 
Attorney  General,  therefore,  charge  only  the 
ones  that  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller), 
or  his  predecessor,  have  brought  to  his  atten- 
tion; or  were  there  complaints  from  the 
community;  or,  in  fact,  does  the  minister 
know  of  some  denturists  practising  as  den- 
turists  who  are  not  breaking  the  law? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may 
repeat,  as  far  as  I  know  now— but  I  will  be 
glad  to  get  up-to-date  information— I  know  of 
no  complaints  that  have  been  brought  to  us, 
that  is  to  the  Attorney  General  or  to  the 
agent  of  the  Attorney  General,  the  Crown 
attorney  in  any  of  the  jurisdictions  in  Ontario. 
If  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  some  in- 
formation which  he  feels  I  should  have  in 
this  regard,  I  will  gladly  put  it  in  the  hands 
of  the  proper  court  ofiRcials. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Since  he  has  asked  for 
the  information,  I  would  suggest  that  the 
information  that  he  seeks  lies  in  the  mind  of 
the  Minister  of  Health.  The  Attorney  General 
should  surely  advise  the  Minister  of  Health 
that  that  law  must  be  amended  and  put  back 
the  way  the  Attorney  General  had  it  origi- 
nally, and  then  there  ^^'^ould  be  no  more  prob- 
lem and  the  denturists  would  be  able  to 
practise  legally.  Is  that  the  information  the 
minister  was  asking  for? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Can  the  minister  explain 
why  the  leaders  of  the  denturists  have  not 
been  raided?  In  fact,  people  like  Mr.  Sweet 
have  publicly  got  up  and  said  they're  prac- 
tising. He's  continuing  to  practise,  and  yet 
he  isn't  touched.  But  the  government  touches 
these  little  people  around  the  province.  Is 
it  being  done  by  lot? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Perhaps  we'll  get  him  to 
streak  across  the  chamber. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Who? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Does  the  member  mean 
the  hon.  member  for  High  Park? 

Mr.  Shulman:  No,  the  Attorney  General. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  That  would  be  a  real 
treat  if  I  did. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  will  be  an  apparition,  I  will 
tell  the  Attorney  General. 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Yes,  quite.  That  would 
be  the  reforming  AG. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  could  reply  to  the  hon. 
member  for  High  Park;  I  really  can't  add 
anything  further  to  the  answer  I've  already 
provided  to  the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion other  than  to  restate  the  position  which 
my  predecessor  made  quite  clear  in  this 
House,  that  if  anyone  has  any  information 
with  respect  to  a  violation  of  that  particular 
statute,  he  should  provide  it  to  us. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  have  a  full  page  ad. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Look  in  the  yellow  pages. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Etobi- 
coke. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Braithwaite  (Etobicoke):  As  a 
supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  the 
Attorney  General  could  tell  us  what  steps 
he  is  taking  to  protect  the  rights  of  innocent 
people  who  happen  to  be  visiting  denturists 
when  the  high-jackbooted  police  come  in? 
The  rights  of  these  people  are  being 
severely— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Shut  up!  I'm  asking  a 
question. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Lewis:   It  is  a  novelty  all  right. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  That's  nice.  The  rights  of 
these  people  are  being  severely  restricted 
when  the  police  come  in. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Question. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Could  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral state  what  he's  doing  to  protect  these 
people? 

An  hon.  member:  Are  they  found-ins? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  hon. 
member  has  any  specific  information  in  this 
regard,  the  Attorney  General  would  like  to 
have  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  supple- 
mentary, a  specific  case  in  my  particular 
riding  has  been  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  Minister  of  Health  in  the  past,  and  there 
has  been  more  than  one  case  of  this.  The 
Attorney  General  must  know  of  these  cases. 
I  don't  have  to  give  him  further  information. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Read  the  papers. 


MARCH  7.  1974 


49 


Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  a  sup- 
plementary pursuant  to  this  question? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  you  may. 

Mr.  Roy:  Could  the  Attorney  General  tell 
us  about  the  legality  of  the  full  page  ad  on 
the  government's  dental  plan?  In  light  of  the 
fact  that  the  denturists  themselves  as  a  pro- 
fession or  as  individuals  cannot  advertise 
legally,  does  the  Attorney  General  not  feel 
that  he  is  breaching  their  ethics  by  using 
public  funds  to  advertise  for  them?  Could  he 
tell  us  about  the  legality  of  these  acts,  which 
is  propaganda  for  the  dentists  at  public 
expense? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I 
understand  the  question  correctly,  reference 
is  being  made  to  an  advertisement  inserted 
by  the  Ministry  of  Health.  I  would  suggest 
that  the  Ministry  of  Health  is  in  itself  not 
violating  any  particular  law  in  advertising 
that  particular  programme. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes;  it  is  inappropriate,  but  it 
is  probably  not  illegal. 

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

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 


ROUTE  OF  PETROLEUM  PIPELINE 

Mr.  Lewis:  Could  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Energy  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker?  Last  Satur- 
day he  indicated:  "From  a  cold,  calculated, 
hard-nosed  point  of  view,  the  pipeline  should 
not  be  built  until  at  least  1990";  and  on 
Thursday  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Re- 
sources Development  made  the  announce- 
ment. Can  he  explain  his  view? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  was  not  cold- 
blooded. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  so 
often  happens,  one  is  sometimes  misquoted— 

Some  hon.  members:  Oh,  oh. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  -or  one  is  sometimes 
not  quoted  in  full.  I  think  the  words  that  I 
used  were  quoted  correctly,  but  I  also  said 
some  other  things.  I  said  nothing  about  1990. 
What  I  said  was  that  from  a  cold,  calculat- 
injf,  completely  business-like  point  of  view- 
Mr.  Roy:  Hard-nosed, 
Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Hard-headed. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Hard-nosed.  Did  I 
say  that? 


I  said  it  might  make  sense  to  defer  the 
decision  until  such  time  as  it  was  clear  how 
much  oil  was  going  to  be  available  from 
conventional  sources  in  western  Canada  and 
how  much  oil  might  be  available  from  the 
east  coast,  and  then  decide  whether  the  line 
would  be  built  as  a  reversible  line. 

Having  said  that,  I  also  said,  and  have  said 
on  a  number  of  occasions,  that  from  the  point 
of  view  of  security  of  supply  of  the  Man- 
times,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  security 
of  supply  of  the  Province  of  Quebec,  and  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  security  of  supply 
of  about  800,000  people  in  Ontario  who  live 
east  of  the  border  line,  it  is  imperative  that 
we  get  on  with  that  pipeline  and  get  it  built 
as  quickly  as  possible. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary 
question:  In  the  light  of  the  minister's  refer- 
ence about  800,000  people  living  on  the  other 
side  of  this  line,  what  pressure  has  the  min- 
ister brought  on  the  oil  companies  that  are 
presently  supplying  oil  to  the  Ottawa  area 
from  the  west  through  this  Kingston  pipeline 
and,  because  of  the  cheaper  price  from  the 
west,  stand  to  make  profits  of  something  like 
$1  million? 

What  pressure  has  he  brought  on  these 
companies  so  that  they  will  give  us  the  oil 
in  Ottawa  at  the  same  price  as  people  get 
it  here  in  Toronto,  phis  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation? Has  he  brought  any  pressure  on 
the  companies  to  give  the  benefit  of  this 
cheap  oil  from  the  west  to  the  consumers  and 
not  to  the  companies? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  not,  because  since  last  fall  both  gasoline 
and  heating  oil  sold  east  of  the  Ottawa  Val- 
ley line  has  been,  in  effect,  under  a  price 
freeze  imposed  by  the  government  of  Can- 
ada and  administered  by  the  Minister  of 
Energy,  Mines  and  Resources.  And  if  any  oil 
company  is  making  an  exorbitant  profit  on 
sales  east  of  the  line,  then  I  would  suggest 
that  the  hon.  member  should  talk  to  his 
federal  friends  and  point  that  out,  because  in 
effect  the  federal  minister  is  controlling  the 
price. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  have. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  And  if  he's  allow- 
ing them  exorbitant  profits,  then  the  hon. 
member  should  hang  his  head  in  shame. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  light  of  the 
fact  that  this  problem  has  been  brought  to  the 
minister's    attention,    will    he    undertake    to 


50 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


bring  it  to  the  federal  minister's  attention? 
Will  he  put  pressure  on  him?  This  minister  is 
a  pretty  hard-nosed  guy.  Go  after  him. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Lewis:   Mr.   Speaker,  I  know  nothing 
of  federal  politics— 

An  hon.  member:  It  runs  in  the  family. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


MAPLE  MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism. 

When  is  the  minister  releasing  all  of  the 
feasibility  studies  and  documents  related  to 
the  proposed  Maple  Mountain  project  in 
northeastern  Ontario? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Good  question. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  why? 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my  intention  to 
release  those  reports  as  soon  as  I  have  re- 
ported to  cabinet  on  the  full  facts  and  the 
meanings  of  the  report.  We  have  had  input 
from  some  of  the  people  in  the  various  minis- 
tries whom  we  have  asked  to  comment  on 
them.  That  should  be,  likely,  within  the  next 
10  days. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Within  the  next  10  days? 

A  further  question:  When  the  minister  sub- 
mits those  reports  can  he  indicate  to  the 
House  the  effect  of  the  title  claims  which  have 
been  registered  by  the  Indian  band  against 
all  of  the  property  within  which  Maple  Moun- 
tain fall's  and  the  possible  legal  implications 
of  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  gov- 
ernment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  that  can  be  included  in  the  reports  at 
the  time  we  bring  them  to  the  House  for  the 
simple  reason  it  will  take  some  period  of 
time  to  look  at  the  validity  of  the  claims 
placed  before  the  government.  I  have  asked 
the  Attorney  General  and  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  to  review  the  situation  and 
to  report  back  to  me  and,  in  turn,  to  cabinet. 
If  it  is  possible  we  will  include  it;  if  not  it 
will  be  brought  into  the  House  at  a  later  date. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right;  thank  you. 


HALL  LAMP  CO. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
Minister  of  Labour.  Now  that  we  are  into  the 
new  year  can  he  tell  the  House  what  finally 
happened  to  the  600  employees  of  the  Hall 
Lamp  Co.? 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  reply  to  the  hon.  member,  I  am 
sure  he  is  aware  by  now  that  we  did  every- 
thing within  our  power  to  collect  from  the 
Hall  Lamp  Co.  every  dollar  in  salaries  or 
wages  owed  to  the  employees.  We  have  done 
this;  also  any  amount  owing  to  them  with 
reference  to  vacation  pay.  Unfortunately  as 
far  as  termination  pay  is  concerned  we  could 
not  get  anything  from  the  company. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  a  penny? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  No. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  does 
the  minister  understand  that  he  was  used 
and  manipulated  by  a  private  company,  a 
private  subsidiary  in  Ontario,  to  give  voice 
in  this  Legislature  about  a  temporary  shut- 
down which  was,  in  fact,  permanent  from  the 
day  it  occurred?  Therefore,  he  participated 
with  that  company  in  the  denial  to  600  people 
of  the  rights  which  he  has  guaranteed  them 
under  legislation  and,  in  the  last  several 
weeks,  has  taken  away  from  them?  Can  he 
find  some  way  of  avoiding  that  ever  happen- 
ing again  to  a  large  number  of  people  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario? 

Mr.  Deans:  He  was  had. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  was  had  by  a  company. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  of  course, 
hindsight  is  much  easier  than  foresight.  None- 
theless, we  are  looking  at  our  legislation  to 
see  what  we  can  do  in  the  case  of  bank- 
ruptcy. This  is  a  case  of  bankruptcy;  as  mem- 
bers know  it  is. 

Mr.  Deans:  But  the  minister  was  told. 
Right  from  day  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  We  were  told.  We  have 
no  control  over  the  Bankruptcy  Act. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  didn't  declare  bankruptcy 
for  weeks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  This  comes  under 
federal  legislation,  as  members  know. 


HALL  LAMP  CO. 

Mr.  Lewis:  For  weeks  they  didn't  declare 
bankruptcy. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


51 


1  have  a  questicai  on  that  subject  of  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism.  I  take  it 
that,  in  fact,  no  loan  was  granted  or  is  to  be 
granted  through  the  Ontario  Development 
Corp.  to  reopen  the  Hall  Lamp  Co.  for  other 
purposes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated to  the  House  some  weeks  ago,  in  the 
last  sitting,  there  were  several  firms  interested 
in  trying  to  pick  up  the  pieces  of  Hall  Lamp. 
Our  ministry,  through  Ontario  Development 
Corp.— I  should  say  both  the  ministry  and 
the  Ontario  Development  Corp.  met  with 
several  firms  to  discuss  the  possibility  of  put- 
ting the  operation  back  together.  None  of 
them  could  put  up  the  capital  funds  required. 

I  might  admit  that  there  were  two  or 
three  companies  which  went  in  and  finished 
off  some  of  the  products  for  which  they  were 
waiting  for  delivery  to  their  plants  and  they 
did  use  part  of  the  labour  force  for  a  period 
of  time.  But  no  one  at  this  point  has  picked 
up  the  pieces,  because  the  capital  investment 
is  too  great  and  the  firms  we  were  talking 
with  did  not  have  the  resources  to  put  them- 
selves in  that  position. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fair  enough.  So  it  was  an 
entire  disaster  from  day  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  it  was  an  entire  disaster.  We  have  bank- 
ruptcies in  this  province  and  on  many  occa- 
sions this  government  has  tried  through  the 
Ontario  Development  Corp.— 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  wasn't  a  bankruptcy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —to  stabilize  the  firm  to 
retain  and  maintain  the  employment  in  that 
particular  operation  or  operations. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  sure  didn't  do 
it  this  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  tried  in  every  area 
to  secure  the  position  of  the  firni  but  it  was 
an  impossibility,  and  it  would  not  have  been 
money  well  invested  by  the  government  of 
Ontario. 

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

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  A  supplementary 
of  the  minister:  Is  he  aware  that  a  Canadian 
firm,  along  with  the  former  managerial  staff 
of  Hall  Lamp,  submitted  a  bid  which  was  a 
very  reasonable  bid  to  the  receiver,  and  that 
the  receiver  has  failed  to  act  on  this  bid— and 
is  there  anything  that  the  minister  can  do  to 
speed  up  the  process  so  that  the  plant  can  be 
reactivated  and  put  back  into  operation? 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated earlier,  there  were  several  firms  that 
were  interested'  in  trying  to  pick  up  the  pieces 
of  Hall  Lamp.  The  one  the  member  speaks  of 
did  put  in  a  proposal.  It  was  my  understand- 
ing, in  information  given  to  us  by  the  re- 
ceiver, that  the  sums  of  money  put  forward 
by  the  organization  were  not  sufficient  to 
carry  the  position. 

Now,  I  can  review  it  again  with  the  re- 
ceiver and  the  people  in  Ontario  Develop- 
ment Corp.;  but  that  was  the  last  word  that 
I  had  had  on  the  Hall  Lamp  and  those  that 
were  interested  in  trying  to  re-establish  it. 

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


ACQUISITION  OF  LAKE  ONTARIO 
CEMENT  PROPERTY 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources:  Can  he  now  tell  the  House 
what  he  has  offered  for  the  acquisition  of  the 
Lake  Ontario  Cement  property  after  the  ex- 
propriation is  completed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  in- 
formed the  House  at  the  last  sitting  this 
matter  was  being  handled  by  the  Land  Com- 
pensation Board.  It  comes  under  the  Attorney 
General's  department.  I  am  informed  that 
an  independent  appraiser  was  engaged  and 
on  his  report  the  company  was  offered 
$150,000  on  Jan.  22.  The  company  rejected 
the  offer,  but  the  cheque  was  delivered  to 
the  firm  on  Feb.  15  and  has  not  been 
returned. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  has  further  questions? 


FEMALE  APPOINTMENTS  TO  WCB 

Mr.  Lewis:  One  very  quick  question  of  the 
Premier,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  Premier  just  made 
a  series  of  appointments  and  reappointments 
amounting  to  five  in  number  to  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Board— to  the  highest 
portion  of  that  board  dealing  with  adminis- 
tration and  appeals— not  a  single  one  of 
which  appointments  was  a  woman.  Does  that 
reflect  the  new  tenure  of  the  Throne  Speech? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I— 

An  hon.  member:  Tenure? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Tenor,  I  am  sorry. 


52 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  going 
to  ask  about  tenure.  We  on  this  side  of  the 
House  will  make  sure  the  tenure  is  continued 
as  far  as  the  affairs  of  this  government  are 
concerned. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South): 
Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  As  far  as  the  tenor  of 
the  Throne  Speech  is  concerned,  I  think 
what  was  stated  there  is  not  only  an  obvious 
fact,  but  many  of  the  appointments  that  have 
been  made  in  recent  months  would  sub- 
stantiate it. 

With  respect  to  the  appointments  to  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board,  there  is  not 
a  woman  in  that  particular  group.  But  I  can 
assure  the  hon.  member— because  I  know  he 
is  interested  in  women  being  appointed— that 
there  are  two  or  three  other  appointees  to  be 
made  to  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board, 
and  it  is  our  hope  to  have  a  woman  as  one 
of  those. 

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


NO-FAULT  AUTOMOBILE  INSURANCE 

Mr.  Singer:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Premier.  In  view  of  the  Premier's  statement 
not  too  long  ago  that  we  could  expect  new 
no-fault  automobile  insurance  laws  in  On- 
tario, and  in  view  of  the  recent  publicity 
given  to  a  proposal  along  these  lines  by  the 
insurance  industry,  is  that  the  kind  of  new 
law  that  the  Premier  had  in  mind?  Or  in  view 
of  the  reaction  that  that  proposal  has  re- 
ceived from  portions  of  the  insurance  in- 
dustry—and certainly  from  the  legal  profes- 
sion and  from  many  members  of  the  public- 
would  the  Premier  be  prepared  to  set  up  a 
select  committee  to  inquire  into  this  whole 
problem— including  rates,  no-fault  principles, 
the  extensions  of  our  law— so  that  Ontario 
might  perhaps  have  a  better  law  than  it 
now  has? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Please  say  no. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
intend  to  establish  a  select  committee  on  that 
subject,  certainly  at  this  moment.  I  don't 
really  recall  saying  that  we  are  going  to  have 
a  new  no-fault  insurance  programme.  I  do 
recall  speaking  to  a  group  of  insurance  peo- 
ple some  time  ago— this  will  upset  my  friends 
over  here;  hopefully  not  those  across  the 
House;  certainly  not  the  member  from— well, 
never  mind^that  we  did  not  intend  as  a  gov- 
ernment to  get  into  the  insurance  business. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Who  is  that  constituent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  I  made  it  very  clear 
that  we  expected  the  insurance  industry  to 
act  in  a  responsible  way  reflecting  the  legiti- 
mate  concerns   of  the   public   generally. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  who  gave  generously  to 
the  Premier's  party— yes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  recall  saying  there 
would  be  a  new  no-fault  insurance  scheme. 

Mr.  Singer:  I've  got  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  think  I  said  that. 
Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  has  been  a  report.  A 
report  was  sent  to  the  minister  responsible, 
which  has  provoked  some  discussion.  I  think 
The  Advocates'  Society  is  one  group  that  has 
registered  some  objection. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Haven't  heard  of 
lawyers— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  The  Advocates' 
Society— and  I  don't  quarrel  with  The  Ad- 
vocates' Society— were  represented  primarily 
by  people  in  the  legal  profession- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Boy,  were  they  mad.  The  loss 
of  clients. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  They  were  upset,  weren't 
they? 

An  hon.  member:  Yes,  so  was  the— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  I  think  their  concern, 
though,  was  not— 

Mr.  Singer:  They  have  Tory  presidents  as 
members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  in  fairness  it  re- 
lated to— and  I  don't  want  to  get  into  a 
lengthy  discussion— the  question  of  the  appli- 
cation of  the  law  of  tort. 

Mr.  Singer:  That  is  an  important  facet  of 
the  discussion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That's  right.  And  I  think 
that  is  somewhat  relevant.  I  think  it  is  also 
important  to  point  out- 
Mr.  Lewis:   It  should  relate  a  little  more 
to  the  law  of  income. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  it  is  also  important 
to  point  out,  and  I  say  this  to  our  friends  in 
the  socialist  group- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Aha! 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  I  know  they  are 
trying  to  become  more  conservative  but  they 
haven't  convinced  us  yet. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


53 


Mr.  Lewis:  No,  no,  no. 

An  hon.  member:  A  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  personal  privilege, 
the  Premier  has  called  me  many  things  be- 
fore but  never  a  socialist  and  I  was  pleased 
to  acknowledge  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  I  used  that  in  the 
very  broad  sense  of  the  word.  I  have  used 
stronger  terminology,  I  must  confess.  Now, 
where  was  I  before  I  was  interrupted? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  Premier  interrupted 
himself. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  was  saying  I  think  part  of 
the  discussion  has  also  made  one  point  very 
obvious  and  I  think  it  needs  to  be  restated 
in  this  House.  Many  people  who  have  referred 
to  this  report  say  that  the  whole  approach 
taken  by  the  Province  of  Ontario  with  re- 
spect to  automobile  insurance  happens  to  be 
one  of  the  best  schemes  operating  anywhere 
in  the  world.  Now  these  are  friends  of  the 
members  opposite  who  have  said  this,  not  me. 

Mr.  Singer:  Are  we  going  to  have  a  com- 
mittee to  study  this? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  doubt  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Health,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  sorry,  the  hon.  member 
for  Ottawa  East  has  a  supplementary,  which 
I  will  permit. 

Mr.  Roy:  Among  the  proposals  of  the  in- 
surance company  criticized  by  The  Advo- 
cates' Society  I  would  like  to  bring  to  the 
Premier's  attention  is  apparently  the  right 
of  subrogation  by  OHIP  from  the  insurance 
company,  which  as  the  government  knows 
is  something  like  $10  million  a  year.  Does  the 
Premier  agree  with  that  proposal,  which  in 
fact  would  be  the  taxpayers  subsidizing  the 
insurance  company? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  To  be  very  frank,  I  try 
to  take  in  a  lot  of  information.  I  will  con- 
fess to  the  member  that  I  just  haven't  assess- 
ed it  very  carefully  personally  so  I  won't  ofiFer 
any  point  of  view. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


ROLE  OF  CHIROPRACTORS 

Mr.  Shulman:  To  the  Minister  of  Health, 
Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  statements  made 
by  certain  chiropractors  last  week,  and  re- 
ported in  the  Ottawa  Citizen,  that  they  are 
treating  under  OHIP  asthma  and  diabetes, 
what  steps  has  the  minister  taken?  Does  he 
intend  to  pay  claims  of  this  nature?  Does  he 
intend  to  do  anything  to  protect  the  public? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  If  the  members  could 
keep  it  up  for  two  more  minutes,  question 
period  will  be  over. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  honeymoon's  over 
now,  let's  hear  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  minister  hasn't  made  a 
mistake  yet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  the  question  being 
asked  by  the  member  for  High  Park  is  a  very 
good  one. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  That  in  itself  is  a  change. 
However,  we  are  of  course  looking  at  the 
Tole  of  the  chiropractor  and  under  the  Health 
Disciplines  bill  this  whole  question  is  going 
to  be  discussed.  I'm  not  prepared  at  this 
time  to  say  what  in  fact  is  the  scope  of  prac- 
tice of  a  chiropractor  and  what  is  not.  I  can 
only  say  that  in  due— what  is  the  word?;  in 
the  fullness  of  time?— 

An  hon.  member:  He's  going  places. 

Mr.  Ruston:  The  Premier  better  turn 
around. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  come  the  minister  looked 
at  the  Premier  to  find  that  out? 

Mr.  Deans:  Going  to  have  to  sit  him  the 
other  way  so  that  he  can  conduct. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  —we  will  in  fact  be  mak- 
ing that  determination. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary,  if  I  may, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Does  that  mean  that  at  the  pres- 
ent time  chiropractors  and  others— perhaps 
podiatrists— can  treat  asthma  or  cancer  or  dia- 
betes or  anything  else  if  they  wish  and  the 
minister  is  going  to  make  no  limitations  at 
the  present  time  but  we're  going  to  wait  for 
the   fulkess   of  time  to  protect  the  public? 

Mr.  Jessiman:  He  didn't  say  that. 


54 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An.  hon.  member:  Is  the  minister  going  to 
pay  them  for  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  did  not  say  that.  I 
think  the  member  will  find  that  this  was  one 
of  the  major  issues  in  the  study  of  the  role 
of  the  various  components  of  the  health  de- 
livery system  undertaken  a  couple  of  years 
ago— the  question  as  to  whether  in  fact  the 
practice  of  chiropractic  permitted  the  treat- 
ment of  organic  disorders  or  not.  I  am  quite 
aware  of  the  position  of  the  medical  pro- 
fession on  this.  I,  as  yet,  have  not  tried  to 
reach  an  opinion  on  it.  I  am  going  to  have 
this  information  before  me  when  this  part 
comes  up  and  the  study  is  going  on  now. 

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


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  A 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications:  Is  it  a  fact  that  there 
are  negotiations  taking  place  with  his  ministry 
now  to  alter  the  contract  with  Krauss-MafFei 
and,  if  so,  what  is  the  nature  of  these  nego- 
tiations, and  what  are  the  financial  implica- 
tions of  these  negotiations? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transpor- 
tation and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
am  not  aware  of  any  negotiations  going  on 
at  this  time.  I  would  trust  that  the  hon. 
members  opposite  will  appreciate  the  fact 
that  I  am  going  to  take  some  time  to  under- 
stand all  of  the  intricacies  of  this  particular 
situation. 

Mr.  Singer:  Probably  until  the  session  is 
over,  yes. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  going  to  take  some  time. 
Even  the  Premier  doesn  t  understand  it  yet. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications  has  the  answer  to 
a  question  asked  previously. 


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
member  for  York-Forest  Hill,  who  apparently 
is  going  to  do  this  regularly,  asked  a  question 
yesterday: 

Would  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  explain  why  there  has 
been  delay  in  the  awarding  of  the  guide- 
way  in  the  station  contracts  of  the  Krauss- 


Maff^ei  experiment  in  the  CNE  which  were 
promised  for  December  and  January? 

First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  do  not  accept 
that  there  has  been  a  delay.  The  construction 
of  the  guideway  at  the  CNE  is  being  accom- 
plished by  the  developer  under  several  sepa- 
rate subcontracts.  The  first  operation,  after 
the  design  advanced  to  the  point  that  column 
locations  were  known,  was  to  relocate  the 
existing  utilities.  ThLs  relocation  work  was 
done,  pardy  by  subcontract  and  partly  by  the 
utility  companies  involved.  The  tenders  for 
the  utility  relocation  subcontract  closed  Dec. 
12,  1973,  and  this  work  is  now  completed. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  man  of  the  year  said 
they  would  be  let  in  October. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  second  operation 
was  the  installation  of  the  column  founda- 
tions. The  tenders  for  the  subcontract  closed 
on  Nov.  7,  1973,  and  this  work  is  approxi- 
mately 50  per  cent  completed,  with  221 
caissons  completed  of  481  caissons  required, 
and  will  be  completed  about  May  1. 

The  third  operation  is  the  construction 
and  erection  of  the  columns  and  beams.  The 
subcontract  for  this  work  was  advertised 
today  and  the  work  will  proceed,  if  weather 
permits,  this  spring.  The  subcontract  for  the 
column  and  beam  components  of  the  guide- 
way  has  been  called  in  sequence  and  within 
an  acceptable  schedule  for  the  work. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Where  is  the  member 
for  York-Forest  Hill  getting  his  information? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  got  it  from  the 
Premier's  speech. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Yes, 
thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  The  Premier  is  3%  months 
late  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  had  asked  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  the  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  stand  corrected.  The  hon. 
member  for  Wentworth. 

Mr.  Good:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Revenue. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Wentworth  is  next,  I  am  sorry. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


55 


SPENDING  CEILINGS  IN  EDUCATION 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Education.  Is  it  the  inten- 
tion of  the  minister  to  revise  the  spending 
ceilings  in  education  this  current  year  in 
addition  to  the  ones  last  year,  and  if  so,  will 
he  make  the  announcement  soon  in  order 
that  there  will  not  be  any  need  to  restart 
negotiations  after  the  announcement  is  made? 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
I  don't  know  exactly  what  the  hon.  member 
is  driving  at  except  that  perhaps  some  boards 
have  been  sending  us  in  briefs  indicating 
that  there  have  been  changes  in  the  economy 
since  the  1974  ceilings  were  announced  in 
August,  1973.  We  have  been  studying  those 
briefs  very  carefully  and  some  time  shortly 
will  make  a  comment  on  all  those  briefs  from 
the  various  boards. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well,  one  supplemexitary  ques^ 
tion:  Does  that  mean  that  there  is  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  revision  in  the  spending  ceilings 
for  education  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  this 
year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  All  I  can  tell  the  hon. 
member  is  that  we  are  studying  the  briefs 
that  the  various  boards  have  sent  in  indicat- 
ing changes  in  the  cost  of  living  figures  that 
apply  to  their  budgets. 

Mr.  Lewis:  In  other  words,  by  way  of 
supplementary,  the  minister  is  going  to  revise 
the  ceilings  upwards,  allegedly  to  meet  the 
inflationary  spiral,  but  in  fact  to  try  to  take 
the  heat  off  present  government  policy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  didn't  say  that  at  all.  I 
said  we  were  studying  the  briefs  that  were 
sent  in.  Now  surely,  as  responsible  persons 
over  here  in  a  ministry,  we  should  study  what 
boards,  in  good  faith,  send  in  to  us. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  await  an  aimouncement. 
The  minister  should  make  the  announcement 
soon  because  negotiations  are  under  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Those  briefe  have  been 
sent  in,  they  are  being  studied  and  they  will 
all  be  answered.  They  haven't  been  answered 

yet. 

Mr.    Deans:    Okay.    Please  don't   wait  too 

long. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Waterloo  North. 


ASSESSMENTS  ON  MOBILE  HOMES 

Mr.    Good:    Thank    you,    Mr.    Speaker.    A 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  In  view 


of  the  fact  that  recent  court  decisions  have 
allowed  that  assessments  can  be  made  on 
mobile  homes  under  the  general  provisions  of 
the  Assessment  Act,  which  was'  not  previously 
dione,  does  the  minister  consider  that  this  is 
the  intent  of  the  present  legislation?  If  it  is 
not,  would  he  take  steps  to  amend  the  legis- 
lation, or  would  he  see  that  the  Municipal 
Act  is  amended  so  that  municipalities  cannot 
put  their  $20  per  month  levy  on  the  same 
mobile  homes  which  are  being  assessed  under 
the  general  provisions  of  the  Assessment  Act? 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  my  ministry  will  have  to  take  a 
look  at  that  court  case  and  determine  whether 
that  interpretation  is  in  fact  the  one  which 
the  government  intended  to  be  placed  on  the 
section.  If  it  should  turn  out  that  it  is  not,  I 
think  we  would  have  to  look  very  carefully 
at  suitable  amendments.  If  those  amendments 
are  required  to  be  made  under  the  Municipal 
Act,  they  would  be  made,  of  course,  in  an- 
other ministry,  but  if  they  were  to  be  made 
under  the  Assessment  Act,  then  it  would  be 
a  question  for  my  own  ministry.  I  may  have 
more  I  can  say  on  that  in  the  not  too  distant 
future. 

Mr.  Good:  Just  one  short  supplementary: 
Could  the  minister  assure  the  members  of 
the  House  that  people  living  in  mobile  homes 
will  not  be  subject  to  double  taxation  under 
the  two  respective  Acts?  This  is  what  people 
want  to  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly 
it  is  not  the  intention  of  the  government  that 
the  owners  and  residents  of  mobile  homes 
would  be  double-taxed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  presented  the  report  of 
the  Ministry  of  Government  Services'  for  the 
year  ending  March  31,  1973,  and  the  report 
of  the  Provincial  Auditor  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1973. 

!Hon.  Mr.  Irvine  presented  the  general  de- 
velopment agreement  and  the  federal-provin- 
cial subsidiary  agreement  for  regional  eco- 
nomic development  in  the  Cornwall  area 
which  were  signed  between  the  federal  and 
Ontario  governments  at  Cornwall  on  Feb.  26, 
1974. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


56 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


PRACTISE  OF  DENTAL 
PROSTHESIS  ACT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Practise 
of  Dental  Prosthesis. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill 
allows  denturists  to  take  impressions,  con- 
struct and  fit  complete  upper,  lower  and 
partial  dentures,  and  deal  directly  with  the 
public.  This  is  the  same  bill  that  was  before 
the  Legislature  in  my  name  during  the  last 
sessions. 


ment  of  Regional  Economic  Expansion,  and  a 
subsidiary  agreement  under  which  the  gov- 
ernments of  Canada  and  Ontario  will  con- 
tribute approximately  $14  million  to  develop- 
ment projects  in  Cornwall.  In  the  coming 
months  I  hope  we  will  sign  additional  agree- 
ments covering  other  areas.  The  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  allow  municipalities  to  join  us 
in  both  financing  and  undertaking  a  broad 
range  of  regional  economic  development  pro- 
grammes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  anxious  to  have  this 
bill  passed  quickly  so  that  we  can  enter  into 
an  agreement  v^dth  the  city  of  Cornwall.  I 
will  be  taking  it  through  the  legislative  proc- 


MILK  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Milk  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  briefly  the  bill 
simply  follows  up  on  changes  that  were  made 
in  the  Milk  Act  last  year  and  transfers  cer- 
tain powers  from  the  commission  to  the 
director  of  the  dairy  branch. 


DEVELOPMENTAL  SERVICES  ACT  1974 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled,  the  Developmental  Services  Act 
1974. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  pur- 
pose of  this  bill  is  to  transfer  administrative 
responsibility  for  facilities  for  mentally  re- 
tarded persons  from  the  Ministry  of  Health 
to  the  Ministry  of  Commimity  and  Social 
Services.  This  bill  is  part  of  a  broad  policy  to 
implement  the  provision  of  a  complete  range 
of  social  services  in  the  community  for 
mentally  retarded  persons. 


MUNICIPAL  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.    An   Act   to   amend   the   Municipal 

Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  on  Feb.  26  the  Treasurer 
(Mr.  White)  had  the  privilege  of  signing  a 
general  development  agreement  relating  to 
activities  in   Ontario  of  the  federal  Depart- 


ONTARIO  HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Ontario 
Human  Rights  Code. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill 
provides  for  three  minor  amendments  to 
clarify  the  interpretation  of  the  code,  and 
one  amendment  which  is  of  a  housekeeping 
nature. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  thought  the  minister  was  go- 
ing to  take  over  the  investigation  into  the 
Human  Rights  Commission. 


MENTAL  HEALTH  ACT 

Mr.  Roy  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  to  amend  the  Mental  Health 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  this 
bill  is  to  safeguard  the  rights  of^ individuals 
deemed  abnormal  by  police  oflBcers,  who  are 
taken  to  mental  institutions  against  their  will. 
This  bill  would  make  an  amendiment  under 
section  10  of  the  Mental  Health  Act  to  re- 
quire that  a  person  who  has  been  detained 
under  that  section  of  the  Act  be  given  a 
medical  examination  and  brought  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace  within  24  hours  to  justify 
his  detention.  As  the  Act  is  presently 
written,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  no  safeguards 
for  individuals  and  this  is  a  potentially 
dangerous  situation. 

Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston  (St.  Catharines):   Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  All  right. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


57 


Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston  moves  first  reading  of 
Bill  Pr2. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Too  late. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  just  bombed. 
He'll  have  to  try  again. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  vdsh  to  inform  the  hon. 
member  that  the  time  has  not  approached, 
at  this  point,  for  the  reading  of  private  bills. 
They  haven't  gone  through  the  private  bills 
committee;  the  procedural  affairs  committee, 
in  fact. 

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.  Beckett  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Havrot,  that  a  humble  address  be  presented 
to  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
as  follows: 

To  the  Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald, 
PC,  CD,  QC,  LL.D,  Lieutenant  Governor 
of  Ontario; 

May  it  please  Your  Honour: 
We,  Her  Majesty's  most  dutiful  and  loyal' 
subjects  of  the  legislative  assembly  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario  now  assembled,  beg 
leave  to  thank  Your  Honour  for  the 
gracious  speech  Your  Honour  has  addressed 
to  us. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Brant- 
ford. 

Mr.  R.  B.  Beckett  (Brantford):  Mr.  Speaker, 
it  is  an  honour  and  a  privilege  for  me  to  be 
called  upon  to  move  this  address  to  His 
Honour  the  Lieutenant  Governor.  I  am  cer- 
tain all  members  of  this  Legislature  will  join 
me  in  thanking  His  Honour  for  his  words  of 
confidence  and  inspiration  which  will  surely 
guide  us  well  in  our  deliberations  in  the 
days  and  nights  ahead;  deliberations  which 
will,  indeed,  have  a  decided  effect  on  all 
of  us  in  Ontario  in  the  future  years. 

I  am  sure  all  members  of  this  Legislature 
will  join  me  in  an  expression  of  appreciation 
to  His  Honour  for  the  very  excellent  manner 
in  which  he  has  represented  Her  Majesty 
the  Queen  during  his  term  of  oflBce  as  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  of  Ontario.  We  all  regret 
that  his  term  of  office  is  shortly  to  be  com- 
pleted. 


The  Lieutenant  Governor  has  not  spared 
himself  in  his  constant  activities  throughout 
this  province.  He  has  visited  most  parts  of 
this  province  and  has  left  an  indelible  im- 
pression of  the  dignity  and  graciousness  that 
he  has  given  to  his  high  oflBce. 

He  has  taken  a  very  special  interest  in  the 
young  people  of  this  province  and  he  has 
inspired  them.  He  has  an  excellent  sense  of 
humour  and  has  established  a  rapport  with 
young  and  old  that  is  the  envy  of  all  people 
in  political  life. 

I'm  very  pleased  to  have  this  opportunity 
to  place  on  the  oflBcial  record  of  this  hon. 
assembly  my  personal  appreciation  of  the 
Lieutenant  Governor,  since  his  home  is  in  my 
riding  of  Brantford. 

As  all  hon.  members  are  aware,  W.  Ross 
Macdonald  served  the  citizens  of  Brantford 
for  many  years  as  the  Member  of  Parliament 
for  Brantford.  He  has  served  as  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Commons  in  Ottawa,  as  govern- 
ment leader  of  the  Senate,  and  as  a  Senator. 
His  many  accomplishments  in  the  public 
service  are  too  numerous  to  mention  today; 
however,  we  will  all  have  the  opportunity  to 
honour  this  great  Canadian  later  this  month 
and  I'm  sure  we  are  all  looking  forward  to 
this  happy  occasion. 

I  would  be  remiss  if  I  did  not  mention 
the  forthcoming  appointment  of  Mrs.  Pauline 
McGibbon  as  Her  Majesty's  representative  in 
Ontario.  I  am  sure  all  members  are  looking 
forward  to  Mrs.  McGibbon's  tenure  of  office 
with  great  anticipation  and  that  she  will 
bring  to  this  high  oflBce  the  graciousness  and 
distinction  to  which  we  have  become  accus- 
tomed. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  delighted  to  see  you 
back  in  the  chair  with  your  accustomed  good 
humour  and  apparent  good  health.  I  believe 
all  members  share  in  the  appreciation  of  the 
diflBcult  job  you  do  so  well.  There  are,  of 
course,  occasions  when  some  members  in  the 
heat  of  debate  will  be  unhappy  with  your 
decisions.  However,  I  am  confident  that  when 
the  heat  of  battle  cools  all  members  will 
agree  you  have  served  with  distinction  and 
with  fairness  to  all,  and  we  are  delighted  to 
see  you  there. 

I  wish  also  to  congratulate  the  new  mem- 
bers of  cabinet  who  have  new  responsibilities 
in  the  challenging  days  that  lie  ahead.  I  am 
sure  they  will  once  again  demonstrate  the 
qualities  of  leadership  which  have  made 
Ontario  the  great  province  that  it  is  today. 
The  former  cabinet  members  deserve  our 
respect  and  appreciation  for  their  years  of 
excellent  service  to  the  people  of  the  prov- 


58 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ince.  I  am  delighted  that  we  will  continue 
to  have  the  benefit  of  their  experience  and 
counsel  in  this  assembly. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Speech  from  the  Throne 
indicates  to  this  assembly  and  to  the  citizens 
of  this  province  the  concerns  of  the  govern- 
ment and  its  proposals  to  deal  with  these 
concerns.  I  feel  that  the  speech  delivered  last 
Tuesday  by  His  Honour  was  an  excellent 
Throne  Speech  because  it  clearly  indicates 
that  this  government  recognizes  its  respon- 
sibilities, is  prepared  to  accept  these  respon- 
sibilities and,  most  important,  to  act  in  a 
responsible  manner. 

The  Throne  Speech  faced  up  to  today's 
realities  of  inflation  and  the  energy  problem. 
It  rightly  placed  inflation  as  a  country-wide 
problem  that  can  only  be  dealt  with  on  a 
country-wide  basis.  It  made  no  pie  in  the 
sky  proposals  on  either  inflation  or  energy 
but  it  did  promise  the  essential  co-operation 
with  the  government  of  Canada  and  the  other 
provinces  so  that  these  problems  can  be 
minimized  to  the  benefit  of  all. 

The  programmes  announced  to  improve  es- 
sential services  to  remote  areas  of  the  prov- 
ince deserve  the  support  of  all  members  of 
this  assembly.  I  think  it  is  important  to  re- 
member that  the  speech  emphasized  consul- 
tation and  co-operation  with  those  wishing  to 
participate.  The  Polar  Gas  project  is  an  excit- 
ing project  with  great  future  significance  to 
our  province.  A  James  Bay  area  port  could 
bring  benefits  to  that  area  and  to  all  the 
province. 

I  am  pleased  to  note  the  improved  loan 
programmes  and  financial  assistance  will  con- 
tinue to  be  available  to  tourist  operators, 
small  businesses  and  service  industries.  The 
key  word  here  is  improve  because  although 
the  loans  and  assistance  have  been  available 
the  conditions,  in  my  opinion,  have  been  too 
restrictive.  Small  businesses  are  the  backbone 
of  Ontario's  economy  and  they  merit  real 
assistance.  Small  businesses  provide  a  great 
deal  of  varied  employment  for  our  citizens. 

Having  served  on  the  select  committee  on 
the  utilization  of  educational  facilities,  I  wel- 
come the  statement  that  the  government  pro- 
poses to  expand  academic  and  cultural  oppor- 
tunities in  the  open  sector  of  post-secondary 
education.  The  extension  (rf  educational 
broadcasts  within  the  province  is  a  further 
step  that  will  provide  a  needed  service  which 
has  been  largely  confined  to  the  Metro  To- 
ronto area.  New  and  innovative  educational 
materials  for  school  and  college  students  as 
well  as  persons  learning  at  home  is  good 
news  for  those  interested  or  concerned  with 
such  needs.  Let's  get  on  with  it. 


I  am  sure  that  all  members  will  welcome 
the  announcement  of  an  income  support  pro- 
gramme to  aid  Ontario's  older  citizens  and 
for  the  disabled.  These  two  groups  of  our 
population  have  been  caught  in  the  infla- 
tionary spiral.  The  only  probable  disagree- 
ment will  be  in  how  much  support  and  how 
soon  will  the  support  be  available.  I  have,  as 
every  other  member  of  this  House  has,  I  am 
sure,  many  people  in  my  riding  whom  I 
will  recommend  for  such  income  support.  The 
proposal  for  a  prescription  drug  plan  for 
senior  citizens  will  also  be  good  news.  We  all 
must  know  of  many  senior  citizens  whose 
lives  will  be  made  easier  with  such  assist- 
ance. 

The  new  programmes  for  assistance  to  co- 
operative daycare  centres  in  low-income  areas, 
the  making  available  of  resources  to  expand 
high  priority  services  such  as  those  for  handi- 
capped children,  children  from  low-income 
families  and  native  children,  are  all  commend- 
able. But  the  proposal  I  like  best  is  the  re- 
view of  the  regulations  with  the  aim  of  re- 
moving unnecessary  impediments  to  the  crea- 
tion of  new  services. 

iMr.  Speaker,  not  being  trained  in  law  I  do 
not  pretend  to  imdierstand  all  of  the  Ontario 
Law  Reform  Commission's  report  on  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  courts.  However,  I  am 
sure  that  there  are  more  than  enough  in  this 
House  who  are  trained  in  law,  and)  if  they 
can  agree  on  a  plarmed  programme  of  imple- 
mentation for  judicial  areas  and  for  the  rota- 
tion of  judges  and  trial  centres  throughout 
these  areas  after  consultation  with  those 
affected,  I  will  be  content. 

If,  however,  this  should  mean  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  additional  provincial  judge  in  the 
provincial  court  in  Brantford,  I  will  be 
grateful.  The  city  coimcil  of  Brantford  and 
the  Brant  Coimty  Bar  Association  have  re- 
quested such  an  additional  appointment  to 
facilitate  the  court  procedtures  in  Brant 
county.  The  present  judge  has  had  no  other 
recourse  than  to  adijourn  cases  from  February 
to  June  because  of  his  heavy  docket. 

I  welcome  the  new  procedures  in  the  Min- 
istry of  Correctional  Services,  the  proposal 
for  legislation  on  consumer  prodtict  warran- 
ties and  guarantees,  and  new  redress  pro- 
cedures in  the  field  of  the  Ministry  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations. 

I  am  sure  that  all  members,  in  our  un- 
official role  as  ombudsmen,  have  been  frus- 
trated in  the  past  in  these  matters  of  better 
protection  for  consumers.  Caveat  Emptor— let 
the  buyer  beware— is  not  a  good  slogan  in 
these  days  of  high-pressure  sales  made  to  un- 


MARCH  7,  1974 


59 


wary   purchasers  who  too  often  are   in   the 
low-income  bracket. 

Before  some  hon.  members  feel  I  am  too 
happy,  I  would  like  to  indicate  that  I  am  not 
happy  with  some  of  the  implications  of  a 
mandatory  use  of  automobile  seat  belts.  I  am 
not  happy  with  a  law  that  apparently  would 
be  so  difficult  to  enforce  and  so  easy  to  evade. 
I  also  have  been  told  of  several  incidents 
where  survival  of  an  automobile  dtiver  or 
passenger  has  been  possible  because  the  seat 
belt  was  not  being  used.  People  have  been 
trapped,  I  have  been  informed,  by  seat  belts 
in  automobile  accidents. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Is  the  member  going  to  vote  for  the  bill? 

Mr.  Beckett:  I  am  sure  that  this  matter  will 
receive  much  attention  before  legislation  is 
passed,  and  at  this  time  I  will  await  further 
evidence  before  casting  my  vote. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Very  healthy  attitude. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  going  to  abstain. 

Mr.  Beckett:  I  particularly  approve  of  the 
special  efforts  that  will  be  made  to  encour- 
age local  initiatives  for  community-based 
mental-retardation  services,  including  new 
community  residences.  Assistance  to  a  larger 
number  of  physically  and  mentally  disabled 
persons  in  their  own  communities  is  impor- 
tant. Such  persons  are  nearly  always  happier 
in  familiar  surroundings  and  not  in  some 
massive  far-away  institution.  The  burden  of 
extensive  and  costly  travel  for  visiting  pur- 
poses is  also  removed  from  the  families  of 
such  persons. 

'The  health  planning  task  force  report, 
chaired  by  Dr.  Eraser  Mustard,  and  its  pro- 
posals for  the  further  development  of  a  com- 
prehensive health  plan  will  be  studied  with 
eager  anticipation.  Dr.  Mustard  has  an  im- 
pressive reputation  and  I  hope  his  task  force 
report  is  as  frank  as  he  has  been  in  person. 

I  welcome  the  new  housing  proposals.  In 
my  own  riding  of  Brantford,  where  the  major 
urban  centre  is  the  city  of  Brantford,  there 
is  a  major  building  boom  in  reisidential  units 
but  the  shortage  of  serviced  land  will  shortly 
curtail  this  programme. 

Land  costs  are  already  too  high  and  will 
likely  continue  to  rise  as  the  shortage  con- 
tinues. In  Brantford,  withoilt  the  small  On- 
tario Housing  Home  Ownership  Madfe  Easy 
programme  this  year,  it  would  be  nearly  im- 
possible for  the  low-  or  medium-income 
earners  to  purchase  a  home.  My  personal  con- 
viction is  that  these  land  costs  will  not  come 
down    or    even    level    off    until    there    is    a 


surplus  of  lots  available.  This  can  only  be 
achieved  by  the  development  of  serviced  land 
in  the  surrounding  township  of  Brantford. 
Such  development  can  be  achieved  if  the 
future  of  local  government  in  Brant  coimty 
is  shortly  resolved  and  some  further  assistance 
is  granted  to  municipalities  to  provide  sewer 
facilities. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Brantford 
might  try  some  public  ownership  as  well. 

Mr.  Beckett:  The  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
owns  approximately  1,000  acres  in  a  land 
bank  in  the  township  of  Brantford.  The  city 
could  physically  service  such  lands  soon  if 
municipal  boundaries  are  established  at  local 
government's  request  and.  with  ministerial 
approval.  Financial  assistance  by  the  prov- 
ince will  be  necessary  to  e^yedite  such 
mammoth  sewer  construction.  Lands  are  be^ 
ing  held  in  our  area  by  the  private  sector  for 
future  development  and  the  majority  of  the 
land  is  still  under  agricultural  production,  but 
if  it  were  not  I  would  request  the  imple- 
mentation of  government  assistance  to  ensure 
the  continued  agricultural  prodiiction  use  of 
these  lands.  I  believe  this  to  be  a  legitimate 
and  necessary  government  control. 

I'm  encouraged  by  the  neighbourhood 
improvement  programmes,  the  provincial 
home  renewal  programme,  and  hope  that 
these  plans  can  be  facilitated  as  soon  as 
possible. 

This  year  the  citizens  of  Brant  county  and 
Brantford  are  celebrating  the  centainial  of 
the  invention  of  the  telephone  by  Dr.  Alexan- 
der Graham  Bell  in  Brantford  in  1874. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  has  been  trouble 
ever  since. 

Mr.  Beckett:  To  those  of  you  who  thought 
that  Don  Ameche  in  the  Metro-Goldwyn- 
Mayer  production  invented  the  telephone  in 
Boston,  USA,  I  would  refer  you  to  the  offi- 
cial history  text  that  will  shoW^  that  Dr.  Bell 
in  his  Own  words  and  handwriting  confirmed 
that  the  telephone  was  indeed  invented  at 
Brantford.  These  celebrations  commenced  on 
Jan.  1,  1974,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  will  continue 
throughout  the  whole  year.  On  July  7  the 
Bell  centennial  parade  with  th^  theme, 
"Thank  you,  Dr.  Bell,"  will  be  held  with 
over  100  floats  and  many  marching  bands. 
I  take  pleasure  inviting  the  hon.  members 
of  this  House  and  their  families  to  attend 
and  see  what  will  probably  be  the  largest 
parade  ever  held  in  Canada. 

Mr.  C.  E.  Mcllyisen  ( Oshawa) :  Will  the 
member  for  Brantford  put  us  up?       ,  v,    , 


60 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Beckett:  Perhaps  the  members  of  this 
House  could  put  aside  political  feelings  for 
one  day  and  enter  a  float.  The  theme  of 
such  a  float  could  be  our  appreciation  to 
Dr.  Bell  for  providing  us  with  such  a  useful 
means  of  easy  communication  between  our- 
selves here  in  Toronto  and  with  the  citizens 
in  our  ridings. 

I'm  sure  that  some  hon.  members  will 
have  wished,  as  I  often  have,  that  Dr.  Bell 
had  stayed  in  bed  instead  of  inventing  a 
telephone,  but  if  he  hadn't  some  other  scien- 
tist would  have,  and  it  probably  would  not 
have  been  in  Brantford,  Ont.,  but  in  a  for- 
eign land  and  we  would  have  had  to  learn 
a  foreign  language. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Timis- 
kaming, 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Now  we  know  why  you  sent 
around  the  Turns. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  ( Timiskaming ) :  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  Wait  till  I  get  around  to 
that.  I'll  get  around  to  him. 

It  is  indeed  a  pleasure  and  a  privilege  for 
me  to  second  the  motion  of  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Brantford  for  the  adoption  of  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne. 

I  too  would  like  to  pay  tribute  to  His 
Honour  the  Lieutenant  Governor  for  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  carried  out  the 
duties  and  responsibilities  of  his  office.  He 
has  combined  charm  and  good  humour  with 
dignity  and  enthusiasm  and  vigour  with 
decorum. 

Before  I  get  on  with  the  details  of  my 
speech,  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  com- 
ments on  my  observations  as  a  first-term 
member  of  this  Legislature  during  the  past 
three  sessions.  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm 
very  much  impressed  with  your  great  dedi- 
cation and  ability  in  handling  the  daily  com- 
plex problems  of  this  House.  No  individual 
member,  whether  on  the  government  side 
or  in  opposition,  spends  as  much  time  in  the 
Legislature  listening  to  the  countless  hours 
of  debate  as  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  For  this  rea- 
son I  firmly  believe  you  must  have  the  most 
calloused  pair  of  ears  of  any  human  being 
in  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  my  impressions  of  the  oppo- 
sition members  in  this  Legislature  leave  me 
wondering  how  such  talent— listen  to  this— 
talent,  is  wasted  in  countless  hours  of  non- 
sensical childish  bickering.  I  am  told  that 
many  of  the  speeches  made  are  replays  from 
previous    years,    like    warmed-up    cofl'ee,    flat 


and  bitter,  or  like  baloney,  lots  of  filler  but 
very  little  meat. 

I  realize  it  is  very  diflBcult  for  opposition 
members  to  find  genuine  criticism  of  good 
government.  However,  I  would  assume  that 
they  would  at  least  spend  some  more  time 
looking  for  ways  and  means  of  further  im- 
proving our  system  of  government,  rather 
than  constantly  bellyaching  and  grand- 
standing. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Maybe 
the  hon.  member  should  follow  the  first  rule 
—and  that  is  that  he  can't  read  a  speech. 

Mr.  Havrot:  I  don't  know  which  is  worse, 
my  sore  back  or  his  voice. 

Much  has  been  said  about  televising  the 
debates  from  this  Legislature  for  the  people 
of  Ontario.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  very  much 
welcome  such  a  suggestion  as  it  would  once 
and  for  all  give  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario  a 
clearer  picture  as  to  how  our  democratic 
process  operates,  rather  than  relying  on 
biased  reports  from  the  press  gallery. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Havrot:   I  am  coming  to  them  now. 

As  one  who  has  great  concern  for  the 
welfare  of  my  fellow  man,  I  am  pleased  to 
provide  temporary  relief  to  the  opposition 
members  with  a  roll  of  tablets  for  "stomach 
orders  and  bellyaches"  in  the  hope  that  it 
may  create  some  harmony  in  this  House 
for  at  least  several  days. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  is  going  to  give  it  to 
the  rump  as  well,  I  hope. 

Mr.  Havrot:  No,  the  members  opposite 
are  the  only  fellows  who  will  get  it— don't 
worry. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
is  interested  in  what  the  member  has  to  say. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  So  is 
the  whole  cabinet. 

Mr.  Havrot:   Thank  you  very  much. 
Mr.    Speaker,    I    am    extremely    proud    to 
represent  my  people  in  the  riding  of  Timis- 
kaming, which  I  may  add  is  a  big  and  beau- 
tiful area- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 
Mr.  Havrot:  —almost  as  big  as  your  mouth. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  Havrot:  It  is  rated  by  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  and  the  Ministry  of  Indus- 


MARCH  7,  1974 


61 


try  and  Tourism  as  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
ridings  in  the  province.  It  stretches  from 
south  of  Latchford  for  over  100  miles  to 
north  of  Kirkland  Lake.  It  is  bounded  by  the 
Quebec  border  to  the  east  and  reaches  past 
Elk  Lake  to  the  west.  It  is  surrounded  by 
Cochrane  South  to  the  north.  Nickel  Belt  to 
the  west,  and  Nipissing  to  the  south;  and 
considering  the  political  aflRliation  of  the 
members  from  those  ridings,  I  may  be  for- 
given for  stating  that  there  are  ample  reasons 
for  regarding  Timiskaming  as  one  of  the  more 
intelligent  districts  in  the  north. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  One  can't  say  that  for  the 
member. 

Mr.  Havrot:  It  is  a  riding  which  is  largely 
dependent  upon  mining,  lumbering,  farming, 
tourism  and  light  manufacturing. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  And  Ed 
Havrot. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  greatest  area 
of  concern  is  the  lack  of  employment  oppor- 
tunities for  the  hundreds  of  capable  young 
people  graduating  annually  from  our  high 
schools  and  community  colleges  who  are 
lured  to  the  bright  spots  of  Toronto  and  the 
job  opportunities  of  the  "golden  horseshoe." 
The  north  has  become  an  educational  factory 
for  business  and  industry  of  southern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  major  step  to  stem  the 
flow  of  our  youth  from  the  north  I  would  like 
to  strongly  urge  my  government  to  take  im- 
mediate action  to  implement  the  Maple 
Mountain  project,  which  is  located  30  miles 
west  of  the  town  of  .Haileybury. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South): 
"George,"  we  wiU  send  you  these  Tums  over. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Solicitor  General  (Mr. 
Kerr)  just  fell  off  his  chair  on  that. 

Mr.  D.  W.  Ewen  (Wentworth  North):  Put 
your  hand  up,  "Comer,"  we  will  let  you  go 
to  the  bathroom. 

Mr.  Havrot:  During  the  past  two  years  this 
project  has  received  a  tremendous  amount  of 
publicity  by  all  the  media  across  the  prov- 
ince. I  might  also  add  that  it  has  received 
enthusiastic  support  from  municipal  councils 
in  northeastern  Ontario  from  Sudbury  to 
Kapuskasing,  representing  almost  a  quarter 
of  a  million  people. 

The  cost  of  this  proposed  project  has  been 
kicked  around  like  a  football,  ranging  any- 
where from  $40  million  to  $100  million.  An- 
other misconception  has  been  that  the  project 


will  be  funded  entirely  from  the  public 
sector.  This  is  not  so  and  here  are  the  facts: 

Stage  one:  Total  estimated  expenditure— 
$42  million.  Forty-six  percent  of  this  amount 
would  be  funded  over  a  five-year  peiiod  by 
the  provincial  and  federal  governments 
yielding  an  SVa  per  cent  return  on  investnient, 
and  the  balance  of  54  per  cent  from  the 
private  sector. 

Of  more  than  30  sites  thoroughly  investi- 
gated throughout  many  areas  of  the  province, 
Maple  Mountain  was  the  only  site  that  had 
all  the  ingredients  to  develop  a  year-round 
resort  community  providing  a  full  range  of 
recreational  activity  to  attract  large  numbers 
of  visitors  for  extended  periods  of  stay. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  hear  it  is  pretty  cold  for 
skiing  in  the  winter  up  there. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Well,  we  live  up  there.  How 
does   my  friend  figure  that  one? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It's  about  25  deg.  colder  than 
the  Laurentians. 

Mr.  Havrot:  It  is  2  deg.  colder,  the 
statistics  prove,  my  friend. 

The  potential  economic  and  social  benefits 
to  the  region  are  enormous.  Through  the  con- 
struction of  stage  one  alone  over  1,200 
people  would  be  employed.  Once  in  opera- 
tion, stage  one  would  employ  over  900 
people.  Most  of  those  would  commute  from 
the  Tritown  area. 

It  is  estimated  that  this  project  would 
attract  up  to  17.6  million  visitor  dollars  an- 
nually, compared  with  $7.3  million  for  the 
entire  riding  in  1972,  not  to  mention  those 
dollars  which  will  be  spent  directly  off-site 
and  throughout  the  region.  The  greatest  per- 
centage of  all  these  dollars,  through  labour 
costs  and  the  purchase  of  services,  goods  and 
supplies,  will  remain  in  the  north. 

Every  effort  will  be  made  to  encourage 
local  individual  and  corporate  financial  par- 
ticipation in  the  project,  and  such  would 
ensure  that  even  more  dollars  would  remain 
in  the  north.  I  might  add,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
many  northerners  have  already  expressed  a 
genuine  interest  to  invest  in  this  most  excit- 
ing project.  I  urge  the  government  to  con- 
sider what  this  project  will  mean,  not  just  to 
my  riding,  but  to  the  entire  north  country. 

Tourism  has  to  be  developed  in  the  north 
as  our  mines  and  forests  will  not  last  for- 
ever. It  can  and  will  provide  new  oppor- 
tunities for  private  capital.  It  can  provide 
many  hundreds  of  jobs  for  yoimg  people  who 
want  to  live  in  the  north.  If  we  have  a 
major   tourist   attraction,   international  in   its 


62 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


scope,  then  we  will  see  tourists  spill  out  all 
over  the  north,  but  we  desperately  need 
some  magnet  to  draw  them  into  the  area. 

Mr,  Cassidy:  They  will  take  the  bus  to 
Cobalt  and  buy  a  cup  of  coffee,  eh? 

Mr.  Havrot:  That  magnet,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  the  Maple  Mountain  project,  which  con- 
tains immense  potential  for  revitalizing  the 
north  country.  I  didn't  hear  the  member— 
a  little  louder  please. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  will  take  the  bus  to 
Cobalt  and  buy  a  cup  of  coffee.  That  is  the 
spin-off  from  that  proposition.  All  the  rest 
of  the  region  will  get  nothing  more. 

Mr.  Havrot:  That's  just  about  the  size  of 
the  member's  mind— about  the  size  of  a  cup 
of  coffee. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Another  great  area  of  concern 
to  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  has  been  the  decision  on 
the  part  of  most  ministries  at  Queen's  Park 
to  locate  the  bulk  of  regional  and  district 
oflBces  in  the  larger,  more  expensive  and 
prosperous  communities  of  the  north— com- 
pletely ignoring  the  smaller,  less  prosperous 
communities  which  are  struggling  for  sur- 
vival. I  strongly  feel  that  if  Ae  north  is  to 
grow,  it  must  grow  together  and  not  in  the 
isolated  population   growth  areas. 

This  problem  of  centralization  and  bureau- 
cratic thinking  extends  to  the  Ontario  North- 
land Railway.  Despite  all  kinds  of  eflForts  at 
the  political  level  to  make  the  ONR  a  vital 
andi  imaginative  development  growth,  it  is 
regarded  by  most  northerners  as  solely  a 
North  Bay  concern. 

To  elaborate  on  this  point,  North  Bay  does 
not  produce  a  dollar's  worth  of  revenue  for 
the  ONR,  yet  the  main  operations  are  con- 
centrated in  the  Bay.  The  communities  along 
the  system  which  help  prodtice  the  revenues 
are  gradually  being  downgraded  with  staff, 
workshop  and  equipment  reductions  —  and 
in  some  cases  are  being  phased  out  com- 
pletely. 

il  would  also  like  to  suggest  that  we  need 
yoimger  and  more  vigorous  commissioners 
and  the  appointment  of  a  commissioner  to 
represent  labour  on  the  ONR— 

Mr.  Ferrier:  They  need  a  new  chairman 
too. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  need  a  new  chairman, 
yes.  Take  the  land  speculators  out  of  the 
ONR. 


Mr.  Havrot:  The  members  opposite  couldn't 
hold  a  candle  to  him.  They  couldti't  hold  a 
candle  to  the  chairman.  The  only  thing  they 
have  got  longer  than  he  has  is  a  tongue.  I 
congratulate  my  government  on  the  improve- 
ment to  the  norOntair  service  and  the  utiliza- 
tion of  a  new  municipal  airstrip  at  Kirkland 
Lake.  This  excellent  facility  now  provides 
a  connecting  link  for  people  in  the  Kirkland 
Lake,  E*nglehart,  Earlton,  and  Tritown  with 
Air  Canada  and  Sudbury— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  the  member  bucking  for 
the  chairman's  job? 

Mr.  Havrot:  —  on  two  direct  return  flights 
daily  from  Toronto  with  an  average  flying 
time  of  only  two  hours  each  way. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  people  of  the  north  ap- 
preciate the  excellent  commimity  colfeges, 
but  I  feel  that  the  time  has  come  for  a  com- 
plete survey  of  community  college  facilities 
in  Ontario  and  that  no  more  should  be  built 
or  enlarged  until  our  present  facilities  are 
operating  at  capacity.  The  college  in  Kirk- 
land Lake  is  operating  at  about  50  per  cent 
capacity  and  the  situation  in  Timmins  isn't 
much  better.  I  see  constant  duplication  and 
outright  competition  with  taxpayers'  money 
between  the  colleges  in  Ontario  as  they  seek 
students.  It  would  make  more  sense  to  ofi^er 
increased  grants  to  southern  Ontario  students 
to  locate  in  the  north  rather  than  spend  more 
millions  in  expansion  in  the  south. 

I  am  well  aware  that  this  government  and 
the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller)  are  con- 
cerned over  the  increasing  costs  of  medical 
services.  I  do  suggest  that  we  should  replace 
the  present  cumbersome  billing  procedures 
with  a  simple  credit  card.  After  all,  if  you 
can  get  four  new  tires  and  a  grease  job 
simply  by  presenting  a  credit  card,  I  see  no 
reason  why  medical  attention  should  require 
so  much  paper  work. 

ISince  transportation  has  been  one  of  the 
major  problems  of  the  north,  I  very  much 
welcome  the  recent  appointment  of  my  good 
friend  and  colleague,  John  Rhodbs  of  Sault 
Ste.  Marie,  as  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications.    This  appointment— 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Repeat  that. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Oh,  would  the  minister  like  a 
replay? 

tSince  transportation  hasi  been  one  of  the 
major  problems  of  the  north,  I  very  much 
welcome  the  recent  appointment  of  my  good 
friend  and  colleague,  John  Rhodes  of  Sault 
Ste.  Marie,  as  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications . 


MARCH  7,  1974 


63 


Mr.  B.  Cilbertson  (Algoma):  Rhodes  for 
roads. 

Mr.  Havrot:  This  appointment  brings  the 
number  of  cabinet  ministers  to  three  from 
northeastern  and  northwestern  Ontario  and 
clearly  indicates  that  the  government  recog- 
nizes the  needs  and  priorities  of  the  north. 
I  might  also  add  that  this  is  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  the  province  that  this 
important  portfolio  has  been  held  by  a 
northern  member. 

Hon.  Mr.   Winkler:   How  about  that? 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  government  unveiled  this 
past  year  a  series  of  important  steps  designed 
to  benefit  the  economy  of  northern  Ontario. 
A  10  per  cent  increase  in  general  support 
grants,  announced  in  the  budget  for  northern 
municipalities,  is  in  addition  to  grants  made 
to  all  other  Ontario  municipalities.  The  new 
business  incentive  programme  provides  for 
loans  to  new  or  expanding  northern  busi- 
nesses of  up  to  $1  million  or  90  per  cent  of 
capital  costs  and  may  be  interest-free.  Interim 
reductions  on  freight  rates  averaging  18  per 
cent  are  in  efi^ect  in  northeastern  Ontario. 
They  have  helped  to  reduce  costs  of  incom- 
ing goods  and  permit  outgoing  prodticts  to 
compete  more  effectively  in  southern  markets. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  delighted  by  the  recog- 
nition given  to  northern  Ontario  in  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne.  The  opportunity 
to  establish  local  community  councils  in  un- 
organized townships  in  northern  Ontario  is 


most  welcome.  Studies  to  establish  a  port 
facility  in  the  James  Bay  area  to  bring  poten- 
tial supplies  of  gas,  oil  and  minerals  from 
sources  in  the  eastern  Arctic  will  no  doubt 
stimulate  exploration  and  there  is  a  good 
possibility  that  this  area  could  well  become 
a  major  producer  of  natural  gas  for  Ontario. 

I  wholeheartedly  support  the  proposal  for 
a  prescription  drug  plan  for  senior  citizens. 
The  present  form  of  assistance  through  wel- 
fare agencies  is  totally  unacceptable. 

The  provincial  home  renewal  programme 
which  provides  grants  to  homeowners  in 
municipahties  for  preserving  and  upgrading 
the  quality  of  existing  homes  will  be  of  great 
benefit  to  the  people  of  the  north.  Over  the 
years,  many  homeowners  have  experienced 
difficulties  in  obtaining  loans  at  reasonable 
rates  to  improve  their  homes. 

I  look  forward  to  the  implementation  of 
these  and  other  recommendations  in  the 
fourth  session  of  the  29th  Parhament.  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

'Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  debate. 

'Motion  agreed  to. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  3:50  o'clock, 
p.m. 


64  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  March  7,  1974 

Route  of  petroleum  pipeline,  statement  by  Mr.  Grossman  39 

Arbitration  board  for  CAAT  dispute,  question  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Laughren  40 

Anglo-Canadian    Pulp    and    Paper    expansion    in    northwestern    Ontario,    statement    by 

Mr.    Davis    42 

Anglo-Canadian    Pulp    and    Paper    expansion    in    northwestern    Ontario,    questions    of 

Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  43 

Environmental  impact  of  public  works,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman  and  Mr.  McKeough: 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr,  Cassidy,  Mr.  Gaunt    43 

Prosecution    of   denturists,    questions   of   Mr.   Welch:    Mr.   R.   F.    Nixon,   Mr.    Shulman, 

Mr.  Braithwaite,  Mr.  Roy  47 

Route  of  petroleum  pipeline,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Roy  49 

Maple  Mountain  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Lewis  50 

Hall  Lamp  Co.,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon  and  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Riddell  ....  50 

Acquisition  of  Lake  Ontario  Cement  Co.  property,  question  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Lewis  51 

Female  appointments  to  WCB,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis  51 

No-fault  automobile  insurance,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Roy  52 

Role  of  chiropractors,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:   Mr.  Shulman  53 

GO-Urban  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:   Mr.  Givens  54 

Spending  ceilings  in  education,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Lewis  55 

Assessments  on  mobile  homes,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Good  55 

Presenting  reports,  Ministry  of  Government  Services  and  Provincial  Auditor,  Mr.  Snow  55 

Presenting   report,    federal-provincial   agreement  for  regional   economic   development  in 

Cornwall  area,  Mr.  Irvine  55 

Practise  of  Dental  Prosthesis  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  first  reading  56 

Milk  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Stewart,  first  reading  56 

Developmental  Services  Act  1974,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Brunelle,  first  reading  56 

Municipal  Act,  biU  to  amend,  Mr.  Irvine,  first  reading  56 

Ontario  Human  Rights  Code,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Guindon,  first  reading  56 

Mental  Health  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Roy,  first  reading  56 

Debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Beckett,  Mr.  Havrot  57 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  agreed  to  63 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  63 


No.  4 


Ontario 


Hcgtslature  of  Ontario 


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


Friday,  March  8,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


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:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Oral  questions.  The  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 


tion. 


WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  BOARD 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Labour  if  he  contemplates  mak- 
ing further  changes  in  the  composition  and 
personnel  of  the  workmen's  Compensation 
Board  and  the  high  administrative  echelons 
of  the  board? 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour): 
Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  There  are  still  two  va- 
cancies on  the  board.  Two  commissioners 
still  have  to  be  appointed. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you.  Can  the 
minister  assures  us  that  Mr.  Decker  will  be 
maintained  in  his  position  as— 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  He  was 
reappointed. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —vice-chairman  and  that 
the  stories  and  the  rumours  that  are  heard 
among  those  concerned  with  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Board  are  in  no  way  true,  and 
that,  in  fact,  he  will  continue  in  his  impor- 
tant post? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  Mr. 
Decker  has  been  reappointed  for  a  term  of 
two  years.  I  believe,  as  a  commissioner  of  the 
body  corporate  and  not  as  vice-chairman. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Not  as  vice-chairman? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Right. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary  then: 
Are  we  to  assume  that  he  will  be  removed 
from  that  position? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  There  are  two  vice- 
chairmen.  With  the  new  structure  of  the 
board,  as  members  know,  we  have  a  vice- 
chairman   for  manager,   Mr.   Speaker,   and   a 


FRroAY,  March  8,  1974 

vice-chairman   for  the   appeal   structure;   but 
Mr.  Decker  is  still  a  member  of  the  board. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  He  is  a  hear- 
ing officer. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  a  commissioner  of  ap- 
peals. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  No,  no.  He  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  corporate  body. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'm  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  don't  want  to  belabour  this,  but  his  posi- 
tion has  been  vice-chairman  now  for  a  con- 
siderable period  of  time  and  that  is  going  to 
be  changed.  Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes,  that's  right,  Mr. 
Speaker,  Mr.  Decker  was  vice-chairman  of 
the  board.  Now  he  is  a  member  of  the  cor- 
porate body,  the  same  as  Mr.  Hamilton. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Right.  A  supplementary: 
Is  it  the  minister's  intention  to  deal  directly 
with  the  union  of  injured  workmen— a  group 
that  he  is  familiar  with,  as  are  we,  from 
various  communications— which  seems  to  be 
becoming  more  and  more  the  major  organ- 
ized spokesman  for  those  people  who  feel 
they  have  not  been  dealt  with  equitably  and 
with  justice  by  the  board? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  think  the  board  has 
always  had  a  fairly  good  rapport  with  the 
injured  workmen's  group,  Mr.  Speaker.  How- 
ever, in  the  new  structure  you  will  find  there 
will  be  counsellors  appointed  as  well,  coun- 
sellors who  will  not  come  under  the  board 
but  will  be  paid  by  the  Ministry  of  Labour. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Sup- 
plementary, Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Thank  you.  Would  the 
minister  consider  appointing  various  persons 
or  the  directors  of  the  Injured  Workmen's 
Consultants  as  consultants  to  the  board,  as 
one  of  these  bodies  outside  the  board  which 
the  board  is  now  able  and  willing  to  appoint? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Right  now,  of  course, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  board  is  accepting  applica- 


68 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tions  from  anyone  interested  in  being  ap- 
pointed to  the  board.  These  applicants  will 
be  screened,  and  of  course  we  are  looking 
for  experienced  people  who  we  feel  really 
will  fill  that  job  properly. 

Coining  back  to  the  question  of  my  hon. 
friend  from  Windsor  West,  I  cannot  say  at 
this  time  whether  we  could  do  this  or  not. 
I  would  think  not. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Why  did  the  minister  turn  down  the  recent 
request  from  the  union  of  injured  workmen 
to  meet  with  a  large  number  of  their  mem- 
bership, so  that  they  could  raise  with  the 
Minister  of  Labour,  the  enormous  range  of 
injustice  they  continue  to  feel  about  their 
relationship  with  the  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion Board?  Most  of  them,  as  the  minister 
knows,  represent  immigrant  communities  in 
the  west  end  of  the  city  of  Toronto,  and  he 
categorically  refuses  to  meet  with  them.  Why 
does  he  do  that  as  minister?  He  refused  to 
meet  their  mass  meeting.  He  said,  "Send 
some  representatives  to  my  oflRce."  Why 
won't  he  meet  with  the  range  of  injured 
workmen  themselves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
met  with  this  group  on  several  occasions— 
at  least  three  that  I  recall  in  my  offices  here 
at  Queen's  Park.  The  board  and  the  chair- 
man of  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board 
have  met  with  them  on  several  occasions  as 
well.  These  people  naturally  want  to  talk 
about  benefits.  I  am  in  no  position  to  say 
anything  at  this  present  time.  I  certainly  have 
to  consult  the  employers'  and  employees' 
organizations  of  this  province  and  find  out 
the  cost  factor  of  any  benefit  that  perhaps 
could  be  added.  So  I  am  not  in  a  position  at 
this  time  to— 

Mr.  Deans:  Has  the  minister  not  done 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  am  prepared,  and  I 
said  so— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  building  an- 
other host  of  rage  out  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  have  never  turned 
down  any  delegation  in  the  last  2%  years, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  be  quite  prepared  to 
meet  with  them,  but  there  is  no  point  in 
attending  a  public  assembly- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Why  not?  He  is  a  minister  of 
the  Crown.  There  is  tremendous  frustration 
amongst  those  workers.  He  should  meet  with 
them. 


Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  would  be  glad  to  meet 
with  them,  and  I  will— I  have  offered  to  meet 
with  them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sure,  three  or  four  selected 
ones  in  his  office. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Would 
the  minister  agree  that  the  very  best  kind 
of  a  political  realization  in  this  is  that  if  the 
responsible  minister,  not  the  appointed  chair- 
man, meet  with  this  group,  the  injured  work- 
men's union,  and  on  their  own  ground  and 
under  their  own  circumstances? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sure,  sure. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  not?  Surely  that  is 
why  we  have  a  Legislature  and  a  responsible 
minister, 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
is  known,  even  among  the  injured  workmen's 
association,  that  it  is  not  hard  to  meet  the 
Minister  of  Labour  in  this  province.  I  think 
I  made  this  very  clear. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  he  refused. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Moreover,  when  our 
bill,  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Act,  went 
to  the  committee  stage  last  year,  we  made  it 
a  point  to  invite  these  people  to  attend;  and 
in  fact  they  did  contribute  something. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  gave  them  24 
hours'  notice.  He  invited  them  on  Friday 
for  a  Monday. 


CAMP  ASSOCIATES  ADVERTISING  LTD. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  happened  to  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  W.  New- 
man)? Oh,  there  he  goes. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of  Indus- 
try and  Tourism  to  repeat  his  rather  con- 
voluted explanation  as  to  why  he,  through 
his  ministry,  has  made  pavTuents  of  $1,- 
250,000  to  Dalton  Camp  Associates  without 
a  contract  or  a  written  agreement.  Does  the 
minister  not  feel  that  it  is  his  personal  re- 
sponsibility to  see  that  these  moneys  are 
spent  in  a  more  orderly  way,  if  at  all?  Does 
he  not  further  see  the  sensitivity  in  this 
matter,  since  a  number  of  advertising  agen- 
cies seem  to  be  getting  bigger  and  bigger 
accounts  with  various  government  ministries 
as  we  get  closer  to  the  election,  and  the 
government  embarks  on  these  self-aggran- 
dizement programmes  at  the  public  expense? 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  remark  made  by 


MARCH  8,  1974 


the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  is  not  actually 
correct.  First  of  all,  the  sum  of  $1.25  million 
was  not  paid  to  the  Camp  agency.  That  was 
our  entire  account  for  advertising  in  press, 
radio  and  TV  for  the  ministry  for  the  year 
that  the  auditor  was  reporting  for.  Camp 
Associates,  sir,  works  on  a  commitment  to 
the  government  through  the  Ministry  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism.  When  the  auditor 
brought  it  to  our  attention  that  there  should 
be  an  agreement,  the  ministry  people  set  to 
work  to  draft  an  agreement.  After  many 
months  of  discussion  within  the  ministry  and 
with  the  auditor's  people  they  were  not  sure 
as  to  why  exactly  they  were  trying  to  pro- 
pose or  arrange  an  agreement,  which  is  not 
the  customary  way  of  dealing  with  advertis- 
ing agencies  anywhere  in  this  province. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  customary  way  is  to 
do  it  on  a  friendly  and  political  basis. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  I  suppose  if  it  is 
on  a  friendly  and  political  basis  we'd  likely 
gain  that  line  of  knowledge  from  the  Liberal 
Party  in  Ottawa— and  so,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It  has 
worked  for  30  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  am  reporting  exactly 
as  the  situation  happens  to  be  with  advertis- 
ing agencies  in  this  province- 
Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Both 
the  Conservatives  and  Liberals  do  it  the 
same  way;  we  recognize  that. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  know  who  are  the 
ripoff  artists. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —and  let  me  remind 
the  NDP  that  it  is  on  the  same  basis  as  the 
NDP  is  treating  its  advertising  agency  in 
Manitoba;  the  agency  that  looked  after  the 
party  in  power  in  Manitoba  during  the  last 
provincial  election  in  that  province. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  We  will 
check  that  one,  too. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Righteous  indignation. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Let's  get  back  to  Ontario 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
with  our  agents— and  I  can  report  that  for 
the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  we  have 
three  agencies  that  work  on  our  behalf- 
commitments  which  have  a  30-djay  cancella- 
tion clause.  In  the  commitment  it  very  clearly 
states  exactly  what  we  expect  of  that  agent 
for  us  as  the  client. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Let's  table  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  place  the  advertise- 
ment in  the  areas  that  we  believe  it  should 
be  placed  for  the  greatest  efficiency  and  pro- 
motion for  the  Province  of  Ontario.  TTieir 
commissions- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  for  the  Conservative 
Party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  If  it  happens  to  advance 
the  cause  of  the  government  of  the  Province 
of  Ontario,  all  well  and  good.  But  first  and 
foremost  we  are  advancing  the  position  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  which  I  believe  in- 
cludes the  opposition  members  as  well. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Does  he  mean  the  Con- 
servative Party? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Can  we  share  the  de- 
cisions on  how  the  minister  handles  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  have  at  the  moment 
the  Camp  agency,  which  looks  after  the 
tourism  account,  and  in  our  opinion  it  is 
doing  a  very  effective  and  efficient  job.  The 
travel  agency  for  Canada,  through  the  Liberal 
Party,  adlnits  that  our  advertising  is  among 
the  best  on  this  continent. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  An  absolute  disgrace. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Witii  that,  sir,  it  is 
obvious  that  this  government  has  employed 
the  best  agency  possible  to  advance  the  cause 
of  tourism  in  this  province. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Does  the 
minister  then  reject  the  criticism  from  the 
Provincial  Auditor?  In  fact,  is  he  saying  that 
what  he  is  doing  is  better  than  what  the 
Provincial  Auditor  is  suggesting  and  saying 
specifically  should  be  done? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  That's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  the 
time  that  we  discussed  the— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  says  "right." 


70 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  Get  that  on  the  record. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Let  me  assure  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition,  since  the  day  that— 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Great  management  over 
there, 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Yes,  we  have  good 
management  and  we  have  followed  the  advice 
of  the  auditor  at  this  point  in  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh  come  on— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  already  too  much. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  man  the  minister  is  deal- 
ing with  is  also  the  chairman  of  the  commis- 
sion on  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  would 
be  well  if  the  leader  of  the  NDP  would  get 
his  facts  straight  for  a  change,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  Mr.  Camp  is  not  associated  with 
the  firm. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  It  is  his 
brother-in-law. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  couldn't  care  less  who 
he  is.  The  fact  is  that— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Just  tell  us  the  minister  will 
put  it  in  hand. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  The  statement  was  made 
that  Mr.  Camp  was  leading  the  agency. 


ca 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  agency  has  such  a 
tchy  name— Dalton  Camp  Associates. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  it  appears  that  the 
Liberal  Party  was  willing  to  accept  some  of 
his  recommendations  on  changes  in  the  Legis- 
lature, so  I  would  think  that  his  advice  must 
be  good  herei  as  well  as  in  the  advertising 
field. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sort  this  out  then. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  May  I  say  that  the 
leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  asked  if  we  were 
willing  to  accept  the  auditor's  advice.  We  are; 
we  have  prepared  an  agreement. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  the  minister  and  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Management  Board  don't  agree 
on  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  May  I  advise  the  Leader 
of  the   Opposition  that  since  that  time  we 


have  had  further  discussions  with  the  auditor 
general  for  the  province  and  we  are  not  sure 
that  there  is  anything  to  be  gained  by  sign- 
ing an  agreement.  I  would  advise  the  House 
of  this,  that  we  have  an  agreement  which  has 
been  signed  by  the  Camp  agency.  It  has  not 
been  signed  by  the  ministry  at  this  point  be- 
cause there  seems  to  be  some  difference  of 
opinion  with  the  auditor  as  to  why  we  should 
have  the  agreement  when  the  commitment  is 
covering  the  item  fully  and  adequately  at  this 
time. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Because  the  Chairman  of 
the  Management  Board  was  opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
No.  1,  will  the  minister  table  those  commit- 
ments in  the  House?  No.  2,  will  he  explain 
what  he  means  by  the  customary  relationship? 
And  No.  3,  can  he  tell  us  whether  or  not  the 
Management  Board  will  accept  the  auditor's 
recommendations  since  the  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  has  already  rejected  them 
this  morning  in  the  House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  That's  not  true. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  Chairman  of  the  Manage- 
ment Board  had  better  get  up  and  set  that 
straight. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  as  far  as  the  Man- 
agement Board's  position  is  concerned  I'll 
allow  the  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board 
to  report  on  that  question  for  the  member. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  nice  of  the  minister. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  As  for  the  commitments, 
sir,  we  are  prepared  to  file  them.  They  are 
an  order  from  our  ministry  to  the  agency  as 
to  where  we  wish  our  advertising  placed.  We 
have  no  reasons  not  to  indicate  very  clearly 
to  this  House  and  the  people  of  Ontario 
where  we  spend  the  money  in  their  interests 
to  promote  tourism. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  the  government's 
own. 

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

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  supple- 
mentary, could  the  minister  tell  us  how  many 
dollars  he  expects  to  spend  with  the  Camp 
agency,  without  the  agreement,  during  the 
months  of  March,  April,  May  and  June  of 
1974?  Has  he  projected  his  thinking  that  far 
ahead  or  is  he  just  writing  a  blank  cheque? 


MARCH  8,  1974 


71 


How  many  dollars  has  he  allocated  and  what 
plans  does  he  have? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Just  whatever  is  good  for 
the  Tory  party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Let  me  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
while  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  seems  to 
think  that  it  is  all  for  the  advancement  of  the 
Tory  party- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Isn't  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —it  has  provided  ex- 
cellent government  for  this  province  over  the 
last  30  years.  Obviously  we  have  placed  the 
ads  in  the  right  spots  to  convince  people  we 
are  doing  a  job  on  their  behalf  and  in  their 
interests. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  time  for  the  cam- 
paign. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  won't  save  the  government 
anyway,  but  that's  not  the  point  of  the 
question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  As  to  answering  the 
question,  we  do  have  spelled  out  very  clearly 
in  our  commitments  to  the  agency  exacdy  the 
number  of  dollars  that  will  be  spent  and  in 
the  places  that  they  will  be  spent,  whether 
it  relates  to  television,  radio  or  newspaper 
advertising. 

Mr.  Singef!  How  about  telling  the  House 
about  it? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Did  the  minister  say  he 
would  table  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  If  Liberal  members  had 
been  listening  to  the  leader  of  the  NDP— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Did  the  minister  say  he 
would  table  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  believe,  Mr,  Speaker, 
if  a  few  of  the  members  of  the  Liberal  Party 
would  sit  and  listen  for  a  moment  to  the 
questions  that  are  asked  by  other  parties  in 
this  House,  they  might  also  be  able  to  gain 
some  knowledge  of  the  answers  that  are  given. 

I  indicated  to  the  leader  of  the  NDP  that 
I  was  prepared  to  table  in  this  House  the 
commitments  that  we  have  with  our  agency 
in  placing  advertising  on  a  national  or  inter- 
national basis,  and  that  would  cover  the 
very  question  that  the  member  from  the 
Liberal  Party  has  asked. 

Mr.  Singer:  When  is  the  minister  going  to 
table  it? 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  When  is  he  going  to 
table  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  In  due  course. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Apart  from  self-enhancement 
or  whatever  else,  I  don't  think  it's  comic  in 
terms  of  the  commission  on  the  Legislature. 
Does  the  minister  not  think  he  owes  it  to 
Dalton  Camp  Associates  as  well  as  to  the 
Legislature  to  table  those  commitments  on 
Monday  or  Tuesday  of  next  week  to  indi- 
cate to  us  when  in  time  those  commitments 
were  undertaken  and  whether  or  not  he  is 
going  to  follow  the  specific  recommendation 
of  the  auditor  to  have  a  negotiated  agree- 
ment or  contract? 

Hon.  Mr.  Beimett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
have  already  covered  the  position  in  the 
contract.  We  have  an  agreement  already 
drafted  and  signed  by  the  Camp  agency,  but 
because  there  appears  to  be  some  difiFerence 
of  opinion  as  to  what  the  need  of  the  agree- 
ment is  at  this  time  it  has  not  been  fully 
signed  by  the  ministry. 

Mr,  Lewis;  Let  us  see  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  if  the  ministry 
doesn't  need  it,  why  have  it? 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  sup- 
plementary, if  the  minister  doesn't  know  the 
need,  if  there  is  confusion,  how  can  he  pos- 
sibly say  that  he  has  a  plan  for  the  ongoing 
months? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  he  can  say  many  things. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  that  the  relationship  of  the  agreement 
has  anything  to  do  with  the  placing  of  ad- 
vertising, to  be  very  honest  with  you. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  wouldn't  have  thought  so, 
either. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  already  indicated  to 
this  House  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  auditors 
and  those  people  within  the  ministry,  the 
commitment  that  we  have  with  the  agency 
is  basically  the  same  thing,  a  direct  commit- 
ment as  to  what  we  are  going  to  spend  in 
advertising  and  in  what  months  and  in  what 
areas  of  promotion  we  are  going  to  use  it. 

Mr.  Singer:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  tell 
the  House  about  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition?  The  hon.  member  for  Scarbor- 
ough West. 


72 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  We  will  allow  Camp  Associates 
to  tender  on  our  contract. 

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


Hon.  W.  Newman:  No,  I  haven't  visited 
that  site.  I  have  visited  many  garbage  sites, 
though,  in  the  province. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Is  he  going  to  visit  this 


ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARING  BOARD 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker, 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  because 
he  has  been  so  anxious  to  jump  in  these  last 
few  days.  May  I  ask  him  whether  he  has 
rejected  the  request  from  Disposal  Services 
Ltd.  for  what  would  amount  to  a  hearing 
under  section  35  of  the  Environmental  Pro- 
tection Act,  which  would  allow  the  bylaw 
to  be  waived  so  that  Disposal  Services  could 
continue  to  establish  large  landfill  sites  in 
Vaughan  township? 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment): Mr.  Speaker,  there  will  be  an 
Environmental  Hearing  Board  meeting  next 
week  on  these  matters,  on  the  20-acre  site 
and  the  bylaw. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  the  20-acre  site  and  on 
the  big  proposed  site— the  900-acre  site— as 
well? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  No,  just  on  this  portion 
of  it.  We  are  still  waiting  for  engineering 
reports  on  the  total  overall  picture. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  I  won- 
der if  the  minister  could  tell  us  the  status  of 
that  other  great  garbage  commitment  that  his 
Environmental  Hearing  Board  has  made  and 
that  is  in  Hope  township.  Is  he  prepared  to 
say  what  the  government  policy  is  on  going 
forward  with  that  or  cancelling  it?  Hopefully 
it  will  cancel  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  As  you  know,  the  en- 
vironmental hearing  board  has  made  its  re- 
port- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  made  a  recommen- 
dation. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  They  made  a  recom- 
mendation. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  the  CPR  be  granted 
the  right. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Right.  And  we  are  now 

doing  the  necessary  testing  in  that  area. 
There  are  still  more  meetings  to  be  held 
with  the  CPR  officials  and  the  municipal  oflB- 
cials. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Has 
the  minister  visited  the  site? 


Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  will  be  visiting  a  lot 
of  them. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  has  been  to  a  lot  of 
Tory  rallies  in  the  past. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary  to  the  minister, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  minister  consider 
suspending  the  intended  plans  for  the  Hope 
township  site,  for  the  Pickering  township 
site  and  for  the  Vaughan  township  site,  both 
in  the  transportation  of  public  and  private 
garbage?  And  would  he  take  a  look  at  the 
possibilities  of  alternatives  for  Metropolitan 
Toronto,  with  assistance  from  the  public 
treasury,  in  the  three-  or  four-year  interim 
period  before  major  recycling  and  reclama- 
tion can  be  undertaken,  to  locate  that  gar- 
bage in  an  area  of  the  province,  transported 
by  rail  if  necessary,  which  would  not  cause 
such  total  disruption  in  those  surrounding 
communities  immediately  adjacent  to  Metro? 
He  has  that  authority  under  the  Environ- 
mental Protection  Act. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  The  total  matter  of 
waste  disposal,  of  course,  I'm  very  much  con- 
cerned about  and  live  with  daily,  but  I'm 
not  prepared  at  this  point  in  time  to  with- 
draw all  these  applications,  no.  But  we  are 
certainly  looking. 

As  you  know,  we  have  the  programme 
Watts  from  Waste.  We  are  also  working  on 
the  engineering  for  a  reclamation  plant.  We 
are  looking  for  other  means.  Certainly  in  the 
long-range  view  we  want  to  do  away  with 
the  sites,  but  even  with  all  those  processes 
there  still  will  be  some  waste  that  will  have 
to  be  dealt  with  in  the  future. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  A  sup- 
plementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  Good:  Would  the  minister  assure  the 
Legislature  that  he  will  give  only  enough 
permits  to  handle  the  Metropolitan  landfill 
problem  until  such  time  as  there  is  a  speed-up 
in  the  reclamation  and  recycling  process 
within  Metro— which  is  five  years  late,  in- 
cidentally, Mr.  Speaker— so  that  there  won't 
be  permits  given,  which  could  carry  on  for 
20    years    more,    for    burying    our    garbage 


MARCH  8,  1974 


73 


in  the  ground,  which  is  what  they  are  wanting 
to  do? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  quite  anxious 
in  this  ministry  to  get  away  from  long-term 
landfill  sites. 

Mr.  Good:  When  did  it  change  its  policy? 
Overnight?  Because  that  was  not  the  previous 
policy. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  No,  I  didn't  say  it  was— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  New  minister,  new  policy, 
that's  all. 

Mr.  Good:  That's  great. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  There  are  many  sites— 
and  I  realize  what  the  member  is  trying  to 
say,  that  we  want  to  look  at  the  other  pro- 
grammes we  have  under  way  to  try  to  find 
other  ways   of  dealing  with  this  matter. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  A  sup- 
plementary. 

Mr.  Good:  The  minister  didn't  answer  my 
question. 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  there 
are  at  least  a  score  of  well-proven  recycling 
installations  now  in  operation  in  Europe  and 
in  North  America,  could  the  minister  not 
select  one  of  these  at  least  and  get  several  of 
them  immediately  under  construction,  because 
it  takes  two  years  at  the  most  to  get  proven 
plans  into  construction  and  in  operation  if  they 
are  proven  processes?  Would  the  minister 
undertake  to  do  that  and  keep  the  limit  on 
any  landfill  to  three  years,  other  than  the 
refuse  left  over  after  recycling? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  must  be  quite  honest. 
I  am  not  that  familiar  with  all  the  European 
situations  at  this  point  in  time.  As  I  said,  we 
have  engineering  plans  under  way  for  reckma- 
tion  plants  now  and— 

Mr.  Deacon:  This  is  terrible. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  At  this  point  in  time 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  we  can  lock  into 
a  three-year  situation  until  we  have  these 
plans  well  along. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville): 
Why  doesn't  the  minister  take  my  bill- 
Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  a 
supplementary  question,  has  the  hon.  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  reported  to  the 
hon.  Minister  of  the  Environment  about  the 
discussions  which  he  has  been  having  with  a 
firm  from  Italy  on  this  question  of  garbage 


disposal  and  the  mechanical  equipment  which, 
I  understand,  was  quite  acceptable  to  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  As  a  matter  of  fact  I 
have  been  rather  busy  since  I  started  this  job. 
I  haven't  really  had  a  chance  to  talk  to  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  though  I 
plan  to  be  meeting  with  them— I  believe  it's 
on  Monday  of  this  coming  week. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  hasn't  talked  to 
him  yet? 

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


FOOD  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker— I  have 
been  looking  for  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.  I  can't  find  him,  but 
I  see  a  facsimile  over  there  so  perhaps  I 
could  direct  the  question. 

Mr.  Good:  Frankie  Laine's  over  there. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  the  minister  doing 
about  his  continued  appraisal  of  supermarkets 
and  retailers  in  his  effort  to  watch  the  rise  of 
food  prices?  Has  he  referred  any  other  dis- 
crepancies or  injustices  that  he  thinks  may 
have  occurred  to  the  federal  food  prices  com- 
mission, and  what  has  happened  to  that  legis- 
lation which  was  hinted  at  in  the  last  ses- 
sion, but  not  noted  in  this  Throne  Speech, 
which  might  give  the  consumers  some  protec- 
tion from  increasing  food  prices  other  than  in 
the  area  of  warranties  and  franchises,  etc.? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker, 
firstly  I  would  like  to  thank  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party  for  recognizing  that  I 
was  here.  I  have  been  here  two  or  three  days 
and  I  am  surprised  he  didn't  see  me. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  he  hasn't  been  here;  not 
in  his  seat  he  hasn't. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  also  welcome  the 
comments  referring  to  my  Christmas  present 
and  I  have  a  new  shirt  on"  today,  too.  I  hope 
the  fact  that  it's  a  little  on  the  red  side  has 
nothing  to  do  vsdth  my  new  motif. 

In  any  event,  sir,  referring  to  the  question 
dealing  with  the  food  prices,  yes,  we  are 
continuing  to  monitor  diem.  We  are  also 
drafting  the  Business  Practices  Act  to  which 
I  have  made  reference  in  the  past.  I  hope  to 
be  able  to  introduce  that  legislation  in  this 
session  of  the  House. 


74 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  have  also  had  discussions  with  my 
counterpart  in  Ottawa,  the  Hon.  Mr.  Gray, 
insofar  as  food  price  increases  are  concerned. 
As  the  hon.  leadter  knows,  it  is  not  only  re- 
stricted to  this  province;  the  problem  seems 
to  exist,  in  fact,  across  the  country  and  I 
anticipate  that  legislation  will  emanate  from 
the  federal  people  dealing  with  this  particular 
matter, 

I  am  sure  the  hon.  leader  is  aware  that  a 
substantial  number  of  prosecutions,  I  am  ad- 
vised, have  already  been  initiated  by  the 
federal  people  as  a  result  of  the  Prices  Review 
Board's  investigations  into  food  prices,  which 
have  been  carried  on  over  the  past  few 
months.  Insofar  as  our  proposing  or  under- 
taking some  form  of  price  control  is  con- 
cerned, I  see  that  just  cannot  be  effected  and 
I  would  not,  accordingly,  make  any  such 
undertaking  to  the  members  of  this  House. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  Can  the  min- 
ister make  public  the  monitoring  of  food 
price  increases  that  he  has  in  his  ministry  to 
give  us  a  sense  of  where  precisely  it  is 
occurring  and  who  is  responsible  for  it? 
Second,  has  he  called  the  major  supermarket 
chains  into  his  office  to  justify  to  klm  or  ex- 
plain to  him  how  they  legitimize  the  return 
on  investment  which  they  have  made  over  the 
last  18  months  to  two  years,  and  to  take  a 
look  at  their  balance  sheets? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  no,  I 
have  not  called  the  presidents  of  the  super- 
markets into  my  office  to  make  that  inquiry. 
We  have  taken  a  careful  look  at  those 
publicly  listed  companies  out  of  a  matter  of 
curiosity  on  our  part.  It  is  interesting,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  connection  with  one  major  super- 
market that  while  at  first  blush  it  did  have  a 
particularly  lucrative  year  in  1973,  it  appears 
that  a  substantial  portion  of  earnings  in  that 
particular  year  for  that  particular  company 
emanated  from  the  sale  of  capital  assets  by 
way  of  land,  and  it  appears  a  capital  gain  of 
some  substance  was  realized. 

We  have  no  jurisdiction  to  invite  them  in. 
I  am  sure  that  if  we  did,  they  would  come  in 
and  discuss  it. 

Insofar  as  the  food  monitoring  is  concerned, 
I  propose  to  make  those  figures  available  to 
the  public,  again  in  the  next  week  or  two.  I 
should  point  out  to  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  to  the  hon.  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party,  they  are  not  particularly  persuasive  one 
way  or  the  other  in  that  the  prices  will 
fluctuate  ever  so  slightly  from  week  to  week. 
There  are  no  significant  trends  or  leadership 
provided   by   any   one   company   in   any  one 


particular  period  of  time  and  the  difference 
in  terms  of  dollars  and  cents  in  rather 
minimal. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  being  manip- 
ulated and  ripped  off  and  he  is  enjoying  it. 
He  likes  watching  this  system  work. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  A  supplementary  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Speaker:  May  I  ask  the  minister 
what  co-ordination,  if  any,  there  is  between 
this  work  in  his  ministry  and  the  work  within 
the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  where 
it  monitors  a  food  basket?  Why  is  it  that  both 
this  ministry  and  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture, 
in  reference  to  the  food  basket  monitoring, 
operate  so  secretly?  Why  isn't  this  informa- 
tion out  to  the  public  so  that  it  may  be  of 
some  value? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  have 
indicated,  I  will  make  that  available.  There 
is  nothing  secretive  about  it  but  I  don't  think 
the  hon.  member  for  York  South  will  really 
be  turned  on  if  he  notices  that  at  supermarket 
X  our  food'  basket  cost  $19.26  and  at  its 
competitor  it  was  $19.31  for  the  week.  I  don't 
think  that  will'  do  anything  for  him. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Let  the  minister  ask  himself 
what  that  means. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  There's  nothing  secre- 
tive about  it.  We  have  worked  closely  with 
the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  particularly  the 
food  council  which  also  does'  the  monitoring. 
We  are  trying  to  ascertain  at  all  times,  in  our 
role,  whetiier  any  legislation  of  this  province 
is  being  breached  by  any  of  the  supermarkets. 
The  member  and  I  can  sit  here  and  talk  all 
day  about  the  spiralling  costs  and  that  sort  of 
thing,  but  I  ask  him  exactly  under  what  legis- 
lation we  would  move? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Unless  we  see  that 
existing  legislation  is  being  breached  there 
is  nothing  we  can  do  at  the  provincial  level. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  We  have  had  discus- 
sions with  the  Food  Prices  Review  Board 
people  on  noticing  practices  that  we  don't 
think  are  in  the  best  interests  of  consumers; 
and  they  have  shared  that  concern  and  in 
fact  have  initiated  certain  prosecutions  under 
the  Combines  Investigation  Act. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  prices  are  totally  provin- 
cial. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:    Is    the    minister    familiar    with    re- 


MARCH  8,  1974 


75 


search  paper  No.  14,  prepared  for  the  farm 
income  committee  by  William  Janssen  et  al, 
in  which  he,  Janssen,  documents  that  this 
manipulation  of  prices  by  supermarkets  is 
part  of  their  regular  game?  It  is  part  of  the 
pattern  of  operation;  and  if  they  are  fooling 
the  minister  and  he  can't  do  anything  about 
it,  doesn't  that  underline  the  need  for  legis- 
lation that  will  catch  these  procedures? 

Mr.  Lewis:  An  excess  profits  tax;  the  right 
to  roll  back  prices. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  have  not  seen  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  have  one  more  supplemen- 
tary. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  ought  to 
read  that  report;  it  is  a  very  good  document. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  He  will  be  able  to  im- 
plement that  in  Manitoba  because  he  is  now 
the  deputy. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  is  indeed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  But  he  hasn't  done  a 
thing  about  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  has,  you  bet  he  has. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  He  hasn't  done  a  thing 
about  it;  not  a  thing. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They  know  about  their 
food  basket;  there  are  weekly  announcements 
about  the  discrepancies  between  what  far- 
mers get  and  consumer  prices. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you.  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the 
minister  satisfied  there  is  in  fact  no  collusion 
between  the  supermarkets  in  order  to  make 
sure  that  the  average  food  basket  does  main- 
tain a  level  which  they  consider  to  be  reason- 
able but  I  consider  to  be  exhorbitant? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sure  there  is  collusion;  there  is 
collusion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  can't  speak  to  any 
such  discussion  as  it  exists,  in  reality  or  as 
alleged,  between  the  supermarkets.  I  point 
out  to  the  hon.  member  that  under  the  com- 
bines Investigation  Act  if  that  type  of  prac- 
tice persists  there  might  well  be  prosecution 
emanating  from  that  level. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well  then,  the  minister  should 
examine  it. 

Hon.    Mr.    Clement:    So   I'm  not  privy   to 


any  discussions  between  the  heads  of  super- 
markets, no. 

Mr.  Deans:  One  final  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon  member  for  Kit- 
chener. There  have  been  three  supplemen- 
taries.  Was  it  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:   No,  it  wasn't. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  sorry.  Then  the  hon. 
member  for  Wentworth  may  ask  a  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Deans:  One  final  supplementary  ques- 
tion: Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  statement 
by  certain  supermarkets  that  they  do  indeed 
check  their  competitors'  prices  before  estab- 
lishing a  price  on  their  own  shelves  for 
similar  products? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  yes  I'm 
aware  of  that  statement  having  been  made. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West.  Does  he  have  a  further  ques- 
tion? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  The  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener. 


PUBLIC  SERVICE  ACT  CONFLICT 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  have  a  question,  Mr. 
Speaker,  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Management 
Board  of  Cabinet.  As  it  would  appear  that  in 
1971-1972,  Dr.  Douglas  Wright  received 
some  $39,863  as  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  University  Affairs,  can  the  Chairman  look 
into  section  33  of  the  Public  Service  Act  and 
advise  us  if  the  additional  payments  of 
$34,980  per  diem  for  work  on  the  Commis- 
sion on  Post-Secondary  Education,  and 
$23,935  in  expense  moneys  received  as  well 
by  Dr.  Wright,  do  not  perhaps  come  into 
conflict  with  the  requirement  for  a  public 
servant  not  to  engage  in  any  work  or  business 
undertaking  other  than  that  for  which  he  is 
paid  as  a  public  servant? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  cer- 
tainly have  a  look  at  the  question  the  hon. 
member  raises.  I'm  satisfied  at  the  moment 
that  it  met  criteria,  but  I'll  have  it  examined 
and  reply. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Perhaps  the  minister  on 
the  same  point  could  inquire  as  to  benefits 
likely  to  have  been  received  for  consulting 
work  done  on  the  structural  steel  contract  at 
Ontario  Place. 


76 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Who  was  the  commissioner 
who  received  27  per  cent  of  the  per  diems 
and  47  per  cent  of  the  expense  allowance 
indicated  in  the  auditor's  report;  the  com- 
missioner on  the  Post-Secondary  Education 
Commission?  That  was  it,  was  it  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I'm  not  aware  of  the 
detail  the  hon.  member  is  inquiring  about 
but  I  shall  find  out  and  reply  to  him. 

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


EFFECT  OF  FREIGHT  RATE  CUT 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications.  As  it  is  not 
apparent  that  any  benefits  have  accrued  to  the 
consumer  as  a  result  of  the  freight  rate 
reduction  programme  into  northern  Ontario, 
can  the  minister  cite  any  one  specific  con- 
sumer item  which  has  had  a  price  reduction 
on  account  of  the  freight  rate  reduction  pro- 
gramme by  the  Northern  Transportation  Com- 
mission? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  can't  cite  any  specific  commodity, 
but  I  can  say  that  there  will  be  a  new 
announcement  very  shortly.  As  you  know, 
there  was  an  experiment  in  this  area.  It  did 
not  perhaps  come  forward  as  we  had  hoped 
it  would.  It  has  been  reassessed  in  connection 
with  a  group  of  citizens  in  the  northeastern 
part  of  the  province,  and  a  new  programme 
will  be  brought  forth  very  shortly.  But  I 
can't  mention  any  specific  commodity  at  this 
time. 

Mr.  Germa:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Could  the  minister  also  give  us  the  details  of 
the  total  revenue  loss  to  the  Ontario  North- 
land Transportation  Commission  on  account  of 
the  programme  and  tell  us  who  is  the  great- 
est  benefactor  of  these  lost  revenues? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  at- 
tempt to  get  that  information  for  the  hon. 
member. 

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


COMMUNICATIONS-6  INC. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources. 
Could  he  explain  to  us  the  basis  on  which 
payments  in  the  amount  of  $59,578  were 
made  to  a  firm  of  consultants  and  writers  on 
public  relations  to  manage  the  information 
and  public  relations  programmes  for  his- 
torical parks  in  that  year?  This  was  done 
without  the  prior  approval  of  the  deputy 
minister  of  the  department;  and  there  were 
apparently  payments  made  to  a  firm  called 
Communications-6  Inc.  Who  were  they, 
who  found  them  and  on  whose  authority  was 
this  expenditure  made? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Mr.  Speaker,  this  information,  as 
the  member  is  very  much  aware,  just  came 
to  my  attention  late  yesterday  afternoon.  I 
have  asked  the  deputy  for  a  full  report,  and 
I  will  have  that  for  the  member  just  as 
quickly  as  I  can.  I  might  say  that  this  par- 
ticular contract  has  come  to  an  end,  and  we 
have  called  tenders  for  a  new  public  re- 
lations  officer   for   the   Huronia   area. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
could  the  minister  shed  a  little  light  on  who 
Communications-6  Inc.  is? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  No,  I  can't,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, but  I  will  get  the  information. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


PREVENTIVE  MEDICINE 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  A  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker:  Can 
the  minister  explain  why  his  department  has 
lost  its  interest  in  preventive  medicine?  Spe- 
cifically, if  you  will  recall,  some  time  ago 
the  department  announced  with  great  fan- 
fare that  OHIP  was  going  to  pay  for  well- 
female  examinations  every  six  months.  A  big 
press  release  was  issued,  and  yet  very  quiet- 
ly the  department  has  issued  a  notice  to 
all  physicians  saying  it  no  longer  will  pay 
for  this  type  of  preventive  medicine.  Are 
they  no  longer  interested  in  the  department 
in  the  prevention  of  cancer? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  no  matter  what  crib  notes  I 
get,  each  day  he  asks  another  question  that 
is  not  on  them. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  is  the  plan. 


MARCH  8,  1974 


77 


Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  carefully  worked  out.  We 
know  the  notes  the  minister  gets;  we  get 
copies  of  the  notes  and  ask  other  questions. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon;  We  have  a  cute  Minister 
of  Health. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Cute  in  the  literal  term- 
or just  visually? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  is  the  minister's 
answer  to  the  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  would  not  say  that  the 
ministry  has  lost  its  interest  in  either  the 
prevention  of  cancer  or,  of  course,  preventive 
medicine.  I  would  think  that  the  conference 
of  health  ministers  of  Canada  and  of  the 
provinces  of  Canada,  held  in  Ottawa  last 
month,  in  fact  pointed  out  how  important 
this  measure  is  and  how  the  focus  of  the 
health  care  programme  has  been  too  much 
upon  treating  illnesses  once  they  arise  and 
not  enough  on  the  prevention. 

I  can  only  say  that  I  am  extremely  keen 
and  very  much  aware  that  in  this  economy 
we  have  today,  where  we  can  afford  the 
luxuries  of  life  that  in  fact  create  poor 
health,  one  of  our  real  problems  is  getting 
people  even  to  care  about  keeping  them- 
selves in  condition  and  taking  some  of  the 
measures  that  are  necessary  to  safeguard 
their  own  health. 

Mr.  Deans:  What  about  those  who  have 
the  incentive? 

Mr.  Shulman:  As  a  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  minister's  fine  senti- 
ments, will  he  resume  the  programme  which 
he  abandoned  so  recently  of  paying  for  well- 
female  examinations  every  six  months,  which 
the  second  former  Minister  of  Health  an- 
nounced with  such  a  great  advance  flurry  and 
which  has  been  dropped? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  it  seems  to  me 
this  was  a  subject  of  a  lot  of  controversy  in 
the  press  a  short  while  back.  The  controversy 
was  a  medical  controversy,  not  a  political 
one,  and  that  was  the  question  of  the  value 
of  some  of  the  tests  that  are  involved  in  that 
particular  examination- 
Mr.  Shulman:  The  Pap  smears. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes,  the  Pap  smear  test 
specifically.  As  I  recall,  there  was  a  real  war 
between  different  factions  of  the  medical 
profession  as  to  whether  in  fact  the  Pap 
smear  test- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  surely  not? 


Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  am  recalling  only  what 
the  medical  profession  said. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I  don't  think  he  is— not  the 

Pap  test. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  further  supplementary,  if 
I  may.  Is  the  minister  suggesting  that  there 
is  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  medical  pro- 
fession as  to  the  value  of  Pap  smears?  Is 
that  what  he  believes?  Is  that  what  he  really 
believes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  have  found  many  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  the  medical  profession. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  minister  is  in  bad 
trouble. 

An  hon.  member:  So  is  the  medical  pro- 
fession. 

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


INTERMEDIATE  CAPACITY  TRANSIT 
SYSTEM 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  I  have 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications:  In  view  of  the  state- 
ment, reported  in  this  morning's  newspaper, 
of  Mr.  Richard  Soberman,  who  advocates  the 
replacement  of  the  Scarborough  Expressway 
by  LRT  instead  of  the  Krauss-Maffei  system 
—because  he  said  that  this  will  work  now, 
and  we  want  something  that  will  work  now 
and  not  in  the  future— would  the  minister 
reconsider  the  complete  GO-Urban  policy  of 
the  ministry  with  a  view  to  accentuating  the 
incoming  of  light  rapid  transit  because  it  is 
more  efficient,  it  is  of  lesser  cost,  it  is  de- 
monstrably better  and  it  is  almost  imme- 
diately available? 

Mr.  Deans:  If  he  opts  for  something  that 
will  work  now  and  not  in  the  future,  he  is 
dead. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
read  Mr.  Soberman's  total  comments.  I  did 
hear  some  reporting  on  it  last  night.  It  seems 
to  me  that  he  didn't  compare  it  with  the 
Krauss-Maffei;  be  simply  said  that  it  was 
possible  to  put  it  in  in  place  of  the  express- 
way and  he  has  stated  that  this  is  what  he 
thought  should  be  done. 

As  to  what  is  the  best  way  of  handling  the 
urban  transit  problem  and  the  best  type  of 
method  to  be  used,  that  is  a  matter  of  opin- 
ion. At  this  time  I'm  not  about  to  say  that  we 


78 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


will  change  the  whole  direction  because  of 
Mr.  Soberman's  statement;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker; 
Mr.  Soberman's  statement  in  effect  says  that 
the  Krauss-MafFei  system,  through  the  south- 
east as  the  government  had  envisaged  it, 
should  be  abandoned  as  should  the  express- 
way and  that  light  rail  transit,  available  with- 
in two  to  three  years,  be  implemented  along 
a  specific  right  of  way.  Gradually  the  Krauss- 
Maffei  system  is  being  dismembered  point  by 
point.  The  minister  has  only  the  mid-Toronto 
corridor  left  out  of  the  original  five  lanes. 
Surely,  he  would  use  Soberman's  report  as  a 
basis  to  indicate  to  the  House  and  the  public 
that  he  will  reduce  the  overall  amount  of 
money  committed  to  Krauss-Maffei  and  per- 
haps consider  its  abandonment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
think  that  the  government's  policy  in  this 
matter  is  going  to  be  dictated  by  a  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Soberman— 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  not  just  Soberman. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —which  in  efi"ect  is  a 
report  to  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  council 
which  hasn't  even  decided  what  it  is  going  to 
do  with  it.  Perhaps  we  should  wait  and  find 
out  what  Metro's  thinking  is  on  it,  initially, 
before  we  start  making  statements  based  on 
his  thoughts. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Metro  clearly  has  purposely  dis- 
carded the  report. 

An  hon.  member:  Right. 

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


NEGOTIATIONS  ON  BEHALF  OF 
COMMUNITY  COLLEGES 

Mr.  Bounsall:  A  question  of  the  Chairman 
of  the  Management  Board  of  Cabinet,  Mr. 
Speaker,  with  reference  to  the  negotiations 
and  conversations  that  have  taken  place  be- 
tween the  government  and  the  Civil  Service 
Association  of  Ontario  on  behalf  of  the  com- 
munity college  faculties:  Who,  in  his  opinion, 
would  best  decide  which  items  are  negotiable 
when  the  public  service  tribunal  under  Judge 
Little  or  the  arbitration  tribunal  under  Judge 
Anderson  decide  they  don't  have  the  power  to 
decide  which  items  are  negotiable?  Should  it 
be  through  the  courts  or  by  reference  back  to 
the  Legislature  of  Ontario? 


Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the 
moment  this  board  has  been  legally  consti- 
tuted; the  matter  at  this  moment  in  time  is  in 
the  hands  of  Judge  Anderson  and  I  would 
leave  it  to  his  adjudication. 

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

Mr.  Bounsall:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right,  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It  isn't  a  question  of  leaving 
items  to  Judge  Anderson's  decision  or  not.  My 
question  was,  what  is  the  minister  going  to 
do  when  Judge  Anderson  says  he  cannot  de- 
cide which  items  are  negotiable?  Where  will 
that  decision  be  made  in  the  event  that  that 
decision  from  Judge  Anderson  is  forthcoming? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Since  that  board  has  not 
yet  met,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  hypothetical 
question  which  I  do  not  wish  to  answer. 

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


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  question  of  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: With  the  12-to-8  decision  last  night  of 
the  York  county  board  to  hire  new  teachers, 
will  the  goverimient  intervene  under  the  ap- 
propriate section— it  is  section  12(1)(1)  of  the 
Ministry  of  Education  Act— if  it  has  evidence 
that  a  substantial  percentage  of  the  registered 
voters  of  York  wish  it  to  establish  a  trustee- 
ship and  call  for  a  new  election  of  trustees? 

Hon.  M.  Birch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  only 
comment  that  I'd  be  prepared  to  make  at  the 
moment  is  that  the  Minister  of  Education 
(Mr.  Wells)  is  currently  holding  conversa- 
tions  this   morning   with  those  people. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  further  supplementary:  May 
I  ask  the  provincial  secretary  to  consider  this 
legislation?  I  would  also  ask  the  provincial 
secretary  to  pass  on  to  the  minister  my  ques- 
tion whether,  if  the  government  concludes  the 
existing  legislation  does  not  permit  interven- 
tion in  the  form  I'm  suggesting,  will  the  gov- 
ernment introduce  such  legislation,  because 
if  the  voters  v^^nt  the  board's  actions  to  be 
overruled  we  should  be  sure  they  have  that 
right  to  do  so,  because  I  fear  this  wJiole 
matter  is  going  to  escalate  far  beyond  the 
regions  of  York? 


MARCH  8,  1974 


79 


Mr.  Speaker:  Orderl  Question! 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  will  escalate  to  compulsory 
arbitration. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Any  further  response  to  the 
question? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:   Mr.   Speaker,  I  will  be 
very  happy  to  pass  along  theise  comments. 

Mr.  Speaker:   The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  is  next. 


ALLEGED  MAFIA  ACTIVITIES 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Attorney  General,  Mr.  Speaker.  Is  the 
Attorney  General  aware  that  this  past  week 
in  this  city  a  certain  Billy  Ginsberg,  a  stock 
promoter,  had  his  house  blown  up  and'  his 
partner,  one  Bemie  Frankel,  was  beaten  with 
a  baseball  bat  right  in  the  middle  of  Bay  St. 
for  refusing  to  pay  certain  moneys  to  the 
Mafia? 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  minister 
is  not  aware,  would  he  be  willing  to  make 
inquiries  and  take  some  action,  because 
obviously  while  the  government  has  got  rid 
of  the  crime  in  the  construction  indtistry,  it 
still  hasn't  touched  the  basic  probletn  of  or- 
ganized crime  in  this  city? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be 
very  happy  to  look  into  the  matter  referred 
to  by  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  the  Attorney  General 
imagine  a  beating  on  Bay  St.? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  In  the  middlb  of  Bay  St. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  oral  question  period  has 
now  expired. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  presented  the  annual  re- 
port of  the  Crop  Insurance  Commission  of 
Ontario,  1972-1973,  and  the  annual  report  of 
the  Agricultural  Research  Institute  of  On- 
tario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  \fr.  Speaker,  I  beg  leave 
to  table  the  annual  Ontario  Mineral  Review 
for  1973.  If  I  may,  I  will  make  a  few  com- 
ments on  this  particular  report  with  your  per- 
mission. You  are  aware  this  is  a  very  early 
publication   of  this   summary   of  the  mining 


activity  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  It  is  a 
long-standing  tradition  within  the  old  Depart- 
ment of  Mines  and  Northern  Affairs  and  this 
has  been  carried  on  into  the  new  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources. 

This  particular  report  has  gained  accept- 
ance as  an  authoritative  reference  work  of 
valtie  to  the  indtistry  and  to  the  government 
and  to  edticational  institutions,  but  it  is 
always  a  pleasure  to  report  on  the  achieve- 
ments of  the  mining  industry  in  this  province. 
It  is  even  more  of  a  pleasure  than  usual  to 
comment  on  the  result  of  the  past  year,  when 
production  of  minerals  soared  to  an  all-time 
record  of  $1,779  billion,  nearly  $245  million 
better  than  the  total  for  1972.  Translated  into 
terms  of  the  entire  provincial  economy,  this 
means  that  mineral  production  each  year 
amounts  to  about  3.7  per  cent  of  the  gross 
provincial  product. 

Mr.  Deans:  What  did  we  get  in  taxes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  This  is  surely  a  sector  of 
our  economic  life  which  should  not  go  un- 
noticed. These  and  other  facts— some  not 
generally  known— concerning  this  major  in- 
dustry are  contained  in  this  particular  review. 
The  second  part  of  the  review  deals  with 
some  of  the  facets  of  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources'  operations  in  which  I  am  sure  the 
public  will  be  interested. 

Mr.  Deans:  How  much  more  did  we  get  in 
taxes? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  Mr.  Rowe, 
the  member  for  the  electoral  district  of 
Northumberland,  and  Mr.  Hodgson,  the  mem- 
ber for  the  electoral  district  of  York  North, 
be  appointed  chairman  and  deputy  chairman 
respectively  of  the  committees  of  the  whole 
House  for  the  present  session. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introdliction  of  bills. 

Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 
ing the  adtjoumed  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  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  my  first  com- 
ments to  be  directed  to  you,  sir,  and  to  say 


80 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


how  happy  we  all  are  to  see  you  back  in 
that  chair,  looking  your  old  self  and  full  of 
fire,  and  to  assure  you  of  our  complete  con- 
fidence in  your  ability  to  govern  our  debates 
with  justice  and  fairness.  We  reserve  the 
right,  of  course,  to  amend  that  opinion  as 
events  require.  However,  I  recall  to  your 
mind,  sir,  that  it  wasn't  this  side  that  chal- 
lenged your  ruling  before  Christmas. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Where  is 
he  now? 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Look 
what  happened  to  him. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  You  have  had,  more  or 
less,  to  suffer  this  sort  of  challenge  and 
harassment  from  all  sides.  Still,  it  is  our 
opinion  you  do  it  with  grace  and  ability  and 
we  are  very  glad,  sir,  to  see  you  have  made 
a  full  recovery  and  are  back  with  us  in  your 
position  of  importance  and  authority. 

I  would  like,  sir,  to  state  as  well  that  all 
of  us  are  sorry  to  see  the  end  of  the  term 
of  our  present  Lieutenant  Governor.  There 
will  be  an  occasion,  surely,  when  this  can  be 
expressed  by  other  members  as  well  and  I 
am  very  glad  to  see  that  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  has  taken  some  initiative  in  this  re- 
gard. It  is  very  fitting  indeed. 

I  feel  a  special  responsibility  in  this  con- 
nection since  His  Honour  resides  in  my 
area,  although  not  directly  in  my  constitu- 
ency, and  he  has  been  associated  in  his 
former  political  life  at  least  with  me  and 
my  father.  Ross  Macdonald  was  first  elected 
to  Parliament  in  1935  and  as  you  are  aware 
has  had  many  high  posts  of  pohtical  respon- 
sibility with  the  government  of  Canada  and 
in  the  Senate.  His  term  as  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor has  really  shown  the  strength  and 
breadth  of  the  Governor  as  a  man.  I  know 
of  no  person  in  that  position  in  our  history 
who  is  more  loved  and  revered  and  hon- 
oured in  all  parts  of  the  province  and  right 
here  in  this  House. 

I  want  to  speak  briefly  about  the  situation 
that  concerns  us  pertaining  to  education. 
The  newspapers  and  radio  reports  inform  us 
that  a  large  group  of  citizens  from  the  York 
area  is  going  to  come  to  Queen's  Park  today 
and  no  doubt  will  be  coming  within  the 
next  few  minutes.  I  feel,  sir,  that  the  serious- 
ness of  the  situation  cannot  be  overestimated. 
It  appears  that  the  government,  particularly 
the  Minister  of  Education  (Mr.  Wells),  has 
run  out  of  any  viable  initiative  and  although 
we  are  told  by  the  provincial  secretary  that 
he  is  meeting  with  groups  from  that  area  at 


the  present  time,  the  fact  remains  that  the 
government's  policy  is  seen  to  be  chaotic.  It 
has  really  led  to  a  fiasco  in  which  the  schools 
in  that  area  have  been  closed  for  five  weeks 
in  an  effort  to  allow  negotiations,  hopefully 
conducted  in  good  faith,  to  come  to  agree- 
ment or  some  acceptable  fruition. 

I  have  had  an  opportunity,  along  with  the 
hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur  (Mr.  Foulds) 
to  visit  the  area  on  the  invitation  of  the 
striking  teachers,  to  express  our  views  to 
them  and  hear  their  own.  I  can't  help  feeling 
that  in  the  circumstances  in  York  it  is  difii- 
cult  to  put  all  the  blame  for  the  protracted 
strike  on  one  side  or  the  other.  I  feel  that 
the  trustees  have  an  incorrect  understanding 
of  their  elected  and  elective  responsibility. 
They  somehow  feel  that  they  are  saving  the 
rest  of  the  province  from  the  encroachment 
of  teacher  authority.  I  get  a  feeling  they 
have  a  fear  that  they  must  not  give  in  to 
the  demands  of  the  teachers  and,  as  a  result 
of  their  intransigence  and,  in  my  opinion, 
their  lack  of  understanding  of  the  situation, 
the  schools  have  remained  closed  for  this 
very  long  period  of  time. 

In  talking  to  the  teachers  they  have  eight 
specific  areas  on  which  they  are  basing  their 
strike;  some  of  them  are  more  significant 
than  others.  Very  specifically,  they  are  de- 
manding a  say  in  working  conditions  and 
specifically  in  the  pupil-teacher  ratio.  In  my 
opinion,  this  is  the  crux  of  the  problem;  the 
trustees  feel  that  allowing  the  teachers  to 
take  part  in  that  sort  of  negotiation  would 
hand  over  what  they  consider  to  be  their 
sole  responsibility,  that  is  the  power  to  run 
the  schools. 

The  problem  that  I  see  is  that  the  trustees 
don't  realize  that  the  community,  certainly 
the  members  of  this  Legislature,  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  himself,  have  stated  cate- 
gorically that  the  teachers,  through  their 
professional  organizations  and  individually 
through  their  negotiating  teams,  do  have  a 
responsibility  to  participate  and  negotiate  the 
conditions  of  work.  The  fact  that  the  trus- 
tees have  been  unwilling  to  accept  that  is 
perhaps  more  than  anything  else  the  single 
rock  upon  which  the  negotiations  have  foun- 
dered so  far. 

I  must  be  frank  as  well  and  say  that  in 
our  visits  to  the  teachers  in  the  area,  and  I 
believe  we  had  an  opportunity  to  speak  to 
all  670  of  them  and  hear  questions  and 
comments  from  a  good  many  of  them,  we 
found  that  one  thing  that  does  not  appear 
in  the  negotiations  was  very  much  in  their 
mind.   I  refer,  and  it's  rather  unfortunate   I 


MARCH  8,  1974 


81 


have  to  refer  to  this,  to  their  lack  of  con- 
fidence in  the  ability  of  the  director  of  edu- 
cation himself.  Certainly  it  is  not  my  place 
nor  my  desire  to  be  critical  of  him  but 
simply  to  report  to  you,  sir,  that  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  the  confidence  of  the 
teachers;  yet  this  is  a  matter  which  appar- 
ently has  not  come  up  for  any  considerable 
public  discussion. 

The  trustees  on  the  other  hand  have,  in  my 
view,  failed  to  come  to  grips  with  the  very 
real  problems  the  teachers  nave  indicated 
clearly  are  the  negotiating  points,  I  refer 
specifically,  as  I  say,  to  the  right  the  teachers 
feel  they  must  have,  not  only  in  York  but  else- 
where in  this  province,  to  negotiate,  the  terms 
of  employment  of  course  but  also  the  condi- 
tions of  work.  This  seems  to  be  the  shoal 
beyond  which  we  must  pass  if  a  settlement 
is  going  to  be  achieved. 

I  would  call  on  the  Minister  of  Education 
to  make  it  clear,  if  in  fact  he  has  not  already 
made  it  clear,  that  we  are  going  to  insist  on 
that  being  a  term  to  be  negotiated';  and  that 
the  trustees  must  simply  accept  it,  because  it 
is  going  to  be  and  is  already  stated  as  the 
policy  of  not  only  the  government  of  Ontario 
and  the  Ministry  of  Education  but  the  Legis- 
lature. 

The  situation  that  we  presently  have  is 
approaching  chaos  in  York.  The  fact  that  the 
trustees  are  now  going  to  attempt,  based  on  a 
decision  of  a  divided  vote  taken  last  night, 
to  fill  the  vacant  positions  by  hiring  omer 
teachers  is  completely  irresponsible  and'  un- 
tenable. I  don't  believe  there  is  any  possibility 
that  this  can  come  about,  since  in  fact  tlie 
whole  system  has  been  brought  to  a  close  by 
the  inability  of  the  trustees  and  the  teachers 
to  reach  a  reasonable  agreement. 

The  minister  must,  of  course,  take  a  per- 
sonal responsibility  for  this  since  his  in- 
adequate policies  in  Bill  274,  following  for- 
ward in  Bill  275,  have  led^  to  this  chaotic 
situation.  The  principle  put  forward  by  the 
government,  opposed  by  the  two  opposition 
parties,  was  that  in  no  circumstances  would 
the  schools  close.  Well  the  schools  are  closed, 
but  the  unfortunate  aspect  is  that  the  minis- 
ter has  not  used  his  authority,  or  at  least  his 
good  oflBces,  to  require  that  the  two  sides  do 
sit  down  together,  not  just  through  their 
negotiating  legal  representation,  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  minister  continue  to  negotiate 
until  a  settlement  is  reached.  I  beheve  that 
putting  this  oflF  for  such  a  protracted'  period 
in  the  hands  of  the  negotiators  for  the  Minis- 
try of  Labour  is  inadequate  undbr  these  cir- 
cumstances; the  minister  has  shown  a  sub- 
stantial failure  in  his  ability  in  this  regard. 


The  government's  policy  has  been  knocked 
into  a  cocked  hat.  It  was  unacceptable  to 
begin  with  and  even  they  have  withdrawn 
from  it.  Just  a  week  ago  the  Premier  himself 
said  that  perhaps  even  the  concept  of  com- 
pulsory arbitration  is  subject  to  review,  as 
certainly  it  should  be.  It's  going  to  be  noth- 
ing but  a  continuing  diflBculty  for  them  as 
they  attempt  to  impose  it  on  a  broader  and 
broader  area  of  the  people  in  this  province. 

The  teachers  of  the  community  colleges 
are  finding  it  completely  unacceptable  and 
it  was  ridiculous  in  the  extreme  to  lump  the 
teachers  in  the  community  colleges  in  with 
the  new  civil  service  negotiating  procedures 
statute  that  was  passed  by  thisi  House  now 
some  months  ago.  To  require,  by  law,  that 
these  people  must  attend  to  their  classroom 
duties  and  their  right  to  withdraw  their  ser- 
vices be  taken  away  is  unconscionable  and 
inadmissible  and  is  going  to  be  nothing  but 
a  problem  for  the  government  in  the  future. 

I  would  predict  from  the  way  things  are 
going  now  that  there  will  be  an  illegal  strike 
in  the  community  colleges.  Once  again,  while 
we  are  all  prepared  to  say  that  this  is  un- 
fortunate, still  if  those  classrooms  close,  it 
will  be  because  of,  as  much  as  anything,  not 
the  inability  of  the  government  to  bargain 
with  the  teachers  concerned  but  because  of 
the  requirement  of  a  tribunal  imposing  a 
settlement  which  the  teachers  do  not  feel  is 
in  their  best  interests. 

The  same  can  be  said  for  the  hospital 
workers— that  while  we,  on  this  side,  are  pre- 
pared to  support  compulsory  arbitration  for 
an  essential  service  like  hospitals,  it  is  mean- 
ingless, of  course,  and  unfair  in  the  extreme, 
if  it  is  going  to  be  imposed  at  the  same  time 
that  spending  ceilings  directly  associated  with 
the  salaries  of  the  working  staff  involved  are 
going  to  be  impeded'  ahead  of  all  other  con- 
siderations. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  two  govern- 
ment ministries  have  inaugurated  studies  into 
the  inequities  in  the  hospital  workers'  situa- 
tion. The  regrettable  thing  is  that  this'  simply 
postpones  a  rational  and  just  settlement  as  it 
would  pertain  to  the  problems'  that  the  hos- 
pital workers  have  experienced  over  so  many 
years.  We  have  seen  an  illegal  strike  in  the 
hospital  situation  a  year  ago  last  summer. 
There  was  no  final  conclusion  there.  It  was 
simply  an  embarrassment  for  everyone  con- 
cerned since  we  believe  that  the  law  should 
be  respected  but,  in  a  case  such  as  this  where 
government  regulation  rather  imposes  itself 
on  any  concept  of  fairness,  it  is  a  serious 
matter  indeed. 


82 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  Minister  of  Education  has  the  respon- 
sibility in  his  hand^  completely.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  if  the  school  board  cannot 
function,  a  petition  in  the  local  area  might 
very  well  be  used  to  ask  the  minister  to  inter- 
vene with  his  undoubted  powers  and  directly. 
We,  on  this  side,  would  hope  that  that  is  un- 
necessary. 

There  was  an  indication  last  week  that  the 
members  of  the  board  of  trustees  were  think- 
ing of  resigning  in  a  body.  That  too,  surely, 
is  a  very  extreme  situation  when  the  solution 
lies  within  their  hands.  If  the  minister  were 
to  indicate  that  his  ceilings,  which  have  been 
disrupting  the  negotiations  both  there  and 
elsewhere,  can  be  moderated  to  settle  this 
strike,  then  surely  this  is  what  must  be  done. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  teachers,  as  a 
group,  are  so  lacking  in  moderation  that  they 
are  not  prepared  to  come  to  some  settlement 
somewhere  between  the  two  extreme  salary 
demands.  After  all,  settlement  has  been 
achieved  in  many  other  situations  similar  to 
this.  But  I  would  say  that  the  minister  owes 
it  to  the  students  in  the  area,  as  well  as  to 
the  parents  who  are  going  to  be  talking  to 
him,  no  doubt,  outside  the  Legislature  a  bit 
later,  to  intervene  personally  to  see  that  the 
two  sides  sit  down  in  each  other's  preisence 
and  to  keep  at  it  until  a  settlement  is  reached, 
because  surely  one  is  possible.  We  will  not 
admit  that  a  situation  could  develop  where  a 
settlement  is  not  possible  if  the  minister  is 
persuaded  that  his  ceilings  must  be  at  least 
moderated  in  this  particular  situation  and 
that  he  must  take  a  personal  position  in  that 
regard. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  wanted  to  say  something 
about  that  at  the  beginning  of  my  remarks 
because  it  is  a  matter  of  great  urgency  and 
pertains  to  high  policy  that  the  government 
has  put  forward  over  a  number  of  years,  a 
policy  associated  with  the  removal  of  die 
right  to  strike  and  the  freedom  of  the  indivi- 
dual in  this  regard  which,  I  believe,  they 
now  see  to  be  unacceptable.  We  have  two 
policy  ministers  here  this  morning.  It  is  very 
good  of  them  to  stay  around  and  I  would 
hope  that  they  are  in  a  position,  perhaps,  to 
indicate  to  their  colleagues  that,  surely  an 
amendment  to  that  policy  is  required. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Two 
practising  ministers. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  You  know,  certain  things 
have  been  happening  of  substantial  impor- 
tance in  this  regard  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  Premier  himself— although  he  is  not  here 
this  morning,  and  I  regret  that  and  I'm  sure 


he  does  too— the  Premier  himself  is  carefully 
searching  his  alternatives  to  find  a  political 
stance  which  is  more  acceptable  to  the  people 
of  the  province  and  perhaps  more  acceptable 
even  to  his  supporters  in  this  Legislature. 

We  have  been  extremely  interested  in  re- 
ports that  have  indicated  that  the  private 
public  opinion  polling  and  sampHng  organ- 
ization funded  by  the  Conservative  Party  has 
been  making  regular  reports  to  the  Premier 
and  the  government  on  these  matters  week 
by  week.  There  was  every  indication  that 
during  the  problems  with  the  teachers  and 
the  school  boards  before  Christmas  that  the 
sampling  organization— I  believe  it  is  based 
in  Detroit— had  indicated  to  the  Premier  that 
he  and  the  Minister  of  Education  had  the 
high  ground  and  that  the  people  said,  "Sure, 
put  it  to  the  teachers.  They  get  too  much 
money,  they  don't  work  hard  enough,  and 
they  are  getting  too  big  for  their  boots." 
Somehow  or  other  they  took  that  kind  of 
advice  much  too  seriously  and  there  has  been 
a  backlash  across  this  community  which  indi- 
cates that  the  people  are  substantially  and' 
seriously  displeased  with  the  inadequacies  in 
government  policy  in  that  connection. 

It  is  interesting  when  you  hear  the  Premier 
waffle  on  his  positions.  You  can  almost  think 
that  the  day  before  somebody  would  phone 
him  up— and  we  wouldn't  suggest  that  it  was 
Dalton  Camp  Associates,  or  anybody  like 
that— and  say,  "Gosh,  this  week  things  don't 
look  quite  as  good.  Bill.  Maybe  you  had 
better  moderate  that  a  little  bit."  It  seems  to 
me  that  policy  is  largely  being  made  by  the 
responses  from  the  public  opinion  polling 
organizations  that  privately  report,  but 
another  indication  is  that  the  Premier  has 
found  himself  personally  in  receipt  of  prob- 
ably the  poorest  support  across  the  province 
that  he  has  ever  experienced. 

It  was  interesting,  I  think,  last  fall  to  read 
in  the  Toronto  Star— it  wasn't  a  private  poll 
and  it  wasn't  a  poll  that  actually  inspired  me 
in  all  of  its  particulars  but  there  was  a 
poll  published  then  that  indicated  that  only 
28  per  cent  of  the  people  of  the  province 
were  satisfied  with  the  leadership  and  admin- 
istrative abilities  of  the  Premier,  and  I  sup- 
pose it  was  a  response  to  what  they  thought 
of  the  Premier  as  an  individual.  We  have 
heard,  and  it  has  been  reliably  reported,  on 
the  CBC  no  less,  tiiat  a  private  poll  is  now 
available  to  the  Conservatives  indicating 
almost  the  identical  levels  of  support,  or  lack 
of  it  in  this  case,  for  the  Premier  and  his 
leadership  in  the  province  and  in  the  party. 
This  has  surely  galvanized  him  into  the  kind 


MARCH  8,  1974 


83 


of   action  which  we   have  seen   in  the  last 
few  weeks. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Oh  yes,  well  I  was  talk- 
ing about  his  other  capacity,  of  course. 


Mr.  Foulds:  That  is  not  galvanized  action.  Mr.  Breithaupt:  His  other  hat. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  tell  you  when  the 
Premier  and  his  policy  ministers,  who  have 
always  got  time  to  travel  around  the— 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  New 
awareness! 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —province  with  him 
although  they  may  not  have  time  to  come 
into  the  Legislature  and  listen  to  the  debate, 
the  Premier  goes  out  weekend  after  weekend, 
they  hire  a  hall  or  get  one  donated,  since 
they  usually  indicate  that  they  want  to  do  it 
as  economically  as  possible,  and  there  he  is 
every  Saturday  morning  talking  to  the  citizens 
and  listening  to  them.  And  believe  me  I  will 
be  the  last- 
Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  That  in- 
cludes asking  him  questions. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  be  the  last  to 
criticize  him  for  doing  that.  I  just  wish  his 
responsibility  carried  over  into  the  feeling 
that  he  should  attend  the  Legislature  for 
these  debates,  which  he  obviously  considers 
to  be  rather  routine  and  nonproductive. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  only  thing  that  is  gal- 
vanized is  the  garbage  cans. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  tell  you  that  this  is  a 
response  and  he  is  sitting  down  with  his 
coterie  of  political  advisers  and  they  are  say- 
ing, "Okay,  we  are  going  to  have  to  go  to 
Barrie  this  Saturday.  We've  got  to  get  to 
Kingston  the  next  Saturday,  London  the  next, 
and  we  are  going  to  go  up  into  the  north," 
and  so  on.  Good  politics;  you  would  almost 
think  that  an  election  campaign  was  on,  be- 
cause I  notice  that  the  leader  of  the  NDP  is 
pretty  active  around  the  province  as  well  and, 
by  God,  so  is  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party. 

Mr.  J.  P.  MacBeth  (York  West):  About  time, 
since  those  guys  got  the  new  cars. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  I  wouM  say  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  your  other  capacity,  that  your 
own  activities  have  been  noted  in  bringing 
to  the  attention  of  the  citizens  and  the  tax- 
payers of  this  province  the  substantial  in- 
equities in  the  policies  of  the  present  govern- 
ment, and  that  you,  sir,  yourself  have  done 
this  in  your  political  capacity  in  a  most  ad- 
mirable and  ejffective  way. 

Mr.  Renwick:  He  is  the  Speaker,  nonparti- 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  right.  So  the  one 
response  to  the  information  that  has  come  to 
the  Premier  that  he  is  failing  in  maintaining 
this  kind  of  support  is  to  bring  him  into  the 
House.  I  tell  you  that  that  is  much  appreciated 
since  this  debate,  in  my  view  and  in  his  I 
know,  is  one  of  substantial  importance,  where 
in  my  view  policies  of  the  government  can  be 
influenced,  affected  and  changed,  and  where 
he  owes  a  duty  to  his  high  office  to  attend. 
He  is  now  surrounded  by  five  cabinet  min- 
isters, so  this  is  becoming  a  great  occasion  in- 
deed; and  I  hope  that  I  will  Hve  up  to  those 
expectations. 

His  second  response  was  to  realize  that  the 
perception  of  his  cabinet  and  himself  across 
the  province  was  that  somehow  or  other  the 
control  that  the  people  had  come  to  expect 
from  his  predecessors  had  been  lost;  the  con- 
trol of  the  leader  over  the  party,  the  control 
of  the  Premier  over  the  government. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  How  about 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition's  control  over 
his  party? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
seem  to  be  bothered  with  problems  of  con- 
trolling the  party.  We  work  together  for  the 
good  of  us  all;  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be 
working  very  effectively  indeed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  majority  of  his  party 
voted  against  him. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  So  the  Premier  says: 
"Phase  two  is  to  shake  up—" 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  If  he 
wants  to  talk  about  problems  of  control,  he 
can  talk  to  me. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  "—this  gang  of  scala- 
wags and  to  dismiss  from  the  cabinet  those 
who  are  seen  to  be  ineffectual  and  put  in 
their  place  those  who  perhaps  can  try  again." 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  And  some- 
body disagreed  and  somebody  didn't. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  it.  Well,  I  don't 
want  to  spend  a  lot  of  time  talking  about 
the  cabinet  changes,  other  than  to  probably 
express  a  personal  view  about  one  or  two  of 
them. 

I  was  very  sorry  indeed  to  see  the  former 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions (Mr.  Carton)  let's  say  dismissed.  He  is 


84 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


sitting  now  up  in  the  back  row  there,  happier 
than  he  has  been  for  a  long  time.  And  to  tell 
you  the  truth,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  look  forward 
to  hearing  him  take  part  in  the  debate  later 
this  session,  because  as  a  private  member  his 
contributions  to  the  general  debates  were 
probably  among  the  best  that  came  from  any 
side. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Agreed,  with  one  exception. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  can  remember  on  one 
occasion  he  used  his  very  persuasive  style 
to  persuade  the  former  Premier  to  make  ade- 
quate compensation  and  adequate  financing  to 
the  residents  who  had  lost  their  rights  and 
their  privacy  along  the  expanded  401. 

He  somehow  lost  his  fire  when  he  came 
c'own  to  the  front  desk  and  appeared  once 
again  to  be  subject  to  the  dictation  of  his 
boss.  Now  that  he  is  back  in  the  back  row, 
I  think  that  we  may  be  treated  once  again  to 
perhaps  some  more  independent  expressions  of 
his  opinions. 

I  thought  perhaps  one  of  the  most  fatuous 
editorial  comment  that  was  made  about  the 
cabinet  changes  was  in  reference  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Transportation  and  Communications. 
It  said  he  was  fired  because  he  had  approved 
too  many  expressways;  that  the  Premier 
dismissed  him  to  show  once  and  for  all  and 
for  everyone  to  see  that  there  were  going 
to  be  no  more  expressways,  and  that  it  was 
the  Premier's  wish. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Is  the  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position still  in  favour  of  Spadina? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  should  not  perhaps  para- 
phrase the  Globe  and  Mail  editorial  quite  so 
freely,  but  that  was  the  concept.  I  have  a 
feeling  that  the  decision  to  go  ahead  with 
Highway  402  was  not  dictated  by  anybody, 
except  maybe  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  (Mr.  Stewart),  assisted  by  his  now  parlia- 
mentary secretary  and  certain  others— that  the 
decision  to  go  ahead  with— what  is  it?— 406 
down  in  the  St.  Catharines  area,  was  not  a 
decision  made  autocratically  by  the  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications,  but 
simplv  a  political  decision  made  on  ballots  by 
the  Tories  in  the  area. 

It  may  well'  be  that  the  former  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  was  not 
prepared  to  accept  the  new  political  reahty 
and  that  the  time  has  come  to  start  spending 
some  money  in  the  north.  I  agree  whole- 
heartedly that  the  time  to  spend  money  in 
the  north  is  now  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
politically  the  government  is  doing  the  right 


thing.  The  people  in  the  north  have  suffered 
for  a  long  period  of  time  from  an  inadequate 
share  of  the  transportation  budget,  and  surely, 
the  changes  in  that  regard  are  going  to  be  of 
great  importance. 

The  second  former  cabinet  minister  I  want 
to  deal  with  just  briefly  is  the  former  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  Bales),  who  was  subject  to  a 
great  deal  of  criticism  in  the  House  for  his 
land  holdings  in  the  Pickering  area.  Certainly 
we  criticized  him  for  saying  that  if  there  were 
profits  there  he  would  give  them  to  charity, 
but  I  recall  to  you,  sir,  that  the  former 
Attorney  General  himself  stated  publicly  that 
he  was  prepared  to  resign  if  his  boss  felt  that 
there  was  a  conflict  of  interest  of  any  sub- 
stance or  concern  there.  He  was  supported 
at  the  time  by  the  Premier.  I  felt  that  under 
those  circumstances  that  the  former  Attorney 
General  should  have  resigned,  just  as  the 
present  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  McKeough) 
resigned  under  similar  circumstances. 

It  has  been  a  tradition  in  our  democratic 
process  that  those  resignations  are  usually 
followed  sometimes  by  a  by-election  or  a 
general  election  in  which  the  people  assess 
the  charges  themselves  and  in  the  best  of  all 
courts,  the  democratic  court,  the  people  give 
a  judgement.  In  the  case  oiF  the  Minister  of 
Energy,  he  has  madfe  his  way  back  without 
such  a  judgement,  but  probably  the  member 
for  York  Mills  should  have  resigned  under 
those  circumstances,  rather  than  wait  and  be 
cut  off  in  the  ignominious  way  in  which  he 
was  retired  from  the  cabinet  just  a  few  days 
ago. 

I  know  that  the  Premier  expressed  publicly 
the  problem  that  he  faced  under  those  cir- 
cumstances. I'm  sure  he  was  remembering  the 
fact  that  the  former  Attorney  General  is  a 
man  of  integrity  and  a  fine  man. 

Mr.  L.  M.  Reilly  (Eglinton):  A  fine  man. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'm  sure  he  even  re- 
membered that  in  his  political  capacity  the 
former  Attorney  General  was  chairman  of 
the  "Bill  Davis  for  Leader"  campaign  in 
Toronto  and  York.  Now  we  find  the  former 
Attorney  General  up  in  the  back  row  con- 
templating his  future,  probably  in  private 
practice. 

It's  too  bad,  but  I  suppose  the  Premier  felt, 
if  his  support  was  down  to  28  per  cent  and 
the  experts  were  telling  him  that  his  cabinet 
was  seen  as  a  collection  of  people  who  were 
prepared  to  live  with  conflict  of  interest,  who 
were  prepared  to  dfefend  contracts  going  to 
companies  who  had  given  substantial  political 
donations;  and  that  the  cabinet  was  prepared 


MARCH  8,  1974 


85 


to  allow  large  contracts  to  be  awarded  with- 
out any  reasonable  tendering  procedures  at 
all,  that  somehow  or  other  it  had  to  be 
changed  and  turned  around. 

I'm  not  so  sure  that  he  has  done  this.  He 
fired  five.  Let's  say  five  are  no  longer  in  the 
cabinet.  The  former  Minister  of  Correctional 
Services  (Mr.  Apps),  the  Lady  Byng  award 
winner,  had  indicated  quite  clearly  that  he 
was  not  prepared  to  run  again,  but  the 
Premier  jumped  at  the  chance  to  get  him  out 
of  there.  You  remember  Syl  always  thought 
he  was  going  to  be  minister  of  youth.  It  was 
too  bad  in  many  respects  that  he  never  had 
a  chance  to  show  what  he  could  db  in  pre- 
paring programmes  and  having  them  accepted 
by  the  young  people  in  the  province. 

He  was  brought  into  the  cabinet  in  the 
Correctional  Services  ministry,  which  is  kind 
of  a  passing-out  ministry.  The  present  minis- 
ter, the  former  Minister  of  Health  (Mr. 
Potter),  says  that  he  is  going  into  that  minis- 
try for  a  rest.  Surely  that's  a  strange  way  to 
approach  this  high  responsibility,  but  I 
noticed  as  I  glanced  over  to  the  former  Min- 
ister of  Health  during  question  period  that 
he  was  relaxing  and  enjoying  it,  as  his  col- 
leagues were  attempting  to  explain  why  large 
advertising  budgets  are  still  being  paid  out 
without  any  contract  and  so  on. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Just  like  in  Ottawa. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Premier  says  just  like 
in  Ottawa.  If  he  thinks  he  is  someihow  de- 
stroying the  argument  by  saying  that,  then  he 
is  pretty  naive,  because  if  they  are  doing 
the  same  thing  in  Ottawa,  then  they  are 
serious  rip-off  artists  just  like  this  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  Ruston:  That  is  right. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'll  tell  you  this,  Mr. 
Speaker,  when  we  open  the  newspapers  and 
see  these  tremendous  ads  about  a  fair  share 
for  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario,  we  realize  that 
the  spending  machine  is  starting  a  role  begun 
by  Bob  Macaulay  who  is  retained  at— what? 
$70  an  hour— by  the  government  to  advise  on 
energy  policy.  It  is  really  the  same  old  advice 
that  he  gave  back  in  1962  when  he  said, 
"Let's  get  into  the  advertising  business." 
What  did  they  call  it?  You  know,  the  hippo- 
potamus. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  said,  "Let's  have  a 
bis;  advertising  programme.  Let's  rent  all  the 
billboards.  Let's  take  the  full  page  ads.  Let's 


have  four  colours  on  the  television.  Who  is 
to  stop  us?" 

Wasn't  Bob  Macaulay  the  one  who  said 
that?  And  now  we  see  the  advertising  by 
Ontario.  That  was  it.  Now  it's  a  fair  share 
Ontario.  It's  almost  like  the  new  deal  but 
fair  share  goes  pretty  well. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  More  like  the  old  deal. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  thing  is,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, that  we  have  seen  this  ever  since  Macau- 
lay thought  about  it  for  the  election  of  1963 
—it  happened  in  1967  and  1971,  and  now 
we  are  building  up  to  the  1975— where,  in 
the  guise  of  informing  the  citizens  and  tax- 
payers about  government  policy,  they  simply 
spend  the  citizens'  money  in  self-aggrandize- 
ment and  political  propaganda.  That's  exactly 
what  is  happening,  and  the  fact  that  Dal  ton 
Camp  Associates  gets  $1,250,000  without  a 
contract  or  any  agreement— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  They  don't  get  it.  They 
don't  get  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —simply  confirms  to  me, 
sir,  as  I  am  sure  it  does  to  you,  that  this 
government  in  its  policy  is  directed  by  the 
public  opinion  polls  that  are  fed  to  the 
Premier  week  by  week.  We  can  see  the 
backing  and  filling  that  comes  as  he  receives 
them.  He  is  concerned  that  his  personal 
support  in  the  province,  we  are  told,  is  down 
to  28  per  cent— I  wish  I  could  report  some- 
thing as  dramatic  on  the  other  side— so  he 
shakes  up  the  cabinet,  dismisses  his  old 
friends,  brings  in  a  bunch  of  new  people 
who  are  untried  and  who  are  going  to  be 
failures  in  turn. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No.  Great  ministers. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Then  we  turn  to  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne,  which  is  a  third 
sort  of  level  of  defence:  "What  can  I  do  to 
restore  the  confidence  and  the  good  feeling 
in  'good  old  Bill'  from  Brampton?"  I  believe 
that  even  on  this  level  there  is  another  seri- 
ous failure.  I  listened  with  care  to  the  read- 
ing of  the  speech,  I  have  since  examined  it 
very  carefully,  and  I  have  found  that  it  is 
substantially  insignificant. 

Let  me  be  fair.  I  think  the  idea  of  a 
prescription  drug  plan  for  pensioners  is 
great.  I  think  it  is  a  programme  that  is  going 
to  be  supported  on  all  sides.  The  concept  of 
an  environmental  hearing  board  is  one  that 
is  important  and  we  will  give  it  the  support 
it  deserves  if  in  fact  there  is  an  objective 
hearing  on  the  large  programmes  that  the 
government  brings  forward  which  are  inter- 


86 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


fering  with  the  environment  so  seriously.  But 
in  general  it  does  not  come  to  grips  with 
the  problems  of  inflation  and  the  cost  of 
living,  it  does  not  come  to  grips  with  the 
problems  of  provision  of  housing  and  land- 
use  planning;  it  is  in  this  latter  area  that  I 
want  to  speak  more  directly  for  a  few  mo- 
ments. 

The  Ontario  Task  Force  on  Housing  re- 
ported several  months  ago  that  there  is  a 
near-crisis  in  housing  in  this  province  but,  as 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne  has  revealed,  the 
provincial  government  still  has  no  policy  to 
control  spiralling  land  and  housing  costs.  The 
average  resale  price  of  homes  in  Hamilton, 
for  example,  was  21  per  cent  higher  in  the 
last  half  of  1973  than  a  year  earlier.  House 
lot  prices  in  Ottawa  jumped  up  150  per  cent 
from  1965  to  1972.  The  average  price  of  all 
houses  sold  in  Ontario  rose  by  26  per  cent 
between  1970  and  1973,  with  much  more 
spectacular  increases  in  specific  communi- 
ties, such  as  Metropolitan  Toronto. 

The  real  problem,  the  most  serious  prob- 
lem is  here  in  the  Metro  area,  where  the  cost 
of  shelter  rose  by  36  per  cent  last  year 
alone.  Thirty-six  per  cent  in  one  year,  an 
increase  of  $1,000  per  month  on  the  average 
house.  The  housing  cost  increase  was  about 
four  times  as  much  as  the  rise  in  the  cost  of 
living  and  almost  twice  as  much  as  food 
price  increases  in  1973. 

Everywhere  in  Ontario  housing  prices  are 
out  of  control  and  the  ripples,  almost  tidal 
waves,  from  the  Toronto  housing  situation 
are  spreading  throughout  southern  Ontario 
as  prospective  home  buyers  and  land  specu- 
lators search  farther  and  farther  afield. 

In  St.  Catharines,  for  example,  land  prices 
started  to  rise  about  18  months  ago  because 
of  pressures  in  the  Toronto  real  estate  mar- 
ket. In  Barrie,  another  good  example,  almost 
all  housing  purchases  can  be  directly  attri- 
buted to  the  lack  of  housing  and  the  high 
prices  in  this  very  community. 

The  Ontario  Economic  Council  reported 
last  year,  "The  primary  cause  is  the  scarcity 
of  developed  land,"  something  that  the  new 
Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Handleman)  has 
indicated  that  he  is  prepared  to  accept  and 
act  on  if  possible.  The  demand  for  land  far 
exceeds  the  supply,  and  the  shortage  has 
been  heightened  by  competition  for  available 
sites  between  foreign  and  domestic  capital. 
The  result  is  artificially  high  land  costs  which 
are  eventually  passed  on  to  home  buyers. 

German,  Swiss,  American,  Japanese  and 
British  investors  have  all  been  attracted  to 
Ontario's  buoyant  property  market,  but  their 


demand  for  real  estate  has  resulted  in  in- 
flated housing  prices  for  Canadians.  Last 
year  the  Urban  Development  Institute  re- 
vealed that  13  foreign-controlled  companies 
owned  half  of  the  land  available  for  housing 
between  Oshawa  and  Burlington.  Let  me 
repeat  that:  Between  Oshawa  and  Burlington, 
half  the  land  available  for  development— that 
is,  half  of  the  land  that  has  been  assembled— 
is  owned  by  13  foreign-controlled  companies. 

Foreign  firms  have  also  made  substantial 
purchases  in  other  parts  of  the  province. 
Now,  in  this  House  there  are  members  from 
every  area  of  Ontario  and,  Mr.  Speaker,  as 
an  individual  member  you  are  aware  of  the 
intrusions  of  buyers  from  outside  the  com- 
munity and  from  outside  Canada  who  are 
prepared  to  buy  anything  in  the  way  of  real 
estate  or  property  at  any  price. 

In  my  own  community,  you  go  into  the 
small  towns  and  you  find  that  the  old  hotel, 
maybe  or  maybe  not  licensed  premises,  often 
in  a  state  of  disrepair,  economically  unviable 
under  present  circumstances,  has  recently 
been  bought  by  someone  representing  inter- 
ests from  outside  of  Canada. 

Farm  tracts  are  being  bought  up  in  large 
amounts.  Foreign  firms  have  also  made  sub- 
stantial purchases  in  the  urban  centres.  The 
Swiss-owned  firm  of  Fidinam  (Ontario)  Ltd., 
for  instance,  controls  a  large  tract  of  land  in 
Norfolk  county  near  the  Nanticoke  generating 
project.  It  was  bought  some  years  ago  with 
the  expectation  that  the  Nanticoke  generating 
complex  would  increase  the  value  of  that 
land.  The  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  has  frozen 
its  utilization  but  eventually  planning  deci- 
sions will  have  to  be  made  which  will  either 
set  it  aside  for  all  time,  which  is  very  un- 
likely, or  open  it  up  for  development. 

But  these  companies  have  not  confined 
their  acquisitions  to  raw  land.  The  select 
committee  on  economic  and  cultural  afi^airs 
reported  five  months  ago: 

There  is  concern  about  substantial  for- 
eign investment  in  urban  commercial  de- 
velopments, both  new  and  existing.  It  is 
claimed  that  through  market  linkages, 
undue  upward  pressure  on  residential  real 
hyper-investment  of  this  sort  is  putting 
estate  prices  and  shelter  costs. 

The  amount  of  foreign-owned  land  in  central 
Ontario  is  staggering.  The  downtown  Toronto 
block  bounded  by  Elm,  St.  Patrick,  Simcoe 
and  Dundas  streets  is  owned  by  a  corporation 
known  as  DWS  Toronto  Holdings  Ltd., 
which  is  controlled  by  the  Dreyfus  group  of 
New  York. 


MARCH  8,  1974 


87 


A  German  company,  LehndorfF  Manage- 
ment Ltd.,  owns  property  at  360  Bay  St. 
German  interests  also  recently  bought  prop- 
erty on  Don  Mills  Rd.  and  Gateway  Blvd.  in 
East  York. 

EILPRO  Holdings  Ltd.,  a  Swiss  company, 
has  substantial  holdings  in  central  Toronto, 
including  the  block  bounded  by  Yonge,  Wel- 
lington, Scott  and  Front  streets;  property 
fronting  on  Chestnut,  Armoury  and  Centre 
streets;  property  on  the  southwest  corner  of 
Bloor  and  Jarvis  streets;  property  on  the 
south  side  of  Walton  St.,  between  Bay  and 
Yonge  streets.  EILPRO  bought  land  fronting 
on  Bay,  Gerrard  and  Walton  streets  from 
Japanese  interests  about  two  years  ago. 

Besides  its  substantial  acreage  in  Norfolk 
county,  Fidinam  (Ontario)  Ltd.,  a  Swiss  firm, 
owns  or  controls  property  at  the  northeast 
comer  of  Bloor  and  Yonge  streets— that's  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board  head  office— 
at  the  northeast  comer  of  University  Ave.  and 
Wellington  St.,  and  on  the  west  side  of 
Yonge  St.  north  of  Davenport  Rd.  Fidinam 
also  controls  the  Park  Plaza  Hotel  at  the 
northwest  comer  of  Bloor  St.  and  Avenue 
Rd.;  land  assemblies  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
northeast  comer  of  Bloor  St.  and  Avenue  Rd.; 
and  most  of  the  block  bounded  by  Queen, 
Victoria,  Richmond  and  Yonge  streets. 

Trizec  Corp.,  controlled  by  Star  (Great 
Britain)  Holdings  Ltd.,  ovras  the  Hyatt  House 
Hotel  and  the  Yorkdale  Shopping  Centre. 

MEPC  Canadian  Properties  Ltd.,  another 
British  company,  owns  the  northeast  comer 
of  Marlborough  and  Yonge  streets.  Hammer- 
son  Properties  of  England  owns  the  south- 
west comer  of  University  Ave.  and  Welling- 
ton St. 

Capital  and  Counties  Real  Estate  of  Eng- 
land acquired  property  on  Dundas  St.  east  of 
University  Ave.  when  it  gained  control  of 
Great  Northern  Capital  Corp. 

Such  extensive  foreign  participation  in  the 
Ontario  land  market  not  only  infringes  on 
our  natural  heritage,  but  also  contributes  to 
higher  shelter  costs  for  the  residents  of  this 
province.  This  type  of  foreign  investment 
does  not  create  jobs,  or  advance  technology. 
It  benefits  only  the  investors.  The  provincial 
government  must  act  promptly  to  restrict 
future  land  purchases  to  residents  of  Canada 
and  Canadian-owned  corporations  or  Cana- 
dian-controlled corporations,  or  an  even 
greater  influx  of  foreign  money  will  further 
inflate  Ontario's  land  prices. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  put  this  to  the  Premier  and 
the  administration  most  seriously,  that  there 
has    always   been   the   feeling  here  that   we 


have  a  wide-open  economy.  I  can  remember 
the  Premier  saying,  "Surely  if  we  have  the 
right  to  buy  properties  such  as  condominiums 
in  Florida,  why  should  we  restrict  the  pur- 
chase of  properties  here  in  Canada  to  foreign 
investors?"  I  would  simply  say  to  you,  sir, 
that  with  our  population  and  our  economic 
viability,  that  if  we  leave  all  of  our  properties 
open  to  the  investment  of  foreign  capital, 
then  we  are  going  to  find  that  this  property 
is  going  to  be  almost  entirely  foreign-owned 
and  controlled  and  that  the  pressures  brought 
by  investments  of  this  type  are  unnaturaUy 
inflating  and  dislocating  the  prices  that  we 
ourselves  must  pay  for  our  own  housing  and 
commercial  investments.  This  is  tme  not  only 
in  the  urban  centres,  but  it  is  equally  tme 
in  our  recreational  centres.  The  time  has 
surely  come  for  us  to  say  to  people  who  are 
not  Canadian,  "You  are  welcome  here  on  a 
lease  basis  only." 

I  think,  on  the  other  hand,  as  far  as  our 
own  residents  are  concerned,  that  they  should 
have  the  right  to  buy  recreation  properties  in 
the  north  where  in  fact  they  are  compatible 
with  the  ecological  and  enviroimiental  plan 
and  programme  for  the  areas  to  be  devel- 
oped. 

We  are  concemed  with  the  encroachment 
in  our  agricultural  areas.  I  have  become  quite 
sensitive,  particularly  to  the  class  1  and  2 
agricultural  land  arguments,  and  I  am  sure 
that  there  is  not  a  government  minister  who 
doesn't  think  about  this  now  whenever  a  pro- 
gramme is  going  to  encroach  on  further 
property  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  Unfor- 
tunately, we  cannot  freeze  expansion,  although 
some  municipalities  have  attempted  to  do  so 
under  the  direction  of  the  planners  at  the 
provincial  level. 

I  know  of  municipalities  in  my  own  con- 
stituency that  are  proud  of  the  fact  that  no 
serviced  lots  have  been  opened  up  in  two 
years  and  no  severances  granted  in  the  same 
period  of  time.  Perhaps  this  would  be  some- 
thing to  be  proud  of  if  in  fact  we  had 
achieved  zero  population  growth.  But  far  from 
that  fact,  our  population  continues  to  grow, 
although  at  a  lower  rate,  and  immigration  has 
been  reduced,  but  we  still  find  in  manv  com- 
munities where  government  policy  or  lack  of 
policy  has  frozen  development  that  young 
people  embarking  on  the  responsibilities  of 
married  and  family  life,  have  one  alternative 
only,  and  that  is  to  crowd  further  into  facil- 
ities that  are  already  available  or  to  move 
out  of  the  community  into  the  urban  centres 
and  bring  additional  pressures  of  expansion 
there. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


We  must  realize  that  development  cannot 
be  frozen,  even  though  individuals  and  poli- 
ticians may  from  time  to  time  call  for  that 
as  an  alternative.  We  cannot  put  all  of  the 
growth  and  development  on  the  Canadian 
Shield,  that  area  where  people  seem  to  think 
that  houses  are  going  to  be  set  up  on  the 
rock  so  that  the  farmers  can  continue  to 
grow  food  on  the  good  land.  I  would  hope 
that  the  government  would  return  to  the  con- 
cepts of  the  Toronto-centred  region  and  see 
that  the  Canadian  Shield  is  going  to  have  a 
good  many  incentives  for  further  develop- 
p^ent.  But  we  must  not  for  a  moment  think 
that  the  communities  already  established  in 
th'^'  province  can  be  frozen  at  a  no-growth 
•status.  We  do  have  young  people  who  want 
to  live  in  their  own  community.  They  want 
to  have  a  chance  to  work  there. 

I  will  have  something  more  to  say  about 
the  intrusions  of  government  programmes  on 
class  one  and  two  land  in  a  few  moments,  but 
I  for  one  do  not  believe  development  can  be 
stopped  altogether,  and  anyone  who  preaches 
that  is  surely  being  unjust  and  unfair  and 
unreasonable. 

I  should  say  that  when  we  talk  about  the 
pressures  of  foreign  capital  increasing  the 
prices  of  our  own  land  and  housing  stock, 
we  must  be  aware  that  newly  enriched 
Middle  Eastern  countries  are  already  rumoured 
to  be  buying  land  in  Ontario.  When  the 
'Sheikhs  of  Araby"  see  that  the  billions  of 
dollars  channelling  into  their  treasuries  can 
only  buy  so  many  solid  gold  Cadillacs,  they 
are  going  to  be  looking  for  the  kind  of  in- 
vestments which  in  the  long  run  will  be 
much  more  valuable  than  the  bullion  that 
they  are  now  demanding  in  payment  for  their 
precious  oil,  and  some  of  the  most  valuable 
assets  are,  of  course,  the  real  estate  right 
here  in  Ontario  and  other  parts  of  Canada. 

We  can  see,  Mr,  Speaker,  more  and'  more, 
that  buyers  with  foreign  capital  from  Italy, 
Switzerland,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Great 
Britain  and  the  oil-producing  nations,  are 
coming  here  with  absolutely  no  restraints  on 
the  prices  to  be  paid.  If  anything  is  for  sale 
at  any  price  it  will  be  bought,  its  title  trans- 
ferred, and  it  will  then  become  a  real  asset 
as  far  as  the  speculators,  and  particularly  the 
investment  council  of  these  capital-intensive 
countries,  are  concerned. 

Relaxed  Japanese  regulations  for  investors 
in  foreign  land  have  been  in  effect  for  only 
a  few  years.  As  you  are  aware,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  outflow  of  Japanese  capital  was  carefully 
controlled  for  many  years  at  the  time  when 
the  industry  and  the  development  of  the  in- 
dustrial plant  in  Japan  had  to  be  financed  with 


their  own  resources.  But  now  this  money  is 
rolling  out  of  Japan  and  it  is  coming  into  the 
investment  in  real  estate  in  our  own  com- 
munities. The  recent  devaluation  of  the  Cana- 
dian dollar  in  relation  to  European  and 
Japanese  currencies  is  also  attracting  foreign 
investment  to  Ontario's  real  estate  market 
which,  because  its  value  is  rising  so  fast,  is 
a  better  investment  even  than  gold. 

Restrictions  on  foreign  land  ownership  will 
ease  the  upward  pressure  on  land  prices 
somewhat,  but  tough  measures'  are  also  re- 
quired to  stop  land  speculation  by  Canadians. 
Just  yesterday  the  newly-elected'  president  of 
the  Ontario  Real  Estate  Association  estimated 
that  30  per  cent  of  all  land  transactions  in 
Ontario  involved  speculators.  Land  specula- 
tion in  the  Toronto  area  has  recently  been 
accelerating  at  an  alarming  rate.  A  representa- 
tive of  the  Urban  Development  Institute  esti- 
mated this  week  that  the  total  acreage  of 
assembled  land  aroimd  Metropolitan  Toronto 
has  increased  by  50  per  cent  since  last 
August  as  a  result  of  feverish  speculative 
activity. 

I  am  sure  the  Premier  and  his  advisers  are 
concerned  about  this.  If  you  come  from  a 
rural  area  you  are  aware  that  once  the  farm 
holding  of  a  traditional  farm  family  has  been 
broken,  in  other  words  the  farm  is  sold,  you 
can  almost  guarantee  that  it  will  be  sold 
three  more  times  in  the  next  two  years,  each 
at  a  substantially  inflated  price. 

The  real  estate  agents,  of  course,  are  very 
anxious  to  do  this.  Why  should  they  not  be? 
They  collect  their  commission  on  the  whole 
thing  right  from  the  word  go,  and  this  in 
addition  adds  upward  pressure  to  the  cost  of 
the  property. 

The  attitude  of  those  people  who  either 
have  money  to  invest  or  can  collect,  scrape 
together,  a  down  payment  is  that  in  land 
speculation  they  can't  lose,  there  will  always 
be  somebody  along  within  a  month  of  the 
purchase  offering  them  more  than  they  paid. 

We  are  told  by  builders,  those  developing 
new  communities  in  urban  areas  particularly, 
that  individuals,  if  they  possibly  can,  no 
longer  buy  a  house  for  themselves  and  their 
family,  but  they  will  try  to  buy  five  or  six 
homes  in  a  community  such  as  that.  They  will 
make  a  down  payment,  then  perhaps  try  to 
postpone  the  closing,  and  the  builder  will 
find  that  the  houses  have  been  resold  at  a 
substantial  profit  within  four  to  five  months. 

These  are  the  things  that  must  concern 
us  all  and  surely  must  concern  the  govern- 
ment policy  makers.  The  activity  surely  is  not 
confined  to  Toronto.   The  provincial  govern- 


MARCH  8,  1974 


ment  has  failed  to  develop  a  rational  plan  for 
the  development  and  servicing  of  raw  land. 
Rumours  and  uncertainty  are  fueling  specula- 
tion throughout  Ontario.  The  UDI  representa- 
tive stated  that: 

There  isn't  a  community  in  southern 
Ontario  that  doesn't  have  land  speculation 
going  on  around  it.  Until  the  province 
makes  an  announcement  about  where  the 
next  developments  will  go  the  speculation 
will  continue.  In  the  past  few  weeks  it 
has  gotten  worse.  There  has  never  been 
as  much  speculative  money  around  as  there 
is  now,  and  never  as  much  uninformed 
speculation.  Every  little  town  is  being 
bought  up. 

It  is  true.  In  the  village  of  St.  George,  where 
housing  of  very,  very  moderate  circumstances 
indeed  was  being  traded  between  $10,000 
and  $15,000  no  more  than  18  months  ago, 
it  has  now  sky-rocketed  to  the  point  where 
one  of  these  very  moderate  homes,  indeed  if 
it  comes  on  the  market  and  they  do  so  only 
rarely,  goes  for  $30,000  to  $35,000. 

We  are  not  talking  about  price  controls; 
we  are  talking  about  the  availability  of  ser- 
viced land  and  a  programme  to  build  hous- 
ing so  that  people  in  urban,  and  also  in  rural 
communities,  can  have  an  opportunity  for 
housing  that  is  rationally  associated  with  the 
amount  of  money  available  from  their  own 
employment.  The  government  must  act  im- 
mediately to  bring  this  intolerable  situation 
under  control.  The  unbridled  greed  of  land 
speculators  is  pushing  shelter  costs  out  of 
reach  for  all  but  the  wealthiest  of  our  citi- 
zens. I  don't  think  we  can  expect  people 
trading  in  land  to  say,  "Oh,  my,  that  price 
is  too  high.  I  will  not  take  it."  That  would 
be  an  unnatural  expectation  in  the  extreme. 

The  people  trade  in  land  to  make  a  profit, 
and  they  are  making  tremendous  profits  right 
now.  As  I  drive  into  Toronto  from  my  home 
from  the  west,  I  come  along  much  the  same 
route  followed  by  the  Premier,  at  least  in 
the  last  few  miles.  He  must  be  as  aware  as 
I  am  that  the  farmlands  for  40  miles  around 
this  city  are  largely  abandoned.  The  barns 
are  falling  down,  the  fences  are  in  disrepair 
and  the  fields  are  growing  nothing  but 
golden-rod. 

This  is  because  of  the  uncontrolled  aspects 
of  land  speculation  and  not  because  of  the 
farmers  themselves  who  received  a  good 
price,  took  the  money  in  most  cases  and 
either  retired  if  they  were  elderly  or  took 
the  money  and  bought  viable  farmland  else- 
where. They  were  able  to  build  new  build- 
ings,   transfer    their    stock    and    continue    as 


active  dairy,  beef  and  cash  crop  farmers 
elsewhere  in  the  province.  Some  of  this  best 
land  lies  there  growing  weeds. 

It  must  bring  tears  to  the  eyes  of  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food,  because 
he  doesn't  like  to  see  it  go  out  of  produc- 
tion. As  a  farmer,  I  think  he  would  like  to 
get  in  there  with  a  big  plough  and  turn  it 
back  into  production  and  make  some  money 
on  it.  I  can't  understand  why  these  lands 
cannot  somehow  be  brought  back  into  viable 
farming  operations.  Believe  me  when  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  says  that 
he's  concerned  about  and  is  prepared  to 
bring  forward  programmes  requiring  that,  he 
will  get  support  from  this  side,  because  we 
don't  like  the  looks  of  it.  We  believe  it  is 
wasteful  and  we  do  not  believe  that  the 
speculators  should  simply  sit  back  on  their 
hunkers  waiting  until  the  price  is  right. 

This  is  a  matter  that  concerns  all  of  us. 
I  hope  that  we  are  going  to  have  something 
more  than  policy  pronouncements  but  real 
action  in  that  regard.  The  incentive  to  specu- 
late in  land  must  be  removed  by  applying  a 
steep  rate  of  tax  to  these  windfall  gains. 
This  tax  should  apply  to  profits  from  most 
sales  of  raw  land  and  houses  which  are  not 
occupied  by  the  owner,  but  should  not  apply 
to  profits  from  the  sale  of  a  principal  resi- 
dence or  to  profits  from  the  sale  of  an 
owner-occupied  family  farm. 

It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the  tax  base 
we  presently  have  will  accommodate  it.  I 
believe  it  can  be  used  to  require  that  land 
be  kept  in  production,  and  also  at  least  to 
control  in  the  public  interest  to  some  extent 
the  unbridled  situation  that  we  are  all  so 
much  aware  of.  In  other  words,  the  tax 
should  be  structured  in  such  a  way  as  to 
apply  to  speculators  only  without  penalizing 
other  landowners.  A  tax  on  speculative  land 
profits  can  slow  the  price  rise,  but  in  order 
to  reduce  and  stabilize  housing  costs  in 
Ontario  the  provincial  government  must  en- 
sure that  there  is  always  an  oversupply  of 
serviced  land  available  for  residential  de- 
velopment. 

The  Ontario  Economic  Council  remarked 
a  year  ago  that  by  concentrating  its  efforts 
on  house  building  programmes  instead  of 
land  servicing  the  province  was  "treating  the 
symptoms  and  not  the  disease."  The  Ontario 
Economic  Council  also  noted  that  Ontario 
lacks  "a  planned  programme  of  ensuring  an 
adequate  supply  of  serviced  land  in  the 
correct  places." 

As  an  immediate  step,  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment should  develop  its  own  land  holdings 


90 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


where  they  fit  in  with  the  municipal  official 
plan.  This  would  include,  in  the  case  of 
Ontario  Housing  holdings,  the  3,000  acres 
assembled  in  Waterloo  county  where  it  fits 
in  with  the  official  plans  of  Kitchener- 
Waterloo  and  the  new  community  known  as 
Cambridge,  and  also  the  1,700  acres  at 
Malvern,  where  development  is  beginning.  It 
has  now  progressed,  I  believe,  to  stage  3,  but 
servicing  should  go  forward  on  a  priority 
basis  to  make  these  lands  further  available. 

The  activities  of  the  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
should  be  expanded  to  encompass  a  land 
servicing  programme  with  the  objective  of 
restoring  balance  to  our  supply-short  land 
market.  After  the  provincial  government  has 
consulted  with  municipalities  in  order  to 
establish  areas  where  residential  development 
is  desirable  and  acceptable,  Ontario  Housing 
should  build  the  necessary  trunk  sei^vices  for 
water  and  sewage  as  a  public  utility.  These 
services  should  be  sold  to  municipalities  in 
much  the  same  way  as  Hydro  sells  electricity. 
The  province  should  guarantee  loans  for 
capital  expenditures  as  it  does  with  Hydro, 
and  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  should  be  re- 
quired to  repay  its  debts  from  the  revenues 
accrued. 

The  cost  to  Ontario  taxpayers  of  such  a 
land  servicing  programme  would  therefore  be 
minimal,  but  housing  prices  would  be  sub- 
stantially reduced.  A  government-run  land 
servicing  programme  would  also  permit  more 
orderly  growth  throughout  the  province.  Spe- 
cifically it  would  allow  the  provincial  govern- 
ment to  decentralize  the  growth  pressures 
which  are  contributing  to  urban  sprawl  in 
southern  Ontario  by  providing  inexpensive 
land  in  eastern  and  northern  Ontario. 

Of  course,  a  co-ordinated  programme  to 
decentralize  growth  must  also  include  ap- 
propriate stimulation  for  industrial  develop- 
ment and  employment  opportunities  in  the 
north  and  the  east.  It  goes  without  saying 
and  it  has  been  said  by  government  repre- 
sentatives on  many  occasions.  But  we  have 
got  to  the  point,  surely,  where  government 
pohcy  must  be  something  more  than  simply 
the  expression  of  pious  hopes.  There  are 
these  lands  held  in  public  ownership  in 
various  parts  of  the  province,  such  as  Brant- 
ford,  Waterloo,  certainly  here  in  Malvern,  and 
with  projects  beginning  elsewhere.  It  is 
surely  time  for  the  government  to  decide  on 
the  development  of  services  for  those  areas 
and  to  proceed  with  making  the  serviced  lots 
available.  If  in  the  Ontario  housing  pro- 
gramme it  is  deemed  necessary  that  the  so- 
called  Home  Ownership  Made  Easy  pro- 
gramme would  apply,  the  government  could 


in  fact  not  only  service  the  land  but  build 
the  houses.  In  most  cases  the  serviced  lots 
should  be  made  available  to  private  enter- 
prise and  individuals  who  want  to  buy  the 
serviced  lot  and  build  their  own  homes. 

Inexpensive  housing  forms  including  mobile 
and  factory-produced  homes  must  be  en- 
couraged. In  five  years  of  experimentation 
with  system  building  of  houses  in  the  United 
States  costs  have  been  reduced  by  36  per  cent 
despite  rising  labour  and  building  material 
prices.  When  I  refer  to  building  material 
prices  we  in  this  House  should  move  to  re- 
duce the  sales  taxation  on  building  materials 
and,  of  course,  the  taxes  levied  at  the 
federal  level  as  well;  seven  per  cent  here,  12 
per  cent  in  Ottawa.  It  would  give  a  sub- 
stantial stimulus  to  the  building  programme 
and,  I  would  trust,  it  would  indicate  a  reduc- 
tion in  the  costs  of  housing  if  these  taxes 
were  moderated  or  removed  or  if,  in  fact,  an 
equivalent  grant  were  made  to  the  builders 
or  purchasers  of  new  homes. 

The  main  source  of  the  saving  is  in  re- 
duced assembly  time  with  regard  to  some  of 
the  new  forms  of  building,  such  as  the 
system  building  that  have  been  used  in 
various  areas  of  the  United  States.  The  stand- 
ard production  methods  and  close  super- 
vision of  mass  production  enable  system 
builders  to  provide  high  quality  housing  at 
low  cost. 

One  of  the  most  impressive  system  build- 
ing programmes  is  in  Akron,  Ohio,  where 
$17,000  two-storey  townhouses  were  renting 
a  few  months  ago  for  from  $47  monthly  for 
a  two-bedroom  unit  to  $54  monthly  for  four 
bedrooms.  That  is  not  a  subsidized  housing 
programme.  The  unions  associated  with  the 
building  programme  have  endorsed  the  pro- 
gramme because  parts  are  produced  in  union 
plants  and  on-site  assembly  is  done  by  union 
workers. 

In  some  areas  where  the  programme  has 
been  attempted  those  people  who  must  do 
the  work  have  objected  because  they  have 
felt  that  it  cut  into  their  own  livelihood,  but 
such  is  not  the  case  under  these  circum- 
stances. 

The  building  codes  of  most  Ontario  cities 
bar  such  housing  not  because  of  structural 
specifications  but  because  of  house  and  lot 
size  restrictions.  Municipalities  demand  over- 
sized lots,  wide  streets  and  highest  quality 
services  because  of  their  heavy  rehance  on 
property  taxes  as  a  souice  of  revenue. 

Low-cost  housing  on  small  lots  means  lower 
property  tax  returns.  Kitchener  has  recently 
relaxed  its  high  standards  on  some  lots  and 


MARCH  8,  1974 


91 


other  municipalities  should  be  encouraged  to 
do  hkewise. 

In  our  party  we  recognize  the  high  accom- 
modation costs  as  a  serious  problem  and  un- 
like the  Conservative  government  we  have  a 
policy  to  solve  that  problem.  The  govern- 
ment's refusal'  to  act  in  the  past  has  pre- 
cipitated' a  crisis  housing  situation  in  this 
province.  Strong  action,  including  restrictions 
on  foreign  investment  in  land,  steep  taxes  on 
speculative  land  profits,  a  government-run 
land  servicing  programme  and  steps  to  reduce 
residential  construction  costs  are  urgently  re- 
quired in  order  to  avoid  further  housing  price 
increases. 

I  would  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
housing  price  increases  cannot  be  avoided,  if 
the  plan  put  forward  in  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne  is  the  only  basis  for  government 
action.  The  increase  in  the  amount  of  money 
that  is  available  to  service  land  is  not  suflB- 
cient  to  make  an  impact  in  the  communities 
of  this  province  and  is  substantially  in- 
adequate, in  fact,  to  be  even  anything  more 
than  more  of  the  same.  I  would  say  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  matter  is  a  principal 
and  priority  concern  to  all  of  us  in  this 
House  during  this  session. 

I  wanted  to  congratulate  the  new  Minister 
of  Housing  on  his  appointment.  I  had  felt 
frankly  that,  being  a  trade  economist  and  a 
tax  expert,  his  usefulness,  if  he  were  to  be 
brought  into  the  cabinet,  might  perhaps  be 
in  the  revenue  area  rather  than  as  Minister 
of  Housing.  He  said  himself  that  he  can't 
drive  a  nail  straight,  but  I  don't  suppose  that 
is  going  to  detract  from  his  applying  in  the 
best  possible  way  the  moneys  made  available 
by  the  Treasury  and,  more  particularly,  from 
applying  the  pohcies  that  are  agreed  upon 
by  this  government.  But  the  best  minister 
caimot  do  anything  if,  in  fact,  the  money  is 
not  available  nor  if  the  principles  behind  the 
policy  are  not  adequate  to  meet  the  needs. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  concerned 
about  the  cabinet  changes  that  the  Premier 
announced  just  a  few  days  ago.  We  wish  the 
best  for  the  new  ministers.  We  want  to  ques- 
tion them  as  closely  and  as  strictly  as  we  can 
as  their  policies  are  enunciated.  But  we  look 
at  the  new  Minister  of  the  Environment 
(Mr.  W.  Newman).  A  man  in  his  position  is 
going  to  have  considerable  problem  in  his 
own  constituency.  The-  land  of  Cedarwood'  is 
being  assembled  and  many  of  the  citizens  in 
that  area  feel  that  they  have  been  dealt  with 
unfairly  by  the  government  in  that  hearings 
on  expropriations  have  been  cancelled  by 
order  in  council  or  not  permitted  under  the 
provisions  of  the  statute. 


Pickering  airport  is  being  built  there.  The 
new  Minister  of  the  Environment  is  in  a 
good  position  surely,  if  he  has  the  courage  of 
the  convictions  he  has  stated  so  ably  in  the 
past  that  we  don't  need  an  airport  in  that 
location,  to  say  to  his  colleagues  in  the 
cabinet  that  a  statement  of  policy  from  the 
government  should  go  forward  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Canada  saying,  "We  do  not  want  the 
airport  there.  It  is  the  view  of  this  province 
that  those  plans  should  be  cancelled.  If  we, 
in  fact,  are  going  to  be  meeting  the  long- 
range  requirements  of  the  community  of 
Ontario,  then  the  airport  should  be  moved 
elsewhere." 

You  say  where?  I  would  say  on  to  the 
Canadian  Shield.  It  does  not  have  to  go  in 
any  location  where  it  is  going  to  be  that  close 
to  this  particular  centre,  because  I  don't  be- 
lieve we  are  going  to  need  its  facilities  until 
1985  or  maybe  1990.  I  believe  that  the  air- 
port should  be  cancelled  and  so  does  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment.  Why  does  not 
the  government,  following  the  statements 
made  by  its  own  minister  in  his  former 
private  member's  capacity,  simply  tell  the 
government  of  Canada  that  it  does  not  meet 
the  needs  of  this  province  and  see  that  it  is 
adjusted  accordingly? 

While  there  has  been  some  land  assembly 
go  forward,  there  appears  to  have  been  some- 
thing less  than  a  total  commitment  to  the 
Pickering  site.  The  complaints  about  it  are 
valid  and  come  from  many  sources.  It  is 
true  —  and  the  Prime  Minister  said  it  in 
Toronto  just  a  few  days  ago  —  that  if  one 
cancels  Pickering  it  is  going  to  put  additional 
pressures  on  Malton.  That  is  one  of  the 
things  that  must  be  taken  realistically  into 
consid^eration.  By  so  saying,  I  mean  to  meet 
the  needs  of  the  air  transportation  require- 
ments, but  also  politically,  because  the  people 
living  around  Malton  get  aw^ly  sick  of 
hearing  those  planes  and  some  of  the  low- 
flying  ones  may  even  fly  up  as  far  as  Bramp- 
ton. 

iHon.  Mr.  Davis:  Ask  the  member  for 
Etobicoke  (Mr,  Braithwaite)  what  he  thinks 
about  an  expansion  there. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  are  not  talking  about 
an  expansion  there.  We  are  saying  that  that 
can  serve  the  needs  of  the  community  until 
1980  to  1985,  perhaps  to  1990. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Without  an  expansion? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Now  is  the  time  to  can- 
cel the  new  Pickering  airport  and  see  that 
it  is  located  further  from  Toronto,  vdthout 
using  class  1  and  2  land. 


92 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member's  colleague 
is  laughing. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  is  no  possible  way 
that  the  Premier  can  have  it  both  ways,  I 
am  simply  pointing  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  problem  that  his  own  new  Minister  of 
the  Environment  is  going  to  have  in  meeting 
the  problems  that  he  finds  in  his  own  con- 
stituency. He  has  got  Cedarwood,  the  Pick- 
ering airport,  enormous  new  garbage  dumps, 
the  proposal  for  Highway  407,  the  new  sew- 
ers and  service  road  that  are  going  to  come 
up  and  angle  in  to  service  the  north  part 
of  the  Metro  area  —  all  right  in  the  home 
farming  fields  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment. 

He  has  problems,  there  is  no  doubt  about 
it.  He  is  an  honourable  man  and  a  man 
with  ability,  but  the  Premier  has  given  him 
an  assignment  which  is  going  to  crack  him 
up.  He  will  not  be  able  to  continue  to 
represent  his  own  people  white  imposing  the 
environmental  threats  in  his  own  community 
under  those  circumstances.  There  is  going 
to  have  to  be  a  change  in  policy  and  I  would 
suggest  to  you  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  Premier 
should  announce  a  change  in  policy  in  con- 
nection with  the  airport. 

Now,  the  Premier  is  prepared'  to  make 
policy  changes.  He  has  made  that  clear.  As 
a  matter  or  fact,  I  am  wondering  what  he 
is  going  to  do  with  the  situations  that  come 
in  upon  him  on  the  development  of  new 
communities  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

I  have  talked  about  this  already  for  a 
moment,  but  I  would  like  to  say  this  that  in 
Norfolk  county  where  we  have  imposed  a 
new  regional  government,  the  decision  has 
been  made  by  the  experts  advising  the  Treas- 
urer that  a  large  new  community  with  a 
population  of  250,000  is  going  to  be  required 
in  what  is  now  callted  the  city  of  Nanticoke; 
and  yet  the  Treasurer  has  said  that  he  is 
going  to  demand  the  right  to  make  the 
decision  on  its  location,  but  he  hasn't  made 
the  decision  on  its  location. 

Now,  I  just  ask  you  to  consider,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  dislocation  that  brings  to  the 
land  market  of  the  Norfolk  and  Haldimand 
area,  that  the  land  is  being  optioned  at  ever 
increasing  and  spiralling  rates,  the  Treasurer 
has  frozen  all  the  land,  so  that  it  is  very 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  get  a  severance 
and  a  building  permit.  The  most  minor 
building  permit  must  be  approved  from  the 
Treasurer's  office.  That's  the  situation  we  are 
in. 

It  has  been  that  way  now  for  well  over 
a  year  and  the  time  surely  has  come  when 


we  have  had  a  sufficient,  it's  not  a  cooling 
off  period  because  things  have  heated  up, 
but  a  sufficient  period  of  time  for  the  Treas- 
urer and  his  planners,  and  he  designates 
himself  as  the  chief  planner  for  the  province, 
to  make  a  decision  on  those  areas;  and  there 
have  been  resolutions  from  the  local  councils 
calling  for  the  decision  to  be  made. 

ilf  the  Treasurer  decided  in  his  wisdom 
that  it  would  be  better  that  the  decision  be 
made  by  the  local  people,  then'  let  him  so 
announce  and  indicate  to  the  local  authori- 
ties that  their  decision,  after  suflBcient  con- 
sultation with  the  experts  available  to  them, 
must  be  made  within  a  certain  period  of 
time.  But  we  cannot  continue  to  delay,  we 
cannot  continue  to  hold  large  parcels  of  land 
in  the  name  of  Ontario  Housing,  without 
development,  in  communities  where  serviced 
land  is  in  short  supply.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
government  policy  in  this  regard  is  com- 
pletely inadequate. 

Now,  another  new  cabinet  minister  is  the 
former  parliamentary  assistant  to  the  Trea- 
surer, who  is  now  the  Minister  of  Revenue 
(Mr,  Meen).  Probably  this  minister  is  more 
of  an  authority  on  the  intricacies  of  regional 
government  than  any  one  now  in  the  Legis- 
lature. It  seems  to  me  that  to  direct  his 
abilities  into  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  is  a 
strange  decision  indeed;  it  seems  surely  that 
with  regional  governments  just  now  coming 
into  operation  in  various  parts  of  the  prov- 
ince, it  wouW  have  been  a  much  more  effec- 
tive decision  indeed  if  this  member,  if  he 
was  going  to  be  taken  into  the  cabinet  at 
all,  would  have  had  some  general  supervisory 
responsibility  pertaining  to  these  regions. 

This  is  a  matter  that  is  difiBcult  to  explain. 
He  becomes  Minister  of  Revenue,  unless  per- 
haps that  is  a  training  ground  for  the 
Treasurership  of  the  province,  which  we  are 
told  is  going  to  be  vacated  by  the  present 
Treasurer  some  time  in  the  not  too  distant 
future.  The  situation  under  those  circum- 
stances might  be  different  except  for  this, 
that  during  the  last  two  years,  since  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Government 
Productivity  was  accepted,  the  Treasurer  has 
been  also  the  minister  of  municipal  affairs, 
but  in  the  recent  changes  the  member  for— 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour): 
Grenville-Dundas . 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  For  Grenville-Dundas 
(Mr.  Irvine),  was  designated  Minister  without 
Portfolio  with  special  responsibilities  for 
municipal  affairs.  In  other  words,  we  are 
moving    once    again    towards    a    ministry    of 


MARCH  8,  1974 


93 


municipal  affairs  and  a  very  proper  move  that 
is,  without  the  Premier  making  the  decision 
that  in  fact  the  recommendations  of  the 
Committee  on  Government  Productivity  were 
wrong.  They  have  been  inappropriate  in  our 
experience  of  two  years'  association  with 
policy  ministers  and  the  work  they  are  sup- 
posed to  do.  The  policy  minister  experiment 
has  been  a  failure  and  this  is  apparent  in 
decisions  made  by  the  Premier  pertaining  to 
the  changes  that  have  come  about. 

So  it  seems,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  cabinet 
changes  were  made  only  for  political  pur- 
poses, to  remove  from  the  Premier  pressure 
applied  by  the  cabinet  itself,  through  the 
conflicts  of  interest,  and  the  awarding  of 
contracts  without  tender— the  scandals  asso- 
ciated with  the  decisions  made  by  cabinet 
ministers.  It  seems  that  somehow  or  other 
the  Premier  would  try  to  show  that  he  had 
a  new  group  of  people  who  didn't  do  things 
like  that. 

Unfortunately,  it  appears  that  he  is  sticking 
with  the  concepts  that  have  made  it  difficult 
if  not  impossible  for  the  cabinet  to  make 
the  kinds  of  decisions  that  are  necessary.  So 
he  simply  goes  on  with  the  political  exi- 
gencies that  we  were  treated  to  in  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne.  For  example,  his  sudden 
interest  in  northern  affairs. 

Along  with  his  report  from  his  polling 
experts  that  he  was  down  to  28  per  cent  in 
the  support  of  the  people  of  Ontario,  they 
must  have  told  him  that  he  was  dead  in  the 
north  and  that  while  he  has  been  steadily 
losing  support  for  many  years  there,  it  looks 
now  as  if  the  support  is  down  to  rock  bottom. 
So  you  can't  blame  him  for  making  an  efi^ort 
to  attract  once  again  interest  of  the  taxpayers, 
the  thinking  citizens  of  the  north. 

You  know,  when  you  travel  up  in  the 
north,  the  first  question  you  are  asked  is, 
"What  do  you  think  about  a  separate  prov- 
ince up  here?"  I  think  the  idea  is  a  bad  one, 
but  it  indicates  clearly  the  alienation  of  the 
people  living  in  that  part  of  the  province 
who  think  they  have  been  forgotten  by  big 
government  at  Queen's  Park,  that  their  de- 
cisions are  dictated  from  the  offices  and  the 
bureaucracy  down  here. 

So  what  did  he  do?  The  Speech  from  the 
Throne  calls  for  a  feasibility  and  engineering 
study  for  a  road  link  to  James  Bay  through 
Moosonee.  The  Brunelle  highway. 

An  hon.  member:  To  Moonbeam? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Since  the  minister  is 
applauding  so  strenuously,  1  have  a  feeling 
that  it  really  doesn't  matter  what  the  feas- 


ibility study  says.  If  the  member  for  Coch- 
rane North  (Mr.  Brunelle)  stays  in  the 
cabinet,  they  are  going  to  get  the  road. 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  That's  right.  The  study 
is  not  necessary  because  we  know  right  now 
it  is  justified. 

Mr.  G.  Dixon  ( Dovercourt ) :  Tell  them, 
Rene. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  am  sure  the  Premier 
consulted  with  the  Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services  and  the  Premier,  in  his 
good  judgement,  thought  at  least  they  should 
look  into  the  feasibility  of  it. 

Mr.  Good:  Just  for  the  publicity  aspects. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  nice  thing  about  it 
is  that  there  are  so  few  residents  in  Moosonee 
that  the  politics  of  it  don't  necessarily  in- 
trude. The  people  up  there  undoubtedly  want 
a  road  and  they  want  to  be  able  to  get  out 
in  some  way  other  than  on  the  Polar  Bear 
Express,  which  is  usually  crowded  with  poli- 
ticians going  up  there  to  see  what  they  are 
doing  in  Moosonee  this  week. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville): 
With  their  free  passes. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  With  their  free  passes, 
right.  And  the  only  alternative  is  to  phone 
up  the  member  for  Cochrane  North  and  see 
if  they  can  get  on  the  government  plane  or 
to  borrow  somebody's  snowshoes. 

The  road  link  in  my  view  is  a  reasonable 
sort  of  thing  and  I  regret  very  much  the 
fact  that  in  the  future  it  means  that  prob- 
ably we  won't  have  to  depend  on  the  Polar 
Bear  Express  as  much  as  we  have,  because 
some  of  my  more  enlightening  experiences 
in  politics  have  been  associated  with  travel 
on  that  train  as  we  went  through  north- 
eastern Ontario  to  talk  with  municipal  offi- 
cials and  other  experts  as  to  what  the  future 
might  hold  for  that  great  part  of  Ontario. 

The  second  point  is  the  decision  has  been 
made  to  investigate  the  rebuilding  and  the 
widening  of  Highway  17  between  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  and  Sudbury.  When  the  announce- 
ment of  the  new  minister  of  highways  was 
made,  I  felt  that  the  government  had  said 
among  themselves,  "Well,  nobody  down 
here  wants  roads,  so  we  might  as  well  spend 
the  money  in  the  north."  I  think  that  is  a 
great  idea.  The  idea  of  improving  road  trans- 
portation in  northern  Ontario  is  obviously 
not  going  to  solve  all  the  northerners'  prob- 


94 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


lems,  but  I  would  suggest  to  you  very  spe- 
cifically, Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  is  going  to 
take  more  than  the  widening  of  Highway  17 
and  ensconcing  the  minister  of  highways  in 
Sault  Ste.  Marie  to  convince  the  northerners 
of  the  good  faith  of  this  government.  After 
all  the  promises  made  at  the  time  of  elections 
and  the  breaking  of  the  promises  at  the 
time  of  the  distribution  of  the  highways 
budget,  they  are  going  to  have  to  see  the 
concrete,  not  just  the  surveyors.  They  are 
going  to  have  to  see  the  concrete  before  it 
can  be  believed. 

I  would  say  to  the  government  quite  spe- 
cifically that  it  might  as  well  make  the  com- 
mitment now,  as  I  really  think  is  necessary, 
to  make  Highway  11  four  lanes  wide  all  the 
way  to  North  Bay;  to  make  Highway  69  four 
lanes  wide  to  Sudbury  and  then  on  to  the 
Soo.  Anything  less  than  that  is  not  going  to 
meet  the  needs  of  that  expanding  part  of 
the  north.  I  am  not  quite  prepared  to  say 
that  the  ministry  is  going  to  have  to  make 
it  four  lanes  around  the  top  of  Lake  Supe- 
rior, although  I  suppose  some  day,  that  may 
come.  I  hope  it  does  not;  I  think  it  would 
be  substantially  regrettable.  I  spent  some 
years  living  in  Sault  Ste.  Marie  and  I  could 
never  understand  why,  when  one  went  over 
to  Michigan,  there  were  good  road  travel 
links  to  the  southern  part  of  that  state  but 
if  one  decided  to  travel  in  Canada  one 
would  have  to  get  in  line  behind  the  trailers 
and  the  trucks  along  Highway  17  and  make 
one's  way  in  very  dangerous  driving  situa- 
tions down  into  the  southern  and  eastern  part 
of  the  province. 

The  northerners,  of  course,  while  they 
want  good  road  links  to  the  southern  and 
eastern  part  of  the  province  are  just  as  con- 
cerned with  good  road  and  transportation 
links  between  northern  centres.  That  is  surely 
where  the  initiative  of  the  new  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  (Mr. 
Rhodes)   must  be  brought  to  bear  as  well. 

So  we  go  on  with  the  promises  for  the 
north.  Four  more  communities  in  northwest- 
em  Ontario  will  receive  air  services.  Good. 
I  think  norOntair  has  been  a  good  experi- 
ment. I  haven't  had  the  opportunity  to  fly 
the  line  of  the  purple  goose— is  that  it?  I 
think  that  is  it  —  bat  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  Twin  Otters  are  excellent  planes  and 
that  the  future  of  quick  communications  be- 
tween the  northern  towns  is  going  to  rest 
on  their  utilization. 

On  improvement  of  certain  existing  air- 
ports I  hope  the  minister  is  going  to  do 
something  with  the  one  in  Geraldton.  I  don't 


know  whether  or  not  the  ministers  plane 
gets  down  there  regularly  but  obviously  that 
is  one  of  the  communities  which  should  be 
treated  to  expanded  facilities.  I  think  it 
would  have  been  better  if  the  communities 
which  were  going  to  be  served  under  this 
programme  had  been  specifically  named  in 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 

Studies  regarding  the  establishment  of  a 
port  facility  in  the  James  Bay  area;  that  is 
interesting.  In  the  long  run  the  building  of 
the  ONR  or,  as  it  was  then  called,  the 
Timiskaming  and  Nothem  Ontario  Railroad 
—is  that  the  correct  name?— was  to  give  us 
a  salt  water  or  a  sea  water  outlet  or  seaport 
for  this  province.  Actually  it  was  extremely 
disappointing  right  from  the  start.  The  min- 
ister is  aware  of  the  shallowness  of  James 
Bay  and  the  area  of  Hudson  Bay  most 
readily  accessible  so  I  don't  know  whether 
this  feasibility  study  means  building  a  wharf 
six  miles  long  or  doing  dredging  to  bring 
the  ocean  boats  right  up  into  Moosonee  or 
what  it  is.  The  feasibility  study  has  been 
done  before,  admittedly  when  technology 
was  not  quite  so  far  advanced. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  That  was  for  Moosonee 
itself.  The  intention  is  to  go  further  north 
into  deeper  water. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  idea  of  having  a 
seaport  here  is  an  interesting  one  and  one 
that  we  will  follow  with  a  great  deal  of 
interest. 

The  other  major  statement  was  a  power 
line  to  Moosonee.  Electricity  comes  within 
200  miles  of  it  now,  I  believe,  the  last  time 
we  were  up  there.  Is  that  not  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  About  150  miles,  along 
the  rapids. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  should  not  be  a 
serious  problem,  indeed,  in  the  community 
which  we  hope  is  going  to  grow  and  expand 
as  it  serves  a  larger  and  larger  area  and  will 
have  the  benefits  of  a  good  power  source. 

On  local  autonomy,  northern  communities 
will  have  the  opportunity  to  establish  local 
community  councils.  In  other  words,  some  of 
the  friends  of  the  government,  who  have 
been  chairmen  of  the  improvement  districts 
without  benefit  of  election  through  all  these 
years,  may  find  themselves  subject  more 
directly  to  the  wishes  of  the  people  in  the 
communities  they  have  been  serving  in  their 
own  inimitable  styles  over  these  many  years. 

Mr.  Good:  Does  that  include  Moosonee? 


MARCH  8,  1974 


95 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  don't  know  whether  it 
includes  Moosoonee;  I  presume  that  it  would. 
It  will  include  White  River  and  many  other 
communities  which  we  have  talked  about 
from  time  to  time. 

The  government  has  said  "Yes,  that's  what 
we  are  going  to  do  for  the  north.  We  are 
going  to  build  some  roads.  We  are  going  to 
study  the  feasibility  of  certain  other  pro- 
grammes. We  are  going  to  improve  a  couple 
of  airports.  We  are  going  to  expand  some 
money  to  see  that  the  airplanes  wall  get  into 
four  more  towns." 

I  don't  think  that  will  be  suflBcient.  Ap- 
pointing a  minister  of  highways  from  the 
north  might,  in  fact,  improve  the  situation 
quite  a  bit  because  I  have  a  feeling  we  are 
going  to  see  the  earthmovers  on  Highway  17. 
I'm  not  so  sure  that  is  going  to  convince  the 
people  in  the  north  that  they  can  look  once 
again  with  some  confidence  to  the  Conserva- 
tives because  I  believe  the  Conservative 
Party  has  lost  any  right  to  the  confidence  of 
the  northerners  after  all  these  years. 

^fter  all,  they  have  not  taken  the  steps, 
other  than  by  way  of  changing  the  name,  to 
indicate  that  the  Northern  Ontario  Develop- 
ment Corp.  is  going  to  have  an  independent 
stance.  We.  as  Liberals,  believe  that  on  the 
board  of  the  NODC  should  be  all  of  the 
elected  members  from  the  north.  The  former 
Premier  used  to  criticize  me  and  say,  "You 
are  setting  up  a  northern  parliament.  You 
are  a  separatist."  Of  course,  I  refect  that. 
I  simply  say  that  in  the  north,  probably  more 
than  in  any  other  place,  there  is  the  feeling 
that  when  a  member  is  elected  he  has 
something  more  to  do  than  simply  serve  time 
and  aooloqfize,  in  the  case  of  the  Conserva- 
tives, for  the  government's  inactivity. 

I  would  like  to  see  the  board  of  NODC 
composed  basically  of  the  elected  members 
without  regard  to  their  political  party.  If  the 
government  wanted,  through  its  undoubted 
rights  by  the  Lieutenant  Governor's  order  in 
council  appointment,  to  add  to  it  certain 
representatives  of  the  community  otherwise 
I  would  have  no  objection.  Only  if  it  does 
that  can  NODC  be  seen  to  have  a  stance  and 
status  independent  of  the  experts  who  are 
usually  seconded  from  Bay  St.  when  they  are 
looking  for  a  job  and  pressure  comes  on  them, 
perhaps  unduly,  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
their  careers. 

I  think,  further,  that  the  government  should 
make  the  definite  commitment  to  move  the 
head  office  establishment  of  at  least  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  out  of  Toronto 
and   up   to   the  north.   This,   more  than  any 


thing  else,  would  be  an  indication  of  good 
faith— that  the  ministry  which  deals  almost 
more  than  any  other-I  would  say  more  than 
any  other-with  northern  affairs  is  going  to 
have  its  head  office  there.  After  all,  I  under- 
stand the  minister  has  at  his  disposal  48 
planes,  probably  more  than  that  now;  all  the 
planes,  in  fact,  which  are  not  in  use  by 
other  people  who  have  access  to  them.  It 
would  enable  the  minister  to  come  down  for 
whatever  is  necessary,  to  attend  cabinet  meet- 
ings or  whathaveyou  here. 

The  establishment  of  the  ministry  must 
be  in  the  north.  I  think  there  should  be 
something  more  than  an  ad  hoc  paving  pro- 
gramme indicating  what  the  basis  of  the 
government's  policy  is  in  communication. 
There  should  be  a  reference  to  Highway  11 
to  North  Bay,  and  69  to  Sudbury,  just 
as  there  was  to  Highway  17  from  Sudbury 
to  Sault  Ste.  Marie.  The  government  could 
put  a  reasonable  timetable  on  it  and  say  there 
is  going  to  be  a  commitment  of  a  certain 
percentage  of  the  highway's  budget  so  that 
the  people  in  the  north  know  it  means 
business. 

Siirely  it  is  not  going  to  be  the  same  as  it 
has  been  in  eastern  Ontario  where  one  gets 
the  commitments  and  the  promises,  election 
after  election,  about  road  building.  At  one 
stage  the  Conservatives  even  appointed 
George  Gomme,  an  easterner,  as  minister  of 
highways  and  the  people  in  the  east  thought, 
'Now  we  will  get  our  roads."  But  no,  the 
road's  were  not  built.  The  surveyors  went 
out  one  more  time;  the  flags  were  put  up; 
the  people  found,  as  they  were  driving  in 
the  summer,  that  they  had  to  be  careful  be- 
cause there  were  so  many  surveyors  around 
there  that  the  usefulness  of  the  highways  was 
substantially  reduced. 

Now  we  find  that  the  alternative  of  17 
down  there  is  not  going  on  that  alignment 
at  all;  it  is  going  on  a  completely  new  align- 
ment and'  very  properly  so.  The  government 
is  going  to  build  a  httle  bit  more  of  it  and 
I  have  a  feeling  that  when  we  get  to  elec- 
tion year  it  could  be  that  the  Minister  of 
Labour  and  maybe  the  Minister  of  Housing 
and  the  Premier  himself  will  go  down  and 
cut  a  ribbon  opening  yet  a  few  more  miles. 
One  might  even  be  able  to  drive  from  Ottawa 
right  through  to  the  Quebec  border,  but 
that  remains  to  be  seen. 

I  just  say,  to  my  regret,  that  sort  thing 
seems  to  have  worked  in  eastern  Ontario 
until  now  but  it  is  not  going  to  work  again. 
The  government  is  going  to  get  the  surprise 
of  its  life  when  it  actually  opens  the  road 
and  finds  that  the  people  in  eastern  Ontario 


96 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


are  voting,  for  the  first  time  in  a  lone  time, 
against  the  Tories  and  for  the  Liberal  alter- 
native. 

The  same  is  true  in  the  north. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  the  same  is  true 
in  the  north.  It  will  not  be  enough  even  for 
the  new  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications to  go  up  there  and  put  the 
flags  in  the  ground  and  hire  the  surveyors 
to  go  up  and  down  Highway  17. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Don't 
hold  your  breath. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  notice  that  the  mem- 
ber for  Fort  William  is  joining  in  the  debate. 
There  have  been  no  specific  promises  about 
new  roads  up  there  but,  of  course,  most  of 
the  people  in  his  area  I  guess  are  content 
that  their  member  has  been  made  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway.  Maybe 
they  feel  that  that  is  sufiicient  recognition. 
But  I'll  tell  him  this,  that  being  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway  is  not 
going  to  save  the  political  bacon  of  either 
the  chairman  or  the  Conservative  Party  in 
northwestern  Ontario. 

A  very  case  in  point  came  forward  yester- 
day. Sure  we  are  delighted  that  a  new  mill 
is  going  to  be  located,  not  in  the  hon.  mem- 
ber's riding,  of  course,  which  is  largely  an 
urban  riding,  but  up  there  in  Kenora  where 
the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Mr. 
Bemier)  is  more  and  more  considering  it 
to  be  his  private  fiefdom.  We  can't  help 
but  remember  that  the  same  company  that  is 
expanding  to  the  tune  of  what?— $250  million 
—  is  the  one  which  under  government  super- 
vision was  permitted  to  pollute  the  whole 
Wabigoon  river  system  and  the  English 
river  system  in  such  a  way  that  it  wiM  never 
be  cleaned  up.  There  will  never  be  the 
opportunity  for  sport  fishing  there  and  to 
eat  the  fish.  The  Indians  living  in  the  area 
have  had  either  to  be  moved  off  or  be 
given  permanent  food  payments  so  that  they 
would  not  eat  the  fish.  Almost  every  tourist 
outfitter  in  the  Wabigoon  and  English  river 
system  has  either  moved  out  or  gone  broke 
because  sport  fishing  is  no  longer  permitted. 
Now  thats  the  government  record  in  north- 
western Ontario!    This  is  the  situation. 

The  chairman  of  the  ONR  was  in  the  news 
just  a  few  weeks  ago.  He  had  sold  a  parcel 
of  land  to  Ontario  Housing  and  made  a  large 
profit  on  the  transference  of  that  property. 
I  know  the  property  well.  I  know  that  the 
chairman    of   the    ONR    did   business    there. 


As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  have  rented  a  car  on 
one  occasion  from  his  very  business  premises. 
But  for  the  local- 
Mr.  Jessiman:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Let  the  member  wait 
until  I  have  finished  before  he  gets  riled. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  was  going  to  say  he  didn't 
want  to  sell  it  to  the  OHC. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  I  would  just  like  to  correct 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the  state- 
ment that  he  just  made  that  I  had  sold  the 
property  to  the  Ontario  Housing,  which  is 
a  complete  and  utter  lie,  and  he  knows  it  to 
be  so.  I  sold  the  property  to  an  individual 
in  the  north  riding. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  think  a 
better  choice  of  words  could  have  been 
used. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  And  I'd  like  him  to  retract 
that  statement  right  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  was  just  an  error. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  I  think  the 
hon.  member  should  change  that  one  word 
in  his  protest. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

iMr.  Good:  He  is  talking  to  the  member 
for  Fort  William.  He  used  an  intermediary 
between  him  and  the  OHC. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  talking  to  the  member 
for  Fort  William.  I  think  a  better  choice  of 
words  could  have  been  used.  Would  you  do 
so,  please? 

Mr.  Jessiman:  May  I  say  it  is  an  untruth 
then,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  let's  look  at  the 
situation.  The  land  that  the  hon.  member 
who  is  objecting  so  strenuously  owned  is 
now  in  the  hands  of  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  it  is  not.  They  backed 
out  on  him. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker,  possibly  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion should  get  his  facts  straight,  which  he 
seldom  does. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  All  right.  Surely,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  point  is  this:  that  the  member 


MARCH  8,  1974 


97 


for   Port   Arthur— I   mean   Fort   William,   the 
member  for  Port  Arthur  is  another  person- 
Mr.  Lewis:   He  is  not  a  land  speculator. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —and  I  was  talking 
about  him  earlier— the  member,  as  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway,  has  a 
responsibility  surely  to  concern  himself  with 
the  development  of  northwestern  Ontario. 
He's  got  to  concern  himself  even  further 
with  the  pollution  record  of  the  government 
that  he  is  supporting.  Surely  as  a  member 
as  well  he's  got  to  concern  himself  with 
unconscionable  land  profits  that  he  himself 
in  the  land  business  in  the  area  apparently 
has  been  making.  How  can  he  continue  to 
expect  to  command  the  support  of  the  tax- 
payers and  the  thinking  citizens  in  his  own 
area? 

I'm  simply  saying  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  in  northwestern  Ontario,  as  in  north- 
eastern Ontario  and  the  eastern  part  of  the 
province,  no  amount  of  government  promises 
of  the  typ2  that  have  been  put  to  use  in  this 
speech  is  going  to  save  the  political  bacon 
of  the  Conservative  Party. 

The  people  have  lost  confidence  in  the 
party  and  in  their  representatives  in  those 
areas.  A  few  more  miles  of  road  might  have 
done  it  back  in  1963,  1959  or  in  1955;  but 
it  won't  do  it  any  more.  I  am  putting  to  the 
government  a  specific  alternative  that  it  is 
up  to  them  to  make  a  clear  commitment  as 
to  what  they  are  going  to  do  for  transporta- 
tion,  road  transportation  and  otherwise. 

Let's  have  a  commitment  on  Highway  69, 
Highway  11  and  Highway  17;  let's  have  a 
commitment  as  to  which  communities  are 
going  to  be  served  by  the  expanding  services 
of  norOntair.  Why,  surely,  are  we  not  using 
the  facilities  that  are  presently  government- 
owned  to  equalize  the  cost  of  living  in  the 
north? 

Before  the  last  election  they  equalized  the 
cost  of  beer.  The  time  surely  has  come  when, 
as  a  matter  of  policy,  the  government  says 
that  it  is  going  to  provide  the  same  cost  of 
living  for  the  necessities  as  are  experienced 
in  other  parts  of  the  province,  and  that  as 
a  matter  of  policy  we  must  surely  remove 
that  invisible  wall  that  separates  die  north- 
ern part  of  the  province  from  the  rest  of 
Ontario;  that  they  must  not  feel  alienated 
and  that  government  policy  has  been  sub- 
stantially inadequate  in  this  regard,  as  it  has 
been  in  others. 

Well-it  is  20  after  12-Mr.  Speaker,  I 
want  to  deal  quite  specifically  with  the  mat- 
ter of  regional  government  as  we  are  expe- 


riencing it  following  the  passage  of  certain 
statutes  a  year  ago  and  three  years  ago. 
The  concern  with  the  cost  of  living  is  directly 
related  to  the  cost  of  government  program- 
mes, and  you  are  aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  living 
near  the  location  of  a  newly  created  regional 
government  programme,  that  it  doesn't  take 
long  for  the  spending  machines  to  go  into 
operation. 

I  would  just  like  to  speak  briefly  about 
what  our  experience  in  regional  government 
costs  has  been.  In  Ottawa-Carleton  the  cost 
of  running  the  cities,  villages  and  townships 
in  1968,  the  year  before  regional  government 
was  imposed,  was  $59.5  million.  In  1969, 
with  regional  government  just  having  been 
started,  costs  increased  by  36  per  cent  in  one 
year  to  $81.3  milllion. 

When  regional  government  was  intro- 
duced to  Niagara  in  1970,  the  increase  in 
municipal  government  spending  was  even 
steeper.  The  expenditures  grew  by  45  per 
cent,  from  $39  million  to  $56  million  in  the 
very  first  year.  Increases  in  the  cost  of  the 
regional  portion  of  municipal  government  in 
Niagara  have  continued  since  1970.  In  the 
four  years  of  regional  government  in  Niagara 
the  annual  cost  of  operating  the  regional 
municipality,  exclusive  of  the  local  govern- 
ments, has  jumped  85.3  per  cent,  from  $22 
million  to  $41  million.  In  Ottawa-Carleton, 
the  regional  municipality  spending  has  risen 
88  per  cent  in  five  years. 

I  thought  it  was  important  that  I  put  those 
figures  before  you,  sir,  because  we  find  in 
the  case  of  Haldimand-Norfolk,  where 
regional  government  was  imposed  by  Act  of 
this  Legislature  just  a  few  months  ago  and 
where  the  regional  government  will  take  its 
first  authority  within  a  few  weeks,  that  al- 
ready there  have  been  expensive  decisions 
made. 

For  example,  the  regional  council  has 
not  been  able  to  decide  on  a  site  for  the 
seat  of  government.  Half  of  the  government 
will  be  located  in  Cayuga,  formerly  in  Haldi- 
mand  county,  and  the  other  half  in  Simcoe, 
that  is  the  former  county  seat  of  the  county 
of  Norfolk.  It  seems  to  me  this  is  typical  of 
the  problems  of  the  imposition  of  the  new 
type  of  government.  Certainly  the  govern- 
ment has  given  the  decision  to  the  locally 
elected  regional  council  as  to  where  the 
capital  will  be,  and  they  have  made  a  deci- 
sion that  I  suppose  was  forced  upon  them 
by  the  views  of  the  two  separate  communi- 
ties, and  that  is  to  have  two  capitals. 

Now  the  only  people  who  are  going  to 
benefit  from  this  will  be  the  people  who  are 


98 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


collecting  the  bills  for  Bell  Canada.  It  is 
typical  of  what  has  happened  in  other 
regional  government  programmes.  The  costs 
escalate  rapidly  and  out  of  all  control. 

The  figures  that  I  have  put  before  mem- 
bers, resulting  from  an  inquiry  into  these 
costs  in  the  Ottawa  area,  and  also  in  the 
area  of  Niagara  are  just  an  indication  of  what 
we  can  expect  in  the  other  regional  govern- 
ment situations.  There  is  the  high  cost  and, 
even  worse  than  that,  the  chairman  is  im- 
posed from  Queen's  Park  and  the  government 
at  the  local  level  is  insulated  from  the  needs 
of  the  public  community  by  the  large  bu- 
reaucracy that  is  established  under  these 
circumstances. 

It  seems  strange  indeed  that  the  govern- 
ment has  not  been  able  to  take  advantage  of 
the  experience— and  it  has  been  a  bad  ex- 
perience—in the  two  regional  governments 
now  established  for  a  number  of  years,  to 
ensure  that  if  we  are  going  to  have  an  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  regional  governments 
that  it  is  not  going  to  result  in  the  tremen- 
dous increase  in  local  costs  that  has  been  a 
part  of  this  particular  experience. 

Now,  this  has  been  characteristic  of  what 
the  government  has  done  during  the  last  four 
years.  Since  John  Robarts  gave  up  the 
Premiership  and  we  had  a  surplus  of  $150 
million,  our  deficits  year  by  year  have  been— 
well,  this  year  it  is  substantially  over  $400 
million;  last  year  $36  million.  The  first  year 
that  the  member  for  Peel  North  was  the 
Premier  it  was  $624  million,  and  actually  the 
year  in  which  he  came  into  oflfice,  it  was  a 
$136  million  deficit.  In  other  words,  since 
he  took  over  the  control  of  our  government, 
our  deficit  has  increased  by  $1.6  billion, 
compared  with  the  last  Robarts'  year  when 
the  surplus  was  $150  million.  I  think  that 
this  is  an  indication  which  has  been  estab- 
lished in  many  respects  by  policies  in  regional 
government  and  in  other  areas  of  new 
government  initiatives,  that  it  seems  to  have 
been  absolutely  careless  of  the  cost. 

Now,  we  feel  also  that  the  policies  asso- 
ciated with  regional  government  have  been 
unnecessarily  centralizing  and  you  need  only 
read  the  reports  that  were  put  out  by  the 
Ontario  Economic  Council  two  weeks  ago  to 
see  that  that's  borne  out  by  some  inde- 
pendent opinions.  I  want  to  quote  very 
briefly  from  report  No.  5  by  Lionel  D.  Feld- 
man,  from  page  41,  where  he  says: 

Few  meaningful  functions  are  being  left 
to  the  local  governments  to  perform  uni- 
laterally and  therefore  less  remains  in 
substantive  terms  to  be  decided  by  local 


councils.  If  this  prognosis  is  valid,  then 
the  future  is  dim  for  effective  local  gov- 
ernment as  fewer  and  fewer  people  will 
be  willing  to  stand  for  election  to  per- 
form non-important  tasks.  If  the  transfer 
of  functions  persists  unabated,  if  decen- 
tralization is  taken  to  mean  not  a  devolu- 
tion of  responsibility  but  the  placement  of 
loffices  of  the  province  outsidte  Toronto 
with  consultative  powers  only^or  as  one 
wag  has  recently  said:  "Regional  offices  in 
Ontario  today  are  given  only  the  power 
to  say  no"— then  the  future  of  the  re- 
lorganized  municipalities  is  bleak. 

I    notice   that   the   Treasurer   took   exception 

to  the  statement.  He  said  that  the  statement; 

from    the    Ontario    Economic    Council    was; 

untrue,   and  yet   this   is   the  way  it   is   seen- 

by  the  people  living  in  the  communities.   I 

want  to  quote  from  the  report  once  more: 

'What    this    study   demonstrates    is    that 

since   the   beginning   of   the    1960s,    there 

has  been  a  consistent  approach  to  the  way 

in  which  provincial  authorities  have  viewed' 

ilocal  government.    There  appears  to  be  a 

Iconsiderable  degree  of  scepticism   on   the 

part  of  senior  government  people  as  to  the 

inherent  capacity  of  the  municipalities  to 

achieve  goals  and  objectives. 

Now,  what  he  is  saying  there  in  his  best 
language  is  that  the  ministers'  and  the  senior 
government  officials  believe  the  people  at  the 
municipal  level  are  incompetent  to  establish 
goals  and  then  work  toward  achieving  them. 
This  is  a  feeling  that  we  have  been  aware 
of  for  many  years,  somehow  or  other, 
through  the  various  ministers  of  municipal 
affairs  and  lately  the  Treasurer— the  idea  that 
all  of  the  knowledge  and  the  ability  lies 
here  at  Queen's  Park;  that  the  municipalities- 
exist  only  as  somehow  a  window-dressing- 
operation  for  the  expenditure  of  some  public, 
funds. 

There  is  a  basic  difference  in  philosophy- 
that  I  want  to  put  forward  and  I  suppose, 
it  is  essentially  that  the  elected  people  in 
municipal  councils  and  in  school  boards  and 
in  hospital  boards  and  otherwise  have  the 
right  to  make  mistakes.  I  suppose  you  can 
say  that  the  York  board  has  made  a  mistake 
in  recent  months  and  it  is  all  right  here  to 
criticize  boards  if  they  so  do,  but  surely 
we  must  realize  that  if  local  government  is 
going  to  have  any  significance  in  the  future, 
we  must  abandon  the  process  where  the  gov- 
ernment has  to  appoint,  from  the  centre, 
the  chief  of  these  local  governments;  that  we 
must  see  that  the  conditions  are  removed 
from   the   grant  progranmie  instead  of  put^ 


}  MARCH  8,  1974 


ting  on  more  and'  more  of  these  conditions; 
that  we  must  see  that  the  people,  in  plan- 
ning responsibilities,  can  establish  their  own 
goals  and'  essentially  have  the  powers  to 
fulfil  them;  that  the  time  has  come,  surely, 
when  the  Minister  of  Education  will 
not  have  day-to-day  budgetary  controls 
over  every  school  board  in  the  province; 
that  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller)  does 
not  have  day-to-day  budgetary  control  over 
every  hospital  board;  that  the  minister  who 
designates  himself  as  the  chief  planner  does 
not  have  the  power  to  veto  or,  in  most 
cases,  simply  approve  or  delay  every  plan- 
ning decision  in  the  province. 

(This  is  an  indication  that  has  come 
strongly  from  the  report  by  Mr.  Feldbian. 
He  ends  up  with  just  a  very  short  quote 
indeed.  It  comes  from  the  last  sentence  in 
his  report  on  page  44  and  I  quote:  "The 
future  of  effective  local  government  in  On- 
tario rests  on  shaky  foundations."  I  think 
that  he  is  right,  I  believe  that  the  people 
are  concerned  more  and  more  with  their  local 
rights  in  the  provision  of  government  services. 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  Treasurer, 
or  the  Minister  of  Health,  or  the  Minister 
of  Education  has  all  the  knowledge  and  I'm 
not  prepared  either  to  say  that  local  officials 
can't  make  mistakes.  I'm  simply  here  to  say 
that  thdy  have  the  right  to  make  those 
mistakes  in  the  structure  of  a  reformed  gov- 
ernment that,  in  fact,  would  be  a  partner- 
ship between  the  municipalities  in  the  prov- 
ince rather  than  the  sham  which  we  have 
been  treated  to  in  recent  years'. 

I  want  to  just  end  this  section  of  my 
remarks,  Mr.  Speaker,  by  quoting  from  a 
letter  signed  by  Mr.  Jack  Nolan  of  1096-lOth 
St.  E.,  Owen  Sound.  I  quote  from  his  letter: 

Dear  Mr.  Nixon: 

I  am  writing  to  you  on  behalf  of  the 
Boxter  Ward  Ratepayers  Association, 
Georgian  Bay  township. 

We  have  just  received  our  new  assess- 
ment notice  under  the  regional  munici- 
pality of  Muskoka.  We  are  shocked  beyond 
words.  It  would  appear  that  assessments 
are  up  to  fantastic  figures  and  the  taxes  on 
these  new  rates  will  be  up,  for  some,  500 
per  cent.  I,  for  example,  was  assessed  at 
$1,360.   Now  the  assessment  is  $49,600. 

I  interrupt  here  to  say  that,  of  course,  the 
assessment  per  se  does  not  set  the  tax  rate, 
but  he  goes  on  to  say: 

At  10  mills  tax  rate,  which  the  officials 
propose,  my  taxes  go  from  $106  last  year 
to  about  $496  this  year.  For  this  we  re- 
ceive nothing  that  we  did  not  have  before, 


which  was  nothing.  The  exception  is  that 
last  year  two  garbage  buckets  were  put  at 
the  end  of  our  road  for  garbage  to  be 
placed  in. 

That  is  the  end  of  the  quote  from  the  letter 
from  Mr.  Nolan. 

I  think,  better  than  anything  else,  it  in- 
dicates what  happens  under  regional  govern- 
ment. We  can  collect  the  statistics  which 
show  that  the  percentages  go  up  by  fantastic 
rates  year  by  year,  but  when  the  taxpayers 
themselves  convey  this  sort  of  information, 
and  you  place  yourselves  in  their  situation 
where  they  are  faced  with  a  500  per  cent  in- 
crease, not  associated  in  any  way  with  im- 
proved services,  you  realize  that  the  regional 
government  experiment  has  been  a  failure 
and  that  the  costs  associated  with  it  are  com- 
pletely unconscionable  and  that  the  access 
to  democratic  process  has  been,  if  not  re- 
moved, insulated  to  the  extent  that  the 
people  concerned  feel  themselves  inade- 
quately served. 

So  I  would  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
government's  fiscal  policies  and  taxation 
policies  have  been  as  instrumental  perhaps 
as  much  as  anything  else  in  increasing  the 
cost  of  living  in  this  province  and  adding 
pressure  to  the  inflationary  spiral.  I  re- 
member the  debate  on  the  increase  in  the 
sales  tax  that  took  place  in  the  House  last 
spring,  when  it  was  brought  to  your  atten- 
tion, sir,  and  the  attention  of  the  Treasurer, 
that  an  increase  in  the  sales  tax  from  five  to 
seven  per  cent,  an  increase  of  40  per  cent, 
would  exert  inflationary  pressures  and  I  sub- 
mit to  you,  sir,  that  it  has. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  matter  that  must 
concern  us. 

I  think  we  must  accept,  as  members  of 
this  House,  a  great  deal  more  responsibility 
for  establishing  an  apparatus  which  will  re- 
view and  thereby  control,  at  least  in  part, 
changes  in  prices  in  this  province. 

Speaking  in  the  budget  debate  when  I  first 
became  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party— I 
think  1967  was  the  date  of  the  speech— I 
called  for  the  establishment  of  a  committee 
of  the  Legislature  which  would  have  the 
function  of  reviewing  price  increases  in  that 
sector  of  the  economy  which  had  the  ap- 
parent powers,  as  a  monopoly  would  have, 
to  impose  prices  to  which  there  is  no 
alternative. 

At  the  time,  my  comments  were  sparked 
by  changes  in  automobile  insurance  costs 
and  it  was  indicated  simply  in  the  news- 
papers that  the  automobile  insurance  prices 


100 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


would  go  up  by,  I  think  that  year,  from 
seven  per  cent  to  15  per  cent.  I  felt,  as  did 
many  others,  that  the  increase  was  not 
warranted  but  there  was  no  machinery  estab- 
lished at  the  provincial  level  even  to  see  if 
there  was  a  justification. 

At  the  time,  it  was  brought  to  public 
attention  that  the  laws  of  Ontario  give  the 
government  the  right  to  roll  back  insurance 
costs  if  it  sees  fit.  There  are  sections  to  the 
Insurance  Act  not  proclaimed,  having  been 
on  the  statute  books  for  many  years,  which 
would  permit  the  government  to  do  that  if  it 
saw  fit.  In  reiterating  the  proposal  for  a 
committee  of  the  Legislature  which,  in  fact, 
would  act  as  a  price  review  committee,  I  am 
motivated  in  precisely  the  same  way.  I  be- 
lieve such  a  committee  should  deal  with 
those  aspects  of  the  economy  and  the  cost  of 
living  in  this  province  over  which  the  people 
have  no  control  at  all  nor  any  alternative. 

For  example,  a  week  ago  the  Premier  an- 
nounced that  he  was  approving  an  increase 
in  the  payments  to  the  medical  practitioners 
in  Ontario  under  the  OMA  fee  schedule 
of  about  seven  per  cent  —  I  believe  it  was 
7.2  per  cent  —  with  a  further  increase  next 
year  of  something  approximating  four  per 
cent.  I  felt  at  the  time  that  we  as  members 
of  the  Legislature  had  been  slighted;  that 
we  had  not  an  opportunity  to  look  at  the 
justification  and  that  the  time  had  surely 
come  when  the  province,  through  its  Legis- 
lature, must  establish  a  mechanism  whereby 
something  more  than  the  Premier's  say-so 
or  the  say-so  of  a  government  minister  is 
necessary  for  the  prices  to  change.  In  the 
case  of  so  many  services  and  products,  the 
government  has  no  influence  or  chooses  to 
exert  no  influence  whatsoever. 

It  is  in  this  connection  that  I  recommend 
to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  establishment  of  a 
prices  review  committee.  In  connection  with 
the  doctors'  situation  we  should  require  that 
the  joint  committee  of  doctors  and  govern- 
ment people  come  before  the  committee  to 
give  the  justification  which  apparently  was 
sufiBcient  to  convince  the  Premier. 

lit  is  true  the  doctors  have  not  had  an 
increase  in  their  payments  since  May  1, 
1971.  They  have,  I  suppose,  shown  an  ad- 
mirable restraint  in  at  least  not  requesting 
such  increases  but  I  think  it  is  an  indication 
of  how  seriously  out  of  line  those  payments 
were  three  years  ago.  At  least  the  doctors 
took  this  sort  of  a  fee  schedule  holiday  dur- 
ing that  period  of  time  when  it  is  apparent 
their  incomes  went  up  substantially  because 


of  the  greater  utilization  of  their  services  by 
the  people  in  the  province. 

I  would  say  that  the  establishment  of 
such  a  prices  review  committee  would  deal 
not  only  with  this  sort  of  matter,  and  the 
insurance  requirements  for  automobiles  that 
we  have  already  talked  about,  but  other 
matters  with  specific  provincial  respon- 
sibility. 

The  last  thing  I  would  like  to  do  is  to 
equate  it  in  any  way  with  the  food  price 
committee  in  Ottawa.  I  feel  that  committee 
has  made  some  serious  errors  in  conjunction 
with  its  attempts  either  to  control  these 
prices  or  to  bring  public  pressure  to  bear  on 
those  increases. 

I  think,  for  example,  specifically  of 
decisions  taken  by  the  Ontario  Milk  Market- 
ing Board.  I  believe  it  would  be  in  the 
puislic  interest  of  the  farmers  and  the  people 
who  are  going  to  be  consuming  the  products 
controlled  by  the  Ontario  Milk  Marketing 
Board  if  in  the  future,  when  it  makes  the 
decision  that  prices  will  change  —  and  I 
expect  it  will  decree  a  $10-a-cwt  price  for 
milk  within  the  next  short  while  —  that  that 
board  come  before  such  a  price  review  com- 
mittee and  give  the  justification. 

il'm  always  glad  to  hear  the  comments 
made  by  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  in  Ontario  and  his  collteague  in  Ottawa, 
Mr.  Whelan,  when  they  indicate  the  tremen- 
dous increases  in  costs  that  farmers  have  to 
pay.  How  much  better  it  would  be,  how- 
ever, if  the  statistics  associated  with  that 
were  put  before  an  appropriate  committee 
in  such  a  way  that  the  justification,  if  it  is 
there  —  and  in  this  case  it  is  there  —  would 
be  known  or  knowable  to  all. 

Obviously  it  is  not  sufBcient  to  deal  with 
it  as  we  have  been  dealing  with  it  in  the 
past  simply  by  saying,  as  3ie  Speech  from 
the  Throne  says,  that  this  is  a  federal  respon- 
sibility and  we  will  do  everything  we  can 
to  help. 

Number  one,  our  rate  of  expenditures  has 
got  to  be  brought  under  control.  Number 
two,  we  can  have  a  prices  review  committee 
here  which  can  substantially  have  an  impact 
on  the  community  and  which  is  going  to 
have  a  control  function  in  the  long  run. 

The  last  point  I  want  to  refer  to,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  hope  that  I  can  complete  this 
before  the  adjournment  at  1  o'clock,  has  to 
do  with  the  energy  situation  in  this  prov- 
ince. I  was  interested  indeed  to  attend'  the 
energy  conference  held  in  Ottawa  convened 
by  the  government  of  Canada  and  attended 
by    all    the    premiers    from    across    Canada. 


MARCH  8,  1974 


101 


We  were  in  a  special  position  there  because 
it  is  not  often  at  a  federal-provincial  con- 
ference that  the  Premier  of  Ontario  has  to 
take  the  position  of  being  a  have-not  prov- 
ince. But  that  was  very  much  the  case  in 
Ottawa.  Our  Premier  contributed  little  to 
the  discussion  other  than  to  speak  across  the 
table  to  the  Premier  of  Alberta,  indicating 
we  would  be  very  interested  in  the  future 
in  buying  their  coal.  This  is  quite:  an  inter- 
esting matter  indteed.  I  would'  suspect  that 
in  the  next  few  years  Alberta  coal  will  be 
brought  down  here  by  rail  transportation  and 
Great  Lakes  transportation  and  have  an  im- 
portant place  indieed  in  our  energy  complex. 

I  was  quite  interested  in'  attending  the 
conference  to  find  that  the  comments  asso- 
ciated with  the  financial  distribution  of  the 
revenues  of  the  special  taxes  associated  with 
the  export  of  oil  did  not  come  up  for 
further  discussion  and  review.  As  you  are 
aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  under  the  provisions 
of  the  federal  initiative  the  Province  of 
Alberta  this  year  is  going  to  receive  almost 
half  its  provincial  budget  from  the  oil 
revenue  tax  sources.  This  means  really  that 
a  special  kind  of  a  taxation  Valhalla  has 
been  established  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that 
the  provinces'  ownership  of  the  natural  re- 
source was  in  no  way  questioned  by  any  of 
the  provinces  or  by  the  government  of 
Canada. 

I  was  among  those  who  really  expected 
the  government  of  Canada  to  say,  under 
these  particular  circumstances,  oil  was  a 
strategic  resource  and  one  which  they  were 
going  to  undertake  the  management  of  to  the 
exclusion,  or  at  least  the  partial  exclusion, 
of  the  provincial  governments.  Such  was  not 
the  case,  and  the  revenues  from  the  special 
oil  export  tax  are  now  flowing  to  Alberta 
and  will  account  for  about  half  that  prov- 
ince's budget  this  year.  During  the  next 
following  years  they  wdll  assume  perhaps  an 
even'  larger  basis  as  long  as  the  resource 
holds  out. 

I  was  interested  also  to  read  reports  of 
Mr.  Lougheed's  budget  statement  made  in 
the  Legislature  there,  yesterday  I  believe, 
which  indicates  that  those  special  revenues 
are  going  to  be  used,  of  course,  for  the 
development  of  the  province,  but  also  to 
make  it  even  more  of  a  tax  haven  than  it 
has  been  —  no  sales  tax,  no  death  dbties 
and  the  revenues  being  paid  from  a  resource 
that  many  people  think  of  as  a  national 
resource. 

But  if  we  are  going  to  say  that,  we  must 
then  look  at  the  resource  in  out  own  prov- 
ince,   and    that    is    specifically   the    uranium 


resource.  Very  brief  reference  was  made  to 
that  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 

An  indication  was  made  briefly  there  that 
a  review  of  the  policy  in  that  regard  is 
going  to  be  undertaken.  We  were  concerned 
some  months  ago  to  hear  that  the  ovmership 
of  the  main  uranium  resource  in  this  prov- 
ince had  undertaken  a  sale  amounting  to 
$800  million  of  uranium  and  uranium  oxidte 
to  Japan.  Evidently  this  sale  has  not  gone 
through,  it  is  subject  to  federal  review. 

But  we  in  our  own  position  are  in  a  situa- 
tion where  the  uranium  resource  may  in 
the  long  run  far  exceed  the  value  of  the  oil 
resources  of  Alberta.  We  have  discussed 
previously  the  excellerut  record,  although  it  is 
a  short  record,  of  the  nuclear  power  instal- 
lation at  Pickering,  which  is  the  largest  and 
safest  nuclear  electric  plant  in'  the  world, 
according  to  the  information  providied  to  us. 

I  was  interested  to  receive  a  publication 
in  the  mail  a  few  days  ago  which  indicated 
something  even  more  interesting.  I  wasn't 
able  to  fathom  it  entirely,  but  it  was  actually 
a  comparison  of  the  costs  of  the  production 
of  electricity  at  Nanticoke,  which  is  a  coal- 
fired  installation  and  a  brand-new  one  — 
therefore  the  most  efiicient  one  we  have,  I 
presume  —  and  the  nuclear  installation  at 
Pickering. 

Comparing  the  cost  of  production  on  the 
basis  of  thousands  of  dollars  per  kilowatt- 
hour,  the  figure  is  6.21  for  the  production 
of  nuclear  energy  at  Pickering.  This  com- 
pares with  a  much  larger  figure  at  Nanticoke, 
amounting  to  7.55  —  thousands  of  dollars 
per  kilowatt-'hour  —  if  the  Nanticoke  facility 
is  to  bum  coal  of  a  low  sulphur  content. 

In  fact,  we  are  looking  at  a  nuclear  facility 
that  is  in  operation.  It  is  not  a  pilot  plant. 
It  is  a  full-scale  facility  that  produces  power 
at  the  rate  of  6.21  thousands  of  dollars  per 
kilowatt-hour  —  that  is  the  way  the  com- 
parison of  the  prices  takes  place  —  compared 
with  7.55.  Now,  since  those  figures  were 
arrived  at,  the  costs  of  the  energy  sources, 
other  than  uranium  —  that  is,  oil  and  coal  — 
must  have  escalated  tremendously. 

The  thing  I  found  of  greatest  impact  in 
the  figures  is  that  even  at  1970  prices  the 
cost  of  the  production  of  electricity  from 
nuclear  sources  was  far  more  economical 
than  the  cost  of  production  from  coal  and  ofl 
sources.  Unfortunately  we  have  made  a  sub- 
stantial commitment  to  further  coal  utiliz- 
ation. Nanticoke  is  costing  us  $755  mfllion 
to  build.  Lennox,  which  is  supposed  to  bum 
only  oil,  is  going  to  cost  $373  million  to  build 
—and  is  largely  established  now,  although 
I  don't  believe  it's  been  fired  up. 


102 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I'm  quite  interested  in  the  decisions  of 
Ontario  Hydro  in  making  such  extensive  and 
further  commitments  to  fossil-fuel-fired 
energy  sources  when  the  statistics  indicate 
that  the  nuclear  source  is  not  only  com- 
petitive but  substantially  cheaper  if  the 
figures  that  I  received  are  valid. 

The  point  really  is  that  while  we  are 
concerned  with  the  cost  of  oil  and  coal,  the 
establishment  and  utilization  of  our  nuclear 
resources  must  concern  us  very  deeply  in- 
deed and  in  fact  must  be  a  matter  of  growing 
importance  to  us  all.  I  would  like  sometime 
to  hear  from  the  minister  responsible  just 
what  government  policy  is  going  to  be  in 
that  regard. 

Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  covered  a 
number  of  points  that  it  might  well  be  pos- 
sible to  continue  on  another  day  but  I  have 
found  that  you,  sir,  are  usually  very  reason- 
able indeed  when  we  on  the  opposition 
benches  want  to  put  forward  our  views  and 
our  alternatives  to  government  policy. 

I  and  my  colleagues  have  perused  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne  and  we  have  found 
that  it  was  a  substantial  disappointment.  I 
have  indicated  clearly  two  areas  where  I 
think  that  the  new  policy  enunciations  are 
adequate,  although  we  will  examine  the 
legislation  associated  with  them  carefully. 
I  refer  specifically  to  a  prescription  drug 
programme  for  pensioners  and  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  environmental  hearing  board. 

There  is  a  good  deal  more  that  should  be 
said  about  that,  of  course,  but  on  the  examin- 
ation of  the  speech  we  feel  that  it  has  been 
inadequate  in  a  number  of  significant  areas. 

Mr.  Nixon  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Breithaupt,  that  the  following  words  be 
added  to  the  motion: 

This  House  condemns  the  government: 

1.  For  its  chaotic  education  policy  which 
has  led  to  the  inability  of  teachers  and 
school  boards  to  reach  a  reasonable  agree- 
ment and  resulted  in  the  dislocation  of 
our  education  system; 

2.  For  its  failure  to  establish  a  prices 
review  committee  of  the  Legislature  which, 
together  with  a  reduction  in  provincial 
deficit  spending,  would  exert  control  on 
inflation; 

3.  For  its  inadequate  land-use  policy 
which  continues  to  permit  the  unreasonable 
loss  of  farm  land  to  government  and  pri- 
vate development  and  the  unnatural  infla- 
tionary pressures  of  foreign  land  purchases 
without  safeguarding  Canadian  ownership 
and  interest; 


4.  For  its  failure  to  establish  plarming 
and  land  servicing  programmes  without 
which  serviced-lot  costs  have  escalated 
housing  out  of  the  financial  reach  of  our 
residents. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  normally 
adjourn  the  debate  and  I  am,  obviously,  go- 
ing to  adjourn  the  debate  until  Monday. 

Just  before  I  do,  since  there  are  perhaps 
five  minutes  left  and  it  isn't  inappropriate, 
I  would  just  like  to  say  a  brief  word  about 
the  demonstration  that  gathered  in  front  of 
the  Legislature  today  and  about  the  York 
county  dispute. 

That  dispute  is  getting  very,  very  much 
out  of  hand  and  that  dispute  is  beginning  to 
show  a  real  negligence  on  the  part  of  govern- 
ment to  do  something  about  it.  I  was  one 
of  those  people  who  admired  the  intervention 
of  the  Minister  of  Education  in  the  latter 
few  days  of  January  of  this  year  as  he  made 
a  herculean  effort  in  some  cases  to  resolve 
many  of  the  outstanding  disputes,  and  did 
so  artfully  and  well  on  occasion,  and  I  don't 
begrudge  commending  him  in  a  number  of 
specific  instances. 

I  do  not  commend  the  condtict  of  the 
Minister  of  Ed'ucation  and  the  Premier  in 
the  York  county  dispute.  The  York  county 
dispute  has  been  allowed  to  continue,  un- 
justifiably and  illegitimately  in  our  view,  for 
several  weeks  without  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation saying  three  things  publicly  that  had 
to  be  said: 

1.  That  the  dispute  is  as  much  between 
the  teachers  and  the  administrator  of  the 
board  as  it  is  between  the  teachers  and'  the 
trustees; 

2.  That  the  trustees  should  be  required  to 
negotiate  teacher-pupil  ratios,  and  that  that 
should  be  understood  as  a  legitimate  item 
for  collective  bargaining  just  as  it  is  imder- 
stood  in  Bill  275; 

3.  That  the  intractable  position  of  the 
board,  the  master-servant  relationship  which 
it  vests  in  itself,  is  intolerable  to  the  Minis- 
ter of  Education  and  to  the  Premier,  and 
will  not  be  allowed  to  continue,  and  there- 
fore the  Minister  of  Education  in  having  laid 
it  out  publicly  —  because  there  comes  a  point 
where  the  kids  have  been  out  too  long  and 
where  clearly  the  situation  has  to  be  settled 
—that  he  wants  to  settle  it  without  compvJ- 
sory  arbitration,  and  I  very,  very  much  hope 
that  will  be  possible,  then  what  the  Minister 
of  Education  now  does,  surely,  is  one  of  two 
things: 

Either  he  submits  —  and  my  colleague 
from  Wentworth  (Mr.  Deans)  was  discussing 


MARCH  8,  1974 


103 


this  with  me  earlier  and  he  has  some  con- 
siderable expertise  in  the  world  of  labour 
rektions  —  to  both  parties'  a  government 
proposal,  and  I  have  no  doubt  in  my  mind 
that  in  considerable  measure  it  would  be 
acceptable  to  the  teachers.  If  it  were  then 
rejected  by  the  board,  everybody  in  the 
world  would  see  the  board  for  what  it  is. 
Or  alternatively,  that  the  Ministry  of  Educa- 
tion settles  with  the  teachers,  itself  using  the 
withdrawal  of  the  grants  that  it  would 
normally  give  to  the  board,  and  then  rein- 
state the  trustees'  position  for  the  rest  of 
their  term  to  be  dealt  with  by  the  electors 
of  York  county  as  they  see  fit. 

But  the  time  for  the  endless  negotiations 
using  Mr.  Mancini  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
has  perhaps  reached  the  point  where  the 
Minister  of  Education  and  the  Premier  him- 
self intervene,  make  a  recommendation  —  or 
indleed,  suspend  the  board  in  order  to  nego- 
tiate directly  with  the  teachers.  Anything  to 
avoid  compulsory  arbitration. 

It  serves  some  political  purposes  to  have 
the  strike  prolonged  so  that  we  are  faced 
with  an  extremity  next  week  or  the  week 
after.  I  understand  that.  It  serves  no  edu- 
cational purpose,  because  the  response 
around  the  Province  of  Ontario  from  the 
teachers  would  not  be  one  anyone  wishes  to 
contemplate.  I  don't  think  the  cabinet  wishes 
to  contemplate  it. 

But  to  have  the  public  gradually  turning 
on  their  teachers,  to* have  the  dispute  move 
to  a  point  of  hostility  and  antagonism;  that 
the  board  in  a  gesture  of  outright  blackmail 
said  —  "We  will  hire  teachers  afresh  on 
March  15"  —  to  allow  that  to  happen,  to 
allow  a  board  to  behave  in  that  way  is 
beyond  the  pale,  is  insufferable.  And  you 
don't  have  an  education  system  in  a  county 
in  such  difficulty  when  everyone  who  has 
any  eyes  to  see  witnesses  the  behaviour  of 
this  board.  Therefore,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is 
absolutely  —  as  my  colleague  from  Went- 
worth  says  quietly  —  absolutely  no  mutual 
respect;  and  obviously  that's  exactly  what 
happens. 

Some  of  these  boards,  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
have in  ways  which  are  unimaginable.  The 
Windsor  separate  school  board'  searches  for 


a  route  to  the  courts  when  they  have  signed 
a  document  accepting  as  binding  voluntary 
arbitration.  I  mean  that  kind  or  behaviour 
on  the  part  of  a  board  is  absolutely  un- 
believable. Somewhere  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation has  to  say  to  the  public:  "Certain 
things  are  acceptable,  certain  things  are  not 
—  and  I  am  not  going  to  play  the  pussy- 
footing game  forever  as  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion in  saying  that  they  negotiate  when  I 
know  one  party  is  negotiating  in  bad  faith 
from  day  one." 

What  we  need  is  to  have  an  offer  made 
in  good  faith  from  the  ministry,  or  the 
ministry  deals  with  the  teachers  in  good 
faith  who  are  clearly  willing  to  db  so.  Or, 
indeed,  that  the  ministry  point  out  to  the 
public  where  it  has  gone  wrong;  but  let  it 
not  disintegrate. 

'I  plead  with  minister  not  to  let  it  dis- 
integrate or,  indeed,  let  us  not  have  the  kind 
of  confrontation  again  that  we  had  back  in 
December.  The  collective  bargaining  process 
can  work.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  it 
can  work,  if  there  is  support  for  it.  And 
that's  what  is  now  lacking  on  the  part  of 
govemment.  They  are  going  through  the 
motions  wdthout  the  kind  of  support  that 
would  resolve  it. 

I  move  the  adjournment  of  the  debate  and 
we  will  save  the  more  pertinent  remarks  for 
Monday. 

Mr.  Lewis,  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
Monday  we  will  continue  with  the  debate 
and  I  think  that  I,  without  divulging  any 
confidences,  that  I  can  tell  the  member  who 
has  taken  his  seat  the  minister  and  the 
Premier  are  both  involved  in  that  particular 
question  at  this  particular  time  in  seeking  a 
solution. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1  o'clock,  p.m. 


104  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  March  8,  1974 

Workmen's     Compensation    Board,     questions    of    Mr.    Guindon:     Mr.     R.    F.    Nixon, 

Mr.   Bounsall,  Mr.   Lewis   67 

Camp  Associates  Advertising  Ltd.,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis, 

Mr.    Singer    68 

Environmental  hearing  board,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon, 

Mr.   Good,   Mr.   Deacon,   Mr.   Renwick   72 

Food  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  MacDonald,  Mr.  Deans  73 

Public  Service  Act  conflict,  questions  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.  Lewis  75 

Effect  of  freight  rate  cut,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:   Mr.  Germa 76 

Communications-6  Inc.,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Singer  76 

Preventive  medicine,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:   Mr.  Shulman  76 

Intermediate  capacity  transit  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:   Mr.  Givens,  Mr.  Lewis  77 

Negotiations  on  behalf  of  community  colleges,  questions  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Boimsall  ..  78 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  questions  of  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Deacon  78 

Alleged  Mafia  activities,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Shulman  79 

Presenting    reports,    crop    insurance    commission     and    agricultural    research    institute, 

Mr.    Stewart    79 

Presenting  report,  mineral  review,  Mr.  Bemier 79 

Debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  79 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,   Mr.   Lewis,  agreed  to   103 

Motion    to    adjourn,    Mr.    Winkler,    agreed   to    103 


No.  5 


^ 


Ontario 


Hegiglature  of  Ontario 


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


Monday,  March  11, 1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT   BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


107 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Prayers. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  ( Minister  of  Government 
Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  intro- 
duce to  the  members  a  group  of  25  students 
from  W.  H.  Morden  Public  School  in  Oakvllle 
who  are  with  us  today  in  the  west  gallery. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  introduce  to  you, 
and  through  you  to  the  members  of  the 
Legislature,  a  group  of  young  ladies  from 
Seneca  College,  King  campus,  who  are  en- 
rolled in  the  secretarial  course. 


POINT  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  point  of  privilege. 

Mr.     OL.     Maeck     (Parry     Sound):      Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  point  of  privilege  first. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  wish  to  draw  to  your  atten- 
tion, sir,  what  I  think  is  a  blatant  breach  of 
the  privilege  of  the  members  of  this  House 
by  a  senior  civil  servant. 

Apparently  there  is  to  be  tabled  in  the 
House  today,  by  the  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
Welch),  a  report  of  the  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission dealing  with  family  law.  Copies  of 
this  report  were  made  available  on  Friday  by 
a  senior  oflBcial  of  the  Attorney  General's 
department  to  two  Toronto  newspapers,  and 
only  to  two  Toronto  newspapers,  the  Globe 
and  Mail  and  the  Star.  They  were  not 
solicited  by  these  papers;  the  reports  were 
handed  to  representatives  of  these  papers. 

Not  only  were  all  the  rest  of  the  news 
media  ignored— The  Canadian  Press,  all 
the  radio  and  television  stations  and  so 
on— but  much  more  serious,  Mr.  Speaker, 
was  the  fact  that  this  information  was  first 
brought  to  the  attention  of  tlie  public  by  news 
stories  far  in  advance  of  the  information  being 
available  to  the  members  of  the  House. 

It  would  be  my  submission,  sir,  that  there 
has  been  a  very  serious  breach  of  the  priv- 


MoNDAY,  March  11,  1974 

lieges  of  the  House;  that  information  of  this 
sort,  commissioned  by  this  House,  directed  to 
the  Law  Reform  Commission,  has  no  right  to 
be  handled  in  this  way;  and  that  for  what- 
ever reasons,  the  official  of  the  Attorney 
General's  department  acted  in  serious  breach 
of  the  privileges  of  this  House,  and  I  think  he 
should  be  disciplined  by  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Of  course  I  am  sure  that  the 
facts  submitted  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Downsview  are  correct.  I  have  not  had  any 
prior  knowledge  of  the  situation,  nor  do  I 
have  any  other  information  than  that  sub- 
mitted by  the  hon.  member  for  Downsview, 
which  I  do,  of  course,  accept  as  being  correct 
at  this  moment. 

Before  I  undertake  to  make  any  further 
comments,  while  it  does  appear  as  if  there 
has  been  a  breach  of  privilege,  I  would  ask 
the  indulgence  of  the  hon.  member,  and  the 
House  indeed,  for  time  to  look  into  this 
matter  and  to  get  all  of  the  information 
available  so  that  I  might  be  in  a  position  to 
comment  further  upon  it. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  On  the 
point  of  privilege  just  for  a  moment,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  so  relieved  to  have  this  par- 
ticular report  out  and  public  that  one  would 
almost  excuse  anything.  But  I  must  say, 
apart  from  the  apparent  impropriety  of  giv- 
ing it  only  to  selected  news  media  representa- 
tives, it  really  is  a  bit  much,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  report  could  not  simultaneously  be 
tabled  in  the  House  so  that  those  of  us  who 
are  called  to  comment  on  it,  on  any  side  of 
the  House,  might  have  an  opportunity  to  scan 
through  it  as  quickly  as  those  from  the  media. 

Mr.  Maeck:  I  would  like  to  introduce  some 
students  from  the  great  riding  of  Parry 
Sound,  29  grade  8  students  from  the  elemen- 
tary school  at  Britt,  who  are  in  the  east 
gallery. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 


CONSOLIDATED  COMPUTER  INC. 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  statement 
regarding  Consolidated  Computer  Inc.,  which 


108 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is  being  released  by  the  federal  agency  and 
the  company  at  this  very  hour.  I  wish  at  this 
time  to  inform  the  hon.  members  of  new 
financing  arrangements  being  entered  into  by 
the  Ontario  Development  Corp,  and  the  fed- 
eral government's  General  Adjustment  Assist- 
ance Board  with  respect  to  support  for 
Consolidated  Computer  Inc.  This  new  joint 
support  programme  will  enable  the  company 
to  expand  in  both  the  North  American  and 
overseas  computer  markets. 

As  members  may  be  aware,  Consolidated 
Computer  is  the  largest  Canadian-owned 
computer  manufacturing  company.  Their  pro- 
ducts are  already  installed  in  18  countries 
throughout  the  world.  The  company  has 
developed  two  new  products,  the  Key-Edit 
50  and  the  Key-Edit  1000  systems,  which 
have  not  yet  been  introduced  to  the  North 
American  market,  although  the  Ontario  gov- 
ernment has  recently  purchased  the  50  sys- 
tem for  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications,  and  the  federal  government 
for  its  Manpower  division  has  purchased  the 
1000  system. 

The  General  Adjustment  Assistance  Board 
has  indicated  willingness  to  support  a  lease- 
financing  programme  for  the  marketing  of 
the  company's  products  here  in  North  Amer- 
ica. It  is  our  understanding  that  they  will 
have  a  financing  programme  up  to  a  maxi- 
mum of  $26  million.  New  federal  and  pro- 
vincial support  will  be  provided  through  a 
plan  that  will  make  available  up  to  $7  mil- 
lion to  the  company  in  additional  operating 
funds  during  1974.  Of  that  amount,  $3  mil- 
lion has  now  been  advanced,  half  by  GAAB 
and  half  by  ODC.  Over  the  long  term,  the 
plan  foresees  increased  participation  in  the 
ownership  of  the  company  by  private  in- 
dustry. 

I  think  it  would  be  useful,  Mr.  Speaker, 
for  me  to  say  a  few  words  about  the  history 
of  Consolidated  Computer  Inc.  It  was  formed 
in  1968  and  became  a  public  company  in 
1969.  In  the  fall  of  1971  the  company  suf- 
fered a  liquidity  crisis  and  went  into  receiver- 
ship. However,  with  the  support  of  ODC  and 
GAAB  the  company  was  reorganized  and 
was  profitable  in  1972. 

During  1972  and  1973  the  company  car- 
ried out  a  major  redesign  of  its  products  and 
restructured  its  plant  and  products  into  two 
new  systems.  Development  expense  amount- 
ed to  several  million  dollars.  Large  orders 
were  secured  from  two  firms  in  Europe  and 
Japan  and  South  America.  Two  of  the  com- 
pany's overseas  customers,  ICL  in  England 
and  Fujitsu  in  Japan,  are  the  largest 
non- American    computer    companies.    Unfor- 


tunately the  development  of  the  new  system 
took  longer  and  cost  more  than  anticipated 
which  resulted  in  losses  in  1973. 

In  spite  of  these  losses,  the  company's 
current  prospects,  while  carrying  some  risks, 
are  believed  suflBcient  to  merit  the  support  of 
GAAB  and  ODC  in  attempting  to  penetrate 
the  North  American  market  and  expand  into 
overseas  markets.  The  prime  objective  of  our 
assistance  is  to  help  develop  a  viable,  self- 
sustaining  Canadian-owned  and  operated 
company  that  is  based  on  high  technology. 
There  are  certainly  risks  associated  wdth  any 
venture  into  this  area  but  we  consider  that 
the  company  has  a  reasonable  chance  ol 
achieving  this  objective. 

This  year  the  company  expects » to  export 
$23  million  worth  of  its  new  systems,  pur- 
chase $5  million  in  Canadian  components 
and  increase  employment  above  the  current 
rate  of  550,  of  whom  400  are  in  Ottawa 
associated  with  the  company's  engineering 
and  manufacturing  operations.  To  date  direct 
loans  or  guaranteed  advances  from  ODC 
amounted  to  $4.3  million.  Under  the  new 
programme,  ODC  may  advance  another  $3.5 
million. 

We  will,  of  course,  monitor  the  operations 
of  Consolidated  Computer  very  closely.  There 
are  several  conditions  to  the  agreement  for 
the  extension  of  the  funds.  We  have  already 
taken  steps  to  ensure  that  over  the  next  few 
months,  the  company's  management  will  have 
the  best  support  available.  To  this  end  ODC 
and  GAAB  have  arranged  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  Mr.  W.  V.  (Bill)  Moore,  former 
president  of  IBM  Canada,  as  full-time  interim 
chairman  of  the  board  of  Consolidated  Com- 
puter. 

Hon.  members  will  no  doubt  have  taken 
note  that  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission, 
in  consultation  with  the  company,  tempor- 
arily suspended  trading  of  Consolidated  Com- 
puter stock  last  Friday.  This  action  was  taken 
to  enable  the  financial  community  to  prop- 
erly assess  the  impact  of  these  new  arrange- 
ments on  the  company's  financial  status. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions.  The  hon. 
member  for  York  Centre.  ^>       vi-: 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  the  absence  of  the  Minister  of 
Education  (Mr.  Wells)  I  wish  to  ask  the 
Premier  if,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
chairman  of  the  negotiating  committee  a 
week   ago   suggested    the   possibility    of   the 


MARCH  11,  1974 


109 


minister's  setting  up  a  trusteeship,  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  I  now  have  7,309 
names  in  two  days,  names  of  registered 
voters  who  wish  such  a  trusteeship,  will  the 
government- 
Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  The 
member  went  out  soliciting  on  Saturday. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Did  the 
member  consult  with  his  leader? 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  the  event  of  a  lack  of 
agreement  being  reached  by  continued  negoti- 
ations today,  or  the  teachers  not  agreeing  to 
voluntary  binding  arbitration  by  9  p.m.  to- 
night, will  the  government  introduce  legis- 
lation it  might  feel  is  necessary  to  set  up  a 
trusteeship,  or  at  least  follow  the  path  the 
government  used  on  a  previous  occasion  when 
a  board  got  into  financial  diflficulty  and  under 
section  12(1)  of  the  Ministry  of  Education 
Act  did  set  up  legislation  for  trusteeship. 
Will  the  Premier  undertake  to  do  that? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  Premier  won't. 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  light  of  the  fact  that  for 
over  five  weeks  students  have  not  been  edu- 
cated in  the  high  schools  of  York  county,  at 
least  not  a  full  education,  and  the  fact  that 
something  has  to  be  done  and  that  voluntary 
arbitration  is  preferable  to  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion, will  the  Premier  indicate  to  us  what  he 
w4ll  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Is  the  member  making  a 
speech  or  asking  a  question? 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  asking  for  compulsory 
arbitration. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  acting  leader  of  the 
opposition  party,  in  his  usual  convoluted  way, 
is  asking  this  government,  in  solving  the 
problem,  to  encroach  upon  local  autonomy 
about  which  he  preaches  with  such  vigour 
from  time  to  time. 

Mr.  Singer:  It's  the  government's  problem, 
why  shouldn't  the  Premier  solve  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  answer  is  that  this 
government  is  far  more  concerned,  obviously, 
about  the  welfare  of  those  14,000  students 
than  the  members  of  the  opposition.  This  has 
been  evident  here  for  a  long  time.  But  I 
would  think  the  hon.  membei^s  response  the 
other  night  at  the  meeting  of  the  board,  where 
many  board  members  disagreed,  and  mem- 
bers of  the  public  as  well,  with  the  approach 
that  he  was  taking,  should  have  been  suffici- 
ent indication. 


The  Minister  of  Education  has  worked  on 
this  problem,  as  he  has  on  the  other  16,  with 
a  great  deal  of  success;  the  York  one  has  not 
been  successful  to  date.  It  poses  a  very  real 
problem  for  this  government  and  it  is  our 
hope  that  we  can  come  to  grips  with  it. 

But  I  would  say  with  respect,  to  the  acting 
leader  of  that  party,  that  it's  time  the  hyxK)c- 
risy  was  over;  they  should  recognize  that 
having  voted  against  Bill  274,  as  they  did, 
which  bill  was  intended  to  bring  some  of 
these  things  to  an  end,  and  today  coming  in 
here  as  they  are,  is  just  completely  contra- 
dictory. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Would  the  Premier  not  agree— 

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

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  Ijas  had 
one.  We'll  take  turns  on  it.  , 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  hon.  member  can  open  it 
again  if  he  wishes. 

Can  I  ask  the  Premier;  could  he  table  the 
document  which  the  Minister  of  Education 
submitted  as  a  basis  for  arbitration,  or  could 
he  tell  us  specifically  of  its  content  as  it  re- 
lates to  non-monetary  items? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't  recite 
these  matters  specifically.  There  were  several 
items  contained  in  the  proposal  from  the  min- 
ister to  the  board  and  to  the  profession,  which 
I  understand  was  acceptable,  and  I  think  as 
a  matter  of  fact  was  executed  by  the  board; 
but  the  various  items  in  it  I  can't  relate  to 
the  hon.  member.  However  I  do  believe  I 
can  get  him  a  copy  of  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Mr.  Speaker,  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary? 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  In  view  of  the  proposi- 
tion put  forward  by  the  member  for  York 
Centre,  has  it  been  drawn  to  the  Premier's 
attention  at  any  time  that  the  board  of  educa- 
tion in  the  county  of  York  has  been  acting 
irresponsibly? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that  ques- 
tion is  directed  to  me,  or  through  me  to  the 
acting  leader  of  the  opposition  party,  it's  quite 
obvious  that  the  acting  leader  of  the  opposi- 
tion party  is  saying  that  York  county  board 


110 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is  incapable,  is  acting  irresponsibly  and  is  not 
acting  in  the  interests  of  the  elected  people  in 
that  part  of  the  Province  of  Ontario;  I  am 
not  prepared  to  say  that. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  One  supplementary. 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
Premier  has  talked  about  hypocrisy,  would 
not  the  Premier  agree  that  five  weeks  of  no 
school  in  York  and  the  minister's  intervention 
being  so  ineffective  would  indicate  maybe 
there  is  hypocrisy  on  his  side? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  say  this,  and  I 
will  quote  to  members  opposite,  chapter 
and  verse,  the  observations  made  by  some  of 
their  own  members  as  to  how  a  few  weeks 
out  of  school  would  be  a  good  thing  for 
the  kids.  I  say  to  the  House  that  this 
government  is  far  more  concerned  than 
members  opposite  about  the  educational 
welfare  of  the  children  in  York.  And  this 
was  demonstrated  here  last  December.  The 
member  should  read  what  his  leader  said  in 
Peterborough. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  Premier  didn't  help 
education  quality  then. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Come  on.  The  member 
knows  better. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  In  keeping  with  the 
programme  of  alternating,  it  is  the  NDFs 
turn.  The  hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Although  the  Premier  cannot  remember  the 
details  of  the  documents  submitted  by  the 
minister  and  executed  by  the  board,  can 
he  recall  if  the  contentious  pupil-teacher 
ratio  was  specifically  mentioned  in  the 
document,  and  the  assurance  to  the  teachers 
that  that  ratio  would  not  be  above  the 
provincial  average? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
copy  of  the  document  here.  The  minister 
is  meeting  on  this  situation  at  this  precise 
moment.  I  expect  he  will  be  here  fairly 
shortly.  Quite  frankly,  because  there  are 
discussions  going  on,  I  would  like  to  talk 
to  the  minister  before  I  table  this  as  a 
public    document;    but    I    do    have    it    here 


and  if  the  minister  has  no  objection  we  will 
undertake  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  kind  of  crucial  to  the 
debate. 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  must  not  develop  into 
a  debate  and  there  have  been  five  supple- 
mentaries.  I  will  permit  one  more;  the  hon. 
member  for  Windsor-Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  parents  of  the  children  attend- 
ing these  North  York  secondary  schools  have 
made  arrangements  for  their  children  to 
attend  Toronto  secondary  schools,  what 
action  does  the  ministry  plan  on  taking  to 
ensure  that  they  are  in  attendance  at  the 
North  York  schools? 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  is  the  member  going 
to  vote  when  he  brings  it  in? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  would 
think  that  the  member  for  Windsor-Walker- 
ville, who  had  something  to  contribute  with 
respect  to  the  debates  of  last  December, 
wouldn't  be  too  concerned  that  the  children 
have  only  been  out  the  five  weeks.  I  recall 
very  factually  how  this  was  a  good  educa- 
tional experience,  some  of  it  flowing  from 
over  in  the  other  opposition  party  admittedly. 

I  would  say  to  the  hon.  member  for 
Windsor-Walkerville  that  the  attendance  by 
the  York  students  within  the  Metropolitan 
Toronto  school  system,  in  my  opinion,  does 
not  constitute  a  viable  alternative  to  the 
proper  functioning  of  the  educational  system 
in  York  itself;  so  we  are  not  encouraging  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre  on  a  new  question. 


CONSOLIDATED  COMPUTER  INC. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism:  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  we  have  just  heard  the  announcement 
about  Consolidated  Computer,  is  it  pro- 
posed to  give  some  of  the  government 
business  now  awarded  to  IBM  to  Consoli- 
dated Computer  to  help  this  company? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my 
statement  I  have  already  covered  that  very 
point.  One  of  the  machines,  the  new  pro- 
duction, the  50  model,  has  been  purchased 
by  the  government  of  Ontario  for  the 
Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions. Complimentary  remarks  should  be 
paid  to  the  federal  government;  it  has  pur- 
chased  the    1000   series    for   the    Manpower 


MARCH  11,  1974 


111 


centre  in  Ottawa  as  well.  That,  I  think, 
speaks  well  of  both  governments  trying  to 
stimulate  some  activity  with  a  Canadian 
company. 

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


MANAGEMENT  BOARD  ORDERS 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board: 
In  view  of  item  No.  66  in  the  auditor's  re- 
port indicating  that  Management  Board 
orders  amounted  to  some  $110  million,  of 
which  $96  million  was  actually  spent,  why 
was  it  not  possible  for  this  very  substantial 
amount  of  money— as  I  would  consider  it 
and  I  think  most  people  in  the  province 
would  consider  it— to  be  approved  by  cabinet 
and  presented  to  the  Legislature?  Was  there 
a  shortage  of  time  or  was  it  considered  to 
be  an  insignificant  amount? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr,  Speaker,  all 
these  moneys,  of  course,  are  spent  in  the 
public's  best  interest  and  it  is  not  always— 

An  hon.  member:  Is  that  right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  say  yes  to  the  mem- 
ber. It  is  not  always  that  the  moneys  which 
appear  in  Management  Board  orders  are 
separate  items;  they  are  often  transferred 
v^dthin  departments.  Therefore  if  the  mem- 
ber wanted  to  be  specific  and  had  a  point  I 
would  answer  it. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  supplementary:  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  most  of  the  moneys,  or  a  good 
part  of  thei  moneys,  are  spent  before  this 
Legislature  does  consider  them,  because  we 
don't  get  into  the  estimates  until  after  the 
budget  is  handed  down  and  we  don't  com- 
plete their  consideration  until  late  in  the  year, 
would  it  not  be  appropriate  for  these  Manage- 
ment Board  orders  to  indeedi  be  placed  before 
the  Legislature  for  consideration  during  the 
year  so  that  we  actually  do  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  comment  upon  them  and  whether, 
in  our  view,  they  are  in  the  public  interest? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a 
Management  Board  of  Cabinet  Act,  as  I  am 
sure  the  hon.  member  knows,  and  he  will 
have  the  opportunity  to  discuss:  them  in  due 
course  when  the  estimates  are  before  the 
committee. 

Mr.  Singer;  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  supple- 
mentary, surely  the  Chairman  of  the  Manage- 
ment Board  must  recognize  the  basic  principle 


of  responsibility  to  the  Legislature,  and 
through  the  Legislature  to  the  people  of  On- 
tario, for  expenditures.  Would  the  chairman 
not  agree  that  the  expenditure  of  $100  million 
by  Management  Board  order  is  stretching  the 
credibility  of  the  people  of  Ontario  and  is 
really  spending  money  without  proper  legisla- 
tive review? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  not 
the  case.  The  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 
Act  was  passed  by  this  Legislature,  and  we 
conform  to  it  very  rigidly. 

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

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Attorney  General:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  tell  us  how  long  he  has  had  the 
Board  orders  when  his  estimates  come  up. 
That,  I  think  he  will  agree,  will  be  about  15 
months  after  the  actual  expenditure  of  the 
money.  What  steps  wall  he  take  in  future  in 
order  to  ensure  the  possibility  of  debate  of 
Management  Board  orders  at  or  around  the 
time  that  the  money  is  being  spent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  entire 
matter  is  open  to  discussion  and  surveillance 
by  the  public  accounts  committee  and,  as  far 
as  the  calling  of  estimates  is  concerned,  I 
think  the  hon.  member  knows  full  well  that 
we  spent  more  time  last  year  than  we  have 
ever  spent  before.  As  far  as  that  session  was 
concerned,  the  members  opposite  had  the 
opportunity  but  it  was  used  for  other  pur- 
poses; I  have  no  arguments  there.  When  the 
opportunity  comes  for  the  estimates  to  appear 
l^efore  the  estimates  committee,  I  will  be 
there. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  current  estimates.  We 
are  talking  about  a  year  ago. 

LAW  REFORM  COMMISSION 
REPORTS  ON  FAMILY  LAW 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Attorney  General:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  tell  us  how  long  he  has  had  the 
Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission  reports  on 
family  law  and  when  we  can  expect  to  re- 
ceive legislation  based  on  it  for  consideration 
by  this  House? 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Well,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  just  happen  to  have  some  copies 
of  the  report  with  me  this  afternoon,  which  I 
am  going  to  table;  and  following  full  public 
discussion,  our  legislative  proposal  will  be 
placed  before  this  House. 


112 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Singer:  Why  did  the  minister  give  it 
to  the  papers  on  Friday? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary:  What  was  the 
point  of  leaking  the  report  in  the  fashion  he 
did  prior  to  its  being  tabled  in  the  House 
and  only  to  selective  groups  in  the  media? 

Mr.  Singer:  Two  papers. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  did  he  come  to  that  de- 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Well,  I  think  the  word 
"selective"  is  a  very  unfortunate  word  to  use- 
Mr.    Foulds:    It    was    a    very    unfortunate 
practice. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Quite  accurate, 
though. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  It's  a  very  good  word, 
but  it  doesn't  happen  to  describe  what 
happened,  so  there's  a  nice  distinction. 

Mr.  Singer:  What  did  happen? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  If  I  might  just  explain 
the  procedures:  There  are  occasions  when  the 
Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission's  reports 
have  in  fact  been  released  prior  to  them  be- 
ing tabled  in  the  House.  The  Attorney 
General,  I  understand  from  the  legislation, 
can  decide  how  in  fact  he  makes  these  re- 
ports public  or  what  rej>orts  he  does  make 
public.  But  let  me  explain,  quite  frankly, 
what  I  did  in  cannection  with  this:  These 
three  reports  were  there.  The  contents,  as  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  have  far-  and  wide- 
ranging  implications.  There  are  those  in  the 
media  who,  I  think,  are  very  responsible  and 
who  suggested  that  if  in  fact  it  was  to  be 
properly  reported,  there  might  be  some 
advantage  if  they  had  the  opportunity  to 
study  the  report- 
Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  come  on.  Only  two  of  the 
media  of  the  whole  province  are  responsible? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —so  that  in  fact  they 
could  quite  correctly  expand  on  it  in  the 
course  of  reporting.  Therefore,  those  who  re- 
quested it,  on  the  understanding  that  it  would 
not  appear  until  such  time  as  it  was  tabled— 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  that  dirty  old  Glbbe! 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —they  in  fact  were  given 
copies  of  the  report. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Globe  will  not  observe 
release  dates. 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  All  I  say,  all  I  say— well, 

so  I  understand,  so  I  read- 
Mr.    Lewis:    The   minister   is   a   novice   in 

pohtics. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Yes,  but  the  point  that  I 
want  to  make- 
Mr.  Singer:  The  terrible  Globe  and  Mail! 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —is  that  with  that  par- 
ticular understanding,  copies  of  the  reports, 
which  I  will  table  later  this  afternoon,  were 
madb  available- 
Mr.  Lewis:  To  whom? 
Mr.  Singer:  To  whom? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  To  anyone  who  requested 
them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Anyone  who  requested  them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Singer:  Didn't  the  minister's  executive 
assistant  hand  them  to  representatives  of  the 
two  papers? 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  requested  them  in  the 
House. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  whose 
question  am  I  answering  at  the  moment? 

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

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Does 
the  minister  know  the  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  point  I  want  to  get 
across  is  that  that  is  exactly  what  happened; 
and  if  there  are  any  members  of  the  House 
who  feel  aflFronted  by  this,  I  apologize.  I  did 
that-quite  frankly,  that's  exactly  what  I  did 
on  Friday. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Somebody  asked  and  the  min- 
ister gave  them  to  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  This  was  the  under- 
standing. Now,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  the 
legislation  does  not  preclude  the  release  of 
reports  before  they  are  tabled  in  the  House; 
so  when  you  put  it  into  that  context,  there 
has  been  nothing  done  to  violate  any  statute- 
Mr.  Singer:  Shame  on  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  -or  any  particular  rule 
or  regulation.  In  fact,  up  to  this  time  there 
are  two  copies  of  reports  which  were  released 
and  one  of  which  is  not  yet  tabled. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  could  the— 


MARCH  11,  1974 


113 


Mr.  Speaker:   Is  this  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  a  supplementary:  Could 
the  Attorney  General  explain  why  his  execu- 
tive assistant  sought  out  representatives  just 
of  the  Star  and  of  the  Globe  and  gave  them 
copies  and  ignored  everyone  else?  Are  those 
the  only  two  news  media  that  can  be  trusted 
in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  question 
is  not  properly  worded  because  my  executive 
assistant  sought  out  no  one  for  copies  of  the 
reports.  The  representations  with  respect  to 
having  these  reports  were  made  to  him  by 
representatives  of  the  media  so  that  they 
could  adequately  report  them. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  further 
supplementary,  could  the  Attorney  General 
tell  us  how  long  ago  the  executive  assistant 
was  sought  out,  who  sought  him  out,  and 
whether,  when  the  decision  was  made  to  re- 
lease copies  of  these  documents  to  these 
representatives,  why  the  executive  assistant 
did  not  seek  out  representatives,  say,  of  The 
Canadian  Press,  of  the  Ottawa  newspapers, 
the  Hamilton  newspapers,  the  Windsor  news- 
papers, the  radio  stations,  the  television 
stations? 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  ( Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Would  that  have 
made  it  all  right? 

Mr.  Singer:  Or  least  of  all,  to  seek  out 
members  of  the  Legislature  who  had  ex- 
pressed more  than  a  passing  interest  in  these 
reports? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  may  even 
have  to  hold  a  press  conference. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly 
on  the  basis  of  the  experience,  under  these 
circumstances,  the  hon.  member  can  be 
assured  that  different  procedures  will  be  fol- 
lowed in  the  future  and  we  will,  in  fact, 
invite  everyone  to  what  is  referred  to  as  a 
"lock  up,"  when  everyone  will  have  access  to 
them. 

I  am  sorry  if  there  has  been  any  misunder- 
standing, either  among  members  of  the  House 
or  among  members  of  the  gallery.  It  was 
certainly  unintentional  on  my  part  and  I  was 
acting  in  what  I  thought  was  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  pubhc  in  order  to  have  this  type 
of  reporting  with  respect  to  a  very  important 
matter.  And,  quite  frankly,  I  have  no  other 
explanation  to  give.  Really. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  It  would  seem 
to  me— 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  I  have  a 
supplementary  remark,  Mr,  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  would  like—' 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  Speaker 
would  like  to  make  a  remark  at  this  point. 
It  would  seem  to  me  that  the  point  of  privi- 
lege as  raised  by  the  hon,  member  for 
Downs  view,  by  virtue  of  a  debate  that  has 
taken  place,  has  now  been  clarified  and  there 
will  be  no  further  necessity  on  the  part  of 
the  Speaker  to  make  any  other  comments. 

Mr.  Singer:  You  should  chop  off  the 
Attorney  General's  head. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  now  permit  further 
supplementaries. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  A  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  Attorney  General,  in  replying  to  our 
leader's  remarks,  mentioned  public  hearings, 
would  the  Attorney  General  now  tell  this 
House  what  procedure  he  is  prepared  to  set 
up  for  public  hearings  on  this  particularly 
urgent  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  time 
of  tabling  the  report  I  will,  in  fact,  share 
with  the  House  some  initial  statements  with 
respect  to  this.  Certainly  I  want  a  very  wide 
discussion  of  this  matter  before  we  proceed, 
and  indeed  would  welcome  any  suggestions 
from  the  hon.  member  to  ensure  that  we,  in 
fact,  are  covering  all  possible  groups  or  indi- 
viduals who  may  want  to  make  some  com- 
ments insofar  as  the  follow-up  on  these 
reports  is  concerned. 

Mrs.  CampbeU:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  On  that  I  wonder  what  we  mean 
by  wide  publication  and  hearings.  What 
length  of  time  does  the  Attorney  General 
consider  would  be  adequate  to  come  to  some 
conclusions  in  this  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  think  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  specify  certain  periods.  I  would  want 
to  be  satisfied,  Mr,  Speaker,  that  there  was 
sufficient  time  to  allow  all  who  were  obvi- 
ously interested  in  this  matter  to  express 
views  with  respect  to  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
York  Centre  have  further  questions?  The  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  West. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Ren  wick  (River  dale):  It  will  still 
be  in  in  time  for  the  election. 


114 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


REPORT  ON  MINERAL  PRODUCTION 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Minister  of  Education 
having  appeared  in  the  House— well,  let  me 
ask  a  question  of  one  of  his  colleagues  while 
he  chats  with  the  Premier.  Could  I  ask  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources? 
Why  will  his  ministry  not  release  the  most 
recent  annual  statistical  report  on  the  mineral 
production  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Mr.  Speaker,  this  question  has  never 
been  asked  of  me,  and  we  will  release  the 
information. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Good. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  then  he  is  countermand- 
ing what  we  have  specifically  been  told  twice 
by  the  mineral  resources  branch  of  his  minis- 
try—that the  report  is  available,  but  was  not 
to  be  released  publicly.  It  has  been  available 
for  some  time  and  printed  for  some  time,  I 
gather. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
this  change  came  about  three  years  ago  when 
Management  Board  in  an  austerity  move  to 
cut  down  the  amount  of  material  that  was 
put  in  the  annual  report- 
Mr.  Renwick:  We  have  noticed.  It  has 
been  cut  dovm.  To  eliminate  the  minister's 
picture  perhaps. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  —chose  to  pull  this  in- 
formation out,  and  to  narrow  dowTi  and  put 
a  little  more  eflSciency  in  the  report.  But  this 
information  has  always  been  made  available 
to  the  public  on  request. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fine.  Well,  will  the  minister 
table  this  document  in  the  House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Yes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minis- 
ter of  Education.  Could  he  advise  us  in  any 
way  how  the  teachers  are  responding  to  his 
ultimatum?  If,  for  reasons  of  negotiation,  he 
wants  to  qualify  that,  can  he  table  in  the 
House  the  document  which  he  signed  with 
the  chairman  of  the  York  county  board  as  a 
basis  for  arbitration? 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be  happy  to.  If 
the   hon.  member   wishes  to  have  it  tabled 


afterwards,  I  will  table  it  at  the  appropriate 
time.  I  can  send  him  a  copy  if  he  would  like 
it.  It's  a  public  document.  It  was  given  to  the 
press  yesterday  afternoon,  and  we  are  now 
waiting,  although  the  teachers  have  said  that 
they  will  not  accept  it.  I  gave  a  9  o'clock 
deadline  and  I'm  waiting  for  an  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  public  has  a  right 
to  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes.  The  hon.  member 
sort  of  smiles  when  I  mention  it  is  a  public 
document. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  laughed  out  aloud. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  have  always  held  that 
the  public  should  be  informed  on  these 
things.  That's  precisely  why  this  document 
was  made  public. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Before  the  House,  Mr. 
Speaker? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  really 
is  not— 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  On  Sunday  when  we 
were  working  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  —a  document  of  this 
House.  This  is  a  proposal  by  the  Minister  of 
Education  to  two  parties  who  are  engaged  in 
a  bargaining  dispute.  I  think  I  would  be 
very  happy  to  table  it  in  the  House,  but  for 
the  hon,  member  to  suggest  that  it  should 
have  been  tabled  in  this  House  before  it  was 
made  public  is  preposterous. 

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


TENDERS  FOR  CIVIL  SERVICE 
INSURANCE  PACKAGE 

Mr.  Lewis:  Could  I  ask  the  Chairman  of 
the  Management  Board  whether  he  is  recom- 
mending to  the  London  Life  consortium  of 
companies  which  hold  the  fringe  benefit  pack- 
age for  the  civil  servants  of  Ontario  that  that 
consortium  be  broken  up  at  the  point  of 
next  tender  and  that  free  and  open  tenders  be 
made  available  for  all  insurance  companies 
which  choose? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
object  to  that  suggestion.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
I  think  that  was  the  case  the  last  time  the 
package  was  tendered.  It  just  so  happened 
that  the  consortium  was  made  up  of  the  com- 
panies that  are.  Those  people  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  tender  too.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 


MARCH  11,  1974 


115 


method  of  tendering  is  discussed  by  the  com- 
mission and  by  the  members  of  the  CSAO;  so 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  I'll  con- 
sider that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  there  is  a  diflFerence  be- 
tween considering  it  and  accepting  it.  Will 
the  minister  put  that  fringe  benefit  package 
out  to  open  tender  where  any  one  member  of 
the  consortium  may  tender  rather  than  the 
consortium  as  a  whole? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Yes,  I  will. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you.  I'm  having  diflB- 
culty  asking  questions,  because  when  I  turn- 
ed around  I  thought  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  (Mr.  Brunelle)  was 
here.  He  is  not. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Yes,  he  is 
here.  He's  coming  in. 


OHC  BUDGET 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sorry.  Could  I  ask  the  Minister 
of  Housing  a  question  first?  In  the  light  of 
his  vigorous  housing  initiatives,  why  has  the 
revised  budget  estimate  for  this  year  for  the 
Ontario  Housing  Corp.  been  dropped  by  $20 
million  in  the  most  recent  publication  of  On- 
tario finances? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  I'll  have  to  look  into  that 
question  and  give  the  hon.  member  an  answer 
as  quickly  as  possible. 


DAY  NURSERIES  ACT  REGULATIONS 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you.  I  have  one  final 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services.  When  v^dll  he  provide  the 
regulations  under  Bill  160— the  provision  of 
day  care— which  would  govern  co-operative 
and  non-profit  day  care  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  those  regu- 
lations should  be  in  force  this  month.  They've 
all  been  approved.  They  will  be  gazetted,  I 
would  hope,  this  month,  so  they  should  be 
in  force  this  month. 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  they  will  take  eflFect  when? 
At  the  moment  they  are  proclaimed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Yes,  I  beheve  so,  Mr. 
Speaker,    on   the   date   they   are   proclaimed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 


Mr.  Lewis;  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  not,  the  hon.  Minister 
of  Energy  has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously. 


ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): Mr.  Speaker,  on  Thursday  last  I  was 
asked  certain  questions  by  the  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre  pertaining  to  the  Arnprior 
dam.  He  suggested  that  I  was  not  making 
certain  information  available.  I'm  pleased  to 
table  today- 
Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Did  the  min- 
ister change  his  mind? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —letters  which  have 
been  written  to  the  member  for  Ottawa  Cen- 
tre by  the  vice-chairman  of  the  then  Hydro- 
Electric  Power  Commission,  dated  Jan.  31, 
1974,  Nov.  19,  1973  and  Dec.  20,  1973;  to- 
gether with  certain  material  which  was  sup- 
plied to  the  member  under  date  of  Jan.  31; 
a  Itetter  from  the  chairman  of  the  then  com- 
mission to  me,  dated  Aug.  23,  1973;  certain 
documents  of  the  commission,  a  study  of  the 
generation  projects  division  dated  May,  1972, 
a  report  of  the  study  on  the  impact  on  the 
community  dated  March,  1972,  and  a  report 
entitled  "Geotechnical  Feasibility  Studies" 
dated  January,  1972.  All  these  reports  have 
been  provided  to  the  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Now  the  hon.  mem- 
ber has  to  read  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  They  are  tabled  in 
the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources  also  has  the  answer  to  a  question. 

Mr,  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary?  All  right. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  appreciate  all  the  informa- 
tion which  I  have  had  from  Mr.  Evans  and 
Mr.  Gathercole  and  other  people  in  the  min- 
istry concerning  the  Arnprior  dam.  The  un- 
fortunate thing  was,  and  the  reason  I  raised 
the  question  in  the  Legislature,  Mr.  Speaker, 
none  of  that  information,  in  fact,  provided  a 
satisfactory  explanation  for  the  initial  decision 
to  construct  the  dam. 

That  is  why  I  asked  last  week  in  the  Legis- 
lature if  the  minister  would  table  the  en- 
gineering feasibility  study  which  was  another 
document  in  that  series  which  included  com- 


116 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


munity  impact,  environment  and  geotechnical 
feasibility  studies.  Those  three  studies  have 
been  made  available  but  the  minister  last 
week  said  he  would  not  make  the  engineering 
feasibility  study  available,  nor  would  he  make 
available  information  prepared  by  the  geol- 
ogists who  reported  to  Hydro  on  the  project 
at  the  start. 

In  view  of  the  openness  he  is  now  display- 
ing, would  he  undertake  to  table  in  the  Legis- 
lature the  engineering  feasibility  study  and 
the  geological  material  provided  to  Hydro  in 
order  that  we  can  have  as  complete  a  record 
as  possible? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  think 
the  information  which  has  been  provided  is 
more  than  suflRcient. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplemen- 
tary: Could  the  minister  explain  how  the  in- 
formation provided  can  be  deemed  to  be 
satisfactory  when  the  basic  engineering  feasi- 
bility data  have  not  yet  been  tabled? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  doubt  very  much, 
Mr.  Speaker,  if  even  I  could  explain  that  to 
the  member's  satisfaction. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary:  Would  the 
minister  explain  why  the  ministry  is  being  so 
defensive  as  to  deny  information  after  seek- 
ing for  a  while  to  provide  information  about 
this  project?  What  is  it  that  the  government 
is  trying  to  cover  up  with  this  project? 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  The 
feasibility    study    said    "don't    build    it." 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
party  and  this  government  tries  to  cover  up 
nothing.  We  are  not  going  to  get  down  and 
play  cheap  little  games  like  the  member  has 
been  playing  for  the  last  several  weeks. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
What  is  it  about  this  engineering  feasibility 
study  which  has  the  minister  so  frightened? 
Why  can  it  not  be  made  a  public  document 
so  we  can  see  the  basis  on  which  the  decision 
was  arrived  at?  Why  does  the  minister  have 
to  hide  this  particular  study?  Why  is  it  so 
central? 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  The 
member  is  so  concerned  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  provided  all  kinds  of  information  to 
the  member.  He  doesn't  want  it.  He  doesn't 
believe  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  has  read  it. 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  He  continually 
quotes  it  out  of  context  and  plays  some  sort 
of  little  game  which  we  are  not  about  to 
play. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Stokes:  If  the  minister  has  nothing  to 
hide  why  hide  it? 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  A 
supplementary  to  the  minister:  Did  the  feasi- 
bility study  recommend  against  building  the 
dam? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  No. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  didn't?  Will  he  table 
it  so  we  can  come  to  our  conclusions  on  that 
point? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: The  minister  states  that  I  have  been  quot- 
ing material  out  of  context.  I  think  that  is  a 
serious  charge  to  make  in  the  Legislature. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member's  colleague- 
Mr.    Renvnck:    They    do    it    all    the    time 
over  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  is  laughing. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Give  us  another  funny  one. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Would  the  minister  kindly 
cite  where  or  how  he  feels  I  have  been 
quoting  material  out  of  context?  Would  he 
explain  why  Hydro  is  refusing  to  provide 
information  because  it  says  we  might  not  be 
able  to  understand  it?  Does  he  consider  that 
is  a  justifiable  reason  for  refusing  informa- 
tion to  this  Legislature? 

Mr.  Havrot:   The  expert  on  everything. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Perhaps  the  member 
could  explain  if  Hydro  was  referring  to  him 
or  to  others;  or  just  him  in  particular? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  you  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  refusal  of  the  Minister  of 
Energy  to  provide  the  document  legitimizing 
a  project  of  $78  million  —  all  of  which  is 
public  money  —  by  a  Crown  corporation, 
allegedly  accountable  to  this  House?  I  say, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  minister  cannot 
refuse  to  table  that  kind  of  study.  It  must 
be  tabled  in  this  House.  It  is  part  of  his 
ministerial  responsibility.  If  he  thiunbs  his 
nose  at  us  on  this,  he  thumbs   his  nose   at 


MARCH  11,  1974 


117 


everything.  It  should  be  made  a  public 
document  so  that  the  questions  can  be  asked. 
Who  does  he  think  he  is,  other  than  Darcy 
McKeough? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  hardly  think  that 
is  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  was  a  point  of  privilege  to 
the  Speaker. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  the  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Oh,  sit  down. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  would  just  add  that  for  all 
the  information  provided- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.   Cassidy:   There  is  no  information  by 
Hydro  to  justify  this  dam- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  is  a  misuse  of  the  ques- 
tion period. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —apart  from  the  political 
desirability  of  electing  the  member  for  Ren- 
frew South. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  This  is  a  mis- 
use of  the  question  period.  I  will  undertake 
to  investigate  the  point  of  privilege  raised  by 
the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West.  I 
will  look  into  the  matter.  I  shall  be  pleased 
to  look  into  the  matter  but  this  is  developing 
into  a  debate. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  hon.  member  is 
underprivileged. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  Minister  of  Energy  is  a 
provocative  kind  of  fellow. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  new  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I  didn't  ask  a  question. 

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

The  hon.  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 
has  the  answer  to  a  question  previously 
asked. 


WEEKEND  ROAD  MAINTENANCE 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to 
a  question  asked  of  me  by  the  hon.  member 


for  Thunder  Bay  concerning  the  Gull  Bay- 
Armstrong  road  which  was  apparently  not 
ploughed  one  weekend;  I  might  point  out  to 
him  that  we  contract  the  maintenance  of  that 
particular  road  with  the  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  who  in  turn 
sublet  it  to  a  local  contractor.  On  the  par- 
ticular weekend  that  he  refers  to,  the  oper- 
ator was  off  duty  on  the  Satiuday,  but  follow- 
ing my  investigation  he  was  back  up  there 
on  Sunday  and  the  road  was  ploughed  on 
Monday.  I  might  say  we  have  diready  made 
arrangements  for  next  year's  operation,  where 
we  will  shorten  the  contract  length  on  that 
particular  road  and  the  operators  will  be  on 
a  seven-day  basis. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  in 
awarding  the  sub-contracts  it  is  usually  done 
on  a  40-hour-week  basis  and  they  get  their 
time  in  on  a  Monday-to-Friday  basis,  which 
means  that  there  is  no  maintenance  on  Satur- 
day and  Sunday  when  a  lot  of  the  trajQBc  is 
in  and  out  of  remote  communities  such  as 
Armstrong?  When  he  is  negotiating  his  new 
contract  will  he  see  that  all  times  during  the 
week  will'  be  covered  for  road  maintenance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  men- 
tioned in  the  latter  part  of  my  reply  to  the 
member  that  the  contracts  for  next  year  would 
be  on  a  seven-day  basis,  so  they  will  be  oper- 
ating right  around  the  clock. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Thank  you. 

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


ONTARIO  BUILDING  CODE 

Mr.  Givens:  To  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations:  How  does  he  in- 
tend to  process  this  voluminous  tome,  draft 
of  the  Ontario  Building  Codfe;  when  does  he 
intend  to  dt>  it,  and  what's  more  to  the  point, 
when  does  he  intend  to  table  any  legislation 
on  this  very  vital  subject? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
intend  this  session  to  file  the  legislation  under 
which  the  code— which  is  really  regulations 
under  the  legislation— will  apply.  I  filed  those 
regulations  back,  I  believe,  in  December,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  give  an  opportunity  to  those  many 
communities  and  municipalities  and  indi- 
viduals who  exhibited  an  interest  in  the  con- 
tents from  a  technical  sense  and'  I  undertake 
to  file  the  legislation  and  introdlice  a  bill  this 
session  in  this  House. 


118 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Givens:  Supplementary:  Does  the  min- 
ister not  intend  to  have  some  kind  of  public 
forum,  a  standing  committee  or  another  com- 
mittee, to  consider  the  mass  of  dietail  and 
the  technical  details  in  this  draft? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clements:  That  is  a  possibility, 
Mr.  Speaker.  May  I  point  out  that  legislation 
was  not  tendered  in  December  at  the  time 
that  I  tabled'  the  regulations  which  the  hon. 
member  has  in  his  hand,  because  at  that  time 
there  were  intense  negotiations  being  con- 
ducted in  Ottawa  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment on  the  part  of  two  or  three  associations 
insofar  as  a  warranty  or  a  house  guarantee 
was  concerned,  and  if  the  federal  government 
was  going  to  proceed  by  implementing  legis- 
lation providing  for  warranties  and  guarantees 
on  residential  housing,  then  that  would  have 
altered  our  position  on  the  ultimate  legisla- 
tion which  I  have  referred  to  today. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  there  are  appar- 
ently going  to  be  amendments,  as'  I  under- 
stand it  from  consulting  with  the  ministry, 
how  will  those  be  brought  forward  to  ensure 
that  they  are  in  fact  incorporated?  I'm  talk- 
ing now  about  such  things  as  asbestos  liners 
for  chimneys  and  about  the  code  for  the 
handicapped.  Will  that  be  brought  forward 
as  a  separate  and  supplementary  item,  or  how 
will  we  be  assured  it  is  there  when  the  time 
comes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
the  proper  procedure  with  legislation  of  this 
nature  would  be  to  introdtice  the  bill  and 
give  those  interested  parties,  including  many 
members  of  this  House  who  have  indicated 
an  interest  in  certain  technical  aspects  of  the 
bill,  including  the  hon.  member  for  St. 
George,  the  communities,  the  building  in- 
spectors, the  various  technical  and  profes- 
sional associations,  an  opportunity  to  study  it 
in  the  light  of  the  legislation.  Then  I  would 
think  that  the  place  where  it  should  be  de- 
bated would  probably  be  a  standing  com- 
mittee of  the  House,  in  order  that  we  can 
have  the  advantage  of  listening  to  these  par- 
ticular interest  groups,  and  at  that  time  the 
parts  of  the  legislation  or  the  regulations  deal- 
ing with  ramps  and  this  sort  of  thing  would 
well  form  the  subject  matter  of  that  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park.  ^ 


PHYSIOTHERAPISTS'  FEES 

Mr.  Shulman:   Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Minister  of  Health:  In  view  of  the  very 


large  increases  that  he  has  given  to  the 
physicians  and  to  everybody  who  works  for 
his  ministry  since  1966,  why  does  his  ministry 
flatly  refuse  to  give  any  raise  to  the  physio- 
therapists and  has  held  their  pay  at  the  same 
level  for  the  last  nine  years? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon.  member  for  High  Park 
appears  to  be  applying  his  interest  in  pre- 
ventive medicine  and  has  switched  "an  apple 
a  day"  for  "a  question  a  day,"  which  seems 
to  be  having  even  a  greater  eflFect  upon  my 
constitution. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  had  better 
answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Does  the  minister  have  a  care- 
fully prepared  preamble  for  every  question? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  And  for  every  answer 
given. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  It's  nice  to  be  able  to 
count  on  something  from  the  opposition— and 
the  one  thing  I  can  count  on  is  a  question  a 
day. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  would  atrophy 
otherwise. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  not  too  long  ago 
a  study  was  made— I  believe  by  a  consulting 
firm— of  the  fees  paid  to  physiotherapists.  At 
that  point  in  time  it  was  agreed  that  the  $3.50 
rate— which  I  believe  is  now  the  rate  paid  to 
them  for  a  service  rendered  in  their  oiEces— 
was  in  fact  giving  them  an  ample  return  on 
their  time  and  investment  on  the  basis  upon 
which  those  services  were  currently  given.  In 
other  words,  they  are  not  unique  to  one 
patient  in  the  main.  They  usually  are  treating 
a  number  of  patients  simultaneously.  Now, 
that  is  not  to  say  that  it  went  on  to  cover 
home  treatments:  but  it  did  cover  those 
granted  in  the  oflBces. 

Mr.   Givens:   Supplementary,   Mr.   Speaker. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  should  be  entitled  to  the  first  supplemen- 
tary. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Thank  you.  How  can  the 
minister  possibly  justify  his  statement  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  his  own  department  has 
raised  the  physiotherapy  rates  in  hospitals 
during  that  time?  The  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion Board  has  raised  the  physiotherapy  rates, 
and  yet  the  minister  has  remained  adamant 
that  $3.50,  which  was  an  adequate  fee  in 
1966,  is  still  an  adequate  fee  today. 


MARCH  11,  1974 


119 


Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  simply  said  that  it  was 
not  us  who  arrived  at  that  conclusion,  but 
a  team  of  people  hired  to  study  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:   It  was  the  minister's  team. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Sup- 
plementary, 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  Good:  Is  there  truth  in  the  statement 
that  has   been  made  on  numerous  occasions 

}  that  the  Ministry  of  Health  would  like  to  see 
the    private   practice   of   physiotherapy   elim- 

i.  inated,  and  have  all  this  work  done  in  his- 
pitals?  And  is  this  why  the  ministry  has 
refused  to  raise  their  rates  for  the  past  nine 
years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  No,  I  don't  think  so,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary:  Is  it  fair 
that  because  of  the  ministry's  refusal  to  raise 
the  rates,  physiotherapists  are  no  longer  able 
to  make  home  visits? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I'm  not  going  to  say  that 
I'm  aware  of  that,  because  I'm  not  positively 
aware  of  it.  But  I  would  be  glad  to  look  at 
this.  And  in  fact  I'm  sure  very  shortly  well 
be  looking  at  many  of  the  monetary  ramifica- 
tions within  the  ministry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Monetary  ramifications! 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Perth. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  learned  that  from  the 
leader  of  the  NDP. 


Mr.   EdighofiFer:    Supplementary:    Will  the 
minister  find  out  and  reply? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  wiU  be  glad  to. 

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


HYDRO  BOARD  APPOINTMENTS 

Mr.  Stokes:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Premier.  Has  the 
Premier  been  approached  concerning  the  dis- 
satisfaction over  people  residing  in  north- 
western Ontario  —  particularly  the  Ontario 
Municipal  Electric  Association— because  of  the 
failure  on  behalf  of  the  government  to  appoint 
somebody  to  the  new  Hydro  board?  And  will 
he  pay  heed  to  their  request  to  see  that  some- 
body from  northwestern  Ontario  is  repre- 
sented on  that  board? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  13th  appointment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  there 
were  some  observations  made  on  this.  Of 
course,  there  is  a  gentleman  there  who  I 
would  certainly  not  say  is  from  the  north- 
west. There  is  a  representative  recommended 
by  the  OMEA  from  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  if 
memory  serves  me  correctly.  But  it  was 
brought  to  my  attention  that  the  people  in 
the  northwest  don't  really  regard  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  as  being  the  north.  That  has  been 
brought  to  my  attention. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
lington South  is  next. 


VEHICLES  ON  CONSIGNMENT 

Mr.  H.  EdighofiFer  ( Perth ) :  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  kind  of  verbal  flow- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  EdighofiFer:  Does  the  Motor  Vehicle 
Dealers  Act  allow  the  registrar  to  issue  a 
directive  prohibiting  a  dealer  to  place  on  his 
premises  a  vehicle  on  consignment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  sorry— a  vehicle 
on  consignment? 

Mr.  EdighofiFer:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  I  am  not  aware 
whether  he  is  permitted  to  attach  a  condition 
referring  to  that  matter  or  not.  I'm  just  not 
aware  of  it. 


CORRECTIONAL  CENTRE  TRAINING 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Correctional  Services.  In  the  Speech  from 
the  Throne  there  was  a  statement  made  that 
inmates  of  the  correctional  centres  were 
going  to  be  employed  in  industries  located 
in  the  institution  in  which  they  are  resident. 
In  light  of  the  fact  that  they  will  be  paid 
wages,  what  steps  has  the  minister  taken  to 
ensure  that  these  people  will  be  given  the 
opportunity  to  vote  in  provincial  elections 
or  federal   elections    as   taxpayers? 

Hon.  R.  T.  Potter  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  present  time 
negotiations  have  been  going  on  with  one 
or  two  abattoirs  in  the  province,  as  the  hon. 
member  is  probably  aware,  asking  for  pro- 
posals for  them— in  the  case  of  one  institu- 
tion in  particular  in  Guelph— to  operate  the 


120 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


abattoir  in  Guelph  as  a  private  abattoir 
would  be  operated,  employing  residents  of 
the  institution  and  paying  them  the  salaries 
they  would  be  expected  to  pay  in  the 
private  sector.  They  in  turn  would  pay  $20 
a  week,  I  think  it  is,  room  and  board  and 
the  rest  of  the  pay  would  be  available  to 
them  to  send  home  to  keep  their  families. 

It  is  still  at  the  negotiating  stage.  We  are 
hoping  it  will  be  successful  because  if  it  is 
we  will  be  one  of  the  first  countries  in  the 
world  to  implement  a  scheme  such  as  this. 
As  you  know,  there  have  been  programmes 
attempted  in  which  token  money  was  used, 
but  this  is  the  first  time  that  this  type  of 
an  enterprise  has  been  considered. 

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


RESALE  OF  HOME  PROGRAMME 
HOUSES 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Housing.  Is  the  minister 
aware  of  a  practice  which  is  developing 
whereby  HOME  programme  houses  built  not 
more  than  six  months  ago  have  been  offered 
for  sale  on  the  free  market  at  a  price  almost 
100  per  cent  higher  than  the  price  at  the 
time  of  the  original  sale? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  am  not  aware  of  the  practice  and  if  the 
hon.  member  would  send  me  some  details 
I  would  be  pleased  to  look  into  it.  It  was 
my  understanding  that  steps  had  been  taken 
to  remove  the  speculation  from  resale  of 
Home  Ownership  units. 

Mr.  Deans:  Will  the  minister  make  him- 
self aware  of  the  fact  that  certain  realtors 
are  approaching  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  with 
an  eye  to  getting  permission  to  sell  these 
homes,  sold  originally  for  less  than  $20,000, 
for  a  list  price  of  some  $41,000  on  the  free 
market  today,  and  that  it  requires  some 
kind  of  chicanery  behind  the  scenes  in 
order  to   get  the   down  payment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
would  be  glad  to  make  myself  aware  of  this, 
but  if  the  hon.  member  has  any  details  I 
would  be  pleased   to   hear  from   him. 


Mr.     Speaker: 
Waterloo  North. 


The     hon.     member     for 


PROVINCIAL  PARK  AT  PAPINEAU 
LAKE 

Mr.  Good:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources  regarding  his 
announcement  of  a  provincial  park  on 
Papineau  Lake  which  was  made  in  January, 
I  believe: 

Does  the  minister  have  environmental 
studies  of  that  area,  in  view  of  the  facts  that 
90  per  cent  of  this  lake  is  already  built  up 
and  that  there  is  a  water  resources  com- 
mission report  of  1971  stating  that  the 
fecal  streptococcus  count  now  exceeds  what 
it  should  in  that  particular  lake? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  to 
answer  yes  to  those  questions.  I  would  point 
out  to  the  hon.  member  that  the  demand  for 
recreational  opportunity  is  growing  at  a  rate 
of  10  per  cent  per  year,  particularly  in 
southern  Ontario,  and  my  own  ministry  is 
having  diSiculty  meeting  this  objective.  We 
carry  out  some  very  close  and  sound  and,  I 
think,  effective  planning  in  locating  just 
where  these  new  parks  should  be. 

At  the  present  time  we  are  dealing  with 
the  Papineau  Lake  situation  and  we  are  work- 
ing on  a  master  plan  for  the  area.  There  will 
be  public  meetings  held  in  that  particular 
area  where  the  public  can  be  involved.  We 
have  met  with  the  council  and  we  are  wait- 
ing comments  from  the  local  planning  area, 
but  in  all  this  certainly  we  take  into  con- 
sideration the  environmental  aspects  and  the 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  does  comment 
and  we  have  their  comments,  which  I  will 
table. 

Mr.  Good:  A  final  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Could  the  minister  make  public  his 
study  of  the  environmental  impact  the  park 
will  have  on  this  lake,  in  view  of  this  adverse 
study  that  was  done  on  the  water  quality  in 
1971?  Has  the  condition  changed  in  that 
time?  This  is  what  I  am  concerned  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
prepared  a  very  in-depth  report  and  an  out- 
line on  the  planning  of  this  particular  park  to 
date.  I  would  be  glad  to  make  this  iirforma- 
tion  avaifeble  to  the  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Chairman  of  the  Man- 
agement Board  has  an  answer  dealing  with  a 
previous  question. 


NEGOTIATIONS  ON  BEHALF 
OF  COMMUNITY  COLLEGES 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  thank  you 
verv  much.  I  want  to  make  a  correction  to  an 


MARCH  11,  1974 


121 


I 


answer  that  I  gave  on  Friday  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Windsor  West  on  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  certain  items  in  dispute 
between  the  Council  of  Regents  and  the  com- 
munity colleges  are  bargainable.  It  is  at  this 
moment  in  the  hands  of  Judge  Little.  I  in- 
advertently said  in  the  hands  of  Judge  Ander- 
son, and  I  would  ask  that  the  record  be 
changed  accordingly. 

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

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  with  a 
great  deal  of  pleasure  that  I  present  to  the 
House  today  three  reports  of  the  Ontario  Law 
Reform  Commission  dealing  with  family  law 
—the  Report  on  Family  Property  Law,  the 
Report  on  Children  and  the  Report  on  Family 
Courts.  The  receipt  of  these  three  reports, 
taken  together  with  the  earlier  reports  in  the 
family  law  series,  means  that  we  are  now  in 
possession  of  sufficient  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission material  in  this  complex  area  of  law 
to  begin  to  consider  appropriate  legislative 
measures. 

The  Report  on  Family  Property  Law  is  a 
very  significant  document.  It  analyses  the 
situation  that  has  occurred  in  the  law  of  On- 
tario and  other  common  law  jurisdictions  in 
which  the  traditional  legal  concepts  relating 
to  the  division  of  property  between  spouses 
meed  to  be  reconsidered  in  the  light  of  the 
major  social  and  economic  changes  of  the 
20th  century.  This  report  suggests  that  the 
legislative  task  before  us  not  only  requires 
changes  in  details  of  that  law  but  also  con- 
.videration  of  changes  in  some  fundamental 
and  well-entrenched  legal  principles. 

I  am  very  happy  that  Mr.  Allan  Leal,  the 
chairman  of  the  Ontario  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission is  in  the  House  today,  and  indeed  will 
be  available  to  explain  to  thoSe  interested 
anything  in  connection  with  these  reports. 

Throughout  the  report,  two  things  persist, 
Mr.  Speaker.  First,  that  the  law  should  recog- 
nize the  individiual  rights  of  husbands  and 
wives  during  a  marriage,  even  though  they 
are  united  by  the  marriage  contract.  Secondly, 
if  a  marriage  breaks  down,  the  law  should 
ensure  the  equality  of  the  spouses  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  marital  property,  unless  the 
spouses  agree  to  their  own  format  of  distribu- 
tion. 

The  commission  proposed  a  wide  range  of 
specific  reforms  dealing  with  testate  and 
intestate  succession,  support  obligations*  and 
agency  relations,  marriage  contracts,  separa- 


tion agreements,  joint  bank  accounts  and  a 
host  of  other  matters  where  the  common  law 
developed  and  applied  by  our  courts  does  not 
appear  to  have  kept  pace  in  all  respects  with 
the  social  reahty  increasingly  perceived  by 
many  of  our  people. 

Statute  law  that  retains  a  common  law 
base  did  not  escape  criticism  and  proposals 
for  reform  either.  The  commission  discussed 
in  this  connection  the  Married  Women's 
Property  Act,  the  Deserted  Wives  and  Chil- 
dren's Maintenance  Act,  the  Devolution  of 
Estates  Act,  the  Dependants'  Relief  Act,  the 
Dower  Act,  the  Matrimonial  Causes  Act  and 
many  others. 

Perhaps,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  most  significant 
recommendation  in  this  report,  in  addition 
to  the  recommendations  for  updating  the  his- 
torical approach  of  the  common  law,  are  the 
proposals  for  co-ownership  of  the  matri- 
monial home  and  for  equalization  of  prop- 
erty upon  divorce  or  marriage  breakdown. 
What  is  recommended  is  that  each  spouse 
would  be  entitled  to  occupy  the  home  and 
to  use  its  furnishings,  regardless  of  the  ques- 
tion of  legal  title;  and  in  certain  circum- 
stances such  as  divorce,  the  equity  of  the 
family  home  would  be  shared  between  the 
spouses. 

Another  recommendation  of  the  commis- 
sion is  the  establishment  of  a  new  property 
system  for  married  persons  in  Ontario.  Ac- 
cording to  the  commission's  recommenda- 
tion, the  value  of  all  property  acquired  by 
either  partner  after  the  date  of  the  marriage 
would  be  shared  evenly  between  the  spouses 
upon  death,  divorce  or  marriage  breakdown. 

Although  there  are  some  aspects  of  the 
Report  on  Family  Property  Law  that  are 
independent,  I  would  stress  that  a  great 
many  of  the  proposed  reforms  appear  inter- 
related and  thus  probably  cannot  be  treated 
in  isolation.  The  effects  of  the  recommended 
changes  will  be  profound  and  there's  no 
greater  responsibility  at  this  point  than  that 
borne  by  everyone  who  would  be  affected 
by  these  changes,  and  this  means  most  adult 
persons  in  Ontario,  who  should  be  encour- 
aged, as  indeed  the  member  for  St.  George 
indicated  in  her  question,  to  come  to  grips 
with  the  implications  and  the  consequences 
of  this  report,  to  discuss  them  and  to  respond 
to  them. 

Officials  of  my  ministry  will  of  course  be 
giving  the  report  intensive  study.  But  at  the 
same  time  as  we  are  considering  what  steps 
are  required  to  introduce  the  major  concep- 
tual and  practical  changes  that  are  entailed 
in  this  report,  I  believe  that  I  have  a  clear 


122 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


obligation  to  encourage  a  thorough  public 
discussion  of  these  matters, 

A  recent  Gallup  poll  disclosed  that  63  per 
cent  of  people  in  Canada  favoured,  as  an 
abstract  proposition,  some  sort  of  property 
sharing  in  divorce.  We  now  have  a  concrete 
proposal,  and  I  would  like  to  have  the  views 
of  the  people  of  Ontario  on  it. 

The  second  report  of  the  Ontario  Law 
Reform  Commission  tabled  today  is  its  report 
on  the  law  of  children.  This  is  another  area 
still  largely  governed  by  the  common  law 
and  one  that  is  also  in  need  of  meaningful 
change.  One  basic  reform  proposed  by  the 
commission  is  that  the  common  law  discrim- 
ination against  illegitimate  children  should 
be  purged  from  all  aspects  of  the  law  in  this 
province.  The  word  "illegitimate"  itself 
should  no  longer  be  used. 

Almost  a  quarter  of  the  report  is  devoted 
to  detailing  the  way  in  which  children  bom 
outside  of  marriage  are,  and  have  been  for 
centuries,  the  victims  of  insidious  and  unfair 
rules  whereby  property  and  inheritance  inter- 
ests were  consistently  allowed  to  override  the 
simple  requirements  of  ordinary  humanity 
towards  children. 

I  must  say  that  the  case  made  by  the  com- 
mission for  reform  in  this  area  is  compelling 
and  we  will  dedicate  considerable  effort  to 
finding  the   appropriate   legislative   solutions. 

In  addition,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  report  gives 
detailed  attention  to  the  law  of  adoption, 
the  law  dealing  with  children  in  need  of 
care  and  protection,  and  the  law  of  guardian- 
ship and  custody  of  children.  Here,  the  com- 
mission emphasizes  that  the  only  question 
that  should  be  before  the  courts  is  what  is 
in  the  best  interests  of  the  child.  Regrettably, 
some  areas  of  the  statute  and  common  law 
do  not  make  it  clear  that  what  is  in  the  best 
interests  of  a  child  is  what  the  law  should 
do.  The  commission  recommends  that  in  these 
areas  changes  should  be  made. 

The  third  report  of  the  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission tabled  today  is  the  report  on  the 
family  courts.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Ontario  now  has  the  finest  family  court 
system  in  Canada,  if  not  in  the  Common- 
wealth. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  In  the  universe!  Come  on, 
Bob,  don't  be  diminutive. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  It  is  equally  true,  how- 
ever, that  there  is  much  that  can  be  done  to 
strengthen  this  court  that  deals  with  so  vital 
an  aspect  of  our  society  as  the  family.  All 
courts  are  important,  but  the  family  court 
is  unique  in  the  valuable   contribution  that 


it  makes  to  the  community  in  dealing  with 
family  relations. 

The  basic  reform  proposal  in  this  report 
is  that  there  should  be  a  single  court  in 
which  all  family  law  matters  are  dealt  with. 
At  present,  family  law  jurisdiction  is  exer- 
cised in  the  Supreme  Coiu-t,  the  county  court 
and  the  surrogate  court,  as  well  as  in  the 
family  division  of  the  provincial  court.  The 
reasons  for  this  are  partly  historical  and 
traditional  and  partly  constitutional. 

The  proposal  of  the  Law  Reform  Commis- 
sion for  a  single  family  court  with  integrated 
jurisdiction  will,  along  with  the  other  recom- 
mendations of  the  commission,  receive  very 
careful  study  and  consideration  by  ofiicials 
of  my  ministry  and,  I  hope,  by  members  of 
the  profession  and,  indeed,  the  public  as 
well. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Get  the  legislation  ready. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  And  so,  Mr.  Speaker, 
all  in  all,  the  Ontario  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission has  given  the  government  and  the 
people  of  Ontario  a  substantial  amount  of 
sophisticated  and  professional  analysis  in 
these  three  reports.  I  believe  that  from 
these  reports  and  the  public  discussions 
they  will  no  doubt  engender  we  will  be 
able  to  move  toward  a  new  and  better 
system  of  family  law  that  will,  we  hope,  be 
recognized  as  the  finest  in  the  world.  In- 
deed, no  government  could  have  a  higher 
goal  than  this. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Do  they  do  that  compulsively? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
been  given  a  report  by  the  Minister  of 
Education  which  has  associated  with  it  a 
proposal  to  bring  to  a  conclusion  the  dispute 
between  the  York  County  Board  of  Education 
and  District  11  of  the  OSSTF. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  pursuant 
to  the  provisions  of  section  5  of  the  Ex- 
propriations Act,  being  the  Revised  Statutes 
of  Ontario  1970,  chapter  154,  I  lay  before 
the  assembly  a  copy  of  the  order  of  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  dated  Jan. 
9,  1974,  made  under  subsection  (3)  of  the 
said  section. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  that  in  relation  to  Picker- 
ing or  somewhere  else? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  that  Cedarwood? 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Cedarwood. 

Mr.   Lewis:   That's  been  scrubbed,   hasn't 


it? 


MARCH  11,  1974 


123 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  It  has  to  be  tabled  before 
the  House. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  table 
a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  joint  study  group 
on  the  investment  policies  of  the  Ontario 
Municipal  Employees'  Retirement  System. 
Copies  of  the  report  are  being  distributed 
to  members  of  the  House  and  representatives 
of  organizations  and  groups  participating  in 
OMERS.  On  behalf  of  the  Treasurer  (Mr. 
White),  I  would  like  to  thank  the  members 
of  the  study  group  for  their  work  and  in- 
vite public  comments  which  will  assist  him 
and  the  OMERS  board  in  reviewing  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 

The  hon.  member  for  York-Forest  Hill. 


PROTECTION  OF  HOUSE  BUYERS 
ACT 

Mr.  Givens  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Protection 
of  House  Buyers. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Long  needed.  Long 
needed.  About  time. 

An  hon.  member:  Good  bill. 

Mr.  Givens:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  not  a 
very  dramatic  title  for  a  bill  which  I  think 
is  long  overdue.  I  think  the  law  of  caveat 
emptor  should  be  relegated  to  the  scrap- 
heap  because  it's  outlived  its  usefulness. 

This  bill  will  provide  for  house  buyers 
the  protection  which  they  have  when  they 
buy  the  simplest  electrical  device  or  the 
simplest  appliance  today.  It  sets  up  a 
commission  and  requires  that  houses  should 
be  built  in  accordance  with  minimum 
standards  of  the  Ontario  Building  Code, 
and  the  minister  today  said  he  was  waiting 
for  the  federal  minister  to  bring  in  such 
a  bill.  This  is  my  conception  of  what  the 
bill  should  be. 

It  will  require  that  a  house  be  inspected 
at  least  four  times  during  the  course  of 
construction.  It  will  protect  buyers  from 
hidden  defects,  latent  defects,  for  a  period 
of  five  years,  and  from  patent  defects, 
obvious  defects,  for  a  period  of  one  year. 
It  will  require  the  vendor  to  list  all  the 
defects  on  the  agreement  of  purchase  and 
sale   of  a  house.   It  will  provide  for   griev- 


ances to  be  heard  by  the  commission  and 
the  commissioner  which  this  bill  purports  to 
set  up  and  it  will  provide  for  an  insurance 
fund  into  which  all  builders  must  con- 
tribute in  the  event  that  a  builder  may  not 
be  able  to  compensate  the  house  owner, 
such  as  in  the  case  of  bankruptcy.  I  com- 
mend this  bill  to  the  members  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  want  to  present  a 
petition  to  the  government  of  Ontario  signed 
in  the  past- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  thought  the 
hon.  member  had  a  bill  to  introduce.  I 
should  perhaps  determine  for  certain  that 
there  are  no  further  bills  to  be  introduced. 
Are  there  any  other  bills  to  be  introduced? 
If  not,  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  present 
this  petition,  signed  in  the  past  two  days  only 
by  7,309  voters  of  York  county  who  are  re- 
questing that  the  Government  of  Ontario  set 
up  a  trusteeship  in  York  county  to  get  the 
schools  into  full  operation.  I  hope  the  minis- 
ter will  indicate  how  many  more  voters'  sig- 
natures he  will  need  to  satisfy  him  that  this 
is  the  action  the  people  want  to  resolve  the 
impasse.  This  petition  is  not,  in  any  sense, 
to  be  considered  a  condemnation  of  the 
trustees  of  York  but  rather  as  the  best  solu- 
tion now  available  to  get  the  schools  into 
operation  forthwith. 

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  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  at  the  opening  of  the 
session. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  shall  try  to  be  entirely  to  the  point 
this  afternoon. 

I  begin,  sir,  along  with  everyone  else  in  the 
House,  in  expressing  personal  pleasure  at 
your  presence,  your  continued  presence  in 
the  chair.  Not  that  one— well,  one  did  doubt 
it  for  a  moment  or  two,  perhaps,  at  one 
point— but  you  are  back,  you  are  there;  and 
you  have  displayed  equanimity,  joviality  and 
impartiality  on  almost  every  instance  that  I 
can  recall— save  one,  and  that  is  when  you 
disagreed  with  me.  In  all  such  circumstances, 
sir,  we  are  glad  to  see  you  back  and  wish 


124 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


you  long  tenure— at  least  until  the  life  of 
this  parliament  is  over. 

I  want  to  deal  very  briefly,  Mr.  Speaker, 
with  the  York  county  dispute,  simply  because 
it  is  appropriate  that  it  be  done  right  now 
when  things  are  moving  toward  a  clear  crisis. 
I  suppose  some  would  characterize  the  pres- 
ent situation  as  a  crisis.  But  we  are  moving 
to  evident  breakdown  and  a  solution  which 
may  be  entirely  unpalatable. 

I  have  looked  at  the  document  which  the 
minister  has  tabled.  Would  that  he  had  made 
some  kind  of  legitimate  recommendation  to 
both  parties  some  considerable  time  ago.  It 
would  have  carried  more  weight  than  it  does 
at  the  11th  hour  and  it  would  have  carried 
more  weight  than  it  does  when  it  comes  in 
the  form  of  an  ultimatum. 

I  can  understand  why  the  teachers  respond 
as  they  do.  They  have  been  bargaining  with 
a  group  that  has  bargained  in  bad  faith  from 
the  outset;  and  then  suddenly  the  minister 
has  chosen  to  take  sides.  That  is  what  really 
has  happened  now  in  the  York  county  dis- 
pute; the  minister  has  taken  sides.  He  has 
taken  sides  with  the  board  against  the  tea- 
chers. 

There  is  a  very  neat  clause  in  section  11  in 

the  tentative  proposal  put  to  them  both  that 

will  obviously  inspire  enormous  apprehension 

in  the  minds  of  the  teachers.  Section  11  says: 

The    board     of    arbitration    shall    remain 

seized  of  and  may  deal  with  all  matters  in 

dispute  under  paragraph  one  between  the 

parties  until  a  final  and  binding  agreement 

is  in  effect  between  the  parties. 

Well,  the  use  of  the  word  "may"  leaves  it 
open  to  the  board  of  arbitration  to  do  what 
boards  of  arbitration  frequently  do,  which  is 
to  refuse  to  accept  certain  non-monetary 
items  and  certain  working  conditions  as  nego- 
tiable, contractual  clauses.  And  the  whole 
point  of  the  teachers  in  York  county— what 
they  have  rested  their  case  on  from  the  out- 
set—is not  a  matter  of  salaries  but  is  a  matter 
of  working  conditions;  primarily  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  and  class  size.  And  what  this 
document  says  to  the  teachers  is  very  simply, 
"we  will  not  guarantee  that  an  arbitration 
board  will  rule  on  class  size  or  pupil-teacher 
ratio."  It  may  if  it  wishes  to.  It  may  abandon 
it  if  it  wishes  to.  The  document,  therefore, 
has  a  fatal  Achilles'  heel  in  the  minds  of  the 
teachers.  And  I  can  understand  why  they  will 
now  feel  betrayed  by  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion (Mr.  Wells);  just  as  they  have  felt  be- 
trayed by  the  board. 

Now  this  caucus,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  not  to 
play    the    parliamentary    niceties    game    of 


looking  on  the  board  with  charity  and  talk- 
ing about  whether  or  not  they  have  been 
responsible.  That  York  county  board  is  so 
irresponsible  it  deserves  to  be  turfed  out;  or 
all  of  the  members  who  have  been  intransi- 
gent deserve  to  be  turfed  out  in  a  way  that 
they  wouldn't  even  save  their  deposit  in  a 
federal  or  so-called  provincial  election  cam- 
paign. 

I  have  never  seen  a  board  argue  in  such 
bad  faith  from  day  one.  That  board,  when  it 
entered  negotiations,  didn't  want  to  recog- 
nize the  York  county  OSSTF  as  a  bargaining 
agent.  Now,  I  mean  how  do  you  start  nego- 
tiations on  that  basis  and  expect  to  induce 
any  kind  of  free  and  open  and  supportive 
collective  bargaining  atmosphere?  And  frank- 
ly, when  the  member  from  York  Centre  says 
that  he  wants  the  board  taken  into  trustee- 
ship, but  that  that  shouldn't  reflect  on  the 
capacities  of  the  board— well,  that  is  mental 
gymnastics. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  The 
voters  will  do  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  I  hope  the  voters  do  do 
that.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  the  voters 
feel  very  strongly. 

Mr.  Deacon:  They  are  going  to  decide, 
providing  there  is  an  election. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  the  member  doesn't  have 
to  provide  an  election. 

Mr.  Deacon:  It  is  not  up  to  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  to  sit  in  judgement. 

Mr.  Lewis:  For  people  who  believe  so 
strongly  in  local  autonomy,  the  Liberals  play 
fast  and  loose  with  it. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the 
Minister  of  Education  could  not  arrange  to 
do  the  bargaining  by  way  of  legislation  if  he 
needs  it  in  the  case  of  the  teachers. 

Mr.  Deacon:  He  doesn't  need  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Allow  the  board  to  continue. 
The  voters  will  deal  with  the  board,  if  they 
so  choose  at  the  election.  That  is  up  to  the 
voters,  I  agree. 

I  am  not  so  interested  in  the  formal  appli- 
cation of  trusteeship.  That  is  a  precedent 
that  worries  me  almost  as  much  as  compulsory 
arbitration  worries  the  rest  of  us. 

Mr.   Deacon:   They  have  used  it  before. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Eut  in  fact  that  is  what  it  looks 
as  though  we  are  headed  for.  In  this  case, 
the  Minister  of  Education  didn't  even  with- 


MARCH  11,  1974 


125 


draw  the  grants.  At  least  in  the  Windsor 
board  last  year  they  withdrew  the  grants, 
which  was  a  considerable  incentive  to  settle- 
ment. 

What  you  see  here  is  a  carefully  calculated 
rhythm  towards  the  guillotine  falling  tomor- 
row or  the  next  day.  That's  what's  the  strategy 
now  is.  That's  what  emerges,  because  the 
board  bargained  in  bad  faith,  and  the  minister 
knows  it.  The  minister  has  confided  as  much 
in  confidence  to  those  who  have  talked  with 
him  privately. 

I  think— let  me  put  it  this  way— that  the 
Minister  of  Education  is  as  fed  to  the  teeth 
with  the  behaviour  of  the  York  county  board 
as  is  any  member  who  has  had  anything  to 
do  with  them  or  any  member  of  the  public 
w'  o  has  been  able  to  witness  it. 

What  you've  got  is  bad  faith  bargaining 
from  the  outset,  intractability  on  working  con- 
ditions; refusal  of  the  minister  to  make  a 
recommendation  until  the  11th  hour,  and  then 
with  a  very  severe  deadline  threat  hanging 
over  it;  refusal  of  the  minister  to  appropriate 
the  negotiating  process  from  the  board,  settlfe 
on  an  agreement  and  then  reinstate  the  board. 

The  teachers  say,  and  the  teachers  are  right, 
how  do  you  arbitrate  human  relationships? 
How  are  we  ever  going  to  resolve  the  anath- 
ema which  has  developed  between  the  board 
an^  the  teachers  if  they  are  forced  to  com- 
pulsory arbitration?  How  is  that  going  to 
handle  it?  How  are  those  teachers  going  to  be 
forced  back  to  work?  How  are  you  going  to 
resolve  the  antagonism  between  the  teachers 
and  the  director  of  education  in  York  cbunty 
under  such  circumstances? 

It  may  serve  the  government  to  invite  con- 
f'ontation  on  this  instance  in  order  to  pave 
ithe  road  for  Bill  275,  but  this  is  a  very  care- 
fully manipulated  process,  Mr.  Speaker.  No 
one,  should  engage  in  the  naivety  and  self- 
delusion  that  I  often  engage  in,  thinking 
that  maybe  the  Tories  really  don't  want  to 
force  the  issue.  Well,  I  think  now  they  do. 

I  think  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  in  his  in- 
cessant repetition  today  about  the  five  weeks 
indicates  that  they  had  their  time  parameter. 
Then  they  could  go  to  the  province  and  say, 
"You  see  the  axe  had  to  fall  in  York  county 
an-1   that's  why  it  has  to  fall  in  Bill  275." 

What  does  that  mean  for  collective  bar- 
gaining for  the  teachers  in  Ontario?  What 
that  means  is  very  simple.  Everything  will 
ffo  to  compulsory  arbitration  hereafter,  and 
the  relationships,  the  human  relationships, 
the  teaching  relationships,  the  personal  rela- 
tions between  teachers  and  board  in  one  board 


after  another  across  tliis  province  will'  be  im- 
paired. 

I  appeal  to  the  minister.  I  know  he  is 
meeting  now  with  the  Premier.  He  is  meet- 
ing with  the  member  for  York  North  ( Mr.  W. 
Hodgson).  He  will  doubtless  be  meeting  with 
others  during  the  day.  I  appeal  to  him  and 
to  the  cabinet  to  draw  back  from  the  preci- 
pice, to  take  those  negotiations  over  and  settle 
with  the  teachers  and  by  their  example  to 
demonstrate  to  the  York  county  board  that 
collective  bargaining  can  work,  if  it  is  fol- 
lowed in  good  faith  and  then  left  to  the 
electors  of  York  county  to  deal  with  those 
trustees  in  the  next  campaign. 

That's  the  way  to  do  it.  But  not  to  bring 
in  compulsory  arbitration,  not  to  resort  to 
those  extremes,  because  the  damage  that  is 
done  to  the  system  isn't  immediately  appar- 
ent, but  it  is  evident  to  everyone. 

It's  done  to  kids;  it's  done  to  teachers. 
Who  knows  which  of  the  teachers  will  return 
or  why?  I  haven't  even  discussed  with  my 
colleagues  from  Lakeshore  and  Riverdale  the 
legal  niceties,  the  mind-bogghng  legal  niceties 
of  how  those  who  resigned  will  be  reinstated, 
whether  it  will  be  retroactive,  whether  the 
resignations  will  again  be  delayed  by  legisla- 
tion. The  complexities  are  almost  beyond 
handhng.  It  needn't  come  to  this;  it  simply 
n=;edn't  come  to  this. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  deal  with  the 
Throne  Speech,  but  not  at  length  in  terms 
of  every  one  of  its  clauses.  I  want  to  deal 
with  it  in  the  context  of  one  paragraph  arid 
one  paragraph  alone,  which  seems  to  me  to 
be  central  to  the  Throne  Speech  and  seems 
to  all  my  NDP  colleagues  to  be  central  to 
the  Throne  Speech— so  central  that  I  don't 
have  it  in  front  of  me.  If  somebody  has  a 
copy  of  the  Tlirone  Speech  I  wouldn't  mind 
one. 

It's  the  clause  which  deals  with  inflation, 
the  one  clause  which  deals  with  inflation.  It 

says: 

While  my  government  will  employ  all 
practical  means  at  its  disposal  to  alleviate 
the  causes  and  efi^ects  of  inflation,  never- 
theless it  bears  repeating  that  the  problem 
can  only  be  dealt  with  in  a  national  context 
with  all  governments  co-operating. 

That  one  paragraph  is  the  greatest  single  de- 
ficiency in  a  Throne  Speech  distinguished 
for  its  mediocrity.  That  one  paragraph  is  a 
kind  of  commentary  on  the  government  of 
William  Davis  over  the  last  diree  years.  As 
I  think  I  shall  try  to  show,  and  as  others  of 
my  colleagues  shall  try  to  show  as  this  Throne 
Debate  continues,   the  William   Davis  years, 


126 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


in  terms  of  that  single  issue  which  most  pre- 
occupies public  attention,  were  years  of  spec- 
ulation, inflation,  and  profiteering;  that  the 
public  burned  while  the  William  Davis 
cabinet  fiddled;  that  never  has  a  cabinet  so 
large  done  so  little  on  an  issue  so  great— and 
indeed  that  may  be  true  in  other  areas  but 
extremely  pronounced  in  this  one— that  no 
other  province  in  this  country  has  so  betrayed 
the  trust  of  its  citizens  in  deahng  with  basic 
matters  of  the  cost  of  living,  matters  which 
affect  the  daily  lives  of  the  people  of  Ontario; 
and  that  ultimately,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  our 
conviction  in  this  caucus  that  that's  what  will 
bring  the  government  down. 

It's  not  going  to  be  the  transgression,  so  it's 
called,  and  it's  not  going  to  be  the  gross 
indiscretions,  and  it's  not  going  to  be  the 
so-called  scandals  and  it's  not  even  going  to 
be  the  inadequacy  or  incompetence  of  in^vi- 
dual  ministers,  whomever  they  may  be;  but  it 
is  the  refusal  of  the  government  to  deal  with 
those  matters  which  are  absolutely  central  to 
the  way  in  which  people  live  their  lives.  And 
the  evidence  mounts,  the  documentation 
accumulates  and  it  is  now  clear  that  those 
are  the  grounds  on  which  the  electoral  out- 
come in  this  province  will  be  settled  18 
months  hence. 

The  Tories  have  taken  to  mind  the  old 
Churchillian  maxim  that  they  have  resolved 
to  be  irresolute.  Thev  start  with  inertia  in 
the  area  of  cost  of  living  and  they  end  with 
paralysis.  That's  the  history  of  governmental 
mobility  in  this  field;  and  it  is  most  imfortu- 
nate  that  that's  the  case  because  on  everyone's 
lips  is  the  question  of  the  cost  of  living. 

Now  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  (Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon)  raised  matters 
pertaining  to  housing.  I  want  to  do  the  same 
but  in  a  slightly  different  context.  I  want  to 
tell  you  about  the  William  Davis  years,  Mr. 
Speaker,  because  I  want  to  put  most  of  my 
remarks  in  the  specific  dimensions,  the  spe- 
cific boundaries  of  the  period  during  which 
the  present  Premier  has  been  the  incumbent 
chief  minister.  And  I  want  to  steal  something 
from  my  colleague  from  Ottawa  Centre,  if 
he'll  forgive  me— I  presume  if  I  thieve  from 
him  it's  less  offensive  than  when  other  parties 
do— and  give  you  a  chronicle  in  the  housing 
field  of  what  has  happened  in  a  number  of 
areas  of  Ontario,  but  starting  first  with  To- 
ronto. 

Well,  in  March  of  1971,  which  seems  to 
be  a  reasonable  date  to  begin  with  since  the 
Premier  was  then  Premier,  the  average  To- 
ronto house  sale  price  was  $29,627.  One  year 
later  it  was  $31,357.  When  the  Comay  task 
force  was  set  up  it  had  already  jumped  to 


$34,137;  that  was  in  November  of  1972. 
When  the  Throne  Speech  came  down  last 
year  it  had  jumped  to  $34,718.  When  the 
present  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Welch)  was 
appointed  Minister  of  Housing,  it  had  leaped 
to  $44,022  on  the  average;  and  when  the 
current  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Handleman) 
inherited  the  portfolio,  it  had  jumped  to 
$46,210. 

Within  the  life  of  the  premiership  of  Wil- 
liam Davis— I  guess  just  three  years  now— 
the  housing  increase  in  the  city  of  Toronto 
has  been  56  per  cent.  Now  that  may  be  an 
achievement  which  some  premiers  would 
cherish;  others  would  shudder  were  they  to 
realize  it. 

Let  me  tell  you  something  else  about 
what's  happening  in  the  Metro  Toronto  area, 
Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  research  department  of 
this  caucus  had  analysed  the  figures.  A  most 
extraordinary  acceleration  of  the  inflationary 
trends  in  every  area  has  occurred  in  the 
central  portion  of  the  Premier's  stewardship. 
He  became  Premier  in  March;  he  stopped 
Spadina  somewhere  along  the  way;  he  set 
himself  for  an  election  in  October,  1971— it 
was  October,  1971? 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  blocked  it  all  out. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  How  could  the 
member  forget? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  certainly  do,  and  the  sooner 
I  forget  the  better.  Then  he  won  a  fairly 
considerable  mandate,  looking  at  the  way  in 
which  the  Tory  hordes  engulf  this  legislative 
chamber. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They  slop  over  to  this 
side. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Slopping  over  is  not  as  digni- 
fied a  phrase,  although  perhaps  a  more  de- 
scriptive one. 

Mr.  Speaker,  one  would  assume  that  by 
the  years  1972  and  1973  in  particular,  the 
policies  introduced  and  undertaken  by  the 
Premier  of  Ontario  would  begin  to  be  felt. 
Well,  they  certainly  have;  they  certainly 
have. 

In  January,  1973,  65.3  per  cent  of  the 
houses  in  Metropolitan  Toronto  sold  for  less 
than  $35,000;  almost  two-thirds  of  all  house 
sales  were  for  less  than  $35,000.  By  Decem- 
ber, 1973— mark  this,  at  the  end  of  the  same 
year— only  27  per  cent  of  all  housing  trans- 
actions in  Metropolitan  Toronto  involved 
amounts  less  than  $35,000.  In  fact,  only  14.7 


MARCH  11,  1974 


127 


per  cent  of  houses  sold  sold  for  less  than 
$30,000. 

If  one  takes  the  median  family  income  in 
this  area  which  is  now  roughly  $12,000  a 
year,  and  if  one  assumes  what  most  reason- 
able housing  economists  assume,  that  one 
shouldn't  spend  more  than  25  per  cent  of 
gross  income  for  carrying  costs,  it  means, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  73  per  cent  of  those  who 
might  purchase  homes  are  now  excluded 
from  purchasing  them. 

The  great  bulk  of  people  who  earn  $12,000 
a  year  and  under,  that  is  somewhere  around 
70  per  cent  now  of  total  income  figures— I 
will  give  them  more  specifically  later  on— 
are  excluded  from  the  housing  market.  In  a 
period  of  two  short  years  the  Premier  has 
achieved  what  few  men  are  able  to  achieve— 
the  exclusion  of  two-thirds  of  the  people  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario  from  ever  being  able 
to  own  or  carry  a  house  in  this  province. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Shame! 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  quite  something.  Let  me 
give  you  another  figure  which  is  perhaps 
equally  interesting.  In  January,  1973,  only 
seven  per  cent  of  the  sales  in  Metropolitan 
Toronto  involved  homes  of  over  $50,000.  In 
December,  1973,  28.5  per  cent  of  the  sales 
in  Metro  involved  houses  over  $50,000,  and 
the  houses  selling  in  the  over  $50,000  cate- 
gory constitute  by  far  the  largest  percentage 
of  house  transactions  taking  place  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  Now,  will  the  Premier 
tell  me  how  the  people ,  of  this  province  can 
afford  homes  upwards  of  $50,000? 

Someone  in  the  NDP  research  department 
did  something  which  I  thought  was  really 
quite  fascinating.  We  went  to  TEELA. 
Members  all  know  something  about  TEELA. 
I  don't  know  what  the  letters  stand  for 
but  it  is  a  private  outfit  with  close  connec- 
tions with  the  Revenue  ministry— an  outfit 
the  minister  will  soon  be  getting  rid  of  I 
understand— which  notates  every  real  estate 
transaction,  computerizes  them  and  has  them 
available  on  small  cards.  We  went  through 
the  pattern  of  acceleration  in  house  costs 
for  a  representative  number  of  residences 
in  the  Metro  Toronto  area;  residences  that 
were  all  initially  considered  to  be  low  in- 
come and  lower-middle  income  ownership 
potential.  Let  me  tell  the  House  what  we 
found. 

In  the  borough  of  York,  in  the  280  block 
of  Caledonia  Rd.— my  colleague  from  York 
South  knows  it  well— we  both  knocked  on 
doors  up  and  down  Caledonia  Rd.  In  1965,  a 
house  sold  for  $12,600;  in  February,  1973, 
$28,800;  estimated  value  in  February,  1974, 


$38,300.  No.  525  Dune  St.,  just  northwest  of 
High  Park,  in  the  west  end  of  the  city— 
1965,  $21,800;  May,  1973,  $42,400;  February, 
1974,  $50,500.  No.  5  Clinton  St.  in  Toronto 
—you  may  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  that 
lies  between  Bathurst  and  Dufferin,  the 
old  stamping  grounds  for  some  of  us  who 
inhabit  these  legislative  benches— 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  The  hon.  member 
springs  from  there  too,  eh? 

Mr.  Lewis:  —in  1963,  just  10  years  ago, 
the  price  on  the  home— sorry,  this  was  a  num- 
ber on  Clinton  St.;  I  have  the  actual  num- 
bers, but  I  am  not  sure  how  the  home- 
owners would  feel  if  photographs  were  be- 
ing taken.  I  will  have  to  think  about  that. 
At  any  rate,  it's  a  very  low  odd  number 
on  Clinton  St.-1963,  $11,700;  March,  1973 
$28,250;  estimated  value  in  February,  1974, 
$36,700. 

On  Markham  St.,  Toronto,  one  block  west 
of  Bathurst.  Markham  St.— some  of  us  grew 
up  on  Markham  St.;  the  Duddy  Kravitzes 
of   this   world   grew   up   on   Markham   St. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Your 
memory  is  good,  Mordechai. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  that's  not  me. 
That's  the  member  for  York- Forest  Hill. 
What  makes  Philip  run? 

In  1964,  the  price  of  this  home  on  the 
400  block  of  Markham  St.  was  $15,900; 
May,  1973,  $43,100;  in  February,  1974,  it 
could  change  hands  for  an  estimated  $51,400. 

Mr.  Givens:  Nothing  on  Markham  St.  can 
be  worth  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  be  worth  that?  Well,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  I  wandered  down  Markham 
St.  to  Ed's  Markham  St.  "Village"  just  a 
couple  of  weekends  ago,  and  it  struck  me 
that  obviously  the  whole  character  is  chang- 
ing. Now  you  can  get  a  house  for— 

Mr.  Givens:   That's  north  Markham  St. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  north  Markham  St. 

No.  10  Metcalfe  St.— now  mark  this;  this 
is  in  Don  Vale,  in  that  area  which  we 
assumed  would  be  preserved  for  low-  and 
middle-income  earners.  In  1965  the  house 
sold  for  $7,500— again,  it  is  a  very  low 
number  on  Metcalfe-in  1966  for  $9,203;  in 
November,  1972,  for  $31,500;  in  March, 
1973,  for  $61,000-these  are  actual  sales- 
and  estimated  value  in  February,  1974,  was 
$79,200. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  What  a 
government! 


128 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  Low-income,  middle-income 
housing! 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  I  tell  you, 
that's  even  more  than  for  chicken. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  even  the  member  for 
Huron-Bruce  would  have  to  sell  two  or  three 
turkeys  for  that  kind  of  down  payment,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

No.  32  Strathcona  Ave.  in  the  riding 
of  my  colleague  from  Riverdale;  he  can  tell 
you  it's  part  of  a  riding  that  should  be 
low-  and  middle-income  housing— in  1964 
the  house— again  a  number  very  low  on 
Strathcona,  on  the  even  side  of  the  street- 
sold  for  $11,000;  May,  1972,  $26,900;  March, 
1973,  just  a  small  jump,  relatively  speaking, 
$29,900.  It  is  now  estimated  for  sale  at 
$38,800. 

In  East  York,  so  that  no  borough  is 
exempt,  in  the  400  block  in  East  York— 
1964,    $25,500;    May,    1972,    $42,000;    May, 

1973,  $50,000-these     are     sales-February, 

1974,  estimated  value,  $60,000. 

Then  we  come  to  Scarborough,  the  pro- 
vincial riding  of  Scarborough  Centre,  the 
federal  riding  of  Scarborough  West,  and  a 
home  on  Brenda  Cres.,  in  the  area  of  the 
100  block— again  it's  a  reasonable  lower- 
middle-income  area.  In  1963  the  house  sold 
for  $14,500;  1967,  $18,000;  March,  1973, 
$36,300;  February,   1974,  $47,100. 

Willowdale,  North  York,  between  Bayview 
and  Yonge,  north  of  Sheppard,  one  of  the 
lower  middle-income  groups  in  that  part  of 
xMetro:  in  1965  the  house  was  valued  at 
$15,700;  in  1966  it  sold  for  $18,500  and  in 
1967  for  $21,900.  Then  we  move  into  the 
William  Davis  period  again-April,  1973, 
$40,000;  February,  1974,  $50,000. 

I  see  the  chagrin  on  the  face  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Energy  so  I  will  talk  about  the  Darcy 
McKeough  era.  I  don't  want  him  to  feel 
neglected. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): I  was  Minister  of  Housing  before  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No.  145  Niagara  St.-remem- 
ber  that  property,  because  I  want  to  bear 
reference  to  it  at  the  end-in  1966  it  sold  for 
$9,500;  January,  1973,  $21,000;  May,  1973, 
$25,600;  February,  1974,  $30,500. 

And  one  last  house,  on  Laurier  Ave.,  a 
low  number  on  Laurier,  north  of  Wellesley 
and  east  of  Parliament,  again  in  what  would 
seem  to  be  the  eventual  preserve  of  lower 
middle  class  housing— lower  middle  income 
housinfT  is  a  much  more  appropriate  way  of 
puttin;^   it-1964,    $9,700;    1967,    $15,400;   in 


the  Davis-McKeough  regime  in  May,  1973, 
$63,500  and  estimated  in  February,  1974  at 
$75,700. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  acceleration,  the  unbe- 
lievable increase  in  the  cost  of  housing  and 
the  cost  of  land,  has  occurred  right  at  the 
heart  of  this  Premier's  incumbency,  right  at 
the  heart  of  this  government,  of  the  govern- 
ment now  in  power,  over  the  last  two  years. 
That's  when  all  hell  has  broken  loose.  That's 
when  everything  is  out  of  sight. 

I  think  I  must  have  read  the  accounting  of 
a  dozen  of  them.  In  all  of  these  homes  only 
one,  Mr.  Speaker,  can  any  longer  be  con- 
sidered available  for  low-income  housing. 
And  that's  145  Niagara  St.  at  $30,500.  Be- 
fore anybody  rushes  out  to  purchase  it,  let 
me  tell  you  that  it  lies  downwind  of  To- 
ronto Refineries  and  Smelters  Ltd.  And  that's 
why  it's  still  $30,000.  But  everything  else  is 
not. 

I  think  this  random  cross-section  sampling 
means  very  simply  and  very  accurately  that 
all  of  the  housing  in  the  1960's  that  we  as- 
sumed would  be  available  for  low-income 
families  and  for  middle-income  families  is  now 
completely  out  of  range,  courtesy  this  govern- 
ment in  the  last  three  years. 

Let  me  tell  you  something  more  about  what 
I  choose  to  call  the  William  Davis  years  or 
the  era  of  this  cabinet,  this  incumbency.  In 
the  city  of  Hamilton,  the  increase  in  the  cost 
of  housing  from  1967  to  1972  was  17.4  per 
cent.  In  the  last  two  years,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  has 
jumped  by  another  22.5  per  cent.  In  the  city 
of  Ottawa  from  1969  to  1972  the  increase  was 
18.4  per  cent.  In  the  last  two  years  it  has 
jumped  another  23.5  per  cent.  In  the  city  of 
Kitchener  from  1969  to  1972  the  increase 
was  only  2.5  per  cent.  In  the  last  two  years, 
reaUy  in  18  months,  it  has  jumped  by  28  per 
cent.  In  the  city  of  Windsor  the  increase  from 
1969  to  1972  was  7.7  per  cent.  In  the  last 
two  years  it  has  jumped  by  27.2  per  cent.  In 
London  from  1969  to  1972  it  was  only  about 
20  per  cent.  In  the  last  18  months  to  two  years 
it  has  jumped  to  29  per  cent. 

The  housing  market  has  collapsed  or  sky- 
rocketed, however  one  wishes  to  view  it,  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  firmly  within  this 
regime,  firmly  within  the  period  where  we 
have  played  games  with  housing,  where  the 
Tories  have  appointed  one  minister  after  an- 
other who've  seen  it  more  as  a  sinecure  than 
as  a  stewardship.  This  has  happened  in  every 
single  community  that  we  scrupulously  look- 
ed at,  Mr.  Speaker. 

In  Peterborough  the  price  of  a  new  home 
has  jumped  from  $26,000  to  $32,000,  a  23 


MARCH  11,  1974 


129 


per  cent  increase.  In  Stratford  from  $22,600 
in  the  spring  of  1973  to  $28,000  in  Septem- 
ber. 

In  July,  1973,  the  price  of  a  new  three- 
bedroom  bungalow  in  Thunder  Bay  was  $32,- 
500,  $10,000  more  than  similar  accommoda- 
tion in  Winnipeg.  A  vacant  lot  with  a  50-foot 
frontage  in  Thunder  Bay  sells  for  $12,000. 
Headway  Corp.  is  the  prime  developer.  In- 
cidentally, Headway  Corp.  for  the  first  nine 
months  of  1973,  over  a  similar  period  in 
1972,  had  an  increase  in  profit  of  126  per 
cent. 

For  the  Niagara  region  housing  is  going  up 
in  identical  fashion  and  the  same  in  Guelph 
and  the  same  in  Brantford. 

In  Kitchener- Waterloo,  listen  to  what  has 
happened  to  lot  prices.  In  1963  a  50-foot 
serviced  lot  cost  $3,500.  In  1968  the  same  lot 
sold  for  $5,750.  In  1973  the  same  lot  sold 
for  $11,000. 

You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  one  can  only  stand 
for  so  much  of  that  kind  of  thing.  Everything 
has  gone  out  of  control  in  the  last  18  months 
and  there's  not  a  single  policy  initiative, 
there's  not  a  single  tittle  of  evidence  that  the 
government  intends  to  do  anything  about  it. 
It  is  not  just  the  housing  costs,  the  land  costs; 
everything  now  is  beyond  the  range  of  low- 
and  middle-income  earners.  The  vacancy  rates 
for  apartment  dwellers  are  reaching  levels 
which  suggest  that  one  just  won't  be  able  to 
find  an  apartment  to  live  in  in  this  province  in 
18  months  from  now  when  the  government's 
tenure  is  up  for  public  accountabiMty  again. 

The  apartment  vacancy  rates  for  major  cen- 
tres in  Ontario  are,  as  we  have  been  able  to 
find  them— the  most  recent  figures  for  Decem- 
ber 1973  to  January  1974-2.2  per  cent  in 
Hamilton;  3.6  per  cent  in  Kitchener;  1.9  per 
cent  in  Ottawa;  1.4  per  cent  in  Toronto;  1.9 
per  cent  in  Windsor  and  9/lOths  of  one  per 
cent  in  Thunder  Bay,  the  lowest  apartment 
vacancy  rate  in  Canada. 

Let  me  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  any  vacancy 
rate  below  four  per  cent  means  tremendous 
pressure  on  the  upward  spiralling  of  rents  and 
cannot  really  be  tolerated.  The  costs  of  in- 
dividual apartments  are  something  that  some 
of  mv  colleagues  will  deal  with  in  later 
speeches. 

Let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  what 
some  of  these  development  companies  are 
making  while  aU  of  this  is  occurring. 
Bramalea  Consolidated:  For  the  year  ended 
November,  1973,  over  November,  1972,  Con- 
solidated's  profits  went  up  66.2  per  cent. 
Cadillac   Development:    For  the  year   ended 


Sept.  30,   1973,  over  1972,  Cadillac's  profits 
went  up  57.5  per  cent. 

Caledon  Mountain  Estates— do  you  remem- 
ber that  little  company  that  was  so  active  on 
the  Niagara  Escarpment- 
Mr.   R.  F.  Nixon   (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Some  of  our  best  friends. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —to  whom  we  paid  such  ex- 
travagant amounts  of  money  to  purchase  a 
few  hundred  acres  of  escarpment  land? 
Caledon  Mountain  Estates  is  not  doing  badly 
by  it  all.  For  the  year  ending  Feb.  28,  1973 
over  the  previous  year,  its  profits  were  up 
89.7  per  cent.  Campeau  Corp.,  for  the  nine 
months  ending  Sept.  30,  1973  over  1972  its 
profits  were  up  44  per  cent.  Headway  Corp., 
for  the  year  ending  Aug.  31,  1973  over  1972, 
profits  were  up  39.8  per  cent.  Markborough 
Properties,  for  the  year  ended  Oct.  31,  1973 
over  1972,  had  an  increase  of  515  per  cent 
in  profits. 

So  here  you  have  the  picture.  You  have  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  in  the  city  of  Toronto 
alone,  housing  prices  escalating  during  this 
Premier's  stewardship  by  56  per  cent;  prices 
right  across  the  board  escalating  20,  30,  40 
per  cent  in  towns  and  cities  all  over  Ontario 
in  the  last  18  months;  the  same  true  of  the 
cost  of  land,  indeed  more  exorbitant  in  prices; 
the  apartment  vacancy  rate  declining;  the 
profits  of  the  major  land  development  com- 
panies and  those  who  do  the  building,  in- 
creasing at  an  unconscionable  level— and  I've 
not  dealt  with  the  rate  of  return  on  Invest- 
ment, but  that  is  equally  out  of  line.  So 
finally  we  have,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  new  Minister 
of  Housing— a  new  Minister  of  Housing  whose 
first  speech  says,  and  I  quote  him  into  the 
record: 

My  ministry  believes  the  situation  can  be 
greatly  improved  by  increasing  the  supply 
of  serviced  land  and  changing  the  income 
mix  for  new  housing.  The  capacity  to 
make  these  changes  is  within  our  reach  if 
we  receive  the  co-operation  of  local  govern- 
ment and  developers.  One  aspect  I'm 
quickly  perceiving  is  that  our  goals  within 
the  ministry  and  the  goals  within  the 
private  sector,  and  this  certainly  includes 
the  real  estate  profession,  are  to  a  great 
degree  the  same. 

Well  there  it  is  as  firm  from  the  Minister  of 
Housing  as  it  has  ever  been  stated,  I  will  say 
that  for  the  member  for  Carleton.  The  mem- 
ber for  Carleton  doesn't  even  dissemble  about 
his  loyalty.  The  member  for  Carleton  says  the 
unlovely  alliance,  the  special  relationship,  the 
favoured    rapprochement,    between   the    gov- 


130 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


eminent  and  the  building  industry  shall  con- 
tinue—and what's  more,  "I'll  stimulate  it."  He 
even  says:  "For  we  all  have  a  responsibility, 
both  professionally  and  morally,  to  do  all  we 
can  to  assist  in  the  housing  needs  of  the 
people,  the  families  living  in  this  province." 

Well,  you  find  me  a  developer,  Mr.  Speaker, 
who  has  a  moral  obligation  to  provide  hous- 
ing. You  show  me  this  creature.  You  bring 
Bramalea  Consolidated  or  Cadillac  Develop- 
ment or  Markborough  Properties  or  Headway 
Corporation  before  the  bar  of  the  House,  or 
before  a  committee  of  the  Legislature  and 
ask  them  about  their  moral  responsibilities  for 
provision  of  housing. 

What  kind  of  nonsense  is  this?  They  are  in 
this  game  for  profits.  Every  penny  of  profit 
they  can  extract,  whether  by  virtue  of  public 
accessibility  or  by  virtue  of  the  private  hous- 
ing market. 

And  you  know,  that's  the  nature  of  the 
free  enterprise  system,  they  are  presumably 
entitled  to  it.  But  not  unconscionable  profits. 
Not  profits  that  exceed  a  return  on  investment 
that  everyone  would  regard  as  unreasonable. 
Not  profits  that  make  it  impossible  for  us  to 
sell  homes  to  low-income  and  middle-income 
families  across  the  Province  of  Ontario.  The 
reahty  is  that  the  Minister  of  Housing  made 
his  peace  vdth  the  private  development  in- 
dustry the  moment  he  assumed  his  portfolio. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  He  sold 
out. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  leaped  into  their  arms  as 
soon  as  he  had  taken  the  official  oath.  I  may 
say,  the  Minister  of  Housing  leaping  into  the 
arms  of  Bramalea  Consohdated  is  a  picture 
to  conjecture  with.  Presumably  this  afternoon 
he's  streaking  his  way  to  Markborough— and 
anyone  else  who  will  have  him. 

The  reality  is  that  not  a  one  of  the  mem- 
bers over  there  on  the  Tory  side  is  prepared 
to  do  in  the  housing  field  what  is  required 
to  be  done.  And  if  I  may  say  to  my  friend, 
the  member  for  Brant,  I  don't  think  the 
Liberal  Party  is  ready  either  to  do  the  only 
thing,  the  only  thing  that  can  conceivably 
rescue  the  present  housing  situation. 

In  this  situation,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a 
sine  qua  non.  There  is  a  basic  policy  position 
which  must  be  accepted  before  anything  else 
can  happen.  And  that  policy  position  involves 
massive  public  acquisition  of  urban  land  for 
housing  development. 

To  chronicle,  as  I  have  chronicled  the 
injustice,  is  not  nearly  enough.  To  chronicle, 
as  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  did  the 
foreign    ownership    of    certain    properties    in 


downtown  Toronto,  is  not  nearly  enough.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  to  leave  out  the  Four 
Seasons-Sheraton  owned  by  IT&T  is  an  over- 
sight that  is  quite  beyond  belief.  That  stands 
at  the  head  of  our  list.  And  I  won't  tell  you 
which  hst. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  That  is 
where  the  NDP  held  its  convention. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Never  again,  I  will  tell  tHe 
members. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Is  that 
why? 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  that  is  not  enough.  To  talk 
of  taxes— which  I'll  do  in  a  moment— is  not 
enough.  What  is  required  is  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Province  of  Ontario  goes  out 
and  buys  a  suflBcient  percentage  of  the  land 
adjacent  to  the  20  major  urban  centres  in 
Ontario  to  bring  the  housing  market  within 
the  bounds  of  availability.  It  buys  the  land, 
then  it  leases  it  on  a  long-term  basis  and  on 
that  land  you  build  homes— whether  one 
builds  them  through  the  Ontario  Housing 
Corp.,  or  whether  one  builds  them  through 
the  private  sector. 

And  don't  play  the  pathetic  games  that  are 
played  by  the  Comay  report,  which  reinforced 
all  the  prejudices  about  the  private  sector 
which  are  now  so  fashionable.  The  report 
which  said  we  should  acquire  something  like 
10  per  cent  of  the  300,000  acres  over  a  20- 
year  period. 

Acquire  something  like  50  per  cent  of  the 
300,000  acres.  Get  80  per  cent  or  90  per  cent 
of  it  back  from  the  federal  government.  Make 
that  kind  of  social  investment  for  the  people 
of  Ontario.  Then,  finally,  provide  homes  for 
low-income  and  middle-income  earners. 
Otherwise  there  is  not  a  solution;  otherwise 
everything  el^  is  so  much  claptrap,  because 
nothing  will  change. 

That  alone,  taking  that  land,  presumably 
from  major  developers  and  speculators,  won't 
do  it  either.  Incidentally,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
would  take  it  for  the  original  purchase  price, 
plus  holding  costs  and  not  a  penny  more. 
Even  if  the  government  takes  that  land  from 
the  original  speculators  or  developers,  that 
isn't  enough.  The  land  which  is  held  by  the 
remainder,  the  other  150,000  acres  of  which 
Comay  talked,  has  to  be  under  so  much  tax 
pressure  that  there  will  be  an  immediate  in- 
centive to  provide  it  for  the  public  sector 
or  for  the  provision  of  housing. 

That  doesn't  mean  some  vague,  graduated 
income  tax.  That  means  capital  gains  at  75 
per  cent  of  value  minimum  so  that  there  is  a 
tremendous    inducement    to    part    with    that 


MARCH  11,  1974 


131 


land.  When  the  pubhc  sector  owns  half  of  it 
and  puts  a  75  per  cent  capital  gains  on  the 
other  half,  finally  we  will  begin  to  get  hous- 
ing built  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  at  a  cost 
which  famihes  can'  afford. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  use  playing  games 
with  it  any  longer.  I  want  to  make  another 
point.  In  the  last  18  months  of  the  Premier- 
ship of  this  province,  of  the  tenure  of  this 
government,  of  this  cabinet,  housing  has  be- 
come an  investment  in  this  province;  an  in- 
vestment in  the  most  pernicious  description 
of  the  word.  Housing  has  become  an  altern- 
ative to  the  stock  market  for  a  great  many 
people,  and  the  unconscionable  profits  on 
housing  as  an  investment  should  be  removed. 

They  should  be  removed  in  much  the  same 
way  as  we  set  up  an  Ontario  Securities  Com- 
mission to  avoid  insider  trading  on  the  stock 
market.  We  set  up  some  kind  of  housing  and 
land  transactions  commission  to  avoid  the 
kind  of  insider  trading  and  the  kind  of  fast 
profit  which  is  made  on  the  buying  and:  sell- 
ing of  homes— they  call  it  white  painting  of 
homes,  I  think— in  some  of  the  downtovm 
areas  of  urban  centres.  They  buy  at  $20,000 
and  refurbish  and  sell  it  for  $40,000  or 
$50,000  within  the  next  month  or  two. 

iMr.  Speaker,  in  the  process  of  looking  at 
individual  houses  and  the  amazing  shift  in 
values  with  each  transaction  over  the  last  few 
year,  we,  within  the  caucus  research  dtepart- 
ment,  came  across  a  number  of  cases  in 
certain  communities  which  were  so  incredible 
that  I'm  afraid  to  use  them.  We  are  going 
back  to  check  on  them  to  see  whether  it  is 
possible.  There  are  cases  of  profits  of  100, 
150  and  200  per  cent  turned'  over  on  houses 
bought  and  sold  within  the  same  month. 
There  are  things  happening  in  Ontario,  with 
the  use  of  housing  as  an  investment,  that 
simply  can't  be  permitted. 

One  can't  play  that  way  with  what  is  a 
social  need  and  a  social  right.  Maybe  one 
can  do  it  where  people  are  volimtarily  taking 
a  risk,  but  one  doesn't  do  it  when  dealing 
with  a  social  right,  a  social  obligation,  that 
the  government  is  obliged  to  provide. 

We  will  present  those  figureis  to  the  House, 
Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  must  say  that  I  was  so 
thrown  when  they  were  given  to  me,  particu- 
larly in  one  or  two  communities  in  Ontario, 
that  we  have  asked  them  to  be  checked  yet 
again,  although  I  suspect  they  are  entirely 
accurate. 

We  are  also  going  to  have  to  look  at  the 
reduction  of  growth  in  southern  urban  cen- 
tres because  of  what  is  happening  to  com- 
munities from  Barrie  to  Peterborough— Barrie, 
Orillia,   Peterborough.   There   is   more   infor- 


mation on  them  but  one  needn't  put  every- 
thing on  the  record  simultaneously.  What's 
happening  is  that  the  people  who  live  in 
those  communities  —  and  some  members  live 
in  them;  they  know  the  little  communities 
that  lie  just  east  of  Metropolitan  Toronto; 
they  know  what  is  happening  in  their  own 
bailiwicks— the  people  who  live  in  those  little 
communities  are  being  forced  out  of  their 
own  homes  because  of  the  pressure  of  Metro- 
politan Toronto.  That,  too,  is  not  tolerable. 

As  a  matter  of  fact— I  guess  this  is  in  the 
riding  of  my  colleague  from  York  South— the 
Cobourg  Star,  on  Feb.  27,  carried  an  article 
on  the  front  page  and  a  most  extraordinary 
map  or  chart  inside.  The  headline  in  the 
paper  reads:  "Most  of  Lakeshore  Land 
Owned  by  Non-Residents".  These  are  not 
non-residents  in  a  multinational  sense.  These 
are  non-residents  of  Cobourg,  Port  Hope  and 
the  area,  but  residents  of  Toronto,  residents 
of  Oshawa  and  residents  of  other  major 
southwestern  Ontario  centres,  systematically 
going  into  the  hinterland  and  buying  up  all 
the  most  desirable  land  for  speculative  pur- 
poses, for  the  worst  kinds  of  greed  and 
acquisitiveness,  to  turn  a  fast  profit  at  the 
expense  of  the  people  who  have  inhabited 
those  parts  of  the  province  for  generations. 

The  pressure  that  Toronto  is  exerting  right 
now  all  the  way  out  to  Stratford  in  the  west 
and  all  the  way  out  to  Peterborough  in  the 
east  is  something  that  has  to  be  brought 
under  control,  even  if  it  means  pretty  fierce 
controls  on  matters  of  location  of  industry 
and  economic  growth. 

The  more  I  see  what  is  happening  to 
housing  the  more  I  am  persuaded  that  Uiose 
of  us  who  feel  that  the  airport  is  madness 
have  been  right  all  along  and  that  North 
Pickering  is  the  atrocity  we've  all  thought  it 
to  be,  because  what  we  are  doing  is  simply 
enhancing  the  land  values  and  the  speculative 
gains  in  a  way  which  cannot  be  defended. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  basic  housing 
policy  there  must  clearly  be  mortgages  pro- 
vided provincially  through  the  Province  of 
Ontario  Savings  Offices,  with  an  effective  rate 
of  six  per  cent  which  would  be  arranged 
through  the  tax  credit,  the  easiest  and  most 
equitable  way  of  arranging  for  that  kind  of 
interest  rate  for  houses. 

If  we  did  all  those  things,  Mr.  Speaker; 
if  we  reduced  the  pressures  of  growth  in 
Metro;  if  we  brought  in  mortgages  from  the 
Ontario  Savings  Offices;  if  we  reduced  inter- 
est rates  to  six  per  cent  by  using  tax  credits; 
if  we  put  a  capital  gains  tax  at  75  per  cent 
on  all  speculative  land  acquisition;  if  we 
set  up  some  kind  of  commission  in  Ontario 


132 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


which  would  look  into  housing  as  an  invest- 
ment to  avoid  the  insider  trading  and  the 
unconscionable  profits;  if  we  purchased  in 
the  public  domain  50  per  cent  of  the  land 
of  which  the  Comay  report  talked  adjacent 
to  the  20  urban  centres— then  we  would  have 
a  housing  policy  worthy  of  the  name  in  this 
province. 

Short  of  that,  everything  is  unacceptable! 
Short  of  that,  the  Minister  of  Housing  has 
dressed  himself  in  ashes  and  sackcloth  and 
prostrated  himself  before  the  development 
industry.  Short  of  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
pattern  of  the  William  Davis  era  will  simply 
accelerate,  and  an  ever  greater  percentage 
of  people  in  this  province  will  be  denied  the 
right  to  shelter  by  the  way  in  which  this 
government  refuses  to  come  to  terms  with  a 
system  which  is  so  discriminatory  and  pre- 
judicial to  the  mass  of  the  people  in  this 
province. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  is  true  of  housing  is 
true  equally  of  food,  and  that's  what  makes 
the  Throne  Speech  again  such  an  inadequate 
document. 

If  you  think  that  I  am  going  into  detail 
on  the  cost  of  living,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  ain't 
heard  nothing  yet,  because  the  NDP  is  stak- 
ing much  of  its  ground,  as  we  always  have, 
on  the  question  of  a  fairer  deal  for  the  people 
of  this  province  in  dealing  with  inflation. 
We  have  a  pretty  strong  declaration  of  faith 
where  that  is  concerned,  because  we  happen 
to  beheve  that  it  can  be  brought  under  con- 
trol and  are  going  to  take  measures  to  do  so. 

Let  me  tell  you  about  the  William  Davis 
years  in  the  food  industry,  Mr.  Speaker.  In 
the  same  three-year  period  since  the  present 
incumbent  took  his  seat— and  the  Premier  is 
simply  symbolic  of  the  Conservative  govern- 
ment, I  don't  know  how  else  to  characterize 
him— let  me  take  the  choice  commodities  for 
you;  well,  not  choice  but  representative  com- 
modities in  the  food  section.  Let  me  tell  you 
what  has  happened  to  prices  from  the  middle 
of  1971— to  be  exact  August,  1971;  several 
months  after  William  Davis  became  Premier 
—right  through  to  March  of  1974.  I'll  give  it 
to  you  for  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  area  and 
point  out  to  you,  sir,  that  the  discrepancies 
with  other  regions  of  the  province,  particu- 
larly east  and  north,  are  very  great,  but 
regional  disparities  are  something  some  of 
mv  colleagues  will  deal  with  more  specifi- 
cally. 

For  Metropolitan  Toronto  in  August,  1971, 
a  quart  of  milk  cost  32  cents;  in  March,  1974, 
it  cost  36  cents  for  an  increase  of  12.5 
per  cent.  A  pound  of  butter  was  57  cents  in 
1971    and    79    cents    in    1974,    3.6   per   cent 


increase.  A  dozen  grade  A  large  eggs  cost  41 
cents  in  1971  and  90  cents  in  1974,  an  in- 
crease of  119.5  per  cent,  a  pound  of  bacon 
70  cents  in  1971,  $1.15  in  1974,  an  increase 
of  63.4  per  cent. 

A  pound  of  sirloin  steak  cost  $1.36  in  1971, 
$1.78  in  1974-30.9  per  cent.  A  24  oz.  loaf  of 
bread;  32  cents  in  1971,  41  cents  in  March 
of  1974— a  28  per  cent  increase.  A  can  of 
vegetable  soup,  14  oz.  can;  18  cents  in  1971, 
23  cents  in  1974— a  27.8  per  cent  increase.  A 
can  of  corn,  14  oz;  22  cents  in  1971,  28  cents 
in  1974—27.4  per  cent  increase.  Five  pounds 
of  potatoes;  35  cents  in  1971,  85  cents  in 
1974— an  increase  of  142.9  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that  milk,  butter, 
eggs,  bacon,  steak,  bread,  vegetable  soup,  as 
a  representative  item  of  canned  goods,  com, 
as  a  representative  item  of  carmed  goods, 
potatoes  as  a  staple  which  is  pretty  widely 
in  use,  represent  a  not  bad  example  of  the 
kinds  of  things  on  which  families  are  depen- 
dent. I  want  to  point  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  that  means  on  the  average  those  com- 
modities have  increased,  in  the  William 
Davis  era,  some  55  per  cent  in  cost  in  2% 
years— 55  per  cent. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  something  quite 
interesting  in  that,  an  increase  of  56  per  cent 
in  housing  and  55  per  cent  in  food.  And  you 
know,  just  while  the  figures  are  in  my  mind, 
housing  and  food  constitute  on  the  average 
56  per  cent  of  the  total  family  budgetary 
expenditure.  So  you  can  see  what  has  been 
achieved  by  this  government  in  the  last  2% 
to  three  years.  It  is  in  its  own  way  the 
strongest  possible  indictment  of  this  govern- 
ment that  can  be  found.  In  the  world  of  in- 
flation they  are  the  delinquents. 

Just  so  I  wouldn't  seem  to  be  unduly 
unfair,  because  I  am  using  selected  figures, 
the  Premier  and  his  cabinet  use  a  diflperent 
measure  of  tabulation.  They  use  what  is 
called  the  Ontario  Food  Council  market  bas- 
ket, and  the  market  basket  contains  a  great 
many  more  items  than  those  I  have  desig- 
nated and  many  of  them  have  not  increased 
at  the  same  rate.  But  let  me  just  simply  tell 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  market  basket  was 
valued  in  February  of  1971  at  $56.33,  and 
in  February  of  1974  it  was  up  to  $77.81, 
which  is  an  increase  of  over  38  per  cent  in 
the  government's  own  carefully-monitored 
Ontario  Food  Council  market  basket.  And 
again  that  is  an  increase  of  roughly  13  per 
cent  a  year,  which  outstrips  the  cost  of  living 
in  other  areas  and  which  obviously  most 
families  simply  can't  handle. 

I  want  to  say  a  word  about  sugar  prices 
too,  because  I  think  it  is  time  we  talked  in 


MARCH  11,  1974 


133 


no-nonsense  terms  to  the  government  about 
some  of  these  things.  Prior  to  the  smnmer  of 
1973,  sugar  in  Ontario  was  costing  eight  to 
10  cents  a  pound.  In  September  to  October, 
1973,  it  went  up  to  15.4  cents  a  pound.  On 
Jan.  1,  1974,  it  was  up  to  21.6  cents  a 
pound.  At  Feb.  19,  1974,  it  was  up  to  30.8 
cents  a  pound. 

I  would  like  the  government  of  Ontario  to 
inquire  into  the  behaviour  of  the  sugar  in- 
dustry in  this  kind  of  acceleration  of  prices. 
We  are  the  last  people  in  the  world  to  deny 
the  workers  in  the  industry  a  legitimate  wage, 
and  if  I  thought  that  the  increase  in  prices 
had  anything  to  do  with  an  increase  in'  wages 
then  we  would  applaud  it,  but  in  fact  the 
increase  in  prices  looks  suspiciously  like 
control  by  a  cartel.  It  harks  back  to  the  point 
being  made  by  my  colleague  from  Wentworth 
the  other  day  in  question  period  about  the 
possible  cartel  activities  of  the  supermarket 
chains,  and  it's  time  that  the  Province  of 
Ontario  launched  the  kind  of  inquiry  that 
would  bring  the  facts  to  public  view. 

We  would  also  like  the  same  kind  of  in- 
vestigation of  the  bread  indtistry  and  what  is 
happening  within  the  bakeries;  and  we  would 
also  like  to  provide  to  the  farmers,  through 
the  Ontario  Milk  Marketing  Board,  the  in- 
crease per  quart  which  they  are  going  to  re- 
quire this  summer— presumably  about  three 
cents  on  a  quart  of  milk— but  we  would  like 
very  much  to  have  the  profits  of  the  major 
dairies  examined  by  a  committee  of  this 
Legislature.  But  more  of  that  in  a  moment. 

Having  set  out  some  of  those  items,  Mr. 
Speaker,  let  me  tell  you  a  little  bit  about 
what  has  happened  to  real  wages  and  real 
purchasing  power.  Something  has  happened 
in  the  most  recent  part  of  the  tenure  of  the 
Premier  and  his  colleagues  that  we  couldn't 
find  another  parallel  for  since  the  Second 
World  War.  Now,  probably  there  is  a  parallel 
since  the  Second  World  War  and  I  presume 
you  will  be  able  to  trot  it  out,  but  we  couldn't 
find  it. 

What  has  happened  is  that  when  you  cor- 
rect the  average  wages  and  salaries  for  the 
effects  of  inflation,  the  average  wages  and  sal- 
aries in  the  last  six  months  of  1973  have  ac- 
tually been  declining.  Now  that  is  absolutely 
unprecedented.  Absohitely  without  precedent, 
certainly  I  guess  in  the  last  several  years— I 
had  better  be  more  cautious;  I  get  carried 
away  when  I  hear  ministers  of  the  Crovm 
comparing  things  with  the  Commonwealth 
and  the  world,  so  I  am  given  to  hyperbole 
myself— within  the  last  several  years,  it  is 
clearly  without  precedent,  and  I  am  not  sure 
you  can  find  one,  that  the  actual  wages  and 


salaries,  corrected  for  inflation,  are  in  a  state 
of  serious  decline. 

Let  me  tell  you  the  figures,  because  they 
are  really  interesting  when  you  compare  them 
to  the  costs  of  food  and  the  costs  of  housing. 
In  January  of  1973  the  average  wage  and 
salary  was  $161.42;  if  that  figure  can  stick  in 
the  head  of  Treasury  Board's  mind,  $161.42. 
Now,  in  July  of  1973,  when  you  correct  the 
average  weekly  wage  for  inflation,  the  value 
is  $157.11.  In  August,  $156.35;  in  September, 
$150.10;  in  October,  $158.76;  in  November, 
$157.96;  in  December,  $152.24-a  drop  in 
actual  buying  power  per  weekly  wage  of 
something  like  $9.18  over  the  valtie  of  the 
wage  in  January  of  1973  and  its  effective 
value  according  to  the  price  indexes  in 
December  of  1973. 

That's  absolutely  fantastic!  A  drop  in  one 
year  of  the  equivalent  of  between  $400  and 
$500  of  real  purchasing  power  as  measured  at 
the  end  of  the  year  compared  to  the  be- 
girming,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
pattern  has  changed;  and  it's  the  first  time! 
Again,  when  we  worked  out  the  price  index, 
the  average  wages  and  salaries,  the  correction 
for  inflation  and  the  change  in  real  buying 
power,  we  had  to  chesck  it  out  several  times, 
because  in  all  of  the  analyses  of  such  figures 
it's  really  hard  to  find  any  other  example. 

We  couldn't;  and  what  that  means  is  that 
at  precisely  the  moment  when  all  hell's  break- 
ing loose  in  the  inflationary  spiral,  the  real 
value  of  wages  and  salaries  is  declining  in 
absolute  dollar  terms  and  that's  why  there  is 
such  public  furore  about  it.  Obviously  the 
public  doesn't  understand  it  in  that  way.  They 
don't  look  at  price  indexes.  But  it's  worth  the 
Legislature  understanding  it  in  that  way. 

Now  at  the  same  time  that's  happening  to 
wages,  let  me  tell  members  about  profits. 
Profits  in  1971  represented  9.6  per  cent  of 
the  gross  provincial  product.  In  the  third 
quarter  of  1973  they  represented'  12.4  per 
cent. 

Let  me  tell  members  about  interest  rates. 
They  represented  4.1  per  cent  of  the  gross 
provincial  product  in  the  third  quarter  of 
1973,  the  highest  that  has  ever  been  noted  in 
the  history  of  commercial  interest  rates.  In 
terms  of  salaries  and  wages,  as  a  percentage 
of  gross  provincial  product,  they  declined 
from  55  per  cent  to  53.5  per  cent  in  the  same 
period. 

The  Chairman  of  Management  Board  will 
know  that  those  are  statistically  significant 
computations,  because  they  again  demonstrate 
that  it  is  the  real  wages  and  salaries  which 
are  clobbered  as  the  pricesi  and  the  profits 
and  the  interest  rates  continue  upwards. 


134 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


It's  all  happening  here  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario,  without  the  slightest  initiative  from 
the  government  of  Ontario.  Well,  it  has  been 
off  me  hook  long  enough;  it's  time  we  joined 
battle.  Perhaps  it  can  be  put  in  another  con- 
text. 

Mr.  Stokes:  They  don't  even  underetand. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  They  don't 
even  have  the  decency  to  come  and  try  to 
find  out. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  task  force  on  social  security 
of  the  Canadian  Council  of  Social  Develop- 
ment- 
Mr.  Stokes:  One  cabinet  minister  has  the 
courtesy  to  sit  and  listen. 

Mr.  Deans:  One  and  a  half. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  don't  begrudge  that.  The  Pre- 
mier and  the  Minister  of  Education,  I  suspect, 
are  out  in  York  county  and  I  don't  begrudge 
them  that.  I  would  have  thought  all  the 
others  would  be  here,  but  apparently  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  issued  the  invita- 
tions. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Canadian  Council  on  Social 
Development,  in  computing  a  new  poverty 
line  for  this  country  and  this  province,  sug- 
gested a  median  income  of  half  the  average 
annual  income.  That  would  be  a  poverty  line. 
It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  little  unfriendly  to 
those  who  are  impoverished  but  that's  what 
they've  taken. 

If  one  does  take,  not  for  the  country  but 
for  the  Province  of  Ontario,  half  the  amount 
of  the  average  family  income  on  the  last  fig- 
ures available,  which  were  in  1971,  the  pov- 
erty line  for— I  guess  it  would  be  the  average 
family— husband,  wife  and  two  kids,  is  $5,742. 
If  one  applies  that  poverty  line  to  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario,  19.9  per  cent— 20  per  cent— 
of  the  people  in  this  province  are  even  now 
living  below  the  poverty  line  set  in  1971. 

There  isn't  the  slightest  suggestion  that  it's 
changed.  Between  60  per  cent  and  70  per 
cent  of  the  families  in  this  province  he  below 
the  average  median  income  in  Ontario  which 
at  that  time  was  $11,483.  I  ask  the  members 
how,  in  God's  name,  they're  supposed  to  cope 
with  the  incredible  upsurge  in  prices  during 
this  Premier's  era. 

During  that  era,  which  will  be  known  with 
a  certain  infamy  in  days  to  come,  the  friends 
of  the  government— and  I  mean  that  in  an  en- 
tirely generous  and  descriptive  way— the 
ideological  friends  of  the  government,  the  cor- 
porations which  share  the  government's  view 


of  the  way  this  system  should  work,  have  not 
been  quite  so  oppressed.  Their  values  are  not 
declining  in  real  dollar  terms  and  let  it  be  put 
on  the  record,  I  guess  for  the  first  time,  ex- 
phcitly;  I  once  did  part  of  it  many  months 
ago  at  a  press  conference. 

For  the  nine  months  ending  Sept.  30,  1973, 
Burns  Foods  profits  were  up  22  per  cent.  For 
the  six  months  ending  Oct.  30,  1973,  over 
the  same  period  in  the  previous  year,  Beck- 
er's was  up  57  per  cent.  For  the  39  weeks 
ending  Dec.  29,  1973,  Canada  Packers  was  up 
40  per  cent.  For  the  year  ending  Dec.  30, 
1973,  Canada  Safeway  was  up  41  per  cent. 
For  the  year  ending  May  30,  1973,  over  the 
same  period  the  year  before,  Canadian  Can- 
ners  was  up  69  per  cent.  Dominion  Dairies, 
for  the  nine  months  ending  Sept.  29,  1973, 
over  1972,  was  up  46  per  cent.  Dominion 
Stores,  for  the  39  weeks  ending  Dec.  15,  1973, 
over  1972,  was  up  13  per  cent. 

Let  me  tell  members  what  the  analysts  say 
about  Dominion  Stores.  They  see  a  much  bet- 
ter prospect  for  food  stocks  for  a  number  of 
reasons:  less  intense  competition,  improved 
productivity  and  inflation.  Rising  costs  of 
goods  can  be  passed  on  to  the  consumer,  in 
addition.  Where  the  price  of  a  case  of  goods 
rises  by  a  fraction  of  a  cent  for  each  unit,  the 
unit  price  is  often  increased  by  a  full  cent. 
These  are  the  formal  analysts  looking  at  the 
market  potential  for  one  of  the  supermarket 
chains;  reaflBrming  again,  not  the  kind  of  non- 
sense that  comes  from  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations,  who  has 
opted  out  entirely  in  his  public  responsibility 
to  do  something  about  prices  and  inflation, 
but  indicating  support  for  the  kind  of  position 
taken  by  members  of  the  NDP  caucus  and  put 
again  by  the  member  for  Wentworth  last 
week  that  something  has  to  be  done  about 
the  way  in  which  the  supermarket  com- 
panies are  manipulating  prices  and  goug- 
ing the  consumer  in  this  province.  And  this 
government  can't  sit  interminably  by  and 
leave  it  to  Beryl  Plumptre,  because  that's  a 
dance  of  absurdity— and  everyone  in  this 
House  knows  it. 

General  Foods  up  11.5  per  cent  for  the 
year  ending  March  31,  1973.  General  Bak- 
eries, for  the  six  months  ending  Oct.  6,  1973, 
is  up  232  per  cent.  M.  Loeb  Co.  Ltd.,  for  the 
40  weeks  ending  Nov.  30,  1973,  over  the 
same  period  the  year  before,  is  up  70  per  cent. 
Maple  Leaf  Mills— I'm  beginning  to  under- 
stand why  we  have  to  increase  the  cost  of  a 
loaf  of  bread— for  the  nine  months  ending 
Sept.  30,  1973,  up  147  per  cent.  Nestle  Co. 
of  Canada,  for  the  full  year,  up  93  per  cent. 
Oshawa  Group  IGA,  up  11.8  per  cent— and 


MARCH  11,  1974 


135 


on  net  profit  volume  that's  one  hell  of  an 
increase.  Schneider's  Ltd.,  for  the  40  weeks 
ending  Aug.  4,  1973,  over  the  similar  period 
the  year  before,  up  67  per  cent.  Silver- 
wood  Industries  Ltd.,  for  the  36  weeks  end- 
ing Sept.  9,  1973,  up  88.9  per  cent. 

Steinberg's  Ltd.,  up  11.7  per  cent.  And 
you  know,  the  major  factor  in  the  increase 
for  Steinberg's— which,  incidentally,  went  up 
14  per  cent  on  sales,  11  per  cent  on  income 
after  taxes;  all  of  these  figures  are  after  taxes 
—the  largest  contributor  to  the  income  was 
the  food  store  operations  primarily  in  the 
Ottawa  Valley. 

It  is  a  tremendously  lucrative  business  now 
and  the  turnover  has  them  laughing  all  the 
way  to  the  deposit  box,  while  the  Province 
of  Ontario  wrings  its  hands  and  holds  bogus 
food  conferences  in  September  of  1973. 

George  Weston  Co.,  that  made  so  much 
clamour  about  the  need  for  the  increase  in 
the  cost  of  bread,  for  the  year  ended  Dec.  31, 
1973,  profits  up  86.4  per  cent. 

Mr.  Deans:  Disgusting. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Now,  I'll  tell  you,  this  govern- 
ment is  letting  the  corporations  in  Ontario  get 
away  with  murder  going  around  gouging 
profits  and  with  their  increases  in  prices.  It's 
time  the  government  put  its  foot  down.  Stop 
playing  patsy  for  them  all;  stop  playing  patsy 
for  them  all.  This  government  can  only  allow 
the  consumer  to  be  taken  advantage  of  for  so 
long  before  it's  joined  issue  with— and  con- 
sider this  the  joining  of  issue.  We've  talked 
to  this  government  in  a  hundred  different 
ways  about  what  it  might  do,  but  now  we're 
going  to  make  specific  proposals  and  press 
the  government  every  step  of  the  way.  Some 
of  the  proposals  will  echo  what  we've  said. 
Some  of  them  will  be,  in  some  sense,  new. 

Let  me  just  remind  you  that  in  Delhi,  I 
guess  it  was,  the  Premier  said,  quote: 

The  federal  government  must  make  a 
greater  efi^ort  to  control  inflation,  the  most 
pressing  problem  facing  the  country  today. 

Mr.  Speaker,  something  has  to  be  said  very 
specifically  about  this.  We  believe,  as  a  pro- 
vincial party  in  Ontario,  that  the  responsibil- 
ity for  the  control,  of  containment,  of  prices 
and  profits  is  a  provincial  responsibility  first 
and  foremost— and,  in  constitutional  terms, 
that's  absolutely  clear.  In  constitutional  terms, 
property  and  civil  rights  gives  to  the  provin- 
cial government  the  right  to  do  something 
about  prices. 

The  federal  government  can  argue,  in  an 
emergency  period,  under  the  peace,  order  and 


good  government  clause,  constitutionally,  but 
otherwise  what  the  federal  government  does 
it  chooses  to  do  because  it  accepts  a  certain 
moral  responsibility  for  pricing  pohcy  in 
national  terms.  And  who  would  deny  them 
that?  But  if  the  federal  government  is  de- 
linquent, if  the  federal  government  abdicates 
basic  responsibility,  then  it  is  clearly  both  the 
prerogative  and  the  obligation  of  the  province 
to  enter  the  pricing  and  profit  picture.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  pricing  picture  in  provin- 
cial rights  terms  was  demonstrated  in  the 
Home  Oil,  I  guess  it  was,  decision  in  1940. 
It  is  very  clear  in  the  legal  context  and 
constitutional  context  that  the  Province  of 
Ontario  would  have  no  diflBculty  whatsoever 
were  it  willing  to  move  in  on  this  field. 

What  is  happening,  as  I  will  show  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  a  moment,  is  that  in  the  Provinces 
of  Manitoba,  Saskatchewan  and  British 
Columbia  where  you  have  NDP  governments 
there  are  now  serious  initiatives  in  the  fields 
of  pricing  policy.  They  are  obviously  not 
prepared  to  abandon  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment the  whole  range  of  prerogative  over 
prices  and  profits.  That  is  of  some  conse- 
quence, because  very  soon  those  provinces 
are  going  to  be  able  to  demonstrate  what  we 
have  wished  for  the  world  we  could  demon- 
strate in  Ontario,  that  this  government  has 
the  muscle  and  the  capacity  to  do  it.  And 
when  it  refuses  to  do  it  here,  it  is  not  that 
it  is  collaborating  in  some  national  policy. 

There  is  no  national  policy,  except  for  the 
subsidy  on  bread  and  milk  and  wheat.  Except 
for  some  occasional  and  capricious  pro- 
grammes around  oil  prices  and  the  security 
of  energy  supply,  there  is  no  national  policy. 
This  government  knows  it.  And  it  further 
knows  that  constitutionally  it  has  the  right  to 
move  in.  If  the  people  of  Ontario  are  looking 
for  someone  to  blame  for  the  cost  of  living 
and  for  inflation,  thai  they  can  look  right 
here,  because  it  is  easfly  discernible  when 
you  look  at  the  policies,  or  the  absence  of 
policies,  of  this  government. 

Back  in  Charlottetown  in  August,  1973, 
the  Premier  said  he'd  call  in  the  supermarket 
heads  for  a  discussion  of  pricing  policy.  I 
remind  the  House  that  nothing  has  hap- 
pened. He  said  at  that  time,  and  I  quote 
him:  "Some  of  the  food  chains  were  quite 
irresponsible."  If  a  Premier  of  a  province 
thinks  that  food  chains  are  irresponsible, 
where  the  devil  is  he?  What  happened 
between  Aug.    10,   1973,  and  March,   1974? 

At  the  Ontario  food  conference  on  Sept. 
18,  1973,  do  you  remember  the  promises  of 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations?   Let   me   list  them   for   you,    Mr. 


136 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Speaker.  He  promised,  number  1,  a  business 
practices  Act  to  prohibit  unfair  and  de- 
ceptive practices.  Not  a  word  heard  of  it! 
It  isn't  in  the  House  yet.  After  seven 
months,  where  is  it?  Number  2,  he  promised, 
that  the  courts  be  given  power  to  rule  on 
what  was  an  unconscionable  profit.  Where 
is  it?  Where  is  the  legislation  that  would 
give  the   courts  that  right? 

Number  3,  he  would  explore  cease  and 
desist  orders  in  case  of  unconscionable  price 
increases.  Where  is  the  legislation?  Where 
is  even  the  public  discussion.  Number  4,  he 
would  arm  the  government  with  authority 
to  act  against  food  hoarding,  speculating, 
profiteering  and  fraud.  Where  is  that  material? 
Number  5,  he  would  monitor  regional  price 
disparities.  I  have  yet  to  see  a  single  regional 
iprice  disparity  document  tabled  in  this 
House. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  who 
said,  if  the  public  has  the  facts  and  acts  on 
them,  the  powerful  forces  of  the  marketplace 
can  be  brought  to  bear  on  any  inequities  or 
anomalies  that  arise.  There  is  the  old  free 
enterprise  fetish.  Like  the  member  for 
Carleton  in  the  housing  market,  so  is  the 
member  for  Niagara  Falls  in  the  food  sector. 
We  will  leave  it  to  the  market  to  do  the 
job.  Well,  they  are  certainly  doing  a  job— 
55  per  cent  in  30  months  of  the  Davis  era.  No 
group  of  corporations  have  profited  so 
lavishly  from  the  abdication  of  government 
as  those  in  the  food  and  development  in- 
dustry here  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Let  me  suggest  to  you  a  series  of  policies, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Number  1,  get  the  facts.  And 
the  facts  require  a  rigorous  monitoring  and 
exposure  of  all  of  the  prices  in  selected 
communities  across  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
In  the  Province  of  Manitoba  they  have  a 
price  monitoring  system  for  northern 
Manitoba.  They  select  a  whole  range  of 
communities  for  assessment.  They  take  into 
consideration  such  factors  as  modes  of  trans- 
portation, the  number  of  retail  outlets, 
sources  of  supplies  and  co-operation  of  local 
community  councils.  They  compare  them  to 
the  prices  prevailing  in  Winnipeg  at  the 
time.  Those  are  now  published  documents. 
Gradually  it's  becoming  apparent  to  the 
people  of  Manitoba  where  the  disparities 
exist,  and  the  pressures  are  so  great  because 
the  embarrassment  is  so  acute  as  some  of 
these  northern  communities  reveal  what  they 
are  paying  for  basic  goods,  that  they  are 
correcting  themselves  internally  even  in  ad- 
vance of  the  likely  legislation. 


But  more  important  than  that,  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  the  getting  of  the  facts  we  need  a  month- 
ly report  of  price  spreads  from  the  farm  gate 
to  the  checkout  counter,  and  let  that  be 
a  matter  of  straight  public  policy  and  public 
accessibility.  Can  you  imagine  if  the  con- 
sumer of  Ontario  saw  what  was  received  at 
the  farm  gate  in  any  one  of  the  whole  range 
of  commodities  and  what  was  paid  at  the 
checkout  counter?  There  would  be  a  public 
outcry  that  this  government  could  not  resist 
and  the  middle  man  and  the  supermarkets, 
who  have  taken  off  the  extravagant  profits, 
wouldn't  last  very  long,  I'll  tell  you. 

Two,  we  need  a  prices  review  tribunal 
in  this  province— a  prices  and  profits  review 
tribunal  really— so  tough  and  so  unrelenting 
that  it  could  roll  back  any  price  that  was  il- 
legitimate, would  have  the  power  to  com- 
mand witnesses  and  balance  sheets,  and  have 
the  power  to  make  public  the  various  com- 
ponents that  go  into  the  prices  charged  by 
various  sectors  of  the  economy.  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  say,  as  we  have  said  before,  roll  back  one 
price  in  Ontario;  just  one  price,  once.  Just 
do  it  once.  Try  it,  you'll  like  it;  it  won't  hurt 
you.  Roll  back  one  price  and  the  effect  will 
be  so  instantaneous  and  dramatic  right  across 
the  province  in  all  the  other  sectors  the 
people  of  Ontario  will  suddenly  believe  that 
maybe  inflation  can  be  controlled,  that  may- 
be it  is  possible  to  come  to  grips  with  the 
cost  of  living.  But  the  government's  refusal 
ever  to  move  in,  even  on  one  unconscionable 
price,  is  a  sort  of  commentary  on  its  social 
philosophy,  its  refusal  to  intrude  on  the 
private  sector. 

Three,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  need  an  excess 
profits  tax  badly  in  this  province,  in  the 
whole  food  industry  and  in  related  industries. 
We  need  an  excess  profits  tax  that  arrives 
by  learned  consensus— representatives  of  the 
industry,  representatives  of  goverrmient— oh 
what  is  a  fair  rate  of  return  on  investment 
after  taxes  and  then  beyond  that  rate  of  re- 
turn the  profits  are  taxed  at  very  high  levels. 
Then  we  would  begin  to  have  another  dis- 
incentive for  accumulating  such  profits. 

Four,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  need  immediate  cor- 
rective action  for  a  guaranteed  annual  in- 
come, especially  for  senior  citizens,  and  it 
has  to  work  at  the  level  of  $225  a  month 
minimum,  plus  all  of  the  ancillary  benefits, 
the  cost  of  living  factor,  the  tax  credits  and 
so  on. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  need  to  solve  our 
supply  problems  and  that's  going  to  mean  an 
agricultural  policy  which  talks  about  support 
for  the  family  farm,  something  that  was  no- 
where mentioned  in  the  budget,  as  well  as  a 


MARCH  11,  1974 


137 


I 


retreat  from  the  present  governmental  obses- 
sion with  turning  as  many  farms  into  con- 
crete as  they  possibly  can. 

I  met  Gordon  Hill,  the  president  of  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Agricultural,  at  a  pro- 
vincial council  meeting  this  last  weekend 
when  he  was  speaking  on  the  Amprior  dam 
to  the  NDP  members  of  council  to  an  emer- 
gency resolution  which  we'd  passed.  I  talked 
with  him  quietly  about  the  government's 
decision  on  the  Sarnia-to-Montreal  pipeline. 
I  was  assured  by  Mr.  Hill,  and  I  don't  think 
I  misquote  him,  that  despite  what  the  govern- 
ment said  about  the  OFA  being  interested 
primarily  in  compensation,  what  the  Onario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  is  arguing  for— 
and  with  enormous  justice,  in  many  ways- 
is  that  the  whole  route  should  be  through  the 
north  and  should  be  within  Canada— that 
the  entire  route  should  be  within  the  Cana- 
dian north— and  that  the  disruption  to  farm- 
land will  in  fact  be  very  severe  and  that 
they  are  not  to  be  fobbed  off  with  simple 
references  to  compensation.  That's  an  un- 
deserving slap  at  the  Ontario  Federation  of 
Agriculture  and  a  very  gratuitous  crack  that 
was  contained  in  the  announcement  made 
by  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources 
Development. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  one  other  way  of 
measuring  the  William  Davis  years  in  terms 
of  inflation  which  is  immediately  apparent. 
There  are  many,  many  other  items  we  can 
look  at,  but  just  let  me  look  for  a  moment 
at  the  rate  of  inflation,  which  is  extremely 
difficult  to  calculate  in  one  sense  but  I 
think  useful  in  another. 

In  February  of  1971,  right  at  the  point  of 
the  ascendancy,  the  percentage  increase  in 
the  consumer  price  index  from  the  same 
period  a  year  earlier  was  1.7  per  cent.  In 
December  of  1973,  the  increase  was  9.2  per 
cent.  Now,  what  I'm  saying,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  that  the  rate  of  inflation  over  the  life  of 
this  government  has  accelerated  in  a  three- 
year  period  by  550  per  cent.  That's  the  rate 
of  accelerating  inflation.  At  least,  if  you 
have  to  have  an  inflationary  rate,  keep  it 
down  to  something  that's  manageable.  But 
that  it  should  be  five  and  a  half  times  what 
it  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  Premier's 
tenure  to  this  point,  is  something  that  is 
really  beyond  the  pale. 

And  whether  it  is  in  this  Throne  debate 
or  on  other  occasions,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will 
be  dealing  with  fuel  oil,  with  gasoline,  with 
the  cost  of  cars,  with  automobile  insurance 
premiums,  with  drugs,  with  every  aspect 
of  the  economy  and  documenting  and  setting 
out  the  kind  of  cost-of-living  increases  that 


we  feel  are  so  unconscionable  for  the 
people  of  Ontario  and  must  somehow  be 
turned  around. 

I  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  when  one  is 
in  opposition  one  is  constantly  fighting  for 
a  kind  of  credibility,  for  a  capacity  to  in- 
fluence the  government. 

Mr.  Givens:  The  member's  audience  is 
gone. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  I  don't  care  about  that. 
If  I  worried  about  audiences  I  would  have 
left  politics  10  years  ago.  New  Democrats 
have  spoken  to  mass  audiences  of  three  for  a 
long  time  and  it's  never  been  a  problem 
to  us. 

But  gradually  the  word  gets  through,  Mr. 
Speaker.  It  gets  through  through  the  initia- 
tives of  three  western  provinces.  It  gets 
through  through  the  initiative  of  having  the 
balance  of  power  in  Ottawa.  What  we  are 
doing  is  we  are  serving  notice  on  this  govern- 
ment that  we  are  going  to  be  unrelenting  in 
our  insistence  that  it  do  something  about  all 
of  these  areas  of  inflation.  And  that  we're 
setting  the  grounds  and  we're  telling  it  in 
advance  that  the  cost  of  living  and  the  efi^ects 
on  individuals  and  families  in  Ontario  is 
what  we  think  the  next  18  months  are  about. 
And  that  we  are  going  to  be  talking  a.bout  it 
in  no  uncertain  terms  and  that  if  it  was  pos- 
sible either  to  influence  or  to  change  gov- 
ernment in  this  province  it  is  in  the  field  of 
controlling  inflation  that  we  would  wish  the 
change  to  be  felt. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  deal  with  one 
other  matter  to  tie  it  together  which  I'd  like 
to  have  put  in  the  Hansard  of  this  House. 
I  guess  I've  done  it  from  time  to  time  on 
other  occasions  but  I  think  it  should  be  done 
in  this  forum.  We  New  Democrats  feel  that 
one  of  the  problems  that  the  government 
obviously  senses  and  constantly  carps  on  is  its 
inability  to  make  it  easier  for  individuals  and 
families  out  there  because  you  don't  have  any 
more  tax  resources,  and  that  although  you'd 
like  to  diminish  the  impacts  of  inflation  you 
can't  because  you  don't  have  the  tax  revenues. 
You  can't  give  any  more  money  to  old  age 
pensioners  other  than  a  $50  bonus  at 
Christmas  time.  You  can't  buy  up  sections  of 
the  Niagara  Escarpment.  You  can't  purchase 
land  for  public  housing  developments.  You 
can't  expand  medical  care  insurance  to  in- 
clude dental  care.  You  can't  do  any  of  these 
things  beause  you  are  so  strapped  financially. 

And  you  go  to  Ottawa.  And  you  meet  with 
John  Turner.  And  he  says  the  cupboard  is 
bare.    And    the    Treasurer    comes    back    to 


138 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Queen's  Park  and  waiJingly  beats  his  chest 
with  that  repetitive  refrain  that  "We  don't 
have  any  additional  sources  of  revenue  and 
the  federal  government  won't  give  it  to  us." 

Well,  another  area  that  the  NDP  feels  very 
strongly  about  and  wants  to  engage  the  gov- 
ernment on  and  which  ties  in  directly  to  the 
inflationary  batde  is  the  question  of  redistri- 
buting taxation  in  Ontario  and  moving  it  from 
indivduals  and  famlies  to  the  corporate  sector, 
specifically,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  resource  sector. 
And  let  me  put  the  material  on  the  record  of 
the  House,  and  I  know  that  in  this  policy  we 
will  find  no  support,  either  from  the  Tories 
or  from  the  Liberals,  and  that's  all  and  well 
to  the  good,  because  we'd  like  the  people  of 
the  province  to  know  where  we're  going  to 
find  the  additional  moneys  to  finance  NDP 
programmes  and  to  redistribute  wealth. 

For  the  year  1973  over  the  year  1972,  the 
increase  in  net  profits  for  base  metals  was  397 
per  cent;  the  increase  for  industrial  mines  was 
569  per  cent;  the  increase  for  paper  and  forest 
products  was  344  per  cent. 


taxes,  was  $425.4  million.  The  total  taxes  paid 
provincially  were  $22.2  million.  That's  an 
effective  tax  rate  of  5.2  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  that  means  the  mining  com- 
panies ot  Ontario  are  paying  a  provincial  tax 
rate  of  something  less  than  the  eff^ective  rate 
of  people  earning  less  than  $7,000  a  year. 
And  when  you  add  in  all  the  municipal  and 
federal  moneys,  it  still  works  out  to  something 
like  10.8  per  cent  as  an  effective  tax  rate, 
which  is  still  in  the  vicinity  of  a  rate  less 
than  for  people  earning  $10,500  a  year. 

We  submitted  those  figures  to  the  Toronto 
Star— and  before  there  are  questions  or  scep- 
ticism, or  eyebrows  raised  by  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development,  whom 
I  pilloried  mercilessly  in  his  absence— 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Does  the  member 
want  to  apologize  in  my  presence? 

Mr.  Lewis:  —but  have  nothing  but  affec- 
tion for  in  his  presence- 


Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Incredible!  ^'-  ^^"*^=  Especially  for  his  eyebrows. 


Mr.  Lewis:  Let  me  tell  you  the  increases 
for  the  individual  mining  companies  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario— and  I  must  say,  when  I 
think  of  what  has  been  extraced  from  the 
resource-based  communities  of  northern  On- 
tario and  how  pathetically  little  has  been 
returned  to  them  by  way  of  basic  community 
supports,  it  amounts  to  something  verging  on 
the  criminal  in  public  finance  and  in  public 
priorities. 

Let  me  tell  you  about  these  mining  com- 
panies right  now.  International  Nickel,  for  the 
fiscal  year  1973  over  1972,  had  an  increase 
in  profit  of  106.6  per  cent;  Falconbridge 
Nickel,  for  the  same  year,  had  an  increase  of 
766  per  cent;  Campbell  Red  Lake  Mines,  for 
the  year  ended  Sept.  30  over  1972,  84.9  per 
cent;  Pamour  Porcupine  Mines  Ltd.,  for  the 
year  ended  Dec.  31,  1973,  over  the  previous 
year,  271  per  cent;  Mattagami  Lake  Mines, 
for  the  same  period,  169  per  cent;  Noranda 
Mines,  for  the  nine  months  ended  Sept.  30, 
65.7  per  cent;  Rio  Algom  Mines,  for  the  year 
ended  June  30,  1973,  175  per  cent;  Denison 
Mines,  for  the  year  ended  in  Dec,  1973,  24 
per  cent;  Kerr  Addison  Mines,  for  the  same 
period,  66  per  cent;  Dome  Mines,  for  Sept. 
30,  1973,  over  the  previous  year,  99  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  that 
we  have  the  potential  wealth  in  this  province 
to  do  everything  we  would  wish  if  we  would 
only  tax  it.  In  the  last  year  for  which  figures 
are  available,  the  1970-1971  year,  the  net 
profit  for  the  mining  industry  in  Ontario,  after 


Mr.  Lewis:  Especially  for  his  eyebrows- 
let  me  read  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  the 
Toronto  Star  reported  in  Saturday's  "Insight" 
section  about  those  figures: 

The  Ontario  Mining  Association  assem- 
bled a  battery  of  nine  accountants  asso- 
ciated with  the  province's  major  mining 
companies  to  deal  with  the  NDP  figures 
at  the  request  of  the  Star. 

The  result:  They  were  sure  Lewis  was 
wrong,  but  they  couldn't  prove  it. 

"We  simply  have  never  assembled  such 
figures,"  said  one  accountant. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Just  a  natural  instinct. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  added:  "We  are  planning  to 
do  so,  but  right  now  we  just  don't  have  them." 
They  were  sure  Lewis  was  wrong,  but  they 
couldn't  prove  it. 

Well,  first  of  all  it  is  not  Lewis;  it  is  those 
who  work  for  the  caucus  in  the  research 
group.  Let  that  acknowledgement  be  made 
because  without  them  we  would  be  in  a  sorry 
state.  But  in  fact  those  figures  are  impec- 
cably drawn  from  the  documents  and  ma- 
terials which  the  government  has  at  hand. 
That  is  why  I  asked  the  Minister  for  Na- 
tural Resources  (Mr.  Bemier)  today  to  table 
the  next  edition  of  the  annual  statistical  re- 
port of  mineral  production  of  Ontario;  it  has 
the  tax  tables  in  it.  This  is  unfortunately 
only  for  1970.  They  have  got  1971  sitting  in 
a  desk  over  there.  Three  weeks  ago  we  asked 


MARCH  11,  1974 


139 


for  the  printed  copy.  They  said  "No,  you 
can't  have  it.  The  cabinet  has  decided  not  to 
release  it  but  you  can  ask  to  photostat  cer- 
tain pages."  We  sent  over  a  specific  request 
for  a  photostat  of  the  page  dealing  with  tax 
statistics.  This  morning  they  called  back  to 
say,  "You  can't  have  it.  It  won't  be  released." 

I  am  very  pleased  the  Minister  of  Na- 
tural Resources  has  now  decided  to  release 
the  document  but  we  know  why  they  wanted 
to  sit  on  that  docimient  until  one  has  to  pur- 
loin it  or  force  it  out.  The  government  has  got 
to  be  embarrassed  by  an  effective  tax  rate  of 
5.2  per  cent  for  the  mining  industry.  It  has 
to  be  embarrassed  because  people  in  this 
province  earning  less  than  $7,000  a  year  pay 
more  by  way  of  taxes  than  International 
Nickel,  Falconbridge,  Rio  Algom,  Mattagami, 
Denison  Mines,  Dome  Mines,  Porcupine  and 
all  of  them  put  together. 

We  are  not  going  to  rest  our  case  on  those 
grounds.  For  what  it's  worth,  we  don't  think 
that  the  effective  rate  of  taxation  for  the 
resource  sector  should  be  based  on  net  profits 
and  we  don't  think  so  because  we  are  ex- 
tremely uncharitable  politicians  when  looking 
at  the  mining  sector.  They  have  so  much 
that  they  write  off  before  they  get  to  the 
profits  after  taxes  that  to  deal  with  net  profits 
is  no  to  deal  with  an  accurate  representa- 
tion of  what  they  are  realty  worth. 

They  have  cut  their  depletion  allowances, 
their  depreciation  allowances,  their  special  tax 
concessions,  their  special  early  writeoffs.  They 
have  fiddled  and  diddled  with  the  books. 
They  have  done  everything  under  the  sun  to 
present  the  gloomiest  picture  possible  and 
then  they  present  us  with  a  net  profit  of  $425 
million. 

No,  we  accept  the  formula  which  says  one 
should  base  the  resource  tax  on  a  percentage 
of  total"  production— not  productivity  but  total 
production— and  one  gets  away  with  the  com- 
plexities of  the  smelting  and  refining  opera- 
tions lumped  in  with  certain  other  aspects  of 
the  resource  industry  and  one  gets  away 
with  the  tremendous  range  in  the  fashion  in 
which  statistics  are  computed  for  profits. 

If  one  looks  at  that— I  have  the  latest  off 
the  press  in  front  of  me— let  me  tell  members 
what  Ontario  has  been  receiving  as  a  per- 
centage of  total  production  from  the  natural 
resource  sectors,  specifically  the  mining  sec- 
tor, in  the  last  several  years.  In  1970,  the  total 
production  was  $1.59  billion.  The  total'  taxes 
paid  were  $27.6  million,  total  provincial  rev- 
enues. That  includes  mines  profits  tax,  acre- 
age tax,  leases,  permits,  fees,  licences,  royal- 
ties, everything,  $27.6  million.  The  provincial 


tax  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  total  pro- 
duction was  1.7  per  cent. 

For  1971,  total  production  was  $1.55  bil- 
lion; the  total  mining  revenue  paid  provinci- 
ally  by  way  of  provincial  taxes  was  $16  mil- 
lion. The  effective  rate  was  one  per  cent  of 
total  production.  In  1972,  total  production  was 
$1.5  billion;  the  amount  of  money  paid  with 
everything  included  in  provincial  revenues 
was  $18.9  million;  the  effective  rate  of  taxa- 
tion was  1.2  per  cent.  In  1973,  the  grand 
total,  estimated,  of  mineral  production  is  1.8 
billion,  the  total  tax  revenues,  estimated,  is 
$22  million;  again,  1.2  per  cent  as  a  total 
reflection  of  production. 

'Mr.  Speaker,  these  figures  are  really  appall- 
ing. If  you  would  lump  in  the  corporation 
income  tax,  federal  tax,  property  tax,  do  you 
know  what  you  do?  You  actually  tend  to 
double  it.  They  pay  two  per  cent  instead  of 
one  per  cent  but  in  provincial  terms  they  are 
paying  around  one  per  cent  of  total  pro- 
duction on  the  average.  The  NDP  says  that 
the  natural  resource  sector  should  pay— mark 
this— 15  per  cent  of  total  production  by  way 
of  direct  provincial  taxes  and  anotheT  10  cents 
on  each  ton  of  ore  in  reserves,  the  total  of 
which  would  approximate  $300  million  in 
additional  annual  revenue  for  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  Now,  the  government  of  Ontario,  as 
presently  constituted,  will  never  do  it.  In  fact, 
in  last  year's  budget- 
Mr.  Deans:  But  we  will. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —it  said  that  it  wanted  to  alter 
the  tax  arrangements  for  the  mining  industry 
in  a  way  that  would  leave  them  approximately 
the  same. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  said  he's  go- 
ing to  give  them  more  incentives  to  get  out 
and  explore.  They  have  quit  exploring. 

Mr.  Lewis:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  that's  true; 
there  would  be  additional  incentives.  We're 
saying  we're  going  to  turn  that  one  per  cent 
into  15  per  cent.  In  other  words,  we're  going 
to  do  here  what  the  provinces  of  British 
Columbia,  Manitoba  and  Saskatchewan  are 
doing. 

And  I  point  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
through  you  to  the  Secretary  for  Resources 
Development,  that  there  are  no  mineral  in- 
dustries leaving  BC;  that  there  are  no  jobs 
leaving  BC;  that  the  exploration  hasn't  been 
constrained;  that  everything  continues  apace 
except  that  the  public  is  finally  getting  the 
share  to  which  it's  entitled. 

Now,  for  a  generation  or  more  the  Province 
of  Ontario  has  been  ripped-off  by  the  mining 


140 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


industry.  This  government  has  conspired  in  a 
denial  to  the  public  of  its  rightful  entitlement 
in  a  way  that  is  really— well,  it's  indescrib- 
able. I  don't  know  how  it  came  to  that  con- 
clusion. Again,  it's  clearly  a  sharing  of  social 
philosophy. 

When  the  chips  are  down  and  the  govern- 
ment is  pushed  to  the  wall,  it  raises  the  sales 
tax.  That's  what  it  does.  Or  it  raises  income 
tax.  Or  it  allows  property  tax  to  be  raised  so 
many  mills.  The  Tory  government  will  do 
anything— 

Mr.  Deans:  Or  collect  more  premiums. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Or  collect  more  premiums— 
exactly.  It  will  raise  every  regressive  tax  and 
every  tax  that  falls  indisputably  on  individuals 
and  families;  but  it  will  never  allow  itself  to 
go  to  the  one  source  of  revenue  which  is  there 
and  waiting  and  legitimate- 
Mr.  Deans:  And  it's  ours. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —and  would  do  something 
about  redistributing  wealth  in  Ontario.  But 
most  of  all,  I  was  going  to  add— as  my 
colleague  from  Wentworth  said  beside  me— 
most  of  all,  it's  ours.  It's  yours  and  mine  and 
it  belongs  to  the  people  of  Ontario.  And  the 
government  has  no  right,  it  has  no  blessed 
right  in  the  world  to  squander  on  the  profits 
of  these  blessed  multi-national  corporations, 
what  is  rightfully  the  peopfe  of  Ontario's. 

And  I  may  say,  the  government  does  it  in 
a  way  that  it  will  never  recover,  because 
they're  non- renewable  resources.  If  we  start 
collecting  $300  million  a  year  now,  it  will 
never  compensate  for  the  billions  of  dollars 
in  lost  tax  revenue  Which  we've  simply  never 
collected.  It  will  never  compensate  for  the 
destruction  in  the  Sudbury  basin;  for  the  col- 
lapse of  communities  like  Geraldton,  when  a 
one-resource  industry  closies  down;  for  the 
denial  to  the  north  of  everything  that  they're 
entitled  to.  It  will  never  compensate. 

But  we  can  begin  to  introduce  an  element 
of  justice  and  equity  into  the  tax  system.  We 
can  begin  to  retrieve  for  the  people  of  the 
province  that  which  is  rightfully  theirs,  and 
we  will  finally  alter  that  arrangement  which 
this  government  has  in  its  single-minded 
fashion  and  in  its  special  genius  for  seeing 
injustice  and  making  of  it  a  social  principle. 

So,  in  the  area  of  inflation,  in  the  area  of 
housing,  in  the  area  of  taxation  we  would  re- 
move the  inequities  in  Ontario.  We  know  we 
can  do  something  about  it.  We  understand 
the  problems  and  we're  advancing  solutions 
that  are  viable. 

'The  pleasure  of  it  is  that  for  the  next  18 
months   those  solutions  are  going  to  be   on 


parade  for  public  view  from  three  western 
provinces— talked  about,  discussed,  argued 
and  watched. 

We're  very  confident  about  the  impression 
that  that's  going  to  leave;  and  we're  very 
confident  about  the  way  in  which  the  mem- 
bers over  there  are  going  to  have  to  move  to 
meet  the  demands  of  this  kind  of  opposition, 
or  they'll  be  in  dreadful  trouble  with  the 
electorate.  Because  when  all  is  said  and  done, 
this  government's  friendly  little  land  trans- 
actions, or  its  squabbles  with  the  teachers,  or 
what  it  does  to  the  hospital  workers,  aren't 
what  is  at  root  in  Ontario— severe  and 
objectionable  as  they  may  be.  What  is  at 
root  in  Ontario  is  the  question  of  the  cost  of 
living  and  how  people  survive  from  day  to 
day. 

Mr.  Speaker,  one  of  the  phenomena  which 
is  most  fascinating  as  one  wanders  around  a 
little  more  as  I've  done,  and  colleagues  have 
done,  at  mini-caucuses  and  in  trips  and  tours 
and  visits  everywhere.  What  is  really  fasci- 
nating is  the  way  in  which  these  cost  of 
living,  these  inflationary  issues  have  taken 
hold.  One  hears  about  them  on  radio  hot- 
lines, one  has  them  raised  in  public  meet- 
ings, one  is  subjected  to  them  in  interviews 
everywhere  in  Ontario.  The  cost  of  living 
issues  mean  something.  And  the  difiBculty  of 
the  government,  the  problems  the  govern- 
ment has,  the  serious  chinks  in  the  armour 
are  reinforced  by  the  emergence  of  the  pubUc 
group,  of  the  community  groups  all  over  the 
province  who  raise  protest  and  social  dissent 
against  abhorrent  policies. 

I  simply  want  to  say  that  it's  the  juxtaposi- 
tion, it's  the  combination  of  all  these  things, 
Mr.  Speaker,  which  is  making  for  govern- 
ment an  impossible  situation.  It's  not  just  the 
impropriety  of  a  land  transaction.  It's  not  just 
the  impropriety  of  a  social  policy  like  re- 
gional government.  It's  not  just  the  impro- 
priety of  cost  of  living  and  its  increases.  It's 
also  the  fact  that  out  there  from  Douglas 
Point  to  Seaforth  you've  got  a  whole  com- 
munity of  farmers  aroused  because  no  one 
will  consult  them  in  advance  on  taking  their 
land  for  inadequate  payment  when  Ontario 
Hydro  acts  like  some  arbitrary,  foolhardy, 
self-centred  corporation. 

You've  got  a  group  of  people  in  the  town 
of  Durham  who  don't  understand  why  they 
can't  be  consulted  in  advance  when  a  major 
political  decision  is  made  to  take  away  their 
name— and  with  it,  they  feel,  a  good  deal  of 
their  history  and  culture  —  and  give  it  to 
another  regional  area. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Take  away  their  name? 
The  member  is  wrong,  just  plain  wrong. 


MARCH  11,  1974 


141 


Mr.  Lewis:  They  just  don't  understand 
why  it's  not  possible  to  be  consulted  in  ad- 
vance, to  be  brought  down  and  have  it  dis- 
cussed at  Queen's  Park,  They  don't  under- 
stand this  pursuit  of  determined  alienation  of 
public  groups. 

There  is  a  group  in  North  Pickering  that 
doesn't  understand  why  it  has  to  be  the  sole 
group  in  Ontario  for  whom  the  Expropriation 
Procedures  Act  is  now  effective  in  a  way  that 
;       "in  the  public  interest"  removes  from  them 
the  right  to  a  hearing.  There  is  a  group  up 
around    Maple    Mountain,    whether   they   are 
right  or  whether  they  are  wrong,  who  simply 
I      don't   understand   why   they   have   no   access 
I      to   all   the  public  information  for  which  we 
have  already  spent  $155,000  and  are  well  on 
our  way  to  spending  $300,000— why  it  is  that 
government   by   leakage   is    what   obtains   in 
the  Maple  Mountain  area.  And  let  me  say  to 
j,       the   credit   of  the   member  for  Timiskaming 
that  there  are- 
Mr.    E.   M.   Havrot   (Timiskaming):    Thank 
you. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  I  know  of  few  leaks  as 
effective  as  the  member  for  Timiskaming— 
and  why  should  it  be?  Why  should  it  be  that 
he  as  a  member,  or  somebody  who  picks  up 
rumour  or  gossip  or  speculation,  should  com- 
ment on  what  is  purported  to  be  a  major 
economic  project  for  the  northeast  part  of 
the  province?  Again,  a  kind  of  determinedly 
insensitive  and  arbitrary  exclusion  of  the 
public  to  the  process  of  planning,  to  the  proc- 
ess of  development,  to  the  process  of  partici- 
pation. 

Unto  this  day  we  have  not  had  a  full  pub- 
lic statement  about  a  project  that's  been  in 
process  from  two  to  three  years,  and  which 
my  colleague  from  Ottawa  Centre  has  raised 
time  and  again,  the  Arnprior  dam.  Today,  the 
Ministry  of  Energy  announced  he  won't  table 
the  engineering  feasibility  study.  Well,  one 
need  only  ask  "why?"  What  is  there  about 
that  study  that  raises  such  doubts  that  it 
would  be  of  such  embarrassment  for  the 
government  to  table  it? 

And  the  coalition  against  garbage  operating 
in  Vaughan  township  and  Hope  township  and 
Pickering  township— all  of  these  groups- 
appearing  before  an  environmental  hearing 
board  that  was  interested  only  in  the  tech- 
nical and  scientific  data,  not  in  the  social 
considerations  of  major  public  policy  of  tbb 
kind. 

What  they  are  doing  over  there,  wantonly, 
relentlessly,  inexorably,  is  alienating  Ontario, 
group  by  group,  community  by  community, 
issue    by    issue    and    it's    all    beginning    to 


merge.  This  pathetic  little  performance  in  the 
Throne  Speech,  the  "business  as  usual"  tenor 
of  the  Throne  Speech,  is  not  what  will  bring 
it  all  together  for  the  government  because 
it's  gone  too  far.  It  has  to  have  some  imagi- 
nation in  order  to  rescue  it. 

Mr.  Lewis  moves,  seconded  by  Mr.  Deans: 
That    this    govenment    be    further    con- 
demned for  its  failure  to  institute  satisfac- 
tory actions  in  the  following  policy  areas: 

Inflation  in  the  cost  of  living: 

1.  Failure  to  investigate  increases  in 
profits  to  ensure  no  excess  profit-taking: 

2.  Failure  to  establish  a  price  and  profit 
review  tribunal  with  power  to  investigate 
every  aspect  of  price  increases  and  take 
whatever  action  is  necessary  to  ensure  no 
unreasonable  increases,  or  to  have  selected 
increases  rolled  back; 

3.  Failure  to  establish  a  consumer  pro- 
tection code  extending  not  only  to  market- 
place transactions  and  commodities  but  to 
the  provision  of  services; 

4.  Failure  to  institute  a  province-wide 
warranty  for  home  building  standards; 

5.  Failure  to  institute  a  public  auto- 
mobile insurance  programme. 

Northern  development: 

1.  Failure  to  establish  economic  growth 
in  northern  Ontario  based  on  the  resource 
potential  as  a  catalyst  for  secondary  devel- 
opment; 

2.  Failure  to  establish  northern  economic 
development  in  employment  based  on  long- 
term  secondary  growth  as  a  number-one 
priority; 

3.  Failure  to  recognize  the  massive  eco- 
nomic disparity  between  northern  and 
southern  Ontario  and  the  adverse  effects  of 
the  two-price  system  in  this  province,  and 
failure  to  take  appropriate  measures  to 
bring  about  equality. 

Land  use  and  urban  growth? '^f      •   'i"' 

1.  Failure  to  move  immediately  to  ac- 
quire for  the  public  sector  sufficient  land  to 
meet  the  projected  housing  needs  over  the 
next  20  years; 

2.  Failure  to  begin  a  house-building  pro- 
gramme aimed  at  producing  at  least 
250,000  homes,  both  private  and  public, 
within  18  months; 

3.  Failure  to  develop  a  land-use  policy 
and  overall  development  plan  to  meet 
recreation  requirements  in  all  areas  of  the 
province  with  immediate  emphasis  on  the 
"golden  horseshoe"  area; 


142 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


4.  Failure  to  establish  rent  review  and 
control  measures. 

Employer-employee  relations: 

1.  Failure  to  amend  the  Ontario  Labour 
Relations  Act  to  meet  the  legitimate  re- 
quests of  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour 
as  conveyed  to  all  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture; 

2.  By  allowing  conditions  of  work  and 
wages  for  the  hospital  workers!  of  Ontario 
to  deteriorate  to  a  substandard  level; 

3.  By  creating  a  confrontation  with 
"teachers  in  this  province  and'  then  faihng 
to  respond  to  the  consequences  of  this 
action; 

i4.  By  inflicting  compulsory  arbitration  on 
Crown  employees; 

5.  Failure  to  legislate  against  strike- 
breaking and  the  use  of  firms  and  indivi- 
duals to  disrupt  orderly,  legal  strikes. 

Income  maintenance: 

1.  By  failing  to  institute  an  income 
maintenance  programme  to  meet  the  legiti- 
mate needs  of  the  elderly; 

2.  By  faihng  to  establish  adequate  in- 
come levels  for  the  disabled  and  other  dis- 
advantaged people  of  Ontario. 

Health: 

1.  Failure  to  provide  a  suflBcient  range 
of  institutional  facilities  to  ensure  adequate 
health  care  at  lowest  cost; 

2.  By  failing  to  institute  a  dental  and 
drug  care  programme; 

3.  By  failing  to  take  initiatives  which 
would  upgrade  the  value  of  preventive 
medicine. 

And  further,  that  the  government  shows 
gross  negligence  in  its  refusal  to  tax  the 
resources  industry  of  Ontario  at  a  level 
which  would  allow  individuals  and  families 
in  this  province  to  experience  major  relief 
from  the  inequitable  and  oppressive  system 
of  taxation  presently  in  eflPect. 

Mr.  Wardle  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

PRIVATE  MEMBERS'  HOUR 

DENTURE  THERAPISTS  ACT; 

PRACTICE  OF  DENTAL  PROSTHESIS 

ACT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Point  of  order,  Mr.  Speaker.  Surely 
we  are  just  doing  one  bill,  are  we  not? 


Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  I  thought  it  was  by 
agreement. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  not  been  informed  to 
the  contrary,  other  than  by  way  of  a  notice 
listing  the  speakers,  and  both  bills  have  been 
listed  on  the  private  members'  hour  for  this 
day.  I  might  say  that  the  custom  in  the  past 
has  been  on  occasion  to  deal  with  two  identi- 
cal or  similar  bills  at  the  same  time.  It  is  my 
understanding  that  agreement  had  been 
reached  in  this  respect,  in  which  case  we  will 
deal  with  the  two  bilk.  The  hon.  member  for 
Sudbury  might  move  his  bill  and  then  the 
hon.  member  for  Brant  (Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon) 
would  move  his  bill  and  we  would  proceed 
with  the  speeches. 

Mr.  Germa  moves  second  reading  of  Bill  2,. 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Denture  Therapists  Act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position perhaps  would  move  his  bill  too. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  moves  second  reading  of 
Bill  5,  All'  Act  to  provide  for  the  Practice  of 
Dental  Prosthesis. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  will  now  proceed  with 
the  debate.  The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  subject  under  discussion  today  is  an  old 
chestnut  which  has  been  kicking  around  for 
several  years.  I  know  many  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  have  taken  an  inter- 
est in  it  and  have  followed  the  convoluted 
course  that  this  problem  has  taken  since  the 
introduction  of  Bill  203,  which  was  with- 
drawn and  replaced  by  the  infamous  Bill 
246.  The  objective  of  this  present  bill,  An 
Act  to  amend  the  Denture  Therapists  Act, 
1972,  is  to  correct  what  I  feel  to  be  features 
of  Bill  246  which  are  repressive,  not  only 
to  the  general  public  but  are  also  repressive 
to  the  people  in  this  province  who  have  done 
a  service  to  the  public  in  supplying  dentures 
at  a  cost  that  the  majority  of  people  can 
afford. 

(There  are  only  four  features  in  the  amend^- 
ment,  Mr.  Speaker.  Section  1  of  the  bill 
would  make  an  amendment  that  would  re- 
move from  the  denture  therapists  licensing 
board  the  dental  hygienist  and  the  dental 
technician  who  are  part  of  the  board  as  it 
is  presently  constituted. 

The  second  section  of  the  amendment 
removes  the  requirement  that  the  denture 
therapist  work  under  the  supervision  of  a 
dental  surgeon.  It  allows  the  denture  ther- 
apist  to   deal   directly   with   the   public   but 


MARCH  11,  1974 


143 


only  where  the  patient  can  produce  a  certi- 
ficate of  oral  health  signed  by  a  dental 
surgeon  or  a  legally  qualified  medical  prac- 
titioner. 

Section  3  would  amend  the  limitation 
period  for  commencing  a  proceeding  under 
clause  b  of  subsection  1  of  section  16  of  the 
Act.  This  is  changed  from  two  years  to  one. 
In  section  4  the  amendment  provides  that 
the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  may 
make  regulations  setting  fees  to  be  charged 
by  denture  therapists. 

It  is  my  belief,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  if  these 
amendments  were  adopted  as  outlined  in  this 
bill  it  would  go  a  long  way  to  solving  the 
impasse  which  has  plagued  and  embarrassed 
this  government  for  the  past  several  years. 
I  think  we  are  not  asking  the  government 
to  embark  on  any  adventure  that  hasi  not 
been  tried.  We  are  not  creating  precedent 
here.  We  already  know  that  there  are  den- 
turists  operating  in  five  of  our  provinces 
already,  in  fact,  in  Alberta  since  1961  and 
in  British  Columbia  since  1962.  Even  despite 
all  the  charges  by  the  opposition  forces  that 
these  denturists  are  not  qualified  and  they 
are  going  to  do  harm  to  the  public,  we  still 
have  not  got  on  record  any  charges  or  any 
malpractice  suits  which  the  insurance  com- 
panies have  paid. 

I  believe  that  the  record  tells  the  story 
itself.  If  these  people  have  operated  since 
1961  in  Alberta  and  1962  in  British  Colum- 
bia, then  there  is  no  legitimate  reason  that 
I  can  see  why  we  should  not  have  the  same 
services  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  Quebec 
also  allows  denture  therapists  to  operate. 
Nova  Scotia  presently  has  legislation  on  the 
books,  and  Manitoba.  In  the  case  of  Mani- 
toba and  British  Columbia,  a  certificate  of 
oral  health  issued  by  a  dentist  or  a  physician 
is  necessary.  Ne\vfoundland  and  Saskatche- 
wan are  also  planning  to  establish  denturists 
as  a  legal,  independent  profession.  Prince 
Edward  Island  and  New  Brunswick  have  no 
legislation  concerning  denturists.  Only  On- 
tario of  all  the  10  provinces  is  the  one  that 
has  made  it  illegal.  I  think  the  reason  this 
government  reacted  was  because  of  the  ter- 
rific lobby  which  was  put  up  by  the  Ontario 
Dental  Association  in  its  efforts  to  protect 
what  I  suspect  is  a  vested  interest  in  the 
supply  of  dentures  to  the  public. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  was  a  very  interesting 
booklet  distributed  quite  recently,  written 
by  a  dentist  by  the  name  of  Revere,  and  it's 
entitled  "Dentistry  and  its  Victims."  In  this 
book  I  think  this  dentist  has  hit  on  the 
reason  there  is  so  much  opposition!  by  the 
dental    profession    to    allowing    these    para- 


medical people  to  get  into  the  field  I  will 
quote  one  paragraph  from  this  booklet: 

The  public  has  been  conditioned  to 
accept  a  high  fee  for  denture  services  and 
a  relatively  low  fee  for  fillings  and  peri- 
dontal  work  but  the  reverse  would  make 
more  sense.  Though  the  cost  of  materials 
in  a  denture  is  but  a  few  dollars,  fees  for 
inew  dentures  have  always  been  high. 

Today's  quality  laboratory  fee  for  full 
dentures  may  range  from  $50  to  $90.  This 
lis  paid  by  the  dentist.  An  average  neigh- 
bourhood dentist's  fee  for  full  dentures, 
'upper  and  lower,  might  be  between  $300 
and  $500.  Since  the  average  practitioner 
^does  mot  spend  much  time  with  his  patient, 
la  close  commutation  could  only  prove  that 
dentures  are  a  more  lucrative  field  for  the 
typical  dentist.  It  is  ironic  that  the  end 
iproduct  of  neglect  and  poor  dentistry 
should  be  profitable. 

The  construction  of  full  dentures  has 
always  been  a  lucrative  field  and  one 
might  well  wonder  why  this  should  be.  An 
old-time  dentist  whom  I  respect  once  told 
me  that  it  was  his  belief  that  high  fees 
were  originally  established  for  denture  ser- 
vice because  the  denture  represented  the 
last  opportunity  the  dentist  had  to  make 
money  from  the  patient  and  the  most  had 
to  be  made  of  it. 

If  this  is  so,  and  it  may  well  be  so,  it 
gives  an  uncomfortable  insight  into  the 
operation  of  economic  motivation  in  the 
healing  arts.  It  is  time  and  more  than  time 
that  the  professions  took  a  fresh  look  at 
their  aims  and  ideals. 

I  think  we  have  to  reduce  the  whole  argu- 
ment, Mr.  Speaker,  to  something  very  crass. 
It  is  the  self-interest  of  the  dental  profession 
which  I  think  is  blocking  the  people  of 
Ontario  from  gaining  this  service. 

There  is  further  evidence  of  this  attitude, 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  a  booklet  published  by  the 
Ontario  Dental  Association,  September,  1972, 
entitled  "A  Public  Concern."  In  appendix  K 
the  dental  profession  posed  questions  and 
answered  its  own  questions,  and  as  I  went 
through  these  questions  I  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  in  its  efforts  to  make  its  case  it 
had  actually  subverted  its  case  more  than  it 
had  made  it. 

Question  1  was:  "How  can  the  dentist 
justify  fees  of  $400,  $500  and  $600  for 
plates?"  This  is  the  dental  association  asking 
itself  a  question  and  here  is  how  it  answered 
its  own  question. 

Answer:  There  are  very  few  dentures  made 

for  $300,  $400  and  $500.   However,  with 


144 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  sophisticated  methods  available  to  den- 
tists today  it  is  possible  to  construct 
dentures  using  techniques  that  would 
justifiably  entail  fees  of  this  magnitude  and 
even  more. 

Under  the  free  enterprise  system  if  the 
dentist  feels  his  talents  are  worth  that 
much  and  a  patient  looking  for  this  level 
of  expertise  agrees  to  pay  that  fee,  that  is 
strictly  their  arrangement.  The  patient  ap- 
preciating excellence  is  glad  to  pay  for  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  precisely  what  is  wrong 
with  the  delivery  of  health  services.  We  have 
tried  to  overcome  that  by  introducing  a 
medical  and  hospital  plan  but  the  dentists 
are  still  operating  on  the  free  enterprise 
philosophy  that  those  who  can  afford  health 
care  will  get  excellent  care.  Those  of  us  who 
are  somewhat  limited  in  our  financial  strength 
will  just  have  to  do  without.  This  is  precisely 
what  is  going  on  in  the  Province  of  Ontario 
today.  There  are  hundreds- 
Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  30  seconds  re- 
maining in  the  hon.  member's  time  allotment. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  No,  he  has 
got  20  minutes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  It  was  my  understanding 
there  would  be  10  minutes  each.  Otherwise 
there  would  only  be  two  other  speakers. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order,  we  are  entitled  to  20  minutes.  It  is 
our  time  slot  and  the  lead-off  speaker  is 
traditionally  given  20  minutes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  But  there  are  two  bills. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  I 
would  aeree  with  the  hon.  member  who  just 
spoke.  This  is  the  NDFs  private  members* 
hour;  they  have  introduced  their  bill  and  they 
get  20  minutes  and  everybody  else  gets  10. 
That's  why  I  was  surprised  that  you  were 
asking  me  to  introduce  my  bill  under  the 
same  circumstances. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Of  course  the  notice  given  to 
me  includes  two  bills,  that  of  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Sudbury  and  that  of  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition.  If  we  were  to  give 
20  minutes  to  each  of  those  hon.  members, 
it  would  leave  20  minutes  for  only  two  other 
speakers  and  the  usual  20  minutes  for  the 
lead-off  speaker  and  10  minutes  for  each 
other.  I  was  not  informed  of  any  other 
arrangement. 

Since  there  are  two  bills  I  fail  to  see  how 
I  can  give  each  person  20  minutes  and  deal 
with  both  bills  under  the  same  hour.  Perhaps 


the  whips  could  enlighten  me  as  to  what  the 
arrangements  might  have  been? 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  think  there  is  precedent  when  bills 
are  combined.  Usually  the  two  who  combine 
their  bills  each  have  15  minutes,  which  takes 
up  the  30  minutes,  and  then  we  go  on  in  the 
10-minute  routine.  I  may  be  wrong  on  this 
but  there  are  lots  of  precedents  for  com- 
bined bills. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  I  am  in  a  generous 
mood  and  will  do  whatever  the  hon.  members 
wish  to  do.  But  the  time  has  expired  for  the 
first  speaker,  if  it  is  to  be  10  minutes  each. 

Mr.  Germa:  I  am  not  aware  of  what  your 
ruling  is,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  can't  very  well  make  a 
ruling  without  all  the  information.  Was  there 
any  agreement  to  the  effect  that  there  would 
be  10  minutes  each? 

Mr.  Stokes:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Was  there  any  agreement  to 
the  effect  that  both  bills  would  be  heard 
today? 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Yes,  between  the  three 
whips. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  certainly  have  never 
allowed  20  minutes  when  there  were  two 
bills  during  the  same  private  members'  hour. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  I  would  suggest, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  if  the  present  speaker 
were  to  continue  until  5:20  o'clock  anyone 
else  who  wanted  to  take  part  in  this  debate 
could  speak  for  10  minutes.  Would  that  be 
agreeable?  That  would  certainly  suit  me. 

Mr.  Speaker:  And  would  it  be  the  wish 
of  the  hon.  member  that  Bill  5  also  be  con- 
sidered? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  quite  all  right.  It 
is  already  before  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Let's  get  on  with  the  debate. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  everyone  agree  to  that 
arrangement?  The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury. 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  second  bill 
which  is  going  to  be  under  discussion.  Bill  5 
I  believe  it  is,  would  in  effect  accomplish 
the  same  thing  that  the  amendments  which 
I  have  proposed  for  the  Denture  Therapists 
Act.  I  think  all  the  arguments  I  am  making 
in  favour  of  the  four  amendments  I  am  put- 
ting are  also  included  in  Bill  5.  The  argu- 
ments are  valid  as  far  as  both  situations  are 
concerned. 


MARCH  11,  1974 


145 


We  are  talking  directly  about  money,  Mr. 
Speaker.  There  are  a  lot  of  people  in  the 
province  who  are  deprived  of  this  health 
service  because  of  the  attitude  that  the  den- 
tists have  had  in  the  past.  As  I  read  their 
answer,  they  rely  en  the  free  enterprise 
system.  If  someone  wants  to  pay  $1,000  they 
will  accommodate  him,  and  if  he  wants  to 
pay  $500  they  will  also  accommodate  him. 

I  was  talking  to  one  of  my  denturist 
friends  from  the  city  of  Sudbury  today.  He 
informed  me  that  he  knows  of  a  recent  case 
where  the  dentist  did  charge  in  excess  of 
$1,000  in  the  city  of  Sudbury  for  a  full  set 
of  dentures.  This  is  unconscionable  profit. 

I  think  eventually  our  health  delivery 
systems  have  to  be  brought  under  some  cen- 
tral control.  The  bill  will  provide  for  this  in 
that  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council 
would  make  regulations  setting  fees  charged 
by  the  denture  therapists.  It  is  not  very  often 
that  any  of  our  professionals  will  agree  to 
allow  the  government  to  set  their  fees.  I 
can  just  imagine— welL  we  already  know 
what  the  medical  profession  has  said  about 
these.  They  are  in  the  habit  of  determining 
within  their  own  little  ivory  tower  what  the 
health  bill  for  the  province  is  going  to  be. 
Then  they  divide  the  pie  up  without  nego- 
tiations with  anyone. 

I  think  it  is  a  symbol  of  the  good  faith 
that  the  denturists  have  that  they  are  will- 
ing to  submit  their  fee  schedule  to  be  regu- 
lated by  order  in  council.  We  already  know 
that  the  present  fee  structure  of  the  Den- 
turist Society  is  between  $150  and  $200. 
That  is  their  maximum  range.  In  the  case 
of  senior  citizens  and  welfare  recipients  the 
price  is  $125  for  both  an  upper  and  a  lower 
denture. 

It  is  ironic  to  me  that  this  government 
has  presently  seen  fit  to  hail  into  court  seven 
people  and  charge  them  with  illegal  practice 
in  making  dentures,  while  at  the  same  time 
the  welfare  departments,  which  are  also  an 
agency  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  are  utiliz- 
ing the  services  of  these  illegal  clinics.  In 
the  case  of  the  city  of  Sudbury,  90  per  cent 
of  all  those  welfare  recipients  who  have  to 
have  dentures  are  referred  by  the  welfare 
agency  to  one  of  these  illegal  clinics.  This 
points  up  how  ridiculous  the  denture  thera- 
pist bill  which  is  presently  on  the  statutes 
is,  that  one  agency  of  government  will  hail 
them  into  court  and  the  other  agency  will 
see  fit  to  use  them.  Now,  the  denture  thera- 
pists have  also  agreed  that  in  order  to  meet 
those  complaints  from  the  dental  profession, 
and  also  in  order  to  assure  the  general  pub- 
lic that  they  are   genuinely  concerned  with 


the  health  of  their  patients,  they  have  sub- 
mitted that  they  would  go  along  with  the 
provision  that  a  certificate  of  oral  health 
should  be  provided  before  the  denture 
therapist  should  be  able  to  fit  a  complete 
denture. 

In  fact,  in  some  of  the  clinics  this  is 
already  happening.  In  speaking  to  some  of 
these  people,  I  was  told  they  do  ask  each 
and  every  patient  to  go  and  get  a  certificate 
of  oral  health  from  a  dentist  or  from  a 
medical  practitioner.  There  has  been  publi- 
city circulated  by  these  organizations,  be- 
tween themselves.  Some  doctors  are  not 
prone  to  signing  this  certificate  of  oral 
health,  nor  are  some  dentists  prone  to  doing 
it.  But  even  despite  the  efforts  of  these  pro- 
fessional organizations  to  prevent  patients 
from  getting  certificates  of  oral  health,  many 
of  these  certificates  are  now  being  filed  with 
the  denturists,  and  I  think  it  is  in  the  pub- 
lic's best  interests  that  this  is  done. 

It  is  recognized,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  these 
people  are  mechanics.  They  do  not  have  the 
extensive  educational  backgroimd  that  the 
dentists  have.  There  is  a  place  for  dentists 
in  our  society,  but  I  suspect  and  I  submit 
to  you  that  there  is  also  a  place  in  society 
for  the  dental  mechanic. 

Now,  I  will  conclude,  Mr.  Speaker,  by 
reading  an  excerpt  from  Time  magazine, 
Dec,  7,  1973.  It  is  an  essay  on  the  rights 
of  patients;  and  I  quote: 

Medicine  may  be  the  last  forum  in  which 
the  voice  of  the  consumer  makes  itself 
heard;  but  eventually  it  must  and  will  be 
heard,  since  the  ultimate  consumer  is  the 
patient  and  it  is  on  the  patient  that  the 
profession  practices. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  ample  evidence 
that  the  public  of  Ontario  has  accepted  the 
denturists.  There  are  committees  across  this 
province— spontaneously-formed  committees— 
which  are  fighting  for  the  repeal  of  Bill  246. 
These  amendments  which  I  have  proposed 
would  in  fact  make  it  unnecessary  to  repeal 
Bill  246.  It  would  only  put  Bill  246  in  an 
order  which  is  livable,  both  for  the  pubilc 
of  Ontario  and  for  the  denturists. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  One  very  important  thing 
has  happened  since  we  discussed  this  bill  in 
the  Legislature  last,  and  that  is  that  we  have 
a  new  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller).  He  is 
having  a  little  difiiculty  paying  attention  to 
this  debate  because  colleagues  on  all  sides 
are  so  delighted  in  having  him  actually  here, 
captive  for  a  moment  or  two  so  they  can  find 
out   about   their   nursing   homes,   that   he   is 


146 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


having  a  bit  of  a  problem  in  listening  to  the 
strong  argument  put  to  him. 

I  believe  that  this  is  a  more  important 
debate  than  is  sometimes  heard  in  the  private 
members'  hours,  because  I  believe  that  the 
government  should  and  no  doubt  will,  under 
the  leadership  of  the  new  minister,  change  its 
policy. 

You  may  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  have 
found  ourselves  in  circumstances  similar  to 
this  before  when  arguments  on  all  sides,  in- 
cluding government  benches,  urged  the  in- 
clusion of  the  chiropractors  in  the  services  of 
OHIP.  The  then  Minister  of  Health,  the 
present  member  for  Ontario  (Mr.  Dymond), 
adamantly  refused  and  said  as  cogently  as 
any  minister  could  possibly  say,  that  the 
chiropractors  were  not  to  be  included.  But 
then,  in  the  course  of  time,  he  gave  up  that 
heavy  responsibility  and  assumed  a  new  one 
—what  is  he  now,  chairman  of  the  Science 
Centre  or  something?— and  the  responsibility 
for  the  governance  and  administration  of  our 
health  policy  passed  on  to  someone  else.  It 
wasn't  long— for  reasons  really  not  well  known 
on  this  side,  since  the  same  strong  arguments 
were  put  forward— until  OHIP  was  amended 
to  include  the  chiropractors. 

I  feel  something  similar  could  be  estab- 
lished at  the  present  time,  because  the  bill 
that  I  am  putting  forward  simply  has  within 
it  the  basic  principle  that  was  put  before  the 
House  on  June  26,  1972,  by  the  then  policy 
minister,  the  present  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
Welch).  It  was  No.  203,  and  it  certainly 
established  denturists  as  a  practising  group 
within  the  community,  with  the  power  to 
deal  directly  with  the  public.  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  Bill  5,  which  is  before  the  House 
now,  would  do. 

We  feel  that  amending  Bill  246  would  in 
fact  just  reverse  its  principle.  And  you  may 
remember,  Mr.  Speaker,  when  the  original 
bill,  which  restricted  the  practice  of  the  den- 
turists, was  introduced  by  the  former  Minis- 
ter of  Health  (Mr.  Potter),  he  asked  for  an 
amendment  which  in  fact  reversed  the 
principle;  and  you,  sir,  ruled  that  it  could 
not  be  continued  with  since  its  principle  had 
been  reversed  in  that  way. 

So  I  would  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
we  don't  want  to  make  our  arguments  in 
any  way  other  than  those  which  could  be 
acceptable  to  a  reasonable  minister,  and  I 
believe  we've  got  one.  Because  surely  he 
cannot  continue  with  the  chaos  that  has  been 
willed  to  him  by  his  predecessor  in  the  area 
of  this  particular  issue. 

We  are  not  prepared  to  see  the  Attorney 
General  enforcing  a  law  which  is   diametri- 


cally opposed  in  principle  to  the  bill  which 
he  personally  introduced  into  the  House 
when  he  was  policy  minister  in  those  days; 
for  him  to  be  required,  through  some  agency 
probably  higher  than  himself,  to  go  to  the 
denturists  in  the  province— and  there  are  107 
of  them  practising— select  six  to  begin  with, 
and  an  additional  five  or  six,  to  be  raided 
and  to  have  their  patients  mistreated.  In  one 
case,  a  set  of  dentures  was  taken  right  off  the 
table  beside  a  lady  who  was  being  treated; 
the  teeth  were  bundled  into  a  package  and 
taken  away  to  the  police  station  as  evidence 
of  malpractice. 

Surely  this  is  the  kind  of  intimidation 
which  is  unconscionable  and  unacceptable, 
and  the  Attorney  General  himself  must  just 
cringe  when  he  sees  that  he  is  using  these 
practices  for  the  enforcement  of  a  law  that 
is  diametrically  opposed  in  principle  to  one 
which  he  put  before  the  House  on  June  26, 
1972. 

I  don't  intend  to  trace  out  all  of  the 
circumstances,  but  I'm  sure  you're  aware, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  Ontario  Comicil  of 
Health  reported  on  June  25,  1972,  that  the 
denturists  should  be  allowed  to  practise  only 
under  supervision.  When  the  bill,  which  was 
opposed  to  that  particular  recommendation, 
was  introduced  the  next  day,  the  then  policy 
minister,  the  present  Attorney  General,  said 
the  government  is  always  free  to  accept  or 
reject  whatever  advice  it  wants.  In  other 
words,  it  rejected  the  advice  of  the  Ontario 
Council  of  Health  and  brought  in  legislation 
which  was  generally  parallel  to  legislation 
already  in  effect  at  that  time  in  four  prov- 
inces of  Canada. 

The  point  has  already  been  made  that 
denturists  do  practise  under  government 
supervision,  but  independently  in  the  com- 
munity, in  most  provinces  of  Canada;  and 
this  is  the  only  province  where  they  are 
directly  and  specifically  prohibited  from  so 
practising. 

Mr.  Spe^aker,  you  may  further  recall  that 
the  Barry  Lowes  committee  on  the  standards 
for  licensing  the  denturists  brought  in  a 
report  that  called  for  an  extensive  progranmie 
of  training,  following  the  licensing  of  den- 
turists —  I  think  they  called  them  denture 
technologists  or  something  like  that  —  but 
that  was  reversed  as  well  when  the  former 
Minister  of  Health  decided,  for  reasons  im- 
known  to  us  but  alluded  to  by  the  previous 
speaker,  that  in  fact  the  denturists  should  not 
be   permitted   to   practice   independently. 

The  former  Minister  of  Health  did  go  for- 
ward with  a  fairly  substantial  programme  of 
professional  training  or  technological  training 


MARCH  11,  1974 


147 


for  those  who  did  want  to  designate  them- 
selves denture  therapists.  I  understand  that 
some  85  to  90  took  the  training  in  the  original 
course  but  that  only  a  handful  are  prac- 
tising in  this  regard  because  they  find  that 
their  income  is  not  parallel  with  what  they 
might  have  expected'  to  gain  or  earn  if,  in 
fact,   they  had  continued  as  denturists. 

My  colleague,  the  member  for  Waterloo 
North  (Mr.  Good),  put  an  interesting  excerpt 
from  the  Kitchener-Waterloo  Record,  dated 
March  9,  1974,  in  my  hand  a  moment  ago. 
It's  an  advertisement  as  follows: 

Mr.  Derek  Groves,  LDT,  wishes  to  an- 
Iniounce  his  commencement  in  the  practice 
of  denture  therapy,  by  appointment,  884- 
8386,  122  Weber  St  North,  Waterloo. 

It's  an  indication,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there  is 
a  further  complication,  that  the  licensed  den- 
ture therapists  who  have  taken  the  course 
that  has  been  put  forward  by  the  ministry— 
that  this  particular  individual  is  apparently 
going  to  practise  directly  vdth  the  com- 
munity and  without  the  supervision  of  a 
dentist.  It  may  be  otherwise,  but  certainly 
when  he  advertises  his  practice  of  denture 
therapy  by  appointment  there  is  ever)^  in- 
dication that  a  licensed  denture  therapist 
has  broken  the  ranks  and  is  prepared  to 
practise  vdthout  the  supervision  of  dentists. 

'Let  me  make  it  clear,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
we  are  not  here  being  critical  of  the  dentists. 
It  is  their  job  to  keep  all  of  us  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  denturists  or  the  denture 
therapists,  but  not  by  using  regulation  and 
statute,  but  surely  by  practising  preventive 
dentistry  which,  in  the  long  run  we  hope, 
is  going  to  render  obsolete  the  building  and 
fitting  of  dentures  for  those  of  us  who  at 
least  take  the  kind  of  advice  from  the  dentists 
that  we  should. 

I'm  simply  saying  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  new  minister  can,  in  fact,  exercise 
his  authority  to  make  the  recommendations 
to  his  colleagues  to  reverse  what  has  just 
been  a  comedy  of  errors  from  the  first  time 
that  his  predecessor  decided  that  the  dentur- 
ists should  not  be  able  to  practise  inde- 
pendently. It  flies  in  the  face  of  the  practice 
elsewhere  in  this  country  and  it  is  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  the  principles  put  before 
the  House  as  government  policy  on  June  26, 
1972. 

Frankly,  I'm  tired  of  being  told  by  experts 
in  the  field,  certainly  dentists  and  others, 
that  my  bill  and  the  bills  that  are  also 
before  us  today  would  put  the  public  in  the 
hands  of  those  people  who  would  harm 
them.  I  d^  not  believe  that  this  is  so.  I  do 
believe  that  we  are  moving  in  this  province 


and  elsewhere  toward  the  recognition  and 
the  substantial  development  of  paramedical 
and  paradental  services,  similar  to  the  op- 
tometrists and  the  chiropractors,  which  are 
going  to  come  under  direct  and  rigid  gov- 
ernment training  and  supervision.  There's  no 
suggestion,  certainly  in  my  bill  or  the  other 
one,  that  anybody  off  the  street  would  come 
in  and  plunk  down  $10  for  some  sort  of  a 
licence  that  would  enable  him  to  fit  dentures 
and  hang  out  a  shinglte  and  start  deahng  with 
the  public.  Of  course,  that  cannot  be  true 
and  is  not  part  of  the  principle  of  this  bill. 

The  concept  is  similar  to  the  one  put  for- 
ward on  behalf  of  the  government  by  the 
present  Attorney  General  in  his  bill  niun- 
bered  203  in  1972.  We  believe  that  this  is 
what  the  government  must  come  to.  I  would 
simply  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we 
urge  the  Minister  of  Health  in  his  new  posi- 
tion of  authority,  where  he  must  take  sole 
responsibility  for  the  welfare  of  the  people 
—and  there  is  certainly  no  doubt  about  that— 
also  to  take  the  responsibility  to  advise  his 
colleagues  on  the  basis  of  common  sense 
what  the  community  requires,  and  what,  in 
fact,  the  community  demands. 

We're  not  pressing  for  this  bill  to  be  passed 
at  this  time.  We  would  hope  that  it  would 
be,  but  we  would  expect  the  Minister  of 
Health  in  his  wisdom  to  see  the  advantages 
directly  to  the  community  of  Ontario  and 
to  the  taxpayers  in  the  principles  of  the  bills 
before  us  this  afternoon.  We  would  hope 
that  before  this  session  endls  we  wdll  see  a 
change  in  government  policy,  which  is  over- 
due. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Oxford. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Parrott  (Oxford):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  discussion  on  these  two  bills  that  the 
members  for  Brant  and  Sudbury  have  pre- 
sented cannot  be  significantly  different,  in  my 
view,  from  the  debate  that  was  held  some 
years  ago.  It  is  true  that  certain  things  have 
transpired  in  that  time  but  very  little  has 
changed.  The  basic  arguments  that  were  true 
then  are  true  today. 

Whenever  I  take  part  in  a  debate  of  this 
nature,  it  seems  that  I  am  instantly  accused 
of  having  a  vested  interest  or  a  strong  bias. 
Well,  probably  today  is  no  exception. 

Mr.    F.    Drea    (Scarborough   Centre):    Pull 

some  incisors!  ....       ,..     ,, 

Mr.  Parrot:  I  cannot  deny,  nor  do  I  wish  to 
deny  that  I  am  a  dentist.  And  if  that  puts 
me  into  a  position  of  as  one  having  a  vested 
interest,  or  even  a  conflict  of  interests,  then 


148 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


so  be  it.  But  let  me  assure  the  members  of 
this  House  that  I  do  not  have  a  monopoly 
on  conflict  of  interests  on  this  particular  sub- 
ject. In  my  view,  the  Liberal  caucus  and  the 
leader  of  that  party  sees  this  issue  as  pri- 
marily  a  poHtical  problem. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Does  the  member  mean 
to  say  it  is  good  for  the  people  therefore  we 
might  support  it?  What  are  we  here  for? 

Mr.  Parrot:  I'm  afraid  the  Liberals  have 
not  looked  at  all  of  the  aspects,  some  of 
which  are  far  more  important.  I  suspect  this 
bill  was  prompted  for  purely  political  gain. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Oh  no,  we 
would  not  do  it  for  political  gain. 

Mr.  Parrott:  And  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  vested  interest  of  the  leader  of  the 
official  opposition  is  far  greater  than  my  own. 
And  for  quite  different  reasons. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  The  member  sounds  like  a 
dentist.  Is  he? 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  what  is  far  more  impor- 
tant- 
Mr.  Gaunt:  I  think  he  does  have  a  vested 

interest. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Indeed  I  have;  I  admit  that 
readily.  But  I  submit  that  so  does  the  mem- 
ber. But  what  is  far  more  important— 

An  hon.  member:  Too  bad  he  is  a  politician. 

Mr.  Parrott:  What  the  members  opposite 
have  failed  to  see  is  the  true  issue.  It  is 
health,  not  votes,  that  those  members  should 
be  concerned  about  in  these  deliberations. 
Certainly  the  political  implications  should  be 
considered,  but  I  have  yet  to  see  or  hear  the 
Liberal  Party  suggest  any  reforms  or  im- 
provements so  vitally  needed  in  the  de- 
livery of  dental  services.  Instead,  they  seek 
as  usual  the  expedient  rather  than  the  re- 
sponsible approach. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Somebody  wrote  that  for 
him.  One  of  those  creeps  that  sits  under  the 
gallery  has  written  that  for  the  member. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  would— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Parrott:  It  must  be  hurting.  I  must  be 
on  the  nerve  again. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Is  the 
member  for  Oxford  going  to  run  federally 
next  time? 


Mr.  Gaunt:  I  know  he  didn't  get  into  the 
cabinet;  but  he  knows  he  will  never  make  it 
telling  the  truth. 

Mr.  Parrott:  The  members  opposite  deal 
with  only  six  per  cent  of  the  dental  services 
of  this  province  and  they  fail  to  consider  the 
other  94  per  cent.  The  making  of  dentures  is 
obviously  important. 

Mr.  Ruston:  He  seems  awfully  worried. 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  in  typical  short-sighted 
fashion,  these  bills  fail  to  propose  the  great 
needs  of  this  province.  I  refer  to  those  things 
that  will  deliver  dental  services  to  all  of  our 
people. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  don't  like  the  Minister  of 
Health.  The  member  for  Oxford  should  fire 
him. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Oh,  I'm  disappointed,  too— 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbro(^  (Samia):  The  minister 
is  disappointed,  too.  The  member  for  Oxford 
should  have  read  his  speech  before  he  came 
in. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Very  good. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  can  remember  when 
the  member  for  Oxford  made  a  speech  in 
favour  of  this. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  disappointed,  too,  that 
the  hon.  member  has  not  seen  fit  to  propose 
much-needed  changes  relative  to  the  vast 
majority  of  dental  auxiliaries.  We*  talked 
about  it  very  briefly.  Rather,  he  has  chosen 
to  focus  on  a  very  small  portion,  something 
in  the  range  of  two  per  cent  of  all  those 
people,  other  than  dentists  —  and  I  repeat, 
other  than  dentists  —  but  simply  two  per 
cent  of  those  who  are  involved  in  the  deliv- 
ery of  dental  services  in  auxiliary  roles. 

In  fact,  the  whole  debate  on  this  contro- 
versial subject  seems  to  have  forgotten  some 
6,000  dental  assistants,  some  500-plus  dental 
hygienists,  and  some  1,300  dental  technicians 
and  their  employees.  The  opposition  has  for- 
gotten that  large  segment.  In  other  words, 
there  is  a  total  of  nearly  8,000  dtental  auxi- 
liaries who  have  been  forgotten  far  too  long. 
Surely,  all  of  these  properly  trained,  ade- 
quately trained,  and  thoroughly  trained 
people  should  be  given  far  greater  consid- 
eration. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Do  they  want  to  practise 
independently,  too? 

Mr.  Parrott:  We'll  deal  with  that  in  a 
minute.    And  may  I  repeat  that  those  who 


MARCH  11,  1974 


149 


feel  I  have  a  vested  interest  in  this  subject 
might  be  right. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Who  does 
the  member  buy  his  teeth  from? 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  again,  I  say  to  those  mem- 
bers opposite  who  would  deal  with  such  a 
small  segment  of  the  problem,  it  is  small  in 
comparison.  Why  don't  they  get  with  it? 
Why  don't  we  plan  for  the  8,000  auxiliaries- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  government  bill 
deals  with  it.    That's  all  it  deals  with. 

Mr.  Parrott:  —and  provide  services  to  save 
teeth,  and  not  be  involved  with  those  prob- 
lems involved  with  those  of  replacing  teeth? 
Let's  plan  how  we  can  assist  those  people 
who  cannot  aflFord  dentistry. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  another  dental 
Act. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Let's  plan  to  utilize  the  large 
number   of  people   in   the   dental   auxiliaries 
who  have  been  well  trained- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Denticare? 

An  hon.  member:   That's  anotiier  type  of 

cavity—        ,. ,  , 

Mr.  Parrott:  —and  increase  the  productivity 
of  the  thousands  of  dental  oflBces  by  the  use 
of  these  auxiliaries.  Certainly  I'm  prepared 
to  use  the  dental  therapists  or  the  denturists, 
whichever  you  wish  to  call  them,  but  let's 
plan  to  use  them  in  a  team  approach  and 
to  utilize  all  the  auxiliary  personnel  in  an 
effective  manner. 

Unless  my  NDP  friends  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  here  think  that  they  are  in  a  satis- 
factory position  on  this  subject,  let  me  refresh 
their  memory  on  a  couple  of  items.  May  I 
say  that  I'm  appalled  at  their  lack  of  aggres- 
sive attitude  to  the  rights  of  the  many  people 
and  workers  who  have  been  employed  in 
this  field  of  endeavour. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward- Lennox): 
The  unsung  heroes. 

iMr.  Parrott:  Right.    So  often  the  members 
of   that  party  have  spoken  about  tokenism; 
well,    I    ask  you,   what  kind  of  tokenism   is 
it- 
Mr.  Drea:  They  are  tokenists. 

I  Mr.    Parrott:    —when    there    is    only    one 

male  hygienist  in  a  register  of  nearly  600, 
or  few  if  any  of  the  6,000  auxiliaries  have 
a  male  receptionist  or  assistant?  You  know, 
it  works  both  ways. 


Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Is  that  our 
fault? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.    Parrott:    But   I   ask   them,    why   have 
they  not  championed-  the  cause  of  the  dental 
hygienist  who,  as  they  know- 
Mr.    Laughren:    My   friend  is   full   of  red 
herrings. 

'Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Parrott:  At  least  the  dental  hygienist 

is  by  far  the  most  trained  person- 
Mr.  Stokes:  Pretty  weak.    This  is  a  pretty 

weak  defence  of  government  policy. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  amazed'  they  haven't 
championed  the  cause  of  the  dental  hygien- 
ist, who  has  taken  her  formal  training  and 
has  been  a  great  asset  in  the  delivery  of 
dental  services. 

Mr.  R.  Gisbom  (Hamilton  East):  I  remem- 
ber when  the  hon.  member  supported  us  on 
this.   Can't  he  reflect  back? 

Mr.  Parrott:  I've  always  been  in  the  same 
position,  and  my  friend  knows  it.  I've  been 
in  the  same  position;  his  party  vacillated. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member  for  Oxford  should 
work  in  the  same  place  as  he  does. 

Mr.  Parrott:  You  know,  those  of  us  who 
are  a  little  more  involved  with  this  process 
realize  that  a  hygienist  is  perhaps  the  one 
person  who  is  overtrained  and  under-utilized 
and  yet  painfully  not  available  to  those  who 
are  in  the  direct  business  of  delivering  dental 
services  to  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  Dentists  are  never  pain- 
fully not  available;  they  are  painfully  avail- 
able. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  said  the  hygienist,  if  my 
friend  from   Sarnia  would  listen. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  dental  laboratory 
technicians  are  another  large  segment,  and 
the  NDP  too  have  ignored  their  plight. 
There  are  1,300  of  them,  and  their  livelihood 
is  at  stake.  The  dentists  wiU  go  on  with  or 
without  denture  practice.  But  I'm  telling  you 
that  the  dental  laboratory  field  is  in  very 
grave  condition.  In  fact,  I  doubt  if  very 
many  of  the  so-called  experts  who  have 
spoken  on  this  recognize  the  difference  be- 
tween a  dental  technician  and  a  denture 
therapist.  I  feel  sorry  for  those  1,300  people 
who  have  no  one  to  speak  for  them,  and 
I    protest   on    their    behalf.    Their   livelihood 


150 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is   at  stake  and  the  members  opposite  hav^ 
failed  to  recognize  this. 

What  we  are  witnessing  here  in  these  kind 
of  bills  is  a  fragmentation  of  dentistry,  and 
I  suggest  that  what  we  need  is  not  frag- 
mentation but  indeed  a  team  approach.  If 
we  are  going  to  go  on  with  the  proposal  as 
suggested  here,  that  the  denture  therapist 
work  by  himself,  why  not  let  the  dental 
hygienist  and  the  next  auxiliary  work  by 
themselves? 

Mr.    Speaker:    Sixty   seconds    remaining. 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  that  will  fragment  all 
of  the  profession,  and  I'm  saying  that  wiU 
be  the  greatest  disservice  we  could  possibly 
do.  If  we  are  going  to  have  one,  we  should 
permit  the  others;  and  if  not,  then  we  should 
have  all  of  them  in  a  team  approach. 

In  closing,  let  me  hazard  a  guess  as  to 
why  so  many  of  these  people  are  ignored. 
It  is  because  there  are  so  many  dollars  avail- 
able to  a  few  denturists  w'ho  have  so  much 
to  gain  by  this  bill  and  at  the  same  time, 
by  a  few  politicians  who  are  far  more  in- 
terested in  votes  than  they  are  in  teeth. 

I  want  change  as  much  as  anyone  else  in 
this  field,  and  I  want  dental  services  available 
to  all  the  people.  But  I  want  those  services 
available  from  a  team  approach  and  I  want 
them  available  now,  and  the  concepts  in 
these  two  bills  certainly  won't  do  that  job. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  J.  Dukszta  (Parkdale):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  am  continuously  fascinated  by  the  ability 
of  the  medical  profession  and,  at  the  moment, 
the  dental  profession  to  mystify  and  to  myth- 
ologize  what  is  often  a  quite  simple  matter. 
I  agree  vwth  the  member  for  Oxford  that 
we  need  a  team  effort,  but  what  he  proposes 
is  a  team  effort  under  almost  complete 
domination  of  one  profession.  We  are  speak- 
ing now  in  respect  of  the  dental  field.  A 
dentist  has  an  overwhelming  lead  over 
almost  everyone  else.  This  is  not  what  is 
called  a  team  effort  under  any  condition. 

This  ability  to  mystify  extends  itself  from 
a  very  simple  matter.  One  of  the  old  argu- 
ments used  in  an  attempt  to  prevent  a  den- 
turist  making  dentures  was  that  a  denturist 
is  unable  to  deal  with  major  oral  pathology 
in  the  mouth.  The  first  diagnostician  of  any 
major  pathology,  or  any  pathology  at  all, 
in  the  mouth  is  always  the  patient.  He  says 


there  is  something  bothering  him  and  he  is 
going  to  see  a  guy  to  deal  with  the  pain  in 
his  mouth.  There  is  no  real  major  problem 
of  defining  what  the  problem  is.  You  feel  the 
pain  and  you  go  and  see  someone  about  it. 

Both  the  medical  and  the  dental  profes- 
sions have  always  produced  this  element  of 
mystery  in  an  attempt  to  make  sure  that  only 
the  profession  can  deal  with  it.  The  whole 
field  of  both  medicine  and  dentistry  is  mov- 
ing now  toward  participation  of  the  patient, 
participation  of  the  community,  in  spreading 
the  involvement  in  the  practice  itself  to  the 
paraprofessionals,  yet  the  government,, 
prompted  very  strongly  by  the  dental  pro- 
fession, has  moved  in  a  retrograde  action  to- 
stem  that  new  tide.  Almost  all  of  our  tech- 
nology, all  of  our  theoreticians,  state  over 
and  over  again  that  we  must  in  fact  have 
other  people  besides  the  actual  professional 
delivering  the  service.  And  it  is  not  enough 
to  deliver  the  service  as  an  extension,  as  an 
arm  of  a  dentist  or  a  physician;  you  have  to- 
train  the  other  people  to  deliver  the  service 
in  a  more  autonomous  fashion  so  that  he  or 
she  gets  the  job  satisfaction  and  can  do  the 
job  better. 

Nobody  denies  that  you  need  training  for 
almost  anything  pertaining  to  the  ailments 
of  the  human  body.  We  need  training  just  as 
much  for  a  denture  therapist  as  we  need  it 
for  a  physician.  The  point  I'm  trying  to  make 
is  that  to  make  dentures  for  a  teeth-free 
mouth  is  a  fairly  simple  matter.  It  does  not 
necessarily  involve  six  years  of  training  or 
extensive  training  as  a  denture  therapist,  nor 
does  it  involve  an  expensive  procedure,  as 
the  dentists  have  claimed  it  does.  It  is  a 
fairly  simple  matter. 

Though  the  denture  therapists  or  denturists 
need  some  training  they  are  quite  willing  to 
do  it,  but  they  have  to  be  able  to  practise 
autonomously  afterwards.  It  is  a  simple  mat- 
ter and  it  would  well  behove  the  new 
Minister  of  Health  if  he  perceived  this— that 
we  need  not  more  professionalization  of  the 
field  but  that  we  need  less  professionalization. 
We  need  a  more  open  health  delivery  system 
in  which  the  various  members  of  the  team 
function  in  an  integrated  fashion  but  function 
more  autonomously  of  each  other.  This  whole 
concept  of  a  team  effort  is  that  the  people 
co-operate  as  a  team,  not  as  if  they  were 
in  a  military  platoon  in  which  there  is  only 
one  leader  and  everyone  else  obeys  orders  in- 
stantaneously. 

I  know  that  even  to  debate  this  private 
members'  bill  seems  like  an  academic  and 
intellectual  exercise,  but  both  myself  and  the 
member  for  Sudbury  stand  up  to  say  that  our 


MARCH  11,  1974 


151 


approach  toward  the  denturist  is  only  part  of 
our  approach  to  the  whole  health  field,  and 
we  state  that  we  must  move  toward  a  more 
intense  community  involvement,  more  intense 
usage  of  paraprofessionals  and  more  intense 
participation  of  the  patient  himself. 

I  speak  in  support  of  this  bill  as  a  part 
of  an  overall  support  to  the  long  overdue 
change  in  the  health  field.  And  though  it's 
truly  a  small  group  we  are  speaking  of  it  is 
very  significant  in  terms  of  the  whole  ap- 
proach which  the  government  has  shown  up 
to  now  in  ignoring  what  are  the  major  prob- 
lems in  the  health  care  delivery  system.  May 
I  say  again  that  it  behoves  the  minister  well 
to  listen  to  some  of  the  remarks  that  people 
have  made  so  far  because  the  whole  matter 
has  been  blown  out  of  all  proportion.  It 
would  be  a  most  graceful  thing  if  he  with- 
drew it  or  (^hanged  it  or  introduced  a  new 
bill  which  would  allow  the  group  to  practise, 
after  suitable  training,  what  it  wants  to  do 
which  is  to  make  cheap  dentures  for  the 
people  who  need  them. 

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

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  rise  in  support  of 
Bill  5,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Practice  of 
Dental  Prosthesis,  as  submitted  by  my  leader, 
and  to  support  Bill  2,  An  Act  to  amend  the 
Denture  Therapists  Act. 

Either  one  of  the  two  bills,  I  think,  would 
resolve  the  issue  of  the  dentists  and  den- 
turists.  There  is  hardly  one  of  us  in  the 
House  who  hasn't  over  the  past  two  years— 
especially  approximately  a  year  or  two  ago- 
received  not  one  but  hundreds  of  letters  from 
both  sides  of  the  issue,  both  from  the  in- 
dividuals requiring  the  services  of  denturists 
as  well  as  those  who  required  the  services  of 
dentists. 

However,  in  my  own  particular  riding,  for 
every  one  letter  that  I  received  in  support  of 
the  approach  taken  by  the  dentist  I  received 
approximately  four  from  people  who  had  had 
to  use  the  services  of  denturists,  and  found 
them  to  be  most  efficient;  found  them  to  be 
satisfactory;  likewise,  found  them  to  be 
within  their  financial  means. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  legislation  originally 
started  on  June  26,  1972,  when  the  then 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 
( Mr.  Welch )  introduced  the  original  bill 
permitting  denturists  to  deal  directly  with 
the  public.  This  is  just  as  it  should  have 
been  and  we  assumed  that  the  government 
was    going    to    follow    on    with    its    original 


plan.  However,  on  Dec.  5,  I  recall  I  noted 
at  the  time,  when  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Potter)  submitted  amendments  to  Bill 
203  his  amendments  were  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  intent  of  the  bill  and  I  brought 
it  to  your  attention.  Others  spoke  on  that 
also,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  as  a  result  that  bill 
was  withdrawn  and  the  government  intro- 
duced Bill  246  on  July  6. 

On  Dec.  5,  the  Minister  of  Health  made 
the  proverbial  flip-flop  and  from  being  in 
support  of  denturists  working  by  themselves 
and  dealing  directly  with  the  pubHc,  he  in- 
troduced legislation  that  would  require  them 
to  work  under  the  supervision  of  a  dentist. 

From  July  6,  1973,  until  January,  1974, 
the  denturists  continued  to  practise  without 
any  crackdown  on  the  part  of  the  Attorney 
General's  office.  However,  after  the  biU  had 
been  in  force  for  13  months  the  government 
decided  it  was  going  to  raid  selectively 
certain  denturists'  clinics  in  an  attempt  to 
crack  doMTi  on  the  denturists  operating  in 
open  defiance  of  the  law.  Why  selectively, 
Mr.  Speaker?  Surely,  if  the  ministry  thought 
that  the  denturists  were  openly  defying  the 
law  and  were  not  performing  the  services 
of  which  they  were  capable,  the  ministry 
should  have  gone  after  every  single  one  of 
the  denturists  operating  throughout  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  former  minister's  tactics 
on  this  issue  can  really  be  said  to  be  nothing 
but  deplorable.  I  am  sure  that  now  the  new 
minister— and  the  former  minister  as  well  as 
the  government— knows  that  Bill  246  is  a 
piece  of  bad  legislation  the  new  minister  is 
having  second  thoughts  and  is  trying  his 
darnedest  right  now  to  turn  back  the  clock 
to  June  26,  1972,  when  the  original  bill, 
which  permitted  denturists  to  deal  directly 
with  the  pubhc  was  introduced. 

Mr.  Speaker,  ads  in  the  papers  even  today 
still  carry  the  name  of  the  hon.  Mr.  Potter 
as  being  the  Minister  of  Health.  I  know  the 
new  minister  will  see  to  it  that  those  ads 
are  no  longer  carried  and  that  the  govern- 
ment will  withdraw  its  original  legislation  or 
accept  the  legislation  that  has  been  intro- 
duced by  my  leader  and  make  it  a  piece 
of  government  legislation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  concern  of  the  public 
was  so  great  that  they  presented  hundreds 
of  petitions  to  various  members  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  province.  I  will 
read  only  a  few  comments,  a  few  lines  out 
of  some  of  the  letters. 

The  price   I   was    quoted   was   $500.   It 

is  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the  lower-income 


152 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


bracket  and  the  senior  citizens.  Having  a 
set  of  dentures  made  by  a  denturist,  I 
was  extremely  happy  with  the  end  result. 

[A  second]  Our  province  is  one  of  the 
most  developed  of  all  provinces.  Should 
it  be  necessary  for  a  denturist  to  face  a 
jail  term?  In  the  rest  of  Canada,  this  prac- 
tice has  been  made  legal. 

[A  third  comment  talking  about  a  den- 
turisi]  I  feel  he  is  quite  capable  of  his 
work.  He  has  been  doing  the  same  thing 
for  dentists  as  he  is  doing  now.  Why  can't 
he  do  it  for  himself? 

[A  fourth  comment]  Why  is  it  necessary 
for  a  denturist  in  Ontario  to  face  up  to  a 
possible  two  years  in  jail  term  when  in 
other  provinces,  both  in  the  east  and  the 
west  of  us,  this  practice  has  been  made 
legal?  I  think  it  is  about  time  the  legisla- 
tion realized  the  needs  of  the  province  in 
this  matter. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  could  come  albng  and  read 
from  probably  200  different  letters  that  I 
have  received.  However,  I  would  like  to 
close  and  allow  the  member  from  the  gov- 
ernment side  to  make  his  comments.  I  sug- 
gest to  you,  Mr.  Stpeaker,  as  well  as  to  the 
members  on  the  government  benches  to  put 
common  sense  behind  their  thinking  on  Bill 
246,  realize  that  they  have  made  a  mistake, 
admit  they  have  made  a  mistake,  accept  the 
bill  introduced  by  my  leader,  resolve  the 
problems  once  and  for  all  and  allow  the 
denturists  to  work  as  they  have  requested. 

No  one  for  one  minute  would  say  that 
the  denturist  should  not  be  fully  qualified. 
We  agree  with  their  qualifications  except 
that  we  think  that  they  have  been  doing  a 
good  job  in  the  past,  The)^  are  responsible 
people.  They  are  not  fly-by-night  operators 
and  they  should  be  allowed  to  continue  as 
they  have  prior  to  the  passing  of  Bill  246. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  did  we  do  to 
deserve  this? 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member  wanted  it  and 
now  we're  going  to  have  to  take  it.  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  I  could  just  start  off  on  a  pleasant, 
conciliatory  note,  the  government  and  partic- 
ularly the  members  in  this  row  of  the  gov- 
ernment have  always  prided  themselves  upon 
abundant  common  sense.  That  is  why  we 
want  no  part  of  either  one  of  these  two  bills 
which  were  conceived  in  moments  of  frus- 
tration. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'd  sooner  hear  the  mem- 
ber for  Wellington-Duff erin  (Mr.  Root)  than 
the  member  for  Scarborough  Centre  if  he 
wants  a  common  sense  man. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  I  am  a  common  sense  man, 
but  after  listening  to  what  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  churned  out  in  the  middle  of  the 
afternoon,  it's  enough  to  make  anybody  frus- 
trated. I  can  understand  the  frustration  that 
was  there  when  he  found  two  bills  combined 
into  one  and  had  to  limit  his  remarks  to  a 
few  moments.  I  have  only  got  four  minutes 
andi  I  want  to  make  some  points  about  com- 
mon sense. 

IFirst,  how  can  you  equate  the  training 
that  a  dentist  or  a  dental  surgeon  goes 
through  with  the  training  that  there  is  for  a 
denturist  or  a  denture  therapist?  If  you  want 
to  tell  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  all  the  train- 
ing one  needs  to  work  on  the  inside  of  one's 
mouth  is  so  far  not  even  a  single  course, 
then,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  you  we  are 
into  the  element  that  common  sense  is  being 
defied. 

Secondly,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  has  to  be 
an  element  of  control  in  the  situation,  and 
indeed  the  denturists  themselves  admit  that 
there  is  a  very  essential  need*  for  control. 
They  propose  that  a  certificate  of  oral  health 
be  obtained  from  either  a  dentist,  a  dental 
surgeon  or  a  medical  practitioner  prior  to 
themselves  operating  and  providing  dentures 
inside  the  mouth.  This  is  a  very  frank  ad- 
mission, and  I  respect  the  denturists  for  this, 
but  it  is  a  very  candid  admission  that  they 
have  not  been  specifically  trained  to  cope 
with  the  very  many  oral  diseases. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  They  are 
not  pretending  to  be. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  didn't  suggest  they  were.  I 
said  they  are  admitting  they  are  not  quali- 
fied. My  friend,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion, if  he  had  any  common  sense,  that  is 
why  he  should  go  along  with  the  government 
position  because  our  concern  is  about  the 
protection  of  the  individual. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  member  supported 
the  government  position  when  it  was  just  the 
opposite.  He  supported  the  original  bill 
too.  He  doesn't  know  what  he  is  going  to 
support.  He  will  support  whatever  they  tell 
him  from  the  front  bench. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  didn't  support  the  original 
bill.  If  there  was  any  common  sense  over 
there,  they  would  support  our  position  be- 
cause our  position  is  quite  basic. 


MARCH  11,  1974 


153 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  member  still  sup- 
ports  anything   the   front  bench   tell   him. 

iMr.  Drea:  We  want  control  and  there  is 
going  to  be  control  on  people  who  by  the 
necessity  of  their  occupation  have  to  deal 
with  the  inside  of  the  human  mouth.  I  was 
on  that  committee  that  heard  all  of  the 
representations.  There's  one  that  comes  back 
to  me  over  and  over  again— and  it  wasn't  me 
who  asked  a  particular  person  —  how  does 
one  determine  if  there  is  anything  wrong  on 
the  inside  of  the  mouth?  That  person,  a 
denturist,  said,  "I  put  my  flashlight  in  and 
I  take  a  look."  Mr.  Speaker,  at  that  point 
common  sense  told  me— 

Mr.  Gisbom:  Does  the  member  think  he 
would  put  his  foot  in? 

Mr.  Drea:  —that  these  people  should 
operate  under  the  supervision  of  a  qualified 
dentist  or  dental  surgeon.  I  agree  some  of 
the  denturists  are  qualified.  I  agree  a  num- 
ber of  them  have  taken  a  particular  course 
and  will  pass  the  examinations  that  have 
been  set  up  by  this  Legislature.  But,  Mr. 
Speaker,  when  there  is  no  formal  edtication 
programme  yet  for  a  denturist— 

An  Hon.   member:   Whose  fault? 

Mr.  Drea:  It  certainly  isn't  my  fault.  If 
there's  been  such  demand  for  it  over  the 
years,  where  is  it? 

Mr.  Rreithaupt:  The  member  is  putting 
his  mouth  where  his  money  is! 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  formal 
education  course  yet  for  denturists.  There 
is  a  very  brief  upgrading  course.  There  are 
courses  that  will  take  a  lab  technician  or 
someone  who  has  had  a  considerable  amount 
of   experience   with   the  fabrication   of   den- 


tures and  will  put  him  into  a  position  where 
he  can  work  under  the  supervision  of  a 
dentist  who  has  been  very  carefully  and 
very  expensively  trained  to  do  his  job  for 
society.  I  think  that  is  the  essence  of  the 
government  legislation.  That  is  not  to  say 
that  at  some  future  time,  with  a  proper  con- 
trol mechanism,  a  proper  education  mechan- 
ism and  a  number  of  things  that  my  col- 
league from  Oxford  has  talked  about,  the 
opportunity  for  the  denture  therapist  or  the 
denturist  or  the  other  people  in  dentistry 
to  operate  independently  may  not  be  here. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  about  15  seconds  left 
and  I  want  to  make  the  final  crushing  point 
of  the  day. 

Mr.  Rreithaupt:  Thanks  for  the  warning! 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  about  an  hour  and 
10  minutes  ago  this  party  was  told  there 
should  be  a  single  rollback  on  a  price  and 
how  much  better  we  would  feel.  It  was  this 
party  and  it  was  the  former  health  minister, 
who  did  achieve  a  price  rollback. 

Mr.  Rreithaupt:  On  what? 

Mr.  Drea:  The  reas'on  I  bring  it  up  is  it  is 
in  this  field.  It  was  through  the  eff^orts  of 
the  minister  and  this  government  and  this 
party  that  there  is  now  a  guaranteed  price 
of  $180  for  dentures  done  by  a  dentist  en- 
rolled under  the  plan  that  the  minister 
originated.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  concede  to 
the  leader  of  the  NDP  that  the  entire  party 
not  only  does  feel  better,  we  have  felt  better 
for  one  long  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell  moves  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the"  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6  o'clock,  p.m. 


154  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  March  11,  1974 

Consolidated  Computer  Inc.,  statement  by  Mr.  Bennett  107 

Withdrawal   of  teachers'   services,   questions   of  Mr.   Davis:    Mr.   Deacon,   Mr.   Lewis, 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson,  Mr.  Foulds,  Mr.  B.  Newman  108 

Consolidated  Computer  Inc.,  question  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Deacon  110 

Management    Board    orders,    questions    of    Mr.    Winkler:    Mr.    Deacon,    Mr.    Singer, 

Mr.    Cassidy    Ill 

Law     Reform     Commission     reports     on     family     law,     questions     of     Mr.     Welch: 

Mr.   Deacon,   Mr.   Lewis,   Mr.   Singer,  Mrs.  Campbell  Ill 

Report  on  mineral  production,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:   Mr.  Lewis   114 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  question  of  Mr.  Wells:   Mr.  Lewis  114 

Tenders  for  civil  service  insurance  package,  questions  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Lewis  114 

OHC  budget,  question  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.  Lewis  115 

Day  Nurseries  Act  regidations,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Lewis  115 

Environmental    impact   of  public   works,    questions   of   Mr.   McKeough:    Mr.   Cassidy, 

Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  MacDonald  115 

Weekend  road  maintenance,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:   Mr.  Stokes  117 

Ontario  Building  Code,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Givens,  Mrs.  Campbell  117 

Physiotherapists'  fees,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Shulman,  Mr.  Good  118 

Vehicles  on  consignment,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:   Mr,  EdighoflFer  119 

Hydro  board  appointments,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Stokes  119 

Correctional   centre  training,  question  of  Mr.  Potter:   Mr.  Worton  119 

Resale  of  HOME  programme  houses,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Deans  120 

Provincial  park  at  Papineau  Lake,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Good  120 

Negotiations  on  behalf  of  community  colleges,  question  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Bounsall  120 

Presenting  reports,  Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission  re  family  property  law,  children, 

and  family  courts,   Mr.   Welch   121 

Presenting  report,  re  York  county  board  of  education  and  the  OSSTF,  Mr.  Winkler  ....  122 

Presenting  copy,  order  of  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council,  Mr.  Welch  122 

Tabling,  report  re  investment  policies  of  the  municipal  employees'  retirement  system, 

Mr.    Irvine    123 

Protection  of  House  Buyers  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Givens,  first  reading  123 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Lewis  123 


MARCH  11,  1974  155 


Motion  to  adjourn  debate,   Mr.  Wardle,  agreed  to   142 

Private  members'  hour  142 

Denture    Therapists    Act;    Practice    of    Dental    Prosthesis    Act,    on    second    reading, 

Mr.  Germa,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Parrott,  Mr.  Dukszta,  Mr.  B.  Newman,  Mr.  Drea  142 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Timbrell,  agreed  to 153 


No.  6 


Ontario 


Ht^i^Mnxt  of  Ontario 
©eliateg 

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


Tuesday,  March  12,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


159 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  May  I  take 
this  opportunity  of  introducing  to  the  House 
150  students  from  Wembley  Senior  Public 
School  in  the  city  of  Sudbury,  accompanied 
by  10  adults.  The  party  is  under  the  direction 
of  Mr.  Wayne  Bailey. 

This  large  group  of  students  and  parents 
have  journeyed  from  the  city  of  Sudbury  to 
be  with  us  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Speaker:   Statements  by  the  ministry? 


LAW  REFORM  COMMISSION  REPORT 
ON  FAMILY  LAW 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General ) :  I  would  like 
to  clarify  for  the  hon.  members  of  this  House 
some  comments  that  were  made  yesterday 
during  the  question  period.  Following  a  short 
briefing  with  members  of  my  staff,  I  was 
under  the  impression  that  all  representatives 
of  the  media  who  received  advance  copies  of 
the  three  reports  of  the  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission tabled  yesterday  had  first  approached 
us  to  request  those  reports. 

In  subsequent  discussions  I  have  now 
learned  that  this  was  not  the  case  with  one 
media  representative.  I  wish  to  correct  at  this 
time  any  wrong  impression  that  my  comments 
of  yesterday  may  have  left  with  members  of 
the  House. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  The  min- 
ister created  several. 

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


ROOMING  HOUSE  SAFETY  STANDARDS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): In  the  absence  of  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  and  the  Minister  of  Education  (Mr. 
Wells),  I  wiU  ask  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Housing,  to  inquire  whether  he  has  taken 
any  decision  himself,  or  consulted  with  his 
colleagues,  about  the  obvious  need  for  some 


Tuesday,  March  12,  1974 

imposition  of  province-wide  standards  for 
rooming  house  safety.  Does  he  believe  this 
can  be  left  entirely  to  the  municipalities  con- 
cerned or  isi  there,  in  fact,  some  thought  that 
a  provincial  intrusion  in  this  matter  might  be 
warranted  under  the  circumstances  that  saw 
the  death  of,  I  believe  seven  people  in 
Toronto  last  week? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  this  matter  has  not  been 
discussed  in  the  ministry  during  my  tenure.  I 
certainly  would  be  pleased  to  raise  it  with  the 
staff,  to  ascertain  first  of  all  what  our  powers 
are  and  how  the  matter  is  handled.  I  would 
be  glad  to  receive  suggestions  from  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  as  to  how  he  thinks 
this  matter  might  be  handled.  I  am  prepared 
to    accept    reasonable    suggestions    from   any 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Would 
the  minister  not  agree  that,  while  this  would 
not  form  a  part  of  a  provincial  building  code 
directly,  it  could  very  well  take  the  form  of 
something  that  could  be  a  provincial  safety 
code  which  could  establish  the  minimum  re- 
quirements for  the  municipalities  to  live  up 
to,  and  if  necessary  provide  an  inspection 
service,  at  least  on  demand,  for  citizens  who 
might  be  concerned  that  it  appears  the  matter 
is  not  being  adequately  looked  after  at  the 
municipal  level? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
limited  understanding  of  the  problem  is  that 
there  are  very  few  competent  housing  inspec- 
tors available  to  the  municipalities,  and  per- 
haps the  province  can  assist  in  that  respect. 
I  would  like  to  discuss  it  with  my  colleague 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  (Mr.  Clement)  in  regard  to  the 
establishment  of  a  building  code,  because  it 
is  quite  possible  that  a  strengthened  building 
code  might  be  part  of  the  solution. 


SEVERANCE  PAYMENT  TO 
AGENT  GENERAL 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Chairman  of  the  Management  Board  if  he 
recalls  approving  the  decision  that  resulted  in 
a  full  year's  pay  being  granted  to  the  person 


160 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


formerly  in  charge  of  Ontario  House  in 
London,  England;  which  action  has  been 
recently  criticized  by  the  Provincial  Auditor, 
Was  that  payment  a  severance  payment  the 
Provincial  Auditor  said  was  made  in  contra- 
vention of  provincial  regulations,  was  it  in 
fact  made  simply  to  create  a  vacancy  so  that 
Mr.  Ward  Cornell  could  be  appointed  Agent 
General— Ward  Cornell,  who  was  the  chair- 
man of  the  campaign  committee  for  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  White), 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  I  doubt  very  much 
if  that  assumption  is  correct,  but  I'll  have  to 
investigate  the  records  to  determine  at  what 
time  the  decision  was  made, 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
could  the  Chairman  of  Management  Board 
tell  us  why  Mr,  Rowan-Legg,  who  was 
packed  and  on  his  way  back  to  London, 
England,  was  hauled  off  the  plane  and  told 
he  was  being  replaced;  and  whether  that 
sudden  decision  had  anything  to  do  with 
the  inordinate  expenditures  mentioned  by  the 
accountant? 

Hon.    Mr.    Winkler:    I    really    don't    think 
that's  correct  at  all,  but  I'm  not  sure, 
Mr.  Singer:  It  is  correct, 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  The 
government  pays  patronage  every  day  of 
the  week;  sure  it  does, 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I'm  not  sure  of  that. 
If  that  detail  is  correct  I'll  have  to  have  a 
look  at  it;  but  I  refuse  to  accept  it, 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  He  was 
replaced  by  Ward  Cornell, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Will  the  minister  under- 
take to  report  to  the  House  the  circumstances 
which  led  Management  Board  to  approve 
this  specific  payment?  Would  he  also  report 
to  the  House  on  the  position  taken  by  the 
auditor,  that  it  was  beyond  the  scope  of  the 
regulations  to  permit  severance  payments  of 
that  size,  so  that  in  fact  we  can  have  some 
guidelines  to  go  by,  since  the  government 
seems  to  be  severing  a  good  many  of  its 
high-priced  employees  and  replacing  them 
with  some  of  its  closer  friends? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I'll  accept  the  question 
as  notice, 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  The  minister 
doesn't  dare  sever  the  member  for  Lambton 
(Mr.  Henderson), 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  about  the  patronage 
appointment  of  the  member  for  Carleton  East 
(Mr.  Lawrence)  which  just  came  about? 


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


APPOINTMENT  OF  CSAO 
ARBITRATION  MEDIATOR 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  A  ques- 
tion, Mr,  Speaker,  of  the  Chairman  of  Man- 
agement Board:  Can  the  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  explain  why,  when  he  was 
informed  on  Feb.  4  by  Mr.  Rose,  the  counsel 
and  registrar  of  the  Ontario  Labour  Manage- 
ment Arbitration  Commission  dealing  in  the 
present  governmental  negotiations  with  the 
Civil  Service  Association  of  Ontario,  that 
Howard  Brov^oa  would  not  be  able  to  be  a 
mediator  in  the  current  items  under  dispute, 
that  to  this  day,  March  12,  there  has  been 
no  response,  either  from  government  or  from 
the  arbitration  commission,  to  the  request 
for  the  appointment  of  another  mediator? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  that  subject  matter.  It  probably 
should  be  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Guindon),  but  I'll  take  the  question. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  If  he  were 
ever  here, 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  The  minister 
of  who? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  presume  the  negotiations  with 
the  Civil  Service  Association  have  something 
to  do  with  the  Chairman  of  Management 
Board  and  that  another  five  to  six  weeks  have 
elapsed  in  a  progressively  deteriorating  rela- 
tionship around  a  number  of  important  items; 
I'd  like  to  know  why  the  minister  is  allowing 
that  to  continue, 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  have  made  this  state- 
ment before  in  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker.  We 
are  prepared  to  go  to  the  bargaining  table 
at  any  time.  The  items  which  are  under  dis- 
pute are  not  the  fault  of  the  people  who  are 
acting  on  behalf  of  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission, 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  is  it  that  five  weeks  elapse 
without  even  a  reply  to  a  letter  requesting 
further  mediation?  Can  the  minister  explain 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  No.  I  am  not  aware  of 
that  letter. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fine. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I'll  check  the  records 
in  that  regard. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


161 


Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  How  does  he 
know? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  will  repeat  that  we 
have  made  our  offers  on  quite  a  number  of 
occasions  and  we  are  prepared  to  return  to 
the  table  on  any  day  that  the  other  side  is 
prepared  to  do  so. 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Unlike  the  member  we 
don't  operate  that  way. 

Mr.  Roy:  No?  Oh  no! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Has  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  no  further  questions? 
All  right,  the  hon,  member  for  Downsview, 


LEMOINE  POINT 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of 
the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources:  Is  the 
government  yet  in  a  position  to  make  a  con- 
crete offer  for  Lemoine  Point  to  be  used  as 
a  provincial  park?  Has  that  point  arrived? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): No,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  not  in  that 
position  yet. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  do 
I  take  it  that  after  the  appraisal  is  com- 
pleted—I  believe  the  appraisal  is,  in  fact, 
completed— it  is  the  minister's  intention  to 
collaborate  with  the  conservation  authority 
in  the  acquisition  of  the  land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
not  heard  from  the  conservation  authorities 
or  even  my  own  ministry  with  regard  to  the 
appraisals;  when  that  information  is  received, 
I'll  take  the  appropriate  steps. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  Premier  if  he 
wishes  to  report  on  any  aspect  of  the  state 
of  affairs  in  York  county  and  the  negotiations 
that  may  or  may  not  be  taking  place?  I  don't 
know. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  is  nothing  new  to  report.  I 
anticipate  the  minister  may  have  something 
to  suggest  to  the  House  a  little  later  on  this 
afternoon. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Is 
the  Premier  indicating  that  the  Minister 
of  Education  will  make  a  statement  or 
simply  introduce  legislation,  or  a  combination 
of  the  two? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr,  Speaker,  the  minister 
will  be  here  fairly  soon,  and  I'm  sure  if 
the  member  for  Brant  wishes  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion he  would  be  quite  prepared  to  answer 
it. 

Mr.  Roy:  It  can't  be  very  good  or  the 
Premier  would  be  making  it  himself. 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  COURTS 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Attorney  General,  Could  the 
Attorney  General  tell  me  if  he  is  persisting 
in  the  view  held  by  his  predecessor  that  the 
system  for  administration  of  the  courts  should 
be  a  part  of  his  department  rather  than 
an  independent  group,  bearing  in  mind  the 
very  strong  objections  to  this  approach  made 
by  the  treasurer  of  the  Law  Society  of 
Upper  Canada  and  the  very  strong  feelings 
expressed  by  several  members  of  the  judiciary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  will  recall  that  at  the  time  of  the 
tabling  of  the  report  dealing  with  that 
subject  matter,  a  fairly  lengthy  statement 
was  made  by  my  predecessor,  which  repre- 
sents government  policy  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of 
supplementary,  is  that  government  policy 
under  review  or  does  it  remain  as  irrevocable 
as  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  the  Persians? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  part  of 
that  statement,  the  hon.  member  will  recall 
there  was  to  be  a  fair  emphasis  with  respect 
to  consultation  with  all  those  affected.  Indeed, 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne  made  some 
reference  to  that.  Following  a  review  with 
those  who  are  in  fact  interested  in  that 
subject,  and  we  hope  that  interest  would 
be  quite  widespread,  we  would  then  make 
some  further  announcement  insofar  as  im- 
plementation is  concerned. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  so  what  the  minister's 
predecessor  said  is  not  necessarily  effective. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  No,  I  don't  think  that's 
a  fair  assumption,  I  think  the  statement  of 
my  predecessor  has  to  be  taken  in  its 
totality  and  the  question  of  consultation  is 
part  of  that, 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh  yes,  subject  to  consulta- 
tion. 

Mr.   Roy:   Supplementary,   Mr.   Speaker, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  I  might,  I  would  ask  the 
minister  when  we  can  expect  to  see  legisla- 


162 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon  implementing  this  policy  that  he  talked 
about  with  his  predecessor.  Can  we  expect 
it  this  session? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  hon. 
member  will  recall,  there  was  reference  made 
to  that  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  par- 
ticularly the  regionalization  insofar  as  the 
court  system  is  concerned.  Legislation  will 
be  coming  forward.  But  I  want  to  underline 
what  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  said  and 
what  I  have  said  in  response  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Downsview's  question,  that  there 
has  to  be  some  opportunity  for  people 
vitally  interested  in  this  subject  in  fact  to 
make  their  views  known  as  well. 

Mr.  Singer:  Like  the  treasurer  of  the  Law 
Society. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  So  the  actual  timing  of 
this,  of  course,  will  depend  to  some  extent 
on  the  degree  and  the  scale  or  scope  of  that 
type  of  discussion. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  doesn't  that  mean  a 
change  in  policy? 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Supple- 
mentary: Has  the  new  Attorney  General  had 
an  opportunity  to  read  a  letter  he  got  from 
eminent  members  of  the  legal  profession  in 
Thunder  Bay  asking  him  to  review  the 
previous  stand  taken  by  his  predecessor  and 
to  assure  the  public  generally  that  there 
will  be  no  obvious  or  less-than-obvious  con- 
flict of  interest  between  the  various  factions 
within  the  Attorney  General's  ministry? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  all  their  conflicts 
of  interest  in  office. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly 
the  correspondence  to  which  the  hon.  mem- 
ber makes  reference  is  part  of  the  review. 
I  can  assure  the  hon.  member  that  this  will 
be  taken  into  account. 

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


ROUTE  OF  PETROLEUM  PIPELINE 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  A  question, 
Mr.  Speaker,  of  the  Minister  of  Energy:  Did 
the  provincial  cabinet  take  into  account, 
when  it  decided  to  accede  to  the  federal 
government's  decision  to  go  ahead  with  the 
Sarnia-Montreal  oil  pipeline,  the  fact  that  the 
Sault  Ste.  Marie-Montreal  link  ultimately 
would  cost  less  because  it  would  be  an 
integral  part  of  the  all-Canadian  route? 


Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  With  respect,  I  am  not  quite  sure 
what  the  member  is  driving  at.  Presumably 
if  one  is  talking  about  miles  of  pipeline,  addi- 
tional pipeline  is  going  to  cost  more,  not  less. 
I  think  what  one  has  to  consider  is  that  the 
pipelines  presently  through  the  United  States, 
either  to  St.  Ignace  and  down  or  around  the 
south  shore  of  Lake  Michigan,  have  to  be 
filled  to  pay  for  them.  I  think  it's  a  real 
possibility  that  if  you  build  more  pipelines, 
then  someone  is  going  to  have  to  pay  for  the 
unfilled  pipelines.  So  I  am  not  sure  that  the 
assumption  on  which  the  member's  question 
is  made  is  entirely  correct.  It  may  well  prove 
to  be,  but  I  am  not  sure  that  at  this  moment 
that's  clear. 

Mr.  Foulds:  In  view  of  the  minister's 
answer,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  Ontario 
we  will  ultimately  have  two  pipelines,  one 
coming  through  southern  Ontario  and  one  go- 
ing through  the  north,  does  not  the  govern- 
ment's assumption  of  the  unfilled  pipeline 
cost  factor,  in  fact  indicate  that  the  doubling 
that  it  is  now  going  through  would  lead  to 
those  results? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  The  hon.  member  is 
making  an  assumption— and  I  hope  he's  com- 
pletely right— that  there  will  in  fact  be  oil 
to  fill  both  pipelines.  That  is  not  entirely 
clear  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  supplementary  then,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  not  the  northern  route  have 
lent  itself  to  the  possibility  of  the  use  of  oil 
from  the  arctic  islands  and  the  Hudson  Bay 
lowlands,  and  thus  save  costs  there  if  those 
finds  prove  to  be  commercial? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  But  not  to  the  use 

of  oil  which  may  be  found  on  the  east  coast, 
which  at  this  moment  I  think  is  a  better 
probability  than  the  discoveries  which  the 
hon.  member  has  mentioned.  I  hope  we're 
both  right. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Yes,  but  surely— 

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

Mr.  Foulds:  Supplementary? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  don't  think  the  member 
is  going  to  get  that  pipeline  up  there. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That's  because  the  member  for 
Samia's  federal  guys  and  those  provincial 
guys  chickened  out! 


MARCH  12,  1974 


163 


EXTENSION  OF  NORONTAIR  SERVICE 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  of  thei  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  in  regard  to 
the  Throne  Speech  announcing  norOntair  in 
northwestern  Ontario.  Is  the  minister  in  a 
position  to  tell  us  today  those  four  communr 
ities  that  will  be  served  by  this  system  and 
when  the  minister  expects  this  system  will 
come  into  being? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
four  communities  that  were  referredi  to  are 
the  communities  of  Fort  Frances,  Drydten, 
Tliunder  Bay  and  Red  Lake.  Those  are  the 
four  conmiunities.  I  can't  give  the  member  a 
definite  time  when  this  particular  service  vdll 
start.  It  is  being  looked  at  very  seriously  in 
the  ministr}"  at  the  present  time. 

Mr,  Reid:  Spring?  Summer?  Fall? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  can't  give  the  member 
a  definite  time.  I  would  hate  to  do  that  be- 
cause I  know  he'll  come  back  at  me  very 
quickly. 

Mr.  Reid:  This  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  If  I  may  steal  a  phrase 
from  my  colleague,  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Miller),  "in  the  fullness  of  time." 

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

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  That  was 
not  \ery  original. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  goes  back  before  that 
time. 


ASSISTANCE  TO  EMERGING  SERVICES 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  A  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Conomunity  and  Social 
Services:  Based  on  the  six  recommendations 
made  by  David  Cole  of  the  ministry,  and 
apparently  concurred  in  by  the  Attorney 
General  when  he  held  the  social  policy  min- 
istry, has  the  government  now  decided  how 
it  intends  to  fund  the  emerging  services  which 
are  in  such  financial  straits,  not  only  here  in 
Toronto  but  in  other  parts  of  the  province? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the 
member  referring  to  information  centres?  I 
missed  part  of  his  question.  Which  services 
is  he- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Boy!  Is  the  minister  ever  in 
touch! 


Mr.  Martel:  I'm  referring  to  the  six 
recommendations  made  by  David  Cole  of 
this  ministry  to  assist  the  emerging  services, 
primarily  the  LIP  groups,  which  have  de- 
veloped into  emergency  services.  Mr.  Cole 
of  the  ministry  has  made  six  recommenda- 
tions. Is  the  government  now  in  a  position 
to  indicate  how  it  intends  to  financially  assist 
these  groups,  which  include  the  information 
services,  but  also  co-ops  and  so  on? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
funding  many  organizations  which  meet  our 
criteria,  and  as  the  hon.  member  probably 
knows  there  will  be  a  meeting  with  the 
various  Metro  groups  with  reference  to  vari- 
ous requested  assets.  This  meeting  will  be 
held  soon.  We  are  presently  funding  several 
of  these  organizations. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
take  it  as  notice  and  find  out? 

Mr.  Martel:  A  supplementary  question,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  minis- 
ter is  subsidizing  to  the  tune  of  only  $85,000, 
and  that  all  of  the  agencies  involved  are 
Metro  agencies,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  he  is 
meeting  on  Friday  afternoon,  doesn't  he 
think  the  government  should  be  in  a  position 
at  this  time  to  indicate  to  the  House  how  it 
intends  to  assist  these  groups? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  again,  as 
the  hon.  member  mentioned,  we  are  meeting 
this  group  soon  and  we  will  be  indicating  to 
them  what  assistance  will  be  provided. 

Mr.  Martel:  Doesn't  the  minister  think  the 
House  should  know? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Yes. 

Mr.  Deans:  Doesn't  he  think  we  should 
know? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 


REPORT  ON  CONESTOGA  COLLEGE 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities.  Could 
the  minister  inform  the  House  what  action  is 
being  taken  regarding  the  recommendations 
in  Dr.  Porter's  report  on  the  administrative 
problems  at  Conestoga  College? 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities):  I  will  attempt  to  do  so  in 
a  day  or  two.  I  haven't  read  the  report  yet, 
but  I  will  find  out  what  is  going  on. 


164 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:   Not  yet?  He  has  been  minister 
for  two  weeks  now. 

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


COST  OF  ADVERTISING 
DENTURE  PROGRAMME 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Health:  With  reference  to  all 
this  fancy  advertising  I  see  in  the  newspapers 
regarding  the  low-cost  denture  programme, 
could  he  tell  the  House  the  total  cost  of  this 
programme?  And  secondly,  how  does  he 
justify  spending  public  funds  to  promote 
private  business? 

Mr.  R,  F.  Nixon:  The  hon.  member  for 
Ottawa  East  asked  that  earlier  this  week. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  asked  him  that  last  week,  but 
he  didn't  have  a  very  good  answer  for  me. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  He 
didn't  ask  me  that  last  week,  I'm  quite  sure 
of  that. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Let  the  minister  see  il 
he  can  improve  on  the  answer, 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes;  the  total  cost  of  the 
programme,  I  am  told,  was  $30,000.  The 
iustification  for  the  programme  would  be  that 
of  almost  any  governmental  programme  of 
information.  A  programme  of  providing  low- 
cost  dentures  was  made  available  and  it  was 
necessary  to  let  the  people  know  about  that 
programme  and  its  availability  in  their  imme- 
diate area. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  called  back  scratching. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  am  glad  he  didn't  say,  "in  the 
fullness  of  time." 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Housing 
has  the  answer  to  a  question- 
Mr.  Germa:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Braithwaite  (Etobicoke):  Supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  I  think  the  member 
who  asked  the  question  is  entitled  to  one 
supplementary. 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  how 
the  minister  would  justify  including  the 
names  and  addresses  of  dentists  as  being 
public  information  or  governmental  informa- 
tion? 


Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Den- 
tists serve  the  public,  don't  they? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Interestingly  enough,  a 
number  of  municipalities,  and  particularly 
the  welfare  groups  in  them  and  people  in 
the  communities,  had  clamoured  for  a  listing 
of  the  names  of  the  dentists  who  were  avail- 
able to  provide  the  service  and  who  had 
volunteered  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  didn't  the  dentists  do  it? 

An   hon.    member:   There   were  only   two. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  the  average  is  a 
little  better  than  that.  I  think  probably  one 
out  of  five  licensed  dentists  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario  are  participating.  There  were 
about  600  names. 

Interjections   by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  was  a  supplementary; 
the  hon.  member  for  Etobicoke. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Will  the  minister  state 
whether  his  department  condones  the  placing 
of  advertisements  by  private  dentists,  adver- 
tising the  fact  they  have  tbese  technicians? 
And  in  the  light  of  the  same  advertisements 
placed  by  these  dentists,  does  the  830,000 
to  whic^h  the  minister  referred  include  the 
cost  of  these  advertisements  or  have  the 
dentists  paid  for  these  themselves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I'm  not  specifically  aware 
of  the  privately-placed  advertisements.  I 
understand  that  advertising  by  dentists  as 
such  is  governed  by  the  regulations  written 
by  the  Royal  College  of  Dental  Surgeons  of 
Ontario  and  that  they  would  have  to  operate 
under  the  constraints  of  those  regulations. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  A  further  supplementary: 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  matter  has 
already  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister's  predecessor  in  the  House,  and 
since  there  have  been  individual  dentists  who 
have  been  putting  these  sort  of  advertise- 
ments in  local  papers,  would  the  minister 
look  into  this  matter  and  report  back  to  this 
House  as  to  what  steps  his  mmistry  is 
taking? 

Secondly,  I  don't  think  I  got  an  answer  as 
to  whether  or  not  these  ads  have  been  paid 
for  by  the  government  out  of  the  S30,00G 
to  which  the  minister  referred. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  the  hon.  member 
and  I  would  need  to  look  at  specific  adver- 
tisements to  decide  what  he  was  talking 
about.    Certainly   we   paid  for  no  advertise- 


MARCH  12,  1974 


165 


merits  otiher  than  the  ones  the  member  for 
Sudbury  has  just  shown  us. 

Mr.  Roy:  A  full-page  ad. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  As  I  understand,  there 
were  some  advertisements  placed  by  the 
Ontario  Dental  Association,  which  did  not 
name  specific  dentists  but,  in  the  main,  gave 
the  fact  that  low-cost  denture  service  was 
available,  and  I  believe  a  number  to  which  a 
person  could  call  for  information.  It  is  also 
my  understanding  that  these  advertisements 
were  paid  for  by  the  association  rather  than 
by  individual  dentists  in  that  group. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing. 


OHC  BUDGET 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough 
West  asked  yesterday:  In  the  light  of  the 
vigorous  housing  efforts  planned,  Why  have 
the  budget  estimates  of  OHC  dropped  by 
S20  million,  according  to  the  most  recent 
issue-Jan.  31,  1974,  table  5-of  Ontario 
finances?  They  are  down  from  $69  million  to 
$49  million. 

I'm  now  in  a  position  to  advise  the  hon. 
member  that  the  ministry  informed  the 
Treasurer,  for  his  quarterly  report,  that  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  year  we  were  going  to 
underspend  our  mortgage  requirements  by 
$20  million. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  reason  for  this 
is  that  in  the  previous  fiscal  year  OHC 
stopped  lending  money  on  high-rise  con- 
dominiums since  there  were  adequate  private 
funds  flowing  into  that  area  of  the  housing 
market  and  the  supply  of  such  housing  at 
that  time  was  sufficient.  This  decision  re- 
sulted in  lower  commitments  of  funds  and 
hence  lower  cash  flows  for  1973-1974.  It  has 
no  bearing  on  our  budget  for  1974-1975. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  Is  the  min- 
ister telling  the  House  then  that  there  wasn't 
sufficient  imagination  within  the  Ontario 
Housing  Corp.,  or  within  the  Ministry  of 
Housing,  to  find  an  alternative  use  for  the 
$20  million,  given  the  housing  crisis  in  On- 
tario? Are  they  that  bankrupt  as  a  depart- 
ment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
was   not   suggesting  that   at   all.    I    am   sug- 


gesting that  there  was  a  change  in  the  cash 
flow  and  the  mortgaging  requirements  of 
OHC. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh  nonsense. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  money  was  dormant;  like 
everything  else  in  housing. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  think  to  say  there  were  not 
sufficient  people  looking  for  mortgages- 
Mr.   Speaker:   Is  this   a  supplementary? 
Mr.  Deans:  I  did  say  that.  I'm  sorry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well  there  was  so  much 
noise  I  didn't  hear  the  hon.  member.  If  that 
was  a  supplementary  ITl  permit  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  the  minister  saying  that 
there  were  not  sufficient  numbers  of  people 
looking  for  mortgages  that  that  $20  million 
couldn't  have  been  utilized? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
not  a  function  of  OHC  to  supplement  the 
mortgage  market  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Of  course  it  is.  That  is  what 
the  money  was  there  for. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  hon.  members 
would  have  been  the  first  to  complain  if  we 
had  diverted  mortgage  money  from  one  area 
to  another  without  the  authority. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No  we  would  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Of  course  the\ 
would. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order:  We  would 
not  have  complained  had  the  minister  di- 
verted that  mortgage  money  from  condomin- 
iums into  low-  or  middle-income  housing, 
not  at  all. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  didn't  he? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kent. 

Mr.  Singer:  Terrible  bankniptcy  of  imag- 
ination. 


U.S.-CANADA  FREIGHT  SURCHARGE 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications.  Is  the  minis- 
ter aware  that  two  weeks  ago  the  United 
States   interstate    commerce    commission    im- 


166 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


posed  a  six  per  cent  surcharge  tax  on  freight, 
which  is  being  applied  the  entire  distance 
from  the  American  port  of  origin  to  the 
Canadian  destination,  whereas  a  surcharge 
should  only  apply  as  far  as  a  Canadian  point 
of  entr>? 

Mr.  Roy:  Good  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  It  is  an  excellent  question. 
Mr.  Speaker,  no,  I  was  not  aware  that  this 
was  so  and  I  would  appreciate  if  the 
hon.  member  can  make  the  information  avail- 
able to  me.  I  will  certainly  look  into  that 
situation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously. 


COMMUNICATIONS-6  INC. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  for  Downsview  asked  me  a  question 
last  week.  He  wanted  me  to  explain:  "the 
basis  on  which  payments  in  the  amount  of 
$59,578  were  made  to  a  firm  of  consultants 
and  writers  on  public  relations  to  manage 
the  information  and  public  relations  pro- 
gramme for  the  historical  parks  in  that 
year."  He  also  wanted  to  know  who  they 
were,  who  found  them  and  on  whose  au- 
thority   this    expenditure    was    made. 

He  asked  further,  by  way  of  supplementary: 
"Could  the  minister  shed  a  little  light  on 
who  Communications-6  Inc.  really  is?" 

My  reply  is  that  in  the  formation  of  the 
new  government  ministries  on  April  1,  1972, 
the  direction  of  the  Huronia  historical  parks 
of  the  former  Department  of  Tourism  and 
Information  was  assigned  to  the  new  Ministry 
of  Natural  Resources.  Prior  to  this  transfer, 
the  Department  of  Tourism  and  Information 
had  established  in  1968  a  committee  of 
senior  officials,  including  the  deputy  minister 
of  that  department,  to  select  a  firm  to  develop 
a  public  relations  and  publications  pro- 
gramme for  Huronia  historical  parks.  This 
committee  requested  several  public  relations 
firms  to  submit  formal  presentations,  and 
following  an  analysis  of  these  presentations 
the  firm  of  Communications-6  Inc.  was 
selected. 

On  the  basis  of  satisfactory  past  per- 
formance, the  details  of  the  annual  public 
relations  programme  were  established  each 
year  by  the  director  of  the  historical  sites 
branch    and    transmitted    to   the    consultants. 

A  similar  arrangement  was  negotiated  and 
confirmed  in  May,   1973,  for  the   1973-1974 


fiscal  year,  with  the  same  firm  based  on  their 
performance  in  1972.  On  the  basis  of  this 
arrangement  my  ministry  approved  the 
accounts  for  payment.  Subsequently,  in  ac- 
cordance with  normal  ministry  policy,  the 
director  of  our  historical  sites  branch,  whose 
duties  include  the  management  of  the 
Huronia  historical  parks,  was  informed  that 
in  future  proposals  must  be  invited  from 
several  public  relations  firms  and  Manage- 
ment Board  approval  obtained  for  the  award 
of  that  contract. 

In  this  connection  I  might  add,  and  also 
inform  the  members,  that  some  two  weeks 
ago  we  invited  proposals  from  16  firms  for 
the  forthcoming  season. 

The  firm  of  Communications-6  Inc.  has 
its  head  office  in  Montreal  with  a  major 
office  in  Toronto  and  affiliations  in  Ottawa, 
New  York,  London,  Paris  and  Brussels.  The 
president  is  Mr.  C.  R.  Ha  worth  and  we  were 
advised  by  Mr.  Ha  worth  that  the  firm  was 
incorporated    in    December,    1963. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Col- 
leges and  Universities  has  the  answer  to 
a  previous  question. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Has  he  been  here  before? 


REPORT  ON  CONESTAGA  COLLEGE 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
checked  my  files  and  I  have  the  answer  to 
a  question  which  the  hon.  member  asked  a 
moment  ago. 

I  understand  that  in  November  the  board 
of  governors  approached  my  predecessor  to 
ask  him  to  institute  a  study  of  all  aspects  of 
the  operation  of  the  college.  My  predecessor 
appointed  Dr.  Arthur  Porter  of  the  University 
of  Toronto.  He  submitted  his  report  on  Feb. 
10  and  the  college  board  is  dealing  vdth  it. 

Mr.  Good:  A  supplementary  then,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Since  the  minister  authorized  the 
investigation  into  the  administration  of  the 
college,  is  the  ministry  not  inserting  itself  into 
the  matter  any  further  in  view  of  the  dif- 
ference of  opinion,  in  the  published  report, 
between  the  faculty  and  the  administrative 
stafi^  at  the  college? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  under- 
standing is  that  the  minister  simply  appointed 
a  person  to  look  into  the  situation  at  the 
request  of  the  college  board  and  the  college 
board,  as  part  of  its  responsibility,  has  taken 
the  report  and  is  going  to  deal  with  it. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


167 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  believe  the  hon.  Minister 
of  Housing  has  the  answer  to  another  ques- 
tion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
the  answer  to  a  question  asked  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Wentvvorth  yesterday.  However,  the 
hon.  member  has  kindly  informed  me  that  he 
has  additional  information  which  I  suggested 
he  supply,  so  perhaps  I  could  defer  the 
answer  to  his  question  until  I've  received  that 
infonnation. 

Mr.  Royi  Good'  idea;  sit  down. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  believe  it  iS'  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party's  turn.  The  hon.  member  for 
S  and'wich-Riverside. 


PENSIONS  FOR  PERMANENTLY 
DISABLED  WORKMEN 

.   Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):   Mr. 
Speaker,  1.  have  a  question  of  the  Premier- 
Mr.    Martel:    If   the  member   can   get  his 
attention. 

Mr.  Burr:  —regarding  pensions  for  per- 
manently disabled  workmen.  Is  there  any 
other  pension,  federal  or  provincial,  that  has 
not  been  escalated,  within  let  us  say  the  last 
10  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  have 
to  get  that  information  for  the  hon.  member. 
I  don't  know,  but  I  shall  endeavour  to  find 
out. 

Mr.  Burr:  Supplementary  question,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Is  there  anything  about  injured 
workmen  that  makes  them  impervious  to  the 
effects  of  inflation,  and  did  the  remarks'  in 
the  Throne  Speech  indicate  that  some  hel'p 
was  on  its  way  to  these  people? 

Hon.:  Mr.\  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  answer 
the  first  part  of  the  question,  there  is  nothing 
that  I  know  of  that  makes  injured'  workmen 
or  any  dther  group  in  this  society  impervious 
to  the  effects  of  inflation. 

As  far  .  as ,  the  second  part  of  the  question 
is  concerned,  quite  obviously  matters  of  gov- 
ernment policy  will  be  announced  here  in  the 
House  at  the  appropriate  time. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh,  the  Premier  just  wags  his 
finger  at  Ottawa  all  the  time  and  says  what 
they  are  not  doing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  wouldn't  do  that. 

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


VETERANS'  LAND  ACT 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Housing. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  A  member 
of  cabinet. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  the  member  ask 
him  when  he  is  in^  cabinet  meetings? 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  member  dissatisfied  with 
him  too? 

Mr.  Kennedy:  In  view  of  the  housing  needs 
here  and  the  impending  closedowoi  of  the 
Veterans'  Land  Act  on  March  31,  I  was 
wondering  if  the  minister  would  communicate 
with  the  federal  Minister  of  Veterans'  Affairs 
to  determine  if  this  is  under  reconsideration 
and  if  indeed  a  continuation  is  warranted? 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  depends  on  the  federal 
Tories. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Very  good  question. 

Mr.  Singer:  Twenty  million  dollars  the 
government  didn't  use  would  have  financed 
a  lot  of  houses. 

Hon.    Mr.    Handleman:    Mr.    Speaker,    the 
provisions  of  the  Veterans'  Land  Act  have  in 
fact- 
Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  That  Act 
is  as  old  as  this  government. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Government 
Services):   Not  quite. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  It's  been  a  very  successful 
Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  It  has  been  a  very 
successful  Act. 

Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Ordter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
has  been  a  very  successful  programme  imder 
the  Veterans'  Land  Act. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
take  this  question  as  notice?  Take  it  as  notice. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  can't  reply  to  this  kind  of 
question  wdthout  advance  information.  He'd 
best  take  it  as  notice. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  don't  need  it.  I 
will  be  meeting  with  the  hon.  Mr.  Basford 
in  a  couple  of  weeks.  I  understand  it  is  due 
to  expire  within  that  period;  however,  I  will 


168 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


be  discussing  it  with  him.  I  think  it  is  a  sound 
suggestion,  if  that  interest  rate  can  be  main- 
tained imder  present-day  conditions. 

Mr.  Singer:  He  isn't  the  Minister  of 
Veterans*  Affairs. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Is  the  member  satisfied  with 
that  answer? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  were  about  five  mem- 
bers of  the  Liberal  Party,  and  I  am  certain  I 
don't  know  who  was  first. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  fellow  he  is  meeting 
has  nothing  to  do  with  veterans*  aflPairs.  Is 
the  member  satisfied  with  that? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  There  are  at 
least  four  members  before  the  hon.  member 
for  York  Centre  (Mr.  Deacon).  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Windsor- Walkerville,  I  think. 


SALES  TAX  ON  SPORTS  EQUIPMENT 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor- Walkerville): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Revenue,  if  I  can  get  his 
attention.  As  he  is  walking  back  to  his  seat, 
I  would  like  to  go  on  with  the  question— 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Me? 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  He  is  the  minister. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  he  is  the  fellow. 

Mr.  Good:  He's  not  quite  sure  yet. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  was  so  long  in  coming. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  In  the  interest  of  pro- 
moting fitness  and  encouraging  greater  par- 
ticipation in  amateur  sport,  is  the  minister 
considering  eliminating  the  sales  tax  on 
sports  equipment  that  is  purchased  by  organ- 
ized amateur  sports  organizations,  especially 
those  recognized  by  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  Ministry 
of  Revenue  administers  the  laws  as  estab- 
lished by  this  Legislature,  and  particularly 
as  recommended  by  the  Treasurer  and  Min- 
ister of  Economics  and  Intergovernmental 
Affairs.  I  don't  think  it  would  be  fair  to  say 
that  I  was  considering  that. 

I  suppose  it  is  fair  to  say  that  since  the 
Retail  Sales  Tax  Act  does  come  under  my 
ministry  we  have  occasion  to  review  matters 
such  as  this,  but  the  final  decision  is  not  one 
that  is  in  my  hands  alone. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.    Speaker:    A   supplementary?  Yes. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  May  I  ask  the  minister 
if  he  is  considering  issuing  exemption  certifi- 
cates to  amateur  sports  organizations  in  the 
same  way  that  exemption  certificates  are 
issued  to  school  boards  so  they  may  purchase 
athletic  equipment  and  not  pay  the  sales 
tax? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  a 
matter  I  have  been  looking  at,  but  it  off^ers 
a  considerable  number  of  problems  and  I  am 
not  at  this  time  prepared  to  say  I  would 
issue  such  a  certificate. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  under  review,  as  the 
front  bench  says.  Everything  is  under  review. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 


RECONSTRUCTION  OF  HIGHWAY  401 
NEAR  WINDSOR 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  A  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  the  minister. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  where  is  the 
schedule  for  reconstruction  of  the  right-hand 
lane  of  Highway  401  proceeding  westward 
to  Windsor,  from  about  10  to  15  miles  out, 
which  for  the  last  five  to  seven  years  has 
been  reminiscent  of  the  old  corduroy  roads 
in  northern  Ontario?  It  was  supposed  to  be 
started  and  completed  this  spring  and  sum- 
mer- 
Mr.  Foulds:  There  are  new  corduroy  roads 
in  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  forgot  all  about  those 
roads.  Some  of  his  best  speeches  in  the 
House  have  been  about  roads. 

Mr.  Stokes:  What  about  the  new  corduro\- 
roads  in  northern  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  very  much  to  answer  the  hon.  member's 
question  if  I  could  have  heard  him  behind 
the  noise  made  by  his  colleagues.  I  think  he 
referred  to  Highway  401,  but  if  they  would 


MARCH  12,  1974 


169 


quieten   down  for  him  I  would  be  pleased 
to  hear  it  again. 

Mr.  Martel:  No  one  said  a  word. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It  is  about  a  portion  of  10 
to  15  miles  out  of  Windsor,  heading  west, 
the  right  hand  lane,  which  has  been  remi- 
niscent of  the  northern  corduroy  roads  for 
the  last  five  to  seven  years. 

Mr.  Ruston:  All  the  rates  are  up. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  When  will  the  construction 
start,  and  will  it  be  commenced  and  finished 
this  summer? 

Mr.  Ruston:  The  contract's  been  let. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  can't  give  the  member 
a  direct  answer  at  this  time.  I  will  be  pleased 
to  provide  the  information  as  to  when  it  can 
be  done. 

Mr.  Roy:  Try  an  indirect  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  appreciate  that  the 
member  recognizes  that  there  is  a  need  for 
highways  in  the  north,  though. 

Mr.  Ruston:  The  roads  will  be  completed 
by  September. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  minister  should  have  told 
the  northwestern  Ontario  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  thought  the  hon.  member 
for  St.  George  had  a  question? 


.ASSESSMENT  NOTICES 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  to  the  Minister  of  Revenue. 

Would  he  clarify  for  this  House  the  policy 
which  appears  to  have  been  arrived  at  where- 
by no  assessment  notices  are  to  be  extended 
this  year  to  the  people  of  Ontario,  save  and 
except  for  new  construction  and  special  cir- 
cumstances, thus  denying  a  large  proportion 
of  people  the  right  of  appeal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Mean:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
information  on  that  at  the  moment.  I  will 
get  it  for  the  hon.  member. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  wonder  if  the  minister  would  also 
look  into  the  situation  in  the  matter  of  a 
condominium  project  in  the  riding  of  St. 
George,  namely  40  Homewood,  where  there 
has  been  an  appeal  successfully  made  by 
those  who  did  take  title  in  the  fall  of  1972, 
but   no   further   appeal   has   been   heard,   al- 


though it  has  been  launched  by  the  com- 
missioner as  of  June,  1973;  meanwhile  those 
who  were  not  included  in  that  appeal  are 
faced  with  an  old  assessment  and  no  right 
to  appeal  at  this  time? 

Hon.    Mr.    Meen:    I    will    look    into    that 
matter,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


HICKLING-JOHNSTON  REPORT  ON 
MINISTRY  OF  HEALTH 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  A  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health,  Mr,  Speaker:  Is 
the  minister  willing  to  make  public  the 
report  prepared  for  and  about  his  department 
by  the  firm  of  Hickling-Johnston? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  must  say  that  question 
from  the  member  came  as  something  of  a 
surprise. 

Mr.  Ruston:  One  a  day! 

Mr.  Germa:  Just  answer. 

Mr.  Ruston:  An  apple  a  day  keeps  the 
doctor  away;  the  minister  should  try  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  If  it  would  cut  my  OHIP 
premiums,  I  would  do  that.  I  really  would 
have  to  learn  more  about  that  report  because 
quite  honestly  at  this  point  I  don't  know 
much  about  the  contents  of  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  supplementary,  if  I  may, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Will  the  minister  familiarize 
himsfelf  with  What  is  occurring  in  the  ministry 
and  report  back  to  us  on  whether  he  is 
willing  to  make  that  report  public  or  table  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  may  have  misinterpreted 
the  member's  question.  Does  he  mean  would 
I  familiarize  myself  with  what  is  happening 
in  the  ministry  or  with  what  the  report  says 
is  happening  within  the  ministry? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Why  not  both? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  would  be  pleased  to 
do  so.  I  am  doing  my  best  to  do  the  former 
and  I  will  be  pleased  Ic  do  the  latter. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener  is  next. 


EXPENDITURE  BY  CHAIRMAN 
OF  ONTARIO  COUNCIL  OF  REGENTS 

Mr.    Breithaupt:    Mr.    Speaker,    I    have    a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Uni- 


170 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


versities.  Has  the  minister  ordered  a  review 
of  the  apparent  expenditure  by  the  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Council  of  Regents  for  the 
colleges  of  applied  arts  and  technology,  and 
his  expenditures  for  a  hospitality  suite  during 
the  meetings  of  the  regents  as  referred  to  in 
the  auditor's  report?  Will  the  minister  pro- 
vide us  with  the  details  of  the  expenses  of 
that  operation  and  the  persons  who  received 
the  hospitality? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  made 
inquiries  about  this.  I  am  informed  that  the 
chairman  of  the  Council  of  Regents  lives  in 
Markham.  When  the  council  has  its  bi- 
monthly meetings  they  last  for  about  two 
days.  He  has  premises  in  the  hotel  where 
the  meeting  takes  place,  not  primarily  for  his 
own  convenience  but  for  meetings  with  mem- 
bers of  the  board— individual  meetings  and 
that  sort  of  thing  rather  than  the  general 
meeting.  I  am  informed  that,  in  fact,  it  is 
probably  less  costly  to  have  him  staying  in  the 
hotel  than  it  is  to  have  him  going  back  and 
forth  to  Markham  by  taxi.  I  can  get  the 
detailed  rundown  if  the  hon.  member  would 
like  it. 

Mr.  Mattel :  Let  him  try  using  a  car  like 
the  rest  of  us. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  I  haven't  read  the  detailed 
part  in  the  auditor's  report  myself  but  I 
assume  that  the  details  are  there.  If  they 
aren't,  I'll  get  further  information  for  him. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lake- 
shore. 


AGE  OF  CONSENT  FOR  ABORTIONS 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Thank  ^X)u  very  much,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Health. 

Interjec^ons  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  What  are  the  minister's 
reasons,  metaphysical,  biological  or  otherwise, 
for  reducing  the  age  at  Which  abortions  may 
be  obtained  without  parental  consent  to 
16? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  member 
has  misinterpreted  the  regulation  in  the  same 
way  as  the  press  has. 

Mr.  Roy:  Straighten  us  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  The  Province  of  Ontario 
by  itself  does  not  set  the  conditions  under 
which  an  abortion  may  be  performed.  This 
is    done   by   federal   statute.    The   change   in 


regulations  which  was  made  by  the  Pro\  ince 
of  Ontario,  and  given  some  press  publicity 
last  week,  dealt  with  the  age  at  which  consent 
could  be  given  for  any  surgical  operation 
performed  within  a  hospital,  and  of  course 
abortion  is  a  surgical  operation. 

It  was  not  aimed  at  abortions  per  se.  It 
was  to  cover  a  group  of  people  who,  for  one 
reason  or  other,  either  had  not  official  guard- 
ians or  parents  who  could  sign  for  them  or 
who,  unfortunately  in  this  mobile  modern 
society,  did  not  relate  to  their  parents  and  so 
were  not  in  contact  with  them.  A  number  of 
these  people  were  coming  into  hospitals  in 
need  of  all  kinds  of  surgical  procedures  and 
legally  there  was  no  way  of  prpxiding  them. 
Some  of  them  were  falsifying  names  and 
ages  and  leaving  the  hospitals  in  \er\-  delicate 
legal  conditions  if  they  served  thiem. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Supplementary:  Would  the 
hon.  minister  consider  excluding  this  par- 
ticular category  of  surgical  operation  from 
the  regulations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  certainly  \\i\\  listen  to 
any  suggestions  that  are  given  at  this  point 
in  time,  I  wouldn't  want  to  say  that  we 
could  necessarily  start  making  exclusions 
of  one  type  or  another,  because  I  tliink— 

Mr.  Reid:  Abortion  is  not  one  type  or 
another. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  —exclusions  can  be  very 
dangerous. 

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

Mr.  Roy:  I  defer  to  my  friend,  Mr.  Speaker, 
thank  you. 

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


POINT  PELEE  NATIONAL  PARK 

Mr.  D.  A.  Paterson  (Essex  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources.  Has  he  or  his  policy 
group  made  a  decision  as  yet  as  to  whether 
the  1974  licences  for  sand-sucking  operations 
off  Pt.  Pelee  National  Park  are  going  to  be 
issued  or  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  report  to  the  hon.  member  that 
that    decision    has    been    reached. 

Mr.  Paterson:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  minister  says  the  decision  has  been 
reached? 


MARCH  12,  1974 


171 


Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  It  has  been  reached. 

Mr.  Paterson:  And  what  is  that  decision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  That  decision?  The  de- 
cision was  that  the  two  licences  would  not 
be  reissued. 


USE  OF  RESOURCES  IN 
ARMSTRONG  AREA 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources.  In  view  of 
the  social  and  economic  problems  experienced 
by  the  people  of  Armstrong,  and  in  light  of 
the  fact  there  are  several  hundred  thousand 
cords  of  good  merchantable  timber  in  the 
area,  will  the  minister  undertake  to  insist 
that  the  prime  licence-holder  utilize  that 
timber  for  a  saw-log  operation  for  the  benefit 
of  the  people  in  the  community  of  Arm- 
strong, or  turn  those  timber  stands  over  to 
somebody  else  who  is  prepared  to  use  them 
to  look  after  the  social  and  economic  needs 
of  that  town? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  I  can  relate  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Thunder  Bay  that  this  govern- 
ment is  very  concerned  with  the  future  and 
the  people  of  the  Armstrong  area  because  of 
certain  actions  of  the  federal  government. 

With  regard  to  the  resources  in  that  par- 
ticular area,  I  would  point  out  to  him 
that  they  have  been  allocated  to  the  St. 
Lawrence  Corp.  for  processing  in  the  Red 
Rock  area.  I  have  been  in  verbal  discussion 
with  the  company.  They  are  to  present  to 
me  a  proposal  which  will  fully  utilize  all 
those  resources.  But  they  did  point  out  to 
me  in  their  discussion  that  if  there  were 
going  to  be  a  continuous  operation  at  Red 
Rock  and  if  the  viability  of  that  particular 
mill  were  to  be  maintained,  it  may  well  be 
that  the  resources  in  the  Armstrong  area 
would  have  to  be  directed  to  the  Red  Rock 
mill.  That  was  only  in  a  verbal  discussion 
and  we  are  waiting  for  something  from 
them  in  a  more  formal  way  at  the  present 
time. 

Of  course,  we  have  in  our  hand  a  pro- 
posal from  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of 
Buchanan,  I  believe,  who  is  most  interested 
in  establishing  an  operation  in  the  Arm- 
strong area;  and  we  are  certainly  considering 
that  aspect  too. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  have  already  exceeded 
the  question  period  by  about  three  minutes. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  present  to  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  a  copy  of  a  report  of  the  ad- 
visory committee  on  the  revision  of  the 
Mining  Act. 

The  members  will  recall  that  this  com- 
mittee was  established  approximately  two 
years  ago  under  the  chairmanship  of  the 
present  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications, my  former  parliamentary  assist- 
ant, the  hon.  member  for  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
(Mr.  Rhodes). 

In  the  course  of  carrying  out  its  responsi- 
bilities, the  committee  examined  comparable 
legislation  and  situations  in  several  other 
jurisdictions.  Their  aim  was  to  ensure  that 
Ontario  continued  to  be  the  leader  in  respect 
to  mining  legislation. 

I  am  indeed  grateful  to  the  members  of  the 
committee  for  the  very  thorough  study  that 
they  have  carried  out.  I  have  had  a  brief 
opportunity  to  peruse  the  report  and  more 
particularly  the  recommendations.  In  my  own 
opinion,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  merit  in 
many  of  the  recommendations.  I  feel  sure 
there  will  be  revisions  to  our  legislation 
which  will  result  from  the  discussions  that 
will  flow  from  the  study  of  this  report. 

At  the  same  time,  I  want  to  make  clear 
that  the  government  has  rejected  recommen- 
dation No.  51  which  proposes  mining  in 
provincial  parks. 

Consistent  with  tabling  this  report  in  the 
Legislature,  it  is  my  intention  to  make  copies 
available  to  the  executive  of  such  organiza- 
tions as  the  prospectors  and  developers,  the 
Ontario  Mining  Association  and  the  Canadian 
Institute  of  Mining  and  Metallurgy.  The 
views  of  these  organizations,  along  with  the 
recommendations  of  individuals,  other  organi- 
zations, as  well  as  the  views  and  comments 
of  the  individual  members  of  this  House,  will 
be  of  great  benefit  to  me  and  my  staff. 

It  is  proposed  that  all  such  views  and 
recommendations  be  submitted  prior  to  the 
end  of  June.  This  will  allow  the  summer  and 
the  early  fall  to  distill  the  recommendations 
in  the  report  and  the  reactions  to  the  recom- 
mendations through  the  course  of  the  sum- 
mer, in  the  interest  of  developing  the  appro- 
priate revisions  to  the  legislation  for  the  fall 
sitting  of  this  Legislature. 

Once  more,  I  would  like  to  express  my 
appreciation  to  my  colleague  who  chaired  the 
committee— he  did  an  excellent  job— and  to 
the  individual  members  of  the  committee, 
and  to  all  those  who  have  or  will  have  or 
will  be  assisting  us  in  any  way  in  the  devel- 
opment of  this  legislation. 


172 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Carruthers  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  ArFAms:  Messrs.  Bales, 
Bounsall,  Burr,  Carton,  I>ymond,  Edighoffer, 
Ewen,  Henderson,  Hodgson  (Victoria-Hali- 
burton),  Johnston,  McNie,  Morrow,  Smith 
(Hamilton  Mountain),  Smith  (Nipissing), 
Spence,  Timbrell,  Turner— 17. 

2.  Administration  of  Justice:  Messrs. 
Bullbrook,  Carruthers,  Davison,  Downer, 
Drea,  Givens,  Havrot,  Lane,  Lawlor,  Law- 
rence, MacBeth,  Nixon  (Dovercourt),  Ren- 
wick,  Ruston,  Singer,  Taylor,  Walker, 
Wardle,  Yaremko— 19. 

3.  Social  Development:  Messrs.  Apps, 
Belanger,  Campbell  (Mrs.),  Deacon,  Dukszta, 
Eaton,  Foulds,  Hamilton,  Irvine,  Jessiman, 
Leluk,  Martel,  Momingstar,  Newman  (Wind- 
sor-Walkerville),  Parrott,  Reilly,  Roy,  Scriv- 
ener (Mrs.),  Villeneuve— 19. 

4.  Resources  Development:  Messrs.  Allan, 
Beckett,  Evans,  Gaunt,  Gilbertson,  Good, 
Laughren,  MacDonald,  Maeck,  Mcllveen, 
McNeil,  Nuttall,  Paterson,  Rollins,  Root, 
Sargent,  Stokes,  Wiseman,  Yakabuski— 19. 

5.  Miscellaneous  Estimates:  Messrs. 
Cassidy,  Drea,  Evans,  Gisbom,  Haggerty, 
Hamilton,  Jessiman,  Leluk,  Nixon  (Dover- 
court),  Nuttall,  Parrott,  Riddell,  Root,  Scriv- 
ener (Mrs.),  Stokes,  Villeneuve,  Wardle,  Wor- 
ton-18. 

6.  Public  Accounts:  Messrs.  AUan,  Dy- 
mond,  Ferrier,  Germa,  Lane,  MacBeth,  Mc- 
llveen, Reid,  Ruston,  Taylor,  Wiseman, 
Yakabuski-12. 

7.  Regulations:  Messrs.  Belanger,  Braith- 
waite.  Deans,  Havrot,  Johnston,  Maeck, 
Momingstar,  Morrow,  Paterson,  Reilly,  Tur- 
ner, Young— 12. 

The  quorum  of  committees  1  to  5  and  of 
the  private  bills  committee  to  be  seven  in 
each  case.  The  quorum  of  committees  6  and 
7  to  be  five  in  each  case. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  request  of  the  government  that  they 
consider  permitting  substitution  of  individu- 
als to  all  committees  prior  to  the  sitting  of 
the  committee.  The  estimates  committee  now 
makes  provision  so  that  before  the  estimates 
are  being  discussed- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  I  must  point 
out  to  the  hon.  member  that  the  matter  of 


substitutions  was  dealt  with  previously.  The 
motion  today  does  not  deal  with  substitutions 
on  these  particular  committees.  That  motion 
has  been  before  the  House  previously. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  But  the  opposition  was  ig- 
nored. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may,  sir, 
the  matter  of  substitutions  was  a  matter  of 
discussion  within  the  committee  this  morning, 
and  a  decision  was  reached  in  the  committee 
that  the  chairman  would  make  representation 
to  the  House  leader  of  the  government  party 
to  allow  limited  substitution  on  all  commit- 
tees. I  think  that's  probably  what  the  hon. 
member  for  Windsor-Walkerville  was  talk- 
ing about.  If  not  contained  in  the  report  of 
the  committee,  it  was  certainly  a  decision 
of  the  committee  that  the  chairman  would 
speak  with  the  House  leader  of  the  govern- 
ment and  ask  on  behalf  of  the  committee  that 
some  limited  substitution  be  pennitted. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  following 
the  discussion  in  the  House  the  other  day,  I 
think  I  intimated  to  the  hon.  members  that  I 
certainly  had  an  open  mind  on  the  matter. 
When  the  chairman  approaches  me  we  will 
discuss  the  matter  and  I  will  report  back  to 
the  House. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Is  it  just  a  matter  for  dis- 
cussion? 

Report  adopted. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


YORK  COUNTY  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 
TEACHERS'  DISPUTE  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  respecting  a  Certain  Dispute 
between  the  York  County  Board  of  Educa- 
tion and  Certain  of  its  Teachers. 

Some  hon.  members:  No! 

Some  hon.  members:  Explain! 

Mr.  Lewis:  No.  Surely  we  can  have  an  ex- 
planation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  will  defer  the— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order.  The  minister  was  not  in  for  the  order 
of  business  entitled  government  ministerial 
statements.  Certainly  it  would  be  quite  in 
order  to  revert,  surely,  if  the  minister  would 
have  a  statement  to  make  before  we  are 
asked  to  vote  on  the  bill. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


173 


Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  House  is  agreeable 
I  see  no  reason  we  shouM  not  revert  and  that 
the  minister  should  make  a  statement  at  this 
point. 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to  introduce  legislation 
today  to  bring  to  an  end  the  long  dispute  and 
disruption  of  educational  programmes  in  the 
secondary  schools  of  the  York  county  Board 
of  Education. 

Negotiations  relating  to  the  1973-1974  con- 
tract began  with  York  county  board  and  its 
secondary  school  teachers  in  April,  1973, 
which  is  more  than  10  months  ago.  Free  col- 
lective bargaining  has  proceeded  through  this 
extended  period,  assisted  in  the  latter  stages 
by  the  services  of  a  mediator  from  the  Minis- 
try of  Labour.  The  past  5%  weeks  have  been 
marked  by  a  withdrawal  of  services  by  a 
majority  of  York  county  secondary  school 
teachers.  Unfortunately,  because  of  this  situ- 
ation, the  secondary  school  students  of  York 
county  have  been  severely  disadvantaged  due 
to  their  lack  of  access  to  a  full  educational 
programme. 

Mr.  Speaker,  members  will  recall  that  about 
667  York  county  secondary  school  teachers 
took  part  in  a  mass  resignation  last  Novem- 
ber. These  resignations  were  to  have  taken 
effect  on  Dec.  31  but  as  part  of  an  arrange- 
ment that  affected  teachers  in  several  areas 
of  the  province,  it  was  agreed  to  defer  them 
until  Jan.  31,  1974,  in  order  to  allow  fur- 
ther bargaining  to  continue. 

Bargaining,  supported  by  mediation,  did  in- 
deed continue,  but  as  the  Jan.  31  deadline  ap- 
proached it  became  apparent  that  a  settlement 
was  not  going  to  be  achieved  at  that  time. 
Mr.  Terry  Mancini,  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
mediator  who  had  been  working  with  the 
York  county  board  and  its  teachers  since 
early  January,  wrote  a  report  and  recom- 
mendation on  the  situation  on  Jan.  30.  In  it 
he  said,  and  I  quote: 

The  writer  feels  that  a  settlement  could 
have  been  achieved  if  the  matter  of  pupil - 
teacher  ratio  issue  could  be  resolved.  How- 
ever, both  parties  remain  adamant  and  re- 
fuse to  settle  this  issue.  It  is  my  opinion 
that  a  closing  of  the  schools  by  either  party 
is  not  in  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned 
and  strongly  recommend  that  the  parties 
submit  this  dispute  to  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion. 

As  Minister  of  Education  I  put  the  proposal 
for  voluntary  arbitration  to  both  parties  at 
that  time  and  strongly  recommended  that  this 
course   be   followed   in   order   to   keep   York 


county  secondary  schools  open  and  operating 
normally.  Unfortunately,  the  parties  could  not 
agree  on  the  terms  of  arbitration  and  the  re- 
sult was  that  the  667  teachers  withdrew  their 
services. 

Mr.  Speaker,  with  settlements  having  been 
achieved  in  all  other  parts  of  the  province 
where  mass  resignations  had  been  submitted, 
it  seemed  clear  to  me  that  the  best  solution 
to  the  York  county  situation  was  to  encourage 
both  parties  to  negotiate  their  way  out  of  the 
dispute  and  to  reach  an  agreement  between 
themselves  with  the  participation  of  Mr. 
Mancini,  who  continued  to  provide  skilled  as- 
sistance in  keeping  negotiations  moving  for- 
ward. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  personally  spent  many  hours 
dealing  with  both  parties  in  a  concerted  effort 
to  achieve  a  negotiated  setdement.  However, 
five  more  weeks  passed  without  significant 
progress,  with  the  schools  in  the  meantime 
able  to  provide  only  minimal  progress  at  best 
to  their  students. 

Last  Friday,  negotiations  between  the 
board  and  the  teachers  cleariy  reached  a  state 
of  impasse,  with  neither  party  willing  to 
adjust  its  position  in  a  way  that  would  lead 
to  further  meaningful  discussions.  Therefore, 
Mr.  Speaker,  late  Friday  evening  I  again 
presented  privately  to  the  negotiating  teams 
of  both  the  teachers  and  the  board  a  proposal 
that  they  proceed  voluntarily  to  refer  the 
items  remaining  in  dispute  to  a  board  of 
arbitration. 

Later  that  evening  the  chief  negotiator  of 
the  board,  Mr.  Honsberger,  indicated  the 
board's  willingness  to  accept  my  proposal  and 
he  signed  a  document  to  affirm  this.  The 
teachers'  negotiating  team  advised  me  on 
Saturday  that  it  was  unwilling  to  accept  the 
proposal  for  voluntary  arbitration. 

At  this  11th  hour,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  volun- 
tary arbitration  obviously  the  most  favourable 
option  open  to  both  parties,  I  called  a  further 
meeting  of  teacher  and  board  representatives 
on  Sunday  morning.  At  this  time  I  formally 
presented  my  proposal  for  voluntary'  arbitra- 
tion, the  proposal  which  I  tabled  in  this 
House  yesterday.  Once  again,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  chief  negotiator  for  the  board  signed  to 
affirm  his  aceptance  and  the  teachers'  negoti- 
ating team  refused.  I  asked  the  teachers  to 
take  another  day  to  consider  the  proposal 
further,  but  last  night  they  remained  un- 
changed in  their  position. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  all  good  conscience  this 
government  cannot  allow  this  situation  to 
continue,  primarily  because  of  the  fact  that 


174 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


students  are  caught  in  the  middle  of  a  situ- 
ation over  which  they  have  no  control  and  it 
is  they  who  are  suffering  the  consequences 
most  severely.  We  have  absolutely  no  alterna- 
tive but  to  bring  this  stalemate  to  a  con- 
clusion. 

This  we  are  doing  today  with  the  intro- 
duction of  legislation  designed  to  settle  all 
matters  remaining  in  dispute  between  the 
board  and  its  secondary  school  teachers.  In 
considering  this  legislation  and  the  solution 
it  proposes,  responsible  persons  would  do 
well  to  remember  very  clearly  the  effects  of 
these  past  5%  weeks  on  the  secondary  stu- 
dents of  York  county.  They  have  been,  de- 
prived of  about  10  per  cent  of  their  school 
year.  Some  York  county  students  may  miss 
out  on  scholarships  because  of  the  dispute, 
and  others  may  find  their  post-secondary 
education  plans  changed  also  because  of  it. 
Some  students  are  reported  to  have  dropped 
out  of  school. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  objective  of  the  legisla- 
tion is  simply  to  return  York  county  second- 
ary schools  to  normal  operation  again.  Being 
realistic,  I  imagine  that  it  will  be  variously 
interpreted  as  being  anti-teac'her  or  anti- 
board.  It  is  neither.  It  is  pro-student.  Students 
and  their  parents  have  the  right  to  an  educa- 
tion, and  they  have  been  deprived  of  that 
right  for  too  long. 

The  legislation  which  we  hope  will  correct 
the  situation  has  two  main  features.  It  caMs 
for  teachers  to  return  to  school  immediately 
and  for  the  board  of  education  to  resume 
their  employment.  It  requires  that  all  items 
remaining  in  dispute  be  referred  to  a  three- 
person  board  of  arbitration  for  settlement. 
Each  party  will  select  one  member  of  the 
board  of  arbitration,  and  these  two  persons 
will  jointly  select  a  third  person  to  act  as 
chairman.  If  they  carmot  agree,  I,  as  Minister 
of  Education,  will  appoint  an  independent 
and  objective  person  as  chairman. 

Procedures  laid  down  for  the  board  of 
arbitration  will  ensure  fairness  in  judging  the 
merits  of  the  arguments  put  forward  by  both 
the  teachers  and  the  board  of  education. 

Both  parties  will  be  called  upon  to  write 
up  their  ovm  hsts  of  items  they  consider  to 
be  in  dispute,  and  the  board  of  arbitration 
will  be  required  to  look  at  all  items  on  both 
lists  and  give  each  party  ample  opportunity 
to  state  its  case  on  each  item. 

These  aspects  of  the  terms  of  reference  of 
the  board  of  arbitration  deserve  special  men- 
tion. First,  the  board  must  consider  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  as  an  arbitrable  item.  Second, 
the   board  of   education's   latest   salary   offer 


must  be  considered  as  a  floor  by  the  board  of 
arbitration;  and  in  fact  it  is  implemented  by 
this  legislation,  effective  September,  1973. 

As  I  have  said,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  con- 
vinced that  this  legislation  is  on  bdance 
equally  fair  to  both  the  York  county  Board 
of  Education  and  its  secondary  school  teach- 
ers. We  are  proceeding  today  because  we 
feel  that  such  legislation  is  in  the  public 
interest,  and  particularly  the  interests  of  the 
students  of  York  county. 

Further,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my  sincere  hope 
that  both  parties  in  York  county  wiU  make 
one  final  effort  to  reach  an  agreement  through 
further  negotiations.  I  stand  ready  to  wi^- 
draw  this  bill  at  a  moment's  notice  if  an 
agreement  were  reached  and  ratified  by  both 
parties,  and  communicated  to  me  while  we 
are  debating  this  bill  in  this  Legislature.  But 
I  would  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  cannot  in  good 
faith  wait  any  longer. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  will  you 
permit  a  question  of  clarification?  Is  the  min- 
ister in  his  statement  making  it  clear  to  the 
arbitrator  that  the  pupil-teadher  ratio  is  itself 
arbitrable,  and  not  whether  or  not  it  should 
be  an  arbitrable  item;  if  the  minister  gets  the 
significance  of  that? 

Mr.  Lewis:   Yes,  he  is  saying  that. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  In  other  words,  govern- 
ment poHcy  is  being  imposed  in  that  regard 
and  it  reverses  the  trustees'  position. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  the 
intention  of  the  government  in  this  bill.  The 
section  says  pupil-teacher  ratio  is  arbitrable 
and  shall  be  deemed  to  be  included  as  a 
matter  in  dispute;  and  the  notice  is  referred 
to  in  section  1. 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  also  ask  a  point  of 
clarification?  Are  there  any  penalty  provisions 
in  the  bill,  as  the  minister  has  laid  it  out, 
if  teachers  do  not  return;  or  is  there  a  refer- 
ence to  the  acceptance  of  resignations  if  they 
do  not  return? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  section  says  where, 
on  the  application  of  the  board  or  a  teacher, 
a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  satisfied 
that  the  board  or  any  teachers  failed  to  com- 
ply with  section  2,  he  may  make  an  order 
requiring,  as  the  case  may  be,  the  board  to 
employ  the  teacher  who  has  attempted  to 
comply  with  section  2  or  the  teacher  who 
has  failed  to  comply  with  section  2  to  resume 
his  employment  with  the  board,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  contract  of  employment  in 
effect  on  Jan.  30,  1974. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


175 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  With  your  permission, 
Mr.  Speaker,  will  the  minister  make  it  clear 
whether  or  not  his  ceilings  apply  to  the 
arbitrators  in  this  particular  piece  of  legis- 
lation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is 
nothing  in  this  legislation  that  refers  to  ceil- 
ings. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Ceilings  are  not  the  problem 
anyway. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  It  is  exactly  as  the  sug- 
gestion made  for  voluntary  arbitration  that 
we  talked  about  here  last  December.  The 
arbitrator  will  consider  the  issues  in  dispute 
on  their  merits  and  bring  down  an  award. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  motion  for  first 
reading  of  this  bill  carry? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Those  in  favour  of  first  read- 
ing   of    the    bill    will    please    say    "aye". 
Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 
In  my  opinion  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the 
bill. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Any  further  bills? 

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 
Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the 
opening  of  this  session. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Beaches-Woodbine  has  the  floor. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  T.  A.  Wardle  (Beaches-Woodbine): 
Mr.  Speaker,  my  first  remarks  in  this  debate 
on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  are  a  tribute 
to  you  as  the  Speaker  of  this  Legislature. 
The  ofiice  of  the  Speaker  is  one  of  honour, 
dignity,  tradition  and  of  the  greatest  impor- 
tance in  the  conduct  of  our  parliamentary 
system  of  government.  You  have  carried  with 
distinction,  good  humour  and  fairness  this 
heavy  responsibility,  and  you  are  held  in 
high  regard,  I  am  sure,  by  all  members  of 
this  House. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  a  number  of  im- 
portant matters   raised   in   the   Speech  from 


the  Throne  and  hopefully  each  will  be  dealt 
with  during  the  present  session.  However, 
before  speaking  on  some  of  these  matters  I 
should  like  to  make  a  few  comments  on 
previous  suggestions  I  have  made  in  the 
Throne  Speech  debate  during  the  last  session 
and  also  in  the  budget  debate  at  that  time. 

One  of  the  suggestions  that  I  made  in  the 
Throne  Speech  debate  a  year  ago  was  the 
necessity  of  stopping  immediately  the  sale 
of  recreational  land  in  Ontario  to  people  who 
are  not  Canadian  citizens.  We  know  that 
already  large  amounts  of  recreational  land  in 
Ontario  have  been  bought  up  by  Americans 
and  people  from  overseas.  This  has  had  the 
effect  of  forcing  up  prices  send,  I  am 
sure,  putting  out  of  reach  of  the  average 
Canadian  the  purchase  of  land  in  these  recrea- 
tional areas.  This  would  mean  of  course  that 
the  title  to  recreational  lands  now  held  by 
Americans  and  others  would  still  be  valid 
but  future  sales  of  new  land  or  lands  already 
held  would  be  permitted  only  to  Canadian 
citizens. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  budget  debate  in  the 
last  session  I  spoke  of  the  need  for  assist- 
ance to  small  business.  It  seems  to  me  that 
more  and  more  the  business  of  this  province 
is  going  into  the  hands  of  big  business 
enterprises.  This  trend  is  alarming  indeed 
for  the  small  merchant  and  the  small  busi- 
nessman of  this  province.  These  people  are 
faced  with  increased  taxes,  increased  rent 
on  their  premises,  increased  wages,  increased 
costs  of  raw  materials  and  general  increases  in 
the  cost  of  doing  business.  They  often  lack 
the  cash  resources  required  today. 

Income  and  corporation  taxes  take  a  large 
slice  of  any  profits  they  may  realize,  which 
certainly  does  not  leave  enough  money  for 
expansion.  It  seems  many  of  them  are  merely 
holding  their  own  and  many  are  fighting  a 
losing  battle  against  the  large  shopping  plazas 
which  surround  suburban  areas  of  many  of 
the  cities  and  towns  in  Ontario. 

There  are  several  ways  that  the  govern- 
ment could  help  these  people:  first,  by  re- 
lieving them  of  some  of  the  tax  burden; 
second,  by  providing  low-cost  loans  for  re- 
habilitation of  stores  and  business  premises; 
third,  by  granting  them  remuneration  for 
the  cost  of  collecting  provincial  sales  taxes, 
and  fourth,  by  offering  expert  advice  when 
required. 

I  suggested  before,  and  I  suggest  again, 
that  the  government  should  set  up  what  I 
would  call  an  advisory  council  of  independ- 
ent businessmen  who  would  act  as  a  haison 
between  government  and  small  business. 


176 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  and  fellow  members,  I  in- 
tend in  this  debate  to  present  the  record 
of  the  government  and  to  state  the  ad- 
vantages and  benefits  which  are  contained 
in  the  number  of  challenging  proposals,  pro- 
grammes and  policies  of  the  Throne  Speech. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  That 
\\'ould   try   even   the   member's    imagination. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  He 
shouldn't  embarrass  himself. 

Mr.  Wardle:  I  want  to  speak  at  some 
length  about  the  imaginative  and  innovative 
proposals  contained  in  the  Throne  Speech 
related  to  housing,  consumer  protection, 
correctional  services- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Oh,  come  on,  we  don't 
believe  it. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —programmes  for  small 
businesses,  and  new  developments  for  day- 
care centres. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  must  have  been  in  some 
other  chamber  the  day  of  the  speech. 

Mr.  Wardle:  But  before  I  proceed  to 
launch  into  specifics  of  these  public  policy 
issues,  there  is  an  urgent  need  to  consider, 
on  a  broader  perspective  and  a  wider  scale, 
the  purposes  and  goals  of  these  programmes 
and  policies  contained  in  the  Throne  Speech. 

What  underlies  the  proposals  and  policies 
of  the  Throne  Speech?  It  is  a  philosophy  of 
concern  for  the  individual  citizen  in  Ontario. 
The  government  believes  that  policies  must 
always  be  designed  to  assist  and  encourage 
the  individual  to  function  effectively  and 
creatively  in  a  free  society;  to  develop  the 
skills  necessary  for  him  or  her  to  reach 
his  or  her  full  potential;  to  encourage  a 
climate  of  individual  initiative  and  in- 
dependence free  of  increasing  regulation  and 
regimentation  from  a  variety  of  social  and 
economic  institutions,  and  yet  provide  a 
sufficient  number  of  buffer  zones  and 
mechanisms  for  peoople  to  act  freely  from 
discrimination  and  suppression. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  member  is  reading  it 
very  effectively.  It  must  have  been  written 
by   a    Harvard   speech   writer. 

Mr.  Wardle:  It  is  the  underlying  philosophy 
of  the  government  to  continue  to  emphasize 
these  principles  and  to  see  to  it  that  these 
principles  constitute  the  thrust  of  implemen- 
tation in  the  programmes  and  policies  of 
this  Throne  Speech. 

It  is  also  important  to  remind  hon.  mem- 
bers that  the  government  is  consciously 
aware    of   the    principles    of   balance    which 


needs  to  be  continually  maintained  between 
the  affairs  and  activities  of  the  private 
sector  and  the  public  sector.  Unhealthy, 
dangerous  and  unwise  would  be  the  most 
descriptive  terms  to  define  the  state  of  man's 
affairs  when  government  tends  to  encroach 
continuously  on  the  private  actions  of 
citizens  and  groups. 

As  Progressive  Conservatives,  our  philosophy 
is  suitably  attuned  to  understand  and 
appreciate  the  sensitivities  of  all  Ontario 
citizens- 
Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  The  gov- 
ernment intervenes  much  too  much  these 
days. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —in  not  \\'anting  to  realize  a 
trend  of  growing  government  involvement  and 
participation  in  our  economy  and  society  that 
lacks  coherent  direction,  meets  specific  objec- 
tives and  responds  to  well-dtefined  needs  of 
our  citizenr)'. 

What    we,    as    Progressive    Conservatives, 
attach  considerable  importance  to  is  the  role 
of  the  individual- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  The  member  is  one  of  the  last 
true  Progressive  Conservatives. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —in  a  complex  urban  and  in- 
dustrial world,  in  helping  and  assisting  him 
or  her  not  just  to  cope  with  massive  change, 
but  to  function  freely,  effectively  and 
creatively. 

I  Mr.  Speaker,  now  to  the  government's  pro- 
grammes and  policies.  First,  housing. 

As  I  have  mentioned  previously,  the  gov- 
ernment's concern  for  the  rolte  of  the  indi- 
vidual in  Ontario's  society  is  based  on  assist- 
ing and  encouraging  him  or  her  to  make  a 
significant  contribution  to  the  individual's  de- 
velopment and  to  society. 

With  this  basic  objective  in  mind,  the  gov- 
ernment has  undertaken  several  new  initia- 
tives to  meet  the  housing  problem.  One  of 
these  major  initiatives  aimounced  recently 
by  the  government  was  the  Ontario  Home 
Renewal  Programme.  The  major  purpose  of 
this  new  programme  is  to  assist  residents  in 
municipalities  in  retaining  and  updating 
existing  housing  stock  where  the  federal 
Neighbourhood  Improvement  Programme  and 
the  Residential  Rehabilitation  Assistance  Pro- 
gramme do  not  apply  as  defined  by  Central 
Mortgage  and  Housing  Corp. 

The  form  of  this  provincial  assistance  will 
be  in  the  form  of  municipal  grants;  low- 
interest  loans  amounting  to  approximately  $10 
million.  The  funds  will  be  divided  on  a  per 
capita  basis  of  $4  for  municipalities  of  5,000 


MARCH  12,  1974 


177 


population  or  less;  $3  per  capita  for  cities 
between  5,000  and  100,000;  and  $2  per 
capita  to  cities  of  more  than  100,000. 

The  other  significant  feature  of  this  pro- 
gramme is  that  there  is  no  maximum  or  mini- 
mum on  the  grants  and  loans,  thus  permitting 
the  municipalities  to  have  as  much  flexibility 
built  into  the  programme  as  is  possible. 

Administration  is  to  be  central  at  the 
regional  and  local  levels.  It  is  but  one  more 
example  of  the  government's  strong  and  sin- 
cere effort  to  decentralize  the  operation  of  a 
provincial  programme  and  attests'  to  our  en- 
deavours to  make  municipal  government  vital 
and  decisive— despite  rather  unfounded  claims 
of  current  critics. 

I  know  what  the  Ontario  task  force  on 
housing  recommended.  I  also  know  that  the 
government  has  a  number  of  policy  options 
in  the  housing  field  under  consideration  and 
review.  I  would  trust  that  among  these  options 
to  minimize  the  housing  problems  are  the 
possibilities  of  providing  loan  assistance  to 
families  for  purchasing  land  on  which  mobile 
homes  could  be  placed— that  is  in  certain 
sections  of  Ontario.  I  realize  that  high  land 
costs  and  very  restrictive  zoning  regulations 
presently  prohibit  mobile  homes  from  being 
considered  as'  a  viable  housing  alternative. 

Another  innovative  measure  that  could  be 
considered  at  least  in  parts  of  Ontario  would 
be  to  study  the  possibility  of  using  shell  hous- 
ing as  an  answer  to  the  critical  housing  short- 
age. Recent  reports  indicate  that  the  shell 
housing  concept  has  met  with  some  reason- 
able success  in  Atlantic  Canada.  I  realize  that 
some  substantial  modification)  of  the  concept 
would  be  required  to  be  useful  in  large  urban 
markets,  particularly  in  light  of  the  fact  that 
low  l^nd  costs  and  a  high  handyman's  tradi- 
tion have  combined  to  assist  in  making  this 
type  of  housing  useful  in  Atlantic  Canadia. 

I  would  like  also  to  congratulate  the  gov- 
ernment for  implementing  the  proposal  for 
the  new  Ministry  of  Housing.  In  its'  very  short 
existence,  the  housing  ministry  has  already 
proved  its  real  worth  in  the  new  and  exciting 
programmes  which  it  has  undertaken. 

Certainly,  we  on  this  side  of  the  House 
understand  the  very  vital  role  of  the  private 
sector  in  implementing  new  housing  pro- 
grammes, in  its  expertise  in  providing  a  wide 
range  of  choices  for  consumers. 

We  should  not  dictate  to  the  private  sector 
in  order  to  meet  the  housing  probfem,  but 
instead  use  a  co-operative  approach  and 
partnership  basis  to  meet  housing  needs.  Con- 
frontation and  dictation  to  the  housing  indus^ 
try  are  not  the  most  satisfactory  method  of 


resolving  the  problem,  whether  it  is  getting 
the  private  sector  to  build  more  condominiums 
or  involvement  in  the  rent  supplement  pro- 
gramme. 

I  am  interested,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  new 
initiatives  and  the  rejuvenating  of  urban  areas 
in  this  province.  I  note  that  in  Ontario  last 
year  100,000  housing  units  were  started. 
However,  I  note  that  many  older  units  were 
destroyed  in  older  neighbourhoods  to  provide 
this  new  housing. 

I  welcome  the  suggestion  that  the  provin- 
cial government  enter  into  full  consultation 
with  municipal  authorities  in  providing  a  new 
programme  to  be  called  the  Ontario  Home 
Renewal  Programme.  As  already  mentioned, 
the  present  federal  RRAP  programme  pro- 
vides low-interest,  partly  forgivable  loans  to 
homeowners,  landlords  and  non-profit  hous- 
ing corporations  under  certain  conditions;  but 
only  within  areas  designated  for  funding 
under  the  Neighbourhood  Improvement  Pro- 
gramme. Non-profit  housing,  however,  can 
get  this  aid  despite  its  location. 

This  has  had  the  effect  of  barring  some 
homeowners  and  landlords  from  receiving 
needed  help  because  their  homes  are  not 
located  in  a  designated  area.  They  feel  that 
they  are  being  discriminated  against  and, 
after  all,  they  are.  Through  their  taxes  they 
are  helping  to  pay  the  cost  of  this  type  of 
programme.  When  they  are  paying  the  cost, 
they  should  have,  if  they  qualify,  the  benefits 
that  come  through  this  or  any  other  type  of 
programme. 

I  believe  this  programme  would  be  bene- 
ficial to  many  people  owning  homes  in  my 
riding.  Beaches-Woodbine  riding  has  many 
homes  that  were  constructed  50  to  75  years 
ago.  Although  many  are  well  kept,  others 
are  in  need  of  rehabilitation  in  order  to 
bring  them  up  to  acceptable  housing  stand- 
ards. 

The  city  of  Toronto  has  had  for  many 
years  a  home  inspection  programme.  When 
matters  affecting  health  and  safety  are 
found,  the  homeowner  is  required  to  make 
the  necessary  repairs.  The  city  provides  low- 
cost  loans  when  this  is  necessary.  However, 
some  people,  especially  older  people,  find  it 
very  diflficult  to  pay  for  such  improvements. 
It  seems  to  me  that  a  programme  of  grants 
would  be  helpful  to  them. 

There  is  another  matter  that  also  affects 
homeowners  that  has  concerned  me  over 
many  years.  That  is  the  matter  of  how  a 
homeowner  goes  about  getting  necessary  re- 
pairs   done   to   the    satisfaction   of   city   oflB- 


178 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cials,  especially,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  these  days 
of  high  costs  of  materials  and  labour. 

I  developed  my  interest  in  this  matter 
when  I  was  a  member  of  Toronto  city  coun- 
cil. The  city  does  assist  homeowners  on  re- 
quest in  commenting  on  tenders  submitted 
for  necessary  repairs.  I  know  that  some  own- 
ers, when  they  are  faced  with  a  long  list  of 
repairs  to  be  made,  are  not  able  to  cope 
with  the  situation  and  put  the  house  up  for 
sale,  which  just  puts  the  problem  on  to  the 
new  owner.  If  they  cannot  do  the  work 
themselves,  what  do  they  do  to  comply? 

We  all  know  of  home  repairmen  who  take 
large  sums  of  money  from  elderly  home- 
owners for  repairs  which  may  or  may  not 
be  done  in  the  proper  manner.  These  so- 
called  businessmen  approach  persons  at  the 
door,  telling  them  they  have  facilities  to 
repair  a  roof  or  a  chimney  or  to  do  other 
outside  repair  work,  telling  them  of  the  con- 
sequences that  would  ensue  if  the  work  is 
not  done.  If  the  owner  agrees  to  have  the 
work  done,  which  is,  say,  the  repairing  of  a 
roof  or  a  chimney,  how  can  an  elderly  per- 
son climb  a  ladder  to  see  if  indeed  the  roof 
has  been  done  properly? 

Home  repairmen  who  actually  do  renova- 
tions and  buildings  and  repairs  are  required, 
when  operating  in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  to 
have  licences  issued  by  the  Metropolitan 
Licensing  Commission.  Those  who  do  paint- 
ing and  non-building  types  of  work  do  not 
require  a  licence.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
number  of  people  in  my  area  who  have 
been  placed  in  a  very  difficult  financial  posi- 
tion by  the  operations  of  certain  home  reno- 
vating business  people.  I  have  had  cases 
where  people  have  been  taken  for  hundreds 
of  dollars  by  such  home  repairmen  who  are 
operating  without  a  licence. 

I  continually  tell  homeowners  that  before 
agreeing  to  such  work,  they  should  obtain 
the  Metro  licence  number  of  these  people 
and  check  with  the  Better  Business  Bureau 
before  signing  any  contract  or  agreeing  to 
have  any  work  done.  When  the  homeowners 
have  paid  out  money  for  this  work,  which 
later  turns  out  to  be  unsatisfactory,  or  they 
have  been  charged  for  work  which  has  not 
been  properly  done,  the  only  recourse  they 
have  is  to  sue  in  a  civil  court  for  the  return 
of  their  money. 

How  could  an  80-year-old  woman  living 
alone  institute  a  court  action  to  recover 
money  taken  from  her  in  this  way  and  even 
pursue  it  through  legal  aid? 

Another  thing  done  especially  to  elderly 
people  is  to  offer  to  clean  out  the  basement 


and  to  throw  out  all  the  junk.  I  have  had 
cases  where  repairmen  have  done  this  sort 
of  work  and  the  basement  is  probably  clear- 
ed, and  the  owner  does  not  realize  that  this 
so-called  junk  does  not  go  to  the  garbage  dump, 
but  indeed  goes  to  second-hand  merchants 
who  are  often  able  to  obtain  quite  high  prices 
for  the  sale  of  this  type  of  article  now  being 
called  an  antique. 

What  should  be  done  in  the  circumstances 
that  I  have  described?  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
make  four  suggestions.  First,  give  the  munici- 
palities the  power  to  license  throughout  On- 
tario people  engaged  in  home  rehabilitation, 
whether  they  are  doing  renovating,  repairs 
or  painting. 

Two,  when  home  repairs  are  required  by 
municipal  authorities,  the  authority  should 
contact  the  homeowners  and  assist  in  setting 
out  tenders  and  approving  prices  on  work 
to  be  done.  It  should  follow  up  the  progress 
of  the  work  and  approve  the  quality  of  the 
work  before  the  final  bills  are  paid. 

Three,  draw  up  and  approve  grants  and/ 
or  low-interest  loans,  depending  on  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  homeowner. 

Four,  institute  legal  action  on  behalf  of  the 
homeowner  to  recover  funds  obtained  by 
fraudulent  means  and  provide  stiff  penalties 
for  home  renovators,  persons  or  firms  who  do 
not  live  up  to  standards  set. 

I  bring  this  up  at  this  particular  time  when 
spring  will  soon  be  on  the  way,  when  this 
type  of  operator  is  knocking  on  doors,  especi- 
ally in  large  metropolitan  areas.  I  should  add, 
however,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  most  firms  or 
persons  in  this  field  are  honest  and  hard  work- 
ing. 

We  should  remember,  as  we  move  here  in 
this  province  toward  the  recognition  that, 
while  we  need  and  require  more  new  hous- 
ing, it  is  important  also  to  maintain  and  im- 
prove our  present  housing  stock.  This  pro- 
gramme will  provide  much  needed  work  for 
the  building  industry;  but  let  us  do  all  we 
can  to  ensure  that  the  homeowner  will  not 
be  jeopardized  as  he  takes  steps  to  improve 
his  own  property. 

Mr.  Speaker,  another  matter  of  serious  con- 
cern to  homeowners  in  my  riding  and  in  ad- 
jacent ridings,  and  indeed  in  other  communi- 
ties throughout  the  province,  is  the  damage 
being  done  to  houses  and  buildings  by  the 
insect  known  as  the  termite.  No  one  seems  to 
know  when  this  insect  was  first  brought  to 
Ontario,  but  it  did  appear  about  30  years  or 
so  ago  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  city  of 
Toronto. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


179 


This  is  an  insect  that  has  its  nest  in  the 
ground  and  exists  by  living  on  wood  fibres. 
The  nest  is  on  the  outside  of  a  building,  but 
by  the  building  of  ingenious  tunnels  they 
work  their  way  through  the  foundation  of  the 
house,  eating  away  at  the  foundations  and 
woodwork  until,  in  some  houses  at  least,  the 
building  is  in  danger  of  collapse.  Some  of  the 
smaller  houses  in  my  riding  were  built  many 
years  ago  on  cedar  posts  and  have  suffered 
considerable  damage  from  this  insect.  This 
insect  is  able  to  penetrate  through  cement 
blocks,  if  they  are  not  properly  laid  and 
treated  and  have  openings  that  the  insect  can 
get  through. 

Examination  of  these  houses  shows  the  tun- 
nels leading  from  the  nest  into  the  wood- 
work of  the  home,  and  solid  I'umber  is  over  a 
period  of  time  hollowed  out  as  the  insect 
does  its  work.  There  is  a  way,  however,  to 
combat  this  infestation.  The  insect  must  re- 
turn to  the  nest  daily  in  order  to  live.  By 
digging  a  trench  around  the  house  and  by 
treating  the  walls,  this  prevents  the  re-entry 
of  the  termite. 

Through  my  efforts  several  years  ago,  To- 
ronto city  council  recognized  this  as  a  serious 
problem  to  homeowners  and  passed  a  bylaw 
in  co-operation  with  the  provincial  govern- 
ment in  order  to  help  these  homeowners  so 
affected.  A  grant  is  now  made  to  a  home- 
owner who  applies  for  assistance.  The  bill 
for  an  average  home  to  do  the  necessary 
treatment  runs  between  $500  and  $600.  This 
is  shared  50  per  cent  by  the  homeowner,  25 
per  cent  by  the  municipality  and  25  per  cent 
by  the  province. 

I  suggested  several  years  ago,  and  I  sug- 
gest now  to  the  minister  in  charge  of  the 
Ontario  Housing  Corp.,  who  is  responsible 
for  this  programme,  that  this  formula  should 
be  changed.  In  addition  to  his  share  of  the 
grant,  the  homeowner  has  the  cost  of  re- 
pairing the  damage  already  done  to  his  home, 
which  often  amounts  to  a  considerable 
amount  of  money.  My  suggestion— and  this 
would  be  a  real  help  in  the  rehabilitation  of 
older  houses,  especially  in  certain  areas— is 
that  the  homeowner's  share  should  be  re- 
duced to  25  per  cent.  The  municipality  should 
pay  25  per  cent  and  the  provincial  govern- 
ment should  bear  50  per  cent  of  the  total 
cost.  This  wouM  be  a  definite  and  immediate 
step  to  help  the  homeowner  improve  and 
maintain  his  property. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  like  also  to  mention 
consumer  protection.  As  all  members  of  this 
Legislature  realize,  there  has  been  a  tre- 
mendous upsurge  of  the  consumer  movement 


in  recent  years.  Consumers  are  increasingly 
aware  of  the  growing  sophistication  of  the 
marketplace  and  the  diverse  range  of  products 
which  have  come  on  to  the  market  in  the 
last  few  years.  It  is,  therefore,  most  im- 
portant for  the  consumer  and  the  business- 
man of  any  size  of  enterprise  to  realize  that  a 
viable,  fair  and  efficient  market  relationship 
develop  between  the  buyer  and  the  seller. 
Ontario  has  been  notably  in  the  forefront 
of  effective  consumer  protection  legislation 
in  North  America.  The  government  has 
pioneered  in  such  diverse  fields  as  the  fair 
regulation  of  the  real  estate  industry  through 
the  Real  Estate  and  Business  Brokers  Act; 
amendments  to  the  Insurance  Act;  and  intro- 
duction of  the  Consumer  Reporting  Act  as 
well  as  the  usefufeess  of  the  Consumer  Pro- 
tection Bureau. 

Legislation  in  the  areas  of  warranties  and 
guarantees  will  be  introduced  during  this 
session. 

What  the  public  wants  to  know  about  this 
legislation  is  its  purpose,  the  principles  on 
which  it  will  operate  and  the  scope  and 
authority  of  the  legislation.  Certainly,  the 
basic  objective  of  the  legislation  is  to  protect 
the  interests  of  both  the  consumer  and  the 
businessman  in  the  many  business  trans- 
actions which  characterize  the  sophisticated 
and  complicated  marketplace. 

Underlying  the  warranties  and  guarantees 
legislation  are  these  basic  principles: 

1.  Encouragement  of  consumers  and  pro- 
ducers to  resolve  as  many  as  possible 
warranty-related  problems  on  a  mutually 
satisfying  basis; 

2.  The  eflBcient  use  of  resources  to  resolve 
problems  rather  than  adding  costs  to  industry 
and  the  taxpayer; 

3.  The  costs  of  operations  should  not  ex- 
ceed the  benefits; 

4.  Enhancement  of  responsibility  for  prod- 
ucts between  manufacturer  and  retailer; 

5.  Fairness  of  treatment  between  producer 
and  consumer. 

iWhat  the  government  wants  to  achieve  is  a 
system  which  removes  the  constant  necessity 
of  government  to  intervene  in'  the  market- 
place, and  thereby  to  devel'op  a  fair  and  more 
realistic  consumer  marketplace  for  all  On- 
tario citizens. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  spoken  in  the  past  in 
some  detail  about  the  plight  of  the  small 
businessman,  so  often  ignored  in  the  past  by 
government  and  other  sectors  of  the  economic 
community. 


180 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Always 
ignored.  Always. 

Mr.  Wardle:  rm  most  gratified  to  see  that 
the  government  will  be  introducing  significant 
legislation  with  respect  to  unfair  trade  and 
business  practices.  Ideally,  the  approach  to 
be  taken  in  these  matters  is  not  to  establish 
regulations  and  standards  which  tend  to  hurt 
the  small  businessman  and  to  consume  his 
valuable  time  in  report-writing  activities,  but 
to  promote  effective  ongoing  and  co-operative 
relationships  between  government  and  busi- 
ness. 

What  I  am  advocating  is  positive  regula- 
tion of  business  associations  instead  of  re- 
strictive and  narrow  measures  designed  to 
frustrate  the  individual  businessman.  What 
we  need  in  Ontario  is  greater  managerial  and 
trading  assistance  programmes  for  the  indi- 
vidual businessman  to  foster  his  skills  and 
improve  his  productivity,  positive  measures 
which  I  know  the  government  will  consider. 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  speak  for  a 
few  moments  on  the  matter  of  correctional 
services,  which  I  know  is  a  matter  of  great 
interest  to  all  members  of  this  House.  I  want 
to  commend  the  government  for  its  farsighted 
and  progressive  measures  to  assist  the  adult 
and  juvenile  offender.  These  measures  include 
improved  integration  of  group  homes,  proba- 
tion and  institutional  services,  thus  ensuring 
better  co-operation  with  all  agencies  of  the 
community.  By  placing  juveniles  in  training 
schools  closer  to  their  homes- 
Mr.  Martel:  Banish  them. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —we  remove  some  of  the  pres- 
sures and  strains  placed  on  the  juvenile  in  an 
ahen  environment. 

Mr.  Martel:  Outlaw  them. 

Mr.  Wardle:  In  this  way,  greater  interaction 
between  the  training  school  and  the  home 
will  assist  the  rehabilitation  chances  of  the 
young  offender.  Through  this  process  greater 
community  resources  can  be  marshalled  in  the 
rehabilitation  of  the  young  offender. 

Hon.  members  should  be  aware  of  the 
exciting,  very  personal  and  meaningful  pros- 
pects of  personal  development  for  adult 
offenders  in  the  rehabilitation  process.  The 
government  intends  to  promote  the  further 
development  of  small  community-based  adult 
residences  for  rehabilitation  linked  with  the 
temporary  absence  programme  and  improved 
employment  prospects  for  adult  offenders  in 
the  northern  areas  of  the  province. 

Another  innovative  feature  of  the  cor- 
rectional services  responsibility  is  a  proposal 


to  involve  inmates  serving  short  terms  in  an 
effective  employment  programme  with  private 
enterprise. 

The  terms  of  the  proposal  in  effect  mean 
a  simulation  of  working  conditions  related  to 
what  actually  happens  in  society.  Inmates 
chosen  for  this  programme  would  receive 
competitive  wages  compared  to  those  in  the 
real  work  force.  These  types  of  programmes 
offer  continuing  and  improved  prospects  to 
inmates  to  return  to  society  able  and  wilHng 
to  contribute  fully  to  it. 

I  believe  it  is  worth  detailing  some  of  the 
other  developments  which  are  under  way  in 
our  correctional  services  system. 

One  of  the  more  interesting  and  intriguing 
experiments  which  went  into  operation  last 
year  was  the  Camp  Bison  programme.  The 
essential  ingredients  were  a  well-prepared 
course  of  action  for  correctional  officers,  who 
are  involved  in  learning  about  the  social 
pressures  and  situations  that  create  the  type 
of  conformity  displayed  by  most  inmates.  The 
experimental  programme  is  designed  to  break 
down  the  subculture  and  help  the  inmates  to 
think  for  themselves  and  to  communicate 
positively  with  the  correctional  officers  trained 
to  help  them. 

The  temporary  absence  programme  remains 
the  basic  vehicle  for  rehabilitating  inmates. 
Depending  upon  the  type  of  offence  which 
the  inmate  committed,  his  educational  level 
and  otiier  important  factors,  temporary  leaves 
can  be  devised  to  meet  an  inmate's  particular 
need  for  educational  and  personal  improve- 
ment. 

Through  these  innovative  and  experimental 
programmes,  correctional  serxices  have 
assumed  a  new  social  dimension.  Keeping  in- 
mates confined  is  more  costly  to  our  society 
in  the  long  run  than  assisting  inmates  and 
helping  them  to  lead  useful  lives  upon  their 
return  to  society. 

The  government  is  to  be  commended  for  its 
forward-looking  and  progressive  corrections 
philosophy. 

Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  matter  of  daycare 
centres  the  government  is  intimatelv  con- 
cerned with  the  proper  social  and  personal 
development  of  the  children  of  Ontario.  To- 
day's youngsters  will  be  tomorrow's  leaders. 
We  must  constantly  strive  to  provide  the  sup- 
port facilities  and  programmes  to  realize  that 
kind  of  promise. 

It  was  only  last  year  that  the  Minister  of 
Community  and  Social  Services  (Mr. 
Brunelle)  presented  legislation  for  our  con- 
sideration that  would  extend  grants  and  sub- 
sidies to  individual  corporations  or  classes  of 


MARCH  12,  1974 


181 


corporations,  and  widen  the  base  of  financial 
support  to  working  mothers  whose  chfldren 
require  safe  and  proper  care  during  her  work 
day  to  prevent  her  from  worrying  about  their 
situation.  We  are  told  that  regulations  Avill  be 
announced  in  a  few  days  and  a  programme 
will  be  under  way.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  merely 
stating  positive  programmes  of  this  govern- 
ment that  I  am  sure  even  the  Liberals  and 
the  NDP  can  fully  support. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): There  is  not  a  single  member  of  the 
government  here. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  ( Huron-Bruce ) :  Nobody  be- 
lieves it  but  the  member. 

Mr.  Wardle:  This  government  believes  in 
positive  programmes. 

Mr.  Martel:  Now  if  the  member  had  said 
"banned,  outlawed." 

Mr.    Wardle:    Mr.    Speaker,    I  listened   all 

yesterday- 
Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  And 

he  learned  a  lot,  too. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion and  the  leader  of  the  NDP  ( Mr.  Lewis ) , 
and  1  didn't  hear  any  positive  programme  of 
what  their  parties  stand  for.  I'm  still  at  a 
loss  to  know  What  they  stand  for. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  How  can  he  say  that? 

Mr.  Wardle:  At  least  the  government  does 
have  a  positive  programme  that  the  members 
of  this  government  support. 

Mr.  Martel:  What  is  it? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  have  a  solution  to 
the  housing  problems  but  evidently  the  gov- 
ernment is  not  very  interested  in  the  mem- 
ber's alternatives.  There  is  nobody  here. 

Mr.  Wardle:  In  the  Throne  Speech  the 
government  is  proposing  a  series  of  measures 
to  supply  high-priority  resources  for  those 
groups  whose  needs  are  still  to  be  met;  in- 
cluding the  establishment  of  new  programmes 
of  assistance  for  community  co-operative  day- 
care centres  for  low-income  areas,  for  handi- 
capped children  and  native  children.  It  speaks 
of  our  deep  and  abiding  interest  in  reaching 
out  to  assist  those  seriously  disadvantaged  and 
to  permit  them  to  share  in  the  resources  of 
our  productive  economv. 

Mr.  Martel:  One  hundred  and  fifty-one 
dollars  a  month. 


Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  often  critics 
accuse  us  of  an  absence  of  social  commitment 
and  social  action  for  the  disadvantaged  sector 
of  Ontario  society.  These  same  critics  pro- 
claim that  the  government  does  not  possess  a 
socially  coherent  philosophy  for  the  indivi- 
dual. Naturally  these  claims  are  unfounded. 
The  Throne  Speech  offers  a  significant  packet 
of  economic  and  social  measures  designed  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  disadvantaged.  This 
Progressive  Conservative  government  seeks  to 
resolve  problems  and  citizens'  concerns 
positively  and  responsibly. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  doesn't  the  member  see 
what  is  in  the  bloody  book  before  he  gets  up 
and  gives  oif  such  prattle? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  listened  yester- 
day afternoon  to  the  leader  of  the  NDP,  and 
I  have  never  heard  such  a  negative  approach 
to  the  problems  of  this  province. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  was  not  negative  at  all. 
The  member  wasn't  listening. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Most  of  his  speech  had  to  do 
with  food  prices.  And  surely  the  fanners  of 
Ontario  are  not  taken  in  by  the  policv  of  the 
NDP. 

Mr.  Martel:  Guaranteed  income  in  BC  for 
them. 

Mr.  Wardle:  The  farmers  of  this  province 
have  a  very,  very  low  price  for  their  products. 
This  is  the  policy  of  the  NDP— 

Mr.  Martel:  The  chain  stores  have  a  very 
low  price  for  farm  produce. 

Mr.  W^ardle:  —to  keep  the  wages  of 
farmers  down.  I  don't  think,  Mr,  Speaker, 
that  many  farmers  in  Ontario  are  making 
very  much  money  today.  I  don't  think  the 
public  of  Ontario  worry  too  much  if  the 
price  of  food  rises  a  little,  if  they  know 
the  farmer  himself  is  getting  a  better  income 
than  he  has  had  in  the  past;  and  the  only 
way  we  are  going  to  keep  farmers  on  the 
land,  in  my  opinion,  is  to  make  certain  that 
they  get  a  decent  return  for  their  work. 

Speaking  further  about  the  remarks  of 
the  leader  of  the  NDP  on  food  prices  and 
inflation,  and  what  inflation  is  doing,  his 
party  in  Ottawa  has  the  power  to  bring 
down  the  present  government  in  Ottawa 
which  is  responsible  for  many  aspects  of  in- 
flation. 

Mr.  Martel:  Except  on  the  Food  Prices 
Review  Board,  the  hon.  member's  colleague 
voted  with  the  Liberals. 


182 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Wardle:  If  they  were  sincere- 
Mr.  Martel:  They  voted  with  the  Liberals 

on  the  Food  Prices  Review  Board.  The  hon. 

member    should    learn    that   before    he    gets 

up  and  beats  his  gums  off. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Wardle:  If  they  were  sincere  in  their 
wish  to  help  Canadians,  it  would  not  in- 
clude co-operating  with  the  Liberal  federal 
government  in  maintaining  the  present 
Liberal  policies. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Conservatives  voted 
against  the  Food  Prices  Review  Board  with 
the  power  to  roll  back  prices. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Other  mem- 
bers will  have  an  opportunity  to  enter  the 
debate  later. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  tell  him  to  tell  the 
truth. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  prepared  my 
remarks  not  wishing  to  say  anything  against 
the  opposition,  whether  it  be  the  Liberals 
or  the  NDP.  But  I'm  moved  at  this  time  to 
say  a  few  things.  It  seems  to  me  that  as 
far  as  the  NDP  in  Ottawa  are  concerned, 
they  can  bring  down  this  Liberal  govern- 
ment any  time  they  wish  to  do  so. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They  had  three  chances 
in  the   Tory  party  and   they   muffed   them. 

Mr.  Wardle:  And  if  they  are  worried  about 
inflation,  as  was  the  leader  of  the  NDP 
yesterday,  they  should  bring  down  the 
present  government  and  put  in  a  government 
led  by  Mr.  Stanfield,  who  would  do  some- 
thing about  inflation. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  would  be  a  disaster! 

An  hon.  member:  How  is  the  hon.  mem- 
ber doing  with  his  federal  riding  these 
days? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  The 
federal  Tory  party  is  the  only  albatross  I 
know  with  an  ancient  mariner  around  his 
neck. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  member 
for  Beaches-Woodbine  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I  con- 
clude my  remarks,  I  would  like  to  say  this: 


I  was  in  this  House  for  a  good  part  of  the 
speech  of  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 
I  was  in  this  House  yesterday  and  listening, 
without  any  interruption  at  all,  to  the 
leader  of  the  NDP.  Surely,  when  a  govern- 
ment member  gets  up  to  speak,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  NDP  could  at  least  offer  the 
same  courtesy  as  government  members  offer 
the  opposition. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Oh,  having  provoked  in- 
terruptions now  he  is  crying  about  them. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  hon.  member  should  be 
flattered  that  we  consider  him  important 
enough  to  heckle. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure  that 
my  final  remarks  will  meet  with  the  atten- 
tion that  I  think  they  deserve,  and  I'm  sure 
that  all  the  members  of  the  House  will  agree 
with  them. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Why  are  all  the  Tories  leav- 
ing? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Haliburton): 
The  hon.  member  opposite  has  just  come 
back. 

An  hon.  member:  He  just  came  in. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my  final 
remarks  I  should  like  to  express  my  words 
of  gratitude  for  the  fine  way  in  which  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  of  this  province,  the 
Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald,  has  served 
as  the  representative  in  Ontario  of  our  gra- 
cious sovereign.  Queen  Elizabeth. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Well  said. 

Mr.  Wardle:  He  has  conducted  himself 
with  dignity,  great  ability  and  with  a  dedica- 
tion to  his  duties.  His  term  of  oflBce  has 
enhanced  the  honourable  oflBce  that  he  holds. 
I  know  that  the  people  of  Ontario  will  look 
forward  to  welcoming  His  Honoiur's  succes- 
sor. Dr.  Pauline  A.  McGibbon. 

Whilst  speaking  of  the  oflBce  of  Lieuten- 
ant Governor,  I  would  like  to  express  my 
hope  that  serious  consideration  will  be  given 
by  the  govenmient  to  provide  a  home  in 
Toronto  for  our  lieutenant  governors.  This 
was  formerly  the  practice,  and  I  see  no 
reason  why  this  policy  should  not  be  re- 
sumed. 

Nearly  every  province  in  this  Dominion 
has  a  government  house.  Many  of  my  con- 
stituents have  expressed  their  agreement  with 
this  proposal.  I  feel  certain  that  good  use 
would  be  made  of  such  a  facility,  especially 
as  Ontario  is  increasingly  serving  as  host  to 


MARCH  12,  1974 


183 


visiting  organizations  and  dignitaries  from 
other  parts  of  Canada,  the  British  Common- 
wealth and  foreign  comi tries.  Such  a  home 
would  also  allow  members  of  our  royal  fam- 
ily to  stay  there  and  to  entertain  and  wel- 
come our  citizens  in  a  dignified  setting. 

Every  resident  of  Ontario  will  be  looking 
forward  with  great  anticipation  to  the  visit 
this  June  to  Ontario  and  Quebec  of  Her 
Gracious  Majesty  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  Queen 
Mother. 

Mr.  Martel:  Don't  include  me  in  that. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Her  Majesty  is  held  in  high 
regard  by  our  citizens,  especially  by  those 
who  remember  the  fine  example  she  and  her 
husband,  our  late  sovereign.  King  George 
VI,  set  during  the  perilous  days  of  World 
War  n.  When  the  light  of  freedom  had 
nearly  been  extinguished  in  Europe  and  our 
western  civilization  was  in  danger,  our  King 
and  Queen  were  able  to  rally  our  people  and 
those  who  love  freedom  everywhere  to  fight 
against  those  who  would  have  buried  the 
great  heritage  of  freedom  which  has  sus- 
tained us  through  the  centuries. 

I  know  that  the  people  of  Ontario  and 
Quebec  will  offer  Her  Majesty  a  warm  re- 
ception. We  know  the  personal  sacrifice  that 
such  a  position  requires  and  the  complete 
dedication  of  Her  Majesty  to  her  duties.  I 
hope  that  the  school  boards  will,  in  advance 
of  the  Queen  Mother's  visit,  bring  to  the 
attention  of  students  the  importance  of  the 
constitutional  monarchy  in  our  system  of 
government  and  will  declare  at  least  part  of 
the  day  a  holiday  when  Her  Majesty  visits 
their  coinmunities. 

Mr.  Foulds:  We  can't  close  the  schools. 

Mr.  Wardle:  I  am  most  impressed,  Mr. 
Speaker,  by  the  large  numbers  of  our  young 
people  who  want  to  learn  more  about  our 
constitutional  monarchy  and  its  present  and 
future  role  in  our  parliamentary  system.  This 
interest  has  been  especially  sparked  by  the 
overwhelmingly  successful  visit  last  June  of 
our  sovereign  Queen  Elizabeth.  Her  Majesty 
was  greeted  with  great  enthusiasm  by  Cana- 
dians of  all  ethnic  backgrounds. 

We  must  not  forget  that  constitutional 
monarchy  is  respected  not  only  by  those  of 
British  and  French  descent  but  by  people 
who  have  come  here  from  all  parts  of  the 
world.  Many  of  the  critics  of  the  monarchy 
tend  to  forget  that  the  system  of  monarchy 
is  also  a  respected  institution  in  many  coun- 
tries from  which  Canada's  iiimiigration  has 
come. 


When  our  newest  citizens  swear  allegiance 
to  Her  Majesty  Queen  Elizabeth,  her  heirs 
and  successors,  they  come  to  realize  that  the 
monarchy  is  the  oldest  of  Canada's  political 
institutions  having  come  down  to  Canadians 
through  1,146  years  of  political  development. 
These  new  Canadians  also  realize  and  appre- 
ciate the  fact  that  our  constitutional  mon- 
archy provides  Canadians  with  the  greatest 
constitutional  safeguard  against  communism 
or  any  other  form  of  totalitarian  government 
or  dictatorship. 

The  most  essential  and  distinctive  institu- 
tions of  the  Canadian  government  and  the 
ultimate  defences  of  the  constitution  are 
based  on  the  position  and  powers  of  the 
Crown.  The^e  include  the  whole  of  the 
executive  power  of  the  government  of  the 
day,  the  cabinet  system,  the  principle  of 
responsibility,  and  the  ultimate  assurance 
that  the  genuine  popular  will  shall  prevail. 
To  a  democratic  people,  the  monarchical  form 
of  government  testifies  to  the  ability  of  that 
people  to  develop  a  responsive  political  sys- 
tem from  an  authoritarian  feudal  structure 
without  passing  through  the  violence  ot 
revolution.  The  constitutional  monarchy  has 
a  proud  record  in  the  development  of  the 
Canadian  nation. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Hasn't  the  member  ever 
heard  of  Cromwell? 

Mr.    Wardle:    How    fortunate    we    are    to 
have  as  our  sovereign  a  most  gracious  lady 
who,    by    her    example,    has    endorsed    high 
standards- 
Mr.  Foulds:  So  Cromwell  was  a  Commie? 

Mr.  Wardle:  —and  has  encouraged  the 
worthwhile  traditions— 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  The  member 
shouldn't  show  his  ignorance. 

Mr.  Foulds:  He  doesn't  even  know  who 
Cromwell  was. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —so  many  of  which  vitally 
reflect  the  better  aspects  of  civilized  be- 
haviour and  living. 

Her  Majesty  has  carried  out  her  royal 
duties  with  dignity  and  zeal  and  has  truly 
carried  out  her  promise  to  her  people  in  1953 
that,  to  their  service,  she  would  give  her 
heart  and  soul  every  day  of  her  life. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon  (Dovercourt):  How  true. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  how  proud  we 
are  to  be  Canadians  and  to  live  in  Ontario, 
this  great  province  of  opportunity. 


184 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  to  participate  in  this  annual 
ritual  of  reply  to  the  Throne  Speech  which 
ushers  in  the  rites  of  spring.  As  I  rise  to 
speak,  I  don't  know  whether  to  cry  or  to 
laugh  because  in  my  entire  public  career 
()\  er  the  past  25  or  30  years  I  think  I  have 
spoken  in  cities  all  over  Canada,  some  in  the 
United  States,  some  in  other  parts  of  the 
world,  but  never  before  have  I  risen  to  speak 
imder  circumstances  such  as  these,  when  the 
complete  vista  in  front  of  me  is  totally 
blank. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Even 
though  there  are  people  sitting  over  there. 

Mr.  Givens:  Even  when  there  are  people 
sitting  there,  it's  usually  blank.  The  House 
leader  just  sat  down,  called  over  the  hon. 
member  for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Ren  wick)—  and 
now  another  member  has  just  walked  in— 
so  I  won't  have  to  look  at  a  totally  blank 
wall. 

I  don't  think  Tm  ever  going  to  get  used 
to  this  sort  of  a  situation,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have 
no  speech  to  read.  That's  probably  where  I 
made  the  mistake.  I  should  have  a  speech 
writer  write  me  a  speech  which  I  can  read 
off. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  The 
Minister  of  Education  (Mr.  Wells)  might 
have  one. 

Mr.  Givens:  Probably  they  have  a  better 
system  in  the  United  States  where  they  just 
hand  in  their  speeches  and  get  them  printed 
in  the  Congressional  Record. 

The  members  have  just  received  a  raise, 
I  would  have  thought  that  when  members  in 
the  House  get  up  to  speak  during  a  Throne 
Speech  debate  that  there  would  be  more 
people  sitting  here  to  listen  to  them— because 
making  a  speech  is  a  product  of  the  heart 
and  the  soul  and  the  mind.  You  use  your 
mouth  to  articulate  it,  but  you  would  like  to 
feel  that  you  are  communicating  with  people. 

I  don't  care  whether  people  agree  with 
me  or  whether  they  disagree  with  me,  or  if 
they  want  to  boo  or  if  they  want  to  jeer  at 
me  or  if  they  want  to  scorn  me. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  want  to  hear  the 
hon.  member. 

Mr.  Givens:  But  at  least  a  member  of  this 
Legislature  should  have  an  opportunity  to 
speak  to  human  beings— and  not  just  to  be 
rea:l  in  Hansard.  Not  that  I  am  that  immodest 
that  I  feel  that  I  have  anything  to  say  that 
is  of  such  great  importance,  or  that  the  man- 


ner in  which  I  will  say  it  will  be  so  enter- 
taining that  it  should  enrapture  those  who 
sit  here— but  good  heavens,  Mr.  Speaker,  what 
is  the  purpose  of  making  a  speech?  God  has 
given  us  mouths  and  tongues  with  which  to 
articulate  for  the  purpose  of  communicating 
with  one  another.  How  do  we  communicate 
when  we  sit  in  a  chamber  like  this  where 
there  is  hardly  a  quorum? 

I  think  maybe  a  quorum  has  just  appeared 
right  now  of  20  members.  But  as  Sam  Ray- 
burn  said,  "In  order  to  get  along  you  must 
go  along,"  and  my  leader  and  the  House 
leader  have  said  that  I  have  to  participate  in 
this  annual  ritual  of  replying  to  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne.  So  here  I  am.  I  shall  do 
that. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  The  mem- 
ber shouldn't  trouble  himself. 

Mr.  Givens:  I  shall  use  my  ability  to  reply 
to  the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Givens:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  says  I  shouldn't  trouble  myself.  I 
hope  that  I  am  not  being  interpreted  in  that 
light;  but  really,  what  is  the  purpose  of  talk- 
ing if  you  are  not  communicating  with  some- 
body? Let  me  tell  the  hon.  member  that  in 
council  we  had  people  who  sat  there  and 
they  listened— and  you  turned  them  on  or  you 
turned  them  off  and  you  could  persuade  them 
about  something.  Now  we  know  very  well 
that  nobody  is  going  to  persuade  anybody 
around  here  of  anything.  The  Juggernaut  will 
roll  on  and  we  just  participate.  It's  sort  of  a 
hypocritical  ritual  really  when  it  comes  down 
to  it. 

An  hon.  member:  Storm  the  barricades! 

Mr.  Givens:  Anyway,  having  said  that,  I 
want  to  deal  with  some  of  the  issues— well, 
there's  no  point  in  storming  the  barricades. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  We  are  listening  to 
the  member. 

Mr.  Givens:  Well,  it's  really  frustrating  any- 
way. I  thank  those  members  who  are  here. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  I  know  that  there  is  nothing 
the  members  are  going  to  learn  from  me, 
but  at  least  it's  comforting  to  know  that 
some  of  them  are  friendly  enough  to  sit  here 
even  though  some  of  them  are  busy  reading 
the  newspapers,  or  their  mail— 


MARCH  12,  1974 


185 


Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  a  challenge  to  the 
mem  her  for  York-Forest  Hill. 

Mr.  Givens:  —or  indulging  in  other  things, 
such  as  consulting  with  one  another.  How- 
ever— 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Could  I 
leave  for  a  couple  of  minutes? 

Mr.  Givens:  My  leader— 

An  hon.  member:  Sit  down! 

Mr.  Givens:  My  leader  and  the  hon.  leader 
of  the  NDP  made  much  of  the  fact,  and  right- 
ly so,  that  there  is  nothing  in  this  Throne 
Speech  that  says  anything  in  particular  about 
the  subject  of  inflation,  which  is  supposed 
to  be  so  important  to  everybody  living  in  this 
province  and,  indeed,  in  this  whole  country. 

I  sometimes  think  that  the  reason  why  gov- 
ernments—both federal  and  provincial— are  not 
doing  anything  about  inflation  is  because  they 
don't  want  to  do  anything  about  inflation. 
I  feel  that  there  is  almost  sort  of  an  un- 
conscious or  a  subconscious  deliberate  con- 
spiracy not  to  deal  with  inflation.  And  I'll  tell 
the  members  why.  Because  I  think  a  large 
sector  of  our  population  benefits  from  infla- 
tion. 

I  think  there  are  professional  people,  there 
are  business  people,  there  are  strongly  or- 
ganized union  members  in  the  big  unions,  in 
the  strong  unions— not  the  underprivilteged 
people  who  aren't  organized— who  benefit 
from  a  httle  bit  of  inflation,  because  it  is 
like  a  little  bit  of  intoxication.  It's  euphoric. 
It's  liuoyant. 

I  know  many  people  in  business  who  are 
benefiting  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  they 
have  acquired  debt.  They  have  bought  ma- 
chinery or  equipment  and  they  are  paying  it 
off  in  half-dollar  bills,  so  to  speak,  because 
their  debt  has  shrunk  in  relation  to  the  infla- 
tion that  has  taken  place  at  the  rate  of  from 
8  to  10  per  cent  a  year- and  probably  in 
1974  it  will  be  greater. 

It  isn't  only  a  matter  of  the  big  corporations 
or  the  big  companies.  A  lot  of  small  people 
benefit  from  inflation,  and  they  are  happy  to 
have  this  situation  continue.  And  the  govern- 
ments are  copping  out  and  they  are  opting 
out. 

The  provincial  governments  blame  the  fed- 
eral government.  The  federal  government 
l^lames  the  UN,  international  affairs— all  kinds 
of  things.  Everything  is  being  attributed  to 
the  oil  shortage  today,  from  the  price  of 
gasoline  for  cars  to  sexual  impotency. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  W  ho  is  dealing  with  that? 

Mr.  Givens:  They  are  copping  out.  The 
people  they  are  not  dealing  with  are  the  little 
people,  the  kind  of  people  the  hon.  member 
thinks  he  represents,  who  are  involved  in  a 
bit  of  a  ripoff  here  and  there.  A  member  of 
the  NDP  got  up  yesterday  and  read  into  the 
record  a  long  list  of  properties  in  areas  which 
I  used  to  consider  my  turf  when  I  was  a  kid 
— Markham  St.,  Clinton  St.,  Niagara  St.  and 
all  those  streets  where  working  people  live. 
As  for  these  values  that  members  have  heard 
of,  of  people  who  had  these  houses  on  these 
various  streets,  these  are  people  from 
factories.  These  are  people  that  I  worked  with 
in  the  steel  mills  and  in  the  packing  houses 
of  this  city  and  these  are  the  people  who 
benefited. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Markham  St.? 

Mr.  Givens:  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Honest  Ed  has  a  place  there. 

Mr.  Givens:  One  of  the  reasons  why  these 
properties  are  going  up  in  vallie  is  that  many 
of  these  properties  are  income  producing. 
Many  of  these  people  have  boarders.  They 
are  not  supposed  to  have  them  in  many  cases 
but  they  have  boardbrs  or  they  rent  out 
accommodation.  They  get  a  certain  amount  of 
income,  which  they  don't  declare  on  their 
income  taxes,  and  this  helps  them  ward  off 
inflation. 

It  would  be  interesting  if  the  member  sent 
his  research  workers  on  the  job  of  looking  up 
the  assessment  roles  of  these  respective  prop- 
erties. I  will  wager  that  he  will  find  that  the 
assessed  values  of  these  houses  havai't 
changed  in  20  or  25  years.  They  are  probably 
paying  realty  taxes  on  values  that  were  estab- 
lished by  the  assessment  people  about  20  or 
25  years  ago.  If  one  were  to  reassess  them— 
and  I  wish  the  Minister  of  Revenue  (Mr. 
Meen)  were  here-it  wouM  probably  take 
about  10  years  to  reassess  them,  and  by  the 
time  he  got  all  the  reassessments  finished, 
they  would  probably  be  out  of  date  as  well. 

It's  interesting  that  the  leader  of  the  NDP 
pours  scorn  on  these  developers  and  these 
companies  and  that  he  talks  about  their  lack- 
ing a  moral  obligation.  Many  of  the  de- 
velopers, or  these  companies  tiiat  he  talked 
about  yesterday,  were  people  who  were 
bom  and  grew  up  on  these  streets  and  in 
these  houses  that  he  talked  about  yesterday. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  still  doesn't  excuse  it. 

Mr.  Givens:  They  had  social  obligations. 
Manv    of   them    were   socialists    or   many   of 


186 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


them  were  members  of  the  CCF.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  I  know  a  couple  of  them  who  ran  as 
provincial  candidates  for  the  NDP  and  some 
of  them  were  even  further  left  than  that. 

I  remember  coming  into  the  gallery  here 
when  I  was  a  student  at  the  school  across  the 
street  and  Joe  Salsberg  was  sitting  here  and 
A.  A.  MacLeod,  representing  the  Labour  Pro- 
gressive Party.  They  were  the  people  who 
represented  these  poor  struggling  developers 
who  have  become  these  ogres  that  the  mem- 
ber accuses  tod^y  of  lacking  social  obligations. 
They  think  that  they  are  fulfilHng  their  social 
obligations.  They  sit  on  hospital  boards,  on 
charitable  institutions,  philanthropic  institu- 
tions, and  cultural  organizations.  These  are 
the  member's  people,  and  some  still  picture 
themselves  as  NDPers. 

I  don't  justify  it,  but  in  all  fairness,  many 
of  them  have  fathers  who  were  socialists  in 
the  old  country  and  had  to  escape  the  coun- 
tries that  they  came  from  in  order  to  live  in 
these  places  that  the  member  talks  about. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  no 
comer  on  virtue.  We  never  have  claimed  it. 
We  have  the  member  for  High  Park  (Mr. 
Shulman)  after  all. 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  the  same  thing  with  the 
price  of  food. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Don't  say  that  when  he  is 
in  the  House. 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  not  enough  to  talk  about 
inflation  in  housing  and  food.  The  same  thing 
apphes  to  recreation  and  entertainment.  You 
go  out  to  buy  a  hockey  stick  for  a  kid  or  a 
pair  of  skates  or  a  jersey  or,  if  you  want  to 
move  into  the  aristocracy  of  the  boaters,  you 
buy  a  canoe  or  a  rowboat  or  a  sailboat,  and 
it  is  just  preposterous  what  has  been  happen- 
ing. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  One  of  those  little  items 
that  sleeps  six. 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  absolutely  ridiculous.  As 
far  as  housing  is  concerned,  the  leader  of  the 
NDP  says,  "We  will  buy  the  land  from  the 
developers  at  the  price  that  they  pay  for  it 
and  we  will  pay  them  that  value  and  we  will 
pay  them  holding  costs."  Well,  that's  very 
generous  of  them,  certainly  a  great  dfeal  more 
generous  than  what  the  Tories  are  doing. 

This  government  went  ahead  on  a  parkway 
belt  and  just  zoned  down  property  and 
they've  confiscated  the  property  and  given 
the  people  nothing  for  it.  So  thanks  for 
small  blessings,  if  this  is  what  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  is  going  to  do. 


Then  he's  going  to  provide  cheap  mortgage 
money  at  six  per  cent  from  the  provincial 
savings  accounts  of  the  people  who  have 
their  pension  funds  in  the  provincial  savings 
account.  They're  going  to  give  out  mortgages 
at  six  per  cent.  Are  we  going  to  subsidize 
that  six  per  cent?  Why  should  a  person  who 
has  money  in  a  provincial  savings  account 
only  be  able  to  benefit  to  the  extent  of  six 
per  cent  when  somebody  else  is  paying  9% 
per  cent?  Surely  that  wouldn't  be  fair? 

Mr.  Foulds:  They're  only  getting  4V2  per 
cent  now. 

Mr.  Givens:  And  when  he  says  that  this 
Tory  government  won't  do  it,  I  think  he'd 
be  very  surprised.  The  Tory  government 
probably  will  do  it,  because  they're  confiscat- 
ing right  now,  and  I'll  come  to  that  in  a 
moment. 

The  leader  of  the  NDP  went  along  and 
he  talked  about  how  they're  going  to  tax 
natural  resources.  They're  going  to  put  a 
tax  on  the  mines,  and  they're  going  to  put 
a  tax  on  the  oil  wells  and  on  uranium  and 
on  everything  else.  And  as  he  was  talking 
about  tnis  great  tax  that  he  was  going  to 
put  on,  and  how  three  of  the  provinces  that 
have  NDP  governments  have  done  this  and 
the  mines  haven't  moved  out  and  the  corpo- 
rations haven't  moved  out  and  jobs  haven't 
moved  out  of  the  provinces,  rriy  eye  caught 
a  clipping,  an  article  on  the  financial  page 
of  the  Star  yesterday,  and  I  want  to  read  it 
to  the  members.  It's  all  right  for  him  to 
speak  so  confidently  and  so  stridently  about 
the  great  success  that  British  Columbia  has 
achieved— 

Mr.  Foulds:  Never  stridently,  only  elo- 
quently. 

Mr.  Givens:  —but  here's  an  article  from 
the  Star,  dateline  Victoria,  that  says  that: 
The  mining  association  of  British  Col- 
umbia has  told  Mines  Minister  Leo  Nim- 
sick  that  the  proposed  Mineral  Royalties 
Act  must  be  revised  or  the  government 
will  destroy  mining  in  BC. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Did  they  say  they  were  going 
to  move  out? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Does  the  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill  have  an  interest  there? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  How  do  they  move  a 
mine? 


MARCH  12,  1974 


187 


Mr.  Givens:  To  continue: 

The  association  represents  80  companies. 
W.  J.  Tough,  association  president,  said 
that  the  proposed  royalties  would  make 
the  BC  mining  industry  unable  to  com- 
pete with  mining  in  other  parts  of  the 
world. 

Earlier,  the  BC  and  Yukon  Chamber  of 
Mines  said  that  if  the  Act  were  imposed, 
there  would  be  a  loss  of  $587  million  in 
revenue  for  various  sectors  of  the  econ- 
omy. At  the  same  time,  the  chamber  said, 
the  provincial  government  would  gain 
revenues  of  $179  million. 

Now,  my  purpose  in  reading  this  clipping  is 
not  because  I  agree  with  him. 

Mr.  Martel:  Sounds  like  Powis  of  the 
Ontario  Mining  Association. 

Mr.  Givens:  I  have  no  way  of  knowing 
whether  I  can  agree  with  him  or  not,  be- 
cause we  don't  know  what  the  facts  really 
are  on  the  basis  of  what  the  leader  of  the 
NDP  has  said  and  what  this  clipping  says. 
But  I'm  trying  to  indicate  that  there  is  a 
cacophonic  disagreement  on  the  part  of  the 
people  who  talk  about  these  things  because 
they  don't  use  the  same  language. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Well,  where  does  the  member 
stand?  Does  he  think  we  should  be  getting 
more  money  for  our  resources? 

An  hon.  member:  Just  listen  and  you'll 
find  out. 

Mr.  Givens:  Yes,  I  think  we  should  be 
getting  more  revenue.  The  fact  is,  the  mem- 
ber knows,  as  a  speculator  and  an  investor, 
himself,  that  these— 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  sold  mine.  The  member  still 
has  his. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  —profits  the  NDP  talks  about 
are  not  reflected  in  the  stock  prices  on  the 
stock  markets. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Nobody  said  they  were. 

Mr.  Givens:  The  thing  gets  very  compli- 
cated. There  are  all  kinds  of  reasons  why 
the  stock  market  reacts  the  way  it  does. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  Tell 
us. 

Mr.  Givens:  But  one  must  agree  that  the 
stock  market  in  every  country  in  the  world 
is  a  very  sensitive  barometer  of  the  economic, 
the    psychological    and    emotional    health    of 


that  particularly  country— economically,  be- 
cause it  is  a  reflection  and  a  barometer  of 
what  is  going  on.  So  it  isn't  enough  simply 
to  get  up  and  say  that  these  profits  have 
been  enormous  and  they  forget  about  deple- 
tion allowances,  they  forget  about  deprecia- 
tion and  they  forget  about  a  number  of 
other  things.  So  they  can't  be  that  accurate 
when  on  the  one  hand  they  say  how  wonder- 
ful things  are,  and  on  the  other  hand  the 
president  of  the  association  says  that  mining 
will  be  destroyed  in  British  Columbia. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  don't  want  to  pay  a 
cent  in  taxes.  That's  the  reason! 

Mr.  Givens:  The  member  will  agree  that 
there's  a  difference  of  opinion,  would  he  not? 

Mr.  Stokes:  No. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Since  the  member  asked 
him. 

Mr.  Givens:  And  continuing  on  the  subject 
of  inflation,  as  far  as  the  people  who  have 
fixed  incomes,  as  far  as  our  government  here 
is  concerned,  When  Christmas  comes  around 
there'll  be  another  $50  Christmas  present,  but 
since  we're  heading  into  an  election  year 
there'll  be— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  might  have  an  Easter 
present,  too. 

Mr.  Givens:  Well,  they  can  increase  it  by 
100  per  cent  and  make  it  another  $50,  and 
then  they're  going  to  have  an  income  support 
programme,  maybe,  and  then  there's  going  to 
be  a  proposal  made  for  a  prescription  drug 
plan  for  our  senior  citizens.  This  is  the  way 
we  expect  to  help  the  people  who  are  living 
on  a  fixed  income. 

As  far  as  the  parkway  belt  is  concerned 
I'm  surprised  that  in  the  Throne  Speech  there 
was  nothing  further  said  about  that  because 
the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
( Mr.  White )  has  been  promising  for  a  long 
time,  together  vdth  the  former  deputy  min- 
ister of  that  department,  that  there  would  be 
open  planning.  There  were  supposed  to  be 
hearings.  The  legislation  is  just  about  a  year 
old.  It  was  passed  last  June.  There  hasn't 
been  a  public  hearing  that  I  know  of  with 
respect  to  either  the  parkway  belt  or  the 
Niagara  Escarpment.  Land  has  been  frozen. 

I  feel  very  strongly  about  this.  I'm  opposed 
to  the  whole  concept.  I  believe  that  if  a  gov- 
ernment wants  somethhig  for  public  purposes, 
w'hether  it  is  a  municipal  government  or  a 
provincial  government,  it  should  have  to 
prove  that  it  requires  it  and  it  has  to  go  in 


188 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


and  buy  it  and  not  confiscate  it  and  not  steal 
it.  I  think  this  is  wrong.  I  think  it  is  wrong 
to  zone  land  for  agriculture  when  we  know 
very  well  that  it  isn't  agricultural.  Any  lands 
in  these  areas  that  are  being  farmed  are  being 
farmed  as  holding  operations.  They're  not 
being  farmed  on  an  economic  basis.  They're 
being  farmed  because  people  are  getting  con- 
cessions with  respect  to  municipal  taxes  and 
so  forth. 

I  ha\  e  here  an  evaluation.  What  is  happen- 
ing is  that  in  the  parkway  belt,  for  instance, 
land  has  gone  down  by  about  90  per  cent.  I 
have  here  an  evaluation  by  the  firm  of 
Constam,  Heine  Associates  Ltd.,  which  is  a 
real  estate  appraiser.  I  think  the  firm  has 
done  a  lot  of  work  for  the  government  on 
previous  occasions.  It  has  evaluated  a  piece 
of  land— I'm  just  using  this  as  an  example— 
of  100  acres  and  shown  that  the  value  has 
gone  down.  On  June  3,  1973,  it  was  worth 
$600,000  for  the  100  acres  and  on  Dec.  31, 
1973.  it  was  worth  100,000  acres. 

Mr,  Deacon:  One  hundred  thousand 
dollars. 

Mr.  Givens:  What  did  I  say? 

Mr.  Deacon:  Acres. 

Mr.  Givens:  I'm  sorry;  $100,000  an  acre. 
This  is  happening  all  over  the  place. 

Mr.  Deacon:  One  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars for  the  100  acres? 

Mr.  Givens:  One  hundred  thousand  dollars 
for  the  100  acres  whidh  means  it's  been  down- 
graded from  $6,000  an  acre  to  $1,000  an 
acre.  This  is  only  one  example.  There  are 
other  examples  of  values  which  have  dropped 
and  one  would  think  this  would  be  a  good 
thing— that  the  price  of  land  for  housing  and 
other  purposes  was  going  down— but  it  isn't 
because  outside  the  parl^ay  belt  the  values 
have  tripled  and  quadrupled.  What  has  the 
government  gained?  What  has  it  accom- 
plished? None  of  this  land  will  be  used  for 
housing.  I  think  it's  confiscatory. 

People  have  died  and  the  estates  pay  suc- 
cession duties  on  the  basis  of  the  land  not 
being  for  agricultural  purposes.  People  have 
given  some  of  the  property  to  their  children 
and  the  Department  of  National  Revenue  has 
revalued  the  properties  on  the  basis  of  not 
being  agricultural  land.  I  don't  know  how 
one  government  can  base  an  evaluation  for 
succession  duties  or  for  gift  tax  on  it  being 
non-agricultural  when  the  provincial  govern- 
ment comes  along  and  says,  "Your  land  shall 
be   agricultural  for  ever  and  a  day."  There 


isn't  even  a  house  or  a  farmyard  or  a  barn- 
yard or  anything  on  the  property  which  would 
enable  anyone  to  use  the  land  for  farming 
purposes. 

This  open  planning  hasn't  taken  place  yet 
and  I  wish  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs  was  around  to  indicate  when  these 
public  hearings  and  this  participation  is  going 
to  take  place  since  he  talked  about  it  in  the 
legislation.  How  long  is  he  going  to  wait? 

In  some  cases  it's  a  matter  of  life  and 
death  when  the  government  is  going  to  de- 
termine what  the  future  of  these  properties 
is  going  to  be.  It  is  unconscionable.  It  is 
politically  amoral  and  this  is  what  the 
government  is  doing.  I  wouldn't  expect  this 
to  come  from  a  government  which  is  sup- 
posed to  be  a  free  enterprise  party  and 
believes  in  free  enterprise  and  believes  in 
people's  rights  because  I  believe  we're 
living  in  a  democracy. 

What  constitutes  freedom?  The  govern- 
ment takes  away  a  man's  property.  It  takes 
away  what  he's  worked  for  and  I'm  not 
talking  about  the  speculators.  If  the  govern- 
ment worries  about  the  speculator,  tax  him 
with  a  windfall  tax.  Put  it  up  to  75  per 
cent;  in  this  case  I  agree  with  the  leader 
of  the  NDP.  But  there  are  people  to  whom 
these  lands  represent  a  lifetime  of  savings; 
indeed  the  property  goes  back  two  or  three 
generations  and  the  government  gives  them 
a  once-in-a-lifetime  gift  of  $50,000  and  what 
will  that  be  evaluated  on?  Agricultural 
land  or  land  which  was  worth  a  certain 
amount  of  money  because  development  had 
come  up  right  to  one  side  of  the  street 
and  they  happened  to  be  on  the  other  side 
of  the  street? 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  this  is  horribly 
unfair.  This  business  of  playing  Robin  Hood, 
of  stealing  from  those  the  government 
thinks  are  the  rich  to  satisfy  the  poor, 
creates  a  very  terrible  precedent  and  in  no 
other  free  country  in  the  world  is  this  per- 
mitted. In  the  United  States,  in  Britain,  one 
can't  get  away  with  it. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Even  Robin  Hood  went  to 
jail. 

Mr.  Givens:  Under  the  law  of  eminent 
domain  in  the  United  States,  if  the  govern- 
ment wants  the  property,  it  takes  it;  it 
proves  it  needs  it  but  pays  for  it  based  on 
what  other  criteria  it  wants  to  set  up.  There 
are  a  lot  of  definitions  of  market  value. 
They  are  in  the  federal  expropriation  Act 
and  in  the  provincial  Expropriations  Act. 
There  are  definitions   that  realtors  can   give 


MARCH  12,  1974 


189 


yoii,  experts  in  this  particular  field.  Pick 
an>  one  that  you  want.  But  don't  steal 
property  from  people.  I  don't  think  it  is 
fair.  I  don't  think  it  is  conscionable.  If  the 
go\ernment  wants  to  tax  them  for  the  big 
profits  that  they  make,  fine.  It  should  take 
certain  things  into  consideration:  how  long 
the\  liave  held  it,  how  long  they  have  worked 
it  and  how  long  it  has  been  in  the  family 
name. 

The  go\emment  knows  it  can  do  it  be- 
cause it  is  doing  so  with  respect  to  taxation. 
It  is  doing  it  with  respect  to  its  once-in- 
a-lifetime  gift.  I  say  this  is  very  unfair, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  am  very  surprised  that 
the    government   is    going   ahead   with   it. 

Mr.  R.  Cisborn  (Hamilton  East):  We  will 
take  it  under  consideration. 

Mr.  Givens:  They  will  take  it  under 
consideration.  Even  in  British  Columbia 
where  they  passed  similar  legislation. 
Premier  Barrett  has  indicated  that  value  will 
be  paid  to  people  from  whom  lands  are 
taken  or  people  from  wiiom  lands  are 
taken  just  to  sit  there  sterile.  If  the  govern- 
ment really  thinks  that  they  are  agricultural, 
let  it  go  in  and  expropriate  them  for  agri- 
cultural purposes  and  let  people  farm  them. 
But  don't  leave  it  there  and  steal  it.  Then 
the  government  says  it  can't  aflFord  to  pay 
these  people  for  the  land.  What  kind  of  an 
excuse  is  that? 

At  least  when  Robin  Hood  came  driving 
down  the  pike,  one  could  see  him  coming. 
He  had  his  bow  and  arrow.  But  when  the 
proN'incial  govermnent  moves  in  one  can't 
even  see  it  coming.  And  Robin  Hood  con- 
fined his  activities  to  stealing- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  One  gets  shafted  just  the 
same. 

Mr.  Civens:  —whatever  one  had  on  his 
bod>.  This  is  stealing  what  people  have 
saved  up  for  30,  40,  maybe  50  years.  He 
confined  his  activities  to  Sherwood  Forest. 
This  Robin  Hood  government's  jurisdiction 
stretches  all  over  the  province.  The  park- 
way- belt  and  the  Niagara  Escarpment  are 
onh  two  places.  If  the  government  gets 
av^a>'  with  this  now,  it  can  put  in  a  parkway 
belt  anywhere  in  the  province  that  it  wants. 
I  don't  think  it  will  get  away  with  it  because 
I  think  there  will  be  litigation  in  the 
courts  that  will  go  on  for  many,  many  years. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  are  going  to  be 
defeated  too. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  airport  loading  zone, 
isn't  it? 


Mr.  Lawlor:  They  haven't  even  got  a 
Maid  Marion. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Maid  Margaret? 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  the  same  thing  with  the 
aiiport.  On  the  question  of  regional  govern- 
ment, we  have  here  a  report,  "The  Mu- 
nicipal Dynamic".  This  was  prepared  for 
the  Ontario  Economic  Council,  which  I  sup- 
pose is  ordered  by  the  government.  This 
particular  tract  was  written  by  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Lionel  D.  Feldman.  The  report 
isn't  very  complimentary  to  the  government. 

The  report  doesn't  say  too  much  of  who 
Mr.  Feldman  is.  At  one  time  he  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  staff  of  the  Department  of 
Municipal  Affairs  in  Ontario.  He  has  been 
a  research  associate  with  the  bureau  of 
municipal  research  in  Toronto.  He  has 
worked  on  the  staff  of  a  number  of  royal 
commissions.  Recently,  as  a  principal  author 
of  research  monograph  No.  6,  entitled,  "A 
Survey  of  Alternative  Urban  Policies  for 
Urban  Canada:  Problems  and  Prospects," 
he  combined  or  collaborated  with  Harvey 
Lithwick  in  this  report  in  1970.  This  was  the 
report  incidentally  that  convinced  the  Prime 
Minister,  with  whom  I  had  many  arguments, 
about  the  constitutionality  of  the  urban 
question  as  far  as  federal  government  involve- 
ment is  concerned.  The  Prime  Minister  of 
Canada  said  there  would  never  be  a  Ministry 
of  Urban  Affairs  for  Canada  and  there  would 
never  be  a  Minister  or  a  Ministry  of  Housing 
for  Canada,  because,  within  section  92  of 
the  British  North  America  Act,  this  was  com- 
pletely under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  provinces. 
It  was  this  Lithwick  report,  together  with 
the  collaboration  of  Feldman,  which  brought 
this  about.  Mr.  Feldman  was  also  active  as 
a  special  adviser  on  urban  aflFairs  to  the 
government  of  Manitoba,  which  should 
commend  him  to  the  party  on  the  left. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  When? 

Mr.  Givens:  As  part  of  a  study  team  re- 
sponsible for  the  reorganization  of  Winnipeg 
in  1972;  that  was  when.  So  he  is  okay.  All 
right?  This  is  what  he  has  to  say. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  just  wanted  to  be  cer- 
tain. 

Mr.  Givens:  He  completely  scoffs  at  what 
the  members  opposite  are  doing  and  what  the 
government  is  doing.  He  takes  a  dim  view  of 
what  the  government  has  done  in  the  regional 
government  field.  I  read  a  report  of  his,  and 
he  is  worth  quoting.  He  says: 


190 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  goal  of  the  government  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  stated  in  the  1973  budget 
was  to  enhance  the  autonomy  of  munici- 
palities and  broaden  the  scope  for  decision- 
making at  the  local  level.  [But  what  have 
they  accomplished?  He  goes  on  to  say:l  If 
this  is  the  aim,  then  what  is  occurring 
creates  an  autonomy  which  is  virtually 
meaningless.  Few  meaningful  functions  are 
being  left  to  the  local  governments  to  per- 
form unilaterally,  and  therefore  less  remains 
in  substantive  terms  to  be  decided  by  local 
councils.  If  this  prognosis  is  valid,  then  the 
future  is  dim  for  effective  local  govern- 
ment. 

And  so  it  is.  The  government  keeps  talking 
about  local  autonomy  all  the  time.  But  all 
it  has  left  for  the  local  governments  to  do  are 
the  menial  tasks.  They  are  hewers  of  wood, 
drawers  of  water  and  collectors  of  taxes  and 
garbage.  The  government  has  left  them  no 
powers  at  all  hardly  worth  a  dam. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Even 
taken  the  garbage  collection  away. 

Mr.  Givens:  He  goes  on  to  make  a  very 
valid  point,  which  I  think  is  important  to  bear 
in  mind.  He  says  on  page  40:  "Efficiency  was 
never  intended  to  be  the  sole  objective  of 
local  government"— if  indeed  the  government 
thinks  they  are  achieving  eflBciency,  but  I 
don't  think  that  they  are,  because  the  costs 
of  local  government  are  going  up  tremend- 
ously. 

He  goes  on  to  say  that  eflSciency  isn't 
enough.  He  says: 

The  underlying  assumption  of  equal  im- 
portance was  that  ordinary  people  should 
associate  with  the  provision  of  local  schools, 
roads,  sewerage,  water,  social  services  and 
so  on,  to  the  extent  that  they  not  only  plan 
these  services,  but  vote  funds  to  provide 
services,  pass  the  contracts,  supervise  con- 
struction, so  the  citizens  may  feel  that  they 
are  really  dealing  with  their  own  services 
and  not  merely  receiving  services  and  pro- 
grammes being  provided  for  them  by  a  sen- 
ior government 

And  this  government  is  emasculating  them 
and  tearing  them  dovm;  it  is  making  it  use- 
less for  anybody  to  run  for  public  office. 

He  goes  on  to  say— and  he  was  quoted  by 
my  leader  the  other  day,  but  I  will  quote  this 
again— "if  this  continues  the  future  of  reor- 
ganized municipalities  is  bleak"— and  I'm  look- 
ing for  the  quotation  that  was  quoted  the 
other  day  to  the  effect  that  the  tasks  they  have 
to   perform   are   so   unimportant  that   hardly 


any  people  are  going  to  be  willing  to  run  for 
public  office  in  the  local  municipalities  any 
more.  That  is  a  fact.  That  is  what  people  are 
saying.  And  this  government  should  concern 
itself  with  What  people  are  saying  in  the  re- 
gional governments  because  this  government 
is  going  to  suffer  from  it: 

As  far  as  the  two-tier  system  is  concerned, 
the  government  is  leaving  nothing  for  the 
lower  tier  to  do.  They  have  no  jurisdiction  at 
all.  It's  all  determined  here,  and  we  can't 
take  in  that  kind  of  centralization.  Quite 
frequently  the  minister  yells  across,  "What 
would  you  do?"  Well,  I'il  tell  him  what  we 
would  do.  I'll  tell  him  what  I  would  do  as 
Minister  of  Urban  Affairs:  I  would  restore 
their  manhood  and  their  power  to  do  what 
they  want  in  the  local  municipalities.  And 
I  wouldn't  fund  all  kinds  of  programmes 
which  this  government  funds  for  their  bene- 
fit, but  which  aren't  for  their  benefit.  The 
only  reason  they  participate— and  this  gov- 
ernment only  tells  them  about  these  pro- 
grammes after  the  event;  it  doesn't  consult 
with  them  in  advance— the  only  reason  they 
participate  is  because  this  government  is 
handing  out  the  dough,  so  they  figure  they 
might  as  well  get  a  piece  of  the  action  whe- 
ther indeed  they  need  that  programme  or  not. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Right  on. 

Mr.  Givens:  And  another  thing  that  we 
would  do:  You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  gov- 
ernment makes  a  big  deal  about  mergers  and 
greater  eflBciency;  it  is  taking  all  these  munic- 
ipalities, welding  them  into  one  and  calling 
them  names  that  they  don't  want  to  be  called, 
wiping  out  names  that  have  become  tradi- 
tional over  many  years. 

!What  the  government  is  also  doing  in  many 
cases  is  decreasing  representation.  The  gov- 
ernment talks  about  participatory  democracy, 
about  considtation,  and  about  local  autonomy 
having  a  part  in  the  daily  lives  of  local 
people,  yet  it  is  ripping  away  all  kinds  of 
representation  from  them.  There  are  areas  in 
this  province  today  that  used  to  be  repre- 
sented by  councils  of  six,  eight,  nine  or  12, 
even  existing  in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  and 
these  people  are  no  longer  represented  by  a 
council  and  have  nobody  to  turn  to  with 
respect  to  their  local  affairs.  This  isn't  right. 

So  while  this  government  is  striving  for  this 
eflBciency  and  while  we  are  having  these 
mergers  and  consolidations,  it  is  cutting  down 
on  the  number  of  representatives.  It  is  taking 
away  the  democratic  rights  of  these  people 
all  over  Ontario  and  giving  them  no  repre- 
sentation at  all.  This  is  wrong. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


191 


lit  is  wrong  to  take  away  a  council  of  about 
a  dozen  from  a  municipality  and  replace  it  by 
one  solitary  alderman  who  in  many  cases  is 
not  even  elected  by  them,  as  in  the  city  of 
Toronto,  where  the  members  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto  council  are  not  elected  by  the  people 
of  Toronto.  Then,  over  and  above  it  all,  the 
government  imposes  a  chairman,  which  is 
such  an  undemocratic  principle  that  I  can't 
imdterstand  why  the  government  keeps  on 
using  it  over  and  over  and  time  and  time 
again. 

While  democracy  works  for  the  members 
of  this  government— the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
has  to  get  elected,  the  cabinet  ministers  have 
to  get  elected  by  some  convoluted  logic,  which 
I've  never  been  able  to  understand,  they  feel 
that  the  man  who  is  chairman  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto  should  be  chosen  by  a  small  group 
of  people  on  that  council  and  not  by  the 
people  he  represents,  although  he  has  all  this 
influence  and  has  a  budget  tiiat  is  larger  than 
the  budgets  of  eight  of  the  provinces  of  this 
country.  The  government  is  doing  this  in  other 
areas,  and  it's  a  wrong  principle. 

(The  people  who  have  this  power  and  this 
control  should  have  to  be  elected.  That's 
what  we  would  do:  we  would  make  them  be 
elected.  We  wouldn't  impose  decisions  on 
the  people  vdth  respect  to  things  that  they 
don't  want  and  don't  need. 

On   the   question   of   transportation- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  On  which  the  hon.  member  is 
an  expert. 

Mr.  Givens:  —this  Throne  Speech  is  re- 
markably devoid  of  any  half-decent  recom- 
mendations with  respect  to  transportation. 
Incidentally,  it  was  such  an  interesting  speech 
that  even  though  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
left  out  three  pages,  because  they  weren't  in- 
cluded in  the  speech,  it  didn't  seem  to  make 
any  difference;  nobody  even  noticed  it.  That's 
how  good  a  Throne  Speech  it  was.  So  when 
I  heard  the  Throne  Speech  being  read  I  said, 
"isn't  that  marvellous  for  northern  Ontario?" 
For  some  reason  I  have  a  sympathetic  feeling 
for  the  people  up  north  because  I  think  they 
have  been  getting— 

Mr.  Stokes:  Sympathetic— right. 

Mr.  Givens:  Sympatico— sympathetic  feeling 
for  the  people  up  north;  because  I  feel  that 
the  people  up  north  have  been  getting  a  raw 
deal  for  a  long  time.  So  when  I  heard  the 
speech  I  said:  "A  whole  new  era  is  dawning 
for  northern  Ontario."  But  it  wasn't  until  I 
read  the  speech  a  second  or  a  third  time  that 
I  realized'  what  it  really  said. 


It  didn't  say  that  a  road  was  going  to  be 
built.  It  said  a  feasibility  and  engineering 
study  vdll  be  undertaken  for  a  road  from 
James  Bay  to  Moosonee.  So  it  ain't  no  road 
yet;  don't  hold  your  breath. 

Then  it  went  on  to  say  that  priority  con- 
sideration will  be  given  to  the  supply  of 
electric  power  to  northern  communities;  a 
power  line  to  Moosonee  will  be  the  first 
project  in  this  undertaldng.  So  don't  throw 
away  your  coal  oil  lamps  or  your  flashhghts 
yet. 

Then  it  went  on  to  say  that  the  northern 
communities  vdll  have  the  opportunity  to 
establish  local  community  councils  and  went 
on  to  say  they  will  have  water  and  roads  and 
other  such  services— and  implementation  of 
this  plan  will  follow  full  consultation  with 
residents  of  communities  who  wish  to  parti- 
cipate. I  suppose  the  full  consultation  will 
be  the  same  kind  of  full  consultation  that  the 
Premier  of  this  goverrmient  had  with  Metro- 
politan Toronto  just  before  he  abandoned  the 
Spadina  Expressway  after  blowing  $100 
milHon.  That  is  the  kind  of  consultation  they 
are  going  to  get. 

Then  the  speech  goes  on  to  say  high 
priority  has  been  given  to  rebuildmg  or 
widening  Highway  17  between  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  and  Sudbury— that  is  high  priority.  And 
also  it  says  that  the  Ontario  government  is 
negotiating  an  agreement  to  participate 
through  an  appropriate  agency  about  the 
Polar  Gas  project.  The  government  is  not 
going  to  have  an  agreement.  It  hasn't  got  an 
agreement;  there  is  no  sign  of  an  agreement— 
but  it  is  going  to  be  negotiating  an  agree- 
ment. 

Then  last  but  not  least,  it  says  studies  will 
be  made  regarding  the  establishment  of  a  port 
facility  in  the  James  Bay  area.  Now,  when  I 
first  heard  this  I  figured:  "Boy,  they  are 
going  to  get  a  port;  how  wonderful.  I  will  be 
able  to  sail  my  boat  up  there."  But  the  gov- 
ernment is  going  to  have  studies  regarding 
the  establishment  of  a  port  in  the  James  Bay 
area.  Well,  so  muc^h  for  the  north.  I  begrudge 
the  north  nothing.  If  the  money  that  was 
saved  on  the  Spadina  Expressway  can  be 
used  to  put  in  Highway  17,  or  the  Moosonee 
road,  more  power  to  them.  But  I  don't  think 
they  are  going  to  get  it. 

Mr.  Deacon:  No,  there  will  be  more 
studies. 

Mr.  Givens:  Only  more  studies.  So,  so 
much  for  the  north. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Nothing  is  too  good  for 
the  north— and  nothing  is  what  they  are 
going  to  get. 


192 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Givens:  Now,  we  have  been  told  over 
and  over  again— 

Mr.  Stokes:  Does  the  member  think  the 
north  should  subsidize  the  TTC  down  here? 

Mr.  Givens:  No.  And  it  won't,  because  the 
TTC  isn't  doing  a  hell  of  a  lot— or  the  prov- 
ince isn't  permitting  it  to.  Dr.  Richard 
Soberman  has  just  brought  in  a  report  in 
which  he  indicates  that  the  Scarborough  Ex- 
pressway in  his  opinion— I  am  paraphrasing; 
I  haven't  had  an  opportunity  to  read  the 
report,  so  I  judge  from  what  I  read  in  the 
newspapers— but  Dr.  Soberman  is  recommend- 
ing that  the  Scarborough  Expressway  be 
abandoned.  And  I  tell  the  members  that  I 
am  not  surprised.  If  there  was  reason  for 
abandoning  the  Spadina  Expressway— which 
was  much  less  painful  to  the  people  in  the 
area  from  a  disruptive  and  inconvenient  stand- 
point than  it  would  be  for  the  people  if  the 
Scarborough  Expressway  should  be  built— if 
there  was  reason  for  abandoning  the  Spadina 
Expressway  then,  a  fortiori,  the  Scarborough 
Expressway— a  fortiori  means  I  am  leading 
with  greater  strength  for  greater  reason— the 
Scarborough  Expressway  should  be  aban- 
doned. 

When  asked  whether  the  Scarborough  Ex- 
pressway should  be  replaced  by  this  Krauss- 
Maffei  scheme— the  government  is  putting  all 
its  eggs  in  one  basket  on  that  one— Dr.  Sober- 
man said  no,  that  he  wants  something  that 
will  work  now  and  not  in  the  future.  When 
he  talks  about  Krauss-Maffei— which  I  will 
come  to  in  just  a  second— he  says  it  is  a 
research  project,  really,  and  not  something 
that  is  viable  to  go  into  because  it  hasn't 
been  in  operation  anywhere.  He  talks  about 
the  project  as  a  matter  for  the  future  and 
probably  it  won't  be  operational  for  about  20 
years. 

Mr.  Deacon:  That  is  a  basket  of  eggs  that 
is  beginning  to  turn  rotten. 

Mr.  Givens:  And  then  he  indicates  that  it 
should  be  LRT.  LRT  is  like  rapid  transit. 
Some  people  call  it  Hght  rail  transportation, 
which  is  a  streetcar  system  which  is  being 
developed  in  the  United  States  and  which  is 
being  used  in  Europe  and  in  many  American 
cities.  They  are  planning  it  right  now  and 
they  are  putting  it  in  operation.  It  is  a  tried 
and  tested  system. 

I  would  have  thought  that  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, since  this  is  having  so  much  suc- 
cess in  other  jurisdictions,  that  at  least  there 
would  be  something  in  the  Throne  Speech 
that  would  indicate  that  the  provincial  gov- 


ernment is  interested  enough  in  studying  this 
particular  issue.  But  it  is  not.  There  is  not  a 
word  in  it  about  light  rapid  transit. 

Dr.  Soberman  has  indicated  that  the  very 
right  of  way  which  was  designated  for  the 
Krauss-Maffei  thing  some  time  off  in  the 
future  should  be  used  for  an  LRT  system, 
which  means  that  as  far  as  he  is  concerned, 
as  an  expert— and  he  must  be  an  expert  or 
else  he  wouldn't  have  been  brought  in  to 
make  this  study  and  make  this  report— as  far 
as  he  is  concerned,  he  is  completely  ridding 
himself  of  any  idea  that  that's  Where  the 
Krauss-Maffei  system  should  work  and  he 
doesn't  think  it's  going  to  work.  And  he  sug- 
gested that  right  of  way  now  be  used  for  this 
light  rapid  transit  system. 

The  Krauss-Maffei  thing  is  being  called  into 
question  all  along  the  line.  People  are  asking 
questions;  they  can't  get  answers.  It's  a  re- 
search project,  it's  not  a  proven  system.  It  is 
nowhere  in  existence,  not  even  in  the  countr)- 
where  it's  manufactured. 

Magnetic  levitation  is  being  used  for  many 
kinds  of  engines  but  not  for  transportation 
anywhere  in  the  world.  The  stations  are  going 
to  be  huge.  They  are  going  to  be  up  in  the 
air.  There  are  going  to  be  staggering  ques- 
tions as  to  how  it  is  going  to  be  interlined 
with  the  subway  system  and  with  the  bus 
system. 

Thev  talk  about  20-passenger  cars.  It  has 
been  figured  out  from  an  engineering  stand- 
point that  these  20-passenger  cars  aren't 
going  to  be  able  to  handle  the  loads  with 
enough  of  a  time  headway  between  them 
to  let  it  operate  as  a  safe  system,  so  there 
are  the  same  serious  loading  limitations  and 
there  are  going  to  be  no  attendants  on  the 
cars.  It's  going  to  have  high  capital  and 
operating  costs.  It's  a  new  and  completely 
unproved  technology  at  the  present  time, 
and  I  would  have  thought  that  the  Throne 
Speech  would  have  taken  into  consideration 
this   new   manifestation— this   LRT   system. 

There  is  a  citizens  transit  committee  which 
has  been  dealing  with  this  at  various  public 
hearings  and  the  government  has  chosen  to 
disregard  this  completely.  I  think  that  is 
absolutely  wrong.  I  think  that  Krauss-Maffei 
may  be  okay.  Maybe  it  will  be  in  operation 
in  about  15  or  20  years,  but  there  is  knoNvn 
technology  which  has  to  be  utilized  for  the 
purpose  of  moving  people  now,  because  the 
Spadina  Expressway,  for  instance,  was  aban- 
doned three  years  ago.  It  will  be  three  years 
on  June  3  of  this  year. 

What  has  taken  its  place?  The  Spadina 
subway  is  going  to  be  built.  I  think  tenders 


MARCH  12,  1974 


193 


have  just  been  approved  for  the  building  of 
the  sewers  in  the  ravine  there  and  that  will 
take  about  six  months.  And  they  indicate  that 
the  subway  will  be  finished  by  1977.  I  think 
there  will  be  grass  growing  dovm  Yonge 
St.  before  that  subway  is  finished  in  1977, 
because  it  has  taken  10  years  to  move  the 
Yonge  St.  subway  from  Eglinton  up  to  Finch 
and  that  hasn't  been  opened  yet. 

That  thing  started  when  I  was  still  at 
city  hall  in  Toronto.  True,  there  was  tunnel- 
ling and  there  may  not  be  tunnelling  in  the 
ravine,  but  by  the  time  that  they  deck  the 
system  in  the  ravine  and  do  what  is  sort  of 
tunnelling  in  reverse,  it  will  probably  take 
10  years  and  you  ain't  going  to  get  that 
subway  finished  for  at  least  10  years,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

So,  what  have  they  done?  What  have  they 
done  to  replace  the  transportation  system 
which  they  abandoned  three  years  ago?  A 
dia-a-bus  system  is  only  an  intermediate  sys- 
tem which  takes  people  from  their  homes 
and  brings  them  to  bus  stops  or  subway 
stations.  But  if  you  don't  have  subway  sta- 
tions or  if  the  subway  stations  are  over- 
loaded, the  dial-a-bus  system  is  just  a  tertiary 
kind  of  support  system.  So  what  has  the 
government  done  to  replace  that  transporta- 
tion system?  Absolutely  nothing.  And  there 
isn't  even  a  word  in  the  Throne  Speech  about 
what  the  government  is  going  to  do. 

Concerning  the  teachers  situation  which 
the  Throne  Speech  alludes  to,  it  looks  like 
we  are  going  to  get  compulsory  arbitration 
whether  we  like  it  or  not.  As  far  as  we  in 
this  party  are  concerned,  the  criterion  of 
what  should  determine  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion is  not  whether  a  calling  or  a  service  or 
a  kind  of  work  is  essential  or  not.  I  don't 
think  that  really  is  a  relevant  point.  As  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  I  think  that  the  criterion 
for  compulsory  arbitration  should  be  the 
kind  of  work  or  service  which  has  to  do 
with  public  safety,  which  has  to  do  with 
health,  which  has  to  do  with  the  matter  of 
life  and  death,  vital  services. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  essentiality.  Garbage 
collection  is  essential.  Transportation  is  essen- 
tial. There  are  some  of  these  things  that  are 
essential  for  which  I  wouldn't  consider  com- 
pulsory arbitration  to  be  the  necessary  option, 
the  necessary  outcome,  the  necessary  remedy. 

But  what  bothers  me  is  this,  and  I  will 
tell  you  quite  frankly,  Mr.  Speaker,  here  we 
have  a  class  of  people,  the  high  school 
teachers  in  this  particular  area— and  this  is  a 
cause  celebre,  it  isn't  only  the  teachers  in 
the  York  county  system,  but  it's  the  teachers 


everywhere;  the  whole  world  is  watching  as 
to  what's  going  to  happen  here— what  bothers 
me  is  this,  that  here  we  have  several  hundred 
teachers  who  obviously  have  the  support  of 
most  other  teachers  throughout  the  countrv 
for  that  matter  who  are  highly  intelligent, 
highly  educated. 

This  isn't  riff-raff.  These  aren't  people  be- 
ing led  by  Communist  radicals  where  you 
think  that  they  are  trying  to  score  political 
points.  These  are  people  who  have  been 
exposed  to  our  kids.  They  realize  the  impor- 
tance of  their  jobs.  Some  of  them  have  verv 
high  degrees.  If  this  government  hasn't  been 
able  to  empathize  with  these  people,  if  this 
government  hasn't  been  able  to  establish  a 
rapport  with  this  class  of  people  in  our 
society,  then  something  is  very,  very  serious- 
ly wrong. 

The  only  way  that  we  can  settle  this 
problem  is  by  the  shotgun  of  compulsory 
arbitration,  because  that  is  what  it  is.  This 
class  of  people  are  not  miners  and  the>-  are 
not  uneducated  people  who  haven't  had  an 
opportunity  to  have  an  education;  these  are 
our  most  highly  qualified  people  in  the 
community,  people  who  have  always  been 
looked  up  to  as  the  people  to  whom  we 
would  entrust  the  minds  and  the  souls  of  our 
children.  These  are  the  people  that  the 
government  is  gunning  under  with  compul- 
sory arbitration  and  I  say  that  it  is  \er\',  very, 
very  sad.  Something  is  wrong  when  we  have 
to  invoke  this  solution,  which  we  will  prob- 
ably do  within  the  next  day  or  two.  This 
party  is  against  it.  We  cannot  support  com- 
pulsory arbitration,  because  we  think  that 
there's  another  remedy  and  we  will  come  to 
that  at  the  proper  time  when  the  debate 
takes  place. 

Lastly,  I  want  to  deal  with  the  question 
of  solid  waste  management.  The  Throne 
Speech  says: 

A    permanent    advisory    committee     on 
solid  waste  management  will  be  established 
in    order    to    achieve    closer    consultation 
with  municipal  governments,  environmental 
groups    and    industry,    whose    co-operation 
is    essential    to    the    solution    of   problems 
created  by  increasing  waste  of  energy  and 
material    resources    and   the   diflBculties    of 
waste  disposal. 
This  means  another  study.  I  don't  know  what 
we    need    another    study    for    in    this    field, 
really.  You  know,  there's  a  lot  of  very  mud- 
dled   thinking    going    on    on    this    subject. 
Toronto  has  a  garbage  problem.  It  goes  into 
another  area  and  wants  to  dump  it.  "Don't 
dump    your    garbage    here.    No    way.    Don't 
dump  it  here."  Well,  what  shall  we  do  with 


194 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


it?  "Burn  it,  incinerate  it."  If  we  want  to 
build  an  incinerator  in  town,  the  people  in 
the  area  don't  want  it  where  we  want  to 
locate  it.  "Don't  build  a  sewage  disposal 
plant. 

These  people  have  no  objection— and  this 
is  universal,  it  involves  everybody—  they 
ha\'e  no  objection  to  making  garbage.  They 
have  no  objection  to  flushing  a  toilet  and 
creating  waste.  It's  a  very  unpleasant  subject 
but  we  have  got  to  face  up  to  it  and  talk 
about  it.  They  are  all  waste  makers  and  all 
litterers  and  they  are  all  garbage  makers,  but 
nobody  comes  up  with  a  solution  as  to  how 
we  are  going  to  dispose  of  this  stufiF. 

So  we  are  the  victims  of  progress,  because 
years  ago  when  garbage  was  collected  on  the 
streets  of  Toronto,  we  had  a  packer  truck 
that  came  down  the  street  and  we  took  the 
cartons  out  and  flattened  them  out  and  shor- 
ed up  the  sides  of  the  truck.  Then  when  they 
took  the  stuff  to  the  dump,  they  could  separ- 
ate the  paper  from  the  garbage  and  so  on. 
The  flush  toilet  was  supposed  to  be  great 
progress.  It  is  one  of  the  worst  things  that 
has  ever  happened  to  civilized  society  to  date 
and  that's  a  fact.  This  is  the  problem  today, 
and  of  course  the  cigarette  smoker  is  the 
greatest  polluter  of  all. 

I  am  the  vice-president  of  a  company 
called  Atlantic  Packaging  Co.  We  recycle 
paper,  kraft  paper.  In  our  mill  in  Scarbor- 
ough, at  111  Progress,  we  manufacture  220 
tons  of  paper  a  day  for  corrugated  cases  and 
boxes.  We  manufacture  other  things  as  well 
but  this  is  our  prime  concern.  The  only  way 
we  can  manufacture  this  product  is  by  col- 
lecting waste  corrugated  for  the  purpose  of 
making  the  kind  of  paper  that  is  required  for 
corrugated  products.  That's  220  tons  a  day. 
That's  a  lot  of  paper. 

We  have  tapped  just  about  every  source 
of  paper  practically,  in  this  country  within 
transportation  distance  of  our  plant.  We  get 
the  stuff  from  as  far  as  1,500  miles  away 
from  here  to  the  south.  So  we've  tapped  the 
chain  stores,  the  department  stores  and  all 
people  who  generate  this  kind  of  waste  paper. 

I  have  gone  to  the  municipalities  in  this 
area.  I  won't  designate  them;  I  won't  name 
them.  Nobody  wants  to  move.  Nobody  wants 
to  do  anything  about  segregating  the  paper 
from  the  garbage.  Paper  represents  and  con- 
stitutes 40  per  cent  of  garbage  collection 
today.  We  have  gone  to  these  people,  the 
commissioners  of  street  cleaning,  and  we've 
said  to  them,  "Segregate  this.** 

The  prices  vary  from  $20  to  $35  a  ton  and 
we've  been  prepared  to  pay  that  for  paper 
delivered  at  our  plant,  which  is  a  fair  mar- 


ket price.  This  is  not  speculating  in  waste 
paper  because  we  require  this  amount  of 
paper  on  a  day-to-day  basis,  seven  days  a 
week,  365  days  a  year.  Members  should  hear 
the  excuses  they've  given  us:  The  garbage 
gets  dumped  in  the  packer  truck  and  that 
hydraulic  press  comes  in  and  just  congeals 
it  all;  the  members  of  the  union  wouldn't 
be  prepared  to  go  out  on  the  dump  and 
separate  and  segregate  this  stuff. 

They'd  rather  burn  it  and  all  the  stuff  is 
wasted.  Nobody  lets  us  dump  it  and  nobody 
lets  us  burn  it. 

We  said  to  them,  "All  right,  pass  bylaws 
which  will  require  your  people  to  segregate 
this  stuff  at  the  source,  so  they  come  up  with 
their  newspapers  in  one  bundle  and  their  cor- 
rugated in  another  bundle  and  so  on."  We've 
got  to  come  to  that  because  nobody's  letting 
us  dump  it  and  nobody's  letting  us  bum  it. 
And  they  have  51  excuses  as  to  why  that 
can't  be  done,  such  as,  "We  can't  subject 
people  to  onerous  bylaws."  There  are  some 
municipalities  which  have  these  bylaws  now 
but  refuse  to  enforce  them  because  they  feel 
that  they  will  antagonize  the  people  who  vote 
for  the  politicians. 

What  is  the  use  of  indicating  another  study 
on  this  subject  when  there  are  plants  today 
which  are  doing  this  kind  of  work,  like  our 
plant,  with  respect  to  paper?  There  are  others 
with  respect  to  metals  and  glass  and  so  on. 
They  are  just  looking  for  this  stuff  and  no- 
body wants  to  take  the  time  or  trouble  to 
make  it  available  to  them. 

We  can  take  all  this  paper  off  anybody's 
hands.  We're  in  production  now;  we've  been 
in  production  for  several  years.  What  would 
be  wrong  with  indicating  to  these  munici- 
palities that  the  people  have  to  segregate  this 
stuff,  this  garbage,  right  at  the  source  so  that 
we  can  make  use  of  it?  And  for  this  people 
will  pay.  We're  only  one  company  of  many. 

We  hailed  with  great  hullabaloo  the  other 
day  when  a  minister  on  behalf  of  Anglo  an- 
nounced a  sawmill  and  a  pulp  and  paper  plant 
being  erected  somewhere  where  they're  going 
to  cut  down  trees  and  make  pulp  and  paper. 
Do  members  know  that  for  every  ton  of  paper 
we  use  on  a  recycling  basis,  we  avoid  cutting 
down  17  trees  somewhere  in  a  forest  in  north- 
em  Ontario,  where  aforestation  and  reforesta- 
tion have  to  take  place?  This  is  a  great  con- 
servation measure. 

What  does  the  government  have  to  study 
in  order  to  decide  that  this  is  a  good  thing 
and  to  implement  it  and  enforce  it?  We're 
in  operation  now  and,  as  1  say,  we're  only 
one  plant  of  many  which  recycle  materials 


MARCH  12,  1974 


195 


and  are  recycling  them  today.  This  isn't  a 
plan  for  the  future  or  a  programme  for  20 
years  from  now.  This  is  in  existence  now. 

The  provincial  government  seems  to  refuse 
to  come  to  grips  with  this.  It  would  rather 
deal  with  hostile  people  who  don't  want  gar- 
bage dumped  in  their  localities;  with  hostile 
people  who  refuse  to  have  incinerators  and 
sewage  disposal  plants  erected  in  their  various 
municipalities.  This  is  an  anti-growth  psy- 
chosis; I'm  all  right,  Jack,  but  don't  come  in 
here.  We  don't  want  any  changes  and  don't 
pollute  and  don't  do  this  and  don't  do  that. 
Yet  these  are  the  very  people  who  are  doing 
the  polluting  and  don't  come  up  with  any 
solution  as  to  how  these  things  should  be 
handled. 

So  here's  another  study.  I  say  that  this 
Throne  Speech  could  have  gone  a  lot  further 
in  indicating  to  the  people  of  Ontario  what 
should  be  done  and  what  has  to  be  done 
vAth  respect  to  recycling  and  with  respect  to 
handling  the  problem  of  waste  management. 

About  the  only  thing  in  the  Throne  Speech 
I  do  agree  with  and  which,  apparently,  some 
members  of  the  Conservative  government 
don't  agree  with,  is  the  enforcement  of  the 
use  of  seatbelts.  I  think  enforcement  of  the 
use  of  seatbelts  is  a  good  idea.  I  don't  think 
the  probl'em  of  enforcement  will  be  that  great. 
There  will  be  a  lot  of  people  who  won't 
obey  the  law,  but  since  when  is  this  a  rea- 
son for  not  passing  a  law?  People  who  com- 
mit murder,  of  course,  don't  obey  the  criminal 
law.  There  are  a  lot  of  people  who  don't 
obey  the  laws  in  the  Criminal  Code,  but  yet 
we  have  the  Criminal  Code  because  society 
has  to  be  protected. 

The  real  sanction  which  will  enforce  the 
law  of  having  to  clip  on  your  seatbelt,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  the  civil  action  sanction.  If  you 
find  that  you're,  heaven  forbid,  in  an  accident, 
and  you  haven't  had  your  seat  belt  on,  and 
you're  going  to  be  involved  in  contributory 
negligence  because  you  didn't  have  your  seat- 
belt  on,  and  that  your  award  will  go  down 
by  50  per  cent  or  80  per  cent  or,  in  turn, 
that  the  award  to  the  plaintiff  who  sues  you 
is  going  to  go  up  tremendously  because  you 
didn't  have  your  seatbelt  on,  I  think  you'll 
find  a  lot  of  people  are  going  to  abide  by  the 
law. 

Because  once  you  put  it  in  as  a  law,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  custom  in  our  community  and 
our  society  is  that  people  will  obey  the  law. 
If  they  don't  obey  the  law  they  run  the  risk 
of  this  very  serious  civil  sanction  and  a  civil 
case  if  they  get  into  an  accident,  and  that's 
rough.  If  you  don't  get  into  an  accident  then 


it  doesn't  matter  whether  or  not  you  buckle 
on  your  seatbelt,  but  at  a  critical  time,  when 
this  becomes  a  factor  in  a  serious  matter  such 
as  an  accident,  it  will  be  very,  very  important 
as  a  question  of  fact  in  any  given  trial,  or  in 
the  settlement  of  a  case,  as  to  whether  you 
hal  your  seatbelt  on  or  not.  I  think  that 
consequently  this  will  cause  people  to  obey 
the  seatbelt  law. 

That,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  about  the  size  of  it. 
I  hope  we  will  all  be  here  next  year  when  we 
will  again  indulge  in  this  ritual  and  I'm  glad 
to  see  how  the  chamber  filled  up  from  the 
time  that  I  started. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Nickel 
Belt. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Mr. 
Speaker,  it's  good  to  see  you  back,  looking 
well,  sitting  on  the  Throne  and  ruling  in  your 
customarily  fair  way.  As  I  listened  to  the 
Throne  Speech  as  read  by  His  Honour  I 
couldn't  help  but  think  that  we  were  listen- 
ing to  a  typical  mid-term  Throne  Speech 
which,  in  a  rather  somewhat  uniquely  vague 
way,  indicates  the  social  and  economic  direc- 
tion that  tile  government  intends  to  take  in 
the  next  year  and,  perhaps,  the  next  two 
years. 

There  was  nothing  in  the  speech  that  was 
terribly  unpalatable  to  any  groups  in  our 
society.  There  were  no  announcements  of 
new  regional  governments  in  the  province 
that  would  upset  people  in  their  community. 
I  was  just  projecting  ahead  to  next  year 
and  I  thought,  "My  goodness,  can  you  hear 
the  trumpets  blaring  as  the  announcements 
are  made  from  the  Throne  in  an  election 
year?" 

But  I  can  assure  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
next  year  the  people  across  this  province 
are  going  to  say:  "No,  not  this  time.  An 
election  year  of  a  platter  full  of  promises 
will  not  make  up  for  the  by  then  30-plus 
years  of  Conservative  government  neglect  in 
Ontario."  This  is  particularly  true  in  northern 
Ontario.  I  can  imagine  that  the  polls  in  the 
province  will  reflect  that  next  year  and  then 
we'll  witness  the  Conservatives  pulling  the 
plug  on  the  advertising  campaigns  and 
we'll  have  another  American  style  propa- 
ganda campaign  across  the  province. 

But  I  should  get  back  to  this  speech.  I 
should  mention  too,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  those 
who  know  me  well  know  I've  never  been 
a  very  strong  royalist,  but  I  must  say  that 
given  the  ofiBce  of  Lieutenant  Governor,  that 
His  Honour,  Mr.  Macdonald,  filled  the  bill 
admirably   and   I    could    only   hope    that   in 


196 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  years  to  come  the  government  in  Ottawa, 
perchance  in  15  or  20  years,  will  appoint  a 
Conservative  as  Lieutenant  Governor  for 
Ontario. 

I  suppose  we  all  think  of  people  that  would 
fill  the  bill  among  those  people  we  know. 
The  first  member  that  came  to  mind  to  me 
when  I  was  thinking  of  a  Conservative 
Lieutenant  Governor  for  the  Province  of 
Ontario— I'm  thinking  now  15  years  ahead 
—would  be,  of  course,  none  other  than  the 
member  for  Timiskaming  (Mr.   Havrot). 

Can't  you  just  picture  it  now?  When  the 
call  to  serve  came  he  would  shut  down  his 
hotdog  stand  on  the  top  of  Maple  Mountain. 
He'd  fight  through  the  blizzards  at  the  top 
and  the  black  flies  at  the  bottom.  He'd 
jump  on  the  monorail  express  to  Toronto  and 
he  would  come  down  here  to  serve  out  his 
term. 

I  think  most  of  us  would  support  the  mem- 
ber for  Timiskaming  if  he  was  to  fulfil  that 
role.  I  am  sure  the  members  of  his  con- 
stituency would  anyway. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  He  would  probably  bring 
the  black  flies  with  him. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  was 
nothing  in  the  Throne  Speech  that  would 
make  the  people  of  Ontario  excited  about 
what  they  were  going  to  witness  for  the 
next  year.  There  were  no  really  new  exciting 
programmes.  As  the  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill  (Mr.  Givens)  indicated,  it  men- 
tioned all  sorts  of  studies  and  all  sorts  of 
indications  of  priority  ratings;  but  it  certainly 
didn't  go  beyond  that,  unless,  of  course,  you 
consider  mandatory  seatbelts  as  being  excit- 
ing. I  understand  that  the  Parliamentary 
assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  doesn't  even  consider 
that  such  an  exciting  addition  to  our  legis- 
lation. 

Let  it  never  be  said  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
New  Democrats  just  criticize  without  offer- 
ing alternatives,  because  I  certainly  intend 
this  afternoon  to  offer  some  alternatives  to 
the  government  as  to  what  should  have  been 
in  that  Throne  Speech.  For  example,  there 
should  certainly  have  been  in  that  Throne 
Speech  a  commitment  to  establish  public 
auto  insurance  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  It 
is  inevitable  in  this  jurisdiction,  as  it  is 
going  to  be  in  other  jurisdictions,  that  we 
will  have  public  automobile  insurance. 
Either  the  Conservatives  will  implement  it  or 
we  will  implement  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  never  will. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  you  would 
think  that  the  Conservatives,  having  a  fairly 


good   instinct   for    survival,    would    see   that 
and  would  implement  it. 

Also  the  entire  question  of  the  ownership 
of  our  resources  is  becoming  a  very  debatable 
subject  among  a  growing  number  of  people, 
not  just  in  this  province,  but  all  across  the 
country.  A  more  comprehensive  form  of 
social  insurance  that  would  entirely  replace 
the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board  is  some- 
thing that  those  people  who  understand  so- 
cial insurance  are  saying  has  no  equal.  Those 
people  who  are  familiar  with  the  Wode- 
house  report  in  New  Zealand  and  have  read 
its  contents  will  tell  you  that  it's  much 
superior    to    that    of    the    private    sector. 

The  Throne  Speech  should  have  offered 
some  alternatives  in  the  supply  of  land  for 
residential  purposes.  I  suppose  that  the 
government  is  in  a  spot  and  that  it  is  clearly 
locked  into  commitments  to  the  resource  cor- 
porations, to  the  insurance  industry  and  to 
the  land  speculators  and  developers  across 
this  province.  So  nothing  is  going  to  be  done 
about  the  rapidly  rising  price  of  raw  land  or 
serviced  land. 

We  have  in  this  province,  Mr.  Speaker,  a 
milieu  in  which  the  government  moves  with- 
in ever-narrowing  parameters  because  its 
commitments  are  being  made  to  fewer  and 
fewer  people  in  this  province,  and  they  are 
not  for  the  benefit  of  the  majority  of  people 
in  the  province.  While  there  are  all  sorts  of 
reasons  for  that,  one  need  only  examine  some 
of  the  individual  members  of  the  Conserva- 
tive Party  to  know  that. 

Those  of  us  who  represent  northern  ridings 
listened  to  the  Throne  Speech,  read  it  over 
after  the  speech  and  then  read  it  over  again. 
Then  the  next  day  we  were  dumbfounded  to 
read  in  the  media  all  that  was  being  done 
for  northern  Ontario— major  concessions  for 
northern  Ontario.  The  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill  said  it  as  well  as  it  could  be  said: 
What  are  those  concessions  for  northern 
Ontario?  Another  study?  Is  that  a  major 
concession?  Another  priority  rating  for  a 
project  in  northern  Ontario?  That  surely  is 
not  a  major  concession.  I  must  say  that  con- 
spicuous by  its  absence  was  any  concession 
to  the  member  for  Timiskaming  and  his  pet 
project,  the  Maple  Mountain  project. 

I  really  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there 
could  be  a  major  split  developing  in  the 
Conservative  Party  in  this  province.  I  can 
see  the  split  now  between  Ontario's  junior 
achiever,  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism (Mr.  Bennett),  and  the  north's  under- 
achiever,  the  member  for  Timiskaming,  over 
Maple  Mountain.  There  are  more  and  more 


MARCH  12,  1974 


197 


people  coming  down  and  saying  that  the 
development  of  Maple  Mountain  is  not  the 
best  kind  of  development  for  northern  On- 
tario. 

I  knovi  when  I  make  a  statement  like  that 
there  are  people  going  to  say  that  there  is 
somebody  who  is  against  tourism.  That's  not 
true.  I  wish  the  tourist  industry  well.  But 
there  are  many  unanswered  questions  about 
Maple  Moimtain,  including  the  environmental 
concerns  and  the  claims  by  the  native  peo- 
ples for  Maple  Mountain.  I  feel  that  if  public 
money  is  going  to  be  channelled  into  enter- 
prises in  northern  Ontario  it  shouldn't  be 
channelled  into  an  enterprise  such  as  Maple 
Mountain.  It  should  go  into  enterprises  which 
will  provide  good  employment  for  the  area, 
which  will  employ  local  people  and  employ 
them  at  good  wages.  I  don't  believe  that 
Maple  Mountain  is  the  kind  of  project  which 
is  going  to  add  to  the  industrial  development 
of  northern  Ontario, 

I  wouldn't  do  to  the  tourist  industry  what 
I  have  witnessed  this  government  do  to  the 
tourist  industry.  What  I  have  seen  this  gov- 
ernment do,  through  its  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications,  to  the  little 
town  of  Gogama  about  80  or  100  miles  from 
Sudbury,  I  wouldn't  do  and  nobody  in  this 
party  would  do.  That  government  over  there, 
with  its  so-called  interest  in  tourism,  isolated 
the  town  by  building  a  road  two  miles  from 
the  town,  by-passing  it  completely,  and  issued 
a  lease  to  Imperial  Oil— who  else?— for  a 
service  centre  at  the  corner.  Now  there  is  no 
need  for  anyone  travelling  on  Highway  144 
between  Sudbury  and  Timmins  to  go  into 
the  town  of  Gogama,  none  whatsoever.  That's 
some  commitment  to  tourism  in  northern 
Ontario  and  I  hope  the  NOTO  rooters  will 
take  note  of  that. 

Mr.  Martel:  Good  luck  to  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  announcement  in  the 
Throne  Speech  that  Highway  17  was  going 
to  be  widened  and  improved  between  Sud- 
bur\'  and  Saulte  Ste.  Marie  is  an  interesting 
statement.  I  don't  know,  maybe  the  member 
for  Algoma  (Mr.  Gilbertson)  would  know 
more  about  this,  but  why  did  it  not  say 
four  lanes?  Does  that  not  leave  the  member 
wondering  just  what  the  government  is  up 
to  when  it  says  there  are  going  to  be  im- 
provements to  and  widening  of  the  highway 
between  Sudbury  and  Sault  Ste.  Marie? 
We've  known  that  for  10  years.  It  has  already 
started  from  each  end  so  what  kind  of  an 
announcement  is  that  to  excite  people  in 
northern  Ontario? 


Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
Did  the  member  want  the  specifications  in 
the  Throne  Speech? 

Mr.  Martel:  Sure. 

Mr.  Laughren:  As  far  as  concerns  the  com- 
mitment to  improve  telecommunications  in 
the  remote  communities  in  northern  Ontario 
that  is  not  something  this  government  should 
be  bragging  about  because  it  is  an  embar- 
rassment the  way  it  is  now.  Bringing  in  some 
kind  of  communications  into  remote  com- 
munities surely  should  have  been  done  years 
and  years  ago.  I  can  name  communities  now 
where  there  are  no  telephones;  where  the 
hydro  supply  costs  three  times  the  rate  that 
Ontario  Hydro  charges  people  in  other  com- 
munities. That's  some  commitment  the  gov- 
ernment just  made. 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  The  member 
will  agree  it  needs  improvement,  won't  he? 

Mr.  Laughren:  At  the  same  time,  the 
people  in  these  remote  communities  pay  the 
same  seven  per  cent  sales  tax.  What  do  they 
get  in  return?  Certainly  not  roads.  They  pay 
the  same  Medicare  premiums  as  the  rest  of 
us.  They  have  no  medical  services  whatso- 
ever—not even  a  nurse-practitioner,  not  even 
an  emergency  vehicle— but  they  pay  the  same 
premiums.  They  pay  the  same  income  tax 
and  it  takes  some  gall  to  stand  up,  as  a 
government,  and  brag  about  improving  serv- 
ices in  those  communities. 

Mr.  Stokes:  They  have  to  go  100  miles  to 
get  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  remember,  Mr.  Speaker, 

that  the  present  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  Mc- 
Keough)  stood  up  two  years  ago  and  indicated 
that  he  understood  the  problems  in  the  un- 
organized communities  in  northern  Ontario; 
he  was  then  the  Minister  of  Treasury  and 
Economics,  But  to  this  day  nothing  has  been 
done  for  the  unorganized  communities  in 
northern  Ontario  except  for  one  statement 
in  the  Throne  Speech  that  the  government 
was  going  to  recognize  community  organiza- 
tions or  councils  to  funnel  grants  through. 
There  was  no  mention  of  the  grants  or  the 
funding  of  those  actual  organizations  or 
community  councils  to  help  them  get  off 
the  ground. 

There  are  community  councils  all  across 
northern  Ontario  in  these  unorganized  com- 
munities. The  response  by  the  Minister  of 
Health  to  demands  from  small  communities 
to  send  in  some  kind  of  medical  service  has 
been  anything  but  enthusiastic.  We  have  be- 


198 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


sieged  the  minister  with  letters  to  put,  for 
heaven's  sake,  a  nurse  practitioner  or  an 
emergency  vehicle  in  these  communities  be- 
cause it  is  not  right  to  have  communities  iso- 
lated perhaps  by  100  miles  or  200  miles, 
with  no  access  to  any  kind  of  medical  service 
wh;)tsoever.  The  response  has  been  negligible 
from  the  ministry. 

People  who  live  in  these  small  unorganized 
communities  in  the  north  do  so  for  a  variety 
of  social  and  economic  reasons.  I  think  that 
one  could  generalize  and  say  they  tend  to 
be  very  self-reliant,  very  patient  people,  not 
ove^^ly  demanding  of  the  government.  In 
other  words  these  people  don't  really  expect 
to  see  a  return  on  their  tax  dollars  from  the 
Science  Centre  in  Toronto,  from  the  art  gal- 
leries, from  the  museum,  from  the  express- 
ways down  here,  from  international  trade 
missions.  Those  people  don't  expect  to  get  a 
return  on  their  tax  dollars  to  build  those 
things. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  not  stupid 
either.  And  as  more  and  more  New  Democrats 
get  elected  in  northern  Ontario,  they  are  com- 
ing to  realize  that  they  have  a  right  to  de- 
mand a  return  for  those  things  they  are  not 
getting— the  basic  amenities  of  life. 

As  taxpayers  they  can  see  that  their  taxes 
are  going  to  service  others.  They  can  see  as 
well  that  while  communities  in  southern  On- 
tario debate  the  merits  of  a  billion-dollar 
transit  system,  they  go  without  drinking 
water,  they  go  without  any  recreational  fa- 
cilities at  all,  they  go  without  inadequate 
roads,  they  have  inadequate  communication 
systems,  and  they  know  that  is  not  right. 

Surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  place  in 
this  province  for  a  double  set  of  standards 
like  that— one  set  for  the  unorganized  com- 
munities in  the  north,  and  another  set  of 
standards  for  the  more  populated  centres; 
some  of  those  populated  centres  are  in  north- 
em  Ontario,  as  well. 

There  really  must  be  some  members  of  the 
government  who  seethe  with  anger  inside 
when  they  alternate  between  Toronto  and 
their  ridings  and  see  these  two  standards;  see 
this  double  standard  in  effect.  I  don't  know 
how  they  can  accept  this,  but  I  suppose  if 
they  really  wanted  to  change  things  they 
wouldn't  be  members  of  the  government;  they 
would  be  in  opposition  trying  to  change  them, 
rather  than  keeping  them  as  they  are. 

If  the  government  contfnues  with  its 
present  level  of  non-intervention  in  these 
unorganized  communities,  a  couple  of  things 
are    going    to    result.    They    are    going    to 


continue  to  have  an  inadequate  level  in 
supply  of  and  standards  for  housing.  We 
are  going  to  continue  to  have  money  from 
the  Social  Development  policy  field  being 
poured  into  these  commmnities  with  no 
measurable  results  whatsoever  because  the 
government  is  not  changing  the  environ- 
ment in  those  communities  at  all.  It  is  sup- 
porting people  who  are  living  on  social 
assistance  but  it  is  not  changing  the  con- 
ditions under  which  they  live;  and  that's 
not  changing  anything.  The  government  is, 
perpetuating  the  cycle  of  poverty  that  exists 
in  those  communities. 

I  am  glad  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development  (Mrs.  Birch)  is  in  the 
Legislature  this  afternoon,  because  I  believe 
there  is  about  $39  million  or  $40  million 
available  to  the  Province  of  Ontario  under 
the  federal  capital  projects  fund.  I  believe 
that  money  is  available  only  from  April  1, 
1974  until  May  31,  1975.  I  think  it  is  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  between  about  $35 
million  to  $40  million  that  is  available  from 
the  federal  govermnent  to  the  province  to  use 
for  provincial  projects.  I  am  not  talking 
about  municipal  projects  now;  these  are 
provincial  projects.  That  money  is  available 
to  the  Province  of  Ontario  and  that  is  what 
should  be  used. 

Any  money  put  into  those  communities; 
should  be  done  so  in  a  very  calculated 
way.  What  is  required  is  something  that  is 
very  similar  to  the  New  Democratic  Party's; 
municipal  foundation  plan,  where  one  estab- 
lishes a  minimum  level  of  services  to  all 
communities  and  then  provides  it.  That  is 
where  that  $30  million  or  so  that  is  avail- 
able from  the  federal  government  could  be 
used. 

Mr.  Martel:  Put  it  in  Cornwall. 

Mr.  Laughren:  These  are  some  of  the 
things  that  should  be  a  requirement  for  every 
community  if  one  regards  a  community  as 
being  a  viable  community  in  which  people 
can  continue  to  live;  these  are  the  things 
that  should  be  there.  There  should  be  some 
form  of  community  complex  that  would 
allow  people  to  have  some  form  of  recrea- 
tion facility.  In  some  cases,  maybe  a  com- 
munity steam  bath- 
Mr.  Stokes:  Water  or  sewers. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  must  be  a  supply 
of  energy  in  every  community.  Now,  if 
you  can't  bring  in  Ontario  Hydro,  then 
provide  a  Delco  unit,  but  for  heaven's 
sakes  not   a  Delco  unit  at   three  times   the 


MARCH  12,  1974 


199 


rate  of  Ontario  Hydro  for  energy  supply. 
That  is  what  is  happening  today. 

There  should  be  some  form  of  emergency 
transportation.  There  are  communities  with 
absolutely  no  form  of  emergency  transporta- 
tion at  all.  There  should  be  some  even  if  it 
is  a  Natural  Resources  station  wagon  that 
can  be  arranged  as  an  ambulance  to  take 
somebody  100  miles  to  the  nearest  doctor 
or  the  nearest  hospital;  or  an  arrangement 
with  the  charter  air  service  to  fly  into  a 
community  and  take  out  somebody  who  is 
sick.  These  arrangements  have  to  be  made. 
It  is  ridiculous  that  in  1974  these  com- 
munities are  without  these  services. 

Clean  water.  There  are  communities  in 
northern  Ontario  surrounded  throughout  a 
vast  acreage  with  clear,  unpolluted  water, 
yet  in  those  tiny  communities  the  water 
table  is  polluted  primarily  because  of  the 
nature  of  their  septic  systems.  That's  got 
to  be  changed. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  lakes  and  not  a  drop  to  drink! 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  have  got  to  have  a 
good  supply  of  drinking  water  and  that  can 
be  done  through  a  community  water  supply, 
with  either  a  lagoon  system  to  get  rid  of 
the  sewage  or  perhaps  a  holding  tank. 

There  has  got  to  be  fire  protection  and 
that  would  include  making  sure  that  there 
is  a  fire  extinguisher  in  homes  and  so  forth. 
But  there  is  no  fire  protection  in  a  lot  of 
these  communities  and  to  this  day  there  is 
not  a  single  penny  of  provincial  money 
available  for  fire  protection  in  unorganized 
communities.  I  could  take  members  to  com- 
munity after  community  where  they  have 
been  writing  letters  to  the  fire  marshal's 
office  and  saying,  "How  about  some  money 
to  help  us  buy  an  old  fire  truck?" 

Mr.  Martel:  No  way. 

Mr.  Laughren:  And  if  they  do  get  a 
fire  truck,  such  as  one  community  I  know 
of,  they  got  a  fire  truck  by  running  a  lot 
of  raffles,  they  got  an  old  fire  truck  and 
they  had  no  place  to  put  it.  So  they  fill  it 
up  with  water  and  it  freezes.  Now  what  could 
be  more  ridiculous  in  1974?  The  government 
must  supply  these  basics. 

Another  thing  is  suitable  garbage  disposal. 
Members  should  see  some  of  the  dumps 
outside  these  towns  where  the  people  have 
dumped  their  garbage.  It's  a  disgrace. 

If  they  can't  supply  a  doctor  in  these 
communities  and  that's  understandable  in 
a  community  of  200  people,  500,  800,  then 


they  should  at  least  supply  a  nurse  prac- 
titioner. The  efforts  of  the  Health  Ministry 
in  this  regard  have  been  minimal.  They  just 
have  not  treated  the  matter  seriously.  I  can 
show  the  House  letters  —  I  should  have 
brought  them  in  and  read  them  into  the 
record-from  the  Minister  of  Health  offering 
the  platitudes  and  agreeing  that  there  cer- 
tainly should  be  something  done  and  that  he 
has  authorized  the  local  health  unit  to  try 
and  find  somebody,  but  nothing  ever  hap- 
pens. Because  they  are  not  serious  about  it. 

That  list  I've  just  given  may  seem  like  a 
long  list.  One  might  think  of  the  expense  of 
bringing  all  those  services  into  those  com- 
munities, because  most  of  the  communities 
are  lacking  all  of  those  services. 

Mr.  Stokes:  There  is  a  greater  expense  in 
social  terms  if  they  don't  do  anything. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Can  members  imagine 
people  in  southern  Ontario  or  in  other  urban 
centres  settling  for  anything  less  than  that? 
They  wouldn't  do  it. 

It  doesn't  make  sense  to  suggest  to  these 
people  in  these  remote  communities  that  they 
move  into  the  larger  urban  centres,  either  in 
the  north  or  in  southern  Ontario.  Those 
centres  are  having  trouble,  in  an  employment 
sense,  supporting  their  existing  populations. 
And  besides,  very  often  the  jobs  that  are 
available  in  the  larger  urban  centres  require 
a  degree  of  expertise  or  education,  specializa- 
tion, that  those  people  in  the  unorganized 
remote  communities  simply  do  not  have.  So 
it  doesn't  make  sense  to  say  move  them  out 
of  there.  That's  not  going  to  solve  any  prob- 
lem. We  just  create  another  problem  in  the 
urban  centre. 

So  the  alternative  is  to  do  something  with 
the  community.  And  for  heaven's  sake,  the 
government  should  make  up  its  mind  soon 
whether  or  not  it  is  going  to  regard  those 
communities  as  viable  entities  or  not  and  tell 
the  people  that  instead  of  misleading  them 
now  into  thinking  that  there  is  a  winter  works 
project  here  and  there  is  an  OFY  project 
here.  That's  not  solving  the  problem. 

Mr.  Martel:  Maybe  a  youth  programme. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development  is  very  hard  on  the  OFY 
projects.  I  could  show  her  a  provincial 
winter  works  project  up  north,  near  the  town 
of  Foleyet,  where  in  the  winter  time  they 
cut  off  all  the  brush  at  snow  level  along  the 
road.  Do  members  know  how  deep  the  snow 
is  in  the  winter  time  in  Foleyet? 


200 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Givens:  How  deep  is  it? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Five  or  six  feet.  And  then 
in  the  summer  time,  of  course,  they  had  to 
have  another  government  project  to  cut  the 
brush  off  at  ground  level.  Well,  they  are 
doing  a  lot  for  the  development  of  that  com- 
munity, aren't  they?  They  are  not  breaking 
any  cycles  when  they  do  things  like  that. 
People  still  have  the  same  pattern.  Cyclical 
poverty  continues  and  it  is  not  doing  any- 
thing for  the  community. 

But  more  than  that,  more  than  the  prob- 
lem of  employment,  many  of  the  people  in 
those  towns  have  financial  ties  there.  They 
have  family  ties  there  and  they  may  have 
some  form  of  employment  there.  So  I'm  not 
talking  simply  about  creating  employment  for 
the  unemployed  in  those  communities.  I  am 
talking  about  making  those  communities  a 
different  place  in  which  to  live.  It's  a  very 
hard  thing  to  say,  but  if  we  look  at  the 
houses  in  a  lot  of  those  unorganized  com- 
munities, they  would  be  unacceptable  in 
Toronto.  If  we  look  at  the  problems  with  the 
lot  sizes,  we  find  out  that  no  ministry  will 
give  them  approval  for  a  septic  tank;  so  in 
1974  they  are  condemned  to  outdoor  privies, 
and  that's  one  reason  we  have  polluted  water 
tables. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  is  absolutely  no  grant 
from  any  ministry  of  government  to  help 
them  build  holding  tanks,  to  help  them  pay 
for  a  truck  to  empty  those  holding  tanks  or 
to  have  a  sewage  lagoon— nothing  whatsoever 
—and  yet  other  communities  get  up  to  75 
per  cent  in  subsidies  for  their  sewage  systems. 
But  not  the  im  organized  communities— they 
don't  get  a  single  penny. 

This  is  something  the  government  should 
be  embarrassed  about.  If  they  are  not,  it's 
only  because  there  are  few  people  up  there 
and  nobody  pays  any  attention  to  them.  But 
the  standard  of  living  in  those  unorganized 
communities  is  something  about  which  this 
government  should  be  ashamed. 

I  would  like  to  document  a  few  towns  and 
tell  what  the  inadequacies  are  in  those  towns. 
I  tend  not  to  be  very  parochial  in  my 
speeches  in  this  House,  Mr.  Speaker— prob- 
ably not  enough— but  when  we  talk  about 
unorganized  communities,  I  think  that  the 
riding  of  Nickel  Belt  is  probably  a  good  ex- 
ample of  a  northern  riding  with  unorganized 
communities.  I  will  now  document  six  com- 
munities; there  are  many  more  in  Nickel  Belt, 
but  I  will  document  six  of  them. 


Cartier:  It  has  inadequate  recreational 
facilities,  medical  services,  fire  protection, 
access  by  road  and  sewage  disposal.  I  men- 
tion access  by  road,  because  can  you  imagine, 
Mr.  Speaker,  a  town  with  700  or  800  people 
—it  is  only  40  miles  north  of  Sudbury,  but  it  is 
unorganized— cut  off  from  a  highway,  in  this 
case.  Highway  144,  from  any  kind  of  entrance 
or  exit,  by  a  shunting  yard  of  the  CPR?  If 
people  want  to  get  out  and  go  to  work,  some- 
times they  have  to  wait  40  or  45  minutes 
while  the  trains  shunt  back  and  forth.  There 
are  no  lights  or  traflBc  sigi^ls  there,  and 
there  is  no  requirement  by  the  railw^ay  that 
they  have  to  move  out  of  the  way  within, 
say,  10  or  15  minutes,  because  it's  classified 
as  a  shunting  yard. 

Here  are  people,  40  miles  north  of  Sud- 
bury, who  live  in  fear  that  at  some  point 
there  is  going  to  be  a  serious  illness  or  an 
accident  on  one  side  of  the  tracks— but  try  to 
move  a  freight  train.  There  are  two  or  three 
of  them  going  back  and  forth  at  the  same 
time,  if  one  wants  to  get  out  in  a  hurry. 

Gogama,  a  little  farther  north,  which  I 
mentioned  earlier  as  having  been  cut  off  b\^ 
the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications, has  inadequate  recreational 
facihties,  inadequate  medical  services,  inade- 
quate fire  protection,  inadequate  sewage  dis- 
posal, inadequate  drinking  water  and  inade- 
quate garbage  disposal. 

Mr.  Martel:  Except  for  the  Tories. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That's  the  town,  Mr. 
Speaker,  where  10  years  ago  there  was  a 
chemical  spill  that  polluted'  part  of  the  water 
table.  Mind  you,  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  and  the  OFF  are  well  off.  They 
have  a  community  water  supply  and  sewage 
disposal.  But  not  the  rest  of  the  town.  The} 
have  nothing.  And  that's  where  over  50  per 
cent  of  the  wells  now  are  polluted  with 
nitrate,  which  is  dangerous  to  the  health  of 
infants.  Over  50  per  cent  of  the  wells  are 
polluted  and  yet  to  this  day  there  are  no 
grants  available  from  this  government  to 
rectify  that  situation.  Can  you  imagine,  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  community  in  southern  Ontario 
having  50  per  cent  of  its  wells  polluted  with 
a  substance  that's  dangerous  to  the  health  of 
infants,  without  a  public  outcry? 

Mr.  Gaunt:  No  way. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Shocking. 

Mr.  Martel:  Shame. 

Mr.  Foulds:  It  is  never  mentioned— 


MARCH  12,  1974 


201 


Mr.  Martel:  That  is  how  the  vote  goes  too. 
The  Tories  all  vote  and  they  have  the  sewer 
and  water  —  and  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  and  the  OPP.    They  are  all  Tories. 

Mr.  Laughren:  My  colleague  from  Sudbury 
East  is  quite  right  that  when  you  drive  into 
the  town,  it's  the  classic  example  of  the  other 
side  of  the  tracks.  You  drive  into  town  and 
there  are  the  nice  big  white  houses  where 
the  government  employees  live.  It's  not  the 
I  fault  of  those  individuals  working  for  the 
f  government  there  now;  it's  the  fault  of  a 
government  that  doesn't  see  that  they  have 
created  —  and  I  don't  know  whether  it  is 
I  deliberate  or  not  —  such  an  incredible  class 
l  structure  within  that  commimity  that  there 
has  to  be  hard  feelings,  as  the  people  in  the 
town  see  the  government  employees  really 
well  off  while  they  them.selves  live  in  inade- 
quate housing,  their  water  table  is  polluted 
and  there  is  no  sewage  disposal.  They  live 
with  outdoor  privies  and  unpaved  roads,  but 
nothing  is  ever  done.  This  has  been  docu- 
mented to  different  ministries  of  government 
time  after  time,  year  after  year,  and  still  it  is 
neglected.  It  is  truly  a  disgrace. 

Shining  Tree,  another  community,  is  prob- 
ably worse  off  than  either  Cartier  or  Gogama. 
It  has  inadequate  recreational  facilities,  in- 
adequate garbage  disposal,  inadequate  sew- 
age disposal,  inadequate  drinking  water,  in- 
adequate access  roads,  inadequate  medical 
services,  and  inadequate  telephone  service. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  has 
no  telephone  service,  and  Northern  Tele- 
phone will  not  put  in  lines,  despite  the  fact 
that  Ontario  Hydxo  offered  them  the  use  of 
their  poltes.  They  won't  put  it  in.  There's 
no  ministry  in  this  government  that  will  say, 
"This  is  fundamentally  wrong,  let's  put  it  in 
there."  Nobody  says  that.  Those  people 
just  wish  that  they  were  under  the  Depart- 
ment of  Indian  Affairs,  where  much  much 
smaller  communities  than  those  have  been 
provided  with  services  that  put  this  govern- 
ment to  shame. 

Shining  Tree  also  has  inadequate  housing 
and  inadequate  fire  protection.  Foleyet  has 
inadequate  medical  services,  inadequate  gar- 
bage disposal,  inadequate  housing,  inade- 
quate drinking  water  and  inadequate  sewage 
disposal.  Ramsey  has  inadequate  medical 
services,  inadequate  recreational  facihties,  in- 
adequate garbage  disposal,  inadequate  sew- 
age disposal,  inadequate  drinking  water,  and 
inadequate  access  roads.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
Ramsey  is  on  a  private  road,  and  you  have 
to  get  a  pass  to  get  into  it. 


I'd  hke  to  tell  you  about  going  into  that 
place  one  time,  Mr.  Speaker.  When  I  went 
in,  I  had  a  fellow  with  me. 

The  fellow  at  the  gate  said,  "Where  are 
you  going?" 

I  said,  "Into  Ramsey." 

He  said,  "Who  are  you  going  to  see?" 

I  said,  "Well,  everybody  I  can." 

He    was    an    employee    of    Edd\     Forest 

Products,  and  he  said,  "What  have  you  got 

with  you?" 

This  was  in  the  wintertime.  We  said,  "We 

have  a  few  guns  and  a  few  grenades  and  a 

few  Molotov  cocktails.   It's  the  start  of  the 

winter  campaign." 

He  said,  "You  haven't  got  any  chain  saws, 
have  you?" 

We  said,  "No,  just  guns  and  bombs  and 
that." 

He  said,  "I  don't  want  you  to  cut  any  trees 
when  you're  out  there." 

So  he  gave  us  a  key  and  we  went  through. 

An  hon.  member:  What  was  the  key  for? 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  key  is  to  get  through 
the  gate. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Did  the  member  shoot  any 
trees? 

Mr.  Laughren:  It's  locked.  There's  a  gate 
at  each  end  and  this  community  is  in  be- 
tween the  two  gates.  It's  Crown  land  and 
all  Eddy  Forest  have  is  cutting  rights  on  it, 
but  they've  put  gates  up  at  each  end  to  stop 
the  public  from  going  through.  They  do  open 
the  gates  up  on  the  weekend  to  let  people 
go  in  and  hunt,  but  you  should  see  the  form 
you  have  to  sign,  Mr.  Speaker.  I'm  sure  it's 
more  complicated  than  an  international  adop- 
tion. 

An  hon.  member:  It's  feudal. 

Mr.  Laughren:  You  remember  the  problems 
they  had  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  with  this. 
Those  are  the  kind  of  antique  laws  and  rules 
that  govern  the  unorganized  communities  in 
northern  Ontario.  It  just  doesn't  make  sense. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Like  the  sheriff  of  Nottingham. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Besides  having  those  inade- 
quacies, Ramsey  has  inadequate  housing,  in- 
adequate fire  protection,  and  onl>-  a  Delco 
unit  for  the  supply  of  energy,  and  once  again, 
at  much  in  excess  of  the  rate  that  Ontario 
Hydro  charges  its  users. 


202 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  last  community  I  wish  to  talk  about  is 
Sultan.  Sultan  is  just  outside  one  of  these 
famous  gates  that  Eddy  Forest  Products  has 
set  up.  They  have  inadequate  housing,  inade- 
quate medical  services,  inadequate  recrea- 
tional facilities  and  inadequate  access  roads. 
You  can  only  get  up  from  the  north  because 
from  the  south  you  have  to  go  through  that 
private  road.  They  have  inadequate  fire  pro- 
tection and  inadequate  hydro.  They  too  have 
Delco  units,  but  at  three  times  the  rate  of 
Ontario  Hydro.  They  have  inadequate  tele- 
phone '  service,  inadequate  garbage  disposal, 
inadequate  sewage  disposal  and  inadequate 
■drinking  water. 

I  should  be  careful  when  I'm  quoting  this 
as  three  times  the  rate  as  Ontario  Hydro. 
Maybe  now  it's  only  double! 

Mr.  Mattel:  It's  only  double  after  the  last 
bills  that  came  out. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Particularly  with  the  rural 
rates. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  After  the  last  raise,  yes. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  are  other  communi- 
ties in  northern  Ontario  for  which  I  could 
•document  the  inadequacy  of  services,  but  I 
think  that  should  point  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, that  it's  a  serious  matter.  It's  not  some- 
thing that  this  government  is  not  aware  of 
and  that  it  can  plead  innocent  on.  They've 
known  about  it  for  a  number  of  years  and 
yet  they  continue  to  ignore  them.  Until  a  plat- 
form is  put  in  under  those  communities  and 
on  that  platform  is  a  level  of  services  to 
bring— 

Mr.  Stokes:  Did  they  ever  hear  about  these 
problems  from  the  former  member?  Did  he 
ever  speak  about  them  in  the  Legislature? 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  haven't  seen  any  corre- 
-spondence  on  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  spoke  about  how  great 
these  r'ebates  were  and  how  much  they  were 
doing  for  us. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  really  want  to  make  the 
point,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  utilizing  the  resources 
of  the  Social  Development  policy  field  is  not 
the  answer,  because  that  will  only  perpetu- 
ate the  problem.  It  won't  change  it  at  all. 
It  won't  change  the  cyclical  aspect  of  the 
problem  there. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Will  it  help 
the  new  minister? 

Mr.  Laughren:  No. 


Mr.  Roy:  No? 

Mr.  Laughren:  No;  it  would  take  a  major 
commitment  on  the  part  of  Management 
Board  to  allocate  those  $30-pl'us  million.  Now 
I  hope  the  provincial  secretary  is  listening 
and  will  take  a  look  at  those  millions  that 
are  available. 

Mr.  Stokes:  The  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development;  she  is  making  notes. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  is  no  excuse  for  not 
using  them. 

Lest  the  provincial  secretary  think  I  may 
be  exaggerating  somewhat,  although  it's  hard 
to  th'nk  she  would  accuse  me  of  that,  she 
should  check  with  her  own  peoplte  in  her 
own  social  development  policy  field.  They  will 
tell  her.  They  know.  They  know  what  the 
inadequacies  are  there,  and  they  are  embar- 
rassed by  it. 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  think  she  should  drive  up 
there  with  the  hon.  member  and  see  first 
hand. 

Mr.  Laughren:  And,  Mr.  Speaker,  those  of 
us  who  see  discrepancies  in  the  delivery  of 
services  in  those  communities,  we  see  a  strik- 
ing parallel  in  the  similarity  between  Canada 
and  the  United  States  and  southern  Ontario 
and  northern  Ontario.  We,  as  a  country,  as  a 
province,  are  a  resource  frontier  for  that  great 
American  empire  to  the  south  of  us;  and  in 
turn  northern  Ontario  is  a  resource  frontier 
for  southern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Martel:  Remember  Dr.  Thoman's  plan? 

Mr.  Laughren:  That's  why  we  don't  have 
the  kind  of  development  we  should  have 
there. 

And  in  neither  case  is  the  answer  in  mas- 
sive infusion  of  paternalistic  pronouncements 
or  grant  money.  That  won't  solve  the 
problem.  It's  ridiculous  that  in  northern 
Ontario  this  government  is  still  using  the 
announcement  of  a  new  highway  project  or 
a  grant  for  construction  of  a  government 
building  to  do  what  they  think  will  con- 
vince people  to  vote  Conservative. 

We've  gone  way  beyond  that  in  northern 
Ontario.  We've  passed  them  way  by.  It 
doesn't  matter  what  they  offer  in  1975, 
they're  going  to  suffer  electoral  losses  in 
northern   Ontario.   It's   inevitable. 

If  they  don't  believe  me,  check  with  the 
member  for  Timiskaming.  Because  we  know, 
and  the  people  in  northern  Ontario  know, 
that   the   ad   hoc  measures   the   government 


MARCH  12,  1974 


203 


has  come  up  with  to  date  are  not  the 
answer.  There's  been  too  many  years  of  it. 
There's  a  new  mood  in  northern  Ontario. 
The  government  can  write  off  that  whole 
campaign  for  a  separate  province  in  northern 
Ontario— heaven  knows  I'm  not  supporting  it. 
They  can  write  that  off  if  they  want;  to 
them  it's  just  an  aberration  on  the  social 
scene,  or.  the  political  scene.  But  it's  more 
than  that.  It  indicates  a  very  serious  feeling 
of  neglect  by  the  people  in  northern 
Ontario. 

Mr.    Martel:    That's    why   it's    Tory-run. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  it  is  run  by  a  Tory. 
Right. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  Diebel  a  Tory? 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  sure. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Oh. 

Mr.   Laughren:    If   I   could,   Mr.   Speaker, 
through    you    ask    the    various    ministers    of 
the  government- 
Mr.    Foulds:    Who    are    all    sitting    there, 
of  course! 

Mr.  Laughren:  Does  it  not  bother  them 
that  the  federal  Minister  of  Regional 
Economic  Expansion  has  admitted  that  the 
growth  rate  in  northern  Ontario  is  slower 
than  the.  growth  rate  in  the  Maritimes?  Does 
it  not  bother  them  that  the  population  of 
northern  Ontario,  in  a  relative  sense,  is 
declining  according  to  the  Ontario  Economic 
Review  dated  September-October,  1973? 
Northern    Ontario's    proportion    of    the 

total    provincial    population    is    declining, 

having  fallen  from  11.6  per  cent  in  1961 

to  10.1  per  cent  in  1971. 

Why  is  the.  relative  population  of  northern 
Ontario  falliiig?  I  think  it  should  be  clear 
to  the  government  that  it's  because  the  job 
offers  are  not  there,  the  industrial  develop- 
ment is  not  there. 

Does  it  riot  bother  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
through  you  to  the  ministers,  that  at  Inter- 
national Nickel  Co.  in  Sudbury  alone,  there 
are  now  5,000  less  hourly-rated  employees 
than  there  were  just  a  couple  of  years  ago? 
Does  it  not  bother  them  as  well,  that  the 
Economic  Council  of  Canada,  in  its  recent 
report,  it's  10th  annual  report,  indicates 
that  employment  in  our  resource  industries 
is  growing  iat  a  very  slow  rate  indeed.  I'd 
like  to  quote  some  of  those  figures  to 
members: 

For  the  period  1948  to  1970,  employment 
in    minesi    quarries    and    oil    wells    grew    at 


an  annual  rate  of  only  1.4  per  cent.  In 
forestry,  employment  declined  at  a  1.1 
per  cent  rate  per  year. 

That's  a  22-year  period. 

This  compares  with  annual  increases  of 
3.3  per  cent  in  utilities;  two  per  cent  in 
manufacturing;  6.2  per  cent  in  community 
business  and  personal  services;  2.9  per  cent 
in  wholesale  and  retail  trade;  2.5  per  cent 
in  construction;  and  4.6  per  cent  in  finance, 
insurance  and  real  estate— to  name  just  a 
few  sectors. 

And  for  the  economy  as  a  whole,  emplo\- 
ment  grew  at  an  annual  rate  of  2.4  per 
cent.  It  should  be  noted  that  while  em- 
ployment increased  by  1.4  per  cent  in  the 
mines,  quarries  and  oil  well  sector,  output 
was  up  by  6.5  per  cent  per  year  for  those 
22  years.  For  the  forestry  sector  which  had, 
members  will  recall,  a  decline  in  employ- 
ment of  1.1  per  cent  a  year,  output  in- 
creased by  4.2  per  cent  a  year.  For  both 
forestry  and  mining,  employment  is  stag- 
nating and  production  is  going  up  at  above 
normal  rates.  That  is  what  this  government 
means  for  the  futiue  of  northern  Ontario 
if  it  continues  on  its  present  path. 

There  is  a  great  deal  that  should  bother 
tjiis  government  about  northern  Ontatro 
besides  those  unorganized  communities  I 
was  talking  about.  Not  least  should  be  the 
future  of  our  young,  better  educated  people 
of  both  sexes  in  northern  Ontario.  We  now 
have  community  colleges  in  all  the  major 
centres  in  northern  Ontario.  We  have  two 
universities  in  northern  Ontario.  But  isn't 
it  ironic  that  the  better  paying,  more 
stimulating  jobs  are  not  there  for  those. same 
graduates?  What  does  the  government  pro- 
pose to  do  about  that?  I  would  suggest  to 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  stop  trying  to 
bribe  northern  Ontario  with  these  one-shot 
construction  jobs.  It  won't  work  any  more. 
Tell  us,  rather,  that  it  intends  to  intervene 
in  an  aggressive  way  in  our  resource  in- 
dustries. Tell  us  it  intends  to  use  our  re- 
sources to  create  jobs.  Tell  us  it  intends  to 
do  these  things  through  Crown  corporations. 

Mr.  Martel:  Show  us  the  way.  It  has 
given  its  shirt  away. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Show  us,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
it  really  does  comprehend  what  economic 
development  is   all   about.    It  is   not  grants. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  government  has  given 
everything  away  but  the  kitchen  sink. 

Mr.  Laughren:  In  other  words,  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  don't  want  roads  to  resources. 


204 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


We  want  resources.  I  suspect  that  the  min- 
ing industry  is  beginning  to  feel  the  pressure 
as  pubhc  opinion  changes  across  Canada  and 
in  this  province  as  well.  Public  opinion  is 
becoming  very  concerned  about  the  role 
the  mining  industry  has  played  in  our 
economy  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  how  the 
mining  industry  reacts  when  the  pressure 
is  on. 

I  would  like  to  quote  very  briefly  from  the 
Mining  Association  of  EC  which  the  member 
from  Forest  Hill  quoted.  This  is  Mr.  W.  J. 
Tough,  who  is  president  of  the  Mining 
Association  of  BC. 

Two  things  are  expected  to  happen  from 
the  royalty  increase  in  B.C.  With  the  addi- 
tional costs  those  who  have  the  option 
will  have  to  raise  the  grade  of  ore  mined, 
thereby  reducing  reserves  and  shortening 
the  life  of  the  mines,  not  to  mention  leav- 
ing much  needed  valuable  minerals  in  the 
ground. 

I  want  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that  isn't 
a  clarion  call  to  arms  I  don't  know  what  is. 
There  you  have  the  Mining  Association  of 
B.C  saying  if  the  taxes  are  raised  they  are 
going  to  high-grade  the  ore  and  leave  the 
rest  in  the  ground.  If  that  is  the  kind  of 
intimidation  we'll  subject  ourselves  to  in  this 
country,  I  suggest  it  is  time  we  did  something 
about  those  resources. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  minister  bends  over  back- 
wards to  the  industry. 

Mr.  Laugbren:  I  don't  know  what  you  call 
that  but  I  can  only  think  of  the  words  in- 
timidation and  bluflBng.  It  is  really  a  bluff 
because  they  are  not  going  to  move  any- 
where else  because  the  ores  aren't  anywhere 
else. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  needs  a  bar  of  soap. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  Mining  Association  of 
BC  is  just  one.  Let  me  quote  from  the  North- 
em  Miner,  March  7,  1974.  This  is  the  Min- 
ing Association  of  Canada,  Mr.  Charles 
Elliott.  He  noted  that  there  are  deterrents  to 
increasing  processing  and  manufacturing  in 
mineral  products  in  Canada  imposed  by  the 
tariff  structure  of  other  industrialized  nations 
which  allow  duty-free  entry  or  very  little 
dut\'  on  ores  and  concentrates  which  they 
require.  They  impose  progressively  higher 
duties  on  minerals  in  proportion  to  the  de- 
gree of  finther  processing  which  has  occurred. 
Mr.  Elliott  cited  other  non-tariff  barriers  in- 
cluding the  structure  of  freight  rates  which 
make  it  generally  cheaper  to  transport  min- 
erals  in   concentrate  rather  than  in  metallic 


form.  A  competitive  advantage  is  thus  gained 
by  processing  plants  located  close  to  metal 
markets,  he  explained.  "Let  us  not  delude 
ourselves  that  we  can,  by  the  wave  of  a 
wand,  create  further  processing  of  our 
mineral  products  beyond  what  good  eco- 
nomics will  support,"  he  said. 

If  I  could  just  paraphrase  what  Mr.  Elliott 
is  saying,  he  is  saying  that  it  is  really  diffi- 
cult for  us  to  increase  processing  in  this 
country  because  other  countries  have  low  im- 
port rates  on  unfinished  ores  and  high  tariffs 
on  finished  products.  Does  he  not  see  the 
insanity  of  going  along  with  that?  Of  course 
other  countries  will  say,  "Look,  you  ship  us 
your  ores.  Well  process  them  here.  We'll 
give  you  a  good  deal  on  the  tariflF  because 
we  want  to  process  them  here." 

That  is  where  the  employment  is,  in  the 
processing  and  in  the  refining,  not  in  the  ex- 
traction from  the  ground.  We  saw  that  in 
the  employment  figures.  It  is  declining.  So 
the  job  opportunities  are  in  the  processing 
and  refining,  and  here  we  have  the  president 
of  the  Mining  Association  of  Canada  saying  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  process  and  refine 
our  ore  here  because  there  is  a  real  break 
on  tariffs  when  we  ship  it  out  in  unprocessed 
form. 

What  kind  of  convoluted  logic  is  that,  that 
we  are  subjecting  ourselves  to? 

Mr.  Marteh  They  need  to  do  it  themselves. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  is  too  ridiculous.  I  sus- 
pect that  the  mining  associations  are  over- 
reacting to  the  kind  of  public  pressure  that 
is  building  in  this  country  and  in  this  prov- 
ince. While  it  may  not  be  a  ground  swell  yet, 
I  can  assure  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
public  ownership  of  our  resources  is  going 
to  be  one  and  the  day  will  come  when  all 
governments  will  realize  the  benefits  of  it. 

As  other  jurisdictions,  such  as  BC,  move 
stronger  and  stronger  into  the  resource  in- 
dustry and  take  more  in  taxation  from  those 
corporations,  people  in  other  jurisdictions, 
such  as  Ontario,  will  say,  "Why  are  we  in 
Ontario  allowed  so  little  return  back?"  That 
is  going  to  happen.  It  is  happening  now. 

It  is  significant  as  well'  that  this  feeling 
from  the  public  is  being  expressed  by  differ- 
ent people  from  all  walks  of  life.  We  had 
Eric  Kierans  with  his  report  saying  that  you 
couldn't  really  nationalize  what  you  already 
owned  anyway,  so  let's  get  on  with  the  busi- 
ness. We  had  Kates  Peat  Marwick  with  its 
report  last  spring  to  the  select  committer* 
on  economic  and  cultural  nationalism.  Then 
there  is  the  Science  Council  of  Canada's  re- 


MARCH  12,  1974 


205 


port,  which  frankly  and  unequivocably  says 
that  there  are  certain  benefits  to  public  own- 
ership of  our  natural  resources,  and  more 
recently  we  had  another  report  from  Kates 
Peat  Marwiclc  entitled  "Foreign  Ownership, 
Corporate  Behaviour  and  Public  Attitudes." 
This  report  was  the  overview  report,  also  for 
the  select  committee  on  economic  and  cul- 
tural nationalism. 

Now  those  who  know  Kates  Peat  Marwick 
as  a  consulting  firm  will  know  that  it  doesn't 
have  a  bias  towards  socialism,  that  on  the 
other  hand  it  is  a  corporation  that  fits  very 
well  in  the  corporate  milieu  in  Ontario.  I'd 
like  to  quote  from  that  report  in  talking 
about  national  resources  as  a  bargaining  lever. 
I  quote: 

One  obvious  area  in  which  Canada  has 
significant  comparative  advantages  relative 
to  most  industrial  countries  is  that  of  natural 
resources.  [And  they  go  on  further:]  It  has 
been  easier  to  sell  our  natural  resources 
and  import  technology  and  manufactured 
products  from  other  countries  than  to  build 
a  domestically  controlled  industrial  com- 
ple;c  \yhich  matches  in  size,  range  and  self- 
reliaiic^  the  scope  of  our  domestic  market 
and  resource  base.  [And  then,  going  fur- 
ther:] Canada's  resource  base,  coupled  with 
the  growing  shortages  of  energy  and  min- 
eral resources  being  experienced  by  most 
industrialized  countries,  provides  us  with  a 
significant  bargaining  lever  which  can  be 
used  in. a  number  of  ways.        ,  ,,^    ' 

I'd  like  to  quote  a  couple  of  those  ways  that 
we  can  , use  our  resoiu-ces  as  a  bargaining 
lever,  apQording  to  Kates  Peat  Marwick: 

To  influence  the  behaviour  of  firms  de- 
veloping and  purchasing  our  resources  such 
that  both  forward  and  backward  integra- 
tion is  carried  out  in  this  country,  leading 
to  greater  value  added  in  Canada,  more 
use  of  Canadian  suppliers  in  a  more  broad- 
ly' based,  innovative,  responsive,  remuner- 
ated industrial  system  in  Canada,  and  to 
generate  in  those  carefully  selected  cases 
where  resources  are  exported  in  unprocess- 
ed or  semi-processed  form,  revenues  which 
will  be  used  both  to  finance  the  develop- 
ment of  a  broader  resource  and  industrial 
base  and  to  purchase  control  on  a  selec- 
tive basis  of  a  number  of  large,  key  cor- 
porations which  are  now  foreign  controlled. 

Mr.  Martel:  Here  comes  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  (Mr.  Bemier).  He  is  go- 
ing to  refute  all  that.  He  is  going  to  use  Dr. 
Andrews'  report. 


Mr.  Laughren:  Now  Kates  Peat  Marwick 
doesn't  come  right  out  and  say  that  we  should 
bring  all  our  national  resources  under  public 
ownership,  but  when  it  does  talk  they  use 
rather  cautious  language.  There  is  a  very  in- 
teresting paragraph  right  near  the  end  of 
that  report  and  I  quote  it  in  full': 

It  should  also  be  emphasized  that  pur- 
chasing of  Canadian  control,  while  possibly 
requiring    government    initiative    for    im- 
mediate  results,   does   not  necessarily   im- 
ply public  ownership  of  the  selected  key 
firms.  Shares  acquired  by  government  agen- 
cies such  as  the  Canada  Development  Corp. 
could  in  turn  be  sold  to  Canadian  citizens 
and  corporations,  although  in  some  cases, 
particularly  those  of  firms  involved  in  non- 
renewable    natural     resources,     continuing 
public  ownership  might  be  more  appropri- 
ate. 
Mr.    Speaker,    when  you    have    Kates    Peat 
Marwick   and    Co.    recommending    that    the 
continuing  public  ownership  of  our  natural 
resources  "might  be  more  appropriate,"  one 
can  be  sure  that  they  feel  underneath,  they 
have  a  gut  feeling,  that  it  has  go  to  be  that 
way— not  just  "might  be  more  appropriate." 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  now  a  case  of  giving 
them  to  some  American  firm.  Repeat  that  for 
the  minister. 

An  hon.  member:  I  don't  think  the  min- 
ister heard  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Repeat  that  for  the  minister; 
he  didn't  hear  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Would  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  like  me  to  repeat  that? 
I  said: 

—the  Canada  Development  Corp.  could 
in  turn  be  sold  to  Canadian  citizens  and 
corporations,  although  in  some  cases,  par- 
ticularly those  of  firms  involved  in  non- 
renewable natural  resources,  continuing 
public  ownership  might  be  more  appro- 
priate. 

Well,  translate  "might  be  more  appropriate" 
to    "would    be    more    appropriate." 

Mr.  Foulds:  It  would  be  a  damn  good 
idea. 

Mr.  Laughren:  So  here  we  have  a  con- 
sulting report  that  recommends  basically 
more  Canadian  control  in  the  industry.  That 
is  really  what  they  are  talking  about— Cana- 
dian control.  Now,  I  suppose  they  woidd  see 
it  as  returning  the  resources  to  control  by 
Canadian    corporations    to    those  same    cor- 


206 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


porate  interests  that  sold  them  out  in  the 
first  place.  Well,  that  is  not  my  bag;  we  cer- 
tainly reject  that. 

It  is  becoming  clearer  and  clearer  to  us 
on  this  side— well,  this  particular  segment  of 
this  side  of  the  House— as  it  is  to  a  growing 
number  of  people  in  Ontario  and  elsewhere, 
that  only  through  public  ownership  of  our 
resources  will  the  people  of  this  province 
receive  a  maximum  benefit  from  their  exploi- 
tation. 

There  are  three  major  reasons.  People 
sometimes  ask  me,  "Why?  How  would  we  all 
benefit  so  much?"  There  are  three  major 
reasons,  I  believe,  why  our  resources  should 
be  publicly  owned: 

1.  To  create  employment  and  to  ensure 
employment  in  that  industry. 

2.  To  provide  revenues  so  that  the  quality 
of  life  can  be  improved  for  all  people,  but 
in  particular  those  people  in  those  resource- 
rich  communities.  Take  a  look  at  those  re- 
source-rich communities  in  northern  Ontario. 
Some  of  them  are  the  very  communities  that 
I  outlined  earlier  this  afternoon  as  not  even 
having  the  basic  amenities. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  same  communities. 

3.  Because  I  believe  that  only  through 
public  ownership  can  we  maintain  our  eco- 
nomic independence;  and  that  is  really  what 
the  select  committee  was  talking  about  and 
that  is  what  Kates  Peat  Marwick  is  talking 
about. 

It  is  not  enough,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we 
talk  about  increasing  the  taxation  of  these 
resources.  Mr.  Speaker,  for  20  years  I  have 
listened  to  the  mining  industry  tell  us  that 
if  we  increase  the  taxes  on  our  resources  we 
would  restrict  growth,  we  would  restrict 
exploration,  we  would  restrict  development. 
Well,  I  am  not  for  restricting  those  things, 
Mr,  Speaker- 
Mr.  Martel:  The  former  Minister  of  Mines 
said  W3  would  bankrupt  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  —and  that's  why  I  say  that 
taxing  them  more  in  a  short-term  may  ac- 
complish something,  but  not  in  the  long 
term. 

The  private  sector  has  had  three-quarters 
of  a  century  in  this  province  to  create  some 
kind  of  industrial  development  based  on 
those  resources  as  a  lever.  They  have  failed 
miserably,  and  in  doing  so  they  haven't  even 
created  the  kind  of  communities  in  the  north 
that  should  just  have  been  automatic  in  their 
development— but   they   haven't   done   it. 


Our  economy  has  not  developed  in  a 
healthy  way. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  ( Wentworth ) :  But  the}'  have 
been  helped  by  the  Tory  government. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Well,  they  have  been 
pushed  by  the  Tory  government  to  develop 
that  way  and  by  the  present  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources. 


all. 


Mr.  Martel:  He  is  the  worst  one  of  them 
1. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members.  . 

Mr.  Laughren:    Mr.   Speaker,   it   is— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That  is  not  spoken  in  jest. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing ) :   Tongue  in  cheek? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  not  even 
fair  to  ask  or  to  expect  that  the  multinational 
corporations  will  develop  secondary  industry 
in  Ontario,  because  that  is  not  the  way  in 
whidh  they  can  maximize  their  profits.  That's 
the  name  of  the  game.  We  shouldn't  expect 
otherwise  of  them,  because  to  do  so  is  naive. 
So  let's  not  think  or  be  mad  at  the  multi- 
nationals; it  is  not  their  fault.  They  are  there 
to  maximize  their  profits  for  the  shareholders. 
Those  are  the  rules  of  the  game,  and  we 
should  accept  them.  I  would  like  to  quote 
from  the  Science  Council  report  that  was  put 
out  a  year  or  so  ago: 

In  longer  term  perspective  we  niust  bear 
in  mind  that  these  resources  are  non- 
renewable and  that  they  are  finite.  Project- 
ing past  growth  rates  into  the  future  will 
exhaust  presently  known  reserves  of  several 
of  our  major  minerals  by  1990.  With  a 
(Vigorous  exploration  programme  we  could 
probably  find  most  of  these  exploitable 
deposits  and  thus  sustain  the  exponential 
rate  of  growth  for  a  few  more  decades. 

But  is  this  wise?  Do  we  wish  to  be  re- 
membered as  the  generation  that  launched 
Canada  on  a  programme  of  rapid  exploita- 
tion for  the  export,  in  raw  or  semirprocess- 
ed  form,  of  the  resources  which  will  be 
in  such  short  supply  for  our  children  and 
our  grandchildTen?  Anything  beyond  the 
iyear  2000  looks  very  far  away  from  1972, 
but  the  year  2000  is  only  as  far  in  the 
future  as  1944  is  in  the  pasrt. 

Mr.  Speaker,  that's  what  the  Science  Coun- 
cil of  Canada  says  about  our  non-renewable 
resources.  Our  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 
has  had  someone  within  his  ministry  com- 
missioned, I  believe,  to  do  a  report  on  the 
Kierans  report. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


207 


Mr.  Martel:  What  a  dummy!  Another 
flunky! 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  critique  of  the  Kierans 
report  isn't  worth  the  paper  it's  written  on. 
I  would  suggest  that  maybe  the  minister 
should  spend  more  time  reading  the  Science 
Council  of  Canada's  reports  on  our  natural  re- 


Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): What's  the  member's  philosophy? 

Mr.  Martel:  What  philosophy?  All  the  min- 
ing officials  employed  over  there  haven't  any 
philosophy. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  It's  a  lot  of  fresh  air 
and  the  member  knows  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  is  not  a  person  over 
there  that  is  not  hooked  by  him. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no 
question  but  that  the  mining  industry  is  one 
of  the  basic  underpinnings  of  our  economy. 
I  don't  question  that.  As  such,  it  should  be 
treated  as  an  integral  part  of  the  development 
of  this  province.  Call  it  an  industrial  plan 
or  an  industrial  strategy,  if  you  want,  but 
natural  resources  should  be  part  of  that 
strategy-. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  haven't  got  one. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  is  a  way  to  ensure 
that  the  exploitation  of  those  resources'  oc- 
curs for  the  benefit  of  the  entire  province 
and  the  people  in  it.  I'll  be  most  specific 
here.  This  government  should  develop  a 
policy  by  which  they  will  work  toward  a 
world-market-oriented  metal  fabricating  sec- 
ondary processing  and  manufacturing  indus- 
try  located  in    northern    Ontario. 

The  mining  companies  have  a  miserable 
record.  They  all  tend  to  export  earnings  to 
other  resource  frontiers  rather  than  to  spend 
them  in  this  province  to  develop  a  more 
mature,  balanced  and  integrated  economy. 

One  need  only  look,  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the 
antics  of  Fafconbridge  Nickel  Mines  else- 
where to  know  that  the  mining  companies 
presently  operating  in  this  province  do  so 
only  because  it  is  to  their  advantage. 
When  reserves  are  developed  elsewhere  that 
are  cheaper  to  extract  and  to  develop,  then 
you  can  be  sure  that  that's  where^  the  action 
will  be.    It  will  not  be  here. 

I,  for  one,  Mr.  Speaker,  am  not  proud 
of  the  way  corporations  such  as  Falconbridlge, 


Rio  Algom  through  it's  parent  company  Rio 
Tinto,  aid  and  abet  in  the  exploitation  of 
people  and  resources  elsewhere.  I  refer  speci- 
fically to  South  Africa. 

I  don't  expect  that  a  province  such  as 
Ontario  with  a  Conservative  government  like 
we  have  which  had  every  intention  of  send- 
ing a  trade  mission  to  South  Africa,  really 
to  understand  or  care  about  the  exploitation 
of  blacks  in  South  Africa.  But  it's  hap- 
pening and  it's  happening  at  least  partially 
as  a  result  of  the  profits  those  resource  cor- 
porations have  obtained  in  Canada  and  in 
this  province.  I  would  much  rather  see  any 
surplus  that's  generated  from  the  develop- 
ment of  our  resources  here  in  Ontario  go 
toward  making  this  province,  as:  well  as 
other  societies,  a  better  place  in  which  to 
live,  rather  than  contributing  to  racist  regimes 
and  exploitation  of  labour  in  South  Africa. 

iMr.  Speaker,  it  is  most  unlikely  that  the 
role  of  Falconbridge  Nickel  will  change, 
since  no  one  should  have  any  illusions  what- 
soever about  the  prime  role  of  multinational 
corporations.  Their  sole  purpose  is  to  maxi- 
mize profits  for  the  benefit  of  their  share- 
holders. By  locating  and  expanding  refining 
and  smelting  operations  in  countries  such  as 
Canada  and  Norway,  it's  merely  utilizing 
cheap  labour  elsewhere  to  acquire  raw 
material  from  the  underdeveloped  countries 
to  feed  those  refineries  and  smelters. 

(The  president  of  Falconbridge  Nickel 
Mines,  when  commenting  on  the  problems  of 
pollution  control  and  other  relatively  high 
production  costs  in  this  country,  has'  been 
quoted  as  saying: 

These  and  other  adverse  factors  will  in 
future  make  Canada's  nickel  sulphide  re- 
serves less  profitable  relative  to  the  lateritic 
ores.  Gradually  some  of  today's  nickel  re- 
serves in  Canada  will  be  written  off  as  un- 
profitable and  the  production  rates  of  in- 
dividual mines  will  then  decline. 

So  let  us  have  no  illusions  about  the  corpor- 
ations that  are  now  operating  in  our  resource 
industries.  When  it  suits  the  purpose  of 
Falconbridge  Nickel  Mines  to  concentrate  its 
activities  elsewhere,  it  will  do  just  that,  and 
we  in  Ontario  will  be  left  with  environmental 
scars,  depleted  resources  and  unemployment. 
The  Development  Education  Centre,  locat- 
ed here  in  Toronto,  has  done  some  excellent 
research  into  the  behaviour  of  corporations 
in  underdeveloped  countries.  Their  comments 
about  the  working  conditions  of  Falconbridge 
miners  in  Namibia  in  South- West  Africa  are 
worth  putting   on   the  record,   Mr.   Speaker. 


208 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I    quote   from    the    Development   Education 

Centre  report: 

Workers  are  housed  in  cement  block 
houses,  15  to  a  dormitory. 

The  method  of  hiring  used  by  Falcon- 
bridge,  until  a  general  strike  in  December, 
1971,  was  the  South- West  Africa  Native 
Labour  Association.  This  organization  was 
composed  of  the  employers,  including 
Falconbridge,  who  traded  in  humans  in  a 
manner  described  by  the  International 
Commission  of  Jurists  as  "akin  to  slavery." 
Africans  labelled  as  A,  B  or  C  class 
physical  specimens  were  given  12-  to  18- 
month  contracts,  with  wages  of  about  $40 
per  month. 

That  is  about  one-third  of  the  poverty  datum 

line  requirement. 

Here  is  the  form  that  was  made  out  for 

them  when  they  went  to  work: 

The  said  master  agrees  to  hire  the  ser- 
vice of  the  said  servant  and  the  said  ser- 
vant agrees  to  render  the  said  master  his 
or  their  service  at  all  fair  and  reasonable 
times  in  the  capacity  of  [a  blank  space  for 
the  job]  for  [a  blank  space  for  the  period 
of  time],  commencing  on  [such  and  such  a 
date]. 

It  is  further  agreed  that  the  said  master 
shall  pay  the  said  servant  wages  at  the 
rate  shown  against  the  name  of  the  said 
servant  and  that  such  wages  shall  be  paid 
monthly. 

Identity  permits  are  mandatory,  and 
labels  were  tied  around  the  necks  of  the 
workers,  bearing  his  name,  his  prospective 
boss  and  the  latter's  address. 

Mr.  Martel:  Good  old  Falconbridge. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  report  continues: 

Workers  were  often  forbidden  to  leave 
the  compound,  and  families  were  strictly 
barred  from  the  mine  area. 

Although  the  South-West  Africa  Native 
Labour  Association  was  broken  bv  the 
general  strike  in  1971.  most  of  its  charac- 
teristics still  remain.  Wages  for  an  African 
worker  range  from  $24  to  $63  per  month, 
and  Falconbridge  displays  no  intention  of 
cutting  into  its  profits  in  order  to  pay  $110 
a  month,  the  poverty  datum  line  minimum 
considered  necessary  to  maintain  health. 

Th^  behaviour  of  multinational  corporations 
resident  in  this  province  is  something  that 
we,  as  elected  people,  should  be  concerned 
about,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  we  are  guilty 
of   complicity   if  we   know   this   is   going   on 


and  continue  to  do  nothing  about  it  and  to 
regard  corporations  such  as  Falconbridge  as 
good  corporate  citizens  when  they  are  noth- 
ing of  the  kind. 

It  is  not  enough,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  say  that 
we  must  not  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  another 
country.  The  State  of  Namibia  was  supposed 
to  be  an  independent  state  since  1966  when 
the  United  Nations  terminated  South  Africa's 
mandate  over  that  territory.  This  was  con- 
firmed again  in  1971  by  the  International 
Court  of  Justice,  which  declared  South 
Africa's  presence  in  Namibia  to  be  illegal. 
South  Africa  has  ignored  this  declaration  and 
has  continued  to  occupy  Namibia.  The  role 
of  corporations  such  as  Falconbridge  should 
not  be  under-rated  in  the  exploitation  of 
these  people. 

Resources  are  being  exploited,  and  cor- 
porations such  as  Falconbridge,  Noranda 
Mines,  Hudson's  Bay  Co.,  Rio  Tinto,  are 
playing  a  major  role  in  the  exploitation  of 
both  the  people  and  the  resources  of  Namibia. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  government  of  Ontario 
has  neither  the  will  nor  the  power  to  do 
anything  about  what  Falconbridee  is  doing 
in  Namibia  or  in  the  Dominican  Republic,  so 
it  would  be  folly  to  suggest  that  this  govern- 
ment should  say  to  Falconbridge,  "Stop  what 
you  are  doing  in  Namibia."  What  this  govern- 
ment does  have  the  power  to  do,  though— 
and  it  should  be  obvious— is  to  exploit  those 
resources  ourselves,  rather  than  to  allow 
Falconbridge  Nickel  Mines  to  do  so.  And 
rather  than  to  allow  the  carnivorous  multi- 
nationals to  do  it,  we  should  do  it  ourselves. 
It  is  more  than  an  economic  oblieation.  It's 
an  obligation  that  goes  beyond  the  borders  of 
this  province  and  beyond  the  borders  of  this 
continent. 

I  wonder.  Mr.  Speaker,  how  manv  untold 
stories  there  are  about  the  multinational 
corporations  involved  in  the  resource  industry. 
I  have  told  only  one.  I  suspect  that  others 
are  no  better,  no  worse.  A  Crown  corporation 
th<»t  was  developing  and  processing  our  re- 
'jour'^es  would  not  dare  to  exploit  workers  in 
South  Africa  the  way  Falconbridge  has  done. 
Our  resources,  Mr.  Speaker,  must  be  develop- 
ed by  Crown  corporations  and  not  by  the 
multinationals. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  ( Prince  Edward-Lennox ) : 
Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  say  a  few  words,  first 
in  connection  with  the  section  in  the  Thron'^ 
Speech  dealing  with  seatbelts.  And  then,  if 
I  may,  I  would  like  to  carrv  on  with  other 
aspects  of  the  speech. 

I  may  say  that  I  have  some  misgivings 
in    connection  with    this    particular    item.    I 


MARCH  12,  1974 


209 


know  that  there  was  a  private  member's  bill 
and  I  know  that  there  was  considerable  sup- 
port by  members  on  all  sides  of  the  House. 

It  has  been  mentioned  here  this  afternoon, 
by  the  hon.  member  for  York-Forest  Hdl, 
that  there  may  be  some  legal  ramifications 
or  implications  in  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  seatbelts  and,  in  particular,  if 
seatbelts  are  not  worn.  That  is,  the  operator 
of  the  motor  vehicle  or  the  person  who  fails 
to  wear  a  seatbelt  may  be  considered  as 
contributing  to  his  own  injury,  or  being  the 
author  of  his  own  misfortune,  if  he  fails  to 
wear  a  seatbelt  and  is  injured  as  the  result 
of  an  accident. 

What  concerns  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  con- 
nection with  this  whole  area  is  the  role  of 
government  insofar  as  it  affects  the  personal 
lives  of  the  individuals.  If  government  climbs 
into  the  automobile,  of  course,  then  we  ex- 
pect the  government  to  be  climbing  into  the 
bedroom,  and  who  knows  where  that  may 
lead?  There  may  be  some  argument  to  say 
that  if  we  can  protect  a  person  from  himself 
and  from  his  own  misjudgement  then,  of 
course,  we  can  keep  premiums  down  and 
rates  down.  Of  course,  our  NDP  friends 
would  like  to  see  government-sponsored 
plans,  government  insurance.  Thereby,  I 
suppose,  if  we  could  reduce  the  accident 
rate  or  the  personal  mjury  rate  in  any  way 
at  all  that  would  reflect  on  the  premiums. 

So  one  can  see  the  insidious  workings  of 
government  control  in  this  field  and  in  many 
other  fields,  if  we  let  the  whole  matter  run 
to  its  logical  conclusion.  If  we  say  to  a  per- 
son, "You  must  wear  a  seatbelt  because  we 
want  to  protect  you  from  yourself.  We  have 
a  government  medical  plan.  If  you  don't 
wear  a  seatbelt  then  there  may  be  more 
claims  against  the  plan,"  that  leads,  of 
course,  to  other  claims  against  the  plan  that 
may  be  made  for  a  patient,  for  example,  not 
following  100  per  cent  the  dictates  of  his 
doctor. 

Who  knows,  the  doctor  may  prescribe  six 
weeks  vacation  for  someone  and  the  person 
then  may  fail  to  take  that  six  weeks  vacation, 
following  a  slight  coronary,  because  the  per- 
son Who  has  suffered  the  illness  and  who  is 
considering  very  much  his  own  family  life 
as  well  as  his  own  personal  welfare  may  not 
be  able  economically  to  pursue  the  dictates 
of  his  doctor.  If  he  didn't  do  that,  following 
the  logic  in  this,  his  coverage  might  be  cur- 
tailed for  some  reason  or  other  because  he 
hasn't  followed  the  prescriptions  of  the  plan. 

So  we're  getting  into  an  area  here  that 
is    a   very   personal   matter,  and   I   don't   see 


how  a  government  can  legislate  common 
sense.  I  don't  see  how  a  government  can 
supervise  the  behaviour  or  an  individual 
within  his  own  domicile  or  in  his  own  auto- 
mobile. 

An  area  that  particularly  concerns  me  is 
public  transportation,  which  hasn't  been 
mentioned.  The  Throne  Speech  refers  to 
mandatory  use  of  automobile  seatbelts.  It 
refers  to  automobiles.  But  what  about  the 
buses?  What  happens  to  the  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  school  children  who  take  school 
buses?  If  one  goes  into  the  countryside  one 
will  find  that  they  have  a  difficult  time  find- 
ing a  seat,  let  alone  a  seatbelt  to  strap  them- 
selves in. 

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  There  was  a 
pretty  good  private  member's  bill  introduced 
on  that  last  year  and  it  is  coming  again  this 
year. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Sure.  It  was  a  very  interest- 
ing private  member's  bill,  and  as  I  men- 
tioned initially  when  I  started  out,  it  re- 
ceived support  from  members  on  all  sides 
of  the  House  but,  at  the  same  time,  I  think 
we  have  to  be  very  careful  in  introducing 
government  in  an  area  where  a  person's 
freedom  is  restrained. 

The  area  also,  in  addition  to  buses,  might 
include  streetcars,  subways  or  any  method 
of  transportation  in  which  a  person  could  be 
subjected  to  injury  if  there  was  an  accident 
between  that  vehicle  and  some  other  vehicle 
or  for  some  other  cause. 

Surely  the  legislation  doesn't  propose  to 
cover  the  areas  of  subways,  streetcars  and 
buses? 

Mr.  Stokes:  How  would  the  member  like 
to  be  strapped  to  a  snowmobile? 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  don't  know  how  that  would 
function  if  the  government  did  attempt  to 
legislate  in  that  direction. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  There  is  real  dissent  in  the 
Tory  back-benchers  about  this  bill.  I  am 
amazed.  I  thought  the  Tories  voted  like  sheep 
on  everything. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  There 
are  lots  of  sheep  in  his  riding. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Well,  that  goes  to  show  the 
member  for  Ottawa  Centre  doesn't  think. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  know  the  Tory  backbenchers 
certainly  don't.  There's  conclusive  e\idence 
about  that.  Look  at  the  legislation  they'\e 
supported. 


210 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Taylor:  The  member  is  all  wet  again. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  should  know  about  sheep, 
coming  from  his  riding. 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  won't  digress  from  the  sub- 
ject of  seatbelts  in  order  to  get  into  sheep 
or  in  order  to  get  into  other  forms  of  animal 
life  with  which  the  member  is  so  familiar. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  hasn't  got  enough  imag- 
ination, that's  why. 

Mr.  Laughren:  What's  that  supposed  to 
mean? 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  member  can  take  what- 
ever meaning  he  would  like  from  that. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  This  is  literally  repartee  the 
member  is  giving  us. 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  other  side  of  the  coin- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  I  think  he  has  lost  his  train 
of  thought. 

Mr.  Taylor:  —also  is,  what  is  the  role  of 
the  state  in  compensating  an  individual  for 
damage  or  injury  which  he  may  suffer  as  a 
result  of  having  his  seatbelt  off  when  it  is 
established  that  he  suffered  that  damage  for 
that  reason? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Good  point. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Good  point,  yes. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Would  there  be  something  in 
the  legislation  to  compensate  the  victim  of 
a  seatbelt?  I  understand  that  on  some  occa- 
sions there  are  some  people  who  are  injured 
as  a  result  of  wearing  belts. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  member  has  just  scrap- 
ped the  Elevators  and  Lifts  Act,  the  Con- 
struction Safety  Act  and  every  other  measure 
that  tries  to  protect  people  because  people 
might  get  hurt  in  the  process. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Let's  hear  the  words  of 
wisdom. 

Mr.  Taylor:  That's  very  kind  of  the 
member. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  If  I  were  he  I  would  close 
my  ears. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  The 
House  had  quite  a  time  when  I  was  out. 

An  hon.  member:  I  close  my  ears  when 
the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  is  speaking. 


Mr.  Taylor:  I  thought  I  should  comment 
on  that  initially  because  there's  so  much  in 
the  Throne  Speech  that  signals  great  things 
to  come. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Name  one. 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  will,  and  the  member  will 
hear  from  me  more  on  that  if  he  will  just 
bear  with  me  for  a  moment.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  he  might  want  to  bring  his  confreres 
into  the  House  to  hear  the  rest  of  what  I  may 
have  to  say. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  the  member  for  or  against 
seatbelts? 

Mr.  Taylor:  I've  just  indicated,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  I'm  dealing  with  the  point  of 
seatbelts  initially  because  that  is  one  area  of 
disagreement  that  I  may  have  with  the  con- 
tents of  the  Throne  Speech. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  admits  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Taylor:  No,  I  wouldn't.  I  would  like 
to  say  that  the  smallest  speck  is  seen  on 
snow.  When  we  come  to  the  rest  of  the 
speech,  members  will  see  the  wisdom  and  the 
many  items  that  will  herald  greater  things  to 


Mr.  Cassidy:  The  seatbelts  are  the  1974 
equivalent  of  the  wolf  bounty.  That's  right. 
There  will  be  a  great  Tory  revolt  over  seat- 
belts. 

Mr.  Laughren:  A  Maple  Mountain. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  the  member  for  or  against 
seatbelts? 

Mr.  Taylor:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  has  been  asked 
of  me  whether  or  not  I  am  for  or  in  favour 
of  seatbelts.  Now  that  is  a  profound  question 
indeed.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  coming  from 
the  member  for  Thunder  Bay  it  is  most  re- 
markable that  he  should  ask  such  a  pene- 
trating question. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Give  us  an  answer, 

Mr.  Taylor:  It  is  the  most  lucid  thing  that 
I  have  heard  him  say  all  day. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  was  better  than  this 
speech. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Simply,  my  answer  is  I  am  in 
favour  of  seatbelts,  but  I  think  that  the 
wearing  of  those  seatbelts  should  be  at  the 
option  of  the  operator  or  the  passenger  of 
the  motor  vehicle. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


211 


Mr.  Cassidy:  The  member  favours  seatbelts 
so  long  as  they  are  not  used. 

Mr.    Taylor:    Well,    that    is    the   member's 

usual- 
Mr.   Cassidy:    That   is   precisely   what    the 

member  said. 

Mr.  Taylor:  That's  right.  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
member  from  Toronto  Island  has  made  a 
convoluted  observation.  If  he  can't  torture 
and  twist  the  truth  and  make  it  scream,  then 
of  course  he  is  not  happy. 

Mr.  Havrot:  He  has  a  warped  mind. 

Mr.  Taylor:  And  I  must  say  that  if  there 
was  to  be  an  award  for  that  type  of  talk 
then  he  would  be  an  Oscar  winner. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  member  will  never  urge 
his  children  to  wear  seatbelts  because  it  is  a 
matter  for  their  individual  choice, 

Mr.  Taylor:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  won't  pursue 
the  question  of  seatbelts  any  further.  I  may 
say,  to  satisfy  and  put  at  ease  the  mind  of 
my  hon.  friend  from  Ottawa  Centre- 
Mr.  Ruston:  "Toronto  and  the  Islands." 
Don't  forget  that. 

Mr.  Taylor:  —and  the  Toronto  Islands— 
that  personally  I  do  wear  a  seatbelt;  but  that 
is  my  choice.  I  think  in  our  system  it  is 
essential  one  have  the  choice- 


Mr.  Deacon:  What  about  motorcyclists 
with  their  helmets? 

Mr.  Taylor:  —either  to  wear  a  seatbelt  or 
not.  And  I  won't  get  into  that  area  of  the 
hardhats.  If  you  wipe  your  brow  and  take 
your  hat  off,  you  will  be  breaching  the  law 
and  probably  incarcerated. 

Mr.  Deacon:  What  about  the  motorcyclists 
with  their  helmets? 

Mr.  Taylor:  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  ap- 
proaching 6  o'clock  and  I  would  adjourn  the 
debate  and  with  your  permission  I  would 
hke  to  carry  on  with  the  rest  of  my  speech 
tomorrow. 

Mr.  Taylor  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  House  I  would 
like  to  say  the  first  order  of  business  tomor- 
row will  be  item  1  on  the  order  paper.  Sub- 
sequently. I  anticipate  calUng  Bill  12,  which 
is  the  bill  that  was  introduced  today.  It  will 
be  printed  and  distributed  the  first  thing 
tomorrow  morning. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6  o'clock,  p.m. 


212  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  March  12,  1974 

Law  Reform  Commission  report  on  family  law,  statement  by  Mr.  Welch  159 

Rooming  house  safety  standards,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  159 

Severance   payment   to    Agent   General,    questions   of   Mr.   Winkler:    Mr.   R.    F.    Nixon, 

Mr.    Singer    159 

Appointment  of  CSAO   arbitration  mediator,  questions  of  Mr.   Winkler:    Mr.  Lewis   ..  160 

Lemoine  Point,   questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:   Mr.  Lewis  161 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  161 

Administration  of  courts,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Roy,  Mr.  Stokes  161 

Route  of  petroleum  pipeline,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Foulds  162 

Extension   of  norOntair  service,   questions   of  Mr.   Rhodes:    Mr.   Reid    163 

Assistance  to  emerging  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Martel  163 

Report  on  Conestoga  College,  question  of  Mr.  Auld:   Mr.  Good  163 

Cost    of    advertising    denture    programme,    questions    of    Mr.    Miller:     Mr.    Germa, 

Mr.     Braithwaite    164 

OHC  budget,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Deans  165 

U.S.-Canada   freight   surcharge,   question  of  Mr.  Rhodes:    Mr.   Spence  165 

Communications-6   Inc.,   questions  of   Mr.   Bemier:    Mr.   Singer    166 

Report  on  Conestoga  College,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Good  166 

Pensions   for  permanently  disabled  workmen,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  Burr  167 

Veterans'  Land  Act,   question  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.   Ruston   167 

Sales  tax  on  sports  equipment,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  B.  Newman  168 

Reconstruction  of  Highway  401  near  Windsor,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Bounsall  168 

Assessment  notices,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mrs.  Campbell  169 

Hickling- Johnston  report  on  Ministry  of  Health,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Shulman  169 

Expenditure    by    chairman    of    Ontario    Council  of   Regents,    questions    of    Mr.    Auld: 

Mr.  Breithaupt  169 

Age  of  consent  for  abortions,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:   Mr.  Lawlor  170 

Point  Pelee  National  Park,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:   Mr.  Faterson  170 

Use  of  resources  in  Armstrong  area,  question  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Stokes  171 

Presenting  report,  advisory  committee  on  revision  of  the  Mining  Act,  Mr.  Bemier  171 

Tabling   report,   standing  committees  of  the  House,   Mr.   Carmthers   172 


MARCH  12,  1974  213 


York  County   Board   of  Education   Teachers'   Dispute  Act,   bill  intituled,   Mr.  Wells, 

first  reading  172 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Wardle,  Mr.  Givens, 

Mr.  Laughren,  Mr.  Taylor  175 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Taylor,  agreed  to  211 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  211 


No.  7 


Ontario 


^egisilatttre  of  (J^ntario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Wednesday,  March  13,  1974 

Afternoon  Session 


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


THE   QUEEN'S   PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT   BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


217 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Mr.   Speaker:   Statements  by  the  ministry. 


TAX  CREDIT  INFORMATION  CENTRE 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  advise  members 
of  my  decision  to  broaden  the  public's  access 
to  the  counselling  facilities  of  the  Ontario 
tax  credit  information  centre  in  my  ministry. 

The  Ontario  tax  credit  information  centre 
was  established  in  early  January.  We  have  a 
staff  of  about  20  trained  counsellors  man- 
ning telephones  to  answer  the  public's  in- 
quiries and  to  provide  direction  on  claiming 
the  three  tax  credits  available. 

To  date,  we  have  already  received  well 
over  23,000  telephone  calls  with  60  per  cent 
of  the  calls  originating  from  within  Metro- 
politan Toronto  and  some  40  per  cent  from 
the  remainder  of  Ontario. 

I  might  add,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  am  most 
impressed  by  these  results.  In  contacting  the 
information  centre,  many  people  have  thanked 
us  for  establishing  this  public  service. 

Mr.  V.M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Oh  sure. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  intend,  therefore,  to 
broaden  its  scope  through  an  evening  and  a 
weekend  service. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  It's  such 
a  complicated  system,  no  wonder  people  need 
assistance. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  During  March  and  April, 
the  tax  credit  information  centre  will  be  open 
from  8  a.m.  until  9  p.m.,  Monday  to  Friday, 
and  from  noon  until  5  p.m.  on  Saturdays  and 
Sundays. 

Our  purpose  is  to  provide  people  with 
access  to  government  on  these  important  tax 
credits  at  times  most  convenient  to  them.  As 
many  people  claim  their  credits  by  complet- 
ing a  federal  income  tax  return  during  the 
evenings  or  on  the  weekends,  it  makes  sense 
to  have  our  stafiF  available  to  them  at  those 
times. 


Wednesday,  March  13,  1974 

The  information  centre  has  been  open  dur- 
ing weekends  and  evenings  on  a  trial  basis 
for  the  last  two  weeks.  More  than  800  resi- 
dents, mostly  from  outside  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto, telephoned  between  6  p.m.  and  9  p.m. 
The  response  during  the  past  two  weekends, 
however— and  I  emphasize  weekends,  Mr. 
Speaker— was  disappointing  to  the  extent  that 
we  received  only  370  calls.  Clearly  we  need 
to  advertise  the  service  more  extensively  and 
this  we  will  be  doing  as  I  have  indicated. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  How  about 
the  $500,000  the  minister  has  already  spent 
on  the  service? 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  He  can 
take  out  full-page  ads. 

Mr.  Roy:  Half  a  milHon. 


SALARY  INCREASES  FOR 
GENERAL  SERVICES  EMPLOYEES 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  today  to  announce  to  the  House  that 
the  tentative  agreement  on  salary  increases 
for  bargaining  unit  employees  in  the  general 
service  category  has  now  been  ratified  by  the 
employees  concerned  and,  for  the  employer, 
has  been  accepted  by  the  Management  Board 
of  Cabinet. 

The  settlement  involves  some  18,000  public 
servants,  the  majority  of  whom  are  in  typing, 
stenographic  and  general  clerical  functions, 
as  well  as  a  number  of  investigative  person- 
nel in  fire  services  and  securities  investiga- 
tions, and  inspectors  in  the  motor  vehicle 
branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications. 

Salary  increases  range  from  eig'ht  per  cent 
to  10  per  cent  in  the  first  year  of  the  con- 
tract, with  the  large  majority  of  classes  receiv- 
ing increases  of  nine  per  cent,  while  the 
increases  in  the  second  year  is  seven  per  cent 
for  all  classes.  The  contract  covers  the  two- 
year  period  from  Jan.  1,  1974,  to  Dec.  31, 
1975. 

It  is  particularly  gratifying  to  note  that 
agreement  was  reached  in  direct  negotiations 
between     the     parties     without     third-party 


218 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


assistance  of  any  kind.  This  marks  the  third 
settlement  on  salary  matters  in  the  public 
service  which  has  been  arrived  at  in  direct 
negotiations  between  the  parties  since  the 
Crown  Employees  Collective  Bargaining  Act 
came  into  force  in  December,  1972.  In 
addition,  complete  contracts  have  been  re- 
negotiated in  direct  bargaining  between  the 
parties  during  the  past  year  for  employees 
of  the  Liquor  Control  and  Liquor  Licence 
Boards,  for  two  groups  of  employees  in  the 
Niagara  Parks  Commission  and  for  the 
Ontario  Provincial  Police  bargaining  unit. 

It  must  be  reassuring  to  the  members  of 
this  House  to  know  that  the  great  majority 
of  the  labour  agreements  for  Crown  em- 
poyees  are  being  resolved  by  the  good-faith- 
bargaining  of  the  parties.  It  will  continue  to 
be  the  goal  of  the  government  to  resolve  any 
contract  differences   in   this   way. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  about  fringe  benefits? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


TAX  CREDIT  INFORMATION  CENTRE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): A  question  of  the  Minister  of  Revenue, 
following  his  statement: 

How  can  he  justify  to  the  taxpayers  of  the 
province  the  fact  that  his  excessively  intru- 
sive advertising  programme  promoting  some- 
thing called  Ontario's  "fair  share"  programme 
would  have  been  overlooked  by  so  many 
citizens  that  he  would  have  to  express  dis- 
appointment at  the  small  number  of  people 
who  had  called  his  offices  during  the  week- 
end, when  he  says  most  people  are  most 
concerned    with   receiving   that   information? 

While  I  am  up,  I  might  as  well  ask  a 
supplementary  to  the  fii^st  question.  How 
much  money  has  he  spent  on  that  advertis- 
ing programme  already? 

Hon.    Mr.    Meen:    Mr.    Speaker,   the   pro- 
gramme is  ongoing- 
Mr.    Ruston:    It    will    be    going    until    six 
weeks  before  the  election. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mil.  Meen:  We  have  a  schedule  of 
weekly  papers  and  daily  papers  and  of  radio 
and  television,  whereby  we  hope  to  reach 
the  maximum  number  of  people.  We  did  a 
survey  back  in  January,  in  which  we  dis- 
covered that  some  69  per  cent  of  Ontario 
residents-I  think  that  was  the  figure-did  not 


know  or,  frankly,  if  they  did  know,  they 
certainly  were  unsure,  whether  there  was 
even  a  property  tax  credit  available  to  them 
this  year. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  The 
government  sure  mangled  it. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  And  that's 
called  effective  communications! 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  That  survey  was  done 
after  most  of  those  people  had  received  from 
the  federal  government  their  income  tax 
forms  for  this  year,  in  which  our  material 
was  included. 

It  was  obvious,  therefore,  that  for  us  to 
be  able  to  reach  the  elderly  people  who  per- 
haps don't  read  the  papers  and  don't  look  at 
these  forms,  to  reach  the  disadvantaged 
generally,  and  receive  these  income  tax  re- 
turns becomes  they  may  not  have  been  pay- 
ing income  tax  for  quite  some  years,  and  to 
let  them  know  that  there  was  in  fact  money 
available  to  them  under  this  programme,  we 
undertook  the  advertising  programme  to 
which  the  hon.  member  has  referred  and  to 
which  I  referred. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Sarnia):  The  minister 
said  they  didn't  read  the  papers— why  adver- 
tise? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Now,  as  to  the  cost;  the 
cost  will  be  around  half  a  million  dollars  for 
the  total  programme. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Shame, 
shame. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  When  we  are  talking 
about  a  rebate  of  some  $300  million  to  the 
elderly  and  the  needy,  it's  a  very  small  price 
to  pay  to  be  able  to  let  them  know  that  that 
money  is  available. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Why  does 
the  government  take  it  in  the  first  place? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  This  cost  works  out,  Mr. 
Speaker,  at  about  10  cents  for  every  tax  filer. 
Another  way  of  working  it  out  is  that  it's 
approximately  one  cent  for  ever>-  $5  of 
money  being  paid  back  to  these  people.  We 
think  it's  money  very  well  spent. 

As  to  the  availability  of  weekend  service, 
we  think  that's  an  appropriate  way  to  help 
out  those  who  haven't  comprehended  in  some 
way  what  the  programme  is  all  about. 

Mr.  Roy:  Especially  when  the  goxernment 
is  getting  the  PR  value  from  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  They  are  reading  the  ads. 
They   are   seeing   them   on   television.    They 


MARCH  13,  1974 


219 


are  hearing  them  on  the  radio.  They  are 
telephoning  us  for  the  necessary  advice  and 
assistance. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Aside 
from  the  cost  of  publicizing  the  minister's 
department,  what  is  the  cost  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  this  scheme  to  get  back  the  money 
that  the  goverrunent  extracted  from  them 
in  the  first  place?  What's  the  cost  of  adminis- 
tration? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Well,  that's  pretty  hard 
to  estimate  at  this  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  but 
it's  a  small  fraction,  possibly  20  per  cent,  of 
the  balance  of  the  cost. 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  Money  well 
spent. 

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

Ml*.  Lewis:  I  didn't  hear  what  that  small 
fraction  was. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  didn't  indicate  the 
amount,   Mr.   Speaker,   but   I   would   think— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  said  20  per  cent, 
I  think. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —that  it  is  perhaps  20  per 
cent  or  so  of  our  other  costs  that  are  directly 
related  to  the  advertising. 

Mr.  Roy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
How  can  the  minister  justify  spending  half 
a  million  dollars  for  this  advertising  when  in 
fact  in  the  tax  returns  there  are  forms  to 
fill  out  to  claim  a  tax  rebate?  Secondly, 
which  of  the  minister's  PR  friends  got  the 
job  of  preparing  the  ads?  And,  thirdly,  is 
it  necessary  to  have  the  minister's  name  and 
the  Premier's  name  (Mr.  Davis)  so  prominent 
on  the  ad? 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  turns  people  oflF. 

Interjections   by  hon.   members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Incredible  though  it  may 
seem,  people  do  not  read  these  inserts,  and 
we  have  had  calls  from  people  after- 
Interjections    by    hon.    members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  If  the  hon.  member  for 
Ottawa  East  will  just  sit  back  and  listen 
for  a  minute,  he  might  hear  the  answer. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  The 
minister  might  learn  something  too. 

Mr.  Singer:  Lesson  one,  how  to  be  a 
cabinet  minister. 


Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  want  to  tell  the  hon. 
members  that  we've  received  telephone  calls 
from  people  who  have  seen  and  heard  our 
advertisements,  or  read  them  in  their  weekly 
press,  saying,  "I  filed  my  return  but  I 
didn't  realize  I  was  entitled  to  any  kind  of 
credit  and  I  threw  out  that  insert."  As  a 
consequence,  by  providing  them  with  addi- 
tional material,  we've  been  able  to  help  them 
to  make  a  claim  through  the  mechanism  of 
the  income  tax  for  their  proper  and  fair 
share  of  the  money  being  paid  back. 

The  second  question  the  hon.  member 
asked  me  was,  who  has  the  advertising 
programme?  I  will  get  that  information  for 
him.  And  the  third  question— the  hon.  mem- 
ber had  a  third  question? 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  the  minister's  name  and 
the  Premier's  name  is  mentioned,  but  not 
my  name? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Why  is  the  minister  so 
mean? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It's  a  rather  common 
practice  to  include  the  name  of  the  Premier 
and  the  minister  involved.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  I  might  point  out  that  this  gives  the 
hon.  member  the  opportunity  to  ask  me 
these  questions  in  the  House,  I  suppose,  be- 
cause I  can  take  the  responsibility  for  the  ad. 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  still  didn't  explain 
why  he  was  so  mean,  but  that's  another 
matter. 


YORK  COUNTY  SCHOOL  GRANTS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Premier  if  the  cabinet— the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion (Mr.  Wells)  particularly— isi  contem- 
plating some  kind  of  progranmie  to  assist 
with  special  grants  for  the  provision  of  sum- 
mer schools  in  the  York  county  area  to  pro- 
vide additional  education  to  make  up  for 
what  will  have  been  missed  by  the  time  the 
schools  are  reopened? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  Minister  of  Education  may  have  some 
observations  on  that.  I  don't  know  that  any 
consideration  has  been  given  to  that,  if 
initiated  by  the  local  board.  But  I  would 
suggest  that  that  might  be  a  proper  ques- 
tion to  ask  the  minister. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary: Would  it  not  be  important  that 
students  who  have  worked  hard  should  get 


220 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


credit  according  to  the  work  they've  done, 
and  that  it  not  be  just  a  blanket  approval 
for  all  students,  regardless  of  whether  their 
work  in  the  past  has  been  satisfactory?  In 
effect,  the  minister  had  indicated  that  every- 
one would  be  looked  after.  Surely  they 
should  be  looked  after  in  accordance  with 
the  work  they  have  been  doing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker.  I  would 
think  that's  a  very  natural  conclusion,  and 
one  that  I'm  sure  will  be  drawn  by  the 
board  that  has  the  responsibility  for  the 
administration  of  the  educational  pro- 
gramme in  the  county  which  the  hon.  mem- 
ber represents— which  board  the  hon.  mem- 
ber has  no  confidence  in.  We  happen  to 
ha\e  some. 

Mr.  Roy:  People  in  the  area  have  con- 
fidence in  the  member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  doesn't  have 
all    that    much    confidence    in    the    board. 

Mr.  Deacon:  On  what  does  the  Premier 
base  that  statement? 

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

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  would  like  to  ask  a  supplementary  of  the 
Premier,  if  he  can  disengage  himself  from 
this  tete-a-tete  with  the  hon.  member  for 
York  Centre.  Does  the  Premier  recall  or 
can  he  tell  the  House  whether  or  not  the 
per-pupil  grants  for  the  secondary  school 
students  were  withdrawn  when  the  teachers 
went  out  on  strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
idea  whether  the  grants  were  withdrawn.  I 
think  it's  a  question  of,  as  I  recall,  the 
grant  formula,  and  I  now  have  to  go  back 
in  memory.  The  grants  are  payable  on  the 
basis  of  monthly  average  attendance  and 
no  longer  of  daily  attendance.  I  would 
think  that  when  the  calculations  for  the 
York  board  are  made  the  number  of  days 
in  attendance  on  an  average  basis  will  be 
calculated.  I  don't  think  it's  a  question 
of  withdrawing  the  grants,  it's  a  question 
of  the  grants  that  will  be  payable  as  the 
requests  are  made  or  as  the  documentation 
comes  in,  I  stand  to  be  corrected  because 
I  really  haven't  dealt  with  the  grant  regula- 
tions now  for  a  period  of  time. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  question  of  clarification, 
Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may:  Does  that  mean 
if  there  were  a  relatively  low  attendance, 
i.e.,    about    five    per    cent    for    a    monthly 


period,  the  grants  would  only  be  at  a  five 
per  cent  rate  for  that  monthly  period? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  really 
don't  recall  the  specifics  of  the  regulations. 
I  think  the  member  should  properly  ask  the 
minister.  My  best  recollection  is  that  it 
now  does  relate  to  average  attendance  rather 
than  daily  attendance,  and  it  does  relate  to 
those  figures  when  the  grants  are  made. 

Mr.  Givens:  Supplementary:  What  is  the 
government  going  to  do  to  correlate  its  grant 
system  in  its  settlement,  with  the  obvious  de^ 
cline  in  enrolment  which  we're  experiencing 
in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
answer  to  that  is  relatively  obvious.  Enrol- 
ments are  determined  basically  in  September 
of  each  academic  year,  and  although  there 
is  some  fall-off,  unfortimately— because  of  a 
limited!  number  of  students  dropping  out  of 
the  system,  and  these  are  calculated  as  well- 
as  enrolments  decline  the  grants  payable  to 
the  boards  reflect  this.  It  dOes  relate  to 
numbers  of  students.  Once  again,  I  think  it's 
on  either  weekly  or  monthly  average  attend*- 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

PRIVILEGE  OF  ELECTED 
MUNICIPAL  OFFICIALS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  woultl  hke  to  ask  an- 
other question  of  the  Premier:  Did  he  read 
the  reports  this  morning  about  the  continuinig 
problems  with  lead  pollution  in  Toronto  and, 
specifically,  the  threats  of  action  by  way  of 
injunction  against  the  chairman  of  the  Board 
of  Health  of  Toronto,  Mrs.  Anne  Johnston? 
What  does  he  think  of  the  suggestion  put 
forward  that  a  certain  type  of  privilege  of 
the  type  that  we  enjoy  as  members  of  the 
Legislature  should  be  extended  to  elected 
municipal  oflBcials  so  that  they  can  speak 
frankly  and  without  fear  under  these  circimi- 
stances?  Surely,  that  is  something  to  which 
we  should  give  careful  consideration. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  only 
glanced  at  the  headlines  because  my  atten- 
tion, I  must  confess,  was  occupied  with  one 
or  two  other  matters  so  I  can't  comment  on 
the  content  of  the  news  stories.  I  think  there 
is  some  degree  of  privilege,  although  I  would 
have  to  check  this  out.  I  was  going  to  observe 
that  some  day  we  might  even  discuss  privilege 
as  it  relates  to  what  is  said  in  this  House 
from  time  to  time  but  I  won't  suggest  that 
sort  of  dfebate  on  this  occasion. 


MARCH  13,  1^14 


221 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Will  the 
Premier,  besides  seeing  what  privilege  is 
available,  give  an  opinion  to  the  House  as  to 
whether  or  not  we  might  consider,  through 
legislation,  extending  the  same  privilege  to 
people  who  have  this  kind  of  responsibility 
and  who  are  expected  to  be  able  to  speak  out 
without  fear  or  favour? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm  quite 
prepared  to  consider  anything  that's  reason- 
able and  I'm  quite  prepared  to  see  just  what 
privilege  there  may  be  and  see  whether  or 
not  we  should  consider  it. 

Mr.  Deacon:  If  it  is  reasonable  for  us  it 
should  be  reasonable  for  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  sometimes  abuse  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position? 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 


COST  OF  LIVING  INCREASES 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
Premier:  Given  the  quite  startling  jump  again 
in  the  cost  of  living  announced  today,  is  the 
government  of  Ontario  prepared'  to  take  any 
initiatives  beyond  the  paragraph  contained 
in  the  Throne  Speech? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  govern- 
ment of  this  province— I  think  it  was  clear  in 
the  Throne  Speech  and  in  other  speeches  that 
I  and  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  have  made- 
regards  the  whole  question  of  inflation— and 
I  don't  just  say  the  cost  of  living— as  being 
the  most  significant  problem  that  this  juris- 
diction, Ontario,  faces.  I  think  this  is  true 
nationally. 

I  can  only  say  to  the  hon.  member  that 
this  government,  and  the  Treasury  people  in 
particular,  have  given  consideration  to  what 
means  rnight  be  available  within  provincial 
jurisdictioii.  to  assist  in  this  very  basic  prob- 
lem. I've  made  it  very  clear  to  the  first 
minister  of  Canada.  It  was  contained  in  the 
Throne  Speech  and  I  have  communicated  to 
him  directly  that  this  province  is  more  than 
prepared  to  play  its  role  in  any  national 
approach. 

While  I  don't  want  to  get  into  a  lengthy 
discussion  today  as  to  the  problems  of  juris- 
diction, I  think  it  is  evident  to  the  hon. 
member— and  I'm  sure  he's  very  familiar  with 
it— that  it  is  very  difiicult  for  a  province  uni- 
laterally to  come  to  grips  with  the  issue  of 
inflation.  I  wish  we  could,  because  we  regard 
it  as  serious,  perhaps  more  serious  than  some 
others    who    sometimes    speak   about   it   and 


who  do  have,  I  think,  some  of  the  financial 
and  fiscal  tools  to  do  something  about  it. 

Mr.  Roy:  One  wouldn't  know  from  the 
Throne  Speech. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  mean  the  member's 
colleagues  in  Ottawa,  quite  frankly. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  a  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  concede  that  it  is 
difficult  for  the  Province  of  Ontario  at  all.  I 
think  it  is  wholly  within  the  powers  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario  constitutionally. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  are  the  specifics  that  the 
Treasury  Board,  the  Premier  and  his  col- 
leagues are  considering  to  play  their  role  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario?  Can  he  give  us  a 
glimpse  of  any  policy  that  he  has  which 
would  effectively  fight  inflation  in  the  field 
of  food  prices,  for  example,  within  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  area  in 
which  this  government,  I  think,  has  made  a 
really  very  significant  effort,  and  one  which 
is  not  totally  supported  by  the  members 
opposite  because  it  does  have  an  impact  on 
inflation,  is  the  level  of  government  expendi- 
ture. There  is  no  question  whatsoever  that 
the  level  of  government  expenditure— and  I 
have  seen  the  member  for  High  Park  (Mr. 
Shulman)  on  television  on  this  issue;  I  saw 
him  two  or  three  times  on  television  talking 
about  this  very  matter  himself— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Come  on! 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  There  is  no  question  that 

municipal,  provincial  and  federal- 
Mr.  Roy:  Does  the  Premier  watch  it  that 

often? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  he  did,  he  did  in- 
deed. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  turn  him  off. 

Iriterjiections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  turns  us  off. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I'm  sure  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  tiu-ns  him  off.  There  may  be  some 
days  when  the  leader  of  the  party  turns  off 
the  member  for  High  Park.  The  reverse  may 
also  be  true  from  time  to  time,  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  have  a  very  friendly  re- 
lationship. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  However,  before  I  was 
sidetracked  and  getting  such  enthusiastic  nod- 


222 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ding  support  from  the  economic  expert  in  the 
New  Democratic  Party,  I  was  saying  to  the 
hon.  member  that  the  level  of  expenditure  by 
municipal,  provincial  and  federal  govern- 
ments has,  without  any  question- 
Mr.  Lewis:  They  are  contributing  services 
to  people  all  across  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —an  impact  on  the  rate 
of  inflation. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No  it  has  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  the  member's  people 
across  the  House  argue  against  ceilings,  his 
people  particularly— 

Mr.  Lewis:  No  we  do  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —in  a  hypocritical  way, 
incidentally,  to  try  to  throw  us  off. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Certainly  we  do  in  health. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  this  is  where  this 
government,  with  some  political  flak,  and  I 
don't  minimize  it,  has  indeed  made  a  genuine 
effort  to  restrain  expenditures. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  about  the  sales  tax? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  where  have  they  done 
it?  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not  had  my  supple- 
mentary answered.  I  will  ask  it  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  There  is  a  specific  in- 
stance- 
Mr.  Lewis:  In  those  factors  that  are  moni- 
tored in  the  cost  of  living  index,  specifically 
in  terms  of  food,  let  the  Premier  name  one 
initiative  that  this  government  is  taking  to 
control  the  rising  prices  in  the  food  sector. 
Don't  let  him  talk  to  me  about  the  public 
sector  generally;  we'll  debate  that  another 
time.  Let  him  tell  us  about  food  prices. 

Hon.  A.  Crossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  It  helps  curb 
inflation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  de- 
bated the  question  of  control  of  food  prices 
in  this  House  on  two  or  three  occasions.  I 
think  both  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  and  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr. 
Clement)  have  dealt  with  this  in  a  very  con- 
structive, very  positive  way. 


Mr.  Lewis:  Not  a  single  specific. 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  I  think  they  have 
made  it  abundantly  clear  that  for  a  provin- 
cial jurisdiction  to  move  in  to  endeavour  to 


control  costs  where  many  of  the  commodities 
are  a  part  of  the  international  maricetplace  is 
just  totally  inconsistent. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  cop-out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  true  and  the  member 
knows  it  is  true. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  it  is  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Further  to  the  Premier's, 
I  think,  third  answer,  is  he  then  saying  that 
since  the  economy  of  the  province  requires 
the  restraint  which  he  is  so  proud  of,  we  can 
look  for  something  approaching  a  balanced 
budget  brought  down  in  April?  His  record  as 
Premier  has  certainly  been  ever-increasing 
deficits,  the  biggest  in  our  history.  He  took 
a  situation  where  his  predecessor  had  a  $150 
million  surplus  and  he  has  added  $1.6  billion 
to  the  deficit.  Is  that  not  inflationary? 

An  hon.  member:  You  don't  want  any  ceil- 
ings. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  hon.  member  for 
Brant  has  demonstrated  his  great  expertise  in 
mathematics  in  this  House  on  more  than  one 
occasion,  and  again  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Roy:  He  has  been  right  on. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  has  not. 

Mr.  Roy:  He  has. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  has  not.  The  question 

of  a  provincial  deficit- 
Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  Does  the  Premier 

mean  that  his  deficit  is  bigger? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  said  my  figures  were 
as  good  as  his. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Oh,  I  would  say  with 
great  respect  they  were  way  out.  Now,  get- 
ting back  to  the  point  raised,  the  question  of 
the  extent  of  the  provincial  deficit  does  not 
relate  to  the  rate  of  inflation.  There  is  just 
no  relationship  between  the  two. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh  come  on. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  There  is  not. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Forty  per  cent  increase  in 
sales  tax. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  my  economic  experts, 
both  of  them— 


MARCH  13,  1974 


223 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  does  the  member 
for  High  Park  say?  Ask  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Now  I  am  in  trouble, 
because  the  member  for  Scarborough  West 
says  yes  and  the  hon.  member  for  High  Park 
says  no. 

I  would  also  say  this,  that  the  extent  of 
the  deficit  is  very  directly  related  to  the 
necessity  of  this  province  to  continue  to 
maintain  the  level  of  service  which  is  im- 
portant, without  the  recognition  by  the 
Liberals'  federal  friends  in  Ottawa  that  they 
have  not  done  their  part  in  federal- 
provincial  rationalization  of  the  tax  scheme. 
What  is  more,  he  knows  it  is  true.  And  you 
know.  Mr.  Speaker,  If  I  can  give  the  member 
for  Brant  some  advice,  the  sooner  he  dis- 
associates himself  economically  from  the 
federal  government  in  Ottawa  and  those  who 
are  supporting  him,  the  much  better  off  he 
will  be. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  government  in 
Ottawa  is  supported  by  the  NDP,  too,  just  the 
way  this  government  is. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  balanced  budget  is  an  Eisen- 
hower argument.  It  is  not  a  Turner  argument. 

Mr.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary 
question. 

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

Mr.  Reid:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  Does 
the  Premier,  to  use  his  own  words,  not  feel 
somewhat  hypocritical  standing  in  this  House 
and  talking  about  inflation- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Answer  yes  or  no. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  The 
member  shouldn't  discuss  that  one. 

Mr.  Reid:  —when  it  was  his  government 
that  raised  the  sales  tax  from  five  to  seven  per 
cent,  and  even  his  limited  economic  experi- 
ence should  tell  him  that  increasing  taxes  is 
going  to  raise  the  price  of  goods  and  services? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  an  economist. 

Mr.  Ruston:  That  is  obvious. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  sure  that  that  is 
very  e\  ident.  But  there  are  some  things  I  am 
that  the  members  opposite  aren't,  which  is 
also  increasingly  evident  day  after  day. 

Mr.  Reid:  Yes,  but  they  are  not  repeatable 

here. 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  won't  get  into  that. 

Mr.  Singer:  Privileged  or  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Privileged  or  not— and  I 
would  only  say  this,  Mr.  Speaker.  I'm  not  go- 
ing to  argue  whether  tax  increases  are  pal- 
atable or  otherwise;  we  don't  hke  them. 

Mr.  Reid:  Are  they  inflationary  or  not? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  doesn't  the  Premier  try 
the  resource  sector? 

Hon.   Mr.   Davis:   But  the  basis  and  the 
rationale  for  the  increase  in  the  sales  tax  was 
basically  to  bring  about  a  redistribution- 
Mr.     Lewis:     Because     the     govenunent 
wouldn't  tax  its  friends. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —in  benefits  to  the  general 
pubhc  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  because  the  govenmient 
won't  tax  the  resource  sector. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  without  any  question 
the  bulk  of  the  increase  in  revenue  from  the 
sales  tax  has  gone  back  to  tlie  tax  cr^t 
system  and  the  grants  to  the  municipalities 
to  relieve  those  people  who  feel  the  causes 
of  inflation  to  a  greater  extent  than  others  in 
a  way  that  I  think  is  most  appropriate. 

Mr.  Reid:  And  how  many  civil  servants 
did  the  government  have  to  hire  to  administer 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  Treasurer  may  have 
some  other  views  to  express. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

Mr.  Stokes:  You  are  right  on,  Mr.  Speaker. 


FOOD  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  Believe  it  or  not,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I'll  ask  that  question.  May  I  ask  a  questioui  of 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food— I'm 
sorry  to  interrupt  him? 

May  I  ask  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food,  with  the  increase  in  the  cost  of  living 
which  was  announced  today,  it  now  emerges 
that  the  average  Ontario  food  basket  mon- 
itored by  his  ministry  has  risen  by  some  40 
per  cent  in  the  last  three  years.  Is  the  minis- 
ter making  any  recommendations  to  cabinet 
which  can  put  some  control  in  the  area  of 
food  prices  at  the  checkout-counter  level— at 
the  supermarket  level?  Is  there  sometliing 
that  can  be  done  to  control  this  rate  of 
inflation? 


224 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  with  regard  to 
the  food  prices  that  have  been  referred  to  by 
my  friend,  most  of  those  prices  are  reflected 
at  producer  level.  Over  the  last  three  years 
there  has  been  a  substantial  increase. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Has  the  minister  looked 
at  the  profits  in  supermarkets? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Quite  frankly,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  don't  see  how  our  friends  over 
there,  who  are  doing  everything  they  can  to 
charm  the  farmers  of  Ontario  at  least  to  be- 
lieve enough  in  them  to  elect  one  farmer  to 
their  party- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  They  are  not  reflected  at 
the  producer  level. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  a  start. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  —can  stand  in  this  House 
and  be  as  hypocritical  as  they  are  about  food 
prices,  condemning  the  very  people  whom 
they  are  supposed  to  be  trying  to  serve. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Not  so.  Not  so. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  don't  mind  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  defending  the  farmers— that's  his  job, 
and  he  knows  and  I  know  that  the  farmers 
should  get  the  increased  income. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Yes,  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  I  want  to  know  is,  why 
is  he  defending  the  profits  of  the  supermarket 
chains?  That's  not  his  job. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Watch  your  image 
now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  hon. 
friend  refers  to  profits  of  the  supermarket 
chains.  If  we  follow  through  on  some  of  the 
matters  that  have  been  raised  in  that  food 
basket,  beef  particularly— 

Mr.: Lewis:  No,  that  is  not  the  serious  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Oh,  yes  it  is.  That  is 
probably  the  greatest  illustration  of  any  ad- 
vance over  the  last  three  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What  does  the  mem- 
ber want  them  to  do,  eat  pork? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  wouldn't  be  the  first 
time  that  either  of  them  did. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  will  come  back 
to  haunt  the  member  for  York  South. 


Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I'll 
pass. 

Mr.   Lewis:   I  have  eaten  it  all  m}-  life;  I 
have  never  had  that  problem! 


PRICE  FIXING  IN  SUPERMARKETS 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  of  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  is  he 
prepared  to  take  a  look  at  the  possible  price 
fixing  in  the  supermarket  and  retail  food 
sector  as  a  way  of  beginning  to  take  under 
control  the  kinds  of  skyrocketing  inflation  in 
the  food  industry  which  some  go\-emment 
somewhere  seriously  has  to  contain? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker,  as 
my  hon.  friend  probably  knows  the  question 
of  price  fixing  is,  in  fact,  if  it  can  be  proven, 
an  offence  under  the  Combines  Investigation 
Act,  and  therefore  a  federal  matter.  How- 
ever, in  my  ministry,  through  my  chief 
economist,  we  are  currently  doing  an  analysis 
of  food  market  profits  for  the  past  24  months 
in  an  effort  to  ascertain  just  where  they 
have  been  derived. 

The  member  will  recall  I  mentioned  the 
other  day  that  one  particular  chain  had  what 
would  appear  to  be  a  substantial  profit  last 
year,  but  it  turns  out  the  bulk  of  that  was 
derived  from  the  sale  of  capital  assets. 

Rut  we  are  doing  this  analysis,  and  hop© 
to  have  it  completed  shortly;  then  we  will 
proceed  from  there  once  we  know  the  facts 
of  that  inquiry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplemementary:  Would 
the  minister  be  prepared  to  provide  for  the 
public  a  monitoring  of  food  prices  in  a 
range  of  communities  across  the  province, 
and  a  monitoring  of  the  disparities  in  indi- 
vidual conrmiodities  in  various  communities 
across  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
already  monitoring  in  the  Metro  area,  in  the 
Kitchener-Waterloo  area  and  in  northern 
Ontario  in,  I  believe,  three  different  areas— 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Why  is  the  minister  hid- 
ing the  results? 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  won't  give  us  the  residts. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I'll  make  the  results 
available  without  identifying  the  stores  at 
this  particular  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  won't  the  minister  iden- 
tify the  stores?  Why  is  it  not  in  the  public 


MARCH  13,  1974 


225 


interest  to  know  who  were  responsible   for 
the  high  prices? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
taken  a  look  at  those  figures  from  time  to 
time;  they  vary  as  much  as  10  or  15  cents  a 
week  between  the  different  chains,  and  the 
next  week  the  situation  might  reverse  itself. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Then  let  the  pattern  be  demon- 
strated. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  There  is  nothing  par- 
ticularly astounding  about  it  at  all. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That  was  spelled  out  by 
William  Janssen  in  study  No.  14  for  the  farm 
income  committee  five  years  ago. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  This  week  one  super- 
market may  be  up,  and  the  public  may 
interpret  it  that  that  supermarket  is  ripping 
off  the  public;  next  week  it  may  be  in  the 
low  part  of  the  scale.  The  difference  between 
the  low  and  the  high  is  very  insignificant. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Has  the  minister  noticed  in  the  ongoing  sur- 
vey that  the  rate  of  increase  is  much  greater 
in  northern  Ontario  than  it  is  elsewhere  in 
the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  going  by 
recollection— and  I  haven't  seen  the  figures 
for  possibly  three  or  fom-  weeks— it  seems  to 
me  that  the  last  set  of  figures  I  saw  show 
that  at  that  time  the  highest  prices  for 
articles  in  our  basket  were  in  the  Thunder 
Bay  area. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Does  the  minister  propose  to 
do  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sure,  he's  going  to  buy  in 
Toronto. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  I  propose  to  do 
this  about  it:  We  have  had  correspondence 
with  the  people  at  the  Food  Prices  Review 
Board  in  Ottawa.  They  have  conducted  in- 
vestigations to  see  if  those  particular  prices 
are,  in  fact,  not  warranted. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Unconscionable. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  But  insofar  as  my 
doing  something  about  it,  I  would  welcome 
any  observations  that  any  member  of  this 
House  might  make  as  to  what  legislation 
currently  in  our  books  we  can  act  under. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Pass  some— roll  them  back. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Oh,  but  it  is  criminal. 
The  price  fixing  to  which  my  friend  alludes, 
sir,  is  definitely  under  federal  jurisdiction. 


Mr.  Lewis:  This  isn't  price  fixing;  this  is 
entirely  price  gouging.  They  are  just  imwar- 
ranted  increases. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  But  in  my  hon.  friend's 
initial  question  he  called  it  price  fixing— 

Mr.  Reid:  It's  price  gouging. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  telling  the  House  that  the 
province  has  the  power  and  the  authority  to 
equalize  beer  prices  across  the  province  but 
cannot  equalize  fundamental  foodstuff  prices 
across  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  I  will  tell  the 
House  that.  That's  nothing  profound;  that's 
absolutely  the  truth. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  by  way  of  supplemen- 
tary, why  is  that  the  truth,  when  property 
and  civil  rights  are  provincial  rights  within 
the  constitution?  The  minister  can  regulate 
prices  if  he  wishes. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  That 
is  a  good  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  cannot  do  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Certainly  he  can! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No  further  questions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right.  The  hon.  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications  has 
the  answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 
Then  I  will  recognize  the  hon.  member  for 
Sarnia. 


RECONSTRUCTION  OF  HIGHWAY  401 
NEAR  WINDSOR 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
It  is  a  question  that  was  asked  yesterday  by 
the  member  for  Windsor  West  (Mr. 
Bounsall).  Perhaps  you'll  take  note  and  teU 
him  about  it  when  he  gets  back. 

The  question  is,  what  is  the  schedule  of 
reconstruction  of  Highway  401 's  right-hand 
lane  westerly  to  Windsor  from  10  to  15  miles 
out  of  Windsor?  When  will  construction  start, 
and  will  it  be  commenced  and  finished  this 
summer? 

Mr.  Speaker,  two  resurfacing  contracts  were 
awarded  on  this  section  of  Highway  401. 
Contract  73-171  covered  the  section  from 
interchange  No.  6  westerly  to  interchange  No. 


226 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


4,  a  distance  of  8.7  miles.  It  was  awarded  on 
Jan.  9,  1974;  work  is  to  start  May  1,  and 
the  anticipated  completion  date  is  October, 
1974.  Contract  73-172  starts  at  interchange 
No.  4  and  continues  westerly  to  the  Highway 
3-B  interchange,  a  distance  of  10.3  miles. 
This  was  awarded  on  Jan.  16,  1974;  work  is 
to  start  May  6,  1974,  and  completion  is 
anticipated  in  October,  1974. 

Mr.   Ruston:    I   told  him   that  yesterday.   I 
knew  that.  It's  in  my  riding. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Samia. 


WORLD  FOOTBALL  LEAGUE 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  A  question  of  the  Premier: 
Could  the  Premier  advise  as  to  whether  he 
agrees  with  the  Minister  of  National  Health 
and  Welfare  that  the  intrusion  of  a  World 
Football  League  entry  into  the  city  of  To- 
ronto is  a  threat  to  the  peace,  order  and 
good  government  of  our  nation?  And  could 
he  use  his  influence  with  his  friends  in  Ottawa 
to  stop  that  silly  symphony  that  is  going  on? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): They've  got  to  keep  the  government 
busy  up  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
assume  from  the  question  that  the  member 
for  Samia  disagrees  categorically  with  the 
Minister  of  National  Health  and  Welfare  and 
his  policies- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  am  asking  the  question! 
I  wondered  if— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  no— but  the  member 
said  it  was  a  silly  symphony,  and  I  am  taking 
from  that,  that  is  what  he  is  saying. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  football? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  am  asking,  does  the 
Premier  agree  or  disagree? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  expressed  the  point  of 
>'iew,  I  think,  on  a  certain  television  pro- 
gramme on  Sunday  evening,  where  I  made  it 
very  clear,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Deacon:  Has  the  Premier  ever  made 
anything  clear? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  I  know  that  there 
are  some  for  whom  these  words  are  difficult 
to  completely  understand  and  I  won't  go  any 
further.  But  I  will  now  try  to  answer  this 
matter  of  urgent  public  importance- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  Don't  use  the  word  "hypo- 
crite"! 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  for  Samia 
has  asked  me  whethei-  I  agree  that  the 
awarding  of  a  franchise  and  the  operation  of 
a  team  in  Toronto  in  the  World  Football 
League  will  hurt  the  question  of  peace,  order 
and  good  government.  I  think  to  answer  that 
part  of  the  question,  I  would  sa\-  I  don't 
think  it  would.  I  don't  think  it  is  going  to 
disturb  peace.  I  don't  think  it  is  going,  you 
know,  to  affect  order;  and  I  don't  think  really 
it's  going  to— 

Ml*.  Bullbrook:  What  about  go\ernment 
responsibility? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  think,  really,  it's 
going  to  alter  the  questionable  go\ernment 
we  are  getting  in  Ottawa.  Now  I  have  other 
solutions  to  that. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  What  about  the  Premier's 
friends  in  Ottawa;  what  is  he  going  to  do 
about  them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  I  must  confess  that 
we  have  not  had  a  great  deal  of  success  with 
our  friends  in  Ottawa  who  are  much  closer 
to  the  member's  people  across  the  House; 
and  if  the  member  for  Samia  feels  strongly 
on  this  issue,  I  would  suggest  that  he  com- 
municate his  views  to  the  minister  responsible 
and  perhaps  bring  this  matter  to  a  speedy 
conclusion. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  are  the  Premier's 
views? 

Mr.  Roy:  What  are  the  Premier's  \ lews? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
and  in  a  more  serious  vein,  does  this  govern- 
ment intend  to  make  any  representation  to  the 
federal  government  with  respect  to  the  inter- 
vention by  the  Minister  of  National  Health 
and  Welfare  on  the  supposed  grounds  of  a 
threat  to  the  peace,  order  and  good  govern- 
ment of  this  country? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Does  the  Premier  agree 
with  vocal  John  or  silent  Bob? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
not  contemplated  making  any  representations 
to  the  minister  himself,  and  as  I  say  I  ex- 
pressed a  personal  point  of  view  the  other 
evening.  I  think  I  made  it  abundantly  clear 
on  that  particular  occasion  that  the  federal 
government  has  been  responsible  for.  shall 
we  say,  developing  this  debate;  and  I  think 
that  it  is  its  responsibility  to  bring  it  to  a 
conclusion.  We  are  not  contemplating,  as  a 


MARCH  13,  1974 


227 


government,   any   action   to   stop   the   World 
Football  League. 

An  hon.  member:  Is  he  arguing  with  the 
law? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  One  final  supplementary: 
Do  I  understand  the  position  of  the  govern- 
ment here  in  Ontario  to  be  that  it  has  no 
function  in  connection  with  the  present  dis- 
pute at  all,  and  that  it  is  solely  and  totally 
the  responsibility  of  the  government  of  Can- 
ada, notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  the 
constitution  of  our  country? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
that  certainly  the  federal  government  has 
been  responsible  for,  shall  we  say  developing 
this  debate,  and  certainly— 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Does  this  provincial  gov- 
ernment have  any  responsibility;  yes  or  no? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  it's  within  this 
area  of  responsibility  they  have  to  solve  it.  We 
have  not  looked  into  the  question  of  any 
constitutional  responsibility  or  jurisdiction  we 
may  or  may  not  have. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  Premier  has  nothing 
to  say  as  the  leader  of  the  government,  not 
a  thing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  not  at  this  point. 

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


PAYMENTS  TO  JURORS 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Mr.  Speaker, 
a  question  of  the  Solicitor  General:  I'm  sure 
the  minister  is  aware  of  a  five-man  coroner's 
jury  which  has  been  sitting  in  Sudbury  for 
eight  weeks  investigating  tfie  deaths  of  23 
people  in  the  Sudbury  General  Hospital.  Is 
it  not  expecting  a  little  much  from  these 
citizens  to  give  up,  say  25  per  cent  of  their 
incomes,  in  order  to  do  their  civic  duty? 
When  can  we  expect  amendments  to  the 
legislation  which  would  adjust  the  per  diem 
rate  of  jurors;  and  what  special  steps  is  the 
Solicitor  General  going  to  take  to  relieve  the 
financial  hardship  which  has  been  caused  to 
these  five  people  presently  sitting? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  hon. 
member  knows,  because  of  the  number  of 
deaths  involved  in  that  unfortunate  incident 
in  Sudbury— 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  figures  six  bucks  a 
day  is  enough. 


Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —and  because  of  the  fact- 
Mr.  Ruston:  Get  to  the  point. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —that  most  of  the  families 
have  retained  counsel,  those  are  among  the 
reasons  the  inquest  has  been  going  on  for  so 
long. 

Now  as  far  as  jurors'  fees  are  concerned, 
this  is  of  course  something  for  the  Attorney 
General's  department  to  decide. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  coroners  are  under  the 
Solicitor  General. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  It  is  my  understanding 
those  fees  are  being  looked  at  and  are  ex- 
pected to  be  increased  this  year. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Retroactively? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kert-:  I  might  say  that  although 
the  fees  are  apparently  low,  particularly  in  a 
situation  where  you  have  a  long  inquest,  in 
some  cases  the  salaries  of  some  of  the  jurors 
apparently  will  continue  on. 

Mr.   Martel:   What  about  the  rest? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  In  any  event  there  are 
expenses  as  well  as  the  per  diem  fee,  but  I 
do  admit  that  that  fee  is  low. 

Mr.  Singer:  What  is  the  minister  going  to 
do  about  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary? 

An  hon.  member:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right.  The  hon.  member 
for  Ottawa  East  is  next. 


SUDBURY  HOSPITAL  INVESTIGATION 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence  of 
the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller)  I'd 
like  to  ask  the  Premier  a  question  in  re- 
lation to  this  inquest  in  the  Sudbury  General 
Hospital.  Is  the  Premier  aware  that  acord- 
ing  to  the  evidence,  had  the  Canadian 
Standards  Association  code  which  was 
drawn  up  in  1963  been  accepted  by  the 
provincial  government,  by  this  government 
in  this  province,  it  would  have  probably 
avoided  the  gas  mixup?  What  possible  jus- 
tification could  he  give  us  here  today  as 
to  why  this  code  has  not  been  accepted  by 
this  government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
familiar  with  the  transcript  of  the  eA'idence 
that  has  been  given  during  the  conduct  of 
the    coroner's    inquest.    I'd    be    delighted    to 


228 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


discuss  this  with  my  colleague  the  Minister 
of  Health  at  an  appropriate  time  and  I'm 
sure  he  will  be  delighted  to  give  the  mem- 
ber a  reply. 

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


YORK  COUNTY  SCHOOL  GRANTS 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Education,  Mr.  Speaker.  Could 
the  minister  state  clearly,  which  the  Premier 
was  unable  to  do  earlier  in  the  question 
period,  whether  or  not  the  per  pupil  grants 
for  secondary  schools  in  York  county  have 
been  withdrawn  from  that  board  since  the 
teachers'  dispute  in  which  they  withdrew 
their  services? 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  what  actually  is  happening, 
and  it  is  the  same  as  happened  in  Windsor 
last  year,  is  that  the  amount  of  grants  that 
the  board  receives  is  being  reduced  by  the 
amount  that  would  have  been  paid  in  salaries 
to  those  teachers  who  have  withdrawn  their 
services.  The  ceiling  is  also  appropriately  re- 
duced for  the  period  of  time  when  those 
people  are  not  in  the  employ  of  the  board. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Was  there  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  I  won- 
der in  that  connection  if  the  minister  could 
make  it  clear  whether  there  would  be  special 
additional  grants  available  to  that  board  to 
provide  summer  courses  for  those  students 
who  might  choose  to  make  up  some  of  the 
education  time  lost? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  would 
be  something  we  would  have  to  discuss  with 
the  board.  If  the  board  wishes  to  talk  to  us 
about  it  we  would  discuss  it  with  the  board. 
There  are  many  boards  operating  summer 
courses  at  sunmier  schools  at  the  present 
time,  as  I  am  sure  my  friend  knows. 
Secondary  school  credits  during  the  summer 
for  students  who  want  to  take  them  are 
offered  by  many  boards.  I  assume  that  they 
finance  those  under  present  arrangements, 
but  I  would  be  glad  to  discuss  this  with  the 
board  if  they  wish. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  To  what 
extent  would  the  minister's  statement— I  think 
made  in  conjunction  with  some  board  mem- 
bers—apply that  no  students  would  suffer 
from  the  fact  they  have  been  out  of  school 
now  for  six  weeks?  Does  this  mean  that  their 
promotion    won't   suffer   or   that   the    actual 


body  of  knowledge  that  they  would  have 
been  able  to  impart  to  the  students  would 
remain  unchanged  through  some  additional 
make-up  courses? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  What  my  statement  meant, 
Mr.  Speaker,  was  that  we  were  going  to 
take  all  measures  possible  to  study  ways 
to  help  anybody  who  felt  he  was  at  a 
disadvantage  because  of  the  period  of  time 
he  had  missed. 

We  have  two  people  in  the  ministry 
specially  appointed  to  meet  with  the  prin- 
cipals of  the  schools  and  the  teachers  when 
they  resume  full  operations  to  assist  in  the 
study  and  interpretation  of  any  of  the 
regulations  that  perhaps  may  be  wrongly 
interpreted.  We  are  going  to  assist,  so  far 
as  applications  to  universities  are  concerned, 
to  make  sure  that  the  people  realize  that 
there  was  a  problem  here  and  that  the 
students  are  given  special  attention  where 
their  applications  are  concerned  if  their 
marks  weren't  available  at  the  appropriate 
time,  and  things  like  this. 

There  are  a  lot  of  details  that  will  be 
taken  care  of.  If  there  have  to  be  make-up 
courses  or  things  like  this,  we  will  assist 
them  to  do  that. 

iMr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lanark. 


CAPITAL  GRANTS  FOR  FARMERS 

Mr.  D.  J.  Wiseman  (Lanark):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  $10 
million  has  been  set  aside  for  capital  grants 
for  farmers,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in 
my  riding  there  are  quite  a  few  who  have 
applied  and  have  been  told  they  have  to  wait 
till  next  year  to  receive  the  money,  is  the 
minister  considering  adding  to  that  before  the 
end  of  the  fiscal  year,  or  if  not,  will  it  be 
raised  in  the  coming  year?  The  $10  million 
figure  just  doesn't  seem  to  be  enough  to 
cover  these  grants  to  help  the  farmers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  happy 
to  advise  the  House  through  you,  sir,  in 
answer  to  my  friend's  question— I  know  he 
has  been  very  much  concerned  in  the  past 
about  this  matter— that  we  will  honour  aU  of 
the  applications  on  hand  for  capital  grants 
prior  to  the  end  of  this  fiscal  year  for  every 
farmer  in  Ontario. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Because  the  government  is 
afraid  we  are  wooing  the  farmers. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  No,  because  there  is  an 
election  coming,  that's  why.  Right  before  the 
election  there  is  no  end  of  money  then. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


229 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kit- 
chener has  been  trying  to  get  the  floor  for 
some  time. 


PROVINCE  OF  ONTARIO 
SAVINGS  OFFICE 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  Has  the 
Minister  of  Revenue  instigated  a  review  of 
the  operation  of  the  provincial  savings  offices, 
especially  with  respect  to  the  comments  made 
in  the  auditor's  report  that  five  of  the  21 
offices  have  run  at  a  consistent  loss  for  the 
last  15  years  or  more?  Would  the  minister  in 
his  review,  which  I  would  hope  would  be 
tabled  in  the  House,  advise  us  of  other  finan^- 
cial  institutions:  in  the  communities  where 
these  branches  are  operating  at  a  loss,  par- 
ticularly in  light  of  the  financial  ability  of 
nearly  every  other  institution,  whether  it  be 
bank  or  trust  company  or  whatever,  to  make 
a  substantial  and  healtihy  profit  in  this  society? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
hon.  member  wdll  also  recall,  if  he  read  the 
full  text  of  the  auditor's  report  concerning 
the  Province  of  Ontario  Savings  Office,  that 
to  a  substantial  degree  it  really  depends  on 
how  you  adjust  certain  of  the  interest-earning 
portions  of  the  portfolios  carried  by  those 
various  banks.  If  it  were  adjusted  on  a 
different  basis,  I  believe  he  will  recall  that 
the  Provincial  Auditor  indicated  the  profit  and 
loss  picture  oh  some  of  thpse  branches  nught 
be  very  (iificrent.  ';  / 

Consequently,  it  may  or  may  not  be  liie 
case  that  there  are  five  that  are  losing  money. 
In  any  event,  they  are  .  providiiig  service. 
Even  if  they  are  losing  money,  I  don  t  tliink 
one  Wotild-  automatically  say  they  should  be 
closed^  down.  It  might  be  that  changes  in  the 
operatioriis  pf  thbsi^  branches  and  perhaps  in 
many  of  the  others  as  Well  could  be  madte 
which  would  enhance  the  facility  and  service 
they  provide  to  the  banking  public  in  various 
communities. 

ll  can  say  with  confidence  that  my  ministry 
will  be  looking  at  the  report  and  at  the 
operations  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  Savings 
Office  to  determine  whether  its  operations 
may  be  streamlined,  and  I  suppose,  peripher- 
ally to  that,  whether  any  of  them  should  be 
adjusted  and,  indeed,  whether  some  expansion 
in  the  activity  might  be  undertaken. 

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


SUPPLY  AND  PRICE  OF  FERTILIZER 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food.  Now  that 
his  ministry  has  hosted  a  national  fertilizer 
conference  and  confirmed  what  everybody 
knew— namely  that  there  is  a  shortage  of  fer- 
tilizer and  the  companies  are  capitalizing  on 
that  situation  with  higher  prices— what  does 
the  government  propose  to  do  about  investi- 
gating the  validity  of  those  higher  prices  and 
perhaps  countering  them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  missed 
that  question.  Did  my  hon.  friend  ask  if  we 
were  going  to  do  something  similar  to  the 
government  of  Manitoba  in  investigating 
fertilizer  prices? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  No,  the  four  western  prov- 
inces including  Alberta;  a  gentleman  known 
as  Lougheed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  have  the  report  of  the 
Manitoba  government's  investigation  of  fer- 
tilizer prices.  I  will  be  interested  to  see  what 
it  does  with  that  report.  The  conference  we 
held  here  on  Monday  and  Tuesday  of  this 
week- 
Mr,  MacDonald:  The  minister  timis  me  off. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  —which  was  a  national 
conference. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  can  turn  me  off.     , 

Hon.    Mr.    Stewart:    I   wouldn't   say   that' 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  would. 

Hoii..  Mr.  Stewart:  T*he  member  could  btit 
there  we  differ.  That*s  why  he  is  over  th^re 
and  we  are  over  here. 

ihterjections  by  hon.  inembe«.    "       I       •  f 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  The  real  concern,  Mt*: 
Speaker,  is  that  there  could  be  a  scarcity  of  > 
fertilizers.  There's  no  question  of  it.  There 
certainly  will  not  be  enou^  fertilizers  to 
meet  all  the  demarids  in  Canada  and  the 
United  States,  and  certainly  on  a  world-wide 
basis  there  is  no  possibility  of  meeting  those 
demands.  I  would  suggest  that  it's  going  to 
be  extremely  difficult  to  do  anything  about 
lowering  the  price  of  fertilizers  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  there  are  standing  orders  from 
off-shore  sources  for  quantities  of  fertilizer 
of  almost  any  analysis  or  type,  without  any 
price  attached.  "Just  simply  send  us  the 
fertilizer"— those  are  open-ended  orders. 

I  would  think  we  wdll  probably  be  lucky 
if  we  can  get  anything  like  enough  fertilizers 
in  Canada  and  the  United  States  to  meet  the 


230 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


demand,  even  at  the  prices  they  are  being 
held  at  now,  which  are  much  below  world 
prices.  I  share  the  concern  my  friend  from 
York  South  has  suggested.  It  is  a  very  real 
concern  but  I  really  don't  know  how  one 
puts  a  lid  on  it  today  in  view  of  the  enormous 
demand  there  is  for  these  commodities. 

Mr.    MacDonald:    I    will    try    to    get    the 

minister  some  answers,  then. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  That's  fine.  I  will  be 
interested  to  know  what  they  do  in  Manitoba 
because  they  have  that  report  on  their  hands 
now  and  we  will  be  watching  that  with  some 
interest. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  In  other  words,  the  min- 
ister is  going  to  do  nothing. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  has  the  answer  to  a 
question  asked  previously. 


APPOINTMENT  OF  CSAO 
ARBITRATION  MEDIATOR 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  a  reply  for  the  member  for  Scarborough 
West  to  a  question  he  asked  the  other  day 
on  the  appointment  of  a  mediator  in  the 
employee  benefit  negotiations. 

Mr.  Howard  Brown  was  appointed  to  me- 
diate the  dispute  last  November  and  sched- 
uled a  meeting  with  the  parties  on  Nov.  26. 
This  meeting  was  cancelled  by  the  parties 
because  they  wished  to  have  one  more  try 
at  resolving  the  matter  in  direct  negotiations. 
In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  both  parties  an  im- 
passe was  reached  for  the  second  time  on 
Jan.  16.  Mr.  Brown  was  contacted  by  the 
spokesman  for  the  CSAO  by  letter,  which 
Mr.  Brown  received  on  Feb.  4,  and  asked  to 
convene  a  meeting  of  the  parties. 

By  this  time,  Mr.  Brown's  schedule  did 
not  permit  hini  to  schedule  an  early  meeting 
and  he  so  advised  the  registrar  of  the  Public 
Service  Labour  Relations  Tribunal  on  the 
same  day.  A  copy  of  his  letter  was  sent  to 
the  CSAO  and  to  the  staff  relations  branch 
of  the  Civil  Service  Commission.  After  sev- 
eral weeks  had  passed  without  any  further 
word  on  this  matter,  a  member  of  the  staff 
relations  branch  contacted  the  registrar  of 
the  tribunal  during  the  week  of  Feb.  18.  He 
was  advised  that  the  registrar  was  waiting  for 
some  indication  from  the  parties  as  to  their 
views  on  the  appointment  of  a  different 
mediator. 


A  letter  was  delivered  to  the  CSAO  on 
Feb.  26,  urging  them  to  make  their  views 
known  so  that  this  matter  could  proceed. 
The  CSAO  responded  to  this  urging  by  a 
letter  dated  Feb.  27,  asking  the  tribunal  to 
appoint  another  mediator  immediately,  or 
send  the  matter  on  to  arbitration.  Although 
the  government  was  not  the  party  to  apply 
for  conciliation  services  in  this  instance,  and 
therefore  is  not  the  party  with  primary 
responsibility  for  follow-up,  it  will  be  seen 
that  we  have  consistently  tried  to  keep  this 
matter  moving  along. 

As  further  evidence  of  this,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  would  point  out  to  the  members  that  al- 
though the  government  objects  in  principle 
to  the  bypassing  of  any  stages  in  the  collec- 
tive bargaining  process,  there  have  been  so 
many  delays  in  these  particular  negotiations 
that  we  have  advised  the  tribunal  that  the 
government  would  not  object  if  this  matter 
were  referred  to  arbitration,  rather  than  to 
appoint  another  mediator. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West 
will  want  to  be  reassured  that  these  steps 
were  taken  by  the  government  before  the 
matter  was  raised  in  the  House  on  Tuesday. 

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

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes  presented  the  annual 
report  of  the  Ontario  Northland  Transporta- 
tion Commission  for  the  year  ended  Dec.  31, 
1972. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 

Before  the  orders  of  the  day,  I  should  like 
to  deal  with  a  matter  that  had  been  raised 
earlier  this  week.  I'm  referring  to  tfie  alleged 
matter  of  privilege  raised  by  the  hon.  mem- 
bers for  Scarborough  West  and  Ottawa  Centre 
(Mr.  Cassidy). 

I  must  again  point  out,  as  I  have  on 
several  other  occasions,  that  by  standing 
order  No.  27(i)  a  minister  may,  in  his  dis- 
cretion, decline  to  answer  any  question.  I 
know  of  no  recognized  privilege  of  Parliament 
that  would  supersede  that  provision.  Nor  can 
members  demand,  as  a  matter  of  privilege, 
the  tabling  by  a  minister  of  documents  which 
they  may  consider  important.  The  standing 
orders  provide  procedures  for  members  who 
are  not  satisfied  with  answers  to  questions, 
and  for  notices  of  motion  for  the  production 
of  documents. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


231 


In  the  latter  case  I  should  point  out,  how- 
ever, that  the  mere  tabling  of  a  notice  of 
motion  for  the  production  of  papers  does  not 
compel  that  production  of  t!he  documents.  The 
motion  must  be  passed  by  the  House  and 
become  an  order  of  the  House  before  it 
becomes  obligatory  on  a  minister  to  comply 
therewith. 

I  suggest  that  this  latter  fact  re-emphasizes 
what  I  said  at  the  outset,  that  is,  that  the 
refusal  of  a  minister  to  comply  with  an  oral 
demand  in  the  question  period  for  the  pro- 
duction of  documents  is  not  a  matter  of 
privilege. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Prior  to  the  orders  of  the 
day,  I  rise  on  a  point  of  personal  privilege, 
or  perhaps  clarification.  Some  time  ago  it  had 
been  thought  that  the  government  would 
integrate  certain  services  in  the  hospitals  in 
the  city  of  Samia,  sir,  and  at  that  time  I 
wrote  a  letter  to  the  then  Provincial  Secre- 
tar>^  for  Social  Development  (Mr.  Welch), 
thinking  that  it  was  within  his  purview  of 
responsibility.  During  a  heated  exchange  in 
the  House  last  week,  I  said  that  the  then 
secretary  had  not  responded  to  my  correspon- 
dence, and  I  wish  to  advise  that  I  misled 
the  House  and  that  the  secretary  did  reply 
to  my  correspondence.  I  apologize  to  him. 
He  did  nothing  about  the  matter,  but  that's 
to  be  expected. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon.  member  for 
Prince  Edward-Lennox  (Mr.  Taylor)  has 
been  good  enough  to  yieW  so  that  I  might 
make  a  government  statement  at  this  point. 
It  is  somewhat  longer  than  a  normal  govern- 
ment statement  and  it  was  thought  that  it 
would  better  fit  as  a  contribution  to  the 
debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne- 
which  I  trust,  sir,  meets  with  your  approval? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  might  say  that  it  meets 
with  my  approval.  I'm  not  so  certain  that  it 
might  meet  with  the  approval  of  all  of  the 
members  of  the  House.  Do  all  the  members 
of  the  House  agree  that  this  may  be  pro- 
ceeded with  in  the  manner  suggested? 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Why 
need  we  agree?  He  has  a  right  to  enter  the 
debate. 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  that  the  hon.  minister 
did  not  suggest  that  he  was  going  to  present 
this  as  a  part  of  the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  he  did. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Did  he  say  that? 

Some  hon.  members:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  apologize  to  the  hon.  mem- 
bers. Proceed. 

An  hon.  member:  Why  is  he  stealing  the 
Minister  of  Edtication  s  thunder? 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  Yes,  he  does  not  agree,  I  might 
say. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  make  some  remarks 
today  about  energy  and  to  put  certain  matters 
on  the  record  and  that's  the  reason  I  have 
intruded  on  the  time  of  my  colleague,  tlie 
Minister  of  Education  (Mr.  Wells).  Since 
this  is  a  contribution  to  the  Throne  debate, 
sir,  I  of  course,  join  with  others  in  con- 
gratulating the  hon.  members  for  Timiskaming 
(Mr.  Havrot)  and  Brantford  (Mr.  Beckett) 
for  the  very  excellent  contributions  which 
they  made  to  the  debate.  I,  of  course,  add  my 
respect  for  you,  sir,  and  edho  the  sentiments 
of  all  of  us  that  we  are  glad  to  see  you  back 
in  the  chair  and  in  such  obvious  good  health 
and  good  humour. 

It  is  now  over  seven  weeks  since  the  first 
ministers*  conference  on  energy  convened 
The  overriding  concern  at  that  conference 
was  the  design  of  an  energy  policy  that  would 
result  in  an  adequate  and  secure  supply  of 
energy  at  a  reasonable  price  for  all  Canadians. 

It  was  predictable  that  in  view  of  the 
circumstances  which  had  developed  since 
the  conference  was  called,  the  major  em- 
phasis should  be  on  oil  and  natural  gas, 
and  in  particular  on  oil.  Oil  is  a  vitally 
important  energy  source;  it  is  readily  trans- 
portable. Canada  has  regions  that  produce 
surpluses  and  regions  that  are  deficient; 
further,  some  part  of  the  oil-deficient  regions 
are  served  with  oil  from  domestic  sources 
and  some  from  oflFshore.  The  potential  for 
different  oil  prices  in  the  different  regions 
of  Canada  and  the  major  and  contrasting 
economic  impact  on  the  various  regions  ob- 
viously resulted  in  different  perspectives  and 
different  concerns. 

We  are  all  well  aware  of  the  accomplish- 
ments and  the  failures  that  marked  the 
progress  of  that  conference.  It  did  result  in 


232 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  discussion  of  short-  and  long-term  energy 
issues.  It  deJBned  some  of  the  clear  differences 
of  viewpoint  as  between  the  consuming  and 
producing  provinces.  Some  common  ground 
was  established.  There  was  some  agreement 
on  certain  broad  goals.  But  there  was  no 
clear  agreement  as  to  the  proper  answer  to 
the  urgent  question  of  appropriate  arrange- 
ments for  adequacy  and  security  of  oil  supply 
and  the  more  difficult  problem  of  the  price 
level  at  which  oil  might  move  in  trade 
within  Canada. 

The  broad  goals  of  agreement  were 
itemized  at  that  time.  It  might  not  be  in- 
appropriate to  remind  hon.  members  as 
to  the  general  nature  of  those  goals,  as 
enunciated  at  the  time  in  a  summary  state- 
ment  by   the   Prime   Minister   of   Canada. 

The  long-term  energy  policy  of  Canada 
should  aim  at  self-sufficiency  in  energy  and 
should  comprehend  all  forms  of  energy. 

Two,  whatever  solutions  are  worked  out 
should  be  sensitive  to  and  subject  to  national 
development  policy. 

Three,  any  solution  must  take  into  account 
the  legitimate  desires  of  the  producing 
provinces  to  develop  industries  based  on 
their  own  resources  and  to  reduce  their  de- 
pendence on  primary  industry. 

Four,  solutions  should  be  consistent  with 
the  basic  fiscal  arrangements  and  the  exist- 
ing constitutional  provisions. 

Five,  there  should  be  one  domestic  price 
for  crude  oil,  subject  to  adjustments  for 
transportation  costs;  this  price  might  have 
to  be  higher  than  the  price  at  which  oil 
for  domestic  consumption  was  frozen,  but 
should  be  lower  than  the  price  at  which 
oil  was  moving  in  international  trade.  Con- 
sideration would  be  given  to  phasing-in  any 
domestic  price  adjustanents  over  time. 
.  Six,  export  prices  for  Canadian  oil  should 
be  the  price  at  which  oil  was  moving  in 
world  markets. 

Seven,  the  solutions  for  the  various  prob- 
lems should  be  sought  on  a  federal-provincial 
basis,  with  appropriate  mechanisms  to  assist. 

Now,  sir,  these  goals  were  contained  in 
Ontario's  opening  statement  at  the  con- 
ference, and  they  have  been  accepted  by 
the  government  of  Ontario  for  some  time. 
However,  the  urgent  question  of  pricing 
was  not  solved.  It  was,  in  fact,  deferred 
for  60  days. 

The  broad  goals  of  the  policy  had  been 
agreed  to  on  the  first  day  of  the  conference. 
The  question  of  pricing  was  dealt  with  on 
the  second  day.  A  short-term  compromise 
agreement    restrained    prices    for    a    stated 


interval,  and  procedures  were  adopted  that 
would  prevent  any  further  deterioration  of 
the  relative  position  of  that  part  of  Canada 
to  the  east  of  the  national  oil  policy  line. 

I  should  like  to  refresh  the  memor\-  of 
hon.  members  as  to  the  actual  substance  of 
that  60-day  agreement. 

The  voluntary  restraint  on  crude  oil  prices 
at  about  $4  a  barrel  was  to  continue  until 
the  end  of  March. 

Saskatchewan,  which  produces  some  15 
per  cent  of  the  national  production  of  oil, 
was  to  be  permitted  to  increase  the  price 
of  oil  by  $1  a  barrel  effective  Feb.  1. 

The  export  tax  on  oil  was  to  continue 
to  be  levied;  half  of  the  resulting  revenues 
were  to  be  returned  to  the  producing 
provinces. 

ITie  federal  government  was  to  cushion 
any  further  increase  in  the  price  of  im- 
ported crude  oil  to  prevent  a  further  widen- 
ing of  the  price  differential  on  the  two  sides 
of  the  Ottawa  Valley  line. 

That  agreement  as  to  price  and  price 
policy  will  continue  in  force  until  the  end 
of  this  month.  As  of  that  date,  a  policy  that 
is  of  a  more  permanent  nature  wall  pre- 
sumably come  into  efi^ect. 

The  time  made  available  for  policy  design 
through  this  temporary  expedient  has  been 
used  for  holding  bilateral  meetings  between 
the  government  of  CanadJa  and  tne  govern- 
ments of  Alberta  and  Saskatchewan— the  two 
major  producing  provinces. 

In  these  meetings  it  is  reasonable  to  assume 
that  the  immediate  interests  of  the  producing 
provinces  in  higher  prices  for  petroleum  and 
gas  is  being  vigorously  advanced.'  It  would 
be  surprising  if  these  views  correspond:  in 
every  aspect  with  those  of  the  consuming 
areas  of  Canada  and,  indeed,  in  some  Avajfs 
with  the  aggregate  interest  of  the  nation. 

rrhe  Ontario  government,  representing  the 
major  consuming  province  in  Canada,,  has  a 
responsibihty  to  voice  its  concern  and  has 
been  doing  so. 

So  I  propose  today  to  discuss  with  hon. 
members  the  implications  of  possible  pricing 
policies  and,  concurrently,  to  place  firmly  and 
publicly  on  the  record  the  attitude  of  the 
government  of  Ontario  to  energy  policy  in 
general'  and  oil  and  natural  gas  policies  in 
particular. 

I  know  that  hon.  members  are  well  aware 
of  the  implications  of  the  pressures  that  the 
increase  in  world  oil  prices  is  visiting  on  the 
economies  of  many  of  the  indlistrialized 
nations  of  the  world.  Japan,  which  consumed 


MARCH  13,  1974 


233 


oil  at  a  rate  of  close  to  five  million  barrels  a 
day  last  year,  had  to  import  99.7  per  cent 
of  the  oil  that  it  used.  France,  Britain,  West 
Germany— most  of  the  industrialized  countries 
of  the  western  world— were  in  similar  situa- 
tions. The  United  States  and  Canada  are  in  a 
more  fortunate  position.  The  United  States 
has  to  rely  on  offshore  sources  for  only  about 
one-third  of  the  IS-million-pIus  barrels  a  day 
that  it  uses.  Canada's  total  prodtiction  just 
exceeds  its  consumption,  but  exports  of 
roughly  50  per  cent  of  production  are  made 
up  by  imports. 

iFor  the  oil-deficient  coimtries,  the  implica- 
tions in  terms  of  balance  of  payments,  infla- 
tion and'  the  prices  of  goods  produced  for 
domestic  consumption  and  export  are  im- 
mense. And  the  increase  in  the  oil  bill  of  the 
so-called  third  world  countries  at  about  $10 
billion  a  year,  throws  additional  strain'  on 
economies  that  are  already  under  severe 
pressure. 

And  so  in  this  incredibly  changed  world 
Canada— and  really  only  Canada— finds  itself 
in  a  remarkably  favourable  position.  The  price 
of  commodities  is  rising.  This  nation  is  rich 
in  commodities.  The  price  of  energy  and 
supplies  of  energy  have  altered  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  industrial'  nations  of  the 
western  world— nations  that  have  grown'  fat 
on  a  diet  of  cheap  resources.  And  among 
these  industrial  nations,  Canada  alone  pro- 
duces more  oil,  more  gas,  more  energy  dian 
it  consiunes.  And  in  addition  to  the  energy 
we  produce  and  use,  we  have  immense  re- 
sources of  energy  in  the  oil  sands,  the  heavy 
oils,  in  the  frontier  regions,  in  the  uranium 
mines  and  coal  deposits. 

The  current  situation  can  enable  this  nation 
to  broaden  in  locational  and  technological 
terms  the  fabric  of  our  industry.  Ontario, 
with  Atomic  Enelrgy  of  Canada  Ltd.,  has 
already  demonstrated  the  iminense  benefit 
of  addirig  technology  to  a  prov^i'  resource 
baise  in  the  design  and  construction!  of 
CANDU  reactors— a  nuclear  generating  system 
that  relies  on  our  reserves  of  uranium.  Similar 
opportunities  exist  in  terms  of  the  petroleum 
resources  of  this  nation.  Price,  and  policy  that 
truly  reflects  the  national  interest,  can  result 
in  a  solid  foimd^tion  for  continuing  growth 
for  the  remainder  of  the  decade  and  beyond. 

I  quite  understand  the  position  being  taken 
by  Saskatchewan  and  Alberta.  They  have  seen 
the  world  oil  price  move  up  to  about  $10.50 
a  barrel.  Naturally  they  want  to  merchandise 
their  product  at  that  price.  But  what  rele- 
vance does  that  price  really  have  to  the 
marketplace— the  workings  of  supply  and  de- 
mand? It  is  a  phoney  price,  a  manipulated 


price,  a  price  designed  by  those  producing 
nations  that  have  joined  together  into  the 
Organization  of  Petroleum  Exporting  Coim- 
tries.  That  price  bears  no  relationship  to  cost; 
it  bears  no  relationship  to  the  long-term 
supply  prospects;  it  bears  no  relationship  to 
anything  other  than  the  calculated  judgement 
of  a  group  of  monopolists  as  to  what  the 
market  will  bear  for  the  foreseeable  future. 

In  fact,  the  suggestion  made  by  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada  at  the  national  energy 
conference  was  that  the  wellhead  price  of 
oil  would  be  allowed  to  move  up  to  $6  a 
barrel.  Certainly  this  suggestion  did  not  gain 
the  endorsement  of  the  producing  provinces. 
But  I  think  it  important  that  hon.  members 
should  be  well  aware  that  such  a  price  means 
an  increase  of  approximately  six  cents  a  gal- 
lon for  our  heating  oil  and  gasoline.  This 
implies  an  increase  of  some  $350  million  in 
the  energy  bill  of  the  Ontario  consumer. 

If  the  price  in  Canada  were  allowed  to 
move  up  to  the  present  world  price— about 
$10.50  a  barrel-the  additional  cost  to  On- 
tario oil  users  would  be  in  excess  of  $1  bil- 
lion a  year,  very  close  to  20  cents  a  gallon 
for  fuel  oil  or  gasoline.  This,  obviously,  would 
not  be  in  the  interests  of  Ontario  or  of  the 
national  economy.  The  disruption  and  dis- 
tortion would  be  frightful.  The  impacts  of 
similar  increases  on  all  other  provinces  have 
been  estimated  and  are  indicated  in  tables 
which  I  am  placing  on  the  record  and  which 
are  attached  to  this  statement. 

I  apologize  to  the  members  for  developing 
this  argument  at  length.  I  do  so  because  I 
urgently  desire  the  understanding  and  sup- 
port of  all  members  of  this  Legislature  in 
the  matter  of  the  price  of  oil.  I  wish  to 
underline  our  absolute  conviction  that  escal- 
ating our  domestic  price  of  oil  up  to  exist- 
ing worid  prices  flies  in  the  face  of  the 
national  interest.  I  am  not  simply  entmciating 
a  position  which  favours  Ontario.  We  must 
also  ensure  that  the  benefits  of  the  lower 
price  are  truly  dispersed  across  the  country. 

The  hard  fact  is  that  the  challenge  to 
Canada  is  an  industrial  and  a  development 
challenge.  They  know  very  well  in  France 
and  Britain  and  Japan  and  the  United  States 
that  you  cannot  insulate  the  cost  of  energy 
from  your  national  industrial  plaiming  pro- 
cesses. We  had  better  learn  that  fact  here. 
If  we  escalate  the  price  of  petroleum  to  cur- 
rent world  levels,  we  will  have  a  rich  Alberta 
largely  at  the  expense  of  the  rest  of  Canada. 
We  would  be  turning  our  back  on  nation 
building  and  focusing  attention  on  the  build- 
ing of  great  economies  in  the  oil  producing 
provinces. 


234 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


But  if  we  hold  the  price  of  oil  to  a 
reasonable  level,  if  we  process  our  resources, 
if  we  strengthen  our  capital  position,  if  we 
do  this— and  we  can  do  this— we  can  provide 
jobs  for  our  people,  good  jobs.  We  can  build 
our  capital  strength.  We  can  increase  domes- 
tic control  of  our  corporations  and  of  our 
resources.  We  can  build  an  economically 
powerful  nation.  We  can  protect  the  long- 
term  welfare  of  all  the  people  in  all  parts 
of  our  nation.  The  United  States  has  im- 
mense resources  of  energy  and  a  highly  so- 
phisticated technology.  It  is  surely  imprudent 
to  make  the  facile  assumption  that  the  United 
States  will  fail  in  its  stated  national  purpose 
of  achieving  self-suflBciency  in  energy.  If  it 
does  achieve  domestic  self-sufficiency  the  con- 
trol of  the  price  of  energy  in  the  United 
States  will  become  a  domestic  matter.  In  that 
case  projecting  the  actual  level  of  cost  of 
energy  or  price  of  energy  in  the  United 
States  a  decade  from  now  becomes  a  highly 
speculative  undertaking.  If  ill-advised  pric- 
ing policies  in  Canada  today  result  in  our 
costs  of  production  of  energy  and  industrial 
goods  being  distorted  upwards,  relative  to 
those  of  the  United  States,  we  will  have 
done  much  more  than  simply  lose  a  few 
years  of  relative  advantage.  We  can  easily 
find  that  we  have  built  costs  into  our  in- 
dustry that  result  in  that  industry  being  un- 
able to  compete  in  major  markets. 

As  I  noted,  the  price  of  oil  suggested  by 
the  government  of  Canada  at  the  national 
energy  conference  was  $6  a  barrel.  That  is 
high.  That  is  a  50  per  cent  increase  from  a 
price  base  into  which  there  is  already  em- 
bedded a  significant  increase.  It  represents 
a  bne  per  cent  increase  in  the  consumer 
price  index.  But,  as  we  have  said  before,  sub- 
ject to  a  very  significant  proviso,  the  people 
of  Ontario  can  live  with  it  and,  subject  to 
the  same  proviso,  it  will  not  too  brutally  pre- 
judice the  opportunities  that,  as  a  nation, 
we  should  be  seizing. 

The  proviso  is  that  this  is  not  the  first 
step  on  the  rung  of  a  ladder  that  will  auto- 
matically carry  us  on  to  $7  a  barrel,  then  $8, 
and  on  up  to  whatever  the  world  monopoly 
price  might  be.  Our  pricing  policy  must  be 
flexible  enough  to  reflect  changing  costs  ol 
exploration,  production  and  distribution  in 
Canada  and  legitimate  changes  in  world, 
particularly  US,  prices.  And  this  could  mean 
lowering  prices  as  well  as  raising  prices. 

I  now  wish  to  discuss  with  the  House  five 
other  aspects  of  energy  policy  in  Canada, 
primarily  with  respect  to  oil. 

1.  Export  policy  ^nd  export  levies:  At 
the  present  time  we  are  prepared  to  support 


the  continued  export  of  oil  from  western 
Canada  to  the  United  States.  There  are 
several  reasons  why  we  do  not  oppose  this  ex- 
port in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Canada  lacks  the 
reserves  to  assure  adequate  domestic  supplies 
late  in  this  decade.  We  have  obligations  to 
a  customer,  not  to  mention  contracts,  and 
these  should  not  be  lightly  disregarded.  Fur- 
ther, perhaps  of  greater  significance,  we  do 
not  have  the  pipelines  and  the  transportation 
facilities  in  position  to  move  the  oil  that  we 
now  are  exporting  to  the  United  States  into 
the  areas  east  of  the  Borden  line.  Capturing 
an  export  levy,  which  can  be  used  to  cushion 
the  higher  energy  costs  in  these  regions  of 
Canada,  higher  costs  that  are  inherent  in  the 
higher  world  price  for  oil,  is  also  of  clear 
benefit  to  many  Canadians. 

This  is  a  policy  position  that  we  would 
anticipate  will  change.  Certainly,  when  the 
transportation  facilities  are  in  position  and 
this  nation  has  achieved  a  real  ability  to  be 
self-suflBcient  in  energy,  the  oil  export  policy 
must  be  reviewed  in  the  light  of  national 
interest  at  that  time. 

2.  The  allocation  of  resulting  revenues: 
This  aspect  of  policy  is  the  allocation  of  the 
revenues  that  accrue  as  a  consequence  of  the 
price  increase  and  the  oil  export  levies. 

Let  me  underline  at  this  time  as  a  matter 
of  principle  we  accept  that  the  producing 
provinces  should  receive  reasonable  rewards 
associated  with  the  oil  and  gas  within  their 
borders.  We  also  accept  that  the  producing 
provinces  should  determine  the  balance  of 
funds  that  should  be  directed  toward  the 
expansion  of  reserves  within  their  borders, 
whether  through  the  direct  involvement  of 
the  proviiidal  government  in  exploration  and 
development  of  fossil  fuel  or  through  flowing 
certain  funds  through  to  the  privately-owned 
producing  companies.  But  we  wbiild  argue 
that  the  development  of  these  resources, 
irrespective  6f  the  vehicle  em^ployed,  must 
take  into  account  the  long-term  energy 
needs  of  all  of  Canada  and  must  be  within 
the  framework  of  an  appropriate  national 
energy  policy. 

We  would  observe  that  the  federar  govern- 
ment proposal  for  allocating  revenues  result- 
ing from  higher  prices  and  the  export  levy 
between  the  producing  provinces,  private  in- 
dustry and  itself  appears  to  be  unnecessarily 
complicated.  We  would  support  additional 
revenue  from  the  price  increases  remaining 
with  the  producing  province  concerned,  but 
we  would  suggest  that  the  proceeds  from  the 
export  tax  be  dedicated  to  the  benefit  of  all 
Canadian  consumers.  This  should  take  the 
form  of  a  cushion  against  the  higher  priced 


MARCH  13,  1974 


235 


oil   bought   on   the   world   market   by   those 
east  of  the  Ottawa  line. 

3.  Fiscal  arrangements:  Changing  oil 
prices,  reinforced  by  changing  natural  gas 
prices,  have  an  enormous  potential  for  dis- 
torting the  existing  fiscal  arrangements  of 
the  nation.  The  simis  involved  are  huge. 
Price  increases  will  result  in  greatly  increased 
revenues  flowing  to  the  producing  provinces 
and  this,  in  turn,  will  create  new  liabilities 
to  certain  of  the  provinces  under  the  equali- 
zation agreements.  And  I  would  refer  mem- 
bers again  to  the  tables  which  are  attached 
to  this  statement. 

We  have  made  some  rough  estimates  of 
the  impacts  on  each  province  arising  from 
these  added  oil  revenues.  For  example,  a  rise 
in  the  domestic  price  of  oil  to  $6  a  barrel 
increases  the  charge  on  Canadian  consumers 
by  almost  $1.5  billion  a  year.  Assuming  that 
of  this  sum  $500  million  was  a  return  to  the 
producing  companies  to  stimulate  research 
and  exploration,  nearly  $1  billion  would  pass 
as  direct  revenue  to  the  producing  provinces. 
Alberta  alone  would  receive  approximately 
$850  million— a  sum  that  approaches  half  of 
that  province's  current  annual  budget. 

It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  the  massive 
infusion  of  new  revenue  that  would  accrue  to 
the  producing  provinces,  as  a  consequence  of 
raising  the  price  of  oil  to  $6,  will  not  be 
matched  in  the  other  pi-ovinces.  An  estab- 
lished principle  of  Confederation  is  that,  to 
the  extent  practicable,  fiscal  imbalances  be- 
tween provinces  should  be  corrected. 

If  the  full  amount  of  the  $1  billion  going 
to  the  producing  provinces  were  made  sub- 
ject to  equalization,  some  $350  miHion  a  year 
would  be  required  from  the  federal  treasury 
for  additional  equalization  payments,  to  the 
Atlantic  provinces^  Quebec  and  Manitoba. 
Because  of  its  oil  reyenues,  Saskatdie>yan 
would  find  its  equalization  paymieints  lowered 
;  by  some  $40i  miliiprj. 

The;  potential  imbalances  are  of  such  a 
size  ithat  their  correction  would  imply  the 
raising  of  federal  taxes  or  the  abridgement 
of  existing  programmes.  Either  expedient 
would  impact  on  the  taxpayers  and  residents 
of  Ontario. 

These  effects  are  a  result  of  raising  the 
price  of  oil  to  $6  a  barrel.  If  the  price  of  oil 
should  be  allowed  to  go  to  $10.50  a  barrel, 
the  additional  revenue  accruing  to  the  pro- 
ducing provinces  would  total  over  $4  billion 
and  Ontario  could  actually  be  eligible  for 
equalization  payments  of  over  $600  million, 
since  our  revenue  raising  capacity  would  be 
below  the  national  average. 


Now,  I  would  hope  nobody  can  be  serious 
in  suggesting  a  price  of  $10.50  a  barrel.  Such 
a  price  is  unthinkable  when  it  is  clearly 
recognized  that  even  a  price  of  $6  a  barrel 
throws  severe  strains  on  the  fiscal  arrange- 
ments in  Canada. 

Alberta  has  consistently  maintained  that 
oil  revenues  should  be  treated  as  a  capital 
return  on  a  depleting  resource— that  these 
revenues  should  not  be  included  in  the  cal- 
culation of  equalization  payments.  If  this  were 
accepted,  it  would  further  exacerbate  the 
existing  regional  disparities  within  the  nation. 
One  must  have  some  sympathy  for  the 
attitude  of  the  producing  provinces  but,  cer- 
tainly, such  a  procedure  would  be  unaccept- 
able to  the  people  resident  in  the  eastern 
provinces. 

Ontario  has  always  supported  the  principle 
of  equalization.  We  still  do  and,  certainly, 
we  would  favour  either  the  inclusion  of  a 
proportion— perhaps  quite  a  substantial  pro- 
portion—of these  additional  revenues  in  the 
equalization  base  or  a  ceiling  on  the  total  of 
equalization  payments. 

This  is  a  very  difiicult  area  and  it  is  going 
to  require  a  measure  of  compromise. 

The  fourth  element  of  a  national  oil  policy 
relates  to  the  urgent  necessity  of  assuring  that 
we  do  not  balkanize  this 'nation  in  terms  of 
the  price  of  oil. 

At  the  energy  conference,  Ontario  vigor- 
ously espoused  the  cause  of  a  single  price 
for  crude  oil  in  all  parts  of  Canada,  subject 
to  a  differential  related  to  delivery  costs,  and 
we  hold  to  this  view.  The  only  real  question 
is  the  equitable  distribution  of  the  cost 
burden  that  is  injplicit. 

The  sHiiplest  and  most,  effective  way  of 
assuring  this  equitable  price  relationship  is  to 
directly  cushion  the  refiners  of  higher  priced, 
imported  crude  oil  and  to  realize  the  necessary 
funds  from  the  export  tax  associated  with 
crude  oil  that  is  exported  fi"om  Canada.  In 
the  longer  term,  pipelines  or  oil  discoveries  on 
the  eastern  seaboard  may  modify  the  neces- 
sity 6f  this  policy. 

In  the  meantime,  most  assuredly,  national 
policy  ishould  not  result  in  the  disruption  of 
the  economies  of  the  provinces  to  the  east  of 
Ontario  that  presently  rely  on  high-priced  oil 
from  foreign  sources.  Given  that  the  oil  now 
being  exported  is  Canadian  oil,  it  seems 
logical  that  it  should  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  this  national  price  equity. 

The  export  tax  revenues  would  provide  a 
cushion  of  approximately  $1.5  billion  for  con- 
sumers in  the  Atlantic  provinces,  Quebec  and 
that  part  of  Ontario  east  of  the  Borden  line. 


236 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  final  aspect  of  oil  policy  that  I  wish 
to  discuss  today  relates  to  the  administrative 
mechanisms  that  will  be  required  to  deal  with 
such  matters  as  the  setting  of  price,  the 
cushioning  of  price  in  some  of  the  more  ex- 
posed regions  of  Canada  and  other  policy 
matters,  quite  possibly  including  the  export 
of  oil  and  other  basic  sources  of  energy. 

Clearly  this  divides  into  mechanisms  to  deal 
with  both  the  short  and  the  long  term.  The 
time  constraints  are  now  so  severe  that  a 
vehicle  that  can  deal  with  the  immediate 
price  problems  is  needed.  At  the  same  time, 
a  more  sophisticated  mechanism  will  be  re- 
quired for  the  implementation  of  energy 
policy  in  the  longer  term  in  Canada,  including 
the  adjustment  of  domestic  prices.  Much 
closer  federal-provincial  consultation  will  be 
necessary. 

The  government  of  Canada  has  proposed 
a  national  marketing  board.  To  the  extent  that 
the  powers  of  such  a  board  might  extend 
beyond  pricing  considerations,  Ontario  would 
have  reservations.  Indeed,  a  new  organiza- 
tion is  not  inevitably  necessary.  The  continu- 
ation of  the  existing  federal  government  pro- 
cedm-es  for  compensating  the  consumers  of 
the  imported,  higher  priced  oil  might  be 
adequate  provided  that  there  is  joint  federal- 
provincial  decision  making. 

The  Ministry  of  Energy  is  exploring  the 
feasibility  of  various  methods  of  equalizing 
crude  oil  across  Canada,  one  of  which  is  a 
system  of  "tickets."  These  tickets  would  be 
issued  to  all  refineries  of  crude  oil  to  enable 
them  to  purchase  rights  to  acquire  Canadian 
crude.  The  tickets  would  be  allocated  to  the 
refineries  of  both  domestic  and  foreign  crude 
in  amounts  that  would  result  in  the  equalizing 
of  crude   oil  prices  throughout  Canada. 

Now,  sir,  this  discussion  covers  the  major 
policy  concerns  relative  to  oil.  Obviously, 
however,  the  national  economic  impacts  will 
further  be  re-enforced  by  changes  in  the  price 
of  natural  gas.  The  Alberta  and  Southern  Gas 
Co.  Ltd.  agreed  in  January  of  this  year  to 
pay  a  field  price  for  gas  of  56  cents  per  mcf, 
eflFective  July  1. 

It  should  be  pointed  out  that  virtually  all 
of  the  Alberta  and  Southern  gas  is  gas  for 
export,  but  export  prices  surely  should  not 
set  domestic  prices.  If  the  56-cent  price  be- 
came universal  then  the  producing  provinces 
will  receive  annually  an  additional  $400  mil- 
lion in  royalties,  of  which  Alberta  will  re- 
ceive $250  million.  Ontario  consumers  would 
pay  an  additional  $300  million  each  year. 

It  would  be  perhaps  useful  to  digress  for 
a  moment  about  our  supply  of  natural  gas, 


which  is  also  a  concern  to  Ontario.  ..Consider 
these  points: 

TransCanada  Pipe  Lines  Ltd,  and  others 
are  expressing  concern  that  the  supply  of 
natural  gas  from  the  southwest  sedimentary 
basin  has  plateaued. 

Additional  supplies  from  Alberta  will  be 
much  more  expensive  to  produce,  if,  as  and 
when  found  and  proven. 

Mackenzie  Delta  and  Polar  Gas  projects 
are  promising,  but  like  the  oil  sands  are  long- 
term  alternatives.  They  will  ultimately  be 
available,  but  more  expensive  sources  of  sup- 
ply. 

Ontario  supports  the  oil  sands,  has  an- 
nounced its  interest  in  Polar  Gas  and  will 
participate  in  the  Mackenzie  pipeline  hear- 
ings. Again,  however,  I  stress  that  these  are 
long-term  thrusts  to  ensure  future  capacity 
for  self-sufficiency. 

The  problem,  sir,  is  now.  We  detailed  the 
other  day  the  presently  frustrated  plans  of 
two  Ontario  companies  who  want  to  spend 
$100  million  each  to  produce  anhydrous  am- 
monia for  desperately  needed  fertihzer  pro- 
duction—fertilizer needed  now  in  Ontario  and 
for  export  of  a  Canadian  value  added  product. 
These  plans  are  in  danger  of  not  proceeding 
because  of  their  inability  to  purchase  natural 
gas. 

Reverting  to  price,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  an  enlarged  petrochemical  industry,  be 
it  in  Alberta,  Ontario,  or  Quebec,  faces  tough 
competition  from,  for  example,  the  Gulf  Coast 
where  natural  gas  prices  are  still  regulated 
and  as  a  result,  low-priced. 

The  National  Energy  Board  last  simuner 
sat  on  an  application  by  Dome  Petroleum 
Ltd.  and  Dow  Chemical  of  Canada  Ltd.  to 
export  a  relatively  small  amount  of  natural 
gas  as  ethane  and  ethylene.  No  decision  has 
been  given,  presumably  because  the  board  is 
finding  difficulty  in  deciding  that  the  gas  is 
surplus  to  Canada's  needs.  Yet  we  continue 
to  export,  essentially  as  a  raw  material,  al- 
most as  much  natural  gas  as  we  consume. 

Pan -Alberta  Gas  Ltd.,  Gaz  Metropolitain 
and  others  continue  to  talk  about  new  and 
additional  exports  of  gas.  Even  if  Dow-Dome 
were  approved,  we  would  submit  that  there 
is  no  room  for  additional  exports.  Rather,  we 
suggest,  as  does  Mr.  Eric  Kierans  and  oth- 
ers, that  Canada's  needs  are  such  that  we 
may  have  to  examine  whether  existing  exports 
can  be  continued  at  current  levels. 

The  situation,  sir,  is  a  little  unreal. 

It  is  easy  to  acquiesce  in  the  argument  that 
higher  prices  will  solve  all  natural  gas  prob- 


MARCH  13,  1974 


237 


lems.  Higher  prices  to  governments  or  to 
producers  or  to  both?  We  do  not  subscribe 
that  higher  prices,  with  windfall  profits,  to 
either  industry  or  government,  are  a  cure-all 
palliative. 

Ontario  is  prepared  to  support  a  price  that 
returns  to  gas  producers  their  cost  of  produc- 
tion and  a  rate  of  return  that  will  encourage 
exploration  and  the  development  of  additional 
reserves.  We  are  opposed  to  any  proposal  to 
index  or  key  the  price  of  gas  to  a  so-called 
competitive  price  of  oil.  We  accept  a  two- 
price  system  that  distinguishes  between  "old" 
or  "flowing"  gas,  and  we  will  pay  a  higher 
price  for  pew  gas.  Such  a  pricing  procedure 
would  encourage  exploration  and  lead  to  the 
development  of  new  or  additional  reserves. 

We  suppor.t  Alberta  in  its  effort  to  design 
the  best  pjossible  procedures  for  managing  its 
fossil  fuel;  resources.  We  have  done  so  in  the 
past.  Since  1961,  we  have  paid  a  higher 
price  than  would  have  been  necessary  had 
we  been.  unNvilling  to  lend  our  support  to  the 
development  of  the  Alberta  petroleum  indtis- 

As  w.p;.  have  in  the  pa,st,  we  support  the 
Alberta  .aspiration  to  build  a  strong  base  of 
secondary  industry  and,  in  particular,  accept 
that  there,  is  justification  for  the  development 
of  a  petrochemical  industry  close  to  the  source 
of  supply  of  fossil  fuels,  subject,  of  course,  to 
the  legitimate  expectations  of  the  existing 
petrochemical  industry  in  Ontario  and 
Quebec. 

We.  .hajfe  already  begun,  through  the 
agency  (^f. Ontario  Hydro,  a  $10-million  test 
programme  to.  determine  the  feasibility  of 
mintngj. transporting  and  burning  western  cool 
in  thermal  generating  stations  in  this  prov- 
ince. Ifj  successful,  this  could  reisult  in  the 
negojiation  of  contracts  for  some  five  million 
tons  of  coal  from  western  Canada  and  would 
result  in  Ontario  again  providing  needed 
stimulktrbn  for  a  western  Canadian  coal  in- 
dustry, as  was  provided  by  Ontario  in  the 
1960s  for  the  oil  industry. 

On.  uranium,  Ontario  is  in  a  favourable 
position  compared  to  fossil  fuels,  as  about  80 
per  cent  of  all  proven  Canadian  reserves  are 
located  within  our  boundaries.  Our  policy  as 
to  the  development  of  these  uranium  re- 
sources is  entirely  consistent  with  our  attitude 
towards  oil  and  gas.  Uranium  should  be  con- 
sidered as  a  national  commodity  to  be  man^ 
aged  in  the  national  interest. 

In  view  of  the  crucial  importance  of  this 
resource  to  the  future  growth  of  the  nuclear 
industry  both  in  Ontario  and  elsewhere,  the 
government  will  shortly  be  making  a  more 


detailed  statement  on  uranium,  and  I  leave 
my  thoughts  on  that  subject  at  this  point. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  What 
about  the  supply?  Is  it  secure? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Yes. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Enough  for  our  needs? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Yes,  for  the  time  be- 
ing- 

As  in  the  past,  Ontario  is  prepared  to  sup-, 
port  policies  that  serve  the  national  interest 
and  that  do  minimum  violence  to  the  pro- 
ducing and  consuming  regions  of  Canada. 
Ontario  is  prepared  to  co-operate  in  all 
reasonable  ways  in  assuring,  for  the  producing 
regions,  the  achievement  of  their  legitimate 
aspirations  with  respect  to  the  development 
of  their  economies.  We  do  not  consider  that 
the  disruption  and  distortion  of  the  national 
economy  and  the  prejudicing  ot  the  long-term 
economic  prospects  of  the  nation  can?  be  de- 
fined as  legitimate. 

Ontario's  objective  is  a  reasonable  and 
stable  resolution  of  the  question  of  oil  arid 
gas  pricing  within  Canada.  We  submit  that 
the  position  outlined  is  reasonable  and  can 
result  in  an  environment  for  growth  and  de- 
velppment  and  more  or  less  equalized  eco- 
nomic opportunity  in  all  parts  of  this  nation. 
We  do  not  think  that  the  national  interest  is 
served  by  excessively  high  prices,  interminable 
negotiations  or  persistent  uncertainty.  If  this 
is  the  prospect,  then  it  is  the  clear  duty  of 
the  government  of  Canada  to  exert  its  power 
and  exercise  necessary  leadership.  We  believe 
it  has  the  constitutional  power  to  regulate 
prices  at  the  wellhead  if  that  should  be 
necessary. 

The  goverttment  of  Canada  should,  how- 
ever, be  guided  in  all  its  policies  by  the 
demonstrable  interest  of  all  Canadians,  in 
both  the  producing  and  the  consiraiing  regions 
of  the  nation.  It  should  assure,  very  simply, 
security  of  supply  of  needted  energy  resources 
at  a  reasonable  price. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Ga:unt  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


YORK  COUNTY  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 
TEACHERS  DISPUTE  ACT,  1974 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moves  second  reading  of 
Bill  12,  An  Act  respecting  a  Certain  Dispute 
between  the  York  County  Board  of  Educa- 
tion and  certain  of  its  Teachers. 


238 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition!): 
Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  two  regrettable  things 
about  the  circumstances  around  the  intro- 
duction of  this  bill  yesterday.  In  my  view,  the 
most  regrettable  is  that  it  d^oes  achieve  a 
solution  by  compulsory  arbitration  under  cir- 
cumstances which  have  become  extremely 
familiar,  not  only  to  us  in  this  House,  but  to 
the  students  and  the  parents  in  the  York  area. 

The  second  regrettable  thing— and  I'm  not 
sure  this  really  isn't  one  that  is  almost  un- 
forgivable—is that  the  minister  delayed  so 
long  in  expressing  in  a  strong  and  effective 
way  that  pupil-teacher  ratios  were  to  be  ne- 
gotiated. In  fact,  through  this  bill  he  has 
dictated  to  the  local  board  what  they  them- 
selves were  unwilling  to  accept  over  these 
many  weeks— in  fact,  10  months— of  continu- 
ing negotiations. 

Frankly,  I  had  thought  that  with  the  intro- 
duction of  Bill  275  in  1973  that  the  state- 
ment there  on  the  right  to  negotiate  all 
matters  pertaining  to  conditions  of  employ- 
ment did  clearly  include  the  right  of  the 
teachers  to  negotiate  the  pupil-teacher  ratio. 
We  are  aware  of  the  sensitivity  of  this  mat- 
ter, since  many  teachers  feel  substantially 
that  they  have  as  much  responsibility  to  deal 
with  the  quality  of  education  as  anyone, 
perhaps  more  than  anyone  else.  But  they 
also  see,  because  of  the  planning  of  the 
Ministry  of  Education,  because  of  the  num- 
ber of  people  who've  gone  into  education  as 
a  profession,  that  more  than  half  of  the 
graduates  from  the  colleges  of  education  last 
year  were  imable  to  obtain  employment. 

In  other  words,  there  is  a  substantial  pres- 
sure on  those  who  presently  hold  teaching 
positions,  unless  they  conform  to  the  require- 
ments of  their  board  and  their  administrators, 
that  they  can  very  readily  be  replaced.  In 
many  aspects,  this  fear  is  substantially  un- 
founded. The  teachers  through  their  profes- 
sional organizations  have  a  great  deal  of 
protection,  which  we  hear  of  from  time  to 
time.  Still  their  contention  has  been  clear 
and  unequivocal,  that  they  have  the  right 
to  negotiate  pupil-teacher  ratios— essentially, 
how  many  teachers  a  specific  board  will  hire 
to  carry  out  their  responsibilities. 

This  has  been  substantially  opposed  by 
almost  all  the  boards  of  education  and  the 
trustees  as  individuals.  In  the  case  of  the 
York  board,  it  has  become  a  matter  of  basic 
faith.  They  have  expressed  themselves  in 
this  regard  as  individuals  from  time  to  time. 
The\  have  said,  as  many  people  would  agree, 
that  the  school  board,  democratically  elected, 
has  to  represent  the  rights  of  the  community 
to  run  the  school.  One  of  the  basic  rights  is 


to  decide  how  many  teachers  they  need  in 
order  to  achieve  their  goals  for  education  and 
achieve  the  quality  that  they  establish  for 
themselves. 

This  oversimplification  of  the  standoflF— and 
a  standoff  it  certainly  has  been— has  been  in 
many  respects  obscured  by  the  intervention 
of  the  minister  previously.  There  is,  for  ex- 
ample, the  intervention  of  ceilings.  Under 
these  circumstances,  in  this  particular  nego- 
tiation and  the  arbitration  which  will  come 
about  if  this  bill  follows  its  intended  course, 
the  salary  negotiations  are  not  going  to  re- 
quire, let's  say  a  breaking  of  the  ceiling  that 
has  been  imposed.  Yet  it  has  interfered  with 
the  full  and  free  negotiations,  both  in  York 
and  elsewhere,  since  the  minister  has  as- 
sumed a  specific  budgetary  control,  by  Act  of 
this  Legislature,  and  by  the  imposition  of  the 
ceilings  across  the  province.  But  the  bill  itself 
—and  the  specific  area  is  in  section  2,  sub- 
section 2,  and  I  quote  it:  "Pupil-teacher  ratio 
is  arbitrable  and  shall  be  deemed  to  be  in- 
cluded as  a  matter  in  dispute  in  the  notices 
referred  to  in  subsection  1. 

While  the  minister  may  say  this  is  not  a 
departure  in  his  own  policy,  it  is  seen  to  be 
a  departure  by  the  trustees  in  York,  I  would 
submit.  In  fact,  it  is  the  clearest  enunciation 
of  his  acceptance  of  the  fact  that  he  believes, 
and  therefore  the  government  believes,  that 
conditions  of  work,  pupil-teacher  ratio  spe- 
cifically, must  be  negotiable  in  the  future  and 
are,  under  these  circumstances,  arbitrable. 

The  teachers  themselves  have  suffered  from 
a  great  deal  of  commimity  criticism  based  on 
a  misunderstanding  of  tnese  circumstances. 
We  are  aware  that  the  Ontario  Secondary 
School  Teachers  Federation,  bargaining  on 
behalf  of  the  teachers  in  the  area,  has  re- 
fused to  go  to  voluntary  arbitration  because 
of  the  doubt,  at  least,  about  the  arbitrable 
basis  for  the  pupil-teacher  ratio. 

Many  people  have  said,  "The  teachers' 
case  must  be  weak  otherwise  they  would 
submit  it  to  voluntary  arbitration."  But  they 
have  held,  and  I  believe  that  they  are  correct 
in  this,  that  they  are  not  prepared  to  accept 
an  arbitration  as  to  whether  or  not  pupil- 
teacher  ratios  will  be,  in  the  long  run,  nego- 
tiable between  teachers  and  boards. 

This  is  a  matter,  obviously,  of  hig^  policy. 
The  minister  recognized  it  as  such  and  in- 
cluded it  in  section  2,  subsection  2,  of  the 
bill  which,  in  fact,  dictated  to  the  board 
members  in  York— and  I  submit  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  makes  it  clear  to  all  other  boards  of 
education  in  the  province— that  this  matter  is, 
in  fact,  arbitrable  in  this  bill  and  must  there- 
fore be  negotiable  in  the  contacts  between  the 


MARCH  13,  1974 


239 


teachers  and  the  schoolboards  across  this 
pro\ince  in  the  future. 

This  is  a  substantial  breakthrough.  The 
minister  may  feel  that  his  statement  in  the 
clause  in  Bill  275,  in  the  previous  session  of 
the  Legislature,  was  suflBcient.  But  he  knows, 
as  we  all  know,  that  whether  it  was  wilful 
misunderstanding  or  an  unwillingness  to 
accept  the  minister  at  his  word,  most  trustees 
were  not  prepared  to  agree  that  pupil-teacher 
ratios  were  a  matter  for  negotiation  or  arbitra- 
tion. This  has  changed  and  it  could  have 
been  changed  six  weeks  ago  or  two  months 
ago  or  even  three  months  ago.  Many  of  the 
problems  that  the  government  experienced  in 
late  1973  with  the  introduction  of  Bill  274 
and  with  the  protracted  negotiations  in  the 
York   area  were  therefore  unnecessary. 

The  minister  is  aware  of  the  level  of  ill- 
feeling  which  has  developed  among  the 
teachers  and  the  board  directed  at  him  and 
other  people.  He  is  also  aware  of  the  removal 
(if  the  education  services  to  the  students  and 
lie,  probably  more  than  anyone  else,  speaks 
of  this  and  I'm  not  saying  that  he  does  so 
improperly,  I  simply  say  it  is  unfortunate 
that  a  clear  statement  with  regard  to  this 
matter  was  not  made  in  good  time  so  that, 
in  fact,  the  negotiations  in  York  might  have 
been  brought  to  a  successful  conclusion  with- 
out the  imposition  of  a  bill  of  the  type  that 
is  before  us. 

I  have  mentioned  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
previously  in  my  remarks  to  this  House  that 
I  have  been  in  the  York  region  in  my  capacity 
as  Leader  of  the  Opposition.  I  was  requested 
to  attend  meetings  of  the  teachers  and  did 
so  in  Aurora  and  Newmarket.  They  were 
there  in  force  to  hear  my  remarks  and  the 
remarks  made  by  the  education  critic  for  the 
NDP  and  also  to  extend  their  views  and 
their  questions  to  us. 

It  was  interesting  indeed  to  talk  to  indivi- 
dual teachers  and  representatives  of  the 
OSSTF  pertaining  to  the  eight  points  at 
variance  which  had  not  been  settled  under 
the  normal  conditions  of  negotiation.  Obvious- 
ly, salary  estabhshment  and  salary  levels  was 
one  matter  of  some  concern.  They  felt  that 
they  deserved  a  similar  salary  schedule  com- 
pared with  Metropolitan  Toronto  and  certain 
jurisdictions  nearby.  And  no  one  could  con- 
demn them  for  that.  When  close  questioned, 
many  of  the  teachers  were  not  directly  aware 
of  where  their  salary  schedules  fell  substan- 
tial] \  below  the  schedule  in  nearby  jurisdic- 
tions although,  of  course,  the  information  was 
available. 

The  point  I  am  making  is  this;  that  while 
there   was    a    negotiable    item    pertaining   to 


salaries,  in  my  opinion  it  was  not  one  upon 
which  the  six  weeks'  strike  and  the  bitterness 
associated  with  this  matter  could  be  based. 

There  were  other  matters  that  they  brought 
forward  very  strongly  to  my  attention,  one 
particularly.  They  felt  that  the  administration 
was  unfair  in  insisting  on  a  provision  that 
would  permit  the  school  board  to  hire  special- 
ists, category  4  teachers,  and  then  assign  them 
to  duties  where  they  would  not  be  teaching 
in  their  specialty  and  therefore  would  be 
paid  at  a  lower  category  level. 

In  my  opinion  this  is  unfair.  But,  once 
again,  it  is  a  matter  surely  which  could  have 
been  negotiated  without  going  to  the  lengths 
which  separated  the  board  and  the  teachers 
for  these  many  weeks-^and,  in  fact,  10 
months. 

One  matter  is  of  personall  nature,  which  I 
raised  in  my  reply  to  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne  last  Friday.  It  is  an  unfortunate  one; 
and  that  is  the  high  feehng  among  the  teach- 
ers against  the  director  of  education  himself 
in  that  area. 

I  can  remember  discussing  the  matter  be- 
fore one  of  the  meetings,  ^\^en  I  mentioned 
that  it  had  been  made  apparent  to  me  by  the 
individual  teachers  that  they  had  no  confi- 
dence in  the  director  of  education,  the 
applause— which,  as  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker, 
politicians  are  very  sensitive  to— was  pro- 
longed and  hearty.  This  was  an  indication  to 
anyone  who  was  there  that  there  was  a  sub- 
stantial breakdovra  in  the  confidence  between 
the  teachers  who  were  responding  in  that 
meeting— and  tbere  were  about  400  of  thran— 
and  the  director  of  education  himself. 

Someone  came  up  to  me  and  said:  "I  wish 
the  school  board  realized  that  we  would  trade 
670  resignations  for  one."  The  implication 
was  that  they  were  asking  for  his  dismissal 
or  resignation  from  his  position  of  high  re- 
sponsibility. 

It  is  interesting  that  this  matter  pertaining 
to  administration  did  not  surface  more  for- 
mally—or  at  least  according  to  the  reports 
that  were  available— in  the  continuing  nego- 
tiations. I  think  it  is  a  matter  that  must  be 
dealt  with  frankly,  as  I  trust  that  we  can 
raise  it  here  without  personal  references  of  a 
seriously  damaging  matter.  I  simply  put  it  to 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  was  an  issue  lying 
below  the  eight  which  were  specifically  re- 
ferred to  in  the  formal  negotiations,  but  is  a 
very  real  issue  indeed. 

But  the  other  real  issue  had  to  do  with  the 
negotiation  of  the  conditions  of  work.  The 
trustees,  as  I  have  said,  were  adamant  in 
their   refusal   that   pupil-teacher  ratios   were 


240 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


negotiable.  The  teachers,  reflecting  Ontario 
Secondary  School  Teachers'  Federation  policy, 
were  just  as  adamant  that  they  as  teachers 
must  have,  and  were  prepared  to  demand, 
the  right  to  negotiate— not  dictate,  surely— 
but  negotiate  the  stafiing  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  board. 

It  was  on  this  shoal  that  the  ship  of  nego- 
tiation stuck,  in  fact  floundered,  for  so  long. 
The  board  completely  failed  in  their  attempts 
to  bring  about  a  successful  conclusion  to  the 
negotiations.  It  was  in  my  view  that  because 
they  were  adamant  on  this  single  point  that 
the  negotiations  failed. 

The  minister  has,  along  with  his  leader, 
been  substantially  critical  of  statements  made 
by  me  and  my  colleagues  which  they  con- 
strue as  being  an  infringement  on  the  auton- 
omy of  that  board.  But  surely,  Mr.  Speaker, 
you  are  aware  that  the  provisions  in  this  bill 
in  section  2,  subsection  2,  directly  dictate 
that  the  matter  that  the  local  board  had 
consistently  refused  to  accept  must  now  be 
accepted.  And  that  subsection,  of  course,  casts 
an  entirely  new  complexion  on  the  whole 
negotiation. 

I  have  had  an  opportunity  to  talk  to  a 
limited  number  of  teachers  concerned  since 
the  bill  was  introduced.  Frankly,  I  have 
been  surprised  at  the  strength  of  their  con- 
tinuing opposition.  Obviously  Bill  274,  and 
the  tabling  of  Bill  275,  sensitized  all  teachers 
to  the  dangers  and  created  their  feelings  of 
repugnance  associated  with  compulsory  arbi- 
tration. It  is  a  feeling  we  share  and  leads 
us  to  vote  against  the  principle  of  this  bill. 

But  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  an  alterna- 
tive which  might  still  be  achieved  by  the 
board  and  the  teachers  if  the  trustees  now 
realize  .that  they  cannot  continue  their  ada- 
mant opposition  to  the  acceptance  of  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  as  a  negotiable  matter. 

I  would  be  the  last  to  suggest  any  sig- 
nificant further  delay  in  this  matter.  We  have 
already  had  a  six-week  strike,  there  is  a 
week's  vacation  coming  up,  and  somehow  or 
other  I  have  the  feeling  that  the  idea  that 
school  will  start  there  Monday  while  it  doesn't 
continue  in  other  parts  of  the  province  is  not 
going  to  be  well  accepted— no  doubt  many 
parents  and  students  have  made  vacation 
plans.  I  would  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  while  it  is  an  interesting  alternative,  I 
have  a  feeling  that  the  schools  in  York  will 
remain  closed  next  week  as  they  will  be 
closed  elsewhere. 

But  it  appears  to  me  that  there  now  are 
grounds  for  the  teachers  and  the  board  to 
come   together,    because    while    the   teachers 


are  substantially  offended  by  the  compulsion 
in  this  bill  leading  to  arbitration,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  trustees  are  offended  by  the 
compulsion  associated  with  the  pupil-teacher 
ratio. 

The  minister  said  it  yesterday  when  he 
introduced  the  bill.  He  said,  "Some  people  are 
going  to  say  this  favours  the  teachers,  some 
will  say  this  favours  the  board."  Well,  in  my 
reading  of  it,  there  is  a  substantial  dictation 
to  both  groups  concerned.  Our  objection  is 
that  this  particular  procedure  is  unnecessary. 
If  the  minister  were  going  to  replace  his 
judgement  for  the  board's'  judgement^  he 
might  very  well  have  done  it  under  legisla- 
tion already  on  the  books  and  assumed  a  role 
of  trusteeship  under  these  circumstances,  since 
he  and  others  were  unwilling  to  accept  the 
adamant  position  of  the  board  that  pupil- 
teacher  ratios  were  not  to  be  negotiated  or 
arbitrated. 

In  other  words,  he  has  replaced  his  judge- 
ment for  the  board's  under  these  circum- 
stances. It  could  have  been  done  under 
present  legislation  without  using  the  power, 
the  undoubted  power  of  this  Legislature  to 
command  a  return  of  the  teachers  under  the 
circumstances  of  compulsory  arbitration. 

Mr,  Speaker,  there  are  many  matters  that 
could  be  thrashed  over  in  this  continuing  cir- 
cumstance, which  no  one  wants  to  delay  for 
any  significant  period  of  time,  other  than  to 
see  that  the  views  are  essentially  put  before 
the  public  for  their  consideration. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  you  will  permit  me  to 
digress  from  my  remarks  for  a  m(3ment  to 
welcome,  along  with  you,  sir,  our  good  friend, 
the  member  fof  Nipissing  (Mr.  R.  S.  Smith), 
who  is  back  in  his  place  in  the  Legislature 
after  an  illn^s.  We  are  delighted  to  have 
him  back. 

In  closing  my  remarks,  Mr;  Speaker,  I 
simply  put  it  to  you  this  way:  Essentially,  two 
things  have  happened.  The  minister,  in  ex- 
pressing the  policy  of  the  government  in  1973, 
said  that  he  was  not  prepared  to  allo\v  any 
schools  to  close.  Well,  in  fact  the  schools  in 
York  did  close.  The  teachers,  as  we  have  said 
—and  we  have  been  criticized  for  it,  but  we 
beheve  we  are  right— have  the  right  to  with- 
draw their  services  or  to  strike  under  these 
circumstances.  Their  objections  to  their  nego- 
tiations with  the  board  have  been  made  clear 
on  a  regular  basis  in  a  number  of  specific 
and  well-prepared  statements  and  in  reports 
in  the  press. 

But  the  whole  thing  floundered  because  the 
trustees  were  unwilling  to  accept  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  as  a  significant  arbitrable  or 
negotiable  item. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


241 


The  minister  through  this  bill  has  inter- 
posed his  judgement  for  the  board's  in  this 
regard.  We  are  saying  that  he  could  have 
done  so  in  a  different  way.  He  could  have 
done  so  months  ago  with  a  clear  and  un- 
equivocal statement  of  government  policy  in 
tms  regard.  I  would  like  to  hear  him  eventu- 
ally express  his  views  as  to  whether  he  feels 
he  did  that  or  not,  but  I  simply  draw  to  his 
attention  an  interesting  report  in  the  Globe 
and  Mail  this  morning,  wherein  certain  trus^ 
tees  on  the  York  board  said  they  specifically 
asked  the  minister  whether  in  his  opinion  they 
should  accept  this  as  a  negotiable  item  and 
that  he  refused  to  answer. 

Now  this  is  reported,  and  I  think  he  should 
make  it  clear  as  to  whether  or  not  his  posi- 
tion was 'known'  by  the  board.  Certainly,  if 
the  board  members  were  unaware  of  his 
position,  it  is  unforgivable  and,  in  fact,  it 
means  that  the  minister  was  personally  re- 
sponsible '  for  this  six-week  delay  and  the 
closing  of  the  schools.  That  is  a  very  serious 
statement  to  make  indeed  but  one  which  I 
believe  to  be  true.  He  should  have  taken  all 
of  the  measures  available  to  him— and  they 
are  almost  unlimited— in  his  position  of  emin- 
ence and  power  in  this  regard  to  indicate  to 
the  trustees  that  this  matter  had  to  be  nego- 
tiable. Now,  all  of  a  sudden,  the  decision  is 
made  by  =  the  government  that  six  weeks  is 
long  enough  and  it  comes  out  with  this  par- 
ticular bill  coercing  the  teachers  and,  in  fact, 
coercing  the  board.  The  teachers  are  required 
to  go  back  to  work;  the  board  is  required  to 
negotiate:  or,  in  this'  case,  arbitrate  these 
matters.: 

We  regret  that  the  strike  has  been  so  pro- 
longedr  We  believe  that  the  length  of  the 
strike  was  unnecessary  if  the  government's 
position  had  been  made  clear.  We  are  not 
prepared  to  support  the  position  taken  in  the 
bill  with  regard  to  compulsory  arbitration  and 
well  therefore  vote  against  it  in  principle. 

Mr.  Sjpeaker:  The  member  for  Scarborough 
West. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Mr. 
Speaker,  most  of  us,  I  suspect,  have  neither 
stomach  nor  heart  for  this  particular  debate 
and  wish  that  it  didn't  have  to  happen  at  all. 
I  would  wish  to  see  it  as  one  item  in  isola- 
tion. I  am  assuming  that  the  York  county  disi- 
pute  is  a  separate  and  distinct  phenomenon 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  never  to  be  re- 
peated again  and,  hopefully,  not  ever  to  be 
used  as  a  reason  to  spawn  further  legislation 
of  a  comparable  kind.  I  think  that  while 
people,  vdll  clearly  remember  this  day,  the 
government  may  also  regret  this  day  because 


I  have  yet  to  be  persuaded  that  this  kind  of 
legislation  need  ever  have  been  brought  be- 
fore the  House. 

I  want  to  comment  on  three  areas,  not  at 
great  length— some  of  my  colleagues  will 
elaborate  on  certain  of  those  areas— and  then 
make  a  few  final  observations.  The  obvious 
areas  are  those  of  the  board,  the  teachers 
and  the  government. 

Let  me  start  with  the  board,  Mr.  Speaker. 
There  are  too  many  tender  sensibilities  about 
the  board  in  York  county.  There  is  too  much 
hesitation,  too  much  inhibition,  too  much 
constraint  when  dealing  with  the  board  in 
York  county.  When  a  board  is  as  dramatic  a 
throw-back  to  archaic  and  reactionary  views 
of  education— as  is  the  case  in  York  county— 
when  a  board,  almost  single-handedly,  serves 
to  undermine  the  education  system  for  14,000 
students  and,  by  implication,  jeopairdizes  it 
for  a  great  many  others,  I  think  it  is  our 
responsibility  to  deal  with  that  board  directly. 
The  attitudes  the  board  displayed,  the  be- 
haviour the  board  displayed,  the  devices  the 
board  used  were  ultimately  destructive  and 
there  is  no  way  of  disowning  that.  There  is 
no  way  of  concealing  it  or  forgetting  it  or 
scrapping  it,  simply  by  saying  they  are 
elected  representatives  and  have  local  auton- 
omy. 

If  any  government,  if  any  opposition  party, 
if  any  group  of  elected  politicians  behaved 
that  irresponsibly,  then  they  must  be  con- 
fronted. I  don't  know  that  there  is  a  more 
shocking  display  of  irresponsibility  on  the 
part  of  any  board  in  the  province  than  has 
been  shown  by  York  county.  It  has  some 
competitors.  The  minister  will  never  admit 
it— it's  not  the  minister's  |ob  to  admit  it— but 
I  suspect  that  as  the  minister  tramped  around 
Ontario  dealing  with  the  15  outstanding  dis- 
putes in  the  mdntii  of  January,  he  ran  into 
one  or  two  boards— the  Windsor  separate 
board  comes  to  my  mind,  Mr.  Speaker— which 
might  have  sent  shivers  down  the  spine  of 
any  educational  reformer  and  any  man  of 
goodwill  in  the  field  of  education.  It  is 
wrong  for  a  board  to  behave  in  this  fashion. 
And  I  think  it  is  also  wrong-most  of  us  in 
this  caucus  feel  it  is  wrong— for  it  to  have 
been  tolerated  so  long  by  the  Minister  of 
Education.  But  more  of  that  anon,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

It  made  for  the  teachers  in  York  county  an 
impossible  situation,  an  absolutely  impossible 
situation.  You  have  a  group  of  teachers  who 
feel  somewhat  oppressed.  You  have  a  group 
of  teachers  working  within  rules,  regulations 
and  contractual  arrangements,  which  none 
of  us  in  this  room  would  tolerate  for  a  mo- 


242 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ment.  And  then  you  have  the  teachers  ex- 
pected to  enter  into  negotiations  with  a 
board  which  behaved  in  good  faith  in  its 
majority.  Not  all  of  its  members,  because 
most  of  the  votes  for  the  last  two  or  three 
v\  eeks  have  been  12  to  eight— there  have  been 
eight  members  of  that  board  fighting  back— 
l)ut  the  majority  of  the  members  of  that  board 
frankly,  Mr.  Speaker,  simply  evoked  fear  and 
anger  and  resentment  and  rigidity  on  the 
part  of  the  teachers  with  whom  they  were  to 
negotiate.  And  who  can  blame  the  teachers 
for  it?  Who  can  blame  them  for  it?  It's  as  if 
you  took  a  time  machine  and  hurtled  the 
York  county  board  back  some  50  years  and 
expected  it  to  negotiate  in  the  1970s  on  that 
basis. 

Now,  the  most  serious  charge  I  can  make 
aboout  that  board,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  make 
it  quite  willingly,  because  I  believe  one  calls 
them  as  one  sees  them  in  a  situation  like 
this,  is  that  they  negotiated  in  bad  faith  from 
the  day  negotiations  began.  From  that  in- 
credible day  when  the  board  wasn't  even 
sure  that  it  wanted  to  recognize  the  OSSTF 
representatives  in  York  county  as  the  team, 
the  representatives  who  would  bargain  on 
behalf  of  the  larger  group  of  teachers. 

In  January  a  document  on  voluntary  arbi- 
tration was  drafted.  That  document  refused 
to  include  pupil-teacher  ratio  as  a  manda- 
tory arbitrable  clause.  And  so  the  document 
went  to  the  teachers  and  the  teachers  said, 
"Well,  maybe  we'll  accept  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion but  we  think  PTR  should  be  mandatory. 
And  we  want  it  in.  And  we  want  a  number 
of  other  items  added  to  the  schedule."  And 
at  that  point,  because  the  minister  still  held 
back,  the  board  threw  up  its  hands  and  said, 
"To  the  devil  with  you  We'll  not  include 
that  in  the  agreement,"  and  the  voluntary 
arbitration  fell  through  again  on  the  eve  of 
Jan.  31. 

And  then  you  have,  as  the  tension  mounts, 
as  the  pressure  builds,  as  the  public  con- 
sternation accelerates,  a  board  that  says  to  its 
teachers  that  "on  such  and  such  a  date  we 
will  accept  your  resignations  and  will  begin 
to  hire  anew." 

Now,  you  tell  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  how  you 
are  supposed  to  negotiate  in  good  faith  with 
a  school  board  which  says,  "We  are  going  to 
turf  you  out  of  your  jobs  and  replace  you 
with  anyone  we  can  get  our  hands  on."  And 
a  school  board  that  knows  the  moment  it 
does  that  that  the  various  teacher  aflBliates 
across  the  province  will  condemn  it;  that  it 
will  in  fact  be  blacklisted,  pinklisted,  or 
whatever  the  precise  word  is— and  that  it  is 


immediately  arousing  the  antagonism  of  the 
teachers. 

Mr.  R.  Cisbom  (Hamilton  East);  A  viola- 
tion of  the  Labour  Relations  Act  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  my  friend  from  Hamilton 
East  points  out  that  if  you  were  under  the 
Ontario  Labour  Relations  Act  you  could 
never  get  away  with  that  kind  of  behaviour, 
because  labour  relations— except  where  York 
county  board  is  concerned— usually  encom- 
pass civilized  behaviour. 

And  throughout  the  negotiating  process, 
Mr.  Speaker,  well  known  to  the  minister,  the 
board  played  cat  and  mouse  with  its  in- 
dividual members.  Mr.  Honsberger  and  his 
right  arm,  the  legal  man,  Mr.  Winkler,  did 
most  of  the  negotiating.  There  were  con- 
siderable periods  of  time  when  the  other 
trustees  didn't  know  what  the  hell  was  going 
on.  During  the  period  of  the  blackout,  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  were  trustees  on  the  York 
county  board  who  knew  as  littie  about  events 
as  did  the  teachers.  And  so  within  the  board 
there  was  bad  faith  bargaining.  I  mean,  even 
within  the  tiny  structure  of  20,  things  were 
conducted  in  bad  faith. 

All  of  this  the  minister  knew,  because  the 
minister  was  having  regular  reports  from  Mr. 
Mancini,  the  arbitrator.  And  behind  the  whole 
dispute,  in  the  background  of  it,  seldom  of— 
why  I  don't  understand,  because  when  a 
whole  school  system  grinds  to  a  halt  and  14,- 
000  kids  are  out  and  parents  are  up  in  arms, 
then  we  level  with  each  other.  But  behind 
it  air,  looming  like  the  spectre  in  the  back- 
ground, was  the  director  of  education,  for 
whom  the  teachers  felt  an  anathema  so  pro- 
found that  it  raised  yet  another  barrier  to  the 
possibility  of  settlement. 

Ironically,  the  director  of  education  was 
over  at  OISE  somewhere  through  diis  dis- 
pute. There  is  an  acting  director  of  educa- 
tion in  York,  for  whom  the  teachers  have 
much  more  gracious  feelings.  But  none  of  that 
was  spoken  of  openly  and  frankly.  Better  to 
let  the  controversy  disintegrate  than  to  speak 
the  truth.  The  teachers  in  York  county  put 
up  with  more  than  teachers  put  up  with  al- 
most anywhere  else  in  the  province. 

A  couple  of  colleagues  and  I  were  in  York 
county  just  the  other  night  when  they  met 
outside  at  Aurora.  I  am  going  to  tell  you 
something  about  our  voyage  to  York  county 
the  other  night  in  a  moment,  Mr.  Speaker, 
We  were  meeting  with  some  of  the  teacher 
leadership  in  Aurora  the  other  night  and  they 
showed  us  it  is  stupid  of  me  not  to  have  it— 
the   rules  and  regulations  which  govern  the 


MARCH  13,  1974 


243 


activities  of  teachers  within  the  schools  in 
York  county;  and  what  they  are  required  to 
do  by  the  administration  in  terms  of  extra- 
curricular duties,  in  terms  of  special  duties 
for  the  students,  in  terms  of  following  un- 
questioningly  and  obediently  the  directive  of 
every  principal. 

The  demands  placed  upon  the  teachers  of 
York  county  are  preposterous;  but  very  little 
was  said  about  that  in  the  course  of  the  dis- 
pute. 

So  here,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  have  a  board 
which  bargains  in  bad  faith  throughout— the 
greatest  testament  to  that  is  the  content  of 
this  bill— bargains  in  bad  faith  throughout. 
Nobody  ever  called  their  bluff;  nobody  ever 
sees  that  as  offensive;  everything  grinds  down. 
And   we  finally  reach  this  extremity. 

Well,  I  don't  think  that  there  is  an  excuse 
for  the  Ministry  of  Education  in  such  a  situ- 
ation. I  don't  think  that  the  government  has 
the  right  to  allow  a  board  to  work  in  such 
bad  faith  and  to  trample  on  the  rights  of 
teachers  for  so  long. 

All  right  then,  what  of  the  teachers?  Well, 
despite  the  provocation— and  surely  it  was 
greater  than  in  any  other  single  area  in  On- 
tario—despite the  provocation,  despite  the  bad 
faith  bargaining,  the  teachers  hung  in  there. 
The\  kept  on  making  their  counter  offers. 
They  kept  on  trying  to  reach  a  negotiated 
settlement.  They  kept  on  reasonably  and 
thoughtfully  and  persuasively  suggesting  the 
alternatives.  They  went  to  lengths  that  teach- 
ers nowhere  else  have  gone  to. 

When  the  board  wouldn't  accept  the  tra- 
ditional definition  of  PTR,  the  teachers  of 
York  county  at  the  OSSTF  level,  offered  three 
separate  alternative  definitions.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  various  alternatives  are  in  the  memo- 
randiun  which  the  Minister  of  Education  has 
had  included  in  his  schedule  of  issues,  March 
7,  1974,  to  be  submitted  to  voluntary  arbi- 
tration at  the  time. 

The  teachers  even  submitted  proposals 
about  which  they  themselVes  had  qualms  in 
order  to  get  PTR  and  class  size  negotiated. 
Now,  the  duplicity  of  the  board  knows  no 
limits.  When  I  picked  up  the  Globe  and  Mail 
this  morning  I  noticed  a  half-page  advertise- 
ment from  the  York  County  Board  of  Educa- 
tion listing  the  things  which  allegedly  they 
had  off'ered  and  to  which  the  teachers  did  not 
respond. 

I  will  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker— and  I  think 
as  the  minister  knows— there  is  an  awful  lot 
in  that  half-page,  as  judged  by  this  legisla- 
tion, the  truth  of  which  one  can  question. 


I  would  like  to  know  who  pays  for  half- 
page  ads  in  the  Globe  and  Mail  put  out  by 
the  York  County  Board  of  Education  to 
argue  their  case  against  the  teachers  on  the 
same  day  that  the  government  is  settling 
the  dispute.  I  have  a  very  strong  suspicion 
that  the  public  pays  for  the  advertisements 
which  one  side  chooses  to  take  to  misrepre- 
sent the  situation.  There  is  something  about 
the  way  in  which  the  York  county  board  has 
handled  this  whole  affair  which  is  profoundly 
offensive  in  every  sense. 

Every  day  during  the  dispute  the  teachers 
collected  in  their  centres.  I  think  the  minister 
was  mentioning  this  to  me  just  the  other  day 
that  the  teachers,  quite  amazingly,  got  to- 
gether day  after  day  in  the  legion  halls,  or 
wherever  it  was  that  they  were  gathering,  in 
Richmond  Hill  and  Aurora,  and  sat  and  had 
what  would  amount  to  professional  develop- 
ment days  almost  every  day. 

Some  of  them  met  vdth  students  and  pro- 
vided special  support.  Some  of  them  invested 
themselves  in  some  special  kind  of  educa- 
tional opportunities  if  kids  needed  it,  but 
they  took  seriously  their  roles  as  educators 
and  they  just  didn  t  run  off.  They  were  there 
and  accountable  every  day  of  the  strike, 
every  day  the  schools  were  closed. 

They  showed  a  much  greater  loyalty  to 
the  students  and  to  ending  the  dispute  than 
did  the  board.  But  they  were  so  locked  into 
the  adversary  system,  they  were  in  such  a 
straitjacket  that  it  was  such  an  impossible 
business;  this  intractable  board  which  took 
an  absolute  delight  in  perversity  and  a  group 
of  teachers  who  in  some  ways  were  kind  of 
bewildered  about  why  it  was  that  they 
coiJdn't  reach  an  agreement. 

The  sum  total  effect  of  that  is  an  abso- 
lutely natural,  normal,  human  consequence. 
You  get  bitter.  You  get  frustrated.  You  have 
suspicion.  You  don't  know  whom  you  can 
trust  any  more.  So  when  the  opportunity 
comes  along  for  a  settlement  of  a  kind  thats 
something  less  than  compulsory  arbitration, 
you  are  not  sure  you  can  take  it. 

The  minister  made  such  an  offer.  I  think 
the  minister  knows  that  some  of  us  in  this 
party  acknowledge  the  role  he  played  in  the 
month  of  January,  tirelessly,  vigorously  try- 
ing to  settle  the  outstanding  disputes.  I  am 
more  than  happy  to  acknowledge  the  honour- 
able contents  of  the  document  which  he  sub- 
mitted to  board  and  teachers  for  the  purpose 
of  voluntary  arbitration  last  Friday  and 
again  on  Sunday. 

The  document  had  an  Achilles  heel.  The 
Achilles    heel    of    the    document    is    that    in 


244 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


section  11,  there  is  the  use  of  the  word 
"may"  rather  than  "shall,"  which  means  that 
it  could  be  construed  to  read  that  a  board  of 
arbitration  appointed  may  negotiate  teacher- 
pupil  ratio  rather  than  shall  award  on  teach- 
er-pupil ratio.  I  think  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion, as  evidenced  by  his  subsequent  act, 
obviously  meant  it  to  be  mandatory,  but  the 
document  didn't  say  so.  It  confirmed  in  the 
minds  of  the  teachers  again  a  kind  of  sus- 
picion that  they  have  about  the  way  the 
whole  relationship  was  being  handled.  Un- 
fortunately, the  document,  honourable  in  it- 
self, was  accompanied  by  an  ultimatum,  the 
time  limit  ultimatum  of  9  o'clock  on  Monday 
night.  That  again  forces  on  men  and  women 
of  goodwill  the  kind  of  irritation  and  frus- 
tration which  is  not  conducive  to  an  imme- 
diate settlement. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  tell  you,  sir,  that 
the  NDP  does  not  oppose  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion like  some  Pavlovian  reflex.  We  don't 
like  it.  Voluntary  arbitration  only  comes  into 
play  when  everything  else  has  broken  down; 
so  what  it  implies  is  unhappy.  But  voluntary 
arbitration  is,  after  all,  the  free  choice  by  the 
parties  to  a  binding  agreement.  If  free  choice 
operates,  then  presumably  it  should  be  one 
of  the  roots  at  the  end  of  the  collective 
bargaining  process.  Mr.  Speaker,  in  that  vein, 
with  that  in  mind  and  knowing  of  the  min- 
ister's offer,  last  night— I  guess  it  was  last 
night— my  colleague  from  Port  Arthur,  the 
education  critic  for  this  party,  and  my  col- 
league from  Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick)  and  I 
went  up  north,  or  went  up  to  Aurora.  I  call 
it  north  because  I  used  to  live  in  Newmarket. 
Was  it  Monday  night? 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Monday 
night. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right.  We  went  up  to 
Aurora  and  we  attended  the  demonstration, 
which  was  kind  of  touching  in  its  solidarity 
but  a  little  touching,  too,  in  what  it  pre- 
saged, because  1,100  or  1,200  people  gath- 
ered in  a  little  knot  on  a  dark  night  in  an 
empty  field  beside  the  Aurora  Civic  Centre 
don't  give  one  the  sense  of  a  crusade.  It  does 
give  one  a  sense  of  isolation. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  I  am  sure 
the  member  rose  to  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  as  a  matter  of  fact  I  was 
very  subdued  by  the  occasion.  I  didn't  con- 
sider it  a  mob. 

Mr.  Reid:  That's  not  what  I  heard;  the 
Ku  Klux  Klan! 


Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Is  the 
member  sure  when  he  said  it  was  the  empty 
field  beside  the  Civic  Centre? 

An  hon.  member:  Is  he  sure  he  was  in 
Aurora? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  I  was  in  Aurora.  It  was, 

in  fact- 
Mr.  Foulds:  Is  the  member  for  York  North 

sure  he  is  here? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  an  empty  field  I  mean  the 
plot  of  ground  beside  the  parking  lot.  All 
right? 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  Soufli):  I 
know  one  place  the  member  for  York  North 
was  not,  when  some  of  us  were  there. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  was  going  to  say  something 
nice  about  him  later  on,  but  not  now. 

Mr.  Speaker,  after  that  was  over,  my  col- 
leagues and  I  journeyed  back  to  Ric'Kmond 
Hill  with  the  teachers.  I  don't  think  it's  an)' 
particular  secret  that  we  stayed  with  the 
OSSTF  negotiators  from  10  o'clock  until 
about  1  in  the  morning  and  we  argued  very 
strongly  that  a  document  to  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion be  agreed  to.  In  fact,  I  don't  think  the 
word  plead  is  too  strong. 

We  put  to  them  as  strongly  as  we  could 
that  in  terms  of  the  York  county  dispute  and 
in  terms  of  the  future  collective  bargaining 
arrangements  for  teachers  it  made  very  real 
sense  for  them  to  attempt  to  find  a  basis  in 
voluntary  arbitration  which  they  could  sign 
and  with  which  they  coujd  agree  and  pre- 
vent the  axe  from  falling  yesterday  after- 
noon. 

We  knew,  both  in  advance  and  after,,  that 
the  Minister  of  Education  would  probably  be 
flexible  in  that  regard— he  had  demonstrated 
that  before— and  that  if  the  teachers  could 
come  back  with  a  specific  number  of  items 
added  to  the  schedule,  and  with  pupil-teacher 
ratio  absolutely  ironclad,  there  might  be  the 
basis  for  a  voluntary  agreement. 

As  it  happens,  there  was  a  difference  of 
opinion.  We  were  not  as  persuasive  as  we 
would  have  wished  and  the  teachers  that 
night  and  the  next  morning,  meeting  together, 
decided  on  the  basis  of  all  they  had  known, 
even  on  the  basis  of  the  next  morning,  I  think 
yesterday  morning,  of  personal  representa- 
tion from  the  Minister  of  Education  at  the 
11th  hour,  even  on  that  basis,  that  there 
were  simply  no  grounds  for  trust.  There  had 


V-    MARCH  13,  1974 


245 


been  such  a  disintegration  of  trust  that  it 
was  not  possible  to  puU  it  together. 

I  must  admit,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  was 
probably  easy  for  us,  a  group  of  three  inter- 
lopers looking  at  it  from  outside,  to  come  in 
and  make  that  kind  of  recommendation  or 
plea  to  the  teachers.  If  we  had  been  deeply 
involved  ourselves,  I  suspect  we  would  have 
had  the  same  kind  of  perceptions  of  the 
whole  situation. 

Their  perceptions  were  based  on  the  man- 
handling of  the  board.  Their  perceptions  were 
based  on  Bill  274.  Their  perceptions  were 
based  on  the  amount  of  public  criticism. 
Their  perceptions  did  not  allow  them  to  be- 
lieve that  the  document  could  be  honourable 
and  that  they  would  serve  the  interests  of 
their  members  by  signing  it.  After  all,  their 
members  had  turned  down  voluntary  arbi- 
tration by  overwhelming  votes  on  at  least 
three  occasions. 

I  must  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  wish  it 
had  been  possible  to  achieve  it  that  way 
rather  than  this  way.  I  think  that  the  com- 
piilsor)'  arbitration  component  of  this  bill  will 
do  ver\'  great  damage  in  the  long  term.  It 
may  even  do  damage  in  the  short  term.  I 
don't  know  how  to  measure  the  feelings  of 
the  teachers  once  they  have  returned  to 
school. 

At  that  point  in  time  the  onus  wasn't  really 
on  anyone  other  than  the  minister  and  the 
government,  whatever  interventions  came  in 
from  any  third  party.  And  the  minister  and 
the  government  failed. 

I  don't  know  why  they  failed  all  the  way 
down  the  line.  I  suspect  it's  mostly  the  strait- 
jacket  of  Progressive  Conservative  philosophy. 
I  don't  think  the  government  was  behaving 
Machiavellianly.  I  don't  think  it  was,  at  that 
point  in  time,  trying  to  manipulate;  although 
I'm  not  as  sure  about  the  bill  now.  I  simply 
know  that  its  social  philosophy  did  not  per- 
mit it  to  do  all  the  things  it  should  have 
done  from  day  one  which  would  have  ended 
the  dispute  early. 

Let  me  tell  members  where  the  Minister  of 
Education  and  the  government  might  have 
intervened.  No.  1,  when  he  saw  the  board 
was  bargaining  in  bad  faith,  he  should  have 
brought  his  foot  down— and  I  would  say  that 
for  either  party. 

One  of  the  most  perplexing  and  frustrating 
things  about  labour  relations  in  this  province, 
relationships  on  a  collective  bargaining  basis 
between  any  group  or  groups,  is  that  when 
this  government  has  clear  evidence  of  bad 
faith  it  refuses  to  do  anything  about  it.  We 
have  laws  which  require  good  faith  bargain- 


ing >  but  (evidence  of  bad  faith  means  not  a 
tinker's  damn  to  anyone. 

And  so,  despite  the  chronicled  evidence 
of  bad  faith,  one  week  after  another,  even 
before  the  crisis  began  on  the  part  of  the 
board,  no  one  said  anything.  Even  though, 
in  his  heart,  the  Minister  of  Education  har- 
boured profound  suspicion  about  what  the 
board  was  doing— probably  there  were  times 
when  he  was  irritated  with  the  teachers— 
at  no  point  did  he  say,  when  it  was  clearly 
beyond  the  pale: 

"Look,  you  beggars,  that's  bad  faith  bar- 
gaining. The  public  can't  be  held  up  for 
ransom  by  your  display  of  bad  faith.  The 
kids  are  being  manipulated  by  the  board  in 
this  process.  You  get  back  to  that  bargaining 
table  and  you  make  a  good  faith  offer.  I, 
the  Minister  of  Education,  direct  it." 

Someone  has  to  use  that  kind  of  authority. 
Somewhere  the  people  of  the  province  have 
to  feel  that  good  faith  bargaining  makes 
sense. 

So,  whether  it  was  the  question  of  who 
constituted  the  bargaining  unit,  or  whether  it 
was  when  they  were  going  to  accept  their 
resignations,  or  back  in  January  when  they 
refused  to  have  pupil-teacher  ratio  included 
as  a  mandatory  award  clause  of  the  volun- 
tary arbitration  agreement,  any  one  of  those 
occasions,  Mr.  Speaker,  would  have  been 
suflBcient  for  the  minister  to  say  to  the  board: 
"I  can  stand  this  no  longer.  I'm  going  to 
tell  the  public  what  is  real.  You're  simply 
not  taking  this  in  good  faith." 

But  at  no  time  did  he  do  it.  He  watched 
the  dispute  gradually  disintegrate  before  his 
eyes  and  he  refused  to  intervene. 

Let  me  tell  the  minister  a  second  time:  On 
Jan.  30,  he  had  a  memorandum  from  Terry 
Mancini,  conciliation  officer  from  the  On- 
tario Labour  Relations  Board,  telling  him  in 
no  imcertain  terms  that  pupil-teacher  ratio 
was  at  issue.  A  document  was  drawn  up. 
The  board  refused  to  include  pupil-teacher 
ratio  as  an  issue  for  award.  The  minister's 
refusal  to  intervene  publicly  at  that  point 
meant  that  the  dispute  would  continue  to 
March  13  rather  than  end  in  the  middle  of 
February.  Because  if  he  had  made  Mancini's 
report  public,  or  if  he  had  said  to  the 
board:  "Look,"— but  without  any  declaration 
on  his  part;  without  the  kind  of  command, 
the  kind  of  directive  that  indicates  to  the 
world— "this  is  unacceptable  to  me  as  Minis- 
ter of  Education." 

We  have  to  realize  what  happened  here. 
On  Jan.  31,  or  Feb.  1,  whenever  it  was, 
the  schools   closed  in  York   county  because 


246 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  Minister  of  Education  refused  to  come 
to  grips  with  what  he  had  been  told  by 
his  own  mediator. 

Now,  had  he  done  that,  he  could  have 
wrapped  up  those  negotiations  in  two  weeks. 
He  has  been  close  enough  to  it.  So  have 
some  of  us.  We  know  that  if  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  had  been  accepted  as  ar- 
bitrable everything  else  would  have  fallen 
into  place  in  one  night.  Everybody  under- 
stood that.  And  here,  he  has  it  in  writing 
on  Jan.  30  and  he  let  it  go  to  March  13. 

It  may  have  been  laudable  then,  in  some 
misguided  view  of  the  sacrosanct  nature  of 
bargaining  that  allows  a  strike  to  go  on 
forever  without  the  responsible  minister  say- 
ing anything;  but  it's  not  admirable  now, 
not  at  this  end  of  the  trail. 

The  other  thing,  of  course,  that  flows  from 
the  Terry  Mancini  episode,  is  something 
that's  terribly  important  for  the  future,  I 
suggest  to  the  minister.  Terry  Mancini  is  an 
excellent  chap  with  a  lot  of  knowledge,  and 
a  lot  of  training,  and  he  worked  round  the 
clock  to  setde  that  dispute.  But  you  see, 
it's  an  educational  dispute.  It's  not  a  tradi- 
tional labour  dispute  and  there's  no  way 
that  a  labour  mediator,  schooled  in  all  the 
rituals  of  labour-management  exchanges,  the 
tribal  rights  that  exist  across  a  bargaining 
table  in  classic  labour-management  con- 
frontation, there's  no  way  tiiat  such  a 
mediator  is  going  to  win  the  confidence  of 
both  parties.  I  don't  care  whether  it's  Terry 
Mancini,  Vic  Scott  or  Bill  Dickie.  Compulsory 
arbitration  or  arbitration  of  a  traditional 
kind  in  an  educational  model  just  won't  work 
because  we  are  dealing  with  things  that  are 
so  unirsual  and  so  sensitive;  pupil-teacher 
ratio,  class  size.  These  aren't  the  conditions 
that  we  talk  about  when  we  talk  about  Stelco, 
about  Inco  or  about  a  small  secondary 
manufacturing  plant.  These  are  things  beyond 
the  realm  of  normal  labour  relations. 

If  the  minister  is  going  to  bring  in  a 
bill  several  months  or  a.  few  weeks  hence, 
advising  compulsory  arbitration  at  the  end 
of  it,  which  bill  will  be  passed  through 
the  Legislature  and  used  countless  times 
over  in  the  next  year  or  two,  he  had  better 
find  a  group  of  people  who  can  handle 
mediation  in  the  field  of  education,  because 
it  is  completely  different.  It  is  like  nothing 
else. 

That  is  why  compulsory  arbitration  makes 
no  blessed  sense  for  the  educational  model. 
It  is  not  the  traditional  kind  of  labour  dis- 
pute. Compulsory  arbitration  makes  no  sense 
anywhere,  but  certainly  not  here.  And  one 
of  the  failures  was  the  minister's  willingness 


to  impose  the  old  model  on  something  for 
which  it  was  totally  unappropriate. 

I  guess  the  straw  that  broke  the  camel's 
back  in  terms  of  our  view  of  the  ministry 
was  when  the  board  said  it  would  accept 
the  resignations  of  the  teachers  and  hire 
afresh,  and  no  one  over  there  said  anything. 
For  sheer  belligerent  provocation,  nothing 
could  have  been  worse.  But  no  one  said 
anything  from  the  ministry  side. 

No  one  said  to  the  board:  "Okay,  you 
have  overstepped  the  bounds  so  unconscion- 
ably that  I,  the  Minister  of  Labour,  am 
moving  in  and  taking  over  negotiations."  I 
think  the  House  perhaps  would  have  given 
the  minister  almost  unanimous  consent  to 
do  that.  I  don't  know  about  trusteeship.  That 
seems  to  me  to  be  a  litde  far-fetched  in 
terms  of  taking  over  the  whole  board  on  a 
permanent   basis   and   running   York   county. 

II  must  say  the  idea  of  final  offer  selection, 
coming  in  after  the  strike  was  already  on, 
was  something  that  neither  party  could  even 
conceive  of.  And  the  suggestion  of  voluntary 
arbitration  while  negotiations  were  still  go- 
ing on  in  a  semi-serious  way  caused  them  to 
grind  to  a  halt,  because  that  is  the  immediate 
response  of  the  parties.  Somebody  suggests 
arbitration  and  everybody  stands  still  for  a 
day  or  two.  But  had  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion got  to  his  feet  and  said:  'T  will  take  over 
negotiations.  Enough  is  enough.  I  believe  in 
the  bargaining  of  PTR.  The  salary  grid  is 
clearly  negotiable.  There  aren't  so  many  items 
outstanding.  I  will  show  you  that  the  col- 
lective bargaining  can  work."  And  then  he 
could  have  settled  it. 

I  suppose  the  old  "intrusion  on  local 
autonomy"  is  the  argument  that  will  be 
made,  but  I  am  not  sure  that  is  so  bad.  I 
am  not  sure  that  is  as  bad  as  this.  Because 
what  has  the  minister  done?  He  has  got  an- 
other confrontation  on  his  hands.  He.  has  got 
deteriorated  relatior^hips  between  board  and 
teachers  which  will  take  years  to  repair.  He 
has  got  compulsory  arbitration  which  almost 
no  one  wants,  other  than  the  Conservative 
Party.  He  has  the  worst  of  all  worlds,  and 
for  no  reasons  that  anyone  can  see,  for  no 
reasons  that  are  plausible.  Surely  it  would 
have  been  possible  for  the  minister  to  liave 
made  his  intervention  at  some  earlier  time 
when  it  might  have  saved  it  all. 

The  Province  of  Saskatchewan  also  has  col- 
lective bargaining  legislation'  for  the  teachers. 
The  minister  knows  it  fairly  well.  It  allows 
all  kind  of  routes.  It  allows  mediation.  It 
allows  conciliation.  It  allows  voluntary 
arbitration  that  is  binding  and  voluntary- 
arbitration     that     isn't    binding.     It     allows, 


MARCH  13,  1974 


247 


although  it  has  not  been  used,  the  right  to 
strike.  It  allows  every  conceivable  avenue  to 
be  explored.  And  that  means  it  is  good  faith 
bargaining.  But  none  of  that  was  forthcoming 
from  the  Province  of  Ontario.  All  that  is 
forthcoming  from  the  Province  of  Ontario  is 
the  guillotin©  at  the  end  of  the  road. 

Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  minister  is  hard- 
working, and  he  has  invested  an  enormous 
amount  of  time,  emotion  and  intelligence  in 
this  series  of  disputes.  But  so  help  me,  as  I 
stand  here,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  strike  in  York 
county  was  the  government's  responsibility. 
They  could  have  ended  it  within  two  weeks. 
They  chose  not  to  take  the  initiative.  They 
chose  to  allow  it  to  be  prolonged.  They  chose 
bad  faith  bargaining  to  be  the  central  reality 
of  that  dispute.  Therefore,  although  the  minis- 
ter will  be  commended  on  March  13  for  his 
sudden  initiative  after  X  weeks,  he  won't  be 
commended  when  people  look  back— because 
when  people  look  back,  the  d^elinquency  is  all 
too  obvious. 

Sure,  the  clauses  in  this  bill  aren't  as  bad 
as  the  clauses  in  Bill  274;  we  wouldn't  be 
able  to  oppose  them  with  the  same  remorse- 
less feeling.  We  are  not  going  to  oppose  the 
mandatory  award  on  PTR.  We  are)  not  mad. 
We  understand  there  are  some  contents  of  the 
bill  which,  if  one  has  to  have  this  kind  of 
objectional  stuff,  are  at  least  acceptable  in 
their  own  perverse  way,  even  to  the  teachers. 

But  the  compulsory  part  of  it;  boy,  the 
minister  will  never  get  us  to  accept  that. 
That's  the  government's  view  of  the  negotiat- 
ing process.  I  hope  the  parties  setde  in'  the 
next  48  hours.  Politically,  the  minister  has 
won  his  spurs.  Politically  I  know  he  ieeh  he 
can't  lose.  The  Minister  of  Education  on  a 
stallion,  you  know,  rides  through  the  corridors 
of  Queen's  Park  saving  the  studfents  of  York 
county.;    ,  > 

M*/R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Sti^aking. 

Mr.  Rh  F.  Nixon:  That  was  Lady  Godiva. 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  I  suppose  that  if  they  do 
accept  a  negotiated  settlement  of  some  kind 
in  the  next  48  hours,  it  will  be  the  Minist^ 
of  Education— hanging  the  sword  of  Damo- 
cles high  over  teachers  and  trustees— who 
wrested  the  settlement  from  the  jaws  of  do- 
feat;  and  all  the  rest  of  the  garbage. 

iThe  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  it  didn't  have 
to  happen.  It  never  had  to  happen  at  all.  The 
minister  deserves  no  great  commendation  or 
plaudits. 

I  tell  you  what  else  I  hope,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
hope  and  my  colleagues  hope— I've  discussed 
it  with  thehi— that  if  the  bill  does  go  through 


that  the  teachers  accept  the  terms  of  the  bill 
and  return  to  the  schools.  Laws  can  be  pro- 
foundly objectionable  in  this  province,  and 
this  would  be  one  of  the  worst.  But  for 
everyone  concerned,  even  if  the  law  is  an 
ass,  it  exists;  and  teachers  should  observe  it 
and  therefore  the  schools  function  again.  And 
I  suspect  that  many  people  would  agree  that 
that  should  be  the  case. 

But  I  can't  help  but  regret  the  wa)  this 
whole  thing  has  occurred— accidental  at  the 
beginning,  orchestrated  at  the  end— ultimately 
destructive  of  the  educational  system;  caus- 
ing fear  and  anxiety  and  resentment  amongst 
the  teachers,  uncertainty  amongst  the  stu- 
dents, belligerence  from  the  boards  and  be- 
wilderment from  the  public. 

And  none  of  it  need  have  happened.  If  any 
of  the  members  over  there  understood  a 
thing  about  the  way  in  which  the  collective 
bargaining  process  can  work  when  positively 
supported,  it  need  not  have  happened. 

So  we  not  only  oppose  the  bill  in  principle, 
because  compulsion  is  so  abhorrent,  but  we 
oppose  it  because  it  shoiJdn't  even  be  here; 
because  the  kids  could  have  been  back  in 
York  county  on  Feb.  15.  The  government 
could  have  been  bringing  in  Bill  275,  with  all 
of  the  avenues  available  as  in  the  Province  of 
Saskatchewan— including  the  right  to  strike- 
removing  forever  from  the  field  of  education 
the  idea  of  compulsion.  Education  is  more 
about  freedom  than  it  is  about  authority;  and 
this  government  is  fixated  on  authority. 

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

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre)  i  Yes,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  reading  the  title  of  this  bill:  "An 
Act  respecting  a  Certain  Dispute  between 
York  County  Board  of  Education  and  cer- 
tain of  its  Teachers,"  I  think  of  the  dispute 
as  not  one  that  has  just  arisen  in  the  last  few 
weeks  or  even  months.  It  really  started  back 
in  1968,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  remember  well  as  one  of  my  early  re- 
sponsibilities as  a  member  for  York  Centre, 
arranging  a  meeting  between  trustees  in  the 
York  Central  District  High  School  district 
and  other  trustees  in  the  lower  part  of  the 
county.  They  wanted  to  meet  with  the  Min- 
ister of  Education— who  is  now  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)— with  a  view  to  not  having  as  large 
a  board  run  the  affairs  in  the  southern  part 
of  York  as  was  proposed  in  the  legislation  at 
that  time. 

In  their  view  they  felt  that  the  setting  up 
of  a  large  board  would  lead  to  major  prob- 
lems in  communication  between  teachers  and 


248 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


trustees.  How  their  forecast  has  been  borne 
out,  not  only  in  York  but  in  other  counties 
of  this  province.  Due  to  this  large  educational 
bureaucracy  that  the  Premier  imposed  across 
the  province— bureaucracy  at  all  costs;  big 
buildings,  big  boards,  big  spending— we  have 
a  breakdown  between  the  most  important  ele- 
ment in  our  whole  education  system,  the 
teacher,  and  those  who  employ  the  teachers. 
I  well  remember  back  in  1971  there  being 
an  item  that  showed  what  was  happening  in 
York  because  of  this  big  bureaucracy  that  was 
set  up  by  this  provincial  government  and 
imposed  on  York.  The  item  said  the  direc- 
tor was  reminding  the  trustees  they  must  not 
visit  the  schools  without  an  arrangement 
through  the  administration,  and  that  policy 
development  was  their  only  responsibility  and 
they  developed  policy  on  the  basis  of  infor- 
mation they  got  from  the  administration. 

I  then  wondered,  as  I  wrote  to  the  director 
as  to  what  he  meant  by  that,  if  indeed  they 
did  have  to  depend  upon  the  reports  from 
the  administration  as  to  policy  decision.  That 
would  be,  in  my  mind,  a  breach  of  responsi- 
bility on  the  part  of  anyone  expected  to 
direct  and  bear  responsibility  for  policy,  were 
he  not  free,  and  in  fact  if  he  did  not  take 
advantage  of  all  opportunities  to  get  infor- 
mation from  all  sources  on  which  he  could 
base  decisions  that  would  make  sense  for  the 
benefit  of  the  students  in  the  educational  sys- 
tem he  was  responsible  for  administering,  or 
running,  or  making  sure  it  provided  educa- 
tion. 

During  the  winter  of  1973,  I  had  a  meeting 
for  some  time  with  the  director  of  education 
one  night  in  the  home  of  the  subsequent 
chairman  of  the  negotiating  committee.  We 
had  a  meeting  for  several  hours  discussing 
what  I  feared  was  the  building-up  of  a  very 
serious  rift,  a  complete  breakdown  in  the  re- 
lationship between  the  teachers  and  the 
board.  The  rumblings  that  I  heard  across  the 
county  disturbed  me  greatly.  I  was  told  that 
it  was  only  a  few  radicals.  I  didn't  feel  it 
could  be,  because  many  of  those  who  were 
speaking  to  me  were  people  who  had  taught 
my  own  youngsters  and  whom  I  knew  to  be 
very  good  teachers,  not  to  be  radicals. 

But  these  people  had  been  feeling  the 
heavy  hand  of  direction  for  some  time.  There 
was  fear  taking  over;  taking  over  from  a 
feeling  of  confidence  and  mutual  responsi- 
bility and  satisfaction  out  of  working  to- 
gether to  provide  education.  It  was  a  typical 
example  of  what  happens  when  big  admin- 
istration is  imposed  to  run  something  that 
runs  far  better  when  there  is  a  much  closer 


relationship  between  those  who  have  the  job 
of  teaching  and  those  who  are  going  to  be 
learning  and  receiving  the  benefit  of  the 
teaching. 

This  is  what  has  happened;  not  because  of 
a  specific  or  a  special  situation  in  York,  it's 
because  of  a  plan  that  this  government  thrust 
upon  the  people  of  Ontario  years  ago. 

And  then  ceilings  had  to  be  imposed.  They 
were  the  last  straw— ceilings  that  imposed 
restrictions  on  spending,  which  we  all  know 
are  necessary;  but  not  restrictions  that  were 
based  upon  the  common  sense,  the  knowl- 
edge, the  sense  of  responsibility  that  local- 
ly elected  people  had.  No,  they  were  ceilings 
imposed  by  this  government,  making  its  own 
decisions— arbitrary  decisions— in  making  these 
restrictions  eflFective  right  across  the  province. 

I  was  therefore  not  surprised,  but  I  was 
disappointed  when  in  November  I  learned 
that  York  was  among  the  counties  where 
there  had  not  been  a  settlement  of  the  con- 
tracts. I  was  certainly  disappointed  that  it 
was  among  those  listed  in  Bill  274,  a  bill 
which  was,  of  course,  one  of  the  most  atro- 
cious pieces  of  legislation  ever  brought  before 
this  House. 

But  I  stated  at  the  time  of  the  debate  of 
Bill  274  that  I  did  not  want  my  own  family 
attending  school  where  we  had  broken  the 
terms  of  contract  of  a  teacher,  where  we  had 
removed  a  right  that  he  or  she  had  had  at 
the  time  he  signed  the  contract,  and  where 
we  were  imposing  our  authority  imder  con- 
ditions that  did  not  give  that  teacher  a  feel- 
ing that  he  or  she  was  going  to  be  dealt  with 
fairly. 

On  Jan.  25,  near  the  end  of  the  time  of 
the  deadline  for  those  resignations,  a  public 
school  principal  came  up  to  me  in  a  meeting 
and  said:  '"What's  going  to  be  done  in  York?" 

I  said:  "Aren't  they  going  to  settle  like 
everybody  else?" 

He  said:  "No  way.  And  the  public  sdiools 
are  next." 

It  was  because  of  that  that  a  Httle  while 
later,  when  the  schools  were  out  and  some 
of  us  were  struggling  to  find  a  way  of  bring- 
ing them  back  together,  I  worked  out  with  a 
few  teachers  and  a  couple  of  trustees  I  talked 
to  the  idea  of  a  form  of  arbitration  using  the 
final  oflFer  selection  principle.  The  teachers, 
however,  were  unwilling.  They  had  no  con- 
fidence, they  said,  in  the  board  to  go  into 
any  sort  of  voluntary  arbitration.  It  was  one 
thing  that  just  wasn't  successful. 

Those  of  us  that  have  some  responsibility 
in  elected  office  in  that  area  continued  to  try 


MARCH  13,  1974 


249 


to  find  a  solution.  I  was  interested  a  week 
ago  Sunday  when  it  was  reported  to  me  that 
the  chairman  of  the  negotiating  team  for  the 
trustees  had  suggested  to  the  minister  that  the 
minister  set  up  a  trusteeship.  But  the  minister 
apparently  stated  he  had  no  power  under  the 
present  legislation,  although  I  understand  that 
section  12  of  the  Ministry  of  Education  Act 
has  indeed  been  used  for  setting  up  a  trustee- 
ship in  a  northern  district  board  of  education 
which  got  itself  into  financial  diflSculties. 

There  is  nothing  in  section  12(1),  which 
was  used  I  understand  in  that  instance,  which 
refers  to  financial  diflficulties.  It  just  refers  to 
the  fact  that: 

Subject  to  the  provisions  of  any  statute 
in  that  behalf  and  to  the  approval  of  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council,  the  min- 
ister may  make  regulations  with  respect  to 
schools  or  classes  established  under  [the 
various  Acts  listed]  and  with  respect  to  all 
other  schools  supported  in  whole  or  in  part 
by  public  money: 

1.  For  the  establishment,  organization, 
administration  and  government  thereof. 

That's  a  broad  clause,  but  it  has  been  used 
before,  I  understand.  Therefore,  if  it  has  been 
used  before  for  financial  reasons,  surely  it 
could  be  used  where  the  students  have  been 
denied,  for  many  weeks,  an  opportunity  to 
receive  the  education  that  they  are  obligated 
to  take. 

This  Avould  have  been  a  fine  approach  for 
the  minister  to  take,  because  it  would  have 
been  asking  the  trustees  to  step  aside  at  a 
time  when  the  future  of  the  students  was  at 
stake,  enabling  the  minister  to  deal  directly 
with  the  teachers  or  the  provincial  Ministry 
of  Education  dealing  directly  with  the  provin- 
cial Secondary  schodl  teachers.  It  would  have 
given  an  opportunity  to  resolve  a.  province- 
wide  issue  on.  pupil-teacher  ratios  and  on 
I  othel"  matters  which  werie  in  dispute,  and 
-  indeed  an  opportunity  for  the  whole  merits 
of  the  case,  in  York  county  in  particular,  to 
be  settled  later  on  in  the  ballot  box. 

In  two  days,  over  the  weekend,  7,309 
people  indicated  this  was  the  course  tliey 
wanted  to  take.  Subsequent  to  that,  I  have 
received  several  thousand  more  signed  aflB- 
davits  supporting  this  trusteeship  approach  to 
get  the  students  back  in  the  school  and  to 
,,  allow  the  pubhc  to  settle  what  approach  they 
f  want  the  trustees  to  take  in  the  future  in 
administering  the  educational  system  in  York 
county. 

Unfortunately,  as  has  been  stated,  the  bill 
that  has  been  placed  before  us,  although  it 
is   a   way   of  getting  the  schools   back   into 


operation,  will  not  remove  the  basic  prob- 
lems of  personalities  that  are  still  in  conflict 
here. 

We  will  not  have  settled  the  problem  com- 
ing up  in  the  next  few  months  when  the 
public  school  teachers  can  resign.  We  do 
not  want  to  have  a  continuation  in  York 
of  this  feeling  on  the  part  of  many  trustees 
that  they  are  the  last  bastion  of  protection 
in  the  province  against  an  over-powerful 
teacher  federation.  If  they  are  right,  let  the 
electors  say  they  are  right;  and  if  they  are 
wrong,  let  that  be  stated  also;  but  at  least 
it  would  enable  those  of  us  in  York  to  have 
the  matter  settled  in  the  fairest  court,  that 
of  the  ballot  box. 

Trusteeship  would  resolve  this.  The  min- 
ister's delay  in  dealing  with  these  matters 
unfortunately  has  caused  a  serious  further 
deterioration  in  relations  over  that  which 
occurred  over  the  last  few  years,  and  I 
am  sorry  that  in  this  bill  the  minister  has 
resorted  to  what  I  would  feel  would  have 
to  be  the  very,  very  last  resort,  compulsory 
arbitration,  in  order  to  get  these  schools 
back  into  operation. 

Teaching  is  not  a  matter  of  putting  an 
individual  in  front  of  a  classroom;  it  is  also 
a  matter  of  having  that  individual  wanting  to 
provide  the  service  because  that  individual 
is  convinced  he  has  a  duty  to  do,  he  has 
been  given  fair  recognition  for  the  responsi- 
bilities he  is  carrying  out  and  is  therefore 
enthusiastically  helping  our  youngsters  pre- 
pare themselves  for  the  life  they  have  ahead 
of  them.  '. 

I  certainly  am  sorry  that  the  minister 
has  chosen  this  route  and,  as  rrty  leader 
has  indicated,  we  are  tiot  goiiig  to  be  dfelay- 
ing  the  legislation  plaqed  before  iis  but 
we  are  going  to  be  opposing  it  in  principle. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon;  member  for ,  York 
South.  '  . 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
particular  desire  this  afternoon  to  get  into 
an  .  argument  with  my  friend  from  York 
Centre  or  the  Liberal  Party,  because  quite 
frankly  my  main  thrust  wants  to  be  over  on 
that  side  of  the  House,  but  I  just  want  to 
say  as  unprovocatively  as  I  can  that  the 
effort  to  drag  into  consideration  of  the  York 
county  dispute  all  of  the  current  philosophy 
of  the  Liberal  Party  with  regard  to  big 
units  of  administration  and  what  it  does  to 
destroy  relationships  between  that  adminis- 
tration and  the  people  that  it  is  seeking 
to  serve,  I  think  in  this  instance  is  irrelevant. 


250 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Deacon:  I  realize  the  member  is  in 
support  of  big  units. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Could  I  make  my  case 
as  unprovocatively  as  possible?  The  mem- 
ber obviously  hasn't  heard  it  yet.  He  just 
wants   to   defend  the   indefensible. 

My  point  is  simply  this,  whether  the 
administration  were  big  or  small,  if  it  were 
an  administration  as  mindless  as  the  trustees 
in  York,  and  as  perverse— and  I  take  this  as 
second  hand— as  perverse  as  the  attitude 
of  the  director  of  education  up  there,  I  don't 
care  whether  it  were  big  or  small,  you  are 
going  to  have  problems.  Therefore  I  think 
the  basic  argument,  which  I  leave  the  mem- 
ber to  pursue  in  his  own  good  time,  was 
irrelevant  in  this  case.  I  listened  to  it  being 
presented  up  in  Richmond  Hill  two  or  three 
weeks  ago,  and  indeed  out  at  York  Mills 
Rd.  Secondary  School  and  the  few  other 
places  where  the  hon.  member  from  York 
Centre  and  I  found  ourselves  in  the  same 
circuit  in  the  last  six  weeks;  but  it  didn't 
convince  me  then  and  it  doesn't  convince 
me  now. 

Mr.  Deacon:  No,  the  member  liked  those 
big  boards. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  No.  Look,  the  member 
for  York  Centre  likes  them  when  it  serves 
his  purpose,  and  his  purpose  now  is  to 
deplore  them.  It  is  irrelevant.  That  is  the 
point  I  am  making. 

While  I  am  dealing  with  this  business  of 
the  initiative  of  the  Liberal  Party,  personi- 
fied in  the  hon.  member  for  York  Centre  with 
regard  to  the  whole  dispute  up  there,  let  me 
repeat  to  the  House  what  I  said  to  a  group 
of  teachers  on  a  platform  with  the  hon. 
member  for  York  Centre  two  weeks  ago 
this  Thursday  at  Richmond  Hill,  with  regard 
to  that  specific  proposal  of  the  final  oflFer 
selection  that  the  hon.  member  felt  was  go- 
ing to  solve  the  problem  up  there. 

I  said  then  and  I  say  it  now,  I  don't  know 
what  my  attitude  is,  quite  frankly,  toward  the 
final  offer  selection.  Society  is  looking  for 
some  kind  of  an  alternative  to  strikes,  which 
have  seemed  up  until  now  to  be  the  only 
means  to  settle  disputes  when  an  impasse  has 
been  created  between  both  sides  of  the  bar- 
gaining table,  and  whether  or  not  final  offer 
selection  vdll  ultimately  be  an  effective  kind 
of  answer  I  just  don't  know.  As  the  hon. 
member  for  York  Centre  pointed  out,  it 
originally  was  the  brainchild  of  a  couple  of 
NDPers,  Jim  Norton  and  Val  Scott.  It  cer- 
tainly hasn't  been  accepted  with  any  degree 


of  enthusiasm  in  the  trade  union  movement 
or  anywhere  else. 

Mr.  J.  E.  BuIIbrook  (Samia):  The  member 
says  final  offer  selection  is  the  brainchild  of 
Val  Scott? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Yes. 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  Unbelievable! 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  that  isn't  true,  it  was  he 
who  devised  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Once  again,  the  Liberal 
Party  has  picked  up  something  that  was 
created  by  the  New  Democratic  Party,  but 
we  are  having  difficulty  on  whether  or  not 
we  want  to  accept  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  it  was  not.  That's  what 
the  Liberals  did  with  it  because  it  is  Val 
Scott's  creation.  That's  why  I  know  it's 
wrong. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That's  why  we  are  taking 
a  careful  second  look  at  it. 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  The  member  talks  about 
irrelevancy.  He  accuses  my  colleague  of  ir- 
relevancy. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  train  of 
thought  in  dealing  with  this  whole  issue  has 
been  seriously  fouled  up,  but  I  have  got  to 
digress  to  deal  with  the  hon.  member  for 
Sarnia  because  if  the  hon.  member  for  Samia 
doesn't  know  that  the  proposal  being  put 
forward  by  his  deputy  leader  for  the  last 
month- 
Mr.  BuIIbrook:  Was  invented  by  Val  Scott? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  was  not  only  invented 
by  Val  Scott  but  was  credited  to  Val  Scott 
by  the  member's  hon.  colleague  when  he  first 
presented  it. 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  He  didn't  know  it  either 
then.  The  two  of  them  are  ignorant. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  the  member  is  wrong.  He 
doesn't  know  what  a  nightmare  Val  Scott  is. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Haliburton): 
Val  Scott  stole  it  from  Eugene,  Ore.,  USA. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  He  calls  his  fellow  members 
ignorant. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Say  something  about  final 
offer  arbitration.  Get  into  the  debate. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


251 


Mr.  MacDonald:  What  I  wanted  to  say,  so 
that  I  can  conclude  this  portion  of  my  re- 
marks with  regard  to  the  initiative  taken  by 
the  hon.  member  for  York  Centre  in  peddling 
the  ideas  of  Val  Scott,  to  the  current  shock 
to  the  hon.  member  for  Sarnia— 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  don't  know  where  I  get 
good  ideas. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Good  ideas?  What's 
wrong  with  the  member?  I  want  to  say  this; 
What  my  ultimate  assessment  of  this  pro- 
posal will  be  I  honestly  don't  know,  but  what 
I  do  know  and  what  I  said  to  the  teachers 
up  there  is  that  I  object  to  the  proposition 
of  switching  the  rules  in  the  middle  of  the 
game.  This  is  what  the  hon.  member  for 
York  Centre  was  attempting  to  do— to  come 
up  with  this  kind  of  a  proposal  after  the 
teachers  had  got  locked  into  a  situation  with 
their  board  and  after  their  confidence  in  their 
relationship  with  that  board  had  been  so 
completely  destroyed.  Therefore,  what  in 
effect  he  was  proposing— and  I  almost  believe 
he  didn't  realize  it  himself— was  that  having 
opposed  compulsory  arbitration  here  in  the 
House  on  Bill  274  and  having  professed  to 
be  opposed  to  compulsory  arbitration  almost 
irrevocably,  he  was  trying  to  smuggle  it  in 
the  back  door— after  having  professed  to  be 
opposed  to  it  at  the  front  door.  That's  what 
the  final  offer  of  selection  was  going  to  be 
under  these  circumstances. 

Mr.  A.  Carruthers  (Durham):  That's  right; 
that's  right. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  members  for  Wentworth 
(Mr.  Deans)  and  York  North  were  arguing 
for  free  collective  bargaining  and  the  Liberals 
were  arguing  for  arbitration.  How  do  the 
members  like  that?  The  Liberal  Party,  flying 
its  colours  again. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  give  you 
my  word  of  honour,  from  this  point  forward 
I  am  not  going  to  say  another  word  about 
the  Liberal  Party  and  its  role  during  this 
debate  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  He  won't  mention  Val 
Scott  either. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  We  have 
always  spoken  well  of  the  member  for  York 
South. 


Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South):  The 
member  for  Downsview  is  off  on  another 
tangent  there. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  detailed 
knowledge  and  my  exposure  to  this  whole 
confrontation  in  the  county  of  York  was 
pretty  well  restricted  to  one  day.  Quite 
frankly,  it  was  one  of  the  most  memorable 
days  I  have  had  in  some  20  years  of  Ontario 
politics.  I  had  to  go  up  and  share  a  plat- 
form with  a  representative  from  each  of  the 
other  parties,  one  of  whom  was  absent  as  he 
is  absent  again  this  afternoon— namely  the 
hon.  member  for  York  North  because  he 
didn't  think  the  cause  of  the  Conservative 
Party  at  that  point  was  defensible  in  that 
particular  atmosphere 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  He's  just 
gone  out  for  a  phone  call  did  the  member 
say? 

An  hon.  member:  Yes. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  How  can 
he  be  in  the  phone  booth  and  the  wash- 
room at  the  same  time? 

Mr.  Laughren:  With  a  glass  in  his  hand? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Like  "heck-ell"  he  has! 
If  one  can  get  a  combination  of  heck  and 
hell  together,  that's  what  one  gets  from  what 
I  said. 

Yes;  York  South,  Mr.  Speaker! 

I  attended  a  meeting  with  some  300  of 
the  teachers  who  were  engaged  in  one  of 
their  afternoon  or  full-length  day  sessions 
considering  the  whole  problem  that  had  been 
created  by  this  withdrawal  of  their  services. 

It  was,  I  repeat,  a  very  memorable  kind 
of  afternoon  and  I  wfll  tell  members  the 
thing  that  came  through  to  anybody  who 
became  aware  of  the  detafls  in  that  argu- 
ment and  of  the  atmosphere  that  had  been 
created:  It  was  that  the  system  in  the 
county  of  York  had  completely  broken  down. 
An  impasse  had  been  reached.  The  relation- 
ships between  teachers  and  board  of  educa- 
tion had  deteriorated  to  a  point  where  one 
almost  wonders  when  they  can  be  restored 
again.  The  relationships  between  the 
teachers  and  the  director  of  education  could 
hardly  be  described  in  words  that  would  be 
parliamentary.  This  was  the  message  that 
came  through 

Therefore,  one  didn't  need  to  view  the 
situation   very  long  to  realize   that  at  some 


252 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


early  date  there  was  going  to  be  need  for 
intervention  from  the  outside,  because  the 
parties  themselves  weren't  going  to  be  able 
to  resolve  the  situation. 

There  was  an  absolute  refusal  on  the 
part  of  the  board  to  consider  pupil-teacher 
ratio,  although  everywhere  else  it  has  gen- 
erally been  accepted  as  a  legitimate  item 
for  negotiation  and  for  arbitration.  And  the 
thing  that  puzzles  me  about  the  minister's 
posture  on  this  particular  issue  now  is  that 
he  so  long  refused  to  intervene  and  to  insist 
that  this  was  a  legitimate  topic;  and  by  his 
refusal  to  intervene  he  prolonged  the  strike. 
He  personally  or  his  ministry  was  respon- 
sible for  prolonging  the  strike.  And  he  has 
now  conceded  frankly  to  the  world  that  he 
is  wrong,  because  he  has  brought  in  a 
bill  in  which  he  flatly  asserts  and  states 
that  this  is  a  topic  that  is  negotiable  and 
can  be  subject  to  arbitration. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  He  said  so  some  time  ago. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  if  he  said  so  some 
time  ago,  he  should  have  said  so  in  a  way 
that  nobody  else  would  have  had  any  doubt 
about  it.  Indeed,  the  one  party  in  the  dis- 
pute that  was  road-blocking  any  possibility 
of  a  resolution  of  it,  should  have  been  told 
that  it  was  a  negotiable  item.  But  the  minis- 
ter didn't  say  it.  Therefore,  as  has  been 
pointed  out  in  this  debate,  the  minister  in  a 
very  real  sense,  despite  all  his  noble  and 
hard-working  efforts  otherwise,  was  respon- 
sible for  the  prolongation  of  this  strike  situa- 
tion, if  not  for  its  initial  breakdown. 

There  is  another  point  that  came  through, 
Mr.  Speaker,  from  a  very  cursory  exposure 
to. the  facts  of  the  situation  up  in  York.  It  is 
that  —  and  as  I  attended  many  other  meet- 
ings it  was  often  repeated  —  it  wa$  that 
about  70  per  cent  of  the  budget  in  most 
boards  of  education  goies  for  teachers'  salaries. 
NoW,  when  people  hear  that  at  first  they're 
a  little  bit  taken  aback.  That  bolsters  the 
public  image  that  some  people  spend  so" 
much  time  attempting  to  build  these  days, 
that  teachers  are  the  real  problem  in  terms 
of  high  edtication  costs.  But  about  70  per 
cent  of  the  costs  in  hospitals  goes  for  salaries. 
It  goes  to  the  people  who  are  providing  the 
service.  And  teachers  are  a  very  important 
element  in  the  schoolroom,  providing  the 
education  for  the  children.  The  teachers  and 
the  working  conditions  —  that  is  education. 

The  pupil-teacher  ratio,  as  was  pointed 
out  by  my  colleague  who  is  the  educational 
spokesman  for  this  party,  the  whole  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  may  be  construed  by  the  pub- 
lic as  the  working  conditions  of  the  teacher; 


but  the  working  conditions  of  the  teacher 
are  the  learning  conditions  of  the  pupil.  They 
are  one  and  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well  said! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Therefore,  the\-  are  a 
very  relevant  part;  and  there's  no  surprise 
that  they  are  70  per  cent  of  the  budget.  But 
what  startled  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  that  I 
discovered  in  the  county  of  York,  that  teach- 
ers' salaries  comprised  approximately  57  per 
cent  of  the  budget. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Oh,  get  your  figures  right! 

Mr.   W.   Hodgson:    Yes,  the  member  is   a 

little  low, 

Mr.  Deacon:  Everybody's  all  over  the 
place  in  those  ratios. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  all  I'm  saving  is 
that  I  have  heard  a  lot  of  arguments  as  to 
what  is  the  accurate  percentage— 

'Mr.  Deacon:  Well,  the  member  should 
state  what  his  sources  are  or  what  amount 
he  is  talking  about,  because  the  ratios  range 
all  over  the  place. 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Ediucation)i 
Sounds  too  low. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Okay. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Has  the  member  for  York 
Centre  concluded  his  speech? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Let  me  not  get  into  an 
argument  on  this,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  will  agree 
with  my  friend  that  there  has  been  a  lot  of 
ai'gument  as  to  what  is  the  appropriate 
figure.  Various  people  come  up  with  various 
yardsticks.  It  has  been  stated  that  the 
teacher  proportion  of  the  budget  is  as  low 
as  57  per  cent.  TTiere  are  others  wfro  argue 
it  is  higher. 

Let  me  try  to  get  out  of  an  argumient  on 
statistics.  The  teacher  salary  proportion  of 
the  budget  is  lower  in  the  York  county  board 
than  it  is  in  virtually  any  other  board  — 
certainly  it  is  away  below  the  average  for 
all  of  the  Province  of  Ontario.  Let's  get  it 
under  that  generalization.  Therefore,  all  I'm 
saying  is  that  the  government  has  another 
reason,  though  as  my  leader  has  pointed  out 
salaries  weren't  really  the  thing  that  brought 
this  to  the  impasse,  they  weren't  really  the 
thing.  But  salaries,  in  the  first  instance,  were 
one  of  the  irritants  that  created  that  sense 
of  grievance  in  the  teachers  vis-a-vis  the 
board. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


253 


I  went  down'  with  my  hon.  friend  the 
member  for  Beaches-Woodbine  (Mr.  Wardle) 
and  shared  with  him  a  meeting  of  the 
teachers  on  Main  St.  in  the  east  end  of 
Toronto.  I  was  rather  fascinated  to  hear 
teachers  in  Toronto  getting  up  and  asking 
him  questions  as  to  why  it  was,  for  example, 
in  York  county  that  teachers  with  essentially 
the  same  jobs  were  getting  $l,000-plus  less 
than  they  were  getting  in  the  city  of  Toronto. 

This  was  generally  a  factor,  and  this 
created  something  of  a  climate,  and  while  the 
salary  issue  tended  to  fade  into  the  back- 
ground and  to  be  overshadowed  by  PTR 
and  by  other  issues,  it  was  one  of  the  issues 
that  created  the  whole  impasse  in  the  first 
instance. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  ceilings  are  substantially 
less  up  there  too. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That  may  well  have  been. 

The  third  point  that  became  very  clear 
from  an  assessing  of  the  situation,  and  this 
has  been  referred  to  by  virtually  everybody 
who  has  spoken  so  far,  is  the  role  of  the 
director  of  education.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
when  I  make  the  comment  that  the  system 
had  broken  down,  it  had  broken  down  in  so 
many  ways  that  it  is  almost  a  story  in  itself. 
One  had  the  impression  that  the  director  of 
education  was  not  only  running  the  educa- 
tional system,  but  he  was  running  the  board; 
that  the  board,  in  effect:,  had  abdicated  much 
of  its  responsibihty.  The  members  may  have 
been  claiming  in  one  breath  that  they  were 
the  elected  representatives  of  the  people  and 
therefore  they  should  be  able  to  have  man- 
agement rights  and  everything  else,  but  in 
fact  they  had  conceded  many  of  their  legi- 
timate rights— much  as  they  may  talk  of  local 
autonomy— to  a  hireling  of  the  board,  namely 
the  director  of  education.  That  was  another 
serious  element  in  the  deteriorating  situation. 

I  was  most  intrigued,  and  indeed  puzzled, 
to  discover  that  in  that  day's  discussion  up 
at  Richmond  Hill  with  the  teachers  there 
was  also  a  very  widespread  feeling  among 
those  present,  including  some  people  who 
weren't  teachers,  that  in  earlier  instances  in 
Ontario  where  difficulties  had  arisen  with 
regard  to  a  director  of  education  being  the 
evil  genius  in  the  picture,  particularly  down 
near  Windsor,  it  had  been  virtually  impos- 
sible for  a  board  to  get  rid  of  a  director  of 
education.  It  was  even  said  that  the  Ministry 
of  Education  tended  to  line  up  and  support 
the  director  of  education  so  that  there  was 
sort  of  a  united  front  against  the  board  when 
it  was  trying  to  regain  some  of  that  precious 
local  autonomy. 


It  was  a  breakdown  in  the  system.  Be- 
cause there  was  a  breakdown  in  the  system, 
Mr.  Speaker,  it  became  very  clear  that  some- 
body had  to  intervene  to  break  the  impasse. 
The  man  who  could  and  should  have  inter- 
vened, I  suggest,  was  the  minister  himself,  or 
somebody  whom  he  might  have  appointed  on 
his  behalf. 

I  share  with  the  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  some  misgivings  about  the 
proposition  of  complete  trusteeship,  because 
complete  trusteeship  means  one  takes  over 
the  board  in  all  of  its  ramifications  and  all 
of  its  responsibilities,  and  how  one  sort  of 
hands  it  back  without  having  an  election 
and  getting  a  new  board  is  a  very  diflBcult 
kind  of  process. 

If  the  government  had  an  impasse  in  the 
negotiations,  as  it  surely  had  an  impasse  in 
York  county,  it  would  have  been  possible 
for  the  minister  to  step  in  and  to  take  charge 
of  those  negotiations,  as  indeed  the  Minister 
of  Labour  has  on  occasion  when  the  govern- 
ment reached  impasses  in  labour-manage- 
ment disputes.  Because  of  the  prestige  of 
his  office  and  because  of  his  presumably 
firm  behef  that  some  of  those  items  like 
PTR  were  negotiable  and  should,  if  neces- 
sary, be  sent  to  arbitration,  he  could  have 
begun  to  break  the  logjam.  But  because  he 
didn't  step  in  in  a  strike  that  started  about 
Feb.   1,  it  went  on  for  some  six  weeks. 

Allegedly,  the  reason  for  the  government's 
hesitancy  to  do  this  is  its  respect  for  local 
autonomy  and  its  desire  not  to  breach  this 
sacrosanct  local  autonomy.  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
for  one  never  buy  that  argument.  There  are 
too  many  occasions  when  this  goveniment  is 
willing  to  breach  local  autonomy  when  they 
contend  it  is  for  some  higher  purpose,  and 
for  the  public  interest,  and  so  on.  Certainly, 
in  this  instance,  the  kind  of  situation  that 
had  developed  and  the  minister's  concern 
and  the  growing  concern  of  everybody  else 
about  the  fact  that  the  schools  weren't  operat- 
ing and  the  children  weren't  getting  the  edu- 
cation that  they  were  entitled  to  made  it  a 
paramount  factor  that  justified  what  he  might 
deem  to  be  a  temporary  aberration,  a  tem- 
porary breaching  of  local  autonomy,  at  least 
to   get  some  resolution  of  the   difficulties. 

The  real  message,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  comes 
through  on  this  is  that  the  government  has 
a  basic  commitment  which,  despite  the  min- 
ister's efforts  otherwise  to  avoid  it,  it  always 
comes  back  to.  That  is  a  basic  commitment 
to  the  concept  of  compulsory  arbitration  as 
being  the  method  for  solving  unresolved  dif- 
ficulties in  this  field. 


254 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  said  in  December  when  we  were  speak- 
ing on  second  reading  of  Bill  274  that  the 
government  had  taken  a  stance  of  great  un- 
happiness  at  having  to  bring  Bill  274  into 
the  House.  They  were  almost  paraphrasing 
the  comment  of  the  father  who  is  whipping 
his  unruly  son  and  saying,  "Look,  son,  I 
don't  like  to  do  this.  It  hurts  me  more  than 
it  hurts  you."  This  was  the  posture  of  the 
government  that  they  didn't  like  compulsory 
arbitration. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  simply  don't  believe  that 
is  the  case,  because  compulsory  arbitration 
has  become  the  centrepiece  of  the  govern- 
ment's philosophy  in  terms  of  collective  bar- 
gaining procedures.  It  was  the  government's 
philosophy  back  in  1964  in  the  whole  hospital 
workers  situation  in  Trenton  when  one  had 
another  duplication  of  a  complete  impasse, 
another  duplication  of  a  situation  in  which 
there  was  no  bargaining  in  good  faith,  in 
which  one  had  had  an  impartial  conciliation 
board  chairman  sharing  along  with  the  work- 
ers' representative  on  the  conciliation  board 
the  most  devastating  condemnation  of  the 
management  attitude  and  actions  throughout 
all  that. 

Yet  in  that  instance,  instead  of  bringing 
in  a  bill  which  would  have  at  least  dealt  with 
that  situation  alone,  the  government  brought 
in  a  bill  which  imposed  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion upon  hospital  workers  all  across  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  That  was  done  over  the 
decision  and  the  honourable  promise  given 
by  a  minister  not  to  do  it,  but  to  bring  in  a 
specific  piece  of  legislation  to  deal  in  an 
ad  hoc  fashion  with  that  situation.  The  govern- 
ment repeated  it  again  when  we  got  into  the 
civil  service  legislation.  Now  it  is  repeating 
it  with  the  teachers'  situation  in  collective 
bargaining.  At  least  in  this  instance  the 
minister  has  brought  in  a  bill  to  deal  with 
the  last  of  the  16  or  17  unresolved  board- 
teacher  negotiations.  He  is  going  to  deal 
with  it  alone.  It  involves  compulsory  arbi- 
tration. The  broader  threat  of  compulsory 
arbitration  as  a  strait-jacket  to  be  imposed 
upon  teachers  as  a  whole  has  already  been 
laid  on  the  table  in  this  House  in  the  form  of 
Bill  274  in  the  last  session. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  government's  commit- 
ment is  to  a  procedure  which  simply  will  not 
work.  It  hasn't  worked  in  terms  of  the  ob- 
jective which  the  government  itself  professed 
with  regard  to  the  hospital  workers  of  getting 
this  group  higher  up  in  a  wage  scale  so  that 
they  wouldn't  be  working  at  subsistence 
level.  Their  differentials  have  widened.  It  is 
not  going  to  work  in  the  instance  of  teachers 
either   in   this   specific   instance   because   the 


government  is  going  to  make  a  bad  situation 
worse  even  though  it  may  get  them  back  into 
the  schools.  And  it  certainly  isn't  going  to 
work  when  we  get  into  permanent  legislation, 
partly  because  it  is  wrong  in  principle  and 
partly  because  it  is  particularly  inapplicable 
when  one  gets  into  the  very  peculiar  kind  of 
circumstances  in  labour-management  relations 
in  an  educational  situation.  As  everybody 
who  has  spoken  so  far  has  said,  the  com- 
pulsory principle  of  this  bill  is  abhorrent, 
and  we  are  going  to  oppose  it  precisely  be- 
cause that  principle  is  abhorrent. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor-Walker  ville): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to  record  my  objections  to 
Bill  12,  the  bill  introduced  by  the  minister 
yesterday,  An  Act  respectinig  a  Certain  Dis- 
pute between  York  County  Board  of  Educa- 
tion and  certain  of  its  Teachers.  I  do  so, 
Mr.  Speaker,  regretting  the  minister  did  in- 
troduce such  legislation,  legislation  that 
would  deal  with  forcing  a  group  of  teachers 
back  to  work  simply  because  of  a  stubborn 
or  an  obstinate  board  that  wouldn't  accept 
what  the  minister  had  said  at  one  time  that 
pupil-teacher  ratio  was  a  negotiable  item. 

However,  at  the  same  time,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  should  criticize  the  minister,  very,  very 
strongly  for  not  having  spoken  out  loudly 
and  strongly  in  the  early  stages  of  the  board- 
teacher  negotiations  that  pupil-teacher  ratio 
would  be  an  negotiable  item  and  also  that 
ceilings  could  be  broached. 

Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  outset  I  should  com- 
mend the  hon.  member  for  York  Centre 
for  his  role  in  an  attempt  to  resolve 
the  problem  in  his  area.  He  has  met 
vdth  individual  teachers  and  with  teachers' 
groups.  He  has  met  with  federations.  He  has 
met  with  the  board  members  individually 
and  collectively.  He  has  met  with  students. 
He  has  met  with  parents,  individually  and 
collectively,  as  well  as  with  residents  of  his 
riding  and  the  county  of  York  who  may  not 
have  had  a  direct  involvement  in  the  situa- 
tion because  they  had  no  children  attending 
any  of  the  York  schools.  I  think  the  member 
for  York  Centre  is  to  be  commended  for  his 
efforts  in  an  attempt  to  resolve  the  situation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  before  any  type  of  negotia- 
tions can  be  effective,  there  must  be  a  sense 
of  trust,  a  sense  of  faith,  a  sense  of  concern, 
a  sense  of  goodwill  and  a  sense  of  good 
faith  bargaining.  In  the  York  situation  ap- 
parently a  lot  of  these  elements  were  missing. 
I  am  not  going  to  mention  anything  of  the 
role  of  the  director  of  education  and  how 
he  may  have  held  back  the  real  eventual 
solution  of  the  problem  at  an  earlier  stage. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


255 


I  will  leave  that  comment  for  those  that  are 
a  little  more  knowledgeable  concerning  him. 
However,  Mr.  Speaker,  boards  have  to 
realize  that  the  master-servant  relationship 
has  gone.  It  has  gone  long  ago.  In  the  US 
they  claimed  that  Lincoln  freed  the  slaves 
back  100  years  ago.  The  slaves  in  education 
in  the  eyes  of  some  boards  are  the  school 
teachers.  We  got  rid  of  slavery.  There  is  no 
need  to  maintain  the  attitude  that  teachers 
must  continue  to  be  slaves.  They  have  a  con- 
tribution to  make  and  they  want  to  make  that 
contribution.  There  must  be  co-operation, 
there  must  be  trust  and  there  must  be  will- 
ingness to  try  to  resolve  the  differences. 

I  can  look  back  at  the  situation  in  my  own 
area,  Mr.  Speaker.  Imagine  how  you  are  go- 
ins;  to  develop  trust  and  faith  in  a  board,  if 
after  attempting  to  fight  for  a  basic  demo- 
cratic principle,  the  right  to  withhold  your 
services,  or  in  the  eyes  of  some,  the  right 
to  strike,  teachers  in  the  area  withdrew  their 
services  for  one  day,  and  rather  than  possibly 
be  slapped  on  the  wrist  or  simply  have  their 
pay  deducted,  the  board  comes  through  and 
sends  to  each  teacher  involved  the  following 
type  of  letter: 

The  purpose  of  this  letter  is  to  inform 
you  that  due  to  your  absence  without  the 
consent  of  the  Board  of  Education  for  the 
City  of  Windsor  on  Tuesday,  Dec.  18, 
1973,  you  are  in  breach  of  contract. 

That  paragraph  is  all  right.  But  listen  to  this, 

Mr.  Speaker. 

The  board  takes  a  very  serious  view  of 
breach  of  contract.  Should  you  be  in 
breach  of  contract  in  the  future,  the 
board  will  consider  it  as  cause  for  im- 
mediate termination  of  your  contract. 

There  we  go  back  to  the  Abraham  Lincoln 
days,  the  master-servant  concept.  We  thought 
that- 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Board- 
teacher  relations. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  —was  an  18th  or  a  19th 
century  and  not  a  20th  century  concept. 
We  thought  that  went  by  the  board  years 
and  years  ago— more  than  100  years  ago— 
in  our  British  democratic  systems. 

Mr.  Speaker,  that  letter  was  by  the  public 
board.  The  separate  board  was  a  little  more 
mild  in  its  approach.  I  thought  the  letter 
by  them  was  at  least  acceptable.  However, 
the  separate  board  did  not  seem  to  be  willing 
to  bargain  in  good  faith. 

I  am  bringing  this  out,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
show    to    you    that    the    situation    from    my 


understanding  is  exactly  the  same  situation 
as  in  the  York  area,  the  lack  of  bargaining 
in  good  faith.  When  the  Windsor  separate 
board  suspended  a  principal,  when  the 
Windsor  separate  board  fired  a  teacher  for 
taking  part  in  or  for  withholding  services, 
just  as  did  every  teacher  in  the  system  in 
an  attempt  to  fight  for  their  democratic  right, 
the  right  to  withhold  their  services,  a  right 
that  is  granted  practically  everyone  in  our 
society  that  is  not  under  an  essential  service 
category,  when  the  board  wishes  to  appeal  a 
potential  arbitration  award,  you  wonder 
sometimes  if  the  people  of  the  board  are 
living  in  the  20th  century. 

Don't  they  realize  that  teachers  are 
humans  just  as  they  are?  They  want  to 
remain  in  their  classrooms,  but  when  they  are 
forced  to  the  wall  they  have  no  other  alter- 
native but  to  fight  for  their  rights.  If  fight- 
ing for  their  rights  means  that  they  have 
to  withdraw  their  services,  there  is  nothing 
else  that  they  can  possibly  do.  They  are  by 
far  more  interested  in  the  education  of 
students  that  come  under  their  wing  than 
are  the  board  members.  They  take  a  personal 
involvement.  This,  to  them,  is  more  than 
simply  a  livelihood  it  is  a  career.  It  is 
generally  something  to  which  they  have 
dedicated  their  whole  lives.  We  all  entrust 
our  children  to  their  hands  for  their  educa- 
tion. Yet,  Mr.  Speaker,  when  the  teachers 
of  a  board  want  to  negotiate  a  thing  such 
as  pupil-teacher  ratio,  which  is  really  con- 
ditions of  work,  who  knows  better  than  does 
the  teacher  the  working  conditions  that  would 
be  more  conducive  to  better  education  for 
the  student  who  is  exposed  to  that  teacher? 

When  the  teachers  in  the  province  see 
actions  on  the  part  of  boards  such  as  the 
two  that  I  have  mentioned  here,  you  can't 
wonder  why  they  don't  have  the  confidence 
in  the  boards  that  all  of  us  would  like  to  see 
them  have.  When  they  see  board  after  board 
not  bargaining  in  good  faith,  it  leaves  them 
reason  to  doubt. 

A  lot  has  been  made,  Mr.  Speaker,  con- 
cerning the  loss  of  time  by  the  students,  the 
loss  of  attendance.  At  the  end  of  this  week, 
I  understand  some  30  teaching  days  will 
have  been  missed  by  the  student.  One  day  is 
one  day  too  much.  But  education  isn't  all  in 
a  classroom.  The  committee  on  the  utiliza- 
tion of  educational  facilities  in  its  very  first 
recommendation,  in  the  preamble  to  the 
recommendation,  says  that  "an  education  is 
not  confined  to  the  facilities  traditionally 
designated  as  educational.  It  is  our  view  that 
educational    facilities    must    include    all    the 


256 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


places  where  education  is  being  and  can  be 
pursued." 

Mind  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  book  learn- 
ing for  given  topics  generally  takes  place  in 
the  classroom,  but  despite  the  fact  that  the 
students  lost  the  30  days,  the  teachers  didn't 
want  them  to  lose  the  30  days— or  it  will  be 
30  days  at  the  end  of  this  week.  The  stu- 
dents didn't  want  to  lose  the  30  days;  the 
board  members  didn't  want  this  to  take 
place.  This  could  have  been  avoided,  had 
the  Minister  of  Education  come  out  loud  and 
clear  immediately  upon  the  introduction  of 
Bill  274  that  pupil-teacher  ratio  would  be  a 
negotiable  item. 

What  he  would  have  been  saying  is  that 
"we,  as  a  government,  are  interested  in  the 
quality  of  education.  We  want  the  best 
education  possible  for  the  students  in  our 
school  system."  But  by  not  coming  out  and 
spelling  out  the  fact  that  the  pupil-teacher 
ratio  would  be  a  negotiable  item,  he,  in  turn 
said,  "We're  not  too  interested  in  quality 
education.  We're  interested  in  the  cheapest 
type  of  education  that  we  can  possibly  get." 

I  hope  that  wasn't  the  idea  and  the  at- 
titude of  the  ministry.  The  30  days  will  be 
lost  if  the  students  are  not  back  before  the 
end  of  this  week.  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are 
ways  in  which  the  school  system  could  catch 
up  on  the  30  days.  Tm  not  the  one  to  tell 
them  that  they  should  do  it.  I  think  that 
is  a  decision  that  has  to  be  made  by  both 
the  teachers  and  the  board  involved.  There 
are  five  days  of  next  week  that  could  be 
used.  I'm  not  suggesting  that  the  students 
not  have  a  break.  I'm  not  suggesting  that 
the  teachers  don't  have  a  break.  But  we 
could  make  up  five  days  next  week.  We 
likevidse  have  a  series  of  12  professional 
development  days  that  undfer  the  unusual 
circumstances  of  this  year  could  be  put  into 
teaching  days.  Next  year  we  could  go  back 
into  the  professional  development  days  if  it 
is  the  wish  of  the  teachers  and  the  board. 

iThere  is  also  generally  on  the  secondary 
level  the  month  of  June  that  is  not  used  to 
capacity,  to  full  time,  in  relation  to  class- 
room teaching  and/ or  testing.  I  can'  recall 
at  one  time  in  my  ed'ucational  experience 
that  on  about  the  first  week  of  June  the 
formal  classroom  education  was  over.  There 
were  probably  four  or  five  days  of  actual 
teaching  and  then  there  were  roughly  two 
weeks  in  which  the  teachers  either  marked 
their  papers  or  there  were  promotion  exams. 

iWere  we  to  extend,  if  the  teachers  and 
the  board  wished  to,  teaching  up  into  the 
month  of  June  and/or  hold  promotions  either 
late  in  June  or  early  in  July,  we  could  catch 


up  the  30  days.  We  could  likewise  catch 
up  the  30  days,  Mr.  Speaker,  by  the  exten- 
sion of  the  school  day,  if  necessary.  We 
could  likewise  catch  up  the  loss  by  the  use 
of  summer  programmes  that  my  leader  made 
mention  of  in  the  question  period,  if  that 
is  the  wish  of  both  the  teachers  and  the 
board  involved. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  time  could  be  caught  up 
in  a  number  of  ways.  The  decision  should 
be  left  up  to  both  the  teachers  and  the 
board,  so  that  no  studbnt  would  suffer 
academically  as  a  result  of  the  30  days  in 
which  the  schools  on  the  secondary  level 
were  not  open.  There  is  always  the  concern 
of  the  grade  13  student.  If  the  Ministry  of 
Education  and  the  goveirnment  had  taken 
their  own  recommendations  —  and  that  was 
the  assimilation  of  grade  13  by  absorption 
over  the  four  years  in  the  secondary  level, 
or  four  years  in  the  secondary  level  and 
two  years  in  the  elementary  level,  we 
wouldn't  have  had  a  grade  13.  We  wouldn't 
have  that  problem.  Now  that  we  have  the 
problem,  we  have  to  assist  those  students 
that  need  assistance,  so  that  it  doesn't  deprive 
them  of  the  opportunity  to  continue  their 
post-secondary  education. 

1 1  think  they  can  be  accommodated  by 
mutual  agreement  among  all  three  parties 
involved,  that  is,  the  teachers,  the  board  and 
the  students.  No  one  wants  to  see  any  of 
the  students  suffer,  but  had  the  ministry 
eliminated  grade  13  you  would  have  had  a 
cheaper  secondary  education.  The  boards 
probably  would  have  been  able  to  operate, 
or  may  have  been  able  to  operate,  within 
budget. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  have  to  fault  the 
Minister  of  Education  for  not  having  intro- 
duced some  type  of  boardi-teacher  negotia- 
tion legislation.  He  has  had  sufficient  time 
since  the  Reville  report  has  been  tabled  in 
the  House  to  come  up  with  some  answers 
to  the  problem.  I  am  not  saying  that  he 
should  have  adopted  what  Reville  suggested, 
but  he  could  have  come  along  in  consulta- 
tion with  boards  and  teachers'  organizations 
over  the  past  year  and  arrived'  at  something 
that  would  have  been  more  satisfactory,  or 
maybe  even  completely  satisfactory,  to  all 
parties  concerned. 

The  introduction  of  Bill  274,  Mr.  Speaker, 
did  one  good  thing  and  that  was  it  unified 
the  teachers  to  show  them  that  tmless  they 
work  as  a  body  they  are  going  to  find  that 
government  will  push  them  around.  No 
longer  are  teachers  going  to  stand  up  to  being 
the  scapegoats  in  the  inefficiency  and  the  lack 
of  action  on  the  part  of  the  government. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


257 


Bill  12  that  we  are  discussing  at  this  time 
does  remove  some  of  the  problems,  but  as  I 
made  mention,  problems  that  could  have 
been  removed  months  earlier  had  the  minis- 
ter by  his  comments  made  known  loud  and 
clear  that  the  pupil-teacher  ratio  as  well  as 
ceilings,  these  two  issues,  were  going  to  be 
resolved  or  could  be  resolved. 

Force  is  no  answer.  If  we  come  along  and 
try  to  force  anyone  in  this  House  to  do 
certain  things,  he  may  do  those  things,  but 
he  does  them  with  rebellion  on  the  inside 
of  him,  and  the  first  chance  he  has  to  get 
back  at  the  individual  who  forced  him  to 
take  that  action,  he  will  come  along  and 
rebel. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  teachers  here  don't  want 
to  be  forced  back  to  work.  They  can  resolve 
the  problems  and  they  would  have  resolved 
the  problems,  had  the  minister  spoken  out 
in  the  latter  part  of  last  year.  Teachers  want 
to  negotiate  their  working  conditions.  Why 
shouldn't  they  want  to  negotiate  their  work- 
ing conditions?  That  is  not  unreasonable,  is  it? 

The  employees  of  Ford,  Chrysler,  General 
Motors,  ,  the  auto  workers,  negotiate  their 
working  conditions,  not  that  I  am  trying  to 
equate  the  school  teacher  with  the  industrial 
worker  and  not  that  I  am  trying  to  degrade 
the  industrial  worker  in  any  aspect  whatso- 
ever. But  the  industrial  worker,  is  a  little 
more  advanced  when  it  comes  to  talking 
with  his  employer.  He  negotiates  with  the 
employer  as  to  the  number  of  cars  that  are 
going  to  be  turned  out  in  an  hour,  the 
number  of  men  that  are  going  to  be  work- 
ing on  the  line  to  produce  the  cars  and  the 
speed  with  which  the  line  is  going  to  operate. 
All  of  these  things  are  taken  into  consider- 
ation and  the  employer  accepts  that. 

What  is  the  difference  with  the  teachers? 
They  are  human  in  just  the  same  way  as  is 
the  industrial  auto  worker.  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
elected  representatives  don't  determine  how 
fast  an  assembly  line  is  to  move  or  how 
many  cars  are  to  be  produced.  The  elected 
officials  are  not  being  involved  in  the  work- 
ing conditions  as  far  as  the  auto  worker  is 
concerned.  The  elected  officials  aren't  in- 
volved in  the  working  conditions  in  a  hos- 
pital. That  is  done  by  others. 

The  teachers,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  interested 
in  improving  the  learning  atmosphere  in  the 
classroom.  Who  knows  more  about  this  learn- 
ing atmosphere  than  those  professionally 
trained  to  work  in  a  classroom?  The  pupil 
teacher-ratio  or  the  conditions  of  work  are 
extremely  important.  We  need  a  realistic 
appraisal  of  the  contribution  of  the  teacher 
to  society.  Surely  we  can't  hold  the  teacher 


accountable  for  the  education  of  future  gen- 
erations if  we  deny  to  that  teacher  a  voice 
in  the  formulation  and  direction  of  that  same 
education. 

If  teachers  are  given  some  control  over  the 
system  in  which  they  must  function,  then 
they  can  be  held  accountable  for  the  effects 
of  those  educational  policies.  If  we  are  in- 
terested in  quality  education,  we  have  to  be 
interested  in  the  pupil-teacher  ratio.  I  am 
very  pleased  to  see  that  the  minister  has  re- 
solved that  issue  now,  but  it  could  have  been 
resolved  months  ago. 

Mr.  Deacon:  It  should  have  been,  too. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  As  far  as  ceilings  are  con- 
cerned, Mr.  Speaker— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  said  it  last  year  but  the 
member  wasn't  listening. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Why  didn't 
the  minister  agree  to  this  formula  before? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  If  it  was  really  his  view,^ 
why  didn't  he  speak  up? 

Mr.  Roy:  He  never  said  it  publicly  in  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Everybody  knows  my^ 
views.  Yes,  I  did. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
minister  had  been  loud  and  clear  concerning 
the  ceiling  situation,  then  that  obstacle  could 
have  been  removed  and  the  resolution  of 
the  problem  would  have  been  accelerated. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Or  the  pupil-teacher  ratio. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  want  to  ask  of  the 
minister  at  this  time,  if  in  the  course  of  the 
negotiations  the  ceilings  are  broached,  then 
where  will  the  money  come  from  to  take  care 
of  the  new  demands  on  the  board?  Is  this 
going  to  be  a  loan  against  future  grants?  Are 
we  simply  postponing  the  day  of  recovery? 
In  the  light  of  declining  enrolments,  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  better  system  has  to  be  devised, 
to  the  agreement  of  both  sides,  to  resolve 
the  issue  of  declining  enrolments  and  its 
effect  on  grants  to  the  school  board. 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  minister  going  to  make 
up  the  difference  out  of  his  own  pocket? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  going  to 
compulsory  arbitration  is  not  the  way  to 
resolve  the  problem.  Force  only  begets  force. 
Co-operation,  respect,  trust,  good  faith  and 
goodwill  can  do  wonders.  I  am  disturbed, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  in  some  cases  of  compul- 
sory arbitration,  or  even  in  this  case,  the  cost 
of    the    arbitration    to    the    board,    to    the 


258 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


teachers,  and  likewise  to  the  government  for 
the  arbitration  hearings  cx)uld  be  in  some 
instances  even  greater  than  the  award.  It 
could  cost  more  to  resolve  the  issue  than 
what  the  award  would  amount  to.  Compul- 
sory arbitration  is  not  the  best  way,  especi- 
ally, Mr.  Speaker,  when  my  colleague,  the 
hon.  member  from  York  Centre  has  suggested 
an  alternative.  I  will  support  my  leader,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  vote  against  second  reading  of 
this  bill. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  paused  to  see 
if  there  were  any  members  of  the  govern- 
ment who  wished  to  come  in  and  partake 
in  this  debate.  There  was  a  lot  of  thumping 
of  the  desks  yesterday  as  if  they  approved 
of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Why  aren't  the  members 
for  Parrv'  Sound  (Mr.  Maeck)  and  Peter- 
borough (Mr.  Turner)  here? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Yet  I  don't  see  any  of  them 
jumping  up  today  to  participate.  They  sur- 
prise me. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  can  remember  many  of 
these  members  in  the  debate  on  Bill  274 
jumping  to  their  feet  with  great  enthusiasm. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
for  London  North  (Mr.  Walker)  participate 
in  the  debate? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  can  remember  the  hon. 
member  for  Durham  making  a  contribution 
at  that  time. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Yes.  Would  he  get  his  feet 
off  the  desk  now? 

Mr.  Camithers:  What  the  member  has 
done  so  far  is  waste  time.  He  knows  the 
ans\\'er. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  —and  I'm  waiting  eagerly 
for  his  contribution  in  this  one. 

An  hon.  member:  Does  the  member  think 
he  is  making  any  contribution  to  this? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Would  the  hon.  member 
for  Durham  take  his  feet  off  the  desk? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Up  until  the  last  speaker 
got  up,  the  hon.  member  for  York  North 
was,  I  thought,  waiting  patiently  to  get  in, 
and  he  has  now  left  us.  Anyway,  Mr.  Speaker, 
looking  at  this  bill  before  us,  I  had  the  dis- 
tinct feeling  when  I  first  saw  it  that  the 
Minister  of  Education  had  indeed  learned  a 
lot  since  black  Monday  of  Dec.  10  last. 


Mr.  G.  W.  Walker  (London  North):  Does 
the  member  mean  he  is  going  to  support  it? 

An  hon.  member:  Now  look  who  wants 
to  speak. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Yes,  now  we  are  getting 
some  involvement  here. 

Mr.  Foulds:  You  mean  there  is  a  Tory 
that  can  speak? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  see  them  scribbling  notes 
over  here.  I  guess  they're  about  to  get  in. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Let  them  tell  us  where 
they  stand  on  this  bill. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We'd  be  interested  in  hearing 
what  they  have  to  say.  They're  not  going 
to  get  in  on  this  one.  It's  so  evidently  bad 
in  principle  that  they  are  not  going  to  em- 
barrass themselves  by  getting  up  and  talking 
about  it. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  not  true. 

Mr.  Bouns'all:  Is  the  member  for  Durham 
going  to  get  up  and  talk  about  it  then? 

Mr.  Foulds:  He  should  get  his  feet  off 
the  desk. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We  won't  know  about  their 
thoughts  unless  they  get  up  and  babble 
about  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Those  fellows  will  never 
make  it  to  the  cabinet  if  they  don't  speak 
out  in  the  Legislature!  I  mean,  look  at  the 
member  for  Scarborough  East  (Mrs.  Birch). 
How  is  it  that  the  member  for  Don  Mills 
(Mr.  Timbrell)  made  it  into  the  cabinet? 
By  speaking  on  issues  in  the  Legislature. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): We  want  the  kids  back  in  school. 

Mr.  Camithers:  They  never  know  when 
they're  defeated. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  hon.  member  for  Port 
Arthur  over  there  is  getting  some  advice 
from  the  hon.  member  for  Thunder  Bay  on 
what  to  say  in  the  debate.  Well,  I  hope  he 
has  taken  it  to  heart. 

An  hon.  member:  Fort  William  (Mr. 
Jessiman ) . 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Oh,  I'm  sorry;  Fort  William. 

An  hon.  member:  Say  what  you  have  to 
say  and  don't  repeat  it  to  others. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


259 


Mr,  Bounsall:  That's  why  many  of  them 
don't  talk!  They  haven't  much  new  to  say, 
perhaps. 

Anyway,  looking  at  this  bill  I  had  the  dis- 
tinct feeling  that  the  minister  had,  in  fact, 
learned  a  lot  since  that  famous  black  Mon- 
day. But  by  seeing  compulsory  arbitration 
as  the  only  way  to  settle  this  dispute,  it's 
clear  to  me  that  he  hasn't  quite  finished  his 
education. 

I'm  not  implying  that  he  should  let  this 
dispute  linger  on  further,  so  that  the  Minister 
of  Education  can  simply  complete  his  edtica- 
tion  on  this  score  and  dream  up  some  better 
solutions  —  many  of  which  we're  quite  will- 
ing to  supply  to  him,  as  a  means  of  settling 
this  dispute.  I'm  not  implying  that  at  all. 
But  if  I  could  read  this  bill  with  a  pair  of 
glasses  that  blocked  out  references  to  compul- 
sory arbitration,  I  might  even  be  caught 
saying  that  it  wasn't  a  Jbad  bill.  The  penal- 
ties that  are  outlined  in  it  are  rather  inven- 
tive. He  doesn't  threaten  teachers  v^dth  fines 
or  what  have  you.  He  puts  them  in  a  posi- 
tion- 
Mr.  Foulds:  Contempt  of  court. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  —the  teachers  or  the  board, 
of  being  in  contempt  of  court. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Which  results  in  fines. 

Mr.  Boumall:  Which  implies  fines  and  jail 
sentences,  but  not  necessarily. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  There  could  just  be  a 
reprimand. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Although  it's  not  a  criminal 
offence,  I  think  teachers  or  board  members 
would  probably  be  less  inclined  to  have  on 
their  record  a  contempt  of  court  citation  than 
they  would  be  to  pay  a  $100  fine.  So  I  find 
that  provision  rather  inventive.  And  it  makes 
clear  that  the  board's  last  salary  offer  was  to 
be  a  minimum  for  the  salary  settlement  in 
this  dispute.  That's  not  a  bad  feature.  And, 
of  course,  it  makes  clear  that  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  is  negotiable.  An  obvious  point, 
because  it's  one  of  the  matters  in  dispute. 
It  should  have  been  obvious  all  along. 
Whether  the  pupil-teacher  ratio  is  a  working 
condition  or  whether  it's  a  financial  condi- 
tion, of  course,  doesn't  matter.  It's  one  of 
the  matters  in  dispute  and  it's  obvious  that 
it  has  to  be  settled  by  whatever  means  is 
chosen  to  settle  it.  And  because  it  could  be 
construed  to  be  a  financial  matter  certainly 
does  not  in  any  sense  make  it  a  manage- 
ment right  and  not  subject  to  settlement  by 
\vhatever  means  is  chosen  to  settle  it. 


•But  the  tunnel  vision  of  the  board,  and 
the  board  negotiators,  aroimd  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  is  second  only  to  the  minister's 
own  tunnel  vision  in  seeing  compiJsory  arbi- 
tration as  the  only  final  solution  when'  he 
feels  that  collective  bargaining  has  broken 
dovm. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Tory  tunnels. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It's  the  only  solution  which 
a  Tory  can  think  of.  That's  where  the  minis- 
ter's education  isn't  complete.  And  it's  time 
now  for  him  to  get  out  of  that  tunnel  before 
he  imposes  on  the  province  a  further  bill 
under  which  all  teachers  must  negotiate. 
Look  around  the  world.  Look  outside  Ontario 
and  see  what  other  means  have  been  chosen 
to  govern  the  teacher-board  relationships  in 
other  jurisdictions  around  the  world.  Don't 
be  restricted  with  this  narrow  tunnel  vision 
that  the  government  has  in  this  particular 
solution. 

I  heard  a  remark  from  the  member  for 
York  Centre  that  in  this  dispute  between  the 
York  county  board  and  certain  of  its  teachers 
one  of  the  things  hindering  negotiations  was 
the  fact  the  board's  ceilings  were  lower.  This 
should  have  told  the  Minister  of  Education 
something  about  that  board  if  that,  in  fact,  is 
the  case.  We  heard  this  from  the  member  for 
York  Centre.  Perhaps  the  minister  can  indi- 
cate if  the  member  was  wTong  In  his  com- 
ment that  the  ceilings  in  the  York  county 
board  are  lower  than  they  are  elsewhere.  Is 
this  correct,  Mr,  Minister?  Can  the  minister 
confirm  or  deny  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  What  does  the  mem- 
ber for  Windsor  West  mean  by  lower?  Lower 
than  what? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I'm  quoting  the  member  for 
York  Centre's  words:  "The  ceilings  are  lower 
in  York  county  education,"  I  can  tell  it  to 
the  minister  in  terms  of— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  imagine  if  he  means 
that  the  ceilinigs  for  the  York  county  board, 
when  they're  finally  worked  out,  that  the 
amount  per  pupil  is  lower,  say,  than  Metro- 
politan Toronto,  Probably  they  are.  Yes,  they 
probably  are  a  lower  per-pupil  figure  than 
Metropolitan  Toronto, 

Mr.  Bounsall:  In  other  words,  it's  simply 
due  to  the  weighting  factor  not  being  as 
high.  They  are  not  one  of  the  five  or  six 
boards  that,  when  the  government  imposed 
the  ceilings  initially,  found  that  they  were  so 
far  below  it  that  they  weren't  allowed  to  go 
up  to  it  only  in  steps?  That  was  the  case,  as 
you    know    Mr.    Speaker,    of    the    Windsor 


260 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


boards.  And  it  said  something  very  much 
about  that  board;  that  over  the  years  they 
had  not  been  spending  money  the  vi^ay  they 
should  have.  Well,  I  see  that  that's  due  to 
the  weighting  factors  and  not  to  the  same 
situation  that  existed  with  the  Windsor  board. 
I'm  glad  to  have  that  point  cleared  up. 

One  other  matter  which  was  spoken  of 
rather  heatedly  here  in  the  debate  was  the 
final  offer  arbitration  that  was  proposed  by 
the  member  for  York  Centre.  We  had  some 
words  about  three-quarters  of  an  hour  ago 
about  who  in  this  world  first  dreamed  up 
final  offer  arbitration;  and  confusion  on  the 
part  of  both  parties  in  the  argument  as  to 
whether  or  not  it  was  good. 

Well,  let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
several  states  of  the  United  States  have 
adopted  final  offer  arbitration.  They  have 
embodied  it  in  legislation  as  one  of  the 
routes  to  reach  a  settlement  under  collective 
bargaining  disputes.  On  the  evidence  which 
is  now  readily  available  from  reports  on  final 
offer  arbitration,  any  reasonable  person  would 
dismiss  immediately  final  offer  arbitration  as 
a  satisfactory  means  of  reaching  a  fair  solu- 
tion to  any  dispute. 

Certain  members  have  heard  the  phrase, 
but  have  never  investigated  it;  and  it's  just 
those  members  who  would  propose  this  sort 
of  solution  to  any  dispute. 

Reports  on  this  subject  have  appeared  in 
the  past  year  in  US  News  and  World  Report, 
the  monthly  Labour  Review  of  the  US  De- 
partment of  Labour,  and  the  Industrial 
Labour  Relations  Review— a  publication  of 
the  New  York  State  School  of  Industry  and 
Labour. 

Articles  were  written  by  members  of  those 
final  arbitration  panels,  and  in  each  case  they 
have  come  to  virtually  the  same  conclusion. 
Those  conclusions  about  final  offer  arbitra- 
tion have  been  that  if  the  arbitration  board 
had,  in  fact,  been  given  flexibility  and  had 
not  been  limited  to  choosing  one  of  two  final 
offers  from  each  side,  the  interests  of  both 
parties  would  have  been  advanced. 

Had  they  been  permitted  to  use  their  dis- 
cretion after  the  facts  of  the  case  had  been 
presented  to  it  by  each  side,  a  judgement 
would  have  been  made  which  would  have 
been  workable  and  equitable  and  would  have 
better  met  the  needs  of  both  parties.  These 
are  the  conclusions  of  men  who  have  sat  on 
these  panels. 

The  advocates  of  final  offer  arbitration 
argue— and  I  think  they  argue  quite  hypo- 
thetically,  having  had  no  practical  experi- 
ence—that the  parties  will  refrain  from  mak- 


ing unreasonable  offers  so  that,  in  the  fear 
that  the  final  offer  selected  by  the  panel  is 
not  theirs,  they  will  try  and  make  theirs  a 
reasonable  one.  However,  there  is  no  em- 
pirical evidence  from  any  of  the  negotiations 
prior  to  these  final  offers,  and  the  amounts 
in  those  final  offers,  that  bears  out  this 
hypothesis.  It  could  be  just  as  easily  argued 
that  the  parties  make  unreasonable  final 
offers,  and  simply  attempting  to  be  a  shade 
less  unreasonable  than  the  unreasonable  offer 
of  the  other  party.  There  is  no  evidence  to 
support  that  either.  There  is  no  evidence  to 
support  either  side,  that  it  affects  the  collec- 
tive bargaining  leading  up  to  that  arbitration 
based  on  final  offers. 

The  proponents  of  final  offer  arbitration 
simply  and  completely  fail  to  take  into 
account  properly  the  cost  that  will  have  to 
be  paid  in  the  loss  of  flexibility  and  the 
likelihood  that  the  quality  of  the  decision 
is  likely  to  be  inferior. 

That  is  a  quote  from  an  article  in  the  monthly 
Labour  Review  of  the  US  Department  of 
Labour  by  one  of  the  members  who  sat  upon 
the  panel,  a  Dr.  Fred  Witney,  professor  of 
economics  at  Indiana  University,  in  a  dispute 
between  the  city  of  Indianapolis  and  the 
American  Federation  of  State,  County  and 
Municipal  Employees. 

Mr.  Speaker,  a  great  public  relations  point 
has  tried  to  he  made  by  the  government 
when  it  introduced  this  bill,  and  by  the 
Premier  in  replies  to  questions,  that  all  the 
government  is  interested  in  is  the  Idds  in  this 
province. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  The  students. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  students  in  this  prov- 
ince. All  right. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Don't  be  so  pious. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  not  being  pious.  They 
tell  me  they  want  to  be  called  students. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  They  wanted  to  be  called 
students?  All  right.  Will  the  Premier  sort  of 
bow  to  any  suggestion? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Does  he  want  to  speak  in 
this  debate? 

Mr.  Held:  Is  he  going  to  speak  on  this  bill? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  gather  he  is  going  to  jump 


Mr.    Laughren:    We'll   actually   hear   from 
the  Tories. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


261 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  In  this  matter  I  thought 
very  concisely;  in  fact,  far  more  concisely 
than  some  hon.  members  opposite— and  I'm 
far  less  contradictory  and  less  hypocritical, 
wouldn't  my  friend  agree? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Certainly  less  than  the 
Liberals. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Call  him  to  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  please. 

An  hon.  member:  The  Premier  is  getting 
pretty  conceited. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  haven't  heard  anyone  else 
say  that  about  the  Premier's  statement;  only 
himself. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  I  don't,  who  else  is 
going  to? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  He  won't  get  it  from  this 
side. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  didn't  really  expect 
that. 

Mr.  BounsaU:  Oh  no,  I  have  been  giving 
credit  where  credit  was  due  all  along  here 
this  afternoon.  I  have  said  the  minister's 
bill  was  good  in  three  specific  respects.  I'm 
always  ready  to  give  credit  where  credit  is 
due. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Then  why  not  vote  for 
it? 

Mr.  Foulds:   It's  not  good  enough. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Oh,  1  see. 

Mr.  Bounsall:   No,  the  principle. 

'Mr.  Foulds:  Three  out  of  five  isn't  too  bad. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  principle  of  compulsory 
arbitration— we  can  never  vote  for  that. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  ( Timiskaming ) :  The 
member's  leader  told  us  earlier  he  supports 
it. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I'm  glad  the  hon.  member 
is  h^re  to  listen. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  anti-labour  member 
for  Timiskaming  has  entered  the  debate  now. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Is  he  listening  with  his  mouth 
again? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We  listened  to  it.  We  didn't 
have   the  complete  statement,   though. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.  Bounsall:  We  didn't  have  the  com- 
plete statement  45  minutes  in  advance,  as 
we  had  on  Bill  274. 

Mr.  Roy:  But  they  knew  it  called  for 
compulsory  arbitration. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We  didn't  have  the  complete 

outline  of  the  bill- 
Mr.   Roy:   They  can't  get  around  it;  they 

knew  it  called  for  compulsory  arbitration. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  —as  we  had  for  45  minutes 
before  BiU  274- 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  —or  the  half -hour  caucus. 
We  didn't  need  a  half-hour  caucus  either 
to  decide  what  we  were  going  to  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Thank  you.  Would  you 
keep  this  rabble  in  order,  Mr.  Speaker?  I 
would  very  much  appreciate  it. 

Interjection   by   an   hon.    member. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  This  rabble  on  the  far  ex- 
treme right,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  rabble  on  the  extreme 
right  over  here.  Much  further  right. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  member  for  Windsor  West 
is  inconsistent.  He  voted  against  it  on  first 
reading  last  time,  and  for  it  this  time. 

Mr.   Bounsall:    We  are   inconsistent? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Inconsistency  is  the  hobgoblin 
of  the  Liberal  Party. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  When  one  thinks  of  the 
Liberal  Party,  one  thinks  of  inconsistency 
with  a  capital  I  and  a  capital  C. 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  didn't  they  stand  up? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Are  the  Liberals  tdling  us 
how  to  run  our  affairs?  They  can't  even  run 
their  own  affairs. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  situa- 
tion has  deteriorated  since  the  Premier  came 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.    Foulds:    Mr.    Speaker,    now    I    know 
why  the  Premier  doesn't  sit  in  the  House. 


262 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Bounsall:  Now  we  know  why  he  is 
here  today.  He  is  here  to  enjoy  the  fun. 

Mr.  Camithers:  Did  the  member  for  Ot- 
tawa East  hear  what  the  member  called 
him? 

Mr.  Roy :  No,  what  did  he  call  me? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Remind  me.  I  have  called 
him  so  many  things,  both  inside  and  outside 
the  House,  that  I  am  not  sure. 

Mr.  Roy:  Was  it  parhamentary? 

Mr.  BounsaU:  Does  the  member  for  Diu- 
ham  mean  "inconsistent  with  both  a  capital 
I  and  a  capital  C"?  Sure,  when  one  thinks 
of  them,  that  is  what  one  thinks  of.  Capital 
I,  capital  C,  inconsistent. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Our  thinking  is  not  fossilized 
into  rigidity  like  the  Liberals'. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Back  to  the  bfll,  please. 

An.  hon.  member:  The  professor  is  talking 
now;  let's  be  quiet. 

Mr.  L.  Maeck  (Parry  Sound):  Stop  this 
babbling  about,  please. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  know  I  shouldn't  but  the 
Premier  is  obviously  enjoying  it;  he's  here 
with  the  biggest  smile  I've  seen  on  him  in 
days. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Where 
does  the  train  stop? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  In  any  event,  talking  about 
the  students  and  who  has  what  attitude  to- 
ward the  students  in  the  province  and  in  this 
situation,  I  might  say  with  respect  to  one 
point  which  was  just  slightly  touched  upon 
—that  of  whether  or  not  the  students  would 
go  back  to  school  next  week— I  can't  recall 
the  actual  wording  on  one  of  the  signs  which 
a  small  group  of  pupils  here  last  week  was 
carrying  around  but  I  think  it  read  something 
like  "Lack  of  classes  makes  us  asses"  or 
something  of  this  sort.  I  can't  think,  really,  of 
a  more  ridiculous  sign  than  that.  If  a  student 
has  to  depend  upon  what  is  given  to  him  or 
her  in  a  classroom  in  order  to  learn  some- 
thing in  this  world,  with  all  the  fully  stocked 
libraries  we  have  around,  then  maybe  the 
lower  part  of  that  sign  does  apply  to  that 
particular  student. 

Mr.  Camithers:  Is  the  member  suggesting 
we  close  the  classrooms? 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  is  what  the  report  savs. 


Mr.  Bounsall:  No,  I  am  saying  they  can 
learn  something  from  schools,  I  m  saying  they 
can  learn  a  lot  outside  of  schools. 

Mr.  Ruston:  No  wonder  they  had  to  let 
him  go. 

An  hon.  member:  He  should  have  quit  a 
long  time  ago. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I'm  sure  some  of  the  mem- 
bers over  there  would  be  the  first  to  agree 
with  me. 

Mr.  Ruston:  No  wonder  the  member  had 
to  have  the— 

Mr.  Bounsall:  One  can  learn  a  lot  in  class 

but  one   can  also  learn  a  lot  outside   class. 

Certainly,  in  this  party  we  would  not  object- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  But  there  are  places  in 

the  classroom  and  that  is  where  the  students 

should  be. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  can't  quite  hear  the 
member. 

Mr.  Foulds:  His  place  is  in  the  kitchen. 
Why  doesn't  he  get  back  there? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  The  member  had  better 
go  up  to  the  north  again. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  the  member's  NDP  paper,  is 
he  going  to  put  in  how  he  voted  on  Bill  12 
on  first  reading? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  member  would  be  afraid 
to  put  any  collected  statements  by  his  mem- 
bers on  paper  anywhere.  They  are  so  con- 
tradictory. 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  he  going  to  document  it?  He 
has  even  got  the  blue  line  of  the  Tories. 

Mr.  Ruston:  The  colour  of  the  Tories. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  work  together— we  know 
that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  use  the  same  colour  of  blue. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Gracious! 

Mr.  Roy:  In  blue. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Next  thing  we  kno\\, 
they'll  have  a  picture. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


263 


Mr.  Roy:  That  looks  like  one  of  the  Tory 


An  hon.  member:  That  looks  like  the— 

Mr.  Foulds:  There's  a  good  picture  of  the 
Minister  of  Education  in  there. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  They  are 
reading  good  material  there. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  one  point  mentioned 
here  was  whether  or  not— 

Mr.  Foulds:  Looking  for  the  soft  under- 
belly. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Jeez,  the  member  for  Port 
Arthur  is  as  bad  as  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East. 

An  hon.  member:  There  is  a  shortage. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  One  of  the  points  mentioned 
in  the  debate  so  far  has  been  whether  or  not 
the  students  would  go  back  to  their  class- 
rooms. The  parents  and  the  pupils  who  were 
down  here  in  front  of  the  Legislature  build- 
ing last  week  in  a  demostration  on  behalf  of 
a  return  to  the  classrooms,  I  am  certain, 
would  have  no  objection  at  all  if  the  class- 
rooms opened  on  Monday  of  next  week.  We 
would  certainly  find  nothing  wrong,  having 
had  a  five  or  six  week  break,  in  that  the 
normal  spring  break  would  see  all  of  those 
children  back  in  the  classrooms  of  the  York 
board  of  education. 

Let  me  mention  slightly  another  attitude 
with  respect  to  students  in  this  province, 
the  minister,  the  Prime  Minister,  the  Premier, 
mentioned  it— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Which  one? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Whatever  one  wants  to  call 
him.  We  call  him  a  lot  of  other  things  but 
I'm  sure  hell  take  one  of  those  three  names— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:   Delighted— any  time. 

Mr.  Bounsall:   Right,  okay.  He  mentioned 
in  reply  to  a  question  earlier  in  the  week- 
Mr.  Roy:  What  about  the  World  Football 
League?    Is     the     Premier     still     supporting 
Lalonde? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  federal  minister 
probably  is  in  trouble. 

Mr,    Roy:    Is   the  Premier  still  supporting 

them?  ^ 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  never  did. 


Mr.  Roy:  It  was  his  statement'  last  week 
that  he  did. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  was  erroneous. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  One  thing  about  the  Prime 
Minister  is  that  he  can  always  change  most 
subjects,  no  matter  how  serious,  into  a  dis- 
cussion on  football. 

An.  hon.  member:  He  didn't  say  anything. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  He  is  easily  sidetracked. 
He's  got  to  watch  that. 

Mr.  Maeck:  Easily  sidetracked? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  He  admits  it.  Without  even 
speaking  he  admits  it.  He  is  easily  side- 
tracked. His  thinking  gets  sidetracked  right 
along. 

An  hon.  member:  He  had  better  keep  his 
members  in  line  back  there. 

Mr.  Maeck:  The  member  will  have  to  go 
back  and  pick  up  the  thread. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  have  got  the  thread;  I  am 
speaking  on  the  students.  In  defence  of  the 
government  being  the  only  party  that  had 
an  interest  in  students  in  this  dispute,  and 
the  remark  made  by  me  in  my  address  on 
Dec.  18  of  last  year,  with  respect  to  the 
secondary  school  students  who  were  out  of 
their  classroom  in  the  city  of  Windsor  for 
13  school  days  in  January,  1973,  that  it  was 
ridiculous  to  suggest,  as  had  two  separate 
speeches  made  by  government  members,  that 
their  education  had  been  "irreparably  dam- 
aged," and  I  repeat  that  statement  that  this 
has— 

An  hon.  member:  Irreparably. 

Mr.   Bounsall:   Irreparably— how's   that? 

Mr.  Roy:  That  was  a  difficult  word. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Yes,  I  have  a  little  trouble 
at  this  time  of  night. 

Interjections   by  hon.   members. 

Mr.   Ruston:   And  he's   a  professor. 

Mr.  Roy:   Professor  of  what?  Dentures? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Not  of  English,  not  of 
English.  I  started  out  as  an  engineer,  so  I 
am  not  supposed  to  pronounce  anything 
properly. 

Mr.  Roy:  Not  only  does  he  need  new 
glasses  but  new  dentures. 


264 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  hon.  member:  He  should  be  rumiing 
one  of  the  CAAT  colleges  if  he's  an  engineer. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Well,  if  I  had  to  depend 
on  low-cost  dentures,  they  wouldn't  be  be- 
cause of  any  action  of  the  member  for  — 
what  is  it?— Ottawa  East,  on  behalf  of  low- 
cost  dentures  in  this  province. 

Mr.    Huston:    He   pioneered   it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Can  we  return  to  the  bill 
please? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  think  I  can  spin  it  out 
till  6  now. 

Mr.  Camithers:  The  member  has  covered 
a  lot  of  subjects, 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  He's 
got  five  minutes.  Let  him  tell  us  something  in 
that  five  minutes. 

Mr.  BounsaU:  No,  not  yet,  I  am  just  start- 
ing. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  Let's  have  his  stand  on 
the  denturists. 

An  hon.  member:   Get  going. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Just  getting  started. 

Mr.  Roy:  Don't  let  us  rush  the  member. 

Mr.  BounsaU:  Oh  no,  I  wouldn't  think  of 
it. 

Now,  with  respect  to  students,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, for  13  days  to  have  government  members 
suggesting    that    the    educational    experience 
was— I  won't  say  irreparably- 
Some  hon.   members:    Irreparably. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  —irreparably— was  forever 
damaged  is  just  ridiculous,  and  for  the 
Premier  to  try  to  twist  that,  as  he  did  as  part 
of  his  answer  to  a  question,  into  a  suggestion 
that  the  opposition  members  on  this  side  of 
the  House  are  not  interested  in  students  and 
in  whether  or  not  their  classrooms  are  open 
so  that  they  can  learn  is  just  almost  as  ridi- 
culous as  the  members  on  the  government 
side  who  made  those  statements  I  have 
quoted  in  the  initial  sense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He's  not  going  to  become 
provocative  at  this  time? 

Mr.   Roy:   Take  that,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We  are  against  compulsory 
arbitration  in  any  form,  but  should  this  bill 


pass,  let  me  make  a  suggestion  to.  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  as  to  whom  he  might 
choose,  unless  agreement  is  reached  between 
the  parties,  for  his  chairman  of  the  arbitra- 
tion board.  Should  this  bill  pass,  I  would  'like 
to  make  a  suggestion  to  him, 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Is  the  member  seeking 
to  be  called? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  am  available  anytime. 

Mr.  Laughren:  And  the  phone  number 
is— 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Yes,  right, 

Mr.  Camithers:    He  is   an  engineer. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We  can  write  though;  we 
might  not  be  able  to  spell,  but  we  can 
write. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Which  is  more  than  we 
can  say  for  the  member  for  Durham.  En- 
gineers have  been  pontificating  for  years. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  My  suggestion  is  that  if 
the  minister  hasn't  looked  at  the  Saskatche- 
wan legislation  in  terms  of  what  final  legis- 
lation he  might  bring  into  this  province  with 
respect  to  teachers,  he  should  do  so.  One 
of  those  things  is  that  arbitration  can  be 
chosen;  they  can  choose  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion, and  whether  it's  binding  or  not  can 
also  be  chosen. 

They  have  had  some  experience  in  Sas- 
katchewan at  the  local  level  with  salaries 
and  fringe  benefits  to  settle  province-wide; 
they  have  had  some  experience  at  the  local 
level.  The  local  boards  deal  only  with  things 
like  working  conditions  and  pupil-teacher 
ratios.  There  have  been  arbitrations  at  that 
level  in  the  Province  of  Saskatchewan,  and 
therefore  chairmen  of  arbitration  boards  out 
there  have  done  arbitrations  that  have  dealt 
solely  with  that  matter, 

I  would  suggest  to  the  minister,  for  the 
travel  cost  that  would  be  involved  to  tlie 
Province  of  Ontario,  that  in  this  arbitration, 
if  it  comes  to  that  finally,  he  might  search  for 
one  of  those  experienced  arbitrators  from 
the  Province  of  Saskatchewan  who  have 
dea'lt  with  that  touchiest  area  in  this  par- 
ticular dispute,  A  decision  taken  by  an  arbi- 
tration board,  headed  by  a  chairman  who 
has  had  that  kind  of  experience,  might  result 
in  a  settlement  which  would  be  acceptable 
in  this  province,  even  if  the  means  of  arriv- 
ing at  that  arbitration  board  is  unacceptable. 

Thank  you  very  much,   Mr.   Speaker. 

Mr.  Camithers:    Good  speech. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


265 


Mr.  W.  Hodgson:   Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Roy:  Make  it  quick, 

Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  hour,  perhaps 
the  hon.  member  would  like  to  wait  until 
we  resume  at  8  o'clock? 


Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  I  move  the  adjournment 
of  the  debate. 

Mr.    Speaker:    The    motion    to    adjourn    is 
not  required. 

It  being  6  o'clock,  p.m.,   the  House  took 
recess. 


266  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Wednesday,  March  13,  1974 

Tax  credit  information  centre,   statement  by  Mr.   Meen   217 

Salary  increases  for  general  services  employees,  statement  by  Mr.  Winkler  217 

Tax  credit  information  centre,  questions  of  Mr.  Mcen:  Mr.  R.  F,  Nixon,  Mr.  Givens, 

Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Roy  218 

York   county   school   grants,   questions  of  Mr.   Davis:    Mr.   R.   F.   Nixon,   Mr.   Deacon, 

Mr.  Foulds,  Mr.  Givens  219 

Privilege  of  elected  municipal  officials,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  220 

Cost  of  living  increases,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Reid  221 

Food  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Stewart:   Mr.  Lewis  223 

Price    fixing    in    supermarkets,    questions    of    Mr.    Clement:    Mr.    Lewis,    Mr.    Stokes, 

Mr.    Foulds    224 

Reconstruction  of  Highway  401  near  Windsor,  question  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Bounsall  225 

World  football  league,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  BuUbrook  226 

Payments  to  jurors,  question  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Germa  227 

Sudbury  hospital  investigation,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Roy  227 

York  county  school  grants,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Foulds,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  228 

Capital  grants  for  farmers,  question  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Wiseman  228 

Province  of  Ontario  Savings  Office,  question  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Breithaupt  229 

Supply  and  price  of  fertilizer,  questions  of  Mr.  Stewart:   Mr.  MacDonald  229 

Appointment  of  CSAO  arbitration  mediator,  question  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Lewis  230 

Presenting  report,   Ontario  Northland  Transportation  Commission,  Mr.  Rhodes   230 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  McKeough  231 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Gaunt,  agreed  to  237 

York  County   Board  of  Education  Teachers   Dispute  Act,  bill  respecting,   Mr.   Wells, 

on   second  reading   237 

Recess,   6  o'clock   265 


No.  8 


Ontario 


Hegisilature  of  Ontario 


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


Wednesday,  March  13,  1974 

Evening  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


269 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  o'clock,  p.m. 


YORK  COUNTY  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 

TEACHERS  DISPUTE  ACT,  1974 

( concluded ) 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
North  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  to  speak  on  second  reading  of 
this  bill,  on  the  principle  of  it,  with  maybe  a 
better  understanding  of  it  than  any  member 
in  this  Legislature.  I  have  been  very  close 
to  it  for  the  last  five  weeks.  York  North  is  in 
the  centre  of  the  region  of  York,  better 
known  as  the  York  County  Board  of 
Education. 

Further  to  that  we  have  our  grandson,  who 
lives  in  our  home  and  goes  to  high  school 
in  Aurora,  as  one  of  the  victims  of  the  walk- 
out at  this  present  time  by  the  teachers  in 
the  school  board  dispute. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  He 
has  been  irrevocably  damaged? 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  We  also  have  a  daughter 
who  taught  in  the  York  county  system  for  a 
matter  of  six  years.  She  taught  under  the 
old  system  of  district  school  boards,  also 
under  the  York  county  school  board.  I  still 
get  confused  sometimes  calling  it  the  York 
county  school  board  and  the  region  of  York. 
I  usually  refer  to  it  as  the  region  of  York. 

My  remarks  won't  be  too  long  tonight.  I 
think  there  has  been  too  much  talk  going  on 
for  the  last  six  weeks. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  But 
not  much  action  by  the  government. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  There  has  been  a  lot  of 
talk,  talk,  talk.  It  is  as  if  they  fiddled  away 
while  Rome  burned.  I  felt  this  afternoon  in 
this  Legislature,  with  respect  to  every  mem- 
ber who  spoke  and  his  sincerity,  that  they  all 
wanted  to  see  this  come  to  some  resolution 
and  our  students  go  back  in  the  classrooms. 
They  have  spoken  at  some  length  on  issues 
that  are  bygone  issues  as  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned.  They   have   spoken   condemning  the 


Wednesday,  March  13,  1974 

trustees  of  the  board  of  education  in  York; 
they  have  condemned  the  administrator  in 
York  and  they  have  condemned  our  Minister 
of  Education  (Mr.  Wells). 

As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  every  member 
of  that  school  board  was  elected  the  same 
way  as  you  and  I  were  elected— by  the 
people.  I  know  a  lot  of  those  members  per- 
sonally and  they  are  just  as  sincere  in  what 
they  are  doing  as  you  and  I  are  in  what  we 
are  doing  in  this  Legislature  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario— every  one  of  them. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South):  They  are 
misguided. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  On  behalf  of  the 
teachers  of  York  county,  I  would  say  the 
majority  of  them  are  very  sincere  people.  The 
only  reason  that  they  are  in  the  profession  is 
for  the  betterment  of  the  younger  generation 
of  this  province. 

I  want  to  say  a  word  about  our  Minister 
of  Education. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  The  mem- 
ber is  in  trouble  now. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  I  have  been  a  member 
of  this  Legislature  since  1967. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  That  was  a 
good  year. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Some  of  the  members 
have  been  here  for  a  lot  longer  and  some 
have  been  here  for  a  shorter  term,  but  I  can 
say  about  the  Minister  of  Education  that 
there  isn't  a  more  sincere  member  or  minister. 
I  have  had  the  opportunity  of  working  with 
him  over  the  last  five  weeks.  He  has  made 
himself  available  on  a  24-hour-a-day  basis, 
seven  days  a  week.  He  has  been  willing  to 
meet  with  any  delegation  or  anybody  who 
has  asked  for  an  audience  with  our  minister. 

If  the  members  want  further  proof  of 
that,  why,  I  would  like  to  relate  to  a  week 
ago  last  Sunday  when  the  York  county  school 
board  asked  to  meet  with  the  minister.  He 
gave  up  his  Sunday  to  meet  with  them  and 
it  was  a  very  important  day  in  our  minister's 
life  and  that  was  his  wife's  birthday.  I  think 


270 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  he  must  have  used  a  lot  of  persuasion 
to  persuade  his  wife  that  he  was  going  to 
meet  the  York  county  school  board  instead 
of  taking  his  wife  out  to  dinner.  But  this  is 
the  type  of  man  he  is.  He  put  the  situation 
in  York  first. 

Mr.  Reid:  Besides  that,  he  saved  $50! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  did  the  same  tonight  to 
come  to  Hsten  to  the  member. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Well,  that's  a  matter 
for  the  member.  If  he  wants  to  listen  to  me 
okay,  but  I  can  only  say,  I  will  say  it  and 
I  will  say  it  right  now— 

An  Hon.  member:  They  should  both  be  up 
for  desertion. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  —I  have  never  played 
politics  in  this  dispute.  I  am  not  taking  the 
side  of  the  school  board  or  the  side  of  the 
trustees,  but  there  is  a  lot  of  politics  being 
played  by  the  opposition  parties  in  this  very 
dispute  for  political  advantages. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Forgetting  about 
the  students. 

Mr.  Fem'er:  The  member  doesn't  agree 
with  that,  does  he? 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Yes.  That  is  the  truth. 
I  want  to  say  another  thing,  further,  on  be- 
half of  the  member  for  Wentworth  (Mr. 
Deans).  I  met  with  him  on  the  platform, 
with  the  hon.  member  for  York  Centre  (Mr. 
Deacon),  and  I  really  appreciate  the  support 
the  member  for  Wentworth  gave  me  on  the 
platform  in  front  of  1,000  people  that  night. 
I  just  wish  he  could  be  in  his  seat  so  he 
could  hear  it  tonight. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  will  be  here. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  He  thought  the  member  did 
well,  too. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  But  my  concern  is,  after 
six  weeks  has  gone  past,  if  the  school  board 
is  at  fault,  which  the  opposition  has  be- 
laboured this  afternoon  too  much,  or  whether 
it  is  the  teachers,  which  they  haven't  said— 
I  know  there  are  more  votes  on  the  teach- 
ers' side  than  there  are  on  the  school  board 
side  —  the  opposition  really  set  up  for  the 
teachers  this  afternoon.  They  are  right  and 
the  school  board  is  all  wrong  and  the  minis- 
ter   is  wrong. 

My  concern  is  for  the  14,800  students  in 
York  county  and  their  parents,  and  I  am 
going  to   ask   every  member  of  this   Legis- 


lature, if  they  are  concerned  about  the  stu- 
dents, our  citizens  of  tomorrow,  to  support 
this  bill  and  give  it  early  passage  so  we  can 
get  along  with  the  legislation  necessary  to 
get  the  teachers  and  the  students  back  in 
the  classrooms.   Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Huron- 
Bnice. 

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Huron. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Huron. 

Mr.  Riddell:  That  great  county. 
Mr.  Speaker,  not  being  too  long  removed 
from  the  teaching  profession,  and  subse- 
quently the  school  board,  and  recalhng  the 
days  when  teachers  and  school  trustees  still 
had  some  freedom  of  decision  and  a  great 
sense  of  responsibility  which  they  were  per- 
mitted to  exercise  without  government  inter- 
ference, I  personally  feel  committed  to  rise 
and  oppose  this  bill.  I  am  opposing  partic- 
ularly the  compulsory  arbitration- 
Mr.  A.  Carruthers  (Durham):  He  doesn't 
really  mean  that. 

Mr.  Riddell:  —section  of  this  bill,  which 
is  really  an  imposition  on  a  group  of  profes- 
sional people. 

Mr.  J.  P.  MacBeth  (York  West):  Never 
mind  the  sections,  what  about  the  principle? 

Mr.  Riddell:  The  Minister  of  Education 
has  infringed  upon  the  local  autonomy  of  the 
York  County  Board  of  Edlication  by  impos'- 
ing  compulsory  arbitration  to  settle  the  six- 
week-old  teachers'  strike.  We  believe  that  a 
voluntary  settlement  could  have  been  reached 
by  now,  had  the  Minister  of  Education  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  pupil-teacher 
ratio  should  be  negotiable  much  earlier  in 
the  dispute.  We  support  the  idea  that  teach- 
ers should  have  some  voice  in  the  size  of 
the  classes  they  teach— in  other  words,  in  the 
pupil-teacher  ratio— because  working  condi- 
tions are  an  important  part  of  a  contract. 

We  are  against  the  principle  of  compul- 
sory arbitration  and  feel  that  the  trusteeship 
could  have  been  set  up  instead  to  settle  the 
dispute.  More  than  7,300  residents  of  York 
county  were  in  favour  of  setting  up  a  tius- 
teeship  whereby  the  board's  activities  would 
be  suspended  for  a  short  period  of  time.  The 
Minister  of  Education  then  would  become 
responsible  for  school  administration  and  for 
negotiations  with  teachers.  As  soon  as  the 
schools  got  back  into  full  operation  on  terms 
the   province   was    willing   to   agree  to,    the 


MARCH  13,  1974 


271 


trusteeship  could  be  texminatedl  and)  a  new 
board  elected. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  The  member  doesn't  be- 
lieve that. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Eaton  (Middlesex  South):  What 
about  local  autonomy? 

Mr.  Riddell:  In'  that  way,  students  would 
have  been  back  in  the  classrooms  im- 
mediately, and  the  issue  of  whether  the  trus^ 
tees  were  deemed  to  be  right  or  wrong  in 
their  position  could  have  been  decided  at 
the  ballot  boxes.  There  has  been  a  prec- 
edent for  the  setting  up  of  a  trusteeship, 
and  provisions  for  it  appear  in  the  Ministry 
of  Education  Act.  Furthermore,  this  idea 
had  the  support  of  the  OSSTF. 

The  Minister  of  Education  also  infringed 
on  local  autonomy  by  establishing  spending 
ceilings. 

iMr.  Carruthers:  Who  elected  the  board? 

Mr.  Riddell:  How  could  satisfactory  nego- 
tiations take  place  under  such  restrictions? 
Now  the  minister  has  changed  his  mind  and 
has  stated  that  ceilings  will  not  be  an  issue. 
Had  the  minister  been  in  his  present  frame 
of  mind  six  weeks  ago  a  lot  of  trouble  could 
have  been  averted.  His  introduction  of  Bill 
274  last  December  alienated  all  of  the  teach- 
ers in  the  province- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Did  Roth  write  the  mem- 
ber's speech  for  him? 

Mr  Riddell:  His  introduction  of  Bill  12, 
which  includes  a  section  stating  that  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  be  negotiable,  no  doubt  will 
ahenate  many  of  the  trustees.  I  am  certain 
the  students  in  the  school  system  are  not  too 
happy  with  his  performance  these  last  two 
months  either.  It  would  be  diflficult  not  to 
develop  a  persecution  complex  in  this  situa- 
tion. 

Much  valuable  time  has  been  lost  in  this 
dispute,  and  it  is  the  students  in  York  county 
who  have  been  the  real  losers.  Since  they 
have  a  lot  of  catching  up  to  do,  I  suggest 
that  classes  be  held  next  week  instead  of 
having  the  scheduled  spring  break.  Further- 
more, if  the  curriculum  is  not  finished  on 
time,  perhaps  the  school  year  could  be  ex- 
tended a  couple  of  weeks  in  the  summer 
in  order  to  complete  the  courses. 

In  conclusion,  I  can  only  reiterate  my  ob- 
jections to  compulsory  arbitration  which 
prevent  me  from  supporting  this  bill.  I  agree 
with  the  minister  that  this  strike  should  be 
resolved,   but   I   do   not  feel   that   this   end 


justifies  his  means.  The  only  praiseworthy 
aspect  of  Bill  12  is  the  negotiability  of  pupil- 
teacher  ratio,  which  I  hope  will  now  be 
established  as  government  policy  for  all 
boards  across  the  province. 
Thank  you. 

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

Mr.  Foulds:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to  oppose 
Bill  12.  I  hope  what  I  say  will  not  be  pro- 
vocative. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  With  a  deep  sense  of 
responsibility. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  want  to  say  it  in  terms  that 
I  hope  will  have  some  impact  in  solving  the 
dispute  that  is  currently  going  on  in  York 
county. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Why 
didn't  the  member's  party  oppose  it  on  first 
reading? 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  want  to  endorse  what  the 
leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  said  at 
the  outset  of  our  remarks  on  this  debate. 
And,  uncharacteristically  of  me,  I  want  to 
say  some  kind  words  about  the  Minister  of 
Education. 

You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  had  been  a 
Tory  Minister  of  Education  and  had  brought 
in  this  bill,  frankly,  I  would  have  been 
relatively  proud  of  myself.  I  think  that  we  in 
the  opposition  and  that  teachers  throughout 
the  province  taught  the  minister  and  his 
ofiBcials  a  lesson  over  Bill  274  in  terms  of 
drafting  legislation.  Perhaps  unfortunately  for 
us  and  for  the  teachers,  the  ministry  learned 
that  lesson  too  well. 

The  bill  is  basically  a  well-drafted  one. 
There  are  one  or  two  amendments  that  we 
will  probably  be  putting  during  the  clause- 
by-clause  debate.  But  having  said  that,  as 
everyone  in  this  House  fully  realizes,  I  am 
not  a  Tory  Minister  of  Education.  I  am  a 
socialist  critic  of  education  in  this  province. 
And  because  I  am  a  socialist  and  because  I'm 
a  democrat,  I  cannot  accept  the  Tory  view 
that  force  and  compulsion  are  an  acceptable 
way  to  settle  this  kind  of  dispute.  Because 
I'm  a  socialist,  I  cannot  accept  it  when  that 
force  and  that  compulsion  are  aimed  pri- 
marily at  the  workers— in  this  case  the  teach- 
ers. Although  the  bill,  in  terms  of  its  guaran- 
tees, slaps  the  board  firmly  on  the  wrist,  it 
kicks  the  teachers  firmly  in  the  solar  plexus. 


272 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  want  to  say  that  there  have  been  mis- 
takes in  judgement  in  the  York  county  dis- 
pute; and  there  have  been  mistakes  in  judge- 
ment, frankly  Mr,  Speaker,  on  all  sides  and 
by  all  parties  involved.  There  has  been  one 
monumental  mistake  on  the  part  of  the 
government  and  the  minister  that  I  want  to 
deal  with.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind 
that  in  the  public  perception  that  mistake  has 
been  retrieved  in  the  past  week  by  the 
initiative  of  the  minister  but  that  initiative 
would  not  have  been  necessary  if  he  had  not 
made  the  initial  mistake. 

Before  I  go  into  that,  I  want  to  re-em- 
phasize our  party's  position  of  principle  that 
we  believe  in  full  and  free  collective  bar- 
gaining rights  for  teachers;  or  for  any  other 
group  of  workers  who  have  to  negotiate  a 
collective  agreement  with  management.  And 
in  this  case,  even  when  those  workers  are 
full  professionals  they  still— because  of  the 
way  that  they  have  their  contracts;  the  way 
that  they  have  to  negotiate  wih  boards— must 
realize  that  they  are  in  a  collective  bargain- 
ing situation. 

The  mistake  that  the  minister  made  that 
I  want  to  talk  about  for  a  few  moments— the 
monumental  error  in  judgement— was  that 
he  allowed  the  board  to  parade  a  fiction  be- 
fore the  parents  and  students  of  York  county 
and  before  the  public  of  this  province.  That 
fiction  was  that  the  schools  remained  open. 

There  was  a  fundamental  contradiction  in 
the  government's  thinking.  On  the  one  hand 
the  minister  to  some  extent,  and  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  to  a  larger  extent,  talked  about 
the  teachers*  strike.  On  the  other  hand,  they 
agreed  to  the  technicality  that  the  York  board 
foisted  on  the  people  of  this  province  that 
their  schools  were  remaining  open  and  the 
minister  did  not  withdraw,  in  their  entirety, 
the  grants  from  the  board  of  education.  And 
he  should  have  done  that. 

He  said  this  afternoon  during  question 
period  that  that  amount  of  moneys  for  teach- 
ers* salaries  would  be  withdrawn,  as  it  was 
in  the  Windsor  dispute  last  year.  But  what 
has  happened  is  that  the  full  economic  pres- 
sure that  is  a  fundamental  part  of  any  collec- 
tive bargaining  process  was  not  brought  to 
bear  on  both  sides— and  it  was  not  brought 
to  bear  in  this  case  on  management  in  the 
board. 

Knowing  the  peculiar  view  of  education 
that  the  York  county  board  has,  and  in  par- 
ticular the  director  of  education  of  that  board, 
the  minister's  inaction  in  not  withdrawing 
the  full  grants  was  a  positive  encouragement 
to  the  board  to  keep  the  dispute  going.   In 


fact,  they  made  a  little  bit  of  money  on  the 
dispute.  Without  the  full  complement  of 
students,  the  use  of  supplies,  the  wear  and 
tear  on  the  buildings,  and  the  maintenance 
costs  will  not  be  as  high. 

This  peculiar  action— this  particular  inac- 
tion, I  suppose— has  in  fact  exactly  reversed 
the  normal  economic  pressures  that  should 
have  been  brought  to  bear. 

Okay,  let's  talk  briefly  in  a  historical  con- 
text. What  should  and  what  could  the  minis- 
ter have  done?  As  I  have  indicated,  we  feel 
that  he  could  and  should  have  withdrawn  all 
the  grants  for  the  secondary  components  of 
the  school  system  from  the  York  county 
board  and  not  allowed  them  this  fiction  that 
the  schools  were  remaining  open.  He  should 
have  done  so  until  the  dispute  was  settled. 

He  could  have  taken  an  initiative  some 
weeks  ago,  at  various  points  in  time,  perhaps 
after  he  received  the  report  from  Mr.  Mancini 
about  the  fundamental  importance  of  the 
pupil-teacher  ratio  item  in  the  dispute.  When 
it  became  apparent  that  it  was  unable  to  be 
settled  or  agreed  to  or  even  talked  about  by 
the  board,  he  perhaps  should  have  introduced 
a  bill  which  would  have  given  him  the  power 
to  negotiate  on  behalf  of  the  trustees  with  the 
teachers. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  He  has  got  that  power 
now. 

Mr.  Foulds:  He  should  then  have  sat  down 
directly  with  the  teachers  and  come  to  an 
agreement,  especially  over  that  contentious 
pupil-teacher  ratio  issue  and,  if  it  was  neces- 
sary—and frankly  I  don't  think  it  was  neces- 
sary in  this  particular  dispute— but  if  it  was 
necessary  he  should  and  could  have  then 
adjusted  the  weighting  factors  in  the  ceiling 
so  that  a  just  settlement  could  have  been 
reached  if,  indeed,  the  ceilings  are  the  cause 
of  the  breakdown  in  negotiations  which, 
frankly,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don*t  think  they  are. 

We  in  this  party  do  not  feel  that  he  should 
have  put  the  board  into  full  trusteeship,  thus 
depriving  York  county  of  its  so-called  local 
autonomy.  After  the  agreement  had  been 
reached  he  should  have  turned  the  aff^airs 
of  the  board  immediately  back  to  it,  and  the 
people  of  York  county  can  then  deal,  this 
coming  December,  as  they  see  fit  with  their 
elected  representatives. 

The  York  county  dispute,  of  which  this  bill 
is  the  culminating  point,  does  not  reveal  the 
inadequacy  of  full  and  free  collective  bar- 
gaining because  full  and  free  collective  bar- 
gaining has  not  taken  place  in  York  county. 
What  it  does  display  are  some  of  the  funda- 


MARCH  13,  1974 


273 


mental  weaknesses  of  the  educational  system 
and  of  the  county  system  of  education. 

I  have  been  in  York  county  twice  person- 
ally—I  have  a  couple  of  very  close  personal 
friends  who  live  in  that  area— that  is,  I  have 
been  twice  since  the  dispute  started.  One 
cannot  help  realizing  that  the  growth  of  the 
county  system  in  York  has  put  the  educa- 
tional system  at  a  distance  from  the  people 
of  that  county.  One  cannot  help  realizing  that 
the  county  system  of  education  in  York  put 
the  system  into  the  hands  of  the  bureaucrats 
in  York  county,  and  the  trustees  have,  unfor- 
tunately, accepted  the  bureaucratic  view  of 
education. 

That  frankly  is  a  danger  not  merely  in 
York  county.  It  is  a  danger  throughout  the 
province  because  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
administrative  staffs  of  the  large  boards  fun- 
nel the  information  the  elected  trustees  get 
so  that  when  they  make  their  decisions  they 
do  not,  in  fact,  have  full  access  to  all  sides 
of  every  question. 

If  I  can  digress  for  a  moment  I  know,  for 
example,  that  is  true  with  the  Lakehead 
Board  of  Education  over  the  dispute  we 
have  had  going  on  there  since  November 
about  the  sale  of  rural  school  properties.  The 
same  thing  applied,  I  am  convinced,  to  the 
negotiation  dispute  between  the  teachers  and 
the  board  in  York  county.  York  county  has 
perhaps  the  highest  ratio  of  administrators  to 
teachers  of  any  board  in  the  province;  it  is 
certainly  one  of  the  highest.  The  structure 
that  they  have  with  the  ministry's  director 
and  area  superintendents,  and  the  hierarchy 
under  them,  down  to  the  principals,  down 
to  the  teachers,  virtually  makes  communica- 
tion impossible. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Nil,  not  at  all. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  member  for  Scarborough 
West  (Mr.  Lewis)  referred  earlier  this  after- 
noon to  the  series  of  rules  that  the  board 
has.  It  is  almost  like  the  old-fashioned  series 
of  rules,  about  47  in  number,  that  we  had 
when  we  were  going  to  school,  about  not 
chewing  gum  and  right  down  to  walking  on 
the  left-hand  or  the  right-hand  side  of  the 
hallways- 
Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Up  the 
down  staircase. 

Mr.  Foulds:  —and  you  can't  go  up  the 
down  staircase  or  down  the  up  staircase,  and 
so  on. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith  (Simcoe  East):  No  feet  on 
the  desk. 


Mr.  Foulds:  Well,  the  way  the  teachers 
have  to  communicate  they  can't  go  directly 
to  the  superintendent,  according  to  the  board's 
formula  for  communication.  They  have  to  go 
through  all  these  eddies  and  channels.  There 
is  no  chance.  So  the  York  county  system  of 
education  distanced  itself  not  merely  from  the 
parents  and  students,  it  distanced  itself  fund- 
amentally from  the  people  who  are  the  people 
who  make  the  system  work— the  teachers. 

So  while  the  teachers  were  desperately 
fighting  for  a  pupil-teacher  ratio  comparative 
to  other  pupil-teacher  ratios  in  the  province, 
there  were  more  administrators  per  teacher 
in  that  board  than  in  the  vast  majority  of 
other  boards  throughout  the  province.  In 
other  words,  York  county  was  one  of  those 
places  where  real  economies  could  have  been 
achieved  and  should  have  been  achieved  in 
administrative  salaries  and  costs.  But,  of 
course,  the  administrators  couldn't  allow  that 
to  happen. 

I  want  to  make  the  point  that  my  colleague 
from  York  South  made  earlier  today  and  one 
that  I  am  fond  of  making.  I've  said  it  to 
teacher  groups  and  I've  said  it  to  trustee 
groups,  that  if  I  had  a  propaganda  ploy  to 
offer  to  my  friends  in  the  teaching  profession, 
I  would  suggest  to  them  that  when  they  talk 
about  working  conditions  in  their  press  re- 
leases they  make  damn  good  and  sure  that 
the  public  imderstand  that  they  are  talking 
about  learning  conditions  for  the  kids  in  the 
classroom;  that  a  lower  pupil-teacher  ratio 
doesn't  mean  an  easier  load  to  the  teacher. 
What  it  means  is  that  he  could  pay  some 
individual  attention  to  those  children  in  the 
classroom  who  are  having  genuine  problems 
in  comprehension  and  need  that  extra  atten- 
tion. 

If  I  may,  for  a  few  moments  I  want  to 
Outline  a  brief  history  of  the  York  county 
negotiations,  but  before  I  do  that  I'd  like  to 
read  the  eight  basic  objectives  that  the  teach- 
ers in  York  county  have  made  from  the  be- 
ginning of  their  negotiations. 

No.  1,  they  wanted  a  grievance  procedure 
and  a  redress  of  grievances  related  to  the 
1971-1973  agreement.  Very  interesting  that 
the  second  part  of  that  is  a  redress  of  the 
grievances.  That  indicates  that  something  is 
not  going  right  in  York  county.  They  wanted 
the  maintenance  of  the  OSSTF  certification 
as  the  basis  for  salary  status. 

Do  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  the  ad- 
ministrator in  York  county  wanted  to  do  to 
teachers  who  have  been  teaching  for  the 
board  for  a  number  of  years,  who  have  the 
top  qualifications— category  4  it  is  called  in 


274 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  secondary  school  panel— specialists  with  a 
certain  number  of  years  experience?  The 
board  administration  wanted  to  reduce  sum- 
marily the  category  of  that  teacher  if  he  were 
no  longer  teaching  50  per  cent  or  more  of  his 
timetable  in  his  specialist  subject,  even  though 
that  reduction  may  have  taken  place  not  be- 
cause of  the  teacher's  choice  but  because  of 
the  implications  of  HSl  and  because  the 
board  couldn't  timetable  him  a  full  timetable 
of  his  specialty  subject. 

(The  third  objective  that  the  teachers  were 
holding  out  for  was  tenure  for  competent 
teachers.  It  seems  reasonable  to  me.  Stabiliza- 
tion of  the  pupil-teacher  ratio  at  the  1972- 
1973  level  doesn't  seem  unreasonable.  They 
don't  want  a  reduction,  they  want  a  stabiliza- 
tion at  the  1972-1973  level. 

They  wanted  the  restoration  and  negotia- 
bility of  board  policies  relating  to  teachers. 
In  other  words,  diey  didn't  want  board  policy 
arbitrarily  to  say  to  the  teachers  within  their 
employ,  "Thou  shalt  not  do  this,  thou  shalt 
not  do  that." 

iThey  wanted  a  realistic  salary  grant.  As 
item  6  in  their  list  of  priorities,  they  wanted 
acceptable  clauses  on  positions  of  responsibili- 
ties, a  certain  allowance  vis-a-vis  head  shifts 
and  other  positions  of  responsibility  within 
the  school  itself  and  improved  fringe  benefits. 

Mr.  Speaker,  with  those  objectives  in  mind, 
which  seem  entirely  reasonable,  the  first  blast 
from  the  board  side  in  the  dispute  was  issued 
on  May  16,  1973-almost  a  year  ago;  10 
months  ago  anyway.  In  the  spirit  of  goodwill 
that  supposedly  surrounded  those  negotia- 
tions, according  to  our  friend  from  York 
North,  the  chief  negotiator  for  the  board  said 
as  early  as  May  16  to  the  teacher  negotiators, 
York  County  Board  of  Education  "could  re- 
place every  teacher  at  the  same  salary." 

Markham  trustee  John  Honsberger  told 
secondary  school  teachers  this  the  week  pre- 
viously, according  to  the  Aurora  Banner.  He 
made  the  comment  at  a  salary  negotiation 
meeting  between  a  committee  from  the  board 
and  the  negotiating  team  of  the  Ontario 
Secondary  School  Teachers'  Federation,  Dis- 
trict 11.  "While  the  board  recognizes  that 
there  has  to  be  a  salary  increase,"  he  said, 
"you  OSSTFs  should  recognize  that  every 
position  could  be  filled  with  others  who 
would  like  to  come  to  work  with  us." 

That's  really  encouraging,  isn't  it?  That 
really  means,  "Yes,  you  teachers  from  York 
county,  we  like  you,  and  we  want  you  to  be 
there  with  our  kids."  You  know  what  the 
OSSTF  replied,  from  Dave  Robinson  who  was 
one  of  the  chief  negotiators  at  that  time— one 


of    the   local   negotiators,    I   might   say,    Mr. 
Speaker? 

He  said,  "The  trustee's  statement  could  be 
interpreted  as  a  veiled  threat."  What  land  of 
a  reasonable  man  is  this  David  Robinson? 
He  says,  "could  be  interpreted  as  a  veiled 
threat."  When  the  management  says  to  you, 
"We  can  take  away  every  one  of  your  jobs 
and  hire  somebody  els©  to  take  your  place," 
and  the  negotiators  simply  say,  "That  could 
be  interpreted  as  a  veiled  threat,"  that  is 
mildness  indeed.  That  is  reasonableness 
indeed. 

No  wonder  the  OSSTF  in  York  county 
wanted  a  grievance  procedure.  No  wonder 
they  wanted  an  adjudicator  appointed  at  that 
time  over  the  grievances,  and  no  wondter  they 
wanted  to  be  able  to  seek  redress  from  prin- 
cipals for  actions  that  they  considered  arbi- 
trary and  for  actions  from  other  administra- 
tive oflBcials. 

:Then  Mr.  Honsberger  at  the  same  meeting 
had  the  nerve  to  say,  "Before  we  talk  about 
clauses  in  the  agreement,  I  want  to  know 
who  the  contract  is  between."  Well,  who  the 
devil  does  he  think  it's  between?  He  is  a 
trustee.  Does  he  not  read  the  Ministry  of 
Education  Act?  And,  very  cleverly,  because 
Mr.  Honsberger  is  a  lawyer,  he  said,  "The 
board  in  the  position  paper  states  that  the 
OSSTF  is  in  law  a  stranger,  because  there  is 
no  contractual,  no  employer-employee  rela- 
tionship." Well,  Mr.  Honsberger  was  right 
about  one  thing.  In  York  county,  from  all  the 
evidence  that  has  accumulated,  there  is  and 
there  has  been  no  employer-employee  re- 
lationship. 

In  October-the  fall  now -of  1973  the 
OSSTF  got  a  salary  bulletin  out  to  its  mem- 
bership. Unfortunately,  that  is  not  a  very 
good  title  for  this  document,  because  by  this 
time  the  teachers  in  York  county  were  not 
primarily  concerned  about  salaries.  They 
should  have  been  entitling  it  "Negotiation 
Procedure  Bulletin."  But  at  that  jyoint  the 
board  had  "categorically  refused  to  negotiate 
such  items  as  pupil-teacher  ratio,  transfer, 
tenure  and  grievances  under  the  present 
agreement"— transfer  and  tenure. 

I  want  to  tell  you  a  little  jmecdote,  Mr. 
Speaker.  You  know,  at  one  point,  I  think  it 
was  about  three  years  ago,  a  teacher  in  York 
county  who  had  considerable  seniority  but 
was  in  her  early  60s  did  not  want  to  teach  a 
full  load  and  asked  to  be  put  on  half  time; 
she  even  gave  up  her  seniority  to  be  able  to 
do  that.  But  you  know  what  happened  a  year 
or  two  later?  Because  she  didn't  have  that 
seniority,  the  board  wanted  to  get  rid  of  her 
—after  she  had  served  that  board  for  some 


MARCH  13.  1974 


275 


25  years.  That's  the  kind  of  good  faith  shown 
by  the  administration  and  the  trustees  in 
York  county. 

The  other  interesting  thing  that  occurred 
on  Thursday  night  after  a  meeting  between 
the  negotiating  team  of  the  OSSITF  and  the 
trustees  wasi  that  the  board  categorically  re^ 
fused  to  consider  arbitration  to  resolve  differ- 
enoes.  The  board  had  categorically  refused' 
to  consider  arbitration  to  resolve  differences 
imtil  legislation  was  introduced  requiring  it, 
Mr.  Speaker— "until  legislation  is  introduced 
requiring  it."  In  October  of  1973  the  board 
negotiators  were  waiting  for  the  legislation 
requiring  arbitration.  They  were  waiting  for 
this  night. 

Earlier,  on  Sept.  18,  the  county  board  of 
education  tried  another  cute  I'ittle  ploy.  They 
got  out  what  they  called  an  open  letter  to 
the  secondary  school  teachers  of  York  county. 
They  tried  to  bypass  the  negotiating  team  of 
the  OSSTF.  It's  the  oldest  game  in  the  book, 
Mr.  Speaker— divide  and  conquer.  Breed  dis- 
trust amongst  the  working  people— in  this 
case,  amongst  the  teachers  in  your  negotiating 
team. 

But  in  that  open  letter  there  is  a  very 
interesting  phrase— very  interesting  indeed. 
The  York  County  Board  of  Education  said, 
and  I  quote:  "The  York  County  Board  of 
Education  teachers,  on  average,  surpass  their 
neighbours  in  qualifications  and  experience." 
That  seems  very  nice,  very  complimentary 
except— do  you  know  what  they  tried  to  use 
that  for,  Mr.  Speaker?  That's  revealed  on 
Oct.  4  in  a  memo  from  the  president  of  Dis- 
trict 11  to  the  teachers,  to  his  colleagues. 
And  there's  this  very  interesting  clause- 
clause  1.1,  subsection  11  of  the  1971-1973 
agreement.  That  clause  says:  "Where  a  teach- 
er requests  and  is  granted  a  teaching  pro- 
gramme which  for  more  than  50  per  cent  of 
the  teaching  time  is  in  an  area  of  the  cur- 
riculum other  than  in  which  his  categorization 
is  based,  he  shall  be  paid  one  category  lower." 
The  teachers'  agreed  to  that  in  1971-1973, 
but  notice  the  key  words,  "Where  a  teacher 
requests  and  is  granted  .  .  ." 

In  1972-1973  there  was  a  dispute  regarding 
two  teachers  in  that  school  year— and  in  fact, 
pardon  me,  it  was  four  teachers.  In  the  spring 
of  1972,  four  teachers  of  area  1  of  the  county 
were  notified  there  was  not  likely  to  be  a 
timetable  available  which  utilized  their  high- 
est certification  for  50  per  cent  of  the  time. 
It  was  pointed  out— not  agreed  to,  not  re- 
quested—it was  pointed  out  they  would  be  paid 
one    category   lower   than   their   category   as 


established  by  the  OSSTF  certification  board 
if  they  wished  to  stay  and  accept  the  avail- 
able classes. 

In  the  autumn  of  1973  that  category  of 
teachers,  that  sizable  group  was  given  that 
option— that  is,  "accept  this  lower  categori- 
zation, accept  this  timetable  which  we  are 
forcing  on  you  of  less  than  50  per  cent  of 
your  specialist  subjects.  "There  was  no  re- 
training programme,  no  encouragement  for 
them  to  stay  on,  no  grandfather  clause. 

So  finally,  in  this  situation,  at  this  sort  of 
initial  first  stage  of  the  dispute,  the  local  ne- 
gotiating team  convened  a  mass  meeting  of 
the  secondary  teachers  of  York  county  on 
Oct.  17.  There  were  696  seats  in  the  theatre; 
there  were  approximately  866  secondary 
school  teachers  in  York  county.  The  theatre 
was  full,  there  was  standing  room.  Over  95 
per  cent  of  the  teachers  were  present  at  the 
meeting.  The  teachers'  local  negotiating  chair- 
man, Dave  Robinson,  recommended  to  the 
assembled  teachers  that  a  request  be  made  to 
the  provincial  executive  of  OSSTF  to  take 
over  the  negotiations.  The  motion  passed  by 
98  per  cent  of  the  secret  ballots  cast,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

What  that  indicates,  very  briefly,  is  of 
course  that  there  was  no  attempt  by  the  Bay 
St.  boys  of  OSSTF  to  come  and  take  over. 
That  is  interesting  in  the  chronicle  of  events 
in  York  county,  because  there  was  a  delibe- 
rate attempt  on  behalf  of  the  trustees,  to 
paint  the  negotiators  for  the  teachers  as  pro- 
vocateurs from  outside. 

An  executive  officer  of  the  OSSTF,  a  Mr. 
Vince  Mathewson,  took  over  as  chief  negoti- 
ator at  the  request  of  the  local  teachers.  On 
Nov.  23  he  had  to  report  to  the  membership 
in  York  county  there  was  a  meeting  that  even- 
ing, or  that  day— pardon  me,  the  previous 
Wednesday— and  that  the  central  discussion 
was  the  matter  of  pupil-teacher  ratio.  The 
board  resolutely  refused  to  give  any  assurance 
that  a  PTR  commitment  would  be  made  to 
the  teachers  in  the  agreement  or  anywhere 
else." 

The  teachers  submitted  specific  proposals 
at  a  meeting  the  following  Thursday  and 
reported  back  to  their  membership.  Actually, 
the  date  of  this  document  is  very  interesting. 
It  is  Dec.  10.  So  that  while  negotiations  are 
going  on  in  York  county  over  these  things, 
things  are  happening  on  the  provincial  scene; 
because  of  course  you  remember,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  Dec.  10  was  the  day  Bill  274 
was  introduced. 


276 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  A  black 
clay. 

Mr.  Foiilds:  Now  on  that  day  the  negotiat- 
ing team  got  out  an  llth-hour  bulletin  which 
dealt  with  that,  but  also  dealt  with  the  matter 
of  what  was  happening  in  York  county.  Ru- 
mours were  being  perpetrated  that  salary  was 
the  important  item  of  dispute.  So  to  allay 
that  fear  they  told  their  members: 

The  provincial  executive  negotiating 
team  met  with  the  board  negotiators  Thurs- 
day evening,  Dec.  6,  1973.  Some  progress 
can  be  noted. 

How  optimistic  these  fellows  are.  How  naive 
they  are.  How  generous  they  are  in  viewing 
their  opponents. 

Some  progress  has  been  noted  in  that 
a  number  of  clauses  have  been  determined 
as  mutually  acceptable  and  carrying  tenta- 
tive agreement.  There  were  discussions  on 
terms  and  conditions  of  work.  To  allay 
apparent  apprehensions  we  reiterate  that 
terms  and  conditions  of  work  are  high  on 
our  list  of  priorities. 

Then,  Mr.  Speaker,  your  friend  and  mine, 
a  person  who  has  been  mentioned  in  this 
Legislature  before,  the  person  who  colours 
all  of  the  negotiations  that  go  on  in  York 
county,  decided  to  hold  a  press  conference. 
He  decided  to  say  at  that  press  conference 
that  the  provincial  teachers'  federation  used 
"clever  psychological  manipulations  to  per- 
petrate the  mass  resignations  of  667  York 
secondary  school  teachers."  They  had  been 
"brain-washed,"  he  said  at  a  board  news  con- 
ference in  Richmond  Hill. 

Who  is  this  Mr.  Chapman?  He  is  a  very 
interesting  man.  He  is  not  working  for  the 
York  County  Board  of  Education  this  year, 
yet  he  is  central  to  the  whole  negotiation 
procedure.  He  is  on  leave  of  absence  with 
OISE. 

Richmond  Hill's  gain  or  York  county's  gain 
was  OISE's  loss-and  OISE  can  ill  afford  any 
losses.  But  Mr.  Chapman,  while  being  on 
leave  of  absence,  is  a  special  consultant  for 
the  negotiators  of  the  York  county  board. 
And  he  says  to  this  news  conference:  "I  have 
absolute  data  that  says  they  don't  even  know 
the  items  being  negotiated"— "they"  being  the 
rank  and  file  teachers  in  York  county. 

Without  applying  the  label  specifically  to 
the  Ontario  Secondary  School  Teachers' 
Federation,  Mr.  Chapman  said:  "Provocateurs 
instigated  the  current  state  of  unrest  amongst 
the  teachers."  The  fact  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  you 
don't  need  provocateurs  to  come  in.  You  have 
got  them  right  there.  There  are  the  board 
trustees  and  Mr.  Chapman.  He's  the  outside 


provocateur,  because  he's  supposed  to  be  on 
leave  of  absence. 

There  is  a  fellow  called  Bob  Roth  who 
writes  an  editorial  page  column  for  the  Aurora 
Banner.  He  saw  through  this  press  confer- 
ence. He  saw  through  these  megalomaniac 
charges.  He  said,  and  I  am  quoting  from  Mr. 
Roth: 

The  tactic  of  trying  to  find  a  scapegoat 
for  real  social,  economic  or  political  prob- 
lems is  not  new  and  history  has  shown  the 
effectiveness  of  uniting  people  around  a 
threat  of  an  "outside  enemy." 

Remember,  this  was  around  Dec.  10,  Dec.  18, 
and  those  fateful  days.  From  the  Ministry  of 
Education  we  were  hearing  words  about 
"mob  rule."  I  think  we  were  even  hearing  it 
from  the  Minister  of  Education. 

Mr.  Laughren:  We  certainly  were. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  from  the  local  board  in 
York  county  they  were  hearing  of  "intimida- 
tion' and-get  this-OSSTF's  "leapfrog  tac- 
tics." The  imagination  boggles. 

The  image  that  the  board  was  trying  to 
create  was  that  those  university-educated 
people  teaching  in  our  schools  were  actually 
mindless  automatons,  that  they  were  puppets 
of  the  negotiating  team. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  It's  easy  to 
write,  but  tough  to  say. 

Mr.  Foulds:  No,  it  is  not  tough  to  say;  it 
is  easy  to  say.  Maybe  it  is  hard  to  say  for 
someone  like  the  member  for  Samia,  who  is 
inarticulate— though  I  take  that  back.  I  with- 
draw that  remark  about  the  hon.  member  for 
Samia. 

The  board  was  trying  to  convince  the 
people  in  York  county  that  somehow  the 
teachers  were  subject  to  an  intricate  brain- 
washing process  by  the  sinister  outside  force, 
OSSTF  leaders  at  1260  Bay  St.  Well,  the  fact 
that  they  are  on  Bay  St.  sometimes  causes  me 
a  little  unease;  but  they  are  at  the  right  end 
of  Bay  St.  They  are  not  down  there  in  the 
financial  section,  yet. 

Then  we  had  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Mancini  as  the  mediator. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Then  we  had  the  report  from 
Mr.  Mancini  that  the  leader  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party  spoke  about  earlier  today. 
I  won't  go  into  that  in  detail.  The  crucial 
point  was,  it  was  apparent  at  the  end  of 
January  that,  if  the  crucial  pupil-teacher  ratio 
issue  could  have  been  solved  everything  else 
basically  was  operational  fall  out.  The  other 


MARCH  13,  1974 


277 


items  would  have  fallen  into  place  in  a  very 
reasonable  and  short  time. 

Nobody  goes  on  strike  lightly. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  The  member  is 
calling  it  a  strike,  is  he? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Sure,  it  has  been  called  that 
all  day. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  didn  t  say  that. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Where  has  the  minister  been? 
It  has  been  called  that  all  day. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Just  wait  till  I  finish  the 
speech. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Is  he  calling  it  a  strike? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Go  back  and  build  a  few  roads 
in  northern  Ontario. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Go  back  and  build  a  few  pass- 
ing lanes  around  Schreiber  and  Kenora. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Is  the  member  calling  it 
a  strike? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Foulds:  If  the  minister  will  stop  listen- 
ing with  his  mouth,  Fll  tell  him. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
call  it  a  strike  and  make  him  happy? 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  He 
should  get  another  volume  of  statutes  there. 
He  is  leaning  over. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Well,  I  was  told  I  was  too 
S'hort  when  I  started. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  If  the  minister  had  been  here 
before,  he  would  have  heard. 

Mr.  Foulds:  No  one,  Mr.  Speaker,  goes  on 
strike  lightly. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  get  it,  it's  a  strike. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Port  Arthur  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Sign  some  more  letters. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Let 
the  man  proceed. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Even  more  so,  no  teacher  re- 
signs his  job  lightly,  because  undter  current 


lack  of  legislation,  the  teacher  doesn't  have 
the  absolute  right  back  to  his  job.  If  he  re- 
signs he  uses  that  collectively.  For  all  intents 
and  purposes,  for  my  friend  from  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  who  doesn't  seem  to  understand  it,  it 
is  a  strike.  But  he  does  not  have,  like  the 
striker  has,  the  guarantee  of  job  security  at 
the  end  of  the  dispute. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  That's  the  difference. 

Mr.  Foulds:  As  the  pressure  mounted,  and 
as  the  dispute  progressed,  it  became  abun- 
dantly clear  that  the  pressure  was  being 
mounted  and  applied  by  those  who  had  a 
very  narrow,  mechanistic  view  of  edlication, 
by  those  who  believe  that  education  can  only 
take  place  inside  a  school  building  and  that 
students  need  to  be  spoon-fed  knowledge  be- 
tween 9  o'clock  and  3:30  in  the  afternoon  in 
Httle  rhythm  timetabled  periods. 

There  were  heart-rending  stories  of  the 
educational  deprivation  being  suffered  by  the 
students.  One  I  recall,  I  believe  it  was  from 
the  Star  but  it  could  have  been  the  Globe, 
detailed  the  plights  of  half  a  dozen  York 
county  students  who  were  "bored,"  Mr. 
Speaker.  One  of  them  even  had  to  resort  to 
practising  with  his  kid  brother's  yo-yo  five  or 
six  hours  a  day.  I  think  he  was'  trying  to  loop 
the  loop  or  do  the  around-the-world  trick. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Those  are  heroes  the  mem- 
ber is  talking  about. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Anybody  who  feels  that  be- 
cause the  school  isn't  going  that's  the  alter- 
native has  a  very  sad  view  of  edtication. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Where  is  the  member's 
leader? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  That  is  the  norm  the  mem- 
ber is  talking  about. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Our  education  system  has 
failed  him,  if,  by  the  time  he's  reached  high 
school,  that's  his  attitude  to  it.  Meanwhile, 
what  was  going  on  in  all  those  so-called  open 
schools,  in  those  schools  that  the  board  was 
keeping  open,  and  for  which  the  minister  was 
continuing  to  pay  some  portion  of  the  grants? 
One  studtent,  a  Miss  Lisa  Daniel,  wrote  the 
Globe  and  Mail  and  said,  "Perhaps  you  would 
be  interested  in  what  is  going  on  at  school- 
Mickey  Mouse  and  other  exciting  films  and 
card  games."  That's  what  was  going  on  in 
the  school  building. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Read  all  the  Globe  and 
Mail  letters.  Read  them  all  and  the  editorials. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Does  the  minister  want  me  to 
filibuster?  I  wouldn't  think  of  it. 


278 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  He  has  been  filibustering 
since  the  day  he  came  in  here. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  will  you  stop  him 
from  inciting  me  to  unparhamentary  activity? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Read  them  all. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  promotion  has  gone  to 
the  minister's  head. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Meanwhile,  what  had  the 
teachers  done?  The  teachers  in  York  county 
had  taken  several  steps  before  the  walkout, 
before  the  withdrawal  of  services,  to  ensure 
as  far  as  it  was  humanly  possible  that  none 
of  the  students  suffered. 

Many  of  them  assigned  essay  and  reading 
assignments  in  English  and  history,  and  a 
series  of  math  problems.  And  they  made 
available  to  their  students,  the  teachers  of 
York  county,  their  home  phone  numbers  so 
that  if  they  were  having  problems  they  could 
receive  personal  attention  on  those  sections 
of  the  assignments  that  had  been  given  to 
them  that  they  were  having  difficulty  with. 
The  teachers  would  not  go  back  into  ths 
schools  to  do  that,  but  they  would  arrange 
to  meet  with  the  students,  say  at  one  of  the 
student's  houses.  Later  on  a  fuller  system 
developed. 

I  want  to  quote  from  a  memo  that  one  of 
the  principals  sent  to  the  teachers.  The  prin- 
cipal of  Richmond  Hill  High  School  said,  in 
a  bulletin  to  his  staff  just  before  the  with- 
drawal of  services,  and  I'm  quoting  directly: 
In    moving    around    the    school    and    in 
talking  to  teachers,  I  have  formed  the  firm 
opinion    that    teachers    are    working    even 
harder  than  usual  and  planning  ahead  in 
preparation  for  a  possible  break  in   daily 
routine.  This  obviously  is  being  done  in  an 
effort  to  see  the  students  in  their  charge  do 
not    suffer    any    more    than    is    absolutely 
necessary.    I    think   this    is    admirable    and 
that   the   teachers   are   to   be   commended. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  He  is  reading,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Of  course  I'm  reading.  I'm 
reading.  I'm  trying  to  quote  directly  from  this 
memorandum. 

An  hon.  member:  The  minister  is  signing 
letters  that  other  people  have  written  for  him. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Don't  be  jealous  of  him. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Well,  it's  better  than  signing 
letters  without  reading  them  as  the  minister 
is  doing. 


An  hon.  member:  Doesn't  the  member  wish 
he  could  do  it? 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  He  just  wants  to 
prove  that  he's  educated,  that's  all. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  know  I  can,  but  he  is 
trying  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  Foulds:  At  the  same  time,  as  soon  as 
the  dispute,  the  withdrawal  of  services  took 
place,  a  tutorial  centre  system  was  designed 
by  the  teachers  and  it  was  operating  from  the 
beginning  of  the  strike,  Mr.  Speaker.  Initially, 
it  is  true,  assistance  was  provided  only  for 
the  grade  13  students,  but  later  the  scheme 
became  across  the  board  and  provided  access 
for  any  student  requesting  help.  Students 
were  given  the  phone  number  of  the  OSSTF 
office  located  in  the  Legion  Hall  in  Richmond 
Hill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Were  they  on  the  payroll? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Then  one  of  the  five  centres 
got  in  touch  with  the  student  to  arrange  for 
seminars  and  so  forth.  The  centres  were 
located  in  Markham  at  St.  Andrew's  United 
Church;  in  Richmond  Hill  at  Richmond  Hill 
United  Church;  in  Thornhill  at  the  Holy 
Trinity  Church;  in  Woodbridge  at  the  Cal- 
vary Baptist  Church;  and  in  Stouffville  at  the 
Stouffville  United  Church. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  How  about  the  pool  hall? 
Better  balance  it  out  with  a  pool  hall  occa- 
sionally. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That's  what  the  minister  would 
do;  that  would  be  his  physical  education 
class.  But  let's  not  impose  his  value  judge- 
ments on  the  teachers  of  York  county. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Or  a  gymnasium. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Besides,  what  is  wrong  with 
pool  halls? 

An  hon.  member:  What  has  the  minister 
got  against  pool  halls? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Is  the  minister  going  to  close 
them  down  now  that  he  is  the  Solicitor 
General? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  No,  no. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  fine  fuss! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


279 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  greatest  bonus 
education  got  in  the  province  was  when 
the  member  quit  and  came  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  No,  nothing;  it  is  the 
churches  I  am  worried  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  is  an  uneducated 
debate  on  education. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Only  from  the  provincial 
secretary's  side. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  has  been 
wrong  up  until  now. 

Mr.  Foulds:  An  article  in  the  Toronto  Star 
on  March  4  outlined  in  some  detail  the  way 
the  tutorial  centre  system  worked.  One  of  the 
students,  a  Cathy  Lemmon,  said  she  was  at 
the  tutorial  centre  in  St.  Andrew's  United 
Church  in  Markham  because: 

"It's  where  my  teachers  are.  When  they 
go  back  to  school  I'll  go  back."  She  said 
she  had  been  studying  at  home  until  the 
teachers  opened  the  centres  a  week  ago  but 
she's  been  able  to  keep  up  to  date  on  her 
school  work  and  she's  not  worried  about 
failure. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Dear  Mr.  Foulds. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Go  ahead;  finish  it,  finish  it! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  Allow  the  mem- 
ber to  complete  his  remarks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  How  much  longer? 

Mr.  Foulds:  You  mean  continue,  Mr. 
Speaker,  not  complete  my  remarks.  Continue 
surely. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  should  have  fin- 
ished half  an  hour  ago,  so  let  him  finish. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  Some  members  haven't 
even  started. 

Mr.  Foulds:  About  500  students  were  enr 
rolled  in  the  centres  across  York  county  and 
attendance  had  been  80  to  85  daily.  The  aim 
of  the  programme,  basically,  it  is  admitted, 
Mr.  Speaker,  was  to  provide  remedial  aid  and 
the  introduction  of  some  new  material;  but  it 
points  out  that  the  teachers  made  every  effort 
to  make  themselves  available  to  those  stu- 
dents who  genuinely  wished  to  pursue  what 
one  of  my  friends  from  the  Liberal  Party 
earlier  called  the  book  learning  side  of  edu- 
cation. In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  pro- 
gramme was  originally  set  up  for  the  grade 
13    students,   no    student    at    any    level    was 


turned  away.  If  they  came  through  the  doors 
of  the  church  halls  they  were  given  help. 

What  do  we  have  here,  Mr.  Speaker?  We 
have  the  dispute  in  which  the  board  has  bar- 
gained in  bad  faith  from  the  beginning. 

Mr.  Camithers:  Elected  by  the  people. 

Mr.  Foulds:  We  have  teacher  negotiators 
who  have  put  counter  proposals.  I  want  to 
relate  another  small  incident  which  illustrates 
the  extent  to  which  someone  at  the  board 
level,  probably  at  the  administrative  level, 
was  provocative. 

About  three  days  after  the  teachers  went 
out,  one  of  the  science  teachers  in  one  of  the 
secondary  schools  had  planned  a  trip,  which 
he  does  annually  with  his  senior  science  stu- 
dents, to  go  to  one  of  the  universities^ Water- 
loo, I  believe  it  was.  He  checked  with  the 
OSSTF.  They  okayed  the  trip,  s-o  the  teacher 
could  take  those  senior  students  on  the  outing 
to  the  University  of  Waterloo.  The  insurance 
on  the  school  bus  was  applicable  and  valid. 
The  board  refused,  after  some  consideration, 
to  let  that  group  of  kids  go  to  the  University 
of  Waterloo. 

That  can  only  be  seen,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a 
deliberate  attempt  to  try  to  alienate  the 
parents  and  those  students  from  the  teachers. 
That  teacher  was  willing,  not  to  go  back  to 
the  school  building,  but  to  go  with  his  stu- 
dents on  a  field  trip  which  had  been  plaimed 
for  some  time.  There  was  no  legal'  reason  why 
it  should  not  have  takeni  place.  There  was  no 
worry  about  insurance.  There  was  no  worry 
about  costs;  but  the  board  refused  to  make 
the  bus  available. 

We  have  a  board  that  has'  consistently 
shown  bad  faith  throughout  the  entire  teacher 
negotiations.  We  have  teachers  who  have 
made  every  effort,  in  individual  and  in  collec- 
tive ways,  both  through  their  negotiators  to 
make  counter  proposals  and,  privately  in  a 
humane  way,  to  make  themselves  available 
for  teaching  or  for  learning  to  the  children. 

I  want  to  say  a  bit  about  this  so-called 
dilemma  facing  the  grade  13  students.  A  lot 
of  public  outcry  has  been  that  the  gradfe  13s 
are  going  to  fail  the  year  and  they  won't  be 
allowed  to  go  to  university.  What  nonsense, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Anybody  who  is  familiar  with 
the  secondary  school  system  knows  that  the 
high  school  students  from  grade  13  are 
accepted  into  university  on  their  Christmas 
grade  13  marks  and  on  their  grade  12  marks, 
not  on  the  full  year.  Their  applications  have 
already  gone  in.  The  university  accepts  them 
conditionally  provided  that  the  remaining 
school  year  marks  have  not  fluctuated  dra- 
matically from  those  averaged,  but  the  basic 


280 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


administrative  decision  about  admission   has 
been  made. 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
They  need  an  April  1  mark. 

Mr.  Foulds:  In  York  county? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Of  which  the  member 
knows  absolutely  nothing. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Is  this  minister  going  to  take 
part  in  this  debate? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Which  is  more  than  this  min- 
ister does;  which  is  more  than  he  knows. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  When  is  he  going  to  make 
his  speech? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Right  after  the  member 
for  Windsor  West. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  have  made  mine. 

Mr.  Foulds:  One  of  the  questions  I  want 
to  raise  with  this  Legislature  is,  why  is  the 
compulsion  being  forced  on  the  teachers? 
Even  at  this  hour,  as  this  bill  proceeds 
through  the  House,  there  is  a  possible  13th- 
hour  solution— not  an'  llth-hour  one,  but  a 
13th-hour  one. 

I  would  beg  the  minister  to  ask  both  par- 
ties to  execute  a  docvunent  similar  to  the  one 
that  he  tried  valiantly  over  the  weekend  to 
get  executed,  but  giving  the  teachers  the 
guarantees  that  the  bill  contains.  Ask  both 
parties  to  go  voluntarily— maybe  later  tonight 
or  tomorrow— and  to  accept  that  document. 
But,  Mr.  Speaker,  through  you  I  say  to  the 
minister,  execute  the  document  outside  of  this 
Legislature.  Don't  contaminate  the  whole 
negotiation  process  between  teachers  and 
boards  by  forcing  compulsion  at  this  time 
with  this  bill. 

The  leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party 
said  earlier  that  three  representatives  of  this 
party  pleaded  with  three  of  the  teacher  nego- 
tiators on  Monday  night  last  to  try  to  see  if 
a  voluntary  settlement  could  be  achieved.  If 
the  minister  is  willing  not  merely  to  make 
himself  available  but  to  take  an  initiative 
tonight  or  tomorrow,  before  the  bill  passes, 
to  reach  a  voluntary  agreement,  we  would 
offer  whatever  good  offices  we  have  with  the 
teachers  to  reach  that  conclusion. 

But  I  would  very  seriously  beg  the  minister 
and  the  government  not  to  proceed  with  this 
bill  at  this  time- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Is  the  member  serious? 

Mr.  Foulds:  —because  if  they  proceed  with 
this   bill   they   colour   the    whole   texture   of 


future  possible  negotiations  with  boards  and 
teachers,  and  they  colour  the  general  legisla- 
tion that  may  be  brought  in  subsequently,  so 
that  it  can  no  longer  be  dealt  with  on  its 
merits. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  He  can't  be  serious. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  government  has  contami- 
nated the  laboratory,  so  to  speak. 

As  I  said  in  the  debate  on  Bill  274,  even 
though  this  is  one  group,  and  it  is  only  one 
group,  every  time  we  take  away  the  basic, 
free  collective  bargaining  rights  of  one  group, 
no  matter  how  small,  it  becomes  easier  and 
easier  to  do  it  to  more  and  more  groups. 
That's  why,  although  at  the  beginning  of  my 
speech  I  indicated  to  the  minister  that  he 
and  his  ministry  have  learned  a  lot  about 
drafting  legislation,  and  that  the  bill  is  well 
drafted,  we  cannot  accept  it. 

We  cannot  accept  it  because  it  embodies 
that  basic  compulsory  principle  that  takes 
from  one  group  of  people  basic  civil  rights. 
We  would  like  to  see  the  bill  suspended. 
We  would  like  to  see  a  voluntary  agreement 
reached.  And  I  would  be  willing  to  bet  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  given  the  guarantees  that 
are  in  the  bill,  as  clearly  spelled  out  as  they 
are  in  the  bill,  we  would  have  at  least  a  70 
per  cent  chance  of  getting  that  voluntary 
agreement.  I  would  urge  the  minister  to 
make  that  one  last  effort. 

I  don't  want  to  be  too  florid  in  conclusion 
but  as  to  our  attitude  toward  compulsory 
arbitration,  or  compulsion  in  any  bill,  I  might 
paraphrase  Macbeth:  "You  get  so  far  steeped 
in  blood  that  it  is  as  easy  to  cross  over  the 
river  to  the  other  bank  than  to  return." 
Once  we  take  those  rights  away  from  an 
additional  group  of  people,  it  is  easier  to  do 
it  through  the  whole  labour  relations  process. 

We  would  ask  the  minister,  very  sincerely, 
to  withdraw  the  bill  at  this  time.  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Prince 
Edward-Lennox. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  in  support  of  the  bill. 
Firstly,  may  I  commend  you  on  the  fine 
manner  in  which  you  are  conducting  these 
proceedings.  You  not  only  grace  that  chair 
but  you  certainly  add  dignity  and  charm  to 
the  House.  Secondly,  I  would  like  to  com- 
mend the  Minister  of  Education,  the  Hon. 
Thomas  Wells. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  Is  that  his  name? 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  think  has  has  done  just  a 
tremendous  job. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


281 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downs view):  A  great 
man. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Just  no  question  about  it. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Stand  up. 

Mr.  Foulds:  This  isn't  like  the  time  in 
December,  is  it? 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  dedication  and  the  hard 
work  that  he  has  put  in  here  is  just  beyond 
belief,  just  beyond  belief. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  yes,  yes. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Order. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Speaking  of  trouble, 
where's  the  member  for  Grey-Bruce  (Mr. 
Sargent)?  Tell  him  we— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An    hon.    member:    There    won't    be    any 

trouble- 
Mr.  Speaker:   Order,  please.  The  member 

has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  think  any- 
one  likes    compulsory   arbitration.    However, 
surely  after  10  months- 
Mr.  Laughren:  That's  nonsense.  The  mem- 
bers opposite  just  love  it. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  He  believes  in  enforced 
socialism. 

Mr.  Taylor:  —of  negotiation  and  concilia- 
tion, some  finality  must  be  brought  to  the 
bargaining  process.  And  I  think— 

Mr.  Foulds:  Wasn't  there  somebody  else 
who  thought  there  should  be  a  final  solution? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Quiet.  Don't  interrupt. 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  gather  the  member  doesn't 
believe  in  final  solutions  to  anything.  It 
strikes  me  that  the  more  dissension  and  dis- 
cord he  can  inject  into  any  matter,  the  more 
chaotic  the  conditions  be,  the  more  he  thrives. 
That's  his  philosophy. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Does  the  member  check  his 
bed  every  night  before  he  goes  to  sleep? 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  sure  wouldn't  want  to  find 
the  member  for  Port  Arthur  under  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.  Foulds:  He  doesn't  need  to  worry  about 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Like  Maxwell  Smart,  he 
keeps  chaos  alive. 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  has 
been  mentioned  earlier,  that  we  have  to  con- 
sider, first  of  all,  the  students  in  the  process, 
and  then  of  course  the  parents,  the  com- 
munity, the  province  and  the  very  nation. 
It's  all  very  well  to  say  that  the  students  will 
not  lose  their  year,  but  they  are  concerned; 
they  are  very  concerned.  They  are  enrolling 
in  other  classes;  they  are  paying  their  own 
tuition  fees  in  order  to  enrol.  Let  the  opposi- 
tion convince  them  that  they  are  not  losing 
something  by  having  their  schools  empty  of 
teachers.  They  know  they  are,  and  if  they  will 
search  their  conscience  they  will  admit  that 
they  are. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  They  haven't  got  any  con- 
science. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Would  the  hon.  member  for 
Durham  get  his  feet  ofi^  the  desk? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  hon.  member  should 
talk  about  feet  on  the  desk! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  That's  just  about  how  hypo- 
critical those  people  are. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Attaboy.  Talk  to  them. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  How  come  the  member  for 
York  West  didn't  make  it  to  the  front 
benches  there,  into  the  cabinet? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  examine 
the  bill,  you  will  see  that  the  negotiations  in 
connection  with  salary  guarantee  the  teachers 
a  minimum  of  the  last  offer  made  to  them  by 
the  board. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Now  what  rmion,  what  em- 
ployee, would  not  like  to  start  off  the  bar- 
gaining process  by  bringing  before  the  arbi- 
trator the  final  offer  of  the  employer?  You 
give  me  an  example  where  that  has  happened 
before,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Furthermore,  if  you  examine  the  bill  you 
will  see  that  the  pupil-teacher  ratio  is  a 
subject  matter  of  arbitration.  Again,  I  think 
that  is  something  which  is  probably  incom- 


282 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


prehensible  in  terms  of  similar  types  of  nego- 
tiations. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It  was  there  in  all  the  others. 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  member  challenges  that. 

Mr.  Bounsalh  It's  been  there  in  all  the 
others. 

Mr.  Taylor:  A  policeman  doesn't  say  how 
many  policemen  there  are  going  to  be  in  a 
city  to  police  that  city. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It's  there  in  all  the  other 
cases  of  teacher  negotiations. 

Mr.  Taylor:  It's  the  city  that  determines 
the  number  of  policemen. 

Mr.  Foulds:  They  certainly  do  negotiate 
that. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Look  at  the  fire  departments 
and  so  on. 

Mr.  Foulds:  They  certainly  do  negotiate 
that. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  member  would  be  sur- 
prised. 

Mr.  Taylor:  They  certainly  do  not. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Quite  specifically. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Any  of  that  type  of  group 
which  goes  to  arbitration  would  be  over- 
whelmed by  a  piece  of  legislation  which 
guaranteed  them  those  minimums,  and  to 
be  able  to  bargain  from  the  base  that  has 
been  established  by  this  legislation. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  If  the  member  doesn't  like 
it  he  can  vote  against  the  bill. 

Mr.  Taylor:  What  I  am  saying  to  the  House 
is  that  this  bill  is  more  than  fair  from  the 
teachers'  point  of  view. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  hope  Hansard  doesn't  mis- 
quote this. 

Mr.  Taylor:  If  the  opposition  members 
were  interested  in  really  setthng  that  dispute 
with  the  teachers  they  would  be  supporting 
the  bill.  I  think  it  is  sheer  hypocrisy  to 
oppose  it. 

Mr.  Riddell:  How  would  the  member  like 
his  child  to  be  in  a  class  of  40,  particularly 
during  a  chemistry  lab?  Does  he  think  he 
would  learn? 

Mr.  Taylor:  My  friend,  I  have  got  a  lot  of 
my  education  looking  through  a  window. 


Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  What  is  he- 
a  Peeping  Tom? 

Mr.  Singer:  That  was  a  very  good'  remark. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Did  Hansard  get  that  dt>wn? 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  went  to  university  after  the 
war. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Taylor:  We  were  Iticky  to  have  the 
opportunity  of  attending  school.  And  those 
classes  were  so  filled  we  attended  in  church 
basements,  theatres,  whatever  accommodation 
we  could  get  and  we  got  our  education.  It 
wasn't  just  a  question  of  the  physical  plant- 
it  was  a  question- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Taylor:  —of  having  that  opportunity 
there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Let  the  member  talk  to 
us;  we  understand  him. 

Mr.  Taylor:  They  don't  understand.  They 
doi/t  want  to  imderstand. 

An  hon.  member:  Did  Hansard  get  down 
that  remark  of  the  member  for  Rainy  River? 

Mr.  Givens:  Hansard  will  say  "inaudible." 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  pltease.  Allow  the 
member  to  continue. 

Mr.  Reid:  Tell  him  to  go  ahead. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Mr.  Speaker,  they  are  just 
afraid  of  the  truth.  The  truth  shall  make  one 
free  but  they  are  afraid  of  the  truth. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Does  the  member  think  that 
outside  agitators  caused  the  riots'  in  Attica 
State  Prison? 

An  hon.  member:  The  conservative  mem- 
bers are  doing  all  the  interrupting  here  to- 
night. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Reid:  We'd  just  like  to  hear  a  little 
truth. 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  opposition  are  the  people 
that  want  to  perpetuate  the  impasse.  They 
talk  about  provocateurs. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Ask  the  minister  if  he  be- 
lieves that? 


MARCH  13,  1974 


283 


Mr.  Taylor:  They  talk  about  provocateurs'— 
they  are  the  provocateurs. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  On  his  wife's  birthday. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Does  he  think  that  outside 
agitators  caused  the  riots  in  Attica  State 
Prison? 

Mr.  Taylor:  My  friend  seems  to  have  a 
pipeline  to  these  negotiations  and'  we  appre- 
ciate very  well  his  principles,  such  as  they 
are. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Such  as  they  are. 

Mr.  Taylor:  But  he  is  not  the  least  bit  in- 
terested in  solving  a  dispute  in  which  so 
many  lives  are  at  stake,  the  whole  educa- 
tional process. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Such  as  it  is. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is— 

An  hon.  member:  He  is  a  real  motherhood 
speaker. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Mr.  Speaker— 

Itnterjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Taylor:  What  are  they  afraid  of? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Certainly  not  of  the  member's 
speech. 

Mr.  Taylor:  No,  because  the  member  is  not 
interested  in  putting  students  back  in  the 
schools.  He  is  interested  in  emptying  the 
classes. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Taylor:  He  is  interested  in  confusion 
and  chaos,  agitation.  He  is  interested  ini  strife. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  The  member  is  filibustering 
here,  that's  what  he  is  doing. 

Mr.  Taylor:  He  doesn't  have  a  conscience. 
He  is  not  concerned  with  the  studtents. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We  are  concerned  with  the 
credibility  of  his  speech. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  think  they  beat  their 
wives,  too. 

Mr.  Taylor:  It  is  with  those  remarks,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  I  rise  in  support  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  Singer:  To  support  the  bill? 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  sooner  the  teachers'  get 
into  the  classrooms  and  the  students  get  back 


to   their   classrooms,   the  better  for   all   and 
the  community. 

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

Mr.  Singer:  Great  fellow. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Hear  ye. 

Mr.  Givens:  Mr.  Speaker,  during  the  dinner 
break,  driving  home  and  back,  I  was  listen- 
ing to  the  news  reports  on  the  radio  on  what 
was  happening  here.  The  broadcasters  were 
indicating  that  there  had  been  a  meeting  to- 
day of  the  teachers'  association  up  in  New- 
market, and  reference  was  made  to  the  fact 
that  even  though  the  legislation  had  been 
tabled,  the  debate  was  going  on,  would  go 
on  for  hours,  and  would  go  on  tonight. 

I  sort  of  mused  to  myself  that  this  wasn't 
really  much  of  a  debate— an  oratorial  contest 
perhaps,  but  not  a  debate  in  the  sense  that 
anybody  was  going  to  make  any  points,  that 
those  who  opposed  the  legislation  were  going 
to  win  anything  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagin- 
ation or  by  any  chance.  The  legislation  had 
been  tabled,  the  Juggemaunt  would  roll  on, 
the  die  was  cast  regardless  of  what  we  in 
the  opposition  would  say,  so  it  really  \\asn't 
in  the  nature  of  a  debate. 

I  can  see  that  the  minister  is  waiting  with 
great  patience  to  have  the  legislation  passed, 
because  after  many,  many  weeks  of  activity 
in  which  he  worked  so  very  hard,  he  will  feel 
relieved.  The  only  future  embarrassment  that 
he  may  have  is  if  the  teachers  decide  to 
defy  the  legislation,  and  I  don't  pose  that 
mischievously.  It  may  happen. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  Is 
the  member  suggesting  they  should? 

Mr.  Givens:   I  think  it  is  interesting  that 
last   year   when   compulsory   legislation    was 
tabled  with  respect  to  the  elevator  operators 
they  went  back  to  work- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  So  vsoll  the  teachers. 

Mr.  Givens:  —the  moment  that  the  legis- 
lation was  tabled,  and  here  so  far  the  teachers 
have  not  gone  back  to  work.  I  have  to  ask 
myself  the  question  as  to  whether,  indeed, 
this  group,  who  in  other  circumstances  and 
many  years  in  the  past  were  small  "c"  con- 
servative in  nature,  may  find  themselves  to 
be  so  militant  that  they  may  decide  to  defy 
the  legislation.  I  hope  not.  I  don't  think 
there  is  anything  to  be  gained  from  that. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  still  wish  to  say  a  few 
words,  not  that  I  am  going  to  convince  any- 
body, but  I  must  say,  sir,  that  I  am  alarmed 


284 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


at  this  piece  of  legislation.  I  have  serious 
misgi\ings  about  it,  and  I  dare  say,  sir, 
that  the  government  may  have  misgivings 
about  it.  There  is  nothing  in  this  legislation 
that  they  couldn't  have  tabled  wrecks  ago,  and 
I  can't  help  feeling  that  they  have  some 
misgivings  because  they  have  trod  so  care- 
fully, as  if  they  were  v^^alking  on  eggs, 
before  bringing  this  down  in  the  way  that 
they  ha\'e.  So  they  must  have  misgivings 
and  I  have,  and  there  are  a  few  things  I 
want  to  say  out  of  very  deep  conviction. 

I  am  opposed  to  compulsory  arbitration 
and  I  will  tell  you  why,  Mr.  Speaker.  Some 
of  the  reasons  I  will  give  you  are  not  new, 
you  have  probably  heard  them  before,  and 
may  I  say  this  en  passant,  that  people  have 
indicated- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  Well,  I  thought  the  members 
were  educated;  we  are  talking  about  educa- 
tion. That  means  "in  passing." 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  People  have  indicated  their 
concern  about  the  students  in  this  particular 
area,  that  they  weren't  being  educated.  This 
may  be  a  good  thing  for  the  students,  and 
again  I  am  not  being  facetious.  I  speak  out 
t)f  conviction,  out  of  concern.  As  the  minister 
has  indicated  that  the  students  wall  not  suflFer 
I  don't  know  what  he  has  got  figured  out 
for  them,  but  if  he  means  that  those  of 
them  who  were  concerned  about  losing  their 
year  won't,  those  who  were  concerned  about 
their  scholarship  status,  or  concerned  about 
going  on  to  college  will  not  have  to  be 
concerned  then  that's  fine. 

But  I  really  think  that  the  trouble  vdth  a 
lot  of  things  in  education  is  that  students 
learn  vicariously  or  they  learn  from  textbooks 
and  they  do  not  learn  from  living.  I  think 
that  some  of  the  older  students  might  very 
well  benefit  from  this  industrial  strike  that 
they  have  lived  through,  because  they  will 
begin  to  understand  and  to  feel  and  to  per- 
ceive what  it  means  to  live  through  an  in- 
dustrial war,  to  live  through  a  trade  war,  to 
live  through  a  union  conflict  which  they  are 
seeing  for  the  first  time  at  first  hand  and 
not  vicariously. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Not  through  the  vraidow! 

Mr.  Givens:  Not  through  the  window,  yes, 
and  not  as  Peeping  Toms  but  as  people  who 
are  part  of  this  thing;  they  are  concerned, 
they  are  in  the  middle  of  the  upper  and 
the  nether  millstone  in  this  particular  case. 


I  am  against  compulsory  arbitration  be- 
cause I  believe  that  in  the  field  of  con- 
tinuing human  relations  you  cannot  force 
people  into  a  human  relationship  on  a  con- 
tinuing basis  by  legislation  or  at  the  point 
of  a  gun.  I  don't  think  you  can  do  that  in 
a  marital  situation  between  husband  and 
wife,  between  a  father  and  a  son,  a  mother 
and  a  daughter,  or  a  brother  and  a  brother. 

You  can  do  it  in  a  court  of  law  where  you 
have  a  plaintiff  and  a  defendant  who  may 
have  a  conflict  over  a  business  matter  and 
they  resort  to  litigation,  and  they  have  a 
hell  of  a  fight  in  court  and  no  matter  who 
wins  they  may  appeal  it  or  they  may  abide 
by  the  decision,  and  they  never  speak  to 
each  other  again  in  a  million  years,  and  that's 
all  right;  the  conflict  is  resolved,  it's  arbi- 
trated and  it's  settled.  But  where  there  is 
a  continuing  relationship,  where  people  have 
to  live  with  each  other  day  after  day,  week 
after  week,  month  after  month,  you  cannot 
force  it  at  the  point  of  a  gun,  or  at  the  point 
of  a  piece  of  legislation. 

When  we  are  dealing  with  business  and 
family  matters,  where  the  law  is  specific  or 
even  if  it's  sort  of  remote,  we  can  interpret 
and  apply  the  law;  but  with  respect  to  con- 
tinuing relationships,  we  cannot  do  that— and 
certainly  not  here.  And  we  cannot  teach  chil- 
dren under  duress.  Fancy  a  teacher  standing 
in  a  classroom— never  mind  the  PTR,  in  any 
classroom— trying  to  teach  kids  under  duress 
because  they  are  forced  to  do  this  by  legis- 
lation. 

Then  there's  the  matter  of  the  arbitrators. 
The  bill  calls  for  the  appointment  of  three 
arbitrators.  Where  are  these  Solomons  going 
to  come  from?  Where  are  these  men  who  are 
so  sagacious,  so  wise,  so  clever,  so  perceptive 
that  out  of  nowhere  and  after  many  weeks  of 
conflict,  they  suddenly  appear  on  the  scene? 
They'll  be  plucked  from  the  background 
somewhere,  put  into  a  situation  of  conflict 
and  expected  to  settle  it  when  the  minister 
couldn't  settle  it,  when  all  his  high-priced 
helpers  couldn't  settle  it,  when  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  union  couldn't  settle  it  and 
so  on. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  And  the  member  for  York 
Centre  couldn't  settle  it. 

Mr.  Givens:  Where  are  these  wise  men 
going  to  come  from  all  of  a  sudden?  And  if 
the  minister  has  them  and  they  are  available, 
why  hasn't  he  found  them  before  this,  Mr^ 
Speaker? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


285 


Mr.  Givens:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe,  and  my 
colleagues  on  this  side  believe,  that  compul- 
sory arbitration  is  only  applicable- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Let's  pass  the  legislation 
and  get  on  with  it! 

An  Hon.  member:  Let's  have  the  teachers 
back  tomorrow  morning. 

Mr.  Givens:  —in  situations  where  matters 
of  public  health  and  safety  are  at  stake, 
when  life  and  death  are  at  stake.  It  is  not 
enough  to  say  that  a  certain  industry  or  a 
certain  calling  is  essential.  That  is  not  the 
criterion  for  compulsory  arbitration.  I  think 
garbage  collection  is  essential,  street  sweep- 
ing is  essential,  the  running  of  elevators  is 
essential,  the  providing  of  a  water  supply  is 
essential,  public  transportation  is  essential.  I 
would  not  consider  any  of  these  fields  in 
which  compulsory  arbitration  should  take 
place  in  a  labour  dispute.  Police,  yes;  fire, 
yes- 
Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  The 
Liberals  voted  for  it.  They  voted  for  it  a 
year  ago. 

Mr.  Givens:  —hospital  workers,  yes— but  not 
in  a  case  of  this  kind. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  Mr.  Speaker,  strikes  are  by 
nature  costly.  Strikes  are  by  nature  incon- 
venient. They  are  meant  to  be.  They  are  a 
form  of  economic  warfare.  They  are  painful. 
But  I  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  mean  this 
very  seriously  and  out  of  a  sense  of  convic- 
tion, that  this  is  the  price  we  pay  in  a  democ- 
racy for  the  kind  of  society  that  we  want 
to  have.  Either  we  are  prepared  to  pay  that 
price  or  we  are  not  prepared  to  pay  that 
price.  We  on  this  side  are  prepared  to  pay 
that  price.  We  think  it's  essential  for  a  free 
societ\'.  In  the  Soviet  Union  and  in  the  "iron 
curtain"  countries  such  a  thing  could  not  hap- 
pen, but  it  does  happen  here—and  it  is  part 
of  the  price  we  pay  for  freedom. 

Mr.   W.  Hodgson:    I  can  assure  the  hon. 
member- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Givens:  There  is  another  thing  that 
concerns  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  It  should  concern 
the  minister  and  the  government.  I  think  it 
should  concern  all  of  us.  I  say  to  the  minister, 
this  group  is  an  unusual  group— I  don't  have 
to  tell  of  highly  intelligent,  highly  educated 
people.  In  the  past,  there  has  never  been 
much  trouble  with  the  teaching  group  in  this 


province.  They  are  not  militants.  They  are  not 
stevedores.  They  are  not  longshoremen.  They 
are  not  miners  who  perhaps  haven't  had  the 
opportunities  of  education  that  these  people 
have  had.  There  hasn't  been  any  evidence 
that  they  are  being  led  by  militants,  by  Com- 
munists, by  Trotskyites  or  what  have  you. 
There  has  been  no  evidence  of  this  kind  at 
all  here. 

Now,  if  this  particular  group  in  our  society 
is  conducting  itself  in  this  manner,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  suggest  to  you  that  our  society  is 
in  trouble.  I  say  this,  as  a  member  of  this 
government,  even  sitting  on  this  side  of  the 
House:  We  have  got  much  to  be  concerned 
about.  If  this  is  what  we  get  from  this  parti- 
cular group,  this  elite— they  don't  call  them- 
selves that,  but  I  say  they  are  by  virtue  of 
their  education,  their  background  and  their 
upbringing— these  people  who  are  teaching 
our  kids,  who  have  control  of  the  minds  and 
the  souls  of  our  children,  this  is  a  matter  of 
very  grave  concern.  Somewhere,  Mr.  Speaker, 
we  have  failed.  The  minister  has  failed  and 
we  have  failed. 

We  have  failed  throughout  the  community 
if  this  is  what  we  get  from  this  group,  con- 
sidering their  background,  their  education 
and  their  intelligence.  And  I  don't  blame 
them.  I  don't  say  they  owe  us  a  higher  duty 
than  anybody  else,  that  they  owe  us  a  higher 
sense  of  obligation,  that  they  should  conduct 
themselves  in  a  different  manner  or  that  they 
have  fewer  rights  than  other  groups.  I  would 
expect  a  stronger  sense  of  social  obligation 
from  them,  but  something  has  gone  wrong 
somewhere.  We  should  concern  ourselves  with 
this,  because  these  darned  things— compulsory 
arbitration  now,  and  next  year  it  will  be 
something  else— they  don't  end  it.  This  is 
just  a  temporary  ending  of  the  situation.  It 
certainly  doesn't  solve  the  situation. 

There  are  certain  things,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
puzzle  me.  For  many  weeks  I  was  inundated 
with  mail  which  said  that  the  reason  the 
teachers  were  behaving  this  way  was  because 
of  the  ceilings  that  the  government  has  im- 
posed. The  minister  said  in  this  House  that 
it  was  not  because  of  the  ceilings  that  were 
imposed.  The  minister  was  asked  the  other 
day,  "What  happens  with  the  ceilings?"  If, 
as  the  minister  announced  in  his  statement, 
there's  going  to  be  a  floor  in  this  arbitration 
and  no  ceiling— he  said  ceilings  would  not 
apply— then  where  will  the  money  for  the 
settlement  come  from?  Is  this  government 
going  to  mortgage  the  future?  Are  the  local 
boards  of  education  going  to  mortgage  the 
future?  Will  the  board  of  education  in  this 


286 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


particular  community  mortgage  the  future  for  Does  this  mean  that  this  is  inexorable,  that 


the  purpose  of  paying  the  awards  which  an 
arbitrator  will  decide?  What  is  the  answer? 
I  wish  the  Minister  of  Education  would 
answer  some  of  these  questions  that  I'm 
asking. 

Another  question  I'd  like  to  ask  of  the 
minister,  through  you,  Mr.  Speaker:  What  is 
he  doing  to  forestall  a  similar  situation  from 
happening  with  the  CUPE  workers  in  the 
educational  organization?  There  are  the  care- 
takers and  the  sweepers  and  the  cleaners  and 
the  people  who  keep  the  boilers  going.  They 
can  also  shut  down  the  educational  plant. 
What  is  the  minister  going  to  do  after  he 
settles  this  dispute?  Does  this  bill  include 
them;  or  is  this  to  be  a  precedent  for  what 
he  will  do  if  he  gets  into  trouble  with  them? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Theyll  get  around  to  it. 

Mr.  Givens:  We'd  like  to  have  an  jfnswer. 
Now,  how  does  the  minister  adjust  what  he's 
going  to  do  here  for  the  pupil-teacher  ratio 
with  respect  to  the  declining  registration;  the 
declining  enrolment  he  obviously  is  going  to 
have  next  year?  The  minister  has  projections 
of  these  figures  and  he  knows  he's  going  to 
have  a  declining  enrolment.  How  does  he  take 
this  into  consideration  on  Bill  12? 

There  is  another  question  I'd  like  to  ask: 
What  does  the  minister  do  if  the  arbitrators 
make  a  decision  with  respect  to  certain  mat- 
ters which  are  not  enforceable;  which  cannot 
be  effectuated  from  the  standpoint  of  adminis- 
tration? They  may  make  decisions  which  can- 
not be  put  into  operation. 

Indeed,  if  everything  is  to  be  negotiable, 
does  that  mean  literally  that  every  single 
thing  will  be  negotiable?  What  about  the 
length  of  the  school  year?  Are  the  teachers 
going  to  decide  to  elongate  the  school  year? 
Instead  of  making  it  an  eight-month  year, 
they  might  make  it  a  10-month  year  or  an 
11-month  year,  and  sort  of  telescope  the 
period  of  time  that  the  students  are  in  school. 
Does  it  really  mean  every  single  thing?  Will 
it  apply  to  extracurricular  activities?  Will  it 
apply  to  matters  which  are  clearly  policy 
matters?  I  don't  think  this  is  made  clear. 

The  last  matter  of  concern  that  bothers 
me,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  since  the  province 
pays  something  like  60  per  cent  and  up  to 
90  per  cent  in  some  cases  of  the  cost  of 
education,  does  this  mean  again  that  there's 
going  to  be  the  sacrificing  of  local  autonomy? 
We're  finding  it  in  regional  government,  with 
more  and  more  centralization,  more  and  more 
decisions  being  made  with  respect  to  educa- 
tion from  the  Kremlin  right  here  in  Queen's 
Park. 


it  is  irrevocable,  that  we're  going  to  continue 
on  this  path  of  further  and  further  centraliza- 
tion in  the  field  of  education— as  there  is  with 
respect  to  transportation  and  with  respect  to 
regional  government  and  with  respect  to 
water  resources  and  all  the  other  things  that 
we've  been  dealing  with  in  this  Legislature? 
I  am  very  concerned. 

The  basis  of  our  whole  educational  system 
is  supposed  to  be  local  autonomy— where 
regional  needs  and  local  needs  have  a  great 
order  of  priority.  This  is  not  what  we're 
going  to  get  under  this  system  if  the  govern- 
ment persists  in  this  kind  of  legislation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Does  the  member  for 
York-Forest  Hill  favour  trusteeship  taking 
over  the  board? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
I  think  it's  better  than  imposing  compulsory 
arbitration. 

Mr.  Givens:  I  think  it's  better  than  what 
the  government  is  doing  here.  There's  nothing 
of  a  shotgun  approach  in  the  trustee  system. 
Well,  answer  that  and  explain  it  to  me.  I 
would  like  the  minister  to  explain  it  to  me. 
He  can  debate  it.  This  is  supposed  to  be  a 
debate,  the  radio  broadcasters  say. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Trusteeship  would  have 
to  be  done  by  an  Act  of  this  Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Givens:  This  legislation  may  rid  the 
minister  of  the  temporary  toothache  he's  got, 
the  temporary  pain  that  he's  got— but  the 
malady  will  linger  on.  The  problems  that  I 
have  set  out  in  these  few  remarks  that  I've 
made  here,  I  think  are  very  very  serious.  For 
these  reasons  I  carmot  support  this  legisla- 
tion; and  my  colleagues  can't  support  this 
legislation.  I  hope  that  the  minister  will  see 
fit  to  answer  some  of  the  questions  that  I've 
posed  in  the  course  of  my  brief  remarks. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Nickel 
Belt. 

An  hon.  member:  Give  him  a  stepladder. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Get  up  off  the  chair. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  these  dis- 
paraging remarks  about  my  stature  persist, 
even  though  I've  tried  to  convince  the  mem- 
bers of  this  House  that  from  the  time  I 
realized  I  had  stopped  growing  one  philoso- 
phy carried  me  through  life,  and  that  was— 

Mr.  Drea:  That  was  pretty  early  wasn't  it? 


MARCH  13,  1974 


287 


Mr.  Laughren:  Very  early,  yes!  Particularly 
I  when  I  got  to  be  a  teenager  and  started  to 
I        go  out  on  dates,  the  philosophy  was  that— 

Mr.  Reid:  Maybe  that  was  what  stunted 
the  member's  growth. 

I 

f  Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  did,  believe  me;  I  was 
quite  normal  then. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Well  never  mind.  It  is 
better  to  have  loved  a  short  man  than  not  at 
all. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  in  the 
New  Democratic  Party  have  been  maintaining 
in  the  debate  today  that  this  bill  need  never 
have  been  introduced.  We  believe  that  for 
the  reasons  given  by  the  members  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party  that  the  whole  thing  could 
have  been  solved  before  it  reached  this  state. 

Mr.  Taylor:  What  is  the  member  going  to 
do  about  it? 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  must  say  that  I  don't  in- 
tend to  repeat  the  arguments  put  forth  by 
other  members.  My  main  concern  about  this 
bill  is  that  unlike  the  members  of  the  Liberal 
Party  I  am  opposed  to  compulsory  arbitration 
for  all  working  people. 

I  do  not  believe,  as  they  do,  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  isolating  groups  of  workers  into  the  haves 
and  have  nots;  some  who  are  subjected  to 
compulsory  arbitration,  others  who  are  not. 
The  member  for  York-Forest  Hill  should  go 
back  and  check  the  voting  last  year  on  the 
elevator  workers'  dispute  and  find  out  how 
his  party  voted.  I  don't  believe,  whether 
working  people  are  garbage  men,  or  whether 
they  are  civil  servants  or  whether  they  are 
teachers,  that  they  should  be  subjected  to 
compulsory  arbitration.  I  do  not  believe  in 
segmenting  the  work  force  in  that  way. 

The  Conservative  Party,  of  course,  uses 
compulsory  arbitration  as  a  political  weapon. 
I  don't  think  there's  any  question  but  what 
they  know  very  well  what  they're  doing  when 
they  impose  compulsory  arbitration  on  people. 
It  solidifies  the  kind  of  myths  that  are  out 
there  already  about  working  people;  and  the 
Conservative  Party  is  quite  happy  to  capitalize 
on  those  myths  and  even  to  give  them  an 
added  stature  that  they  don't  deserve. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  believe  that  the 
members    of    the    Progressive    Conservative 


Party  in  this  province  would  be  quite  happy 
to  impose  compulsory  arbitration  on  any 
group  of  workers  if  the  delivery  of  goods  and 
services  was  disrupted  in  any  way  at  all.  They 
have  absolutely  no  principle  involving  the 
rights  of  workers  to  free  and  collective  bar- 
gaining. 

Mr.  Drea:  That  is  what  the  Waffle  says 
about  the  members  and  his  colleagues. 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  have  no  commitment 
to  it.  The  member  doesn't  know  me  or  he 
wouldn't  say  that. 

Mr.  Drea:  That's  what  they  say. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre  doesn't  know  them  either. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  I  know  them  very  well. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Oh  does  he? 

Mr.  Drea:  They  are  very  honourable  people; 
they're  in  nobody's  pocket. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Oh. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me 
that- 

Mr.  Foulds:  Is  he  one?  Is  the  member  from 
Prince  Edward  one? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to 
matter  not  to  the  government  that  it's  not 
possible  to  arbitrate  good  teaching,  it's  only 
possibte  to  legislate  the  people  back  into  the 
classroom.  They  don't  seem  to  realize  either 
that  the  imposition  of  compulsory  arbitration 
on  any  group  of  working  people  is  a  de- 
meaning experience  in  itself.  I  don't  know 
how  the  government  expects  they  are  contri- 
buting to  the  cause  of  education  in  Ontario 
by  imposing  compulsory  arbitration  on  the 
teachers. 

It's  not  that  I'm  overly  concerned  about 
the  teaching  profession  here,  Mr.  Speaker.  It's 
obvious  that  since  in  this  last  year  the 
Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Guindon)  intruded 
into  the  private  sector  to  impose  compulsory 
arbitration  on  the  elevator  workers,  no  group 
of  working  people  in  the  Province  of  Ontario 
is  going  to  be  safe  from  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion from  that  day  on.  This  is  probably  just 
the  first  of  many  such  instances. 

They  don't  seem  to  realize  that  compulsory 
arbitration  ruins  the  entire  collective  bargain- 
ing process,  because  as  soon  as  the  two  groups 
involved  in  the  dispute  are  aware  there's 
compulsory  arbitration  at  the  end  if  they  can- 
not  reslove   it  themselves,   there   is   no   real 


288 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


reason  why  either  side  should  make  any  ma- 
jor concessions  in  the  bargaining;  none  what- 
soever, as  long  as  there's  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion at  the  end. 

Mr,  Speaker,  there  has  been  a  lot  of  talk 
by  some  members  here  this  afternoon  about 
hypocrisy,  and  about  taking  different  stands, 
and  I  really  wonder  if  the  government  doesn't 
see  how  important  this  issue  is,  not  just  in 
terms  of  any  single  group  of  working  people, 
but  the  whole  question  of  people  being  in- 
volved and  having  more  of  a  say  in  the 
environment  in  which  they  work. 

They  go  through  the  motions  of  having 
public  input  into  the  decision-making  process 
in  Ontario,  by  Transportation  and  Communi- 
cations having  public  meetings,  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  having  public  meetings, 
Treasury  and  Economics  having  public  meet- 
ings, supposedly  to  get  the  opinion  of  the 
public  so  that  they  can  make  decisions  that 
are  closer  to  the  people  out  there.  And  at 
the  same  time  they  will  not  see  that  teachers 
are  just  a  part  of  the  public  who  want  more 
of  a  say  not  less  of  a  say  in  those  things  that 
affect  their  work  enviroimient. 

il  was  reading  a  completely  unrelated  piece 
of  literature  today.  I  came  across  a  quote 
from  an  economist— this  was  in  1970— Mr. 
Jaroslav  Vanik,  and'  I  quote: 

The  quest  of  men  to  participate  in  the 
determination  and  decision-maldng  activi- 
ties in  which  they  are  actually  involved  is 
one  of  the  most  important  socio-political 
phenomena  of  our  times.  It  is  very  likely 
to  be  the  dominant  force  of  social  evolu- 
tion in  the  last  third  of  the  20th  century. 

Mr.  Speaker,  my  point  is  that  as  long  as 
boards  like  the  York  county  board  persist  in 
refusing  to  allow  teachers  to  negotiate  on 
things  such  as  pupil-teacher  ratios— which, 
after  all,  are  as  much  a  part  of  the  learning 
process  as  they  are  of  the  teaching  process- 
then  they  are  flying  in  the  teeth  of  the 
changes  that  are  going  on  in  society  around 


Mr.  Bounsall:  They're  back  in  the  first  two- 
thirds. 

Mr.  Laughren:  And  I  think  that  economist 
puts  it  quite  well.  This  issue  is  going  to  sur- 
face again  and  again  because  the  seeds  of 
discontent  are  in  all  of  us  in  terms  of  want- 
ing to  have  more  and  more  and  ever  more  of 
a  say  in  all  the  factors  that  affect  the  way 
we  live.  To  take  away  this  right  is  going 
against  a  major  trend  in  this  part  of  the  20th 
century.  People  will  no  longer  subject  them- 


selves to  arbitrary  measures,  and  of  course 
compulsory  arbitration  is  just  that— arbitrary. 
You  might  very  well  ask  what  are  the  alter- 
natives. Well,  I  think  it  has  been  documented 
this  afternoon  and  this  evening  that  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  did  have  some  alternatives 
earlier  on  in  the  dispute,  before  the  negotia- 
tions deteriorated  to  the  level  that  he  felt 
necessitated  this  bill  we  are  debating  now.  I 
wonder  how  he  thinks  the  bargaining  com- 
mittee for  the  teachers  could  possibly  ignore 
that  gauntlet  that  was  thrown  down  to  them 
when  the  board  said  that  they  would  accept 
the  resignations  and  hire  new  teachers.  How 
could  the  bargaining  committee  ignore  that 
kind  of  challenge  and  bargain  any  more  with 
that  kind  of  nonsense? 

'Mr.  Speaker,  we  in  the  New  Democratic 
Party  simply  cannot  support  a  bill  that  im- 
poses compulsory  arbitration  on  any  groups 
of  working  people  in  Ontario.  This  is  truly 
an  offensive  bill. 

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

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  He  is 
going  to  support  the  bill,  I  suspect. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  welcome  this 
opportimity  of  saying  a  few  words  on  educa- 
tion in  this  province.  This  bill  is  not  the  end 
of  good'  education  that  we  have  enjoyed. 
Sometimes  I  think  that  we  get  overly  alarmed 
at  the  task  we  have  before  us.  Education  will 
go  on  in  this  province  with  or  without  this 
bill,  and  it  will  continue  to  be  good  edu- 
cation. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well  then,  vote  against  the 
bill. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  However,  the  main  duty  as 
I  see  it  today  is  to  a  certain  group  of  stu- 
dents who  are  not  having  the  advantages  that 
the  rest  of  the  students  of  this  province  enjoy. 
Our  task,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  to  be  fair  to  those 
students  and  to  get  them  back  in  the  cl'ass^ 
rooms  where  they  belong. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a  time- 
Mr.    Martel:     He    reminds    me    of    Spiro 
Agnew. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  -for  oppressed'  ^people  to  be 
militant.  There  is  a  time  for  them  to  stand 
up  and  say,  "Our  rights  have  been  abused 
and  we  must  take  forceful  action." 

But  I  look  at  the  teaching  profession  across 
this  province  and  I  say  to  you,  sir,  tliat  they 
have  not  been  so  badly  abus^i  by  the  citi- 
zens of  this  province. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


289 


They  enjoy  many  rights  and  many  privi- 
leges and  they  are  highly  respected  and  rea- 
sonably paid,  and  I  think,  sir,  it  is  too  bad 
that  at  this  time- 
Mr.  Martel:  Not  compared  to  lawyers. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  —simply  because  they  are 
not  receiving  everything  they  think  they 
should  receive— and  I'm  not  saying  they  are 
receiving  everything  they  should  receive;  but 
I  think  in  taking  a  militant  position,  as 
they  are  doing- 
Mr.  Martel:  Who's  militant? 
Mr.  Taylor:  The  member's  militant. 

Mr.    MacBeth:    —that    they    are    doing    a 
-disservice  to  those  they  profess  to  serve- 
Mr.    Martel:    I    don't    talk    about   lawyers 
like  that. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  —namely  the  students  of 
this  province. 

This  bill,  sir,  I  say  is  regrettable  but 
it  is  necessary. 

Mr.  Martel:  Where  did  they  drag  him 
from? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Take  his  feet  off  his 
desk. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  It  is  fine,  Mr.  Speaker,  for 
the  opposition  to  tell  us  how  difficult  it  is 
and  how  wrong  we  are,  but  the  opposition 
are  not  charged  with  the  responsibility  of 
the  education  of  this  province.  They  are 
doing  their  duty  when  they  criticize  what 
the  government  does,  and  I  don't  say  that 
they  are  wrong  in  criticizing  this  bill,  but 
the  opposition  has  the  advantage  of  not 
having  to  be  consistent.  The  government  has 
to  be  consistent  and  the  government  has  to 
bear  the  responsibility. 

I  say  the  bill  is  regrettable  first  of  all- 
Mr.  Martel:  So  is  the  member's  speech. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  —because  it  interferes  with 
local  autonomy  and  that  to  me  is  very  im- 
portant.  I  thiiik  the  good  system  of  educa- 
tion that  we  have  enjoyed  across  this  prov- 
ince- 
Mr.  Martel:  He  sounds  like  Spiro  Agnew. 
An  hon.  member:  Oh,  stop  his  yapping. 
An  hon.   member:   Button  up   there,   thin 


Mr.  MacBeth:  Oh,  don't  mind  him.  I'm 
not  paying  any  attention  to  him  and  I  don't 
think  many  of  the  rest  of  the  members  are. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  obvious  the  seals  are, 
they  are  all  chattering.  Give  them  another 
fish. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Ah  quiet,  Archie  Bunker. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  is  the  biggest 
Archie  Bunker  around  here. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of 
Housing):  Does  the  member  want  me  to 
tell  them  about  Place  Quebec? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  I  can  wait  until  he  subsides. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Allow  the 
member  to  continue. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  I  am  content  to  wait,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  it's  a  lot  of  nonsense. 

Mr.  Taylor:  No,  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  is  a  lot  of  nonsense. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  say  it  is  re- 
grettable because  it  interferes  with  local 
autonomy  and  it  is  this  local  autonomy,  this 
close  relationship  among  the  people  of  the 
community,  their  elected  trustees  and  the 
teachers  in  whom  they  have  confidence,  that 
has  built  the  good  educational  system  that 
we  in  this  province  enjoy.  This  bill  inter- 
feres with  that.  I  think  it  is  too  bad,  be- 
cause in  my  mind  if  anything  is  a  manage- 
ment right  it  is  this  teacher-pupil  ratio.  All 
of  the  members  today- 
Mr.  Laughren:  There  should  be  no  such 
thing. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  —in  this  debate  have  been 
looking  on  school  boards  as  management. 

Mr.  Martel:  All  right. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Mr.  Speaker,  you  and  I 
have  served  on  school  boards  together  and 
we  know  that  school  boards  are  not  manage- 
ment,  they  are  the  voice   of  the  people. 

An  hon.  member:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Foulds:  But  they  are  mismanaging. 

Mr.    MacBeth:    Mr.    Speaker,   I   am   quite 

happy- 
Mr.   Martel:   Nobody  else  has  rights,  just 

management. 


290 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  MacBeth:  —and  quite  content— and  so, 
I  believe,  are  the  people  of  this  province— 
to  leave  the  matter  of  teacher-pupil  ratio  in 
the  hands  of  their  elected  representatives. 
This  bill  interferes  with  that  and  I  say  it 
is  regrettable. 

Mr.   Martel:    He  is  voting  against  the  bill. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  third  point 
for  saying  it  is  regrettable  is  on  the  matter 
of  arbitration  and  salaries.  I  believe  that 
can  rightly  be  handled  and  best  be  handled 
by  a  close  relationship  between  teachers 
and  their  school  boards. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Do  you  know  who  he  is,  Mr. 
Speaker?  Pumblechook  in  Dickens. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  And  I  have  the  pride  of 
having  represented  the  people  of  my  ward, 
as  it  then  was,  on  the  Etobicoke  school  board 
and  at  a  time  when  probably  Etobicoke  was 
doing  more  for  teaching  and  teachers'  salaries 
in  this  province  than  any  other  board.  It  was 
setting  a  course,  it  was  leading,  and  that  is 
a  pride  that  I  personally  have— that  we  were 
IteadcTs  in  education  at  the  time  I  was  a 
member  of  that  board,  and  leaders  in  teach- 
ers' salaries. 

However,  I  come  back  to  the  point  that 
the  teachers— at  least,  I  suppose  the  ones  who 
are  militant— are  the  product  of  the  Spock 
generation,  are  the  ones  who,  because  they 
are  not— 

An  hon.  member:  Like  the  NDP. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  —getting  exacdy  what  they 
think  they  should  have- 
Mr.  Foulds:  Fifteen  years  old'— they  are  like 


Mr.  MacBeth:  —they  are  the  ones  today 
who  are  being  militant. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  have  said  no  at  last,  for 
the  first  time  in  their  lives. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  They  are  saying,  "Because 
we  don't  get  exactly  what  we  think  we 
should,  therefore  we'll'  go  on  strike." 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  don't  you  stop  the  law- 
yers for  a  while,  Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  is  re- 
grettable, but  regrettably  it  is  necessary. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  member  is  sounding  like 
the  Liberals. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  And  let  me  go  on-  a  little 
further. 


Mr.  Martel:  Quiet,  please!  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  He  was  a  Liberal  for  years. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Touche!  The  ceilings  are 
likewise  regrettable,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  looks  like  the  member 
shouldn't  be  up  there  speaking  about  prin- 
ciple. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  got  more  principle 
in  his  little  finger  than  the  member  has  in  his 
whole  being. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  But  I  say  this,  that  the 
ceilings  are  a  part  of  a  much  larger  and 
more  fundamental  problem  than  perhaps  any 
of  us  have  discussed  today. 

I  don't  know  where  the  school  boards  are 
going  to  go  with  ceilings  on  one  hand  and 
arbitrators  on  the  other  hand.  And  yet  this, 
I  say,  is  a  part  of  a  much  larger  problem, 
that  of  financing  across  this  entire  country 
of  ours. 

School  boards  should  not  depend  on  pro- 
vincial grants  to  the  extent  that  they  have  to 
do.  I  am  not  criticizing  school  boards  for 
that,  it's  our  tax  structure. 

Mr.  Foulds:  He  thinks  he's  Treasurer. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  School  boards  have  to  de- 
pend, at  the  present  time,  on  large  handouts 
from  the  province  to  pay  the  expenses  of 
school  boards. 

An  hon.  member:  It  isn't  only  welfare;  a 
lot  goes  to  schools. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Get  it  all  over  vdth. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  should 
be  some  rearrangement  so  that  school  boards 
have  a  larger  basis,  or  some  different  basis, 
on  which  to  raise  their  taxes.  This  is  not  to 
say  that  we  don't  need  some  equaHzation 
across  the  province,  that  the  richer  areas 
should  not  have  to  subsidize  those  with  less 
resource,  but  certainly  the  school  boards 
should  be  responsible  for  raising  their  own 
taxes. 

Mr.  Martel:  This  should  be  resolved  suc- 
cessfully. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  That  way  the  community 
could  come  back  to  having  the  voice  that  I 
think  it  should  have  and  to  a  greater  degree 
say  what  standards  it  requires  or  what  stand- 
ards are  desired. 

At  the  present  time,  vwth  the  province 
paying  so  much  of  this,  naturally  the  piper 
has  to  follow  the  tune.  That  is  again,  as  I 
say,  one  of  the  regrettable  things.  I  am  sug- 


MARCH  13.  1974 


291 


gesting  to  this  hon.  House  that  many  of  the 
problems  we  are  facing  today,  not  only  in 
the  school  situation  but  in  many  things,  are 
tied  up  with  the  inadequate  tax  structure  of 
this  entire  country.  Until,  sir,  we  get  some 
redistribution  of  the  taxes  between  the  federal 
government  and  the  province- 
Mr.  Foulds:  What  about  between  the 
wealthy  and  the  poor? 

An  hon.  member:  What  has  the  member 
got  against  wealthy  people? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  —and  from  the  province  to 
the  municipalities,  so  that  the  municipalities 
don't  have  to  depend  on  handouts  from  our 
provincial  level  of  government,  we  are  going 
to  continue  to  be  in  trouble. 

I  am  saying  this  in  all  seriousness  and  all 
honesty- 
Mr.  Marteh  Yes;  so  am  I. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  —that  the  taxation  problem 
is  the  root  of  the  problem  that  we  have  to- 
day. I  am  certainly  in  support  of  this  bill, 
not  because  I  like  it  but  because  it's  neces- 
sary and  must  be  passed  and  should  be  pas- 
sed tonight  to  get  those  North  York  county 
school  children  back  to  the  class. 

Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  no.  York  county;  York 
county. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  the  House 
sit  beyond  the  hour  of  10:30. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  is  the  minister  doing  that? 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Went worth):  On  a  point  of 
order:  Why  is  it  that  at  five  minutes  to  10 
the  House  leader  feels  compelled  to  move 
that?  Isn't  it  possible  that  we  would  be  able 
to  wrap  this  up  by  10:30? 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  would  have  been  able  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  By  10:30? 

Mr.  Deans:  Well  I  don't  understand  it.  I 
don't  understand  why  the  House  leader  is 
moving  now  to  sit  beyond  10:30. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  motion 
was  placed  simply  to  facilitate  the  members 
of  the  House  prior  to  second  reading  being 
moved.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we  have  been 
here  all'  day  and  I  understand  the  member 
for  W^entworth  wants  to  speak.  I  was  merely 
facilitating  him. 

Mr.  Deans:  Oh,  I  am  going  to. 


Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  If  it  concludes  before 
10:30,  of  course,  we  won't  sit. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  motion  is  then  with- 
drawn? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  No,  the  motion  is  not 
withdrawn  Mr.  Speaker. 

An  hon.  member:  But  if  the  member  speaks 
briefly  it  may  be  unnecessary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  have  this  motion  before 
us.  Shall  the  motion  carry? 

Some  hon.  members:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Those  in  favour  please  say 
"aye." 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  you  pro- 
ceed. There  is  a  quaint  custom  in  this  House 
which  allows  people  to  speak  on  motions; 
even  when  they  are  sucking  on  whatever  it 
is  I  am  sucking  on. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Watch  it,  Stephen. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  seems  to  be  some  dis- 
cussion necessary. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Do  you  mean  there  will  be  no- 
Could  I  ask  for  a— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Scarborough 
West. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  very  surreal  momenti 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Could  I  ask  the  House  leader 
a  question?  Is  it  his  intention  to  proceed 
beyond  second  reading  this  evening? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Just  finish  second? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  So  be  brief. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  motion  carry? 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  other  members 
wishing  to  participate  in  this  dtebate? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  What  is  the  member  for 
Scarborough  West  eating? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Peppermint. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Dried  pork. 


292 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  Easy  what? 

Mr.  Lewis:  If  I  had  something  more  potent, 
the  members  would  hear  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  must  say  that  I  am  certainly 
delighted  to  have  made  it  back  in  time  to 
add  my  voice  to  the  opposition  to  this  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  tell  the  member  it  has 
been  less  than  enthusiastic  so  far. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Most  of  it  has  been  less 
than  enthusiastic. 

Mr.  Deans:  We  will  try  to  change  that  be- 
cause what  I  want  to  ask  the  Premier  directly 
is— how  long  are  we  going  to  have  to  wait  in 
this  province  until  the  government  insists  on 
bargaining  in  good  faith? 

Just  how  long  are  we  going  to  have  to  put 
up  with  management-oriented  people,  anti- 
union people,  sitting  down  at  the  bargaining 
table  and  not  trying  to  deal  fairly  and  equit- 
ably with  the  issues  before  them?  How  long 
is  it  going  to  be  before  the  government  is 
going  to  insist  that  the  clause  in  the  Labour 
Relations  Act,  which  I  know  doesn't  neces- 
sarily apply  here  but  which  demands  that  the 
parties  bargain  in  good  faith  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario  in  an  effort  to  reach  a  collective 
agreement,  is  adhered  to? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  That  is  the  crux  of  this  whole 
issue.  That's  why  we  are  here  tonight.  That's 
why  this  dispute  was  never  resolved. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Does  the  member  want 
the  Labour  Relations  Act  to  apply  to  the 
province? 

Mr.  Deans:  I  want  there  to  be  a  clause 
dealing  with  bargaining  in  good  faith. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  the  Labour  Relations 
Act  doesn't  do  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  Collective  bargaining  is  a  use- 
less tool  unless  the  parties  sitting  together  are 
prepared  to  try  to  resolve  the  issues. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Talk  about  all  the  aspects 
of  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  when  we  go  back  to  the 
very  beginning  of  this  dispute— 


Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  might  well  quote  the 
member  on  that  one. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  would  not  object  to  that. 

Mr.  Deans:  Feel  free  to  quote  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  profession  wants  good  faith 
bargaining.  The  board  has  been  playing 
games  for  months. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  members  are  not  listening, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  member 
for  Wentworth  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  was  the  only  one  standing— 
what  is  the  Speaker  worried  about? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Why  not?  He  is  the  mem- 
ber for  Wentworth. 

Mr.  Deans:  Absolutely.  The  Premier's  reac- 
tion to  my  statement  is  exactly  what  is  wrong 
with  the  government.  The  government  doesn't 
hear  what  is  being  said  to  it.  The  government 
is  completely  incapable  of  understanding  what 
it  is  that's  being  said  to  it. 

What  I  am  saying— and  I  say  it  again, 
through  you,  Mr.  Speaker— is  this:  That  if 
collective  bargaining  is  going  to  work  in  the 
teaching  profession  or  in  any  other  profession, 
it  must  be  entered  into  by  two  parties  aimed 
at  finding  a  resolution  to  the  problems  before 
them.  And  when  one  or  other  of  those  parties 
fails  to  bargain  in  good  faith,  the  govern- 
ment has  an  obligation  to  step  in  and  to 
insist— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  —that  the  matters  on  the  table 
be  discussed. 

Mr.  Taylor:  That  is  what  we  are  doing. 

Mr.  Deans:  If  this  government  had  fol- 
lowed up  on  its  obligation  last  year  when 
this  board  refused  adamantly  to  sit  down 
and  discuss  the  matters  put  before  it  by  the 
teachers,  we  wouldn't  be  here  today. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  That's  wrong. 

Mr.  Deans:  When  we  go  back  to  last  May, 
the   chairman   of   the   negotiating  committee 
for  the  board,  Mr.  Honsberger,  said  that  he 
questioned  the  legality- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  That  statement  is  wrong. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


293 


Mr.  Deans:  —of  the  position  taken  by  the 
trustees.  When  we  go  back  to— 

Mr.  G.  Nixon  (Dovercourt):  Wrong  again. 

Mr.  Deans:  When  we  go  back  to  last  May 
and  recall  Mr.  Honsberger's  opening  state- 
ment in  which  he  said  to  the  teacher  negotia- 
tors that  he  doubted  whether  they  had  any 
legal  right  to  represent  the  teachers  and 
before  negotiations  would  proceed  he  wanted 
to  find  out  what  their  legal  status  was— that 
hardly  sets  a  backdrop  against  which  bargain- 
ing in  good  faith  can  be  begun. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  the  background  from 
day  one. 

Mr.  Deans:  That  was  the  beginning.  From 
that  day  on  there  was  little,  if  any,  ejffort 
made  by  that  board  to  find  a  resolution  to 
the  major  points  in  contention.  Little,  if  any. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  The  board  offered  on 
many  occasions  to  meet;  they  wouldn't  meet 
with  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  In  fact,  the  negotiating  com- 
mittee of  the  teachers,  recognizing  in  the  fall 
that  there  was  an  impasse,  was  prepared— 
and  did  in  fact— change  the  negotiating  team. 
The  board  steadfastly  refused  to  deal  with 
the  major  issues.  The  board  refused  even  to 
discuss  the  major  issues  in  the  fall,  and  it 
was  well  into  December  when  this  govern- 
ment decided  to  enter  into  the  fray,  precipi- 
tously, without  giving  anyone  an  opportunity 
to  understand  what  it  was  that  it  intended. 

This  government  then  created  a  situation 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario  which  made  this 
board  able  to  carry  on  with  the  farce  it 
had  been  perpetrating  on  those  teachers,  and 
that's  what  aggravates  me  so.  I  went  up 
there  to  York  and  I  listened  to  the  teachers 
and  to  the  negotiators  for  the  board  and  all 
I  could  see  happening  was  the  deterioration 
of  relationships  between  the  two  parties. 
There  was  no  fair  chance  for  a  settlement  to 
be  reached. 

It  was  obvious  that  the  reason  for  this  was 
because  the  board  and  not  the  teachers  was 
not  prepared  to  sit  down  and  try  to  find 
solutions,  and  the  board  knew  full  well  from 
the  moment  the  minister  brought  in  his 
compulsory  arbitration  bill  in  December  that 
if  it  waited  long  enough,  and  if  it  refused 
steadfastly  to  move  forward  with  negotiation, 
that  the  minister  would  eventually  bail  it 
out,  and  that's  exactly  what  he  has  done. 

I  regret,  I  sincerely  regret,  that  this  has 
created  a  lot  of  upset  for  the  children  in  the 
system.  I  wish  that  there  could  have  been  a 


resolution  to  the  problem,  but  what  worries 
me  is  that  I  think  there  probably  could  have 
been  a  resolution  to  the  problem. 

I  think  that  had  the  Minister  of  Education 
gone  in  there  and  said  to  that  board,  face 
to  face,  in  December,  "Look,  there  are  a 
number  of  issues  which  we,  as  the  govern- 
ment, believe  are  negotiable,  which  we 
intend  to  make  negotiable,  and  one  of  those 
is  pupil-teacher  ratio",  and  if  he  had  said  to 
them:  "If  you  do  not  discuss  it  we  will  pass 
a  law  saying  that  it  will  be  discussed,"  then  it 
would  have  sat  down  and  discussed  it  and 
then  the  problem  would  have  been  resolved 
and  the  last  two  months  would  have  been 
unnecessary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  It  was  said  in  275. 

Mr.  Deans:  Bill  275  didn't  proceed. 
Or  if  the  Minister  of  Education  had— 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  It  was  said  in  275^ 
clearly. 

Mr.  Deans:  —taken  it  upon  himself  to 
draft  what  might  well  have  been  a  model 
agreement  and  put  it  before  the  two  parties 
for  whatever  further  negotiation  was  neces- 
sary in  order  to  resolve  whatever  was  out- 
standing that  would  have  been  an  initiative 
that  would  have  been  useful. 

Or  had  the  Minister  of  Education  been 
prepared  to  say  to  the  board,  as  they  did  in 
Windsor,  "We  are  going  to  withdraw  the 
grants,"  that  would  have  been  an  initiative 
that  might  have  been  useful. 

Or  had  the  Minister  of  Education  been 
prepared  to  say  to  the  board,  "Since  you 
are  bargaining  in  bad  faith,  since  you  are 
not  dealing  with  the  legitimate  issues  before 
you,  I,  as  the  Minister  of  Education,  am 
prepared  to  take  over  the  negotiations,  and  I, 
as  the  Minister  of  Education,  on  behalf  of 
all  the  children  whom  I  see  suffering,  am 
prepared  to  find  a  way  to  resolve  the  dispute, 
and  to  show  to  you,  the  board  from  York, 
that  it  is  entirely  possible  through  the  col- 
lective bargaining  process  to  resolve  this^ 
dispute,"  that  might  have  saved  us  the  ag- 
gravation of  eight  additional  weeks  of  upset. 

But  none  of  these  iniatives  was  undertaken. 
Not  one  of  these  initiatives  was  undertaken. 
The  minister  steadfastly  sat  back,  and  though 
I  don't  doubt  for  a  moment  he  was  involved 
in  discussions,  those  kinds  of  initiatives  were 
the  kinds  of  initiatives  required  to  resolve 
the  dispute. 

Now  this  goverrmient  has  to  take  a  look: 
at  what  it  has  done,  because  in  fact  it  has^ 


294 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


acted  in  concert  with  the  board  to  destroy 
the  collective  bargaining  process  in  York. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  And  had  the  NDP  not 

stirred  up  militancy? 

Mr.  Lewis:   Stirred  up  what?  Militancy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Oh,  in  Maple  Leaf 
Gardens.  The  NDP  stirred  that  pot  really 
good. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  government  has  said  it 
will  support  the  board's  position;  it  will 
support  the  board's  position  in  this  way,  that 
that  board  now  knows,  and  other  boards  now 
know,  that  as  long  as  they  sit  back,  whether 
they  bargain  in  good  faith  or  whether  they 
don't  bargain  in  good  faith,  this  government 
will  ultimately  bail  them  out,  and  that's 
wrong.  It  destroys  all  of  the  value  of  bar- 
gaining. As  someone  noted,  they  can  sit  back 
and  not  exercise  the  responsibility  which  is 
rightfully  theirs  and  someone  else  will  come 
along  in  the  ultimate  and  make  the  decision 
for  them.  The  government  has  done  that  for 
this  board. 

I  say  this  to  the  minister  in  all  fairness, 
the  content  of  his  bill  isn't  all  that  bad,  and 
if  it  had  been  the  wish  of  the  parties  to  go 
to  an  arbitrator  and  seek  a  solution  to  the 
problems  which  they  were  unable  to  resolve, 
then  that  bill  with  minor  modifications  might 
well  have  served  the  purpose. 

If  it  had  been  the  wish  of  the  two  parties 
to  go  to  an  arbitrator  and  ask  that  that 
arbitrator  try  to  find  a  way  to  bring  about 
an  end  to  the  impasse,  then  as  I  say,  we 
might  have  accepted  the  bill  with  modifica- 
tion. But  this  dispute  is  no  longer  about  the 
content  of  the  bill.  This  dispute  is  not  about 
pupil-teacher  ratio.  This  dispute  is  a  dispute 
between  personalities. 

It  has  deteriorated  to  the  point  where 
there  is  absolutely  no  mutual  respect,  and 
we  can't  arbitrate  mutual  respect.  Regard- 
less of  the  outcome  of  the  arbitration,  all  of 
the  soreness,  all  of  the  upsets,  all  of  the  dis- 
cord and  disharmony  will  remain. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Does  the  hon.  member 
think  they  can  negotiate  in  those  circum- 
stances? 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  the  only  way  we  can  get 
mutual  respect  is  by  the  parties  sitting  to- 
gether until  they  finally  understand,  one  with 
the  other. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  true.  We  don't  get  it  this 
^vay. 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  We  waited  over  40 
years. 

Mr.  Lewis.  The  minister  could  have  won 
it,  had  he  negotiated  with  the  teachers. 

Hon.    Mr.    Rhodes:    We    waited    over    40 

years. 

Mr.  Deans:  It  is  not  a  matter  of  waiting. 
The  minister  took  no  initiative. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Deans:  He  took  no  initiatives. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, don't  look  over  here  when  you  are  asking 
for  order;  over  there  is  where  the  interjec- 
tions are  coming  from. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  trying  to  help  the 
speaker. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  don't  need  your  help,  thank 
you. 

In  talking  about  being  reasonable,  the  one 
thing  that  has  been  left  out  of  this  entire 
dispute  is  reason.  Why  is  it  that  the  Minister 
of  Highways— of  Transportation  and  Com- 
mimications— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Highways?  That's  a 
dirty  word.  It's  Transportation. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  changed  it.  I  don't  require 
the  hon.  minister's  prompting.  When  I  need 
a  prompter,  I  will  hire  him  to  sit  under  the 
gallery. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Yes,  go  and  read  somewhere 
else. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  is  it  that  the  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications  now 
is  so  concerned  about  the  dispute?  Why  was 
he  not  after  the  Minister  of  Education  back 
in  September,  in  October,  in  November  and 
in  December,  asking  him  to  go  to  that  board 
and  to  tell  that  board  that  it  had  an  obliga- 
tion to  those  parents  and  those  pupils  to  sit 
dovm  and  bargain? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Because  he  knew  what 
he  was  doing,  and  I  supported  him. 

Mr.  Deans:  Where  was  my  friend  from  the 
Soo- 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  was  there. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


295 


Mr.  Deans:  —when  that  board  was  ada- 
mantly refusing  to  bargain  with  the  teachers 
on  the  points  that  are  still  in  contention? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  met  the  teachers  and 
I  talked  to  them. 

Mr.  Deans:  Was  he  putting  pressure  on  the 
minister  to  ask  him  to  go  in  there  and  to 
insist— 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Was  the  hon.  member 
putting  pressure  on  the  teachers? 

Mr.  Deans:  I  have  been  putting- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  And  so  was  the  mem- 
ber's leader. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What's  wrong  with  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  You  wear  the  horns  be- 
cause you  deserve  them. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  put  the  blame  on  one  side? 
No,  I  would  have  put  the  blame  on  both 
sides  if  the  teachers  had  gone  to  the  bargain- 
ing table  without  any  proposals.  I  would  have 
put  the  blame  on  the  teachers  if  they  had 
refused  to  meet.  I  would  have  put  the  blame 
on  the  teachers  if  they  had  walked  out  of 
the  meetings  that  were  set  up.  I  would  have 
put  the  blame  on  the  teachers  if  they  had 
refused  to  go  to  meetings  that  had  been  set 
up.  I  might  even  have  put  the  blame  on  the 
teachers  if  they  had  failed  to  recognize  that 
there  were  some  internal  problems  in  their 
own  negotiating  team  and  hadn't  corrected 
them. 

But  I  put  the  blame  on  the  board,  because 
the  board  refused  to  meet,  because  the  board 
set  the  backdrop  against  which  negotiation 
could  not  take  place,  because  the  board 
refused  to  sit  and  talk  about  the  major  issues, 
and  because  the  board  refused  to  make 
counter-offers  to  the  suggestions  of  the 
teachers. 

That's  why  I  place  the  board  in  the  posi- 
tion of  accepting  the  blame.  When  the  board 
refused  to  take  part  in  that  process,  the 
board  then  failed  to  bargain  in  good  faith 
and  the  board  should  then  have  been  dealt 
with.  There  can  be  no  negotiation  if  one 
party  refuses  to  take  part. 

An  hon.  member:  And  the  government  was 
the  chairman  of  the  board. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  the  government  understood 
that. 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Surely  the  NDP  wouldn't 
interfere  with  local  autonomy? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Provoking— the  party  of  con- 
frontation over  there. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  They  woidd  interfere 
with  local  autonomy? 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right— in  a  case  like  this. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  member 
for  Wentworth  has  the  floor.  Please  allow  him 
to  continue. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  member  for  Wentworth  is 
fine.  He  doesn't  need  your  help,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  then  we  have  got  to  take 
a  look  at  another  element  in  the  dispute,  be- 
cause it's  an  obvious  element  in  the  dispute; 
that's  the  whole  matter  of  the  director  of 
education  and  the  fact  that  this  has  created 
a  problem  that  seemingly  can't  be  resolved 
without  an  assurance  from  the  minister  that 
the  director  will  no  longer  be  involved  in 
that  particular  board.  The  teachers  find  it 
impossible  to  deal  with  the  director  of  edu- 
cation. 

This  brings  out  a  point  that  I've  felt  for 
some  time.  The  administrators  of  the  boards 
of  education  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  have 
far  too  much  power.  The  administrators  of 
the  boards  are  running  the  boards.  The  trus- 
tees aren't  running  the  boards;  the  trustees  in 
most  jurisdictions  are  not  taking  part  as  trus- 
tees ought  to  take  part.  The  trustees  m  most 
jurisdictions  have  given  up  their  power  and 
given  it  over  to  the  appointed  ofiicials  and 
the  appointed  oflBcials  are  making  the  deci- 
sions. The  appointed  ofiBcials,  without  ansA^^er- 
ing  to  the  trustees,  are  making  the  final 
choices.  And  this  is  where  the  problem  arises. 

Mr.  Martel:  Everyone  knows  it.  They  run 
the  whole  show. 

Mr.  Deans:  If  the  Minister  of  Education 
wants  to  avoid  this  kind  of  thing  in  the 
future,  let  me  suggest  this  to  him,  he  simply 
has  to  allow  for  collective  bargaining  on  all 
aspects  of  employment.  He  has  to  permit 
the  opportunity  for  discussion  on  all  matters 
involving  conditions  of  employment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  never  said  it  should  not 
be  that  way. 

Mr.  Deans:  No,  I'm  not  saying  the  minister 
didn't.  I'm  saying  that  has  to  be  done.  I  made 
the  same  argument  when  we  dealt  with  the 
Crown  Employees  Collective  Bargaining  Act. 
I  asked  at  that  time  that  the  minister  not  be 


296 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


restrictive,  that  he  not  go  back  into  history 
and  invoke  something  called  a  management's 
rights  clause. 

Because  I  say  to  him  now,  as  I've  said 
before,  that  the  workers  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  have  as  much  at  stake  in  the  good, 
orderly  management  of  any  operation  as  does 
the  management  itself.  The  teachers  have  as 
much  at  stake  in  the  decisions  that  are  made 
on  behalf  of  the  educational  system,  on  be- 
half of  the  pupils,  on  their  own  behalf  and 
on  behalf  of  the  taxpayers;  because  they  are 
taxpa\'ers.  Who,  surely,  who  could  offer  more 
by  way  of  constructive  suggestion  to  the 
educational  process  than  the  very  people  who 
are  in  the  classroom  doing  the  job  day  after 
day? 

Mr.  Martel:  And  have  never  been  con- 
sulted. 

Mr.  Deans:  If  the  boards  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario  would  promote  the  involvement 
of  the  teachere  in  discussions,  if  they  would 
not  simply  give  them  an  opportunity  to  sit 
in  and  listen;  but  rather  encourage  them  to 
be  a  part  of  the  discussion,  sit  dovm  with 
them,  talk  to  them  about  the  problems;  talk 
to  them  about  the  reasons  why  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  can't  be  lower  than  it  is,  if 
that's  the  case;  lay  open  the  books  and  talk 
about  what  the  problems  are,  about  tiying 
to  bring  in  new  systems;  then  we  wouldn't 
bave  the  kind  of  confrontation  we  have  at 
collective  bargaining  time. 

Collective  bargaining  is  a  year-round  proc- 
ess. It's  a  year-round  process  and  it  should 
not  and  must  not— 

An  hon.  member:  Mutual  trust. 

Mr.  Deans:  —be  confined  to  that  period 
immediately  prior  to  and  after  the  termina- 
tion date  of  the  contract. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  These  are  teachers,  not 
firemen. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  minister  wouldn't  know 
the  difference. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  know  the  difference, 
but  does  he? 

Mr.  Martel:  Has  the  minister  been  in  the 
raspberry? 

Mr.  Deans:  The  whole  collective  bargain- 
ing process  requires,  if  you're  going  to  have 
any  meaningful  negotiation,  that  the  people 
involved  are  able  to  take  part  on  a  day-to- 
day basis  in  the  decision-making  on  matters 
that  affect  them. 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  know  these  pole-sitters. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  know  those  radio  types. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  negotiated  with  them. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Go  broadcast  a  hockey  game, 
will  you? 

Mr.  Deans:  If  this  government  had  taken  it 
upon  itself— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please;  order  please. 
The  hon.  member  for  Wentworth  has  the 
floor. 

Mr.  Deans:  All  right,  I'm  going  to  let  it  go, 
I'm  going  to  let  it  go. 

I'm  going  to  tell  you  though,  Mr.  Speaker, 
something  that  I  think  we  have  to  say.  I 
happen  to  believe  that  this  government,  by 
its  own  actions,  created  the  confrontation. 
This  government,  by  its  lack  of  action, 
allowed  the  situation  to  develop  in  this  board 
prior  to  the  government  creating  the  con^ 
frontation.  This  government  failed  to  produce 
anything  by  way  of  a  reasonable  alternative  to 
the  confrontation  that  it  created.  This  gov- 
ernment, by  the  imposition  of  its  ceilings  in 
the  first  place,  caused  a  distortion  in  the  pro- 
cess of  collective  bargaining,  which  in  fact 
added  a  factor  which  neither  the  board  nor 
the  teachers  were  able  to  deal  with. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  One  board  out  of  the 
whole  province;  out  of  the  whole  province 
one  board. 

Mr.  Deans:  Beyond  that,  this  government 
recognized  that  there  was  bargaining  in  bad 
faith  being  undertaken  by  the  board  and  re- 
fused to  act.  This  government  understood  that 
the  board  was  not  prepared  to  deal  with 
matters  which  the  government,  by  its  own 
statement,  knew  were  proper  matters  to  have 
on  the  collective  bargaining  table  and  refused 
to  act.  This  government  is  responsible,  totally 
and  completely  responsible,  for  the  impasse 
which  developed  in  the  negotiations  in  York 
because  this  government  refused  to  hve  up 
to  its  obligations— 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  One  board. 

Mr.  Deans:  —and  this  government  has  to 
suffer  the  consequences. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  One  board. 

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

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker— 


MARCH  13,  1974 


297 


Mr.  Bounsall:  He  is  right  so  far. 

Mr.  Drea:  I'm  going  to  be  right  for  about 
five  minutes  and  the  member  is  going  to  get 
it  right  between  the  eye's  and  he's  going  to 
take  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  know  why— at  the  end  of 
five  minutes  the  United  Steel  Workers  fired 
him. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  heard  to- 
night that  society  is  in  trouble.  Mr.  Speaker, 
society  is  indeed  in  trouble  when  we  have  a 
member  of  this  House  stand  up  and  say  that 
we  are  all  threatened,  it  is  all  our  fault  be- 
cause children  haven't  been  in  school  for  five 
or  six  weeks;  and  then  he  stands  there  and 
offers  no  alternative. 

Mr.  Speaker,  society  is  indeed  in  trouble 
when  a  member  of  this  House  suggests  that 
the  difficulty  is  the  children  are  out  of  school, 
and  yet  he  would  leave  them  out  for  the  rest 
of  the  school  year  and  on  into  infinity- 
Mr.  Martel:  The  unions  were  in  trouble  until 
they  fired  the  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre. 

Mr.  Drea:  —because  it  is  better  to  let  the 
situation  drift— and  somehow  it  vdll  be  re- 
solved—than to  face  up  to  the  problems  and 
to  send  the  people  back  to  work. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  basis  of  education  in  this 
province  is  not  happy  teachers.  The  basis  of 
education  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  is  not 
happy  trustees  on  school  boards.  The  basis  of 
education  in  the  Province  of  Ontario— and 
thanks  to  this  party— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  unhappy  teachers  and  un- 
happy trustees. 

Mr.  Drea:  —we  have  the  finest  system  of 
education  anywhere  in  the  world^the  basis 
of  that  is  the  schools  are  open  for  the  chil- 
dren to  attend  and  the  teachers  to  teach. 

In  December,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  stood  here 
and  I  talked  on  Bill  274- 

Mr.  MacDonald:  There  is  a  profound  com- 
ment. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  regret  that  I  didn't  hear  any- 
body today,  but  I  understand  that  the  magic 
words  were  not  uttered  today.  I'm  still  floored 
from  December,  because  the  proposition  was 
put  forward  at  that  time  that  a  strike  is  part 
of  the  learning  process  and  it  will  benefit  the 
children. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  for  Port 
Arthur  said  it  and  another  member.  Both  of 
them.  They  said  it  was  part  of  the  learning 
process. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh  yes.  All  of  them.  Well,  it's 
been  going  on  six  weeks  in  the  region  of  York 
—or  York  county,  whatever  you  want  to  call 
it— and  they  won't  be  back  to  school  until  the 
end  of  the  month.  I  defy  anybody  to  go  up 
and  talk  to  those  children  and  say:  "You 
should  be  happy  my  boy,  or  my  girl,  the  strike 
has  been  part  of  your  learning  process.  Try  it 
next  year  in  university  when  the  grades  don't 
come  very  well." 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  for  Port 
Arthur  said  it.  Now  he's  got  his  feet  off  the 
desk,  eh? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Want  to  withdraw  that 


Mr.  Martel:  No  wonder  the  United  Steel 
Workers  fired  the  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  United  Steel 
fired  him? 

Mr.  Drea:  Nobody  has  ever  fired  me.  ' 

Mr.  Martel:  Boy  oh  boy;  no  wonder. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  Drea:  Try  and  say  that,  sonny,  and  I'M 
sue  you. 

Mr.  Lewis:  My  embarrassment  at  this  mo- 
ment is  not  as  acute  as  that  of  the  member 
for  Scarborough  Centre. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh  ho!  So  now  we  find  out  that 
the  strike  is  not  part  of  the  learning  process 
and  perhaps  is  not  beneficial  to  the  teenagers 
and  to  the  children  in  the  elementary  schools. 
That  is  what  I  suggested,  Mr.  Speaker,  last 
December- 
Mr.  Foulds:  We  don't  agree  with  anything 
he  says. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  said  that  a  strike  brought  bitter- 
ness. It  brought  a  lifetime  of  discontent,  of 
animosity,  of  frustration  and  a  great  number 
of  other  things.  And  that  the  school  system 
was  not  the  place  for  a  labour  dispute,  or  a 
strike,  or  a  withdravi^al  of  services,  or  a  mass 
resignation  by  teachers;  or  indeed  some  very 
recalcitrant  actions  by  a  board  of  trustees— 
because  neither  of  them  up  there  in  York 
are  on  the  side  of  the  angels  on  this  one. 

But  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  not  what  an  edu- 
cation system  is  based  upon. 


298 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  Angelicism. 

Mr.  Drea:  An  education  system  cannot  be 
based  upon  mutual  hostility.  The  hostility 
comes  down  and  torments  the  third  party; 
and  that  is  the  innocent  party,  the  student. 
That  is  why  I  support  this  bill. 

If  I  have  regrets  about  this  bill— we  are 
into  second  reading  today— it  is  that  I  would 
have  liked  to  have  seen  it  on  Feb.  2— and  Til 
make  no  bones  about  my  position.  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  school  system— and  that  is 
from  grade  1  all  the  way  up  through  uni- 
versity and  into  the  graduate  schools— is  a 
place  for  a  labour  dispute  which  stops  stu- 
dents from  going  to  classes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  That  member  does. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  neanderthals  all  re- 
act like  that. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  say  that  in  all  sincerity,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  wish  to 
place  upon  the  heads  of  the  teachers— or  their 
union  or  federation  or  whatever  they  want  to 
call  it— I  do  not  want  to  put  or  seem  to  put 
the  blame  for  this  matter  upon  them  entirely. 
Neither  do  I  want  to  put  it  upon  the  board  of 
trustees. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That's  a  good  safe  posi- 
tion 

Mr.  Drea:  Although  I  must  say  in  this  situ- 
ation that,  quite  frankly,  I  am  much  more 
sympathetic  to  the  public  position  of  the 
teachers  than  I  am  to  the  board. 

The  hon.  member  for  Wentworth  has  allud- 
ed to  a  few  things  tonight  that  I  was  not 
aware  of,  but  in  any  event  I  will  let  my  sym- 
pathies rest  with  the  public  case. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  blame  rests  upon  both  of 
them  because  here  are  people  who  are  elected 
from  the  community  to  administer  a  board  of 
education.  They  go  to  the  people  like  every- 
body in  this  House  and  they  say  they  are  in  a 
position  to  manage  probably  the  most  essen- 
tial industry,  if  one  wants  to  call  it  that,  that 
we  have  in  this  province.  If  the  education  of 
children  and  teenagers  and  on  up,  institu- 
tionally and  otherwise,  is  not  the  most  essen- 
tial aspect  of  our  province— we  are  paying  an 
awful  lot  of  money  in  taxes;  parents  are  put- 
ting an  awful  lot  of  faith  in  institutions  and 
people  in  general  have  a  great  deal  of  re- 
spect for  them— if  this  is  not  true  I  suggest  to 
you  we  have  all  been  led  astray. 


The  very  foundations  of  the  Province  of 
Ontario  rest  upon  education. 

If  we  go  back  150  years  when  there  were 
only  crossroads  towns,  and  see  the  land  grants 
for  the  immigrants  who  came  over  in  steerage 
—and  it  took  them  a  lifetime  of  toil  to  pay  oflF 
that  land  grant-the  first  thing  they  built  and 
the  first  thing  they  made  sure  of  for  their 
children  was  the  school. 

They  built  a  church  and  they  built  a 
school.  They  recognized  it  was  essential,  even 
when  education  was  not  as  formal  as  it  is 
today.  And  today  education  is  an  absolute 
necessity.  It  is  necessary  for  employment;  it 
is  necessary,  indeed,  even  to  be  able  to  cope 
with  the  complexities  of  life. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  That's  fairly 
trite. 

Mr.  Drea:  Yet  we  allow  something  that 
essential  to  be  interrupted  by  a  labour  dis- 
pute. 

Mr.  Speaker,  when  we  get  in  o  the  ques- 
tion of  bargaining  in  good  faith,  it  seems 
rather  interesting  to  me  that  on  one  occasion 
those  with  the  arbitrary  mind  would  have  us 
seize  the  management,  which  in  this  case 
is  the  board  of  trustees.  This  was  the  pro- 
posal, seize  the  management,  we  don't  like 
their  side  this  time. 

It  must  be  the  first  time  in  the  history  of 
the  Liberal  Party  that  it  has  ever  even  raised 
an  eyebrow  toward  the  position  of  manage- 
ment, let  alone  threatened  to  seize  it.  Some- 
how, I  suspect  in  the  months  ahead  there  is 
going  to  be  a  great  deal  of  explanation  that 
the  party  really  didn't  mean  it. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  That's  usual. 

Mr.  Drea:  Now  the  next  time  around,  with 
that  arbitrary  kind  of  mind— the  1930s  were 
filled  with  the  arbitrary  kind  of  mind,  not 
only  in  this  House  but  abroad.  That  was  the 
type  of  thing  done  when,  if  the  union  didn't 
seem  to  agree  with  the  government,  it  seized 
the  union. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Is  he  threatening  us  with 
law  and  order? 

Mr.   Drea:   The  next  time   around,   if  the 
board  of  trustees  appeared  to  be  on  the  side 
of  the  angels- 
Mr.  Biillbrook:  I  can  think  of  a  seizure  I 
would  like  to  undertake  right  now. 

Mr.  Drea:  —it  would  be:  "Seize  the  fed- 
eration; put  it  under  trusteeship  and  let  the 
Minister  of  Education  negotiate." 


xMARCH  13,  1974 


299 


Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  only  three  places  in 
the  world  where  the  minister  of  anything 
seizes  one  side  and  then  very  calmly  says: 
"Now  here  is  the  model  contract."  It  hap- 
pens in  Russia,  it  happens  in  China  and  it 
happens  in  Cuba.  Everybody  signs  because  if 
the\-  don't  sign  we  know  where  they  go. 

Mr.  Foulds:  How  about  Chile? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Where's  that?  Where  do  they 
go  if  they  don't  sign? 

Mr.  Drea:  One  can  go  to  the  islands. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  islands? 

Mr.  Drea:  Or  the  archipelago,  or  behind 
the  wire. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  They  are 
mild  compared  to  you  fellows. 

Mr.  Drea:  Yes,  in  South  America— I  was 
coming  to  South  America— the  Ministers  of 
Labour  are  great  in  South  America.  They 
collect  all  the  union  dues  and  they  dole  them 
out  in  one  day.  If  the  union  gets  along  with 
the  government,  great.  Ask  the  teachers  in 
South  America  when  v/as  the  last  time  they 
took  a  hike.  They  don't.  They  sigh,  nice  and 
cute.  Surely,  is  that  the  kind  of  local  auton- 
omy we  want  in  the  Province  of  Ontario? 
Elect  a  board  of  trustees  so  that  when  they 
get  into  any  difiBculty— 

Mr.  Deans:  In  South  America  the  teachers 
head  the  revolution. 

Mr.  Drea:  —or  particularly  with  a  labour 
dispute— elect  that  board  of  trustees  and  put 
your  confidence  in  them  to  spend  yom:  tax 
mone\"  to  supervise  the  education  of  your 
children,  and  then  when  they  get  into  difiB- 
culty put  them  under  trusteeship  so  the 
Minister  of  Education  can  use  the  big  club 
and  tell  them  exactly  how  the  people  who 
work  for  them  are  going  to  be  paid. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  find  it  very  interest- 
ing, particularly  in  Scarborough;  the  chairman 
of  the  board  of  education  in  Scarborough 
must  be  a  friend  of  the  Liberal  Party,  be- 
cause he  wore  a  button  for  them  at  the  con- 
vention and  he  campaigned  at  Scarborough. 
He's  a  great  fellow.  Do  the  members  know 
what  he  says?  He  says  a  teacher  shouldn't 
have  the  right  to  have  any  say  in  his  working 
conditions.  Because,  after  all,  he  says  the 
teacher  is  a  professional  person- 
Mr.  Deans:  He  is  wrong. 

Mr.  Drea:  —and  professional  people  really 
don't  want  the  right  to  have  any  say  in 
their  working  conditions. 


Mr.  Lewis:  That's  not  what  he  said.  Don't 
misrepresent  him. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  have  it  downstairs  in  a  clip- 
ping. That  is  what  he  says. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  not  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh  no,  this  is— 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  said  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation was  — 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh  no,  this  is  what  he  said; 
this  is  my  clipping. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  But  you  see,  Mr,  Speaker,  in 
this  bill,  even  though  it  is  an  llth-hour  bill 
to  send  people  back  to  work— 

An  hon.  member:  It  is  the  school  board. 

Mr.  Drea:  —this  government  has  ensured 
that  the  teacher  has  the  same  right  as  any- 
body else  in  this  society  who  has  banded 
together  for  economic  or  social  or  professional 
betterment,  and  that  is  the  right  to  have  a 
say  in  his  working  conditions. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  this  is  compulsion. 

Mr.  Drea:  Not  only  do  we  say  it  once  in 
the  bill,  but  we  say  it  twice. 

Mr.  Lewis:  This  is  compulsion.  There  are 
only  three  places  in  the  world  this  could 
happen. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh  there  are  more,  because  if 
one  is  going  to  have  compulsion  to  bargain 
one  must  have  compulsion  to  belong.  Now  if 
the  NDP  want  to  take  away  the  compulsory 
arbitration  why  don't  they  trade  with  the 
teachers  for  compulsory  membership  in  the 
federation?  That  might  be  an  interesting  little 
trade. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why,  why? 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  the  member  go 
to  a  meeting  and  suggest  it? 

Mr.  Drea:  Compulsion  is  only  used  when 
it  is  used  in  front  of  arbitration.  We  don't 
talk  about  compulsory  membership,  com- 
pulsory payment  of  dues.  We  don't  talk 
about  a  compulsory  black-list. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh  no,  we  never  talk  about 
those. 


300 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Drea:  We  don't  talk  about  the  hiring 
halls  either. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Drea:  We  don't  talk  about  messages 
around  the  world  that  anybody  who  goes 
to   work  in  York  will  be  blacklisted. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Drea:  Any  other  labour  organization 
that  does  this  is  against  the  law. 

An  hon.  member:  They  are  pink-listed. 

Mr.  Drea:   Mr.  Speaker,  to  come  back  to 
the  particular  points  that  I  want  to  make- 
Mr.    Foulds:    Why    doesn't    the    member 
voluntarily   take   three   steps   backwards? 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  one,  how  can  you 
have  local  autonomy  of  a  school  board  and 
stand  there  with  a  straight  face  and  say, 
"Oh,  we  believe  in  local  autonomy.  Let  the 
minister  seize  them  and  run  their  affairs." 
That's  magnificent  local  autonomy,  mag- 
nificent. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Tell  us  about  the  bean  board. 

Mr.  Drea:  South  American  style.  Secondly, 
if  there  is  such  aversion  to  compulsory  arbi- 
tration, Mr.  Speaker,  what  is  the  alternative? 
The  alternative  in  this  situation  is  to  let 
the  children  in  the  region  of  York  stay  out 
of  school  through  March,  perhaps  through 
April,  perhaps  through  May,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
notice  some  people  looking  at  me  with 
amazement.  That  couldn't  happen?  Well  on 
Monday  I  heard  it  in  the  House  from  across 
the  floor,  that  unless  something  was  done, 
the  children  were  suffering,  the  board  should 
be  seized. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Who  said  that? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Is  the  member  going  to 
talk  about  the  principle  any  moment?  Be- 
cause if  he  is  we  are  in  trouble. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  Well  the  member  for  Samia  is 
the  apostle  of  it,  I  don't  know  why  he 
doesn't  want  me  to  talk  about  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  How  about  the  bean 
board?  Tell  us  about  the  bean  board. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  allow  the  mem- 
ber to  continue. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  can't  you  control 
the  rowdies? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  the  member 
for  Scarborough  Centre  has  the  floor. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Please  give  him  the  courtesy 
of  allowing  him  to  continue. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  But  he  promised  only  five 
minutes. 

Mr.  Drea:  Every  time  the  member  in- 
terrupts me,  another  minute.  So  just  keep 
opening  your  mouth.  I've  got  all  night. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  concerns  me  most  about 
this  particular  labour  dispute  that  has  the 
children  without  a  school  to  go  to,  is  that 
apparently  once  again  we  are  put  into  the 
very  paradox  that  the  pubHc  school  system 
was  established  to  eliminate,  and  that  is  a 
law  for  the  rich  and  for  the  poor.  Because  in 
the  region  of  York,  if  a  family  has  enough 
money  it  doesn't  have  to  worry  whether  the 
high  schools  reopen  or  not.  They  can  send 
their  son  or  their  daughter  to  a  private 
school.  They  can  hire  a  private  tutor,  a 
one-to-one  situation.  They  can  make  very 
sure  that  they  will  be  prepared  when  they 
attend  university  in  the  fall. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  working  man  cannot 
afford  that.  In  my  view,  the  children  of  work- 
ing men  and  women  deserve  every  oppor- 
tunity that  this  province  can  provide  through 
an  education  system.  To  allow  the  closure  of 
schools  in  the  region  of  York  to  continue,  Mr. 
Speaker,  would  be  a  sin  of  omission  that 
would  weigh  most  heavily  upon  a  government 
that  throughout  the  years  has  been  dedicated 
to  building  the  kind  of  school  system  that 
will  produce  graduates  who  have  made  this 
province  the  envy  of  this  country,  and^ 
indeed,  the  envy  of  North  America. 

To  come  back  to  my  first  point,  Mr. 
Speaker,  society  is  indeed  in  trouble— 

An  hon.  member:  We  are  alll  in  trouble. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
let  the  minister  wind  up? 

Mr.  Drea:  —when  it  takes  from  3:30  until 
10:30  at  night,  after  more  than  six  weeks  of 
a  strike  that  has  closed  the  schools  in  a 
region  and,  because    of  other  conditions,  wilL 


MARCH  13,  1974 


301 


not  allow  them  to  be  opened  for  at  least  a 
seventh  week- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Now  they  don't  want  it  to  be 
debated.  There  are  only  three  countries  in  the 
world  that  don't  debate  it. 

Mr.  Drea:  —when  we  have  to  spend  seven 
hours  in  here,  when  we  have  seen  the  students 
outside  of  this  building- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Drea:  —begging  on  their  hands  and 
knees  for  the  right  to  go  back  to  school. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that  is  part  of 
the  learning  experience,  then  give  me  the 
bill  of  the  Minister  of  Education,  because  it  is 
about  time  that  we  opened  up  the  schodls— 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  crawled  into  the 
chambers! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  —so  that  the  students  who  want 
to  go  to  school  can  go,  and  the  teachers  who 
want  to  teach  can  teach.  And  if  they  don't 
want  to  teach,  then  let's  get  some  who  do. 

An  hon.  member:  Attaboy. 

An  hon.  member:  It  sounded  good.  Good 
speech. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It's  like  "The  National 
Dream." 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

An  hon.  member:  I'll  vote  for  the  bill  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  any  other  hon.  member 
wish  to  enter  this  debate? 

An  hon.  member:  There  aren't  any  left. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
begin  by  reiterating  what  I  said  in  the  closing 
of  my  statement  in  introduction  of  this  bill 
yesterday,  that  while  we  debate  this  bill  here 
and  it  is  proceeding  through  the  House— and, 
of  course,  it  will  go  to  second  reading  tonight 
and  be  proceeded  with  tomorrow— if  the 
parties  can  come  to  us  and  tell  us  they  have 
reached  a  negotiated  settlement  or  have 
agreed  to  go  to  voluntary  binding  arbitration, 
we  will  not  proceed  with  this  bill. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  knows  that  is 
not  likely. 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  am  always  the  eternal 
optimist. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Hope  springs  eternal. 

An  hon.  member:  He  was  suggesting  they 
shou^ld. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr,  Speaker,  one  of  the 
colleagues  of  the  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  indicated  that  he  hoped  that  this 
still  might  be  possible,  and  I,  of  course,  would 
hope  that  it  might  be  possible  also. 

An  hon.  member:  Is  he  in  the  next  room 
in  the  hotel? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  That's  certainly  why  I 
issued  my  statement  for  voluntary  arbitration 
on  the  weekend,  and  that  oflFer  is  still  open. 
I  tell  the  House  that  if  such  an  agreement 
is  communicated  to  us,  we  will  not  need  to 
proceed  with  this  bill. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  obvious. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  But  in  all  good  consci- 
ence, I  feel  that  if  it  is  not,  we  must  act. 
Govermnents  must  act  at  certain  times,  and 
this  is  the  time  when  we  must  act.  We 
cannot  wait  any  longer. 

I  would  like  to  review  some  of  the  things 
that  have  been  said  and  some  of  the  impres- 
sions that  have  been  left.  I  think  it's  re- 
grettable in  this  debate  that  we  have  been 
talking  about  personalities.  I  might  tell  the 
members  of  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I 
do  not  intend  to  talk  about  any  of  the 
personalities  involved  in  this  particular  dis- 
pute, save  to  say  that  it  is  very  interesting 
that  one  of  the  members  of  the  school  board 
who  has  played  a  very  prominent  part  in  the 
negotiations  was  awarded  the  "lamp  of 
learning"  by  the  Ontario  Secondary  School 
Teachers'  Federation  a  few  years  ago.  That 
is  very  interesting.  So,  in  fact,  perhaps  all  is 
not  black  and  white  in  this  particular  situ- 
ation. 

Much  has  been  mentioned  about  mutual 
respect.  Gertainly  there  has  been  a  loss  of 
mutual  respect  on  both  sides,  one  for  the 
other.  I  agree  with  those  who  say  we  can't 
arbitrate  mutual  respect  back.  I  don't  think 
we  can  negotiate  mutual  respect  back,  either. 
We  can  only  earn  it  back,  and  that  earning 
of  it  back  is  going  to  have  to  begin  right 
now,  today,  on  both  sides.  It's  going  to  have 
to  begin  in  order  for  the  York  county  school 
system  to  regain  some  of  the  something  that 
it  has  lost  during  these  last  10  months  or  so. 

I  have  also  heard  it  said  in  this  House— I 
can't  remember  how  many  times  during  De- 
cember when  we  were   debating  Bill   274— 


30:; 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  perhaps  we  should  let  the  strike  happen; 
but  when  the  appropriate  time  comes  this 
House  can  always  be  called  to  end  it.  And 
that,  I  would  suggest  to  you,  is  exactly  what 
we  are  doing  at  this  particular  time. 

I  want  to  just  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  why 
I  feel  that  we  are  right  in  what  we  are 
doing  at  this  particular  time,  at  least  from 
m\-  viewpoint  and  from  where  I  stood  in 
my  involvement  in  this  dispute  from  last 
December. 

I  guess  my  involvement  began  in  January 
when  it  became  obvious  that  York  county 
was  going  to  be  one  of  the  areas  where 
there  was  going  to  be  a  critical  situation  as 
to  whether  they  would  in  fact  reach  an 
agreement  before  the  Jan.  31  deadline  for 
acceptance  of  resignations.  At  that  time  I 
recall  meeting  with  the  board  and  discussing 
Bill  275,  which  had  been  introduced  into 
this  House,  and  I  recall,  and  I  think  I  am 
recalling  correctly,  that  I  said,  as  I  said  in 
this  House  during  that  debate— and  I  have 
the  quote  here— that  Bill  275  "gives  teachers 
the  right  to  negotiate  terms  and  conditions 
of  work."  And  at  another  time  I  think  I  used 
the  expression  "terms  and  conditions  or  work- 
ing conditions." 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  their  subsequent 
attitude  was  bad  faith  toward  the  minister 
and  everybody  else. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  wait  a  minute,  the 
member  will  hear  what  I  have  to  say.  I  said 
to  the  board  that  this  was  my  intention.  They 
said,  "It's  very  clear  that  the  government's 
intention,  as  indicated  in  the  draft  Bill  275 
that  was  introduced  into  the  House,  is  that 
school  boards  should  negotiate  terms  and 
conditions  of  employment— shotdd  negotiate 
working  conditions." 

Mr.  MacDonald:  And  they  defied  the  min- 
ister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  "We  don't  agree  with  that 
but  we  accept  it  because  you  have  said  that." 

Now,  they  then  came  back— I  can't  re- 
member exactly  how  many  days  later— but 
they  came  back,  not  to  me  but  to  the  bar- 
gaining table,  and  said,  "We  agree.  We  are 
going  to  negotiate  terms  and  conditions  of 
employment,  working  conditions,  but  we 
don't  think  that  pupil-teacher  ratio  is  a  work- 
ing condition."  Now,  they  didn't  say  that 
thev  weren't  going  to  negotiate  working  con- 
ditions, but  they  disputed  the  fact  that  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  was  a  working  condition. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Does  the  minister  think  that's 
good  faith?  Does  he?  Does  he  think  that  is 
plausible,  as  Minister  of  Education? 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  wait  a  minute.  They 
said  that  it  was  strictly  a  financial  condition 
—a  financial  thing  that  a  board  used  in  man- 
aging its  budget.  Now  I  don't  agree  with  that, 
and  I  didn't  agree  with  it- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  That's  worthy  of  a  Phila- 
delphia lawyer. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  doesn't  agree 
with  that? 

Hon.  Mr.   Wells:   —but  they  said  instead, 
"We  accept  that  working  conditions  are  to 
be  negotiated"  and  as  I  recall,  they  brought 
in  a  43-page  document- 
Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  —detailing  working  con- 
ditions which  they  put  on  the  bargaining 
table.  And  they  said,  "This  is  our  alterna- 
tive. You  say  you  want  to  negotiate  pupil- 
teacher  ratio;  we  say  we'll  negotiate  working 
conditions.  Here  are  the  working  conditions. 

Now,  I'm  not  going  to  go  into  what  was 
in  that  document  and  all  that  went  on,  but  I 
think  that— you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  mem- 
bers opposite  say  this  was  bad  faith.  I  think 
that  they  felt  that  they  were  operating  in 
good  faith  at  that  time— that  they  were  accept- 
ing our  admonition  to  negotiate  working  con- 
ditions, but  they  were  putting  on  it  what 
they  felt  was  their  interpretation  of  working 
conditons.  So  they  began  their  discussion,  but 
there  was  a  difference  of  opinion,  obviously. 

Mr.  Lewis:  With  the  minister  as  well  as 
with  the  teachers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  with  me,  but  also 
with  the  teachers. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  he  is  the  minister— he  is 
the  minister,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  am  the  minister,  but 
they  are  also  a  board  which  operates  under 
legislation  of  this  province.  And  I  made  my 
views  very  clearly  known  to  them. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  minister  tells  them  how 
much  they  can  spend. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  am  not  a  dictator.  I 
am  not  a  dictator. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  not  a  matter  of  dictator- 
ship. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 


MARCH  13,  1974 


303 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  made  my  views 
very  clearly  known  to  them.  If  I  could  force 
everything  here  it  would  be  fine.  We  would 
have  a  voluntary  arbitration  agreement  now. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  about  that  story 
in  the  Globe  that  said  the  minister  did  not 
make  it  clear  and  that  the  trustees  said  that 
he  did  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Again,  in  checking  with 
some  other  people  who  were  at  that  meeting 
—and  my  recollection  is  not  completely  clear 
—my  recollection  is  that  I  did  tell  them  at 
that  Sunday  meeting  that  I  felt  that  they 
should  negotiate  pupil-teacher  ratio.  I  checked 
that  with  siome  of  my  staff  who  were  at  that 
meeting  with  me  and  they  recall  that  I  did 
say  that  to  he  board. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Then  the  story  that  said 
that  the  minister  remained  silent  is  in  error. 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  never  mind^ 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  As  far  as  I  can  recall  it  is. 
As  I  say,  I  can't  verify  that  absolutely,  but  I 
must  say  that  we  had  a  long  discussion  about 
a  lot  of  things,  and  if  I  didn't  say  it  then  I've 
said  it  of  course  many  times;  and  I  think  that 
there  is  no  question  that  that  board  is  very 
aware  of  what  my  opinion  was  in  regard  to 
negotiations  of  pupil-teacher  ratio. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Now  wait  a  minute.  Let's 
just- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  And  they  defied  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  let  them  defy  it;  and  14,000 
kids  were  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Oh  no,  no.  Let's  just  look 
at  what  happened. 

We  arrived  at  the  night  before  the  dead- 
line, and  when  it  was  obvious  that  a  negoti- 
ated settlement  was  not  going  to  be  arrived 
at,  we  then  started  our  process  to  see  if  we 
couldn't  arrive  at  voluntary  arbitration.  We 
went  through  many  different  exchanges  that 
day  and  that  night.  The  board  at  one  point 
accepted  a  document,  but  the  teachers  didn't. 
And  when  we  asked  for  a  counter-proposal, 
that  proposal  was  not  acceptable  to  the  board. 
So  it  cannot  be  said  that  one  accepted  and 
one  didn't,  because  actually  they  didn't  agree. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  was  the  crux  of  the 
counter-proposal  ? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  crux  of  the  counter- 
proposal was  that  the  teachers  specifically 
wanted  to  have  the  arbitrator  rule  on  pupil- 


teacher  ratio.  But  at  that  very  time  both  of 
them  argued  until  4  in  the  morning  but  could 
not  agree. 

Now,  I  point  out  to  the  hon,  member  that 
this  again  was  a  document  to  go  to  voluntary 
arbitration,  which  needed  the  agreement  of 
both  sides.  I  think  that  if  he  had  been  in  the 
room  he  would  have  known  that  I  was  very 
disturbed  that  the  board  would  not  sign  or 
finally  agree.  But  at  4:30  in  the  morning  it 
finally  became  obvious  that  neither  side  would 
agree  to  anything  that  both  could  sign. 

So  the  deadline  passed,  the  walkout 
occurred,  and  everyone  agreed  that  the  best 
thing  that  could  be  done  now  was  to  negoti- 
ate a  settlement.  And  rather  than  worrying 
about  negotiating  terms  for  voluntary  arbit-^a- 
tion,  which  is  what  had  gone  on  for  14  or  16 
hours,  they  started  to  negotiate  again. 

Now,  during  this  process  one  of  the  Minis- 
try of  Labour  negotiators  was  present.  It  has 
been'  mentioned  that  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
negotiators  are  labour-oriented  people  and 
they  are  not  effective  in  this  particular  kind 
of  situation.  I  don't  accept  that,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  don't  accept  that,  because  I  think  that  both 
sides  recognized  that  the  person  who  was  in- 
volved in  this  particular  dispute— and  the 
others  who  were  involved— did  in  fact  serve  a 
useful  purpose  and  did,  t  think,  appreciate 
the  type  of  situation  they  were  in.  TTiey  did 
appreciate  the  educational  connotations. 

I  point  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  while 
this  one  dispute  ended  in  a  walkout— and  at 
this  point  in^  time  we  still  do  not  have  a 
settlement— and  the  Ministry  of  Labour  nego- 
tiator was  involved,  we  also  have  at  least  four 
other  Ministry  of  Labour  negotiators  who  did 
yeoman  service.  I  think  they  helped  in  a  very 
great  degree  to  bring  about  settlement  in  a 
lot  of  the  areas  that  were  in  dispute. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  don't  dispute  their  yeoman 
service. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  And  they  understood  what 
was  going  on,  I  think,  and  they  performed 
well.  I  think  that  the  fact  that  they  perhaps 
had  not  been  involved— actually  I  don't  think 
it  is  fair  to  say  that  they  hadn't  been  involved 
because  really  the  Ministry  of  Labour  negoti- 
ators have,  in  fact,  been  in  educational  dis- 
putes for  the  last  three  or  four  years.  They 
have  been  used  in  the  CUPE  disputes  or  in 
disputes  with  the  teachers  and  school  boards 
over  the  last  few  years. 

But  in  any  event,  the  negotiator  who  was 
involved  in  this  particular  dispute  worked  for 
many  hours  with  both  parties.  In  fact,  he  told 
me  that  he  spent  more  time  in  this  particular 
situation   than  he  has   done  with  any  other 


304 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Labour  mediator  sat  with  them.  Sometimes 
and  that  included  some  of  the  very  large 
negotiations  with  some  of  the  steel  companies, 
and  so  forth. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  board  was  even 
tougher. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Now,  our  position  was— 
and  I  think  that  I  maintained  this,  and  both 
sides  maintained  it— that  after  the  withdrawal 
of  services  had  occurred  they  agreed  that  the 
best  way  out  of  it  in  order  to  try  and  save 
some  vestige  of  morale  for  the  system  was  to 
negotiate  a  settlement.  So  we  agreed  with 
that.  We  said,  "All  right,  get  to  the  bargain- 
ing table  and  negotiate."  And  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  mediator  sat  with  them.  Sometimes 
with  great  difficulty  and  sometimes  perplex- 
ing some  people  we  resisted  efforts  to  inter- 
fere with  that  negotiating  process.  I  have  to 
tell  members  I  could  only  justify  doing  that  if 
I  thought  they  were  negotiating  in  good  faith. 
I  have  to  tell  this  House  that  I  was  given 
assurances  that  both  parties  were  negotiating 
in  good  faith  for  the  last  five  weeks. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  was  wrong. 
Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  it  may- 
Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  should  have  known 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  My  friend  says  it  is  wrong. 
I  can't  tell  becau.se  I  am  not  an  expert  lab- 
our-management person.  I  can't  tell.  All  I 
can  say  is  that  I  asked  again,  and  I  asked 
again  specifically  tonight,  so  that  it  wouldn't 
be  my  judgement  but  it  would  b?  somebody 
else's.  I  asked  Mr.  Mancini,  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  mediator,  if  the  parties  were  negoti- 
ating in  good  faith  and  he  said  he  felt  they 
were  honestly  trying.  Certainly,  representing 
both  of  their  positions,  they  were  honestly 
trying  to  bargain  in  good  faith  and  come  to  a 
settlement. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  may  be  well  that  Mr.  Man- 
cini has  an  enormous  capacity  for  self- 
delusion. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.    Mr.    Wells:    I   just  have    to    tell    my 

friend  that  both  sides— nothing  is  black  and 

white- 
Mr.  Lewis:  How  could  it  be  in  good  faith 

to    accept   the    resignations    of   the    teachers, 

telling  them  they  would  hire- 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  say,  I  don't  think  we 
want  to  get  into  what  both  sides  have  done. 
Certainly  that  would  act  as  provocation  to 
the  teacher  negotiating  team,  but  there  were 
things  done  by  the  teacher  negotiating  team 
during  those  negotiations  which  bothered  the 
board  very  much.  Yet  while  those  things 
played  a  role  certainly  and  sometimes  de- 
layed negotiations,  I  have  to  tell  members 
that  I  believe  both  side  were  bargaining  in 
good  faith  during  those  five  weeks. 

If  they  hadn't  been,  certainly  I  should 
have  done  something— we  should  have  done 
something— but  we  were  told  they  were  bar- 
gaining in  good  faith.  I  believe  they  were 
bargaining  in  good  faith  and  I  am  sure  they 
are.  I  don't  want  to  attach  any  blame  to 
either  side  because  I  suppose  the  blame  rests 
on  both  sides  in  any  dispute.  I  am  sure  it 
does  in  this  dispute  but  I  am  not  going  to 
try  to  assess  blame. 

The  responsibility  of  this  government  now 
is  to  bring  this  impasse  to  a  close,  to  get 
those  schools  open.  That's  really  what  we  have 
to  do  now.  We  believed  that  somehow  dur- 
ing the  period  of  five  weeks  a  settlement 
could  be  negotiated;  but  I  guess  last  Friday, 
when  I  made  my  offer  again  for  voluntary 
arbitration,  an  impasse  had  been  reached. 

It  seemed  that  further  negotiations  were 
just  going  to  continue  on  and  on,  so  the  vol- 
untary arbitration  agreement  was  put  forward. 
It  was  not  accepted,  and  in  good  conscience 
all  this  government  could  do  was  to  bring 
in  this  legislation  which  we  think  is  very  fair 
legislation. 

Certainly  it's  compulsory  arbitration  legis- 
lation. It's  the  same  kind  of  legislation  that 
the  Prime  Minister  of  Canada  brought  in 
when  the  rail  strike  reached  the  point  when 
something  had  to  be  done.  It's  the  kind  of 
arbitration  that  was  finally  used,  not  impos- 
ed by  a  government,  but  finally  used  to  settle 
the- 

Mr.  Lewis:  This  is  a  better  bill  than  that 
one  was. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  certainly.  What 
would  the  member  expect? 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  took  us  by  surprise. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  It's  the  same  kind  of 
arbitration,  although  it  is  being  imposed  by 
this  Legislature,  that  was  used  to  settle  the 
garbage  strike  in  Metropolitan  Toronto.  I 
listened  to  the  member  for  York-Forest  Hill, 
and  I   say  to  him  arbitration  has  been  used 


MARCH  13.  1974 


305 


many  times,  both  in  a  voluntary  sense  and  a 
compulsory  sense,  when  all  other  avenues  of 
settling  a  dispute  have  come  to  an  end.  I 
think  in  that  way  it  represents  a  sane,  civilized 
way  to  do  it  if  the  arbitration  is  carried  out 
with  skilled  arbitrators,  I  agree  with  him  that 
they  have  to  be  people  who  have  some  under- 
standing, some  compassion  for  the  situation. 
These  people  represent,  I  think,  a  very  sane 
way  to  bring  to  a  conclusion  something  which, 
I  submit,  is  causing  a  great  deal  of  harm  to  a 
lot  of  families  in  York  county. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  government  feels  this 
cannot  go  on.  We  must  accept  our  responsi- 
bihty  and  act.  We  act  through  bringing  for- 
ward this  bill  which  we  believe  will  bring  to 
an  end  that  dispute  in  York  county. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  motion  is  for  second  read- 
ing of  Bill  12. 

The  House  divided  on  the  motion  which 
was  approved  on  the  following  vote: 


Ayes 
Allan 
Apps 
Auld 
Beckett 
Bennett 
Birch 
Brunelle 
Clement 
Davis 
Dormer 
Drea 
Eaton 
Ewen 
Gilbertson 
Grossman 
Handleman 
Havrot 
Henderson 
Hodgson 

(Victoria-Haliburton) 
Hodgson 

(York-North) 
Irvine 
Jessiman 
Kennedy 
Kerr 
Lane 
Leluk 
MacBeth 
Maeck 
McKeough 
McNeil 
Meen 
Miller 
Morningstar 


Nays 
Braithwaite 
Breithaupt 
Bullbrook 
Burr 
Davison 
Deacon 
Deans 
Dukszta 
EdighoflFer 
Ferrier 
Foulds 
Gaunt 
Germa 
Gisborn 
Givens 
Haggerty 
Laughren 
Lewis 
MacDonald 
Martel 
Newman 

(Windsor- Walkerville) 
Nixon 

(Brant) 
Paterson 
Reid 
Riddell 
Ruston 
Singer 
Spence 
Stokes-29. 


Ayes 

Newman 

(Ontario  South) 
Nixon 

(Dovercourt) 
Nuttall 
Potter 
Reilly 
Rhodes 
Rollins 
Root 

Scrivener 
Smith 

(Simcoe  East) 
Smith 

(Hamilton  Mountain) 
Snow 
Stewart 
Taylor 
Timbrell 
Turner 
Villeneuve 
Walker 
Wardle 
Welch 
Wells 
Winkler 
Yakabuski 
Yaremko— 57. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  "ayes" 
are  57,  the  "nays"  29. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  declare  the  motion  carried. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  bill  be  ordered  for 
for  third  reading? 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  are  you  looking  so  be- 
mused about?  We're  not  going  to  third  read- 
ing. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Mr.  Minister,  committee  of 
the  whole  House? 

An  hon.  member:  Agreed.  We've  got 
amendments  to  make. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Before  I  move  the  ad- 
journment of  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  to- 
morrow we  will  proceed  with  the  consider- 
ation of  Bill  12  to  be  followed  by  item  no.  5, 
Bill  8,  and  item  no.  4,  Bill  7;  then  we  shall 
return  to  the  first  order. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  11.10  o'clock  p.m. 


306  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 


Wednesday,  March  13,  1974 

York  County  Board  of  Education  Teachers  Dispute  Act,  1974,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Wells, 

second  reading  269 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to   305 


No.  9 


Ontario 


Ht^isUtmt  of  Ontario 


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


Thursday,  March  14,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARUAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


{Daily  index  oi  proceedings  appears  at  back  of  this  inue.) 


300 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Prayers. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Mr. 
Speaker,  at  this  time  I  would  like  to  intro- 
duce, sitting  in  the  gallery,  30  pupils  from 
Sunnyside  Public  School  in  the  city  of  Sud- 
bury, their  principal,  Forbes  Stoodley,  and 
four  adults  who  are  accompanying  this  group 
for  a  three-day  visit  to  the  city  of  Toronto. 

Mr.   Speaker:   Statements  by  the  ministry. 


SUMMER  EMPLOYMENT  PROGRAMME 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrell  (Minister  without 
PortfoHo):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to  inform 
the  hon.  members  that  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment will  emp'loy  close  to  18,000  young 
people  this  summer.  Summer  employment  in 
the  Ontario  government  is  divided  into  two 
parts,  the  $9  million  Ontario  Experience  '74 
programme  employing  some  7,400  young 
people  in  20  special  job  projects,  and  the 
regular  summer  replacement  hiring  which 
will  employ  more  than  10,000  young  people. 

Hon.  members  have  received  copies  of  the 
Youth  Secretariat  summer  employment  infor- 
mation booklet.  This  booklet  represents  the 
first  time  that  all  summer  opportunities  offered 
by  the  government  have  been  catalogued  in 
such  a  manner.  It  is  our  intention  in  pro- 
ducing and  distributing  this  booklet  to  high 
schools,  colleges,  universities  and  Manpower 
Centres  across  Ontario,  that  young  people  in 
the  province  have  as  complete  information  as 
possible  concerning  the  opportunities  avail- 
able. 

As  a  backup  to  the  booklet,  an  information 
centre  is  in  operation  which  young  people 
can  call  collect,  or  write  to,  if  they  reqmre 
further  information.  The  number  and  ad^ 
dress  of  the  centre  is  in  the  booklet. 

As  hon.  members  will  note  in  the  book- 
let, the  Ontario  Youth  Secretariat  is  respon- 
sible for  the  co-ordination  of  the  Ontario 
Experience  '74  programme.  Through  the 
secretariat,  the  programme  development,  bud- 
get, evaluation  and  information  functions  of 
Ontario  Experience  '74  are  being  co- 
ordinated. 


Thursday,  March  14,  1974 

The  application  procedure  and  hiring  for 
the  Ontario  Experience  '74  programme  and 
for  the  regular  summer  replacement  positions 
will  be  the  responsibility  of  the  various  min- 
istries and  the  agencies  involved,  and  I  want 
to  emphasize  that  point. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  draw  the 
attention  of  the  hon.  members  to  the  guide- 
lines we  followed  in  developing  the  Ontario 
Experience  '74  programme.  Briefly,  these  are: 

Ontario  Experience  '74  jobs  must  be  jobs 
that  need  to  be  done— jobs  that  will  bring 
concrete  benefits  to  communities  in  Ontario- 
jobs  that  will  provide  real  value  for  the  tax- 
payers' dollars. 

Ontario  Experience  '74  jobs  must  be  tied  to 
local  concerns  and  be  administered  by  agen- 
cies that  can  identify  these  concerns.  Our 
reliance  on  existing  agencies— agencies  that 
are  involved  in  their  communities  on  a  year- 
round  basis— provides  local  supervision  and 
local  accountability  in  every  programme. 

Ontario  Experience  '74  jobs  must  provide 
opportunities  for  worthwhile  learning  experi- 
ences for  those  employed— experiences  which 
in  many  cases  wiH  aid  young  people  with 
career  decisions.  Many  of  our  programmes 
will  involve  young  people  in  fields  of  interest 
which  we  expect  will  grow  significantly  in  the 
future  and  thus  offer  good  potential  for  future 
occupations. 

Ontario  Experience  '74  jobs  must  provide 
opportunities  for  young  people  to  bring  their 
special  talents  to  the  work  situations,  their 
vitality,  their  enthusiasms,  their  training,  and 
their  youthful  approach.  In  many  programmes, 
young  people  will  be  able  to  use  their  own 
initiatives  and  ideas  in  finding  new  ways  to 
deliver  services  or  in  adding  new  elements 
to  existing  programmes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  within  Ontario  Experience 
'74  there  are  a  number  of  new  programmes. 
The  new  youth  and  the  arts  programme  of 
the  Ministry  of  Colleges  and  Universities  will 
provide  employment  with  various  cultural 
organizations  such  as  the  McMichael  Canadian 
Collection,  the  Ontario  Arts  Council,  the  Art 
Gallery  of  Ontario,  and  public  libraries  and 
local  museums  across  this  province.  Through 
these  agencies  young  people  will  be  involved 


310 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


in  such  tasks  as  cataloguing  museum  collec- 
tions of  artifacts,  acting  as  research  assistants 
in  museum  curatorial  departments,  and  pro- 
viding educational  information  to  the  public 
concerning  various  art  w^orks. 

The  consumer  advice  programme  of  the 
Ministr>'  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations will  employ  young  people  in  a  pilot- 
project  consumer  storefront  ofiBce.  CAP,  as 
we  call  it,  will  enable  the  young  people  in- 
voh  ed  to  assist  consumers  in  acquiring  specific 
information  about  goods  and  services,  and  also 
to  assist  consimiers  who  have  encountered 
problems  with  retailers,  wholesalers  and/or 
manufacturers. 

The  Ministry  of  Labour,  through  its  labour 
experience  internship  programme,  will  provide 
placements  with  labour  unions,  labour  coim- 
cils,  industrial  relations  units  and  the  like, 
exposing  young  people  to  the  field  of  in- 
dustrial relations,  its  role  and  operation.  The 
construction  safety  inspection  internship  un- 
der the  same  programme  will  give  civil  en- 
gineering and  civil  technology  students  in- 
valuable exposure  to  the  provincial  construc- 
tion safety  programme. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  a  number  of  other 
programmes  that  I  could  go  through,  but  I 
want  to  make  the  statement  as  brief  as  pos- 
sible. Consideration  has  been  given  to  an 
equitable  distribution  of  Ontario  Experience 
'74  jobs  throughout  the  province.  However,  I 
want  to  point  out  that  many  of  our  pro- 
grammes such  as  SWORD  and  Youth  in 
Action  will  stress  provision  of  jobs  in  areas 
where  there  is  not  a  large  industrial  base  to 
absorb  young  people  into  the  employment 
market.  We  expect  to  provide  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  1,600  Ontario  Experience  '74 
positions  in  northern  Ontario  alone. 

Consideration  has  also  been  given  to  pro- 
vision of  jobs  for  both  secondary  students 
and  university  and  community  college 
students  in  the  Ontario  Experience  '74  pro- 
gramme. Just  over  half  of  the  jobs  will  be 
available  for  college  and  university  students. 
The  rest  have  been  designed  specifically  for 
secondary  students  who,  because  of 
their  shorter  summer  break,  cannot  always 
compete  with  students  from  colleges  and 
universities. 

I  should  add  that  the  Youth  Secretariat 
has  prepared  contingency  plans,  and  will 
monitor  the  employment  situation  during  the 
summer.  Some  of  our  larger  programmes  have 
been  designed  so  that  they  can  be  expanded 
quickly  to  meet  needs  that  might  arise  if 
student  unemployment  becomes  exceptionally 
high  in  any  specific  geographic  area  of  the 
province. 


Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It's  like 
OFY. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
members  will  be  interested  to  learn  that  the 
secretariat  will  be  co-operating  with  the 
federal  government  in  a  review  of  the  OFY 
projects  for  this  year.  The  secretariat  will 
receive  the  OFY  applications  and  forward 
them  to  the  appropriate  ministries  of  the  On- 
tario government  for  comment.  We  will 
collect  the  comments  and  return  them  to 
Ottawa.  It  is  hoped  that  this  scrutinizing  pro- 
cedure will  help  us  to  avoid  instances  of 
duplication  of  services,  conflicts  between  pro- 
grammes in  communities,  and  the  like. 

Mr.  Martel:  Wasn't  that  sent  out  two  weeks 
ago? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  We  are  also  consulting 
with  the  federal  government  in  regard  to  the 
design  of  their  evaluation  of  all  of  their  sum- 
mer programmes  in  this  province. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downs view):  Is  OFY 
good  now?  Or  better  or  second  best? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  We  are  doing  this  as 
we  are  concerned  with  some  aspects  of  the 
federal  programmes,  their  accountability,  their 
supervision,  the  relevance  of  the  experience 
off^ered,  and  the  possible  creation  of  de- 
pendencies in  communities  which  the  com- 
munities are  not  prepared  to  assume  after 
the  summer. 

We  hope  to  encourage  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  take  a  look  at  these  kinds  of  concerns 
this  summer,  with  a  view  to  ironing  out  some 
of  the  difficulties  the  federal  programmes 
have  tended  to  create  for  our  communities  in 
our  province  in  the  past. 

Mr.  Speaker,  although  Ontario  Experience 
'74  is  a  large  programme,  it  will  not  employ 
every  young  person  in  the  province,  nor  is 
that  our  intention.  Most  summer  employment 
will  be  provided  by  the  private  sector,  and 
we  think  that's  the  way  it  should  be. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  I  am  sure 
the  government  does. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Before  I  finish,  I  would 
like  to  inform  the  hon.  members  that  in  On- 
tario Experience  '74,  wherever  possible,  we 
will  try  to  employ  handicapped  persons  who 
might  not  otherwise  be  able  to  find  employ- 
ment. We  are  asking  all  of  the  ministries 
and  all  of  the  agencies  to  give  special  con- 
sideration to  these  people.  We  ourselves  will 
be  contacting  the  special  groups  and  institu- 
tions   that    work    with    the    handicapped    to 


MARCH  14,  1974 


311 


provide  them  with  special  assistance  in  find- 
ing employment  in  our  programme. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  looking  forward  to  my 
involvement  with  the  Ontario  Experience  '74 
Programme.  I  anticipate  that  the  programme 
will  provide  rewarding  work  experience  for 
the  many  young  people  in  Ontario  who  will 
participate  in  it.  I  will  visit  as  many  of  the 
projects  in  Ontario  Experience  '74  as  I  can 
this  summer,  and  I  would  hope  that  when  I 
do,  the  hon.  members  who  represent  the  peo- 
ple of  those  areas  will  be  able  to  accompany 
me. 

In  closing,  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  assure  hon. 
members  that  I  will  strive  to  carry  out  my 
duties  as  the  minister  responsible  for  the 
Ontario  Youth  Secretariat  as  effectively  and 
as  productively  as  my  predecessor,  now  the 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 
(Mrs.  Birch). 

Thank  you. 


TASK  FORCE  ON  POLICING 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  afternoon  I  will  be  tabling  the 
report  of  the  task  force  on  policing  in  On- 
tario. The  Solicitor  General  established  the 
task  force  in  May,  1972,  to  review  the  ad- 
ministration, organization  and  efficiency  of 
police  in  this  province. 

Under  the  chairmanship  of  Edward  B. 
Hale,  the  task  force  has  conducted  an  exten- 
sive examination  of  all  aspects  of  policing  as 
they  relate  to  the  people  of  our  province. 
Its  membership  includes  a  diverse  range  of 
citizens;  for  example,  active  police  officers 
of  various  ranks,  a  high  school  principal,  a 
lawyer,  municipal  politicians  and  citizens. 
They  were  backed  up  by  a  professional  re- 
search team  which  included  specialists  in 
business  and  criminology. 

The  task  force  conducted  public  hearings 
in  15  different  cities  in  the  province.  Also,  in 
order  to  compare  policing  in  Ontario  with 
that  in  other  jurisdlictions,  task  force  represen- 
tatives went  to  other  provinces  in  Canada,  as 
well  as  to  the  United  States  and  Europe. 

Mr.  Singer:  How  come  we  didn't  read  this 
in  the  Glolae  and  Mail  this  morning? 

Hon  Mr.  Kerr:  The  task  force  received 
over  200  written  submissions  at  its  14  public 
and  five  in  camera  hearings  and,  in  addition, 
obtained  extension  information  from  inter- 
views and  conversations  with  police  officers 
and  citizens  from  all  walks  of  life. 

The  report  covers  the  analysis  and  fore- 
cast of  the  extent  and  nature  of  policing  in 


the  future;  the  division  of  responsibility  be- 
tween various  forces;  the  financing  of  police 
services;  manpower  training  and  develop- 
ment; administration;  the  function  of  the 
Ontario  Police  Commission,  local  police  com- 
missions and  other  governing  bodies  and  the 
relationship  between  the  police  and  the 
public.  This  relationship  also  becomes  the 
theme  of  the  entire  report. 

The  report  makes  170  recommendations, 
Mr.  Speaker,  which  will  now  be  examined 
by  my  ministry. 


COMMUNITY-SPONSORED  HOUSING 
PROGRAMME 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  give  the 
members  a  broad  outline  of  a  programme  my 
ministry  is  introducing  to  provide  assistance 
to  community  groups  in  developing  and  man- 
aging their  own  housing  projects. 

The  programme,  which  we  are  calling  the 
Community-Sponsored  Housing  Programme, 
is  aimed  at  assisting  such  groups  as  non-profit 
and  certain  co-operative  organizations,  as 
well  well  as  housing  companies  set  up  and 
operated  by  the  municipal  governments. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  purpose  of  this 
new  programme  is  two-fold— to  promote  co- 
operative and  non-profit  housing  generally  as 
another  means  of  producing  accommodation 
for  moderate-income  earners,  and  to  estab- 
lish another  method  of  integrating  public 
housing  units  in  the  community.: 

Community-sponsored  housing  is  part  of 
the  diverse  range  of  policies  already  announc- 
ed, or  being  developed,  within  the  Housing 
ministry.  The  programme  vdll  relate  closely 
to  two  federal  amendments  made  last  year 
to  the  National  Housing  Act.  While  these 
amendments  are  most  helpful,  we  in  the  pro- 
vincial government  feel  they  do  not  go  far 
enough,  particularly  as  they  relate  to  persons 
and  families  in  the  lower-  and  moderate- 
income  ranges. 

The  community  groups  to  be  assisted  will 
include  people  of  many  income  levels  and 
with  a  wide  variety  of  special  interests  and 
goals— such  organizations  as  service  clubs, 
charitable  bodies  and  those  dedicated  to  aid- 
ing the  elderly  and  the  disabled. 

The  programme  will  complement  the  fed- 
eral assistance  and  add  to  it  in  basically 
three  ways: 


312 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


1.  It  will  provide  grants  of  up  to  10  per 
cent  of  the  value  of  the  housing  projects,  to 
be  paid  progressively  over  a  15-year  period 
in  order  to  reduce  the  mortgage  payments. 

2.  It  will  financially  assist  in  the  rent  pay- 
ments of  those  in  the  lower-  and  moderate- 
income  groups  through  the  rent  supplement 
programme.  In  return  for  the  grants,  the 
community-sponsored  groups  will  provide 
generally  up  to  25  per  cent  of  their  units  for 
use  under  the  rent  supplement  programme. 

3.  It  will  make  available  ongoing  support, 
in  the  form  of  expertise  or  other  assistance, 
in  the  areas  of  both  the  development  and 
management  of  housing  projects. 

As  well,  as  a  partial  or  whole  alternative 
to  the  grants,  my  ministry  is  prepared  to  'lease 
provincial  lands,  where  available,  to  com- 
munitv-sponsored  groups  having  dijfficulty 
finding  sites  at  reasonable  cost. 

Presently,  the  NHA  amendments  I  referred 
to  provide  such  assistance  as  up  to  $10,000  in 
startup  funds,  mortgage  loans  of  up  to  100 
per  cent  plus  a  10  per  cent  capital  contribu- 
tion, and  grants  of  up  to  $2,500  per  unit  for 
the  rehabilitation  of  existing  housing  for  use 
by  non-profit  groups. 

When  added  to  this  federal  assistance,  the 
new  Ontario  programme  wiU,  I  believe,  result 
in  rent  'levels  which  are  within  the  reach  of 
those  persons  and  families  needing  assistance 
the  most. 

That  is  the  broad  thrust  of  the  programme. 
There  are  still  certain  mechanics  and  details 
yet  to  be  worked  out  and,  so  that  we  may 
complete  these  in  consultation  with  those  who 
will  be  closely  involved,  my  ministry— in  con- 
junction with  the  federal  government,  through 
Central  Mortgage  and  Housing  Corp.— will  be 
hosting  a  conference  on  the  subject  in  To- 
ronto on  March  25.  To  this  conference  we 
are  inviting  representatives  of  the  municipal- 
ities and  many  non-profit,  charitable  and  co- 
operative organizations  which  are  involved  or 
which  have  indicated  a  desire  to  become  in- 
volved in  developing  housing  of  this  type. 

Once  we— and  here  I  refer  to  the  groups 
and  municipalities,  the  federal  government 
and  the  Ontario  Ministry  of  Housing— have 
finalized  these  details,  it  is  my  intention  to 
get  the  programme  in  operation  as  soon  as 
possible,  hopefully  in  the  early  part  of  May. 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent:  (Grey-Bruce):  The  gov- 
ernment was  saying  this  10  years  ago. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  What 
does  the  hon.  member  for  St.  David  (Mrs. 
Scrivener)  say  to  all  of  that? 


Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Sorry,  the  member 
can't  ask  her  a  question. 


ALGONQUIN  PARK  YOUTH  CAMP 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources ) :  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  inform 
you  and  the  hon.  members  of  the  Legislature 
that  a  provincially-sponsored  youth  camp  is 
to  be  established  in  Algonquin  Provincial 
Park,  in  line  with  the  government's  policy  ob- 
jectives for  the  park  as  announced  last  July. 

Campers  will  be  recruited  from  the  metro- 
politan areas  of  southern  Ontario  who  might 
not  otherwise  have  the  opportunity  to  share 
a  wilderness  camping  experience. 

While  the  costs  of  development  and  the 
operation  of  the  camp  will  be  borne  by  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources,  it  will  be  oper- 
ated on  behalf  of  the  ministry  by  the  camping 
service  of  the  YMCA  of  Metropolitan  Toronto. 

The  camp  will  initially  be  designed  to 
accommodate  56  campers  in  each  of  four  two- 
week  camping  periods  for  boys  and  girls  in 
the  12-to-16  age  group.  Fees  will  be  minimal 
to  assist  the  government  in  providing  this 
experience  for  the  less  advantaged  children 
from  urban  areas. 

The  camp  programme  will  include  normal 
youth  camp  activities  such  as  hiking,  boating 
and  water  sports,  but  special  emphasis  will  be 
placed  on  interpreting  the  relationship  be- 
tween man  and  his  natural  environment  in 
accordance  with  the  objectives  of  w^demess 
camping. 

Arrangements  are  currently  being  com- 
pfleted  to  ensure  that  the  camp  is  operational 
for  this  coming  summer  camping  period. 

I  am  sure  that  all  hon.  members  will  join 
with  me  in  expressing  the  appreciation  of  the 
government  to  the  YMCA  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto  for  the  close  co-operation  and  assist- 
ance they  have  given  to  my  ministry  in  the 
design  and  development  of  this  new  public 
camp  in  Algonquin  Provincial  Park. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes:    (Thunder  Bay):   Is  the 

for    rrrsinre   tr»   rar>n-iH-    oil    fno   /-iQm-r»/3ro   from 


ivir.  J.  rj.  atoKcs:  ^^  inunuer  iDay;:  j 
minister  going  to  recruit  all  the  campers 
Toronto? 


Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  No,  no. 

Mr.    Speaker:    Oral    questions.    The    hon. 
member  for  Kitchener. 


SIMCOE  COUNTY  STEEL  PLANT 

Mr.   Breithaupt:   Mr.   Speaker,   a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment:   Is  the 


');t  MARCH  14,  1974 


313 


minister  aware  of  the  proposal  by  Automo- 
tive Hardware  Ltd.  to  build  a  $25  million 
steel  melt  shop  and  rolling  mill  on  the  banks 
of  the  Nottawasaga  River  in  Essa  township, 
Simcoe  county?  Has  the  minister  undertaken 
any  studies  of  the  environmental  impact  of 
such  a  plant? 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  Envir- 
onment): I  am  not  familiar  with  that  in  de- 
tail, but  certainly  we  will  be  looking  at  it. 
I  do  appreciate  the  member  bringing  it  to 
my  attention  and  I  will  get  some  details  back 
to  him. 

Mr.  Rreithaupt:  A  supplementary  of  the 
minister:  Since  Essa  township  has  no  oflBcial 
plan,  will  the  minister  deal  not  only  with 
the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  to  ensure  that 
there  is  no  approval  given  before  environ- 
mental and  planning  considerations  are  done, 
but  will  the  minister  also  deal  with  his  col- 
league the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
(Mr.  Stewart)  to  inquire  just  as  to  the  agri- 
cultural value  of  these  lands,  which  are  in 
lot  22  of  concession  6,  before  any  such  plans 
are  proceeded  with? 

Hon.  Mr.  Newman:  I  certainly  will.  I  will 
consult  with  my  colleagues  on  that. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Attaboy! 


ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARING  BOARD 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  minister  is  so  co- 
operative I  will  ask  him  another  question, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Is  the  minister  considering  any 
legal  action  wdth  respect  to  Disposal  Services 
Ltd.,  the  firm  that  has  been  dumping  garbage 
on  a  site  in  Maple  since  January,  even  though 
the  site  has  not  as  yet  been  approved  by 
the  Environmental  Hearing  Board? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  This  is  a  very  com- 
plicated matter.  I  just  happen  to  have  a  few 
facts  about  it  here  today,  because  I  thought 
it  might  be  coming  up. 

This  matter  is  very  complex  and  a  pro- 
visional certificate  of  approval  was  issued 
which  stated  that  the  company  had  to  stop 
taking  waste  to  the  site  by  August,  1973, 
since  the  43  acres  were  full.  The  company 
appealed  this  to  the  Environmental  Appeal 
Board  on  the  basis  that  the  certificate  was 
for  63  acres  even  though  it  was  currently 
using  only  43  acres.  The  appeal  board  ruled 
that  20  acres  was  not  covered  by  the  certifi- 
cate and  that  a  hearing  by  the  Environ- 
mental Hearing  Board  would  be  required 
with  respect  to  the  20  acres. 


The  company  subsequently  appealed  the 
decision  of  the  appeal  board  on  a  point  of 
law  to  the  courts,  and  to  the  minister  on  a 
question  of  fact.  The  court  case  is  set  for 
April  29,  1974.  In  the  interim  period  the 
municipality  passed  a  bylaw  prohibiting  the 
use  of  the  20  acres  as  a  waste  disposal  site. 
The  hearing  board  is  also  considering  whether 
or  not  the  bylaw  should  apply  to  the  site. 
The  reason  we  have  not  stopped  this  at  the 
present  time  is  because  our  legislation  pre- 
vents us  doing  so  in  some  terms  and  condi- 
tions under  certificate  of  approval  until  final 
disposition  of  the  appeal. 

However,  I've  asked  our  legal  people  to 
get  on  this  and  we  are  looking  at  several 
ways  in  which  we  may  deal  with  this  matter. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  A  supplementary  question, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Since  it  would  appear  that  the 
site  may  well  be  filled  by  the  time  the  court 
case  comes  up— 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  filled  already. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  —what,  in  fact,  is  the 
minister  going  to  do  to  go  along  with  what 
the  chairman  of  the  Environmental  Hearing 
Board  said,  which  was  that  this  was  an 
illegal  use  in  the  first  place? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  This  is  what  I'm  just 
saying— we  have  three  alternatives  open  to 
us;  we  can  either  file  an  injunction,  we  can 
start  prosecution  or  we  can  put  a  stop  order 
on  it. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  Why  not  put 
a  stop  order  on  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Our  legal  people  are 
looking  at  it.  We  just  don't  want  a  stop 
order  that  they  could  take  to  the  courts  and 
change  in  24  hours.  We  want  to  find  the 
best  procedure.  We  would  like  to  stop- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  Use  one  of  the  other  alter- 
natives then. 

Mr.  Singer:  Why  not  use  all  three  at 
once? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  would  like  to  stop 
this  until  the  matter  is  cleared  up  in  the 
courts.   We   are  very   anxious   to   do  this. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Government 
Services):  Was  that  free  legal  advice? 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  the  government  by  its  owm  delays  has 
been  directly  responsible  for  the  prolongation 
of  this  dumping  of  garbage  by  an  additional 
43    weeks    beyond    that    which    the    tovm 


314 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


approved,  surely  the  stop  order  is  now  the 
procedure  to  save  whatever  is  left  from 
further  damage? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  will  be  taking  the 
necessary  action  within  two  or  three  days. 
We  are  not  going  to  wait  until  it  gets  settled 
in  the  courts.  We  want  the  dumping  there 
now  stopped  until  this  matter  has  been  re- 
solved. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  will  be  August,  1974. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  No,  it  won't. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  A 
supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  Good:  Thank  you.  Since  the  minister's 
answer  is  exactly  the  same  as  the  answer 
given  by  the  previous  minister  last  December, 
will  he  undertake  to  change  the  legislation 
so  that  these  people  can't  make  a  mockery 
of  the  laws  and  go  on  dumping  and  dumping 
while  they  continue  to  appeal? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  First  and  foremost,  it 
isn't  the  same  statement  because   I've  got— 

Mr.  Sargent:  It  is. 

Hon.    W.    Newman:    No,    it    is    not.    The 
member  didn't  do  his  reading.  We  are  very 
much- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  ( Rainy  River ) :  Not  the  way 

the  minister  read  it. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  very  much 
concerned  about  the  whole  situation.  We 
really  want  to  get  at  the  thing  and  clean 
it  up. 

Mr.  Good:  Has  the  minister  been  up  to 
look  at  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  have  been  to  see  some 
of  the  sites.  I  haven't  seen  them  all. 

Mr.  Good:  It  is  a  disgrace. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  would  the  minister  say  what  he  will 
do  if  the  decision  is  that  that  should  not  have 
been  used?  The  site  is  a  pollution  threat  to 
the  area.  Is  he  going  to  order  Disposal 
Services  to  remove  all  that  waste  they've  been 
dumping  on  the  site  illegally  for  the  last 
year  and  a  half? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Give  them  double  their 
garbage  back. 


Hon.  W.  Newman:  There  are  appeals  on 
right  now.  One  appeal  is  directly  to  the 
minister  and  the  other  is  to  the  courts.  Cer- 
tainly we  are  concerned  about  seeing  whether 
this  gets  cleared  up  properly  in  the  courts, 
but  in  the  meantime  we  want  to  stop  the 
dumping. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Then  issue  a  stop  order. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  It  is  not  that  simple. 

Mr.  Deacon:  How  is  the  minister  going 
to  have  them  remove  the  garbage  they've 
already  dumped  if  it  is  illegal;  if  it  shouldn't 
have  been  dmnped? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  think  that  should  be 
left  up  to  the  courts  to  decide. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No,  there  have  been  five 
supplementaries  now,  that  is  sufficient.  The 
hon.  member  for  Kitchener.  Does  the  hon. 
member  for  Kitchener  have  further  questions? 


GUARANTY  TRUST  CO.  OF  CANADA 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  with  respect  to  the  Guaranty 
Trust  Co.  of  Canada:  Further  to  the  laying  of 
certain  charges  against  the  company  and 
several  of  its  former  officials,  can  the  minister 
assure  the  Legislature  as  a  result  of  his 
investigations  that  the  company  is  in  a  sound 
financial  position  and  that  there  is  no  danger 
or  threat  to  the  public  interest  as  a  result 
of  this  unfortunate   circumstance? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker, 
as  the  matter  is  before  the  courts  I  wish  to 
pass  no  comment  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
particular  charges  facing  that  company.  I 
can  give  the  House  the  assurance  tiiat  the 
company  is  in  a  very  stable  condition  and, 
in  fact,  I  am  advised  it  anticipated  these 
charges  and  has  in  fact  for  some  time  re- 
served particular  funds  in  anticipation  of 
these  charges,  which  show  on  their  state- 
ments. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  have  heard  of  reserves  for 
various  other  things  but  I  suppose  reserves 
for  prosecution  are  all  right  too. 


OPERATION  OF  TRAVEL  AGENCIES 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  One  further  question  of  the 
minister  with  respect  to  Cardinal  Travel  Ltd.: 


MARCH  14,  1974 


315 


Has  the  minister  ordered  an  investigation 
into  this  travel  agency  operation,  which  has 
been  well  publicized,  and  into  the  activities 
and  history  of  Mr.  Stan  Monday?  Is  the 
minister  aware  of  any  earlier  matters  of  this 
sort  in  which  Mr.  Monday  has  been  involved? 

And  finally,  will  the  minister  as  a  result 
of  this  event,  ensure  that  travel  agents  and 
agencies  are  bonded  so  that  this  defrauding 
of  the  public  by  the  few  who  are  breaking 
the  law  and  are  a  menace  to  that  whole 
business  circumstance  can  be  avoided?  Surely 
let  this  be  the  last  one  of  these  kinds  of 
things. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  First,  Mr.  Speaker,  up 
to  the  present  time  we  have  received  no  com- 
plaints over  the  past  number  of  years  in  con- 
nection with  this  particular  agency.  Second, 
I  am  not  aware  of  any  law,  criminal  or  other- 
wise, having  been  breached  by  this  agency. 
My  ministry,  when  it  first  learned  of  it,  has 
worked  very  closely  and  has  been  in  con- 
sultation with  Metro  police,  who  advise  that 
there  has  been  no  defalcation  but  that  the 
travel  arrangements  fell  through  because  of 
the  inability  of  the  agency  to  sell  all  the 
tickets  on  certain  particular  flights. 

Insofar  as  bonding  is  concerned,  this  is  a 
much  more  complex  situation  than  just  having 
the  person  who  runs  a  trave'l  agency  go  out 
and  get  a  bond,  because  th©  first  question  is 
how  much  of  a  bond  is  required.  Many  of 
these  agencies,  when  arranging  charter  flights, 
particularly  on  large  aircraft,  are  incurring 
liabilities  ranging  anywhere  from  $200,000  to 
$500,000,  depending  on  the  number  of 
charters  that  they  are  arranging. 

I  met  with  certain  travel  agents  repre- 
senting two  organizations  a  year  ago  January, 
and  they  suggested  themselves  that  they  be 
bonded  and  regulated  by  this  government, 
and  I  assured  them  we'd  be  willing  to  accom- 
modate them.  They  attended  with  their  soli- 
citor and  I  asked  them  what  they  proposed 
to  do  about  bonding,  and  they  went  away 
and  they  told  me  that  they  would  come  back 
as  soon  as  they  had  a  presentation  in  the 
form  of  a  brief  to  discuss  the  matter  widi  me. 

We  have  been  in  touch  with  ^em,  I  be- 
lieve on  two  occasions  since  that  time, 
requesting  that  they  re-attend,  and  they 
pointed  out  various  diflSculties  that  they  have 
run  into,  namely:  How  much  are  you  bonded 
for?  Is  it  a  varying  bond?  What  happens  to 
those  agents  who  run  good,  respectable,  re- 
sponsible agencies,  have  had  no  diflSculties 
and  yet  for  one  reason  or  another  might  not 
be  able  to  be  bonded? 


Mr.  Singer:  Lawyers  all  pay  into  the  in- 
demnity fund. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  the  lawyers  all  pay 
into  the  indemnity  fund  which  is  run  by  the 
Law  Society  of  Upper  Canada,  ana  not 
through  any  agency  of  this  government.  Un- 
less you  had  a  compensation  fund  run  by  the 
industry  itself,  with  no  limits  insofar  as  losses 
are  concerned,  then  I  suggest  that  there  could 
be  situations  where  a  loss  could  occur  and  the 
public  interest  not  be  covered. 

I  am  further  advised  with  reference  to 
Cardinal  that  the  moneys  paid  by  way  of  a 
deposit  will,  in  fact,  be  returned.  The  Metro 
police  have  advised  us  of  this,  but  that  is 
the  extent  of  my  knowledge  insofar  as  this 
agency  is  concerned. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth  should  have  a  supplementary  now. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  A  supplemen- 
tary: Is  the  minister  saying  that  he  is  not 
moving  against  these  travel  agencies  until 
such  time  as  they  tell  him  what  they  would 
like  to  see  done?  I  mean,  when  is  the  gov- 
ernment going  to  take  the  initiative  and 
estaMish  some  regulations  which  are  enforce- 
able? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I'd  be  glad  to  do  that 
if  on  my  estimates  this  year  the  members  gave 
me  enough  money  to  regulate  travel  agencies, 
television  repairmen,  housebmlders,  and  all 
the  like  across  the  province. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  ask 
us? 

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

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  When  are 
we  going  to  get  some  legislation  in  the  prov- 
ince, then? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 


Mr.  Singer:  Is  there  no  ability  in  the  gov- 
ernment to  bring  forth  its  own  bonding  regu- 
lations, and  can  the  minister  tell  us  if  any 
of  the  principals  of  Cardinal  have  been  in- 
volved in  similar  diflSculties  within  the  last 
half  dozen  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Any  of  the  what?  I  am 
sorry. 


316 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  lion,  member:  Cardinal  Travail 

Mr.  Singer:  Principals  of  Cardinal  Travel 
have  been  involved  in  similar  diflficulties, 
within  say  the  last  six  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  not  aware  of  any 
principals  of  Cardinal  having  been  so  in- 
volved. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  what  about  the  first 
part  of  the  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes;  I  suppose  we 
could  come  up  with  a  programme.  Again,  we 
would  have  to  establish,  I  suggest,  a  com- 
pensation fund,  presumably  paid  for  and 
contributed  to  by  the  industry  itself. 

Not  all  members  of  the  travel  agency 
fraternity  in  this  province  are  in  fact  mem- 
bers of  the  two  associations  with  which  I  met, 
I  believe  a  year  ago  January.  We  would  have 
to  bring  in  legislation  involving  all  travel 
agents,  not  necessarily  those  in  the  two 
associations  which  are  in  existence. 

Again,  it's  a  matter  of  degree.  I  think  the 
industrv'  has  been,  by  and  large,  responsive. 
There  have  been  those  unfortunate  situations 
where  people  on  charters- 
Mr.  Singer:  Well,  like  every  two  weeks 
there's  another. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Oh,  not  every  two 
weeks  at  all. 

Mr.  Deans:   Every  spring,  every  spring. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Every  spring? 

I  would  think  that  one  of  the  first  things 
we  would  have  to  move  on  is  the  regulation 
of  their  industry.  But  again  the  amount  of 
compensation  to  be  paid  to  any  one  individlial 
or  individuals  would  vary  depending  on  the 
number  of  charters  undertaken  by  each  indi- 
vidual agency. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well,  what  is  holding  the 
minister  up? 

Mr.  Singer:  Those  are  the  mechanics  of  it. 
The  minister  has  enough  talent  in  his  depart- 
ment to  figure  that  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  You  can't  write  a 
blanket  million-dollar  coverage  on  any  indi- 
vidual agency.  It's  just  impossible. 

Mr.  Singer:  Do  something. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  would  be  a  start. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker:  Is 
the  minister  saying,  finally  then,  that  because 


of  what  seems  to  be  fairly  simple  mechanics, 
which  his  people  have  not  yet  devised,  he  is 
washing  his  hands  of  a  practice  which  is 
obviously  illegitimate  and  corrupt  for  those 
who  experience  it?  Does  he  feel  no  respon- 
sibility at  all  then? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Illegitimate  and  what? 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  corrupt  for  those  who  ex- 
perience it;  for  those  who  are  stranded,  for 
those  who  don^t  get  their  money  back. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  not  going  to  in- 
dict the  travel  industry  and  say  they  are 
corrupt. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  didn't  indict  the  travel  indus- 
try. We  are  talking  about  those  companies 
that  are  specifically  involved  in  reneging  on 
fonnal  undertakings. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  it  happens  every  single 
Near. 

Mr.  Singer:  Those  people  pay  their  money 
and  don't  get  the  services  they  pay  for. 

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

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Hav- 
ing said  all'  that  he  has,  is  the  minister  giving 
us  any  assurance  that  these  285  students  who 
have  been  held  up  will  either  get  their  money 
returned  to  the  tune  of  $370  apiece,  or  in  the 
alternative  that  they  wall  be  able  to  take  trips 
with  alternate  airlines?  Is  he  doing  anything 
about  either  of  those  questions? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Use  the  government  aircraft. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  I  am  not  arranging 
alternate  trips  for  them,  but  I  am  advised 
through  Metro  police  that  their  funds  will  be 
returned  in  their  entirety. 

Mr.  Deans:  When? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  A  certain  amoimt  of  the 
funds,  I  understand,  left  Canada  to  book 
accommodation  in  Europe.  Those  funds  wall 
not  be  used  and  are  to  be  returned.  The  other 
funds  iiK  the  hands  of  the  travel  agents,  I  am 
advised  again  by  jny  officials  after  consulting 
with  the  Metro  police,  are  in'  the  process  or 
have  in  fact  been  returned. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  minister  could  perhaps 
invite  them  to  visit  the  Legislature  next  week. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Some  consumer  protection 
branch! 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  minister 
not  aware  that  in  certain  cases  Swissair  has 


MARCH  14,  1974 


317 


advise<i  that  the  money  is  to  be  frozen  in 
Europe  and  that  only  a  portion  will  be  re- 
turned? Is  the  minister  aware  of  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  I  am  not  aware 
that  Swissair  made  any  statement  other  than 
the  one  reported  in  the  press,  wherein  they 
said  they  had  worked  in  harmony  and  co- 
operated with  this  agency  for  some  period  of 
time  and  that  the  arrangement  had  been 
amicable  both  ways.  I'm  not  aware  of  the 
statement  to  which  the  member  refers. 

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

Mr.  J.  M.  Turner  (Peterborough):  I  wonder 
if  the  minister  is  aware  that  not  only  children 
from  the  Toronto  area  are  involved,  but  in 
fact  people  from  a  very  large  area  of  Ontario 
are  involved? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Even  including  Niagara. 

Mr.  Deans:  Including  the  Hansard  staflF. 

Mr.  Singer:  Now  he  has  got  to  dio  some- 
thing. 

Mr.  Turner:  The  minister  has  stated  that 
the  Metro  police  have  told  him  the  money  is 
to  be  returned  to  the  Toronto  people.  How 
about  the  people  living  outside  the  Metro 
area? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  should  get  his 
mind  shifted  to  something  outside  Metro. 

Hon,  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  heard 
the  first  part  of  the  member's  question,  to 
which  the  answer  is  yes.  I  didn't  hear  any  of 
the  second  part  of  his  question,  imless  he 
was  just  having  a  discussion  vdth  me. 

Mr.  Turner:  I'll  speak  a  little  louder. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Thanlc  you. 

Mr.  Turner:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  the 
problem  is  not  limited  to  the  Toronto  area 
but  in  fact  children  from  all  over  Ontario  are 
affected?  He  has  stated  he  has  had  assurance 
from  the  Metro  police  that  the  money  for  the 
Metro  children  apparently  is  going  to  be  re- 
turned. Has  he  any  such  assuranoe  for  the 
children  living  outside  of  the  Metro  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  i  am  sorry.  I  hope 
I  didn't  indicate  that  the  police  indicated  to 
our  officials  that  only  the  Metro  children  were 
going  to  get  their  money  back. 

Mr.  Turner:  The  minister  mentioned  285. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  I  think  the  Metro 
police  indicated  to  my  officials  that  all  the 


people  involved  in  the  Cardinal  arrangement 
were  going  to  get  their  money  back,  and  they 
didn't  designate  those  who  came  from  inside 
or  outside  of  Metro. 

Hon.  A.  Crossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Can  they  do  that 
through  the  member? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kit- 
chener. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  have  no  further  ques- 
tions, Mr.  Speaker. 

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


ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARING  BOARD 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Environment  first. 

He  has  had  before  him  for  some  consider- 
able time  an  application  from  Disposal  Ser- 
vices Ltd.  to  go  before  the  Environmental 
Hearing  Board,  on  the  approval  of  the  min- 
istry, for  an  additional  900-acre  site  in 
Vaughan  township,  not  far  from  their  present 
continuing  violation.  What  has  the  minister 
done  with  that  Tequest? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  A  hearing  has  been  set 
up  for  that  particular  area. 

Mr.  Lewis:  All  right.  Section  35  of  the  En- 
vironmental Protection  Act  says: 

Where  a  bylaw  of  a  municipality  affects 
the  location  or  operation  of  a  proposed 
waste  disposal  site  [and  the  minister  will 
know  that  the  bylaw  in  this  case  forbids 
such  a  site]  the  minister,  upon  the  applica- 
,  tion  of  the  person  applying  for  a  certificate 
of  approval  for  the  waste  disposal  site, 
may,  by  a  notice  in  writing,  and  on  such 
terms  and  conditions  as  he  may  direct,  re- 
quire the  hearing  board  to  hold  a  public 
hearing  to  consider  [the  application]. 

Given  the  record  of  Disposal  Services,  whose 
garbage  dumping  the  minister  is  going  to 
have  to  stop  by  court  order,  why  did  he 
recommend  that  they  have  a  hearing  to  use 
yet  another  900  acres  in  Vaughan  township? 
What  has  the  minister  got  against  Vaughan 
township?  Or,  more  important,  what  is  it  be- 
tween  the   minister   and   Disposal   Services? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Garbagel 

An  hon.  member:  Nonsense! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


318 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  W.  Newman:  It  is  quite  obvious  from 
the  hon.  member's  question  that  he  knows 
them  a  lot  better  than  I  do.  I  don't  know 
them  at  all.  Certainly  they  have  made  an 
application  and  there  will  be  a  hearing  on  a 
site  that  large,  and  the  hon.  member  is  quite 
aware  of  the  fact  that  the  20-acre  site  we 
are  dealing  with  now  is  just  a  preliminary 
to  what  is  to  come. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  surely,  by  way  of  supple- 
mentary, since  it  is  on  ministerial  authority 
that  the  hearing  is  granted  at  all,  given  their 
behaviour  in  Vaughan  township,  which  the 
minister  is  resorting  to  court  action  to  stop, 
he  should  say  to  them,  "No,  you  may  not  have 
a  hearing— no  more  garbage  from  Disposal 
Services  in  Vaughan  township,"  Why  this 
special  privilege  for  them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Newman:  There  is  no  special 
privilege.  Anyone  can  ask  for  a  hearing  with 
the  Environmental  Hearing  Board. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  it  is  within  the  minister's 
prerogative. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Why 
is  he  granting  it? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  is  he  granting  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  will  grant  a  hear- 
ing to  anyone  who  requests  a  hearing,  so  that 
the  people  can  have  a  chance  to  have  an 
input. 

Mr.   Lewis:   But  it  contradicts  the  bylaw. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary:  Would  it  not 
be  within  reason  for  the  minister  to  delay  any 
consideration  of  a  further  hearing  untU  the 
first  hearing  has  been  dispensed  with  com- 
pletely? I  do  not  understand  why  the  minister 
says  he  will  consider  giving  a  hearing  to  any- 
one at  all.  Surely  he  will  not  grant  a  hearing 
to  those  who  the  minister  himself  considers 
are  flagrantly  breaking  the  law? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Well,  as  far  as  en- 
vironmental hearings  are  concerned,  applica- 
tions are  being  made  and  we  are  hearing 
them  in  many  areas  of  the  province,  and  we 
will  continue  to  hear  them  on  the  basis  that 
people  will  have  a  chance  to  participate. 

Mr.  Lewis:  One  last  supplementary:  This 
isn't  just  an  application  for  a  hearing  in  the 
way  in  which  the  minister  replied.  This  is  an 
application  for  a  hearing  to  break  an  existing 
bylaw.  That  is  why  they  have  to  come  to  the 
minister.  Now  why  does  he  grant  them  the 
right  to   go   to   a   hearing?   That's  whv  the 


clause  says  "may"  rather  than  "shall."  Why 
does  the  minister  grant  them  the  right  to  the 
hearing  to  break  yet  another  law  in  Vaughan 
township? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Why  not  say  no  in  the  first 
place? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Say  no. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Is  the  hon.  member 
talking  about  the  bylaw  they  passed  on  the 
present  20-acre  site? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I  am  talking  about  the  use 
of  the  present  900-acre  site. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Why  consider  a  hearing  when 
they  are  using  another  site  for  an  illegal 
purpose? 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  say 
he  doesn't  know? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  am  not  really  sure 
of  that.  I  will  look  into  it  and  get  back  to  the 
hon.  member. 

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

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  What  is  the 
position  of  Vaughan  township  council  on 
this?  Have  they  approved  of  the  site? 

Mr.  Deans:  How  could  they  have?  They 
have  a  bylaw. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  can  violate  their 
bylaw,  but  they  can't. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Has  the  minister  had  any 
direction  from  Vaughan  township  council? 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  are  opposed  to  it;  they 
have  been  opposed  to  it  throughout. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  It  is  my  understanding 
that  they  approved  of  the  site  a  year  ago. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  they  didn't. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  There  have  been  many 
approvals  of  many  sites  and,  of  course,  there 
have  been  wdthdrawals  and  changes  because 
of  the  reaction  of  people;  that  is  one  reason 
we  have  these  hearings,  so  people  have  the 
right  to  express  their  views  and  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary:  What  steps 
has  the  minister  taken  to  provide  for  other 
sites  or  means  of  disposal  of  the  garbage 
that  is  now  being  handled  by  Disposal  Ser- 
vices? Has  any  alternative  been  developed 
bv  the  ministry  so  that  we  don't  have  to  reh- 


MARCH  14.  1974 


319 


upon  that  company  for  the  disposal  of  indus- 
trial garbage  from  the  Metro  area? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Disposal  of  their  gar- 
bage is  their  responsibility,  not  ours,  as  far 
as  Disposal  Services  are  concerned. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  ministry  has  to  take 
some  leadership. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary:  Is  the  min- 
ister aware  that  in  St.  Louis  they  are  han- 
dling 8,000  tons  a  day  and  they  are  making 
money  on  their  garbage  recycling? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  am  aware  there  are 
many  plants  throughout  the  world.  The  tech- 
nology in  our  ministry  is  aware  of  all  these 
things  throughout  the  world. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  ministry  has  done  noth- 
ing about  it. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  have  so.  We  have 
two  or  three- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  Meet  me  in  St.  Louis. 

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


ALGONQUIN  FOREST  AUTHORITY 

Mr.  Lewfc:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Natural  Resources,  if  I  could,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  take  it  that  the  minister  will 
shortly  be  introducing  legislation  to  enact  the 
Algonquin  Forest  Authority  that  was  referred 
to  some  months  ago? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker. 


COMMUNITY-SPONSORED  HOUSING 
PROGRAMME 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you.  I  have  a  question, 
Mr.  Speaker,  of  the  Minister  of  Housing. 
How  much  money  has  he  specifically  set 
aside  for  the  additional  support  to  co-op 
and  non-profit  housing  of  which  he  spoke 
today;  and  how  many  units  is  that  likely  to 
provide  of  housing  as  yet  unanticipated? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  set  aside  in  our  estimates  an  amount 
which  we  consider  to  be  adequate,  approxi- 
mately $4  million  worth  of  cash  flow  this  year, 
based  on  the  applications  and  the  interest 
which  has  been  shown  in  the  programme.  I 
can't  specifically  tell  the  hon.  member  the 
number  of  units,  since  obviously  it  will  de- 
pend on  the  number  of  projects  which  fall 
within  our  criteria.  However,  we  do  feel  that 


the  programme  that  we  have  established  and 
which  will  be  announced  specifically  in  due 
course  will  be  adequate  to  meet  the  needs. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  minister 
agree  that  $4  million  will  purchase  about  250 
units;  and  does  he  consider  that  250  units  in 
1974  is  an  adequate  alternative  fostered  by 
the  government  to  the  present  private  enter- 
prise development  going  ahead  in  housing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
think  the  hon.  member  listened  to  our  state- 
ment. 

An  hon.  member:  He  never  does. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  $4  million  is 
our  cash  flow  payment  for  this  year.  What 
we  have  said  we  would  do  is  underwrite  10 
per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  these  projects. 
The  $4  million  is  the  amount,  and  that  will 
be  spread  over  15  years.  The  $4  mfllion  that 
we  are  setting  aside  this  year  is  suflBcient  to 
handle  the  project  for  1974  and  1975.  If 
additional  funds  are  required,  if  the  demands 
are  greater,  obviously  we  will  have  to  take 
a  look  at  that  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  further  supplementary: 
Perhaps  the  minister  can  be  explicit  and  say 
how  many  units  he  intends  to  be  begun  in 
1974  as  co-op  or  nonprofit  housing,  and  does 
he  consider  that  that  total  is  an  adequate 
number? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just 
answered  that  question.  I  think  it  was  quite 
clear  in  my  statement  that  this  programme 
would  be  developed  following  consultation 
with  the  interested  parties,  including  the 
federal  government,  on  March  25  on  the  basis 
of  preliminary  inquiries. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
when  the  minister  says  on  the  basis  of  pre- 
liminary inquiries  he  arrived  at  $4  million, 
what  does  his  preliminary  figure  for  number 
of  units  lead  him  to?  He  didn't  just  pull- 
maybe  he  did,  in  his  ministry  it's  possible— it 
out  of  the  air,  or  maybe  that's  what  he 
thought  he  could  write  off  at  the  end  of  the 
budget  next  year  rather  than  use  money. 
Where  did  he  get  it  from? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
is  no  specific  number  of  projects.  I  am  satis- 
fied that  the  $4  million  will  meet  the  need 
of  those  projects  which  meet  the  criteria  that 
we  have  set  down. 


320 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

NOISE  REGULATIONS 

Mr.  Lewis:  One  last  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  the  Environment:  Where  are  the 
legendary  noise  regulations  about  which  we 
have  heard  from  time  to  time  for  the  last 
four  years? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  That's  a  very  good 
question.  The  present  noise  regulations  are 
still  under  discussion  with  the  new  minister. 
We  are  looking  at  them. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Is  there  a  new  minister? 

An  hon.  member:  Since  1955,  isn't  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  still  looking  at 
it.  I  can't  give  the  member  a  firm  date  on  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Revenue 
has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 

TAX  CREDIT  INFORMATION  CENTRE 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  reply  to  a  ques- 
tion asked  of  me  yesterday  by  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  York-Forest  Hill  on  the  administrative 
cost  of  the  Ontario  tax  credit  programme. 

The  estimated  cost  to  my  ministry,  as  I 
am  advised,  for  this  system  is  $148,000.  This 
consists  of  $88,000  for  equipment,  telephones, 
postage  and  miscellaneous  items,  and  approxi- 
mately $60,000  for  contract  staff  hired  to 
handle  public  inquiries. 

Regular  civil  service  staff  in  my  ministry 
are  also  involved,  of  course,  in  administering 
the  tax  credit  centre  in  varying  degrees,  in 
addition  to  their  normal  responsibilities. 

I  might  add,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  hon. 
member  for  Ottawa  East  (Mr.  Roy)  re- 
quested the  name  of  the  advertising  agency 
which  we've  retained  for  the  purpose.  That 
agency  is  F.  H.  Hayhurst  and  Co.  Ltd. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  We  can't  kick  there,  be- 
cause it's  cheaper  than  the  drainage  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Housing 
also  has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 


RESALE  OF  HOME  PROGRAMME 
HOUSES 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  member 
wouldn't  want  me  to  ignore  these  questions, 
would  he?  I  have  the  answer  to  a  question 
asked  on  Tuesday  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth.  The  question  was:  Is  the  minister 
aware  of  the  practice  whereby  HOME  houses 
built  not  six  months  ago  are  reselling  at  twice 
the  price? 

Under  the  terms  of  the  HOME  plan,  houses 
built  on  OHC's  leased  lots  may  not  be  resold 
during  the  first  five  years  of  the  lease  without 
OHC's  approval  of  the  sale  price.  This  re- 
quirement is  designed  to  curb  speculation  of 
these  homes,  the  very  speculation  which  the 
hon,  member  brought  to  my  attention.  When 
calculating  the  resale  price  of  a  HOME  plan 
house,  OHC  allows  the  owner  an  increment  in 
value  of  approximatdy  $500  per  vear  over 
the  original  house  price,  plus  the  value  of 
any  improvements  he  may  have  made,  and  his 
real  estate  fees  if  he  is  selling  the  house 
through  a  real  estate  broker. 

We  would  approve  a  modest  increase  in  the 
price  of  a  house  built  six  months  ago  but 
would  not  approve  the  sale  at  double  the 
price. 

Mr.  Speaker,  my  ministry  is  aware  and 
OHC  is  aware  of  a  certain  number  of  prac- 
tices which  are  taking  place  to  evade  the 
provisions  of  the  HOME  programme,  and  we 
are  now  studying  means  to  plug  ever\'  loop- 
hole we  can  possibly  ascertain.  The  hon. 
member  has  offered  to  give  me  more  infor- 
mation later  on.  We  would  certainly  hke  to 
look  into  individual  cases  to  see  how  they 
meet  the  solutions  we're  thinking  about  at  the 
present  time. 

Mr.  Deans:  A  supplementary  question,  if  I 
may:  Is  the  minister  and  the  ministry  con- 
sidering making  it  mandatory  that  the  resale 
be  back  to  HOME  during  the  first  t\vo  or 
three  years  of  the  home's  life,  in  order  to 
ensure  that  this  kind  of  speculative  practice, 
which  we  both  know  is  being  undertaken,  is 
curbed  and  stopped? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  is  one  of  the  possible  alternatives  we're 
looking  at. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It's  already  in  effect. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North  with  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Good:  Would  the  minister  consider 
legislation  so  that  when  municipalities  enter 
into  agreement  with  private  builders  this  same 


I 


MARCH  14,  1974 


321 


practice  could  not  continue,  whereby  builders, 
in  good  faith,  sell  the  homes'  which  are  built 
on  smaller  substandard  lots,  and  before  the 
houses  are  even  lived  in,  realtors  and  other 
speculators  are  selhng  them  for  $5,000, 
$6,000,  $7,000  or  $10,000  more  than  they 
paid  for  them  just  a  few  days  or  a  week  be- 
fore? This  is  going  on  in  municipalities  and 
there's  nothing,  evidently,  the  municipalities 
can  do  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
think  the  municipalities  have  the  power  in 
their  agreements- 
Mr.  Good:  They  don't. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —to  curb  that  type 
of  speculation.  Certainly  my  ministry  is  in- 
terested in  curbing  it.  I'll  certainly  take  a  look 
at  it  to  see  if  we  have  the  powers  to  enter 
into  those  kinds  of  arrangements. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary,  what 
powers  has  a  municipality  to  control  selhng 
prices  of  houses  unless  it  owns  the  lots  and 
the  houses? 

Mr.  Good:  That's  the  problem— it  hasn't 
any  powers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Presmnably,  the 
municipalities  have  entered— as  I  understand 
the  hon.  member's  supplementary^into  agree- 
ments with  developers  to  do  certain^  things 
within  the  municipalities.  In  those  agreements, 
I  would  assume,  they  have  the  power  to  make 
certain  conditions  on  the  transfer  of  the 
agreement. 

Mr.  Singer:  No  such  powers. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  My  minister  has  just  disappeared 
so  I'll  dtefer  for  a  moment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
hngton  South. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  No. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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


EFFECT  OF  VETERANS'  SERVICE 
IX  CALCULATING  PENSION 

Mr.  Reid:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have 
a  question  of  the  Premier.  Does  the  Premier 


recall  my  question  in  the  last  session,  in  re- 
gard to— 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  apologize  to  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Windsor- Walkerville.  I  recognized  the 
hon.  member  on  his  feet  because  I  saw  him 
first. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor- Walkerville):  Yes, 
that's  all  right. 

Mr.  Reid:  I'm  smaller,  too! 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Don't  fight,  fellows! 

An  hon.  member:  And  louder,  too! 

Mr.  Reid:  Does  the  Premier  recall  my  ques- 
tion to  him  in  regard  to  allowing  those  people 
who  served  either  in  World  War  II  or  the 
Korean  war  to  use  their  years  of  military  ser- 
vice toward  their  pensions  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario?  Is  he  prepared  to  bring  in  legislation 
in  this  session  to  deal  with  that  matter? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  do  recall  the  question  and  as  a  result  of  the 
question  we  are  undertaking  certain  studies 
and  there  will  be  some  information  due  fairly 
shortly. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

An  hon.  member:  Yes,  good  idea. 


EFFLUENT  FROM  BELLEVILLE 
GENERAL  HOSPITAL 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  A  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Healm,  Mr.  Speaker:  Since 
he  was  away  yesterday  I'll  give  him  a  three- 
part  one  for  today.  Have  his  oflBcials  informed 
him  of  the  coliform  reading  done  six  weeks 
ago  of  the  efiBuent  from  the  Belleville  General 
Hospital  into  the  Bay  of  Quinte?  Does  the 
minister  feel  that  a  coliform  count  in  access 
of  100,000  is  dangerous?  And  if  the  minister 
does  agree  it  is  dangerous,  what  is  the  minis- 
ter doing  about  the  health  hazard  to  the 
people  living  in  that  area  of  eastern  Ontario? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  suspense  of  waiting  whilst  the 
member  was  trying  to  be  recognized  before 
the  end  of  the  question  period  really  has 
upset  me  greatly  and  therefore  I  will  find 
it  diflBcult  to  answer  his  question. 

An  hon.  member:  Just  answer  the  ques- 
tion. 


322 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  However,  I  would  won- 
der whether  the  coliform— 

An  hon.  member:  He  doesn't  stay  very 
long,  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  No,  he  doesn't.  I  was  go- 
ing to  suggest  that  my  presence  as  Minister 
of  Health  has  done  wonders  for  his  attend- 
ance in  the  House. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): His  leader  isn't  happy  though.  His 
leader  isn't  happy. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Minister  of  Health  must 
have  worked  on  that  for  weeks. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Don't  waste  the  question 
period. 

Mr.  Deans:  He  doesn't  know  the  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  suppose  the  question  is 
whether  it's  Ecoli  or  not,  whether  it's  an 
Ecoli  coliform  or  what  other  type.  I  would 
think  that  any  high  coliform  count  deserves 
special  attention  and  while  I  haven't  seen 
this  particular  report,  I'm  sure  the  member 
will  get  a  complete  answer  from  me,  as  he 
has  on  all  previous  questions. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  supplementary,  if  I  may, 
Mr.  Speaker:  If  this  particular  report  has  not 
been  brought  to  the  minister's  attention,  has 
it  been  brought  to  his  attention  that  this  same 
hospital  has  had  previous  very  high  coimts 
and  that  this  is  a  continuing  problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor-Walkerville  is  next.  There  are  five  other 
members  of  the  Liberal  Party.  I  will  call 
them  in  turn  if  there  is  time. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
You  don't  have  to  apologize  to  me  at  any 
time  for  not  calling  me.  I  would  prefer  to  be 
called  but,  if  you  don't,  I  accept  your  de- 
cision. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  The  Minister  of  Energy 
prefers  to  be  chosen. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Many  are 
called  but  few  are  chosen. 


AUTOMOTIVE  INDUSTRY  PENSIONS 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.   In  the  recent  negoti- 


ations between  the  UAW  and  the  various 
automotive  companies  certain  pension  in- 
creases were  granted  to  pensioners— certain 
adjustments  were  made.  Why  is  the  ministry 
holding  up  the  payment  of  these  pension  in- 
creases? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  under  the 
Pension  Benefits  Act  a  deferred  annuity  paid 
to  an  employee  terminating  employment  other 
than  by  way  of  retirement  must  be  equal  to 
that  paid  to  a  person  who  is  retiring  at  the 
same  time  with  the  same  amount  of  service. 
That  is  mandatory  under  two  sections  of  the 
Act. 

The  proposed  automotive  industry  pen- 
sion scheme  that  we're  talking  about  does  not 
in  fact  permit  that,  but  would  discriminate 
against  those  employees  who  are  45  years  of 
age  or  over,  have  10  years  of  service  and  are 
not  retiring,  but  terminating  their  employ- 
ment. 

The  legislation,  therefore,  says  the  two 
must  be  the  same;  the  plan  does  not  con- 
template that.  The  pension  commission  has 
dravNTi  that  specifically  to  the  attention  of,  I 
think  it's  three  major  motor  companies,  as 
well  as  to  the  trade  union  involved  and  we're 
presently  waiting  to  hear  back  from  those 
respective  recipients  of  that  information. 

The  pension  commission  says,  in  essence, 
that  the  legislation  does  not  distinguish  be- 
tween the  two  types  of  people  whereas  the 
proposed  plan  does  and,  therefore,  it's  not 
consistent  with  the  legislation.  They're  wait- 
ing to  hear  back  from,  I  think  its  Ford,  GM, 
Chrysler  and  the  union. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Right.  A  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Could  not  the  ministry  approve 
the  pension  payments  to  the  senior  citizens 
who  have  retired,  rather  than  hold  that  por- 
tion up,  and  withhold  payment  to  those  who 
are  in  the  45-and-over  bracket? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can 
appreciate  the  member's  concern.  The  pension 
commission,  under  the  legislation,  either  has 
to  approve  the  plan  or  not  approve  it.  We 
cannot  approve  portions  of  it  and  not  others. 
There  are  the  two  interests  to  be  served 
under  the  legislation  and  presumably  that  is 
why  it  was  drafted  that  way,  to  protect  the 
terminating  employee  as  well  as  the  retiring 
employee.  We  are  hopeful  that  it  can  be 
worked  out. 

The  discussions  and  communications  be- 
tween the  pension  commission  and  the  auto- 
mobile industries  and  the  union  involved 
have   been,   I   am   advised,    quite   close   and 


MARCH  14,  1974 


323 


harmonious  and  I  am  quite  confident  that  it 
can  be  worked  out.  We  are  anxious  to  see  it 
worked  out  in  the  light  of  our  present  legisla- 
tion. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 


CONSERVATION  OF  ENERGY 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Premier  regarding 
the  conservation  of  energy:  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  automobiles  on  average  consume 
30.5  per  cent  more  fuel  at  70  mph  than  at 
50  mph— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  listening. 

Mr.  Burr:  —and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  cabinet  does  not  wish  to  legislate  com- 
pulsory speed  reductions  on  our  freeways, 
would  the  Premier  consider  recommending 
that  what  might  be  called  information  signs 
be  placed  at  intervals  along  our  major  high- 
ways giving  such  a  reminder,  in  order  to  en- 
courage motorists  to  conserve  energy  by  re- 
ducing fuel  consumption  voluntarily? 

An  hon.  member:  It  will  only  happen  if 
the  Premier  signs  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  had  a 
very  comprehensive  programme  just  a  few 
months  ago  developed  by  the  Minister  of 
Energy  related  to  the  conservation  of  energy, 
both  in  terms  of  reduced  speed,  turning  out 
electric  lights,  and  many  other  aspects. 

Mr.  Singer:  Putting  on  our  sweaters,  re- 
member that  one? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  think  that  was 
necessarily  part  of  that  particular  programme, 
although  it  may  have  been. 

Mr.  Singer:  Difficult  to  sort  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  I  can  only  assume 
from  the  hon.  member  that  if  we  were  to 
continue  such  a  programme  of  public  informa- 
tion, not  just  related  to  the  use  of  automobiles 
and  the  consmnption  of  gas,  but  energy 
generally,  the  members  opposite  would  have 
no  objection  to  any  expenditure  of  funds  for 
such  an  information  programme.  I  am  de- 
lighted to  hear  that  and  we  will  pursue  it. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  As  long  as  the  Premier's 
name  is  on  the  signs. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Are  they  going  to  put  the 
Premier's  name  on  the  bottom  of  every  sign? 


Mr.     Speaker: 

Huron-Bruce. 


The     hon.     member     for 


JUDGEMENT  AGAINST  MINISTRY  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Agriculture  and  Food,  if  I  could 
catch  his  attention  over  in  the  comer  there. 

An  hon.  member:  A  question  of  urgent 
public  importance. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Because  of  the  judgement  plus 
costs  awarded  today  against  the  Ontario 
Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  in  the  Hart- 
man  raspberry  case- 
Mr.  Singer:  Against  the  minister  personally 
too? 

Mr.  Gaunt:  —and  because  the  Ontario  tax- 
payers are  going  to  have  to  pay  for  this 
mistake,  could  the  minister  tell  me  if  there 
have  been  any  changes  in  personnel  at  the 
Vineland  research  institute  by  way  of  resigna- 
tions or  firings,  and  what  does  the  minister 
intend  to  do  to  see  that  this  doesn't  reoccur? 

Mr.  Givens:  And  don't  give  him  the  rasp- 
berry either! 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  take 
the  question  as  notice.  I  am  obviously  getting 
the  raspberry  today  and  I  would  like  to  be 
able  to  learn  about  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That  is  a  change. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury 
East. 


PRICE  DIFFERENCES  IN  SEARS 
CATALOGUE 

Mr.  Martel:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  Has  his 
ministry  finished  Hie  investigation  into  the 
pricing  policies  of  Sears  catalogues,  which  we 
presented  to  him,  which  indicated  they  were 
ripping  off  the  people  of  northern  Ontario 
in  comparison  to  selling  prices  between 
Windsor  and  Sudbury? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  think  the  question 
was  raised  by  the  member's  leader  in  the 
last  session,  referring  to  Sears  having  different 
pricing  on  the  same  type  of  article  in  different 
geographic  areas. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  is  one  of  the  studies 
the  ministry  is  doing. 


324 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No.  The  president  of 
that  particular  company,  when  we  com- 
municated with  him,  advised  that  certain 
articles  sold  by  that  company  did  in  fact 
bear  a  price  differential,  but  not  all  articles 
sold  by  that  company.  I  drew  to  his  attention 
the  two  matters  that  had  been  drawn  to  my 
attention  by  the  NDP  leader— I  think  it  was 
some  kind  of  a  drill  or  something— that  bore 
a  $10  or  $9  difference,  and  he  said  that  that 
was  one  of  the  articles  that  bore  the  dif- 
ference. Then  he  pointed  out  that  there  were 
other  articles  that  had  no  other  difference.  So 
it  is  marketing  policies  of  each  individual 
company. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Pretty  keen  fellow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  told  that  most 
major  companies  selling  throughout  the  prov- 
ince have  certain  zones  where  prices  remain 
the  same  within  that  zone,  and  beyond  that 
there  is  a  price  differential  on  certain  articles. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Does  the  minister  think  that  is 
right? 

Mr.  Martel:  What  accounts  for  this  price 
differential  of  articles,  where  some  of  those 
differentials  are  as  high  as  $25  or  $30?  The 
usual  argument  is  freight  rates,  but  in  fact 
it  has  nothing  to  do  with  freight  rates  or 
costs.  What  is  this  extra  httle  tidbit  we  have 
the  privilege  of  paying  for  in  the  north? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  advised  that  it 
does  depend  on  transportation,  additional 
handling,  market  demand  and  other  factors. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Does  the  minister  believe 
that?  Try  listening  to  the  defenders  of  the 
north  over  there.  What  a  fatuous  claim  that 
was. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  can  a  man  of  the  min- 
ister's intelligence  say  something  like  that? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lan- 
ark. 


BRUCELLOSIS  COMPENSATION 

Mr.  D.  J.  Wiseman  (Lanark):  I  understand 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  met 
with  his  counterpart  recently  in  Ottawa  and 
one  of  the  topics  discussed  was  the  compen- 
sation paid  to  farmers  for  the  loss  of  cattle 
due  to  the  dreaded  disease  of  brucellosis.  I 
wonder  if  he  can  tell  us,  so  that  we  can 
inform  our  farmers,  if  any  additional  com- 
pensation will  be  forthcoming,  and  also  if 
they  discussed  at  that  time  the  possibility  of 
putting  back  the   compulsory  vaccination  of 


these  cattle  and  maybe  cutting  out  the  dis- 
ease again? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  dis- 
cussions are  going  on  concerning  the  im- 
provement in  the  compensation  for  animals 
condemned.  I  don't  think  any  decision  has 
been  reached  yet  by  the  federal  government 
on  that  matter,  but  I  understand  they  feel 
that  there  should  be  an  increase.  It  hasn't 
been  aimounced. 

With  regard  to  whether  vaccination  should 
be  reinstated,  there  doesn't  seem  to  be  any 
clear  opinion  on  it  yet,  the  reason  being, 
among  other  things,  that  there  are  several 
countries  which  refuse  to  accept  breeding 
stock  from  countries  where  that  vaccination 
is  used,  simply  because  the  vaccination  could 
infect  the  animal,  be  taken  over  into  another 
country,  and  because  it  is  a  live  vaccine 
there  could  be  problems  in  spreading  the 
disease.  This  has  interfered  witn  the  export 
market,  which  is  a  very  iniportant  part  of 
the  agricultural  industry  of  this  province. 

So  they  are  trying  to  weigh  the  matter  of 
whether  it  is  better  to  do  it  one  way  or  the 
other.  My  guess  is  that  since  the  disease 
seems  to  be  confined  to  relatively  few  farms 
and  is  under  control  on  those  premises,  it  is 
most  likely  that  the  process  of  blood  test- 
ing and  elimination  of  reactors  will  likely  be 
pursued,  rather  than  to  do  that  and  then 
embark  on  a  wholesale  campaign  of  vac- 
cination of  female  calves. 

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

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of 
the  Minister  of  Energy- 
Mr.  Wiseman:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  If  there  is  a 
supplementary  III  permit  it. 

Mr.  Wiseman:  Yes,  I  have  a  supplement- 
ary, Mr.  Speaker.  I  wonder,  if  the  minister's 
federal  counterpart  doesn't  come  through 
with  an  increase  in  the  compensation  pay- 
ment, if  a  farmer  happens  to  lose  a  number 
of  animals— and  I  am  thinking  of  the  dairy 
people  now,  where  a  good  nmking  replace- 
ment is  probably  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
$1,000,  and  the  compensation  plus  the  cost 
recovered  from  the  sale  for  meat  only  comes 
up  to  a  little  over  half,  or  a  little  better  than 
that,  the  cost  of  a  replacement  animal- 
would  we  consider  helping  those  farmers  in 
view  of  the  fact  we  are  trying  to  build  up 
our  milk  production  in  eastern  Ontario  and 
across  Ontario? 


MARCH  14,  1974 


325 


Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  an 
interesting  proposal,  and  I  would  like  to 
suggest  mat  we  explore  the  possibilities  of 
providing  that  assistance  through  the  indus- 
trial milk  production  incentive  programme, 
which  is  a  20  per  cent  forgivable  programme 
over  five  years,  giving  the  farmer  me  right  to 
repay  it  over  the  five  years  with  a  govern- 
ment guarantee  at  the  bank  and  20  per  cent 
forgivable  at  the  end  of  the  five-year  period. 

That  would  be  one  way  that  it  could  be 
done.  I'm  not  sure  whether  the  terms  of 
reference  of  that  programme  would  cover 
the  point  the  hon.  member  for  Lanark  raises, 
but  to  me  it  would.  I'd  like  to  explore  those 
possibilities. 

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


ONTARIO  HYDRO  EMPLOYMENT 
POLICY 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Minister  of  Energy:  I  would  like  to  ask 
him  about  the  hiring  policy  of  Hydro,  as  I 
understand  it  now  discriminates  against  any- 
one having  a  criminal  record,  such  as  im- 
paired driving  or  possession  of  marijuana. 
Will  the  minister  find  out  why  an  employee 
who  was  fired  last  week  was  rehired  when  I 
threatened  to  bring  it  up  in  the  Legislature? 
He  had  a  charge  against  him  two  or  three 
years  ago  for  possession  of  marijuana.  He 
was  rehired  at  the  direction  of  head  oflBce 
within  a  few  hours  after  I  received  the  in- 
formation about  his  firing.  Will  the  minister 
find  out  how  widespread  this  practice  is? 
Of  the  thousands  of  employees,  is  the  security 
check  this  strict  for  everyone;  or  how  does 
it  work? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  period  has  now 
expired. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr  presented  the  final  report 
of  the  task  force  on  policing  in  Ontario. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Where  did 
the  minister  get  that  title  from? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld  tabled  the  report  of  the 
Ontario  Heritage  Foundation  for  the  period 
ending  March  31,  1973. 

Mr.  Lewis:  This  is  shocking— "The  Public 
Are  the  Police." 


Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Robert  Peel  said  that. 
Mr.  Lewis:  Robert  Peel  was  a  Tory. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 
Introduction  of  bills. 


REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine,  in  the  absence  of  Hon. 
Mr.  White,  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  respecting  tfie  Regional 
Municipalities  Amendment  Act,  1974. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  will  allow 
regional  municipalities  to  obtain  any  out- 
standing approvals  needed  for  bylaws  initiated 
by  the  local  municipalities  that  they  have  re- 
placed. 


TERRITORIAL  DIVISION  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine,  in  the  absence  of  Hon. 
Mr.  White,  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  to  amend  the  Territorial 
Division  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  amend  the  Territorial  Division  Act  to 
provide  for  changes  which  have  resulted  from 
the  establishment  of  new  regional  municipal^ 
ities  and  from  some  recent  annexations  and 
amalgamations. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  under  this 
particular  order,  a  week  Monday  we  are  go- 
ing to  be  dealing  with  a  private  member's 
bill.  It  being  the  turn  of  a  government  back- 
bencher to  introduce  one,  I  understand  that 
a  bill  is  to  be  introduced  by  the  member  for 
Scarborough  Centre  (Mr.  Drea).  However,  we 
don't  have  that  bill  as  yet,  and  unless  it  is 
going  to  be  introduced!  sooner,  it  may  be 
diflScult  to  debate  that  bill  in  the  private 
members*  hour  on  Monday  immediately  that 
we  are  back. 

Will  the  bill  be  introd*uced  tomorrow,  and 
if  so,  can  a  draft  of  the  bill  be  made  avail- 
able to  us  in  the  opposition'  so  that  we  can 
be  prepared  to  debate  that  bill?  It  would  be 
a  great  convenience  if  it  could  be  done  then 
rather  than  on  the  day  itself. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Perhaps  I 
could  comment,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  bill  is  ex- 
pected to  be  introduced  tomorrow  morning. 


326 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


It'll  be  printed  in  the  usual  fashion  and  avail- 
able to  all  members  next  week. 

Mr.   Breithaupt:    Well,   that's   fine.    That's 
great. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Yes.  We'll  get  it  over  to  the 
member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk   of   the   House:    The   second   order, 
House  in  committee  of  the  whde. 


YORK  COUNTY  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 
TEACHERS  DISPUTE  ACT 

House  in  Committee  on  Bill  12,  An  Act 
respecting  a  certain  Dispute  between  the 
York  County  Board  of  Education  and  certain 
of  its  Teachers. 

Mr.  Chairman:  There  are  seven  sections  in 
Bill  12.  Are  there  any  comments,  questions  or 
amendments  on  section  1? 

The  member  for  Windsor-Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Mr,  Chairman,  before  section  1,  I  think  there 
should  be  some  comments  made  on  and  some 
adjustments  made  to  the  preamble  of  the  bill. 

The  preamble,  Mr.  Chairman,  makes  men- 
tion in  lines  six  and  seven,  "whereas  the 
secondary  school  students  of  York  county 
have  been  severely  disadvantaged."  I  ques- 
tion the  use  of  the  word  "severely."  They 
may  have  been  disadvantaged  but  not  neces- 
sarily all  "severely  disadvantaged."  I  think 
that  the  minister  is  a  little  too  strong  in  the 
wording  in  the  bill,  and  that  the  word 
"severely"  should  be  struck  out. 

Also,  in  line  10  of  the  bill  where  it  starts 
with  "of  students,  requires  that  all  teachers 
return  to  the  classroom."  AH  teachers  are  not 
necessarily  in  the  classroom,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  as  a  result  I  think  a  better  substitution  in 
there  would  be  that  "all  teachers  return  to 
their  duties." 

Mr.  B.  Newman  moves  that  in  line  seven 
the  word  "severely"  be  struck  out  and  that 
in  'line  10  the  words  "the  classroom"  be  struck 
out  and  the  words  "their  duties"  be  substi- 
tuted. 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  be  willing  to  accept 
the  second  part  of  that,  "Their  duties."  I 
would  not  be  willing  to  remove  the  word 
"severely",  because  it  merely  echoes  the  senti- 
ments in  hundreds  of  letters  and  communica- 
tions we've  had  from  many  people  over  the 
last  couple  of  weeks. 


Mr.  Chairman:  Would  that  be  agreeable  to 
the  mover? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  really 
think  that  "severely"  is  too  harsh.  Not  every- 
one necessarily  was  severely  handicapped  as 
a  result  of  this.  Some  of  the  students- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Everyone 
was  handicapped. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  —attending  the  schools  in 
York  county  may  have  been  oidy  taking  two 
or  three  courses.  If  the  minister  insists  that 
they  have  been  severely  handicapped  as  a 
result  of  the  dispute,  then  I  don't  think  he  is 
being  fair  with  them— handicapped,  that's 
right,  but  not  necessarily  severely  handi- 
capped. 

Likewise,  a  student  may  take  Mickey  Mouse 
courses.  I'm  not  saying  that  it  does  happen, 
but  it  can  happen.  And  if  a  student  in  the 
taking  of  a  Mickey  Mouse  course  missed  30 
days  of  school,  I  don't  think  he  was  severely 
handicapped.  He  may  have  been  handi- 
capped, though. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  On  the  pre- 
amble, Mr.  Chairman,  are  you  going  to  put 
something  further  in  connection  with  my 
colleague's  motion? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Well,  I  am  just  waiting  to 
get  the  feeling.  It's  a  double  motion  right 
now.  If  only  one  is  going  to  be  accepted- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  Do  you  want  to  put  this 
motion  or  do  you  want  to  discuss  the  pre- 
amble in  its  entirety?  I  want  to  make  a  short 
comment  in  connection  with  the  preamble. 

Mr.  Chairman:  You  might  discuss  it.  Will 
your  discussion  include  the  points  that  were 
raised? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  No,  I  am  not  going  to 
elaborate  on  my  colleague's  points.  I  want  to 
ask  the  minister  a  question  in  connection 
with  the  preamble. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Well,  let's  clarify  the 
amendments  before  us,  shall  we? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Yes,  all  right. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  further  comments  on 
that  particular  amendment? 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  On  the 
motion? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Yes. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  I'd  like  to 
speak    in    favour    of    the    first    part    of    the 


MARCH  14,  1974 


327 


motion— that  is,  to  strike  the  word  "severely" 
from  the  preamble. 

I  think  that  one  of  the  things  that  became 
apparent  to  any  close  observer  of  the  York 
county  situation)  in  the  last  10  days,  particu- 
larly, was  that  the  newspaper  interviews  with 
students  and  television  interviews  with  parents 
and  students  were,  in  fact,  extremely  touch- 
ing. I  think  they  showed  the  confusioni  of  the 
parents  and  of  the  students  about  the  educa- 
tional system  of  the  province. 

What  became  clear  in  those  interviews,  and 
probably  in  the  letters  that  the  minister  quite 
rightly  says  that  he  has  received,  is  that  these 
people  had  a  very  unfortimate  view  of  what 
education  is  in  this  province.  Somehow  in  this 
province  we  have  convinced  people  that  edu- 
cation must  take  place  in  the  classroom  and 
in  the  classroom  alone,  and  that  unless  they 
have  the  framework  of  the  classroom  and  the 
framework  of  daily  attention  by  their  teachers 
students  are  somehow  severely  disadvantaged. 

While  I  believe  that  the  critic  of  the 
Liberal  Party  in  education  has  a  very  vahd 
point  here,  there  may  have  been  some  dis- 
advantagement  take  place.  In  fact,  I  am  sure 
that  with  a  number  of  borderline  students 
this  happened.  But  to  say  in  this  provocative 
way— and  it  is  provocative— that  the  secondary 
school  students  of  York  county  have  been 
severely  disadvantaged  for  approximately  six 
weeks,  is  unnecessary. 

I  put  it  to  the  minister  that  in  all  reality 
the  rest  of  the  bill,  given  his  conservative 
Tory  framework  of  thinking,  is  basically  a 
fairly  well  drafted  bill.  To  make  it  provoca- 
tive in  terms  of  the  teachers  with  this  par- 
ticular phrase,  I  think  is  unnecessary  and  I 
would  ask  him  to  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Does  the  minister  have  any 
comment  on  that? 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Chairman,  perhaps  the  minister  would  agree 
to  the  changing  of  the  word  "severely." 
Where  it  comes  in,  have  it  read  "some 
severely,"  after  the  word  "disadvantaged." 
Certainly  there  are  some  who  have  been 
severely  disadvantaged,  but  where  this  clause 
refers  to  the  secondary  school  students^in  the 
case  of  my  grade  9  son,  I  don't  consider  him 
as  having  been  severely  disadvantaged.  There 
is  no  question  he  was  disadvantaged  diuing 
this  period.  I  think  the  case  is  well  made. 

If  the  minister  does  want  to  talk  about 
those  who  have  been  severely  disadvantaged, 
certainly  those  who  are  in  grade  13,  and  grade 
12,  and  many  others  who  have  decided  to 
drop    out    because    of    this    experience   have 


perhaps  been  severely  disadvantaged;  but  I 
think  that  we  shouldn't  flaunt  the  situation 
in  such  a  way  as  to  say  that  everybody  has 
been  put  in  that  spot.  It  is  not  necessary.  It's 
only  preamble. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  want  to  go  a  little  further  with  the  minister, 
I  don't  think  we  need  a  preamble  at  all. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Oh,  yes  we  do. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  don't  know  of  any  reason  why 
there  should  be  a  preamble  to  this  bill. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  am  entitled  to  speak  against 
having  the  preamble  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Well,  we  are  dealing  with 
certain  words  in  the  preamble. 

Mr.  Deans:  That's  fine.  If  we  strike  those 
words  we  can  go  on  and  strike  them  all. 
There  is  nothing  troublesome  about  that. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  He  is 
moving  to  strike  out  the  whole  thing.  That 
is  all  right. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Samia 
asked  to  speak  generally  on  the  preamble 
as  well. 

Mr.  Deans:  Was  the  member  for  Samia 
going  to  speak  against  having  it  at  all? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  just  want  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion; that's  all. 

Mr.  Deans:  Okay.  Well  he  didn't  want  to 
speak  on  the  preamble,  he  just  wanted  to  ask 
a  question. 

I  was  looking  at  other  bills.  It  is  not  the 
practice  of  the  House  to  have  a  preamble  in 
the  bill.  This  is  unusual.  There  are  a  number 
of  other  bills  already  before  us,  numbering 
up  to  10  and  there  is  not  a  preamble  in  any 
of  them.  What  we  have  in  a  bill  is  an  ex- 
planatory note.  In  every  bill  the  explanatory 
note  explains  the  reason  for  the  bill  and  the 
content  of  the  bill. 

il  just  don't  happen  to  think  that  we  need 
enshrined  in  the  legislation  of  this  province 
the  government's  reasons  for  implementing 
this  legislation.  Those  are  already  on  the 
record  of  Hansard.  Frankly,  I  don't  believe 
that  there  is  a  place  in  a  bill  for  the  govern- 
ment's opinion  as  to  why  it  needs  a  particular 
piece  of  legislation. 

Mr.  Givens:  An  apologia. 


328 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Deans:  We  don't  have  to  have  a  long 
story  about  the  reasons  why  the  minister 
failed  to  observe  his  responsibilities  and  to 
carry  them  out.  We  don't  need  the  minister's 
opinion  as  to  why  he  had  to  bring  in  the 
legislation.  If  he  wants  to  put  that  in,  he  puts 
that  on  the  record  of  Hansard.  If  he  wants  to 
explain  in  the  explanatory  note  the  back- 
ground of  the  bill,  he  may  do  so. 

Mr.  Givens:  He  wants  to  apologize. 

Mr.  Deans:  But  the  practice  of  a  pre- 
amble is  not  a  practice  that  is  followed  in  this 
Legislature  with  any  consistency.  It  is,  in 
fact,  a  departure  from  the  normal  procedure 
and  I  would  simply  say  to  the  chairman  that 
this  preamble  should  be  struck  in  its  entirety. 

The  bill,  as  it  is  drafted,  from  section  1 
on  dealing  with  the  definition  of  the  sections 
and  on  through  to  the  final  section  of  the 
bill,  will  stand  on  its  own  merits.  It  doesn't 
need  a  government  story  to  try  and  satisfy 
what  will  no  doubt  at  some  point  in  the 
future  be  the  legitimate  questions  that  are 
asked  about  the  reasons  why  we  found  it 
necessary  to  pass  such  legislation.  I  think 
the  government  is  on  the  record  in  Hansard. 
It  is  certainly  on  the  record  in  public  terms 
about  its  feelings  in  regard  to  this  dispute. 
The  opposition  is  likewise  on  the  record 
about  its  feelings  with  regard  to  the  lack 
of  government  integrity  and  action. 

I  think  the  ^\hole  preamble  should  be 
struck. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Well,  we  will  put  the 
question  in  a  few  moments  as  to  whether  it 
should  stand  as  part  of  the  bill.  Is  the  mover 
of  the  original  motion  willing  to  accept  the 
adaptation  or  modification  as  proposed  by 
his  colleague,  the  member  for  York  North, 
so  that  it  would  read  then— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  would  be  willing  to 
accept  the  words,  say,  "and  whereas  second- 
ary students  of  York  county"  and  change  it 
"to  return  to  their  duties"  instead  of  "to  the 
classroom." 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  this  motion  then  carry 
as  proposed  and  discussed? 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  I  want  to  ask  a  question  of 
the  minister,  through  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 
if  I  may:  The  word  "all,"  is  that  an  appro- 
priate word?  You  say,  "requires  that  all 
teachers  return  to  their  duties"  and  yet  your 
statute  doesn't  compel  all  the  teachers  to 
return  to  their  duties.  I  would  like  you  to 
resolve  that  problem  in  my  mind.  Section  2 


doesn't  compel  all  the  teachers  to  return  to 
their  duties. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  It  is  only  those  who  with- 
drew their  services. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Is  the  hon.  member  sug- 
gesting that  there  should  be  some  further 
explanation  in  there  that  rather  than  have 
all  teachers— he  is  quite  right,  there  is  an 
exception  in  section  2. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  am  going  to  be  quite 
frank  in  saying  that  I  am  not  making  any 
suggestions  to  you  at  all.  I  am  purely  asking 
the  question  because  when  I  read  that  all 
teachers  had  to  return  to  the  classroom  and 
I  look  at  section  2,  subsection  (2),  which  says 
that  they  don't  all  have  to  return  to  the  class- 
room, there's  obviously  a  conflict.  There's  a 
conflict  between  the  preamble  and  the  sta- 
tute itself  and  then  you  go  on  to  the  final 
section  which  renders  to  a  Supreme  Court 
judge  the  duty  to  assess  the  propriety  of 
return  or  not. 

I  think  you  are  inviting  problems  in  put- 
ting the  word  "all"  in  there.  I  suggest  most 
respectfully  that  you  consider  taking  the 
word  "all"  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  All  right.  How  about 
"the  teachers  who  withdrew  their  services"? 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  don't  you— 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That's  not  covered  either, 
because  subsection  (2)  says:  "Nothing  in  this 
Act  precludes  a  teacher  from  not  resuming 
his  employment  with  the  board  for  reasons 
of  health  or  by  mutual  consent  in  writing  of 
the  teacher  and  the  board."  So  that  one  who 
has  withdrawn  his  services  might  be  well 
entitled  not  to  return  under  that  subsection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  don't  have  any  objection 
to  taking  "all"  out. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Take  which  out? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Take  the  whole  preamble  out? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  no,  not  the  whole 
preamble.  It  would  read  "...  the  interests 
of  students,  require  that  teachers  return  to 
their  duties.  ..." 

Mr.  Chairman:  Would  the  change  be  ac- 
ceptable then? 

Agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  word  "all"  is  being 
removed,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Eliminated. 


MARCH  14,  1974 


329 


Mr.  Chairman:  Now,  shall  the  preamble 
then  stand  as  part  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  Deans:  No. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Well,  I  want  to  say  this 
to  you,  if  I  may,  supporting  somewhat  what 
was  said  by  the  hon.  member  for  Wentworth. 
Although  I  disagree  on  the  point  that  this  is 
unusual,  I  think  in  special  Acts  really,  you 
will  find  many  special  Acts  meeting  special 
sets  of  circumstances  that  in  the  recital  to 
the  Act  itself  refer  to  the  circmnstances  which 
led  to  the  statute,  but  I  say  to  you  that  you 
are  inviting  disaster,  frankly,  in  the  preamble 
itself. 

You  would  be  much  better  advised,  I  pre- 
sume to  tell  you— you  say  in  the  last  sen- 
tence: "and  that  means  be  found  for  the 
settlement  of  all  matters  in  dispute  between 
the  board  and  its  teachers."  This  statute  isn't 
going  to  do  that.  The  statute  can't  possibly 
settle  all  matters  in  dispute  between  the 
board  and  its  teachers.  It's  impossible  for  it 
so  to  do.  It  doesn't  contemplate  that  it 
would  do  such. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  it 
contemplates  settling  those  matters  that  are 
in  dispute  in  this  particular  contract  dispute 
and  that  they  vidll  be  settled  finally  by  what 
it  says  here. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That  isn't  what  the  pre- 
amble says. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Chairman,  would  the 
minister  then  add  the  words  "a'U  matters  in 
dispute  that  have  caused  the  dispute  be- 
tween the  board  and  its  teachers"? 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  But  it 
doesn't  do  that. 

Mr.  Deans:  Take  your  preamble  out,  Tom. 
It's  a  mess! 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Would  it  assist  if  we 
changed  "all  matters"  to  "the  matters"? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That  would  help. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  would  be  willing  to  do 
that.  It  would  then  read:  ".  .  .  the  settlement 
of  the  matters  in  dispute  between  the  board 
and  its  teachers."    Is  that  agreeable? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  it  agreeable  to  insert  the 
word  "the"  instead  of  the  word  "all"  in  line 
11? 

Agreed. 

Shall  the  preamble,  as  amended,  stand  as 
part  of  the  bill? 


Those  in  favour  of  the  preamble,  as 
amended,  standing  as  part  of  the  biU,  will 
please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

On  section  1: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  comment,  question  or 
amendment  on  section  1  of  the  bill? 

Section  1  agreed  to. 

On  section  2: 

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

Mr.  Foulds  moves  that  the  words  "first 
normal  school"  be  added  in  c^lause  2(1),  in 
line  three,  after  the  words  "shall  on  the"  and 
before  the  word  "day,"  so  that  the  clause 
would  read: 

The  teachers  who  withdrew  their  services 
as  a  result  of  submitting  resignations  effec- 
tive on  Jan.   31,    1974,  shall,  on  the  first 
normal  school  day  following  the  day  this 
Act  comes  into  force,  resume  their  employ- 
ment with  the  board- 
Mr.  Foulds:  One  of  the  things  that  occurs 
to    me,    Mr.    Chairman,    is    that   if   the   Act 
passes  with  the  wording  of  that  clause  as  it 
is,    say    on    Friday,    that  would   require   the 
teachers  to  go  back  to  school  on  Saturday. 
And  if  the— 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  That's  not  a  normal 
school  day. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Well,  I  know.  That's  why  I 
included  the  words  "first  normal  school  day," 
because  the  bill  says  simply,  ".  .  .  on  the  day 
following  .  .  ."  and  doesn't  define  "day"  any- 
where in  the  bill  as  a  school  day.  I  think 
that  would  cover  any  ambiguity  that  might 
arise,  should  the  bill  pass  tomorrow,  say,  or 
after  midnight  tonight  or  whenever.  It's  a 
technicality. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think  the  hon.  member 
is  quite  right,  but  I  think  that  if  he  reads 
the  bill,  he  actually  would  be  perhaps  not 
doing  a  disservice  to  the  teachers,  because 
the  bill  says  they  shall  "resume  their  employ- 
ment .  .  ." 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Yes.  That's 
right.  Their  day  doesn't  start— the  day  isn't 
until  a  school  day. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  That  means  that  if  the  bill 
receives    royal   assent   tomorrow,   say,   they'll 


330 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


resume  their  employment  Saturday.  But,  of 
course,  they  won't  be  teaching  Saturday; 
indeed,  unless  that  board  arranges  something 
special  which  I  haven't  heard  about,  they 
will  not  be  there  for  the  mid-winter  break, 
yet  they  will  become  employees  of  the  board 
on  Saturday- 
Mr.  Ruston:  That's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  —and  resume  their  em- 
ployment. But,  of  course,  they  won't  teach 
until  the  normal  teaching  days  begin. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Cou'ld  I  then  ask  a  question 
of  clarification?  If  they  become  employees  of 
the  board  on  Saturday,  say,  are  there  other 
provisions  in  the  Schools  Administration  Act 
or  the  Ministry  of  Education  Act,  or  are 
there  regulations  set  out,  outlining  the  days 
in  which  school  shall  be  taught,  so  that  unless 
a  special  agreement  between  both  parties  and 
the  ministry  were  signed,  the  board  could  not 
force  them  back  on  the  weekend  or  during 
the  March  break? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  That's  quite  right.  The 
board  is  operating  under  a  modified  school 
vear  plan,  which  they  have  filed  with  our 
regional  office.  That  plan  sets  out  what  are 
the  instructional  days  and  so  forth,  and  the 
York  county  board,  at  the  present  time,  has 
filed  a  school  year  plan  that  includes  next 
week  as  the  mid-winter  break. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  see. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  But  it  also  includes  that 
the  schools  will  not  be  open  on  Saturdays  and 
Sundays. 

Mr.  Foulds:  If  the  minister  can  give  the 
House  that  assurance  I  will  withdraw  the 
amendment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  no  problem. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  the  amendment  be 
withdrawn  then? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  make  a  few  comments  concerning  this. 
I   hesitated    a    bit    to    support   the   member 
for  Thunder  Bay- 
Mr.  Foulds:  Port  Arthur. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  —Port  Arthur,  I'm  sorry— 
because  I  thought  that  if  the  board  and  the 
teachers  possibly  agreed  to  use  next  week  as 
an  instructional  week  that  decision  should  be 
left  to  them.  I  would  hate  to  prevent  the 
resumption  of  school  next  week  if  it  is  the 


wish  of  both  parties  to  go  back  to  the  class- 
rooms and  try  to  catch  up  in  this  fashion. 
I  would  think  it  would  be  admirable  on  the 
part  of  both  the  teachers  and  the  board  if 
that  was  their  wish. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  withdraw  the  motion.  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  This  would  allow  exactly 
what  the  hon.  member  has  indicated.  I  hope, 
though,  that  it  would  not  be  just  the  board 
and  the  teachers  but  it  would  be  the  board, 
the  teachers  and  the  students  and  their 
parents  because  they  are,  to  a  degree,  in- 
volved with  the  mid-winter  break,  too. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  there  anything  further 
on  section  1?  I'm  sorry,  section  2? 

Shall  section  2  stand  as  part  of  the  bill? 

Section  2  agreed  to. 

On  section  3: 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  minister  has  an 
amendment  to  subsection  (13).  Is  there  any- 
thing before  subsection  (13)? 

Mr.  Deans:  I  have  a  question  on  subsec- 
tion (3). 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  there  anything  before 
subsection  (3)? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  have  a  question  on 
subsection  (3). 

Mr.  Deans:  I  want  simply  to  ask  whether 
the  wording  in  subsection  (3)  might  not  be 
changed  in  the  third  last  line  in  which  it 
says,  "but  shall  give  full  opportunity  to  the 
board  and  the  negotiators  for  the  teachers." 
Shouldn't  it  say,  "give  full  opportunity  to 
the  negotiators  for  the  board  and  the  teachers 
to  present  .  .  .?"  In  other  words,  surely  you're 
not  saying  that  the  board,  in  its  entirely,  can 
make  representation  but  the  teachers'  negotia- 
tors are  the  only  ones  who  can  speak  for 
them?  You're  talking  about,  in  fact,  the 
negotiating  committees  of  each  party  being 
given  the  full  opportunity  for  discussion  and 
representation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think  there's  probably 
merit  in  what  the  hon.  member  said.  My  legal 
advisers  tell  me  that  the  board  is  a  corpora- 
tion and  that  is  what  is  inferred  here  by 
board  with  a  capital  B— the  corporation  of 
the  York  County  Board  of  Education— and,  of 
course,  they  will  be  represented  by  counsel 
or  whoever  they  want.  In  this  case,  there  is 
no  official  legal  entity  representing  the 
teachers,    I   suppose,    unless    we   put   in   the 


MARCH  14,  1974 


331 


OSSTF  as  representing  the  teachers  of  district 
11. 

Mr.  Deans:  All  right,  but  do  you  under- 
stand what  I'm  saying? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  That  would  probably  be 
other  wording  that  could  be  put  in  there. 

Mr.  Deans:  I'm  sorry,  I  did  want  to  deal 

with  subsection  (1). 

Mr.  Chairman:  We  can  come  back  to  that. 

Mr.  Deans:  Okay. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Did  the  member  for 
Windsor- Walkerville  have  something  on  this 
section? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Yes,  I  wanted  to  ask  for 
an  explanation  from  the  minister  of  subsection 
(3),   the  fifth   and   sixth  lines.   HI   read  the 
paragraph  so  he  can  explain  what  it  means: 
The  board  of  arbitration  constituted  un- 
der this  section  upon  receipt  of  a  notice 
referred  to  in  subsection  (1)  shall  examine 
into    and   decide    all   matters   that   are   in 
dispute  between  the  board  and  the  teachers 
as    evidenced   by   the   notices    referred   to 
in  subsection  1, 

This  is  what  I  would  like  an  explanation  of 
and  other  matters  that  appear  to  the  board 
of  arbitration  to  be  necessary  to  be  decided 
in  order  to  make  an  award. 

I  wonder  if,  in  that  clause  or  portion  of  a 
clause,  one  of  the  items  that  is  being  con- 
sidered is  that  a  teacher  has  two  times  in 
a  year  at  which  he  is  to  submit  his  resigna- 
tion; that  is  at  the  end  of  November  and  at 
the  end  of  May.  If  the  board  of  arbitration 
takes  the  normal  length  of  time  to  resolve 
the  differences,  this  would  be  some  time 
possibly  in  late  June,  maybe  in  July.  In  the 
meantime  the  teacher  who  wanted  to  submit 
his  or  her  resignation  legally  on  May  30 
might  be  left  hanging. 

I  wonder  if  the  minister  can  clarify  the 
meaning  of  those  fifth  and  sixth  lines? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  that's  a  common  phrase  for  any- 
thing put  in  in  arbitration  procedures.  It's 
merely  to  allow  for  anything  that  the  board 
may  decide  on.  They  are  not  likely  to  be 
major  things  but  some  other  thing  that  may 
not  quite  be  within  the  list  they  have  been 
given  but  they  need  to  decide  on  it,  or  they 
have  been  asked  to  decide  on  it  as  they  car- 
ried on  their  discussions  and  listened  to  pre- 
sentations about  the  case.  I  don't  think  it 
has  anything  to  do  with  what  the  hon.  mem- 
ber is  talking  about,  about  resignation  dates 


or  things  like  that.  The  teachers  who  would 
be  back  in  the  classroom  now  and  back 
working  for  that  board  would  be  perfectly 
free  to  exercise  their  option  to  resign  as  of 
May  31,  effective  Aug.  31.  There  is  nothing 
that  would  stop  them  from  doing  that,  even 
if  an  arbitration  board  had  not  brought  down 
a  settlement,  because  they  are  back  and 
their  individual  contracts  are  reinstated  and 
the  collective  bargaining  contract  under 
which  they  had  been  working  will  be  in 
effect  until  the  new  award  is  brought  down. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Could  the  minister  maybe 
give  an  example  of  some  item  that  could  be 
included  under  "other  matters,"  so  as  to 
clarify  this  a  little  more  for  me? 

Mr.  Deans:  May  I  ask  a  question  on  the 
same  line?  Does  the  minister  have  in  mind, 
where  the  board  in  order  to  make  an  award 
might  have  to  vary  other  clauses  in  the  con^ 
tract  which  had  not  been  brought  up  as 
contentious  items,  but  have  to  vary  them  in 
order  to  make  them  comply  with  the  terms  of 
the  item  that  is  being  changed?  Is  that  what 
he  is  talking  about? 

Let  me  put  it  another  way.  If  there  was  in 
the  contract  a  provision  dealing  with  a  par- 
ticular method  of  distributing  statutory  holi- 
days, but  that  method  was  unworkable  in 
conjunction  with  a  method  to  be  arrived  at 
for  distributing  vacations,  the  board  would 
have  the  power  to  vary  the  one  in  order  to 
make  the  other  work.  Is  that  what  the  min- 
ister is  saying? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  am  not  a  lawyer  and  I 
am  perhaps  at  some  disadvantage  in  being 
able  to  give  you  a  legal  interpretation  of 
this.  But  that  sounds  like  a  reasonable  kind 
of  explanation  to  me.  I  can't  give  the  hon. 
member  any  example  of  this.  I  just  under- 
stand that  in  some  of  the  arbitration  agree- 
ments that  have  gone  forward  in  the  last 
few  years  it  has  been  felt  that  there  should 
be  some  clause  such  as  this  in  order  not  to 
bind  any  arbitration  board  that  found  it 
wanted  to  do  something  like  that,  but  im- 
mediately found  that  one  side  or  the  other 
was  taken  to  court.  There  should  be  a  clause 
so  that  they  could  in  fact  bring  down  some- 
thing in  their  award  to  take  care  of  some 
of  these  things. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might 
speak  to  this— 

Mr.  Chairman:  Have  we  finished  subsection 

(3)  then? 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  would  like  to  speak  to  this 
particular  point  and  then  revert  to   subsec- 


332 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tion  (1).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  too  am  not  a 
lawyer,  but  I  have  had  a  bit  of  experience 
in  teaching.  It  may  be,  for  example,  in  the 
York  comity  situation  that  headship  and  re- 
sponsibility allowances  are  applied  to  the 
arbitration  board  and  the  number  of  total 
periods  that  a  teacher  might  teach  would  be 
submitted  to  the  arbitration  board  for  an 
award,  but  specifically  there  might  not  be 
submitted  on  either  side  the  number  of 
periods  that  a  department  head  has  to  teach, 
which  should  in  most  circumstances  be  some- 
what lower.  In  considering  the  whole  situa- 
tion, the  arbitration  board  might  find  that 
the  allowances  were  covered  or  the  period 
for  normal  or  classroom  teachers  were  cov- 
ered, but  if  those  department  headships  were 
not  submitted  specifically,  they  would  feel 
free  to  make  an  award  if  that  came  up 
during  the  submissions  by  either  side  to  the 
arbitration  board.  For  that  reason,  I  would 
think  that  I  would  very  much  hope  that 
these  words  would  remain  in. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  subsection  (3)  stand 
as  part  of  the  bill  then? 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  would  like  to  return  to  sub- 
section (1),  Mr.  Chairman,  before  we  get  to 
that,  if  I  may.  We  in  this  party  will  move, 
if  we  can  rally  enough  troops— and  I  will 
talk  for  as  long  as  we  can  get  the  troops— 
that  subsection  (1)  be  struck  from  the  bill. 

Mr.  Chairman:  You  don't  have  to  make 
a  motion.  Just  vote  against  it  then,  when  I 
ask  if  it  will  stand. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Could  I  request  that  sub- 
section (1)  be  dealt  with  specifically,  be- 
cause it  is  the  heart  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  Chairman:  That  is  what  we  are  deal- 
ing with  now. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  would  like,  therefore,  Mr. 
Chairman,  to  speak  against  the  inclusion  of 
subsection  (1)  of  section  3  of  the  bill.  This 
clause  is  the  essence  of  the  bill.  This  is  the 
clause  that  forces  compulsory  arbitration  in 
the  dispute.  Both  opposition-  parties  argued 
for  six  hours  yesterday  in  the  vein  that  we 
oppose  compulsory  arbitration  to  the  settle- 
ment of  this  dispute.  We  have  suggested 
alternatives  that  the  minister  could  take.  The 
Liberals  have  suggested  one  which  we  don't 
endorse  and  we  have  suggested  another 
route.  But  there  were  alternatives  that  could 
have  been  taken. 

We  simply  find,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  com- 
pulsory arbitration  is  an  abhorrent  principle, 
as  my  colleague  from  Nickel  Belt  (Mr.  Laugh- 


ren)  said  in  his  brilliant  if  short  speech  last 
night,  that  we  oppose  it  in  every  situation- 
Mr.  Chairman:  Order,  please;  it  seems  that 
this  subsection  embodies  the  very  principle 
of  the  bill  which  was  passed  last  night. 

Mr.  Deacon:  And  we  are  prepared  to  vote 
against  it. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  we  are  going  to  vote 
against  it  on  this  reading,  on  the  clause  by 
clause. 

Mr.  Chairman:  You  opposed  it  last  night. 

Mr.  Foulds:  You  are  quite  right;  you  are 
absolute/ly  bang  on,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  It  is  the  whole  principle 
of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Subsection  (1)  embodies  the 
whole  principle  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  You  can't  speak  on  the 
principle  in  general  again. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I'm  speaking  specifically  on 
this  clause  and  I'm  speaking  specificaDy  on 
the  words  "submit  to  final  and  binding  arbi- 
tration under  this  Act."  It  is  the  word  "sub- 
mit" that  we  on  this  side,  or  in  this  small 
section  on  this  side  of  the  House,  find 
abhorrent.  Actually  it  is  fairly  large— two- 
thirds  of  this  side. 

Arbitration,  and  submission  thereto  by  the 
affected  parties,  is  by  its  very  nature— and  I 
use  the  word  cautiously  but  advisedly- 
dictatorial.  It  is  ironic,  of  course,  that  the 
most  self-righteous  paper  in  Ontario,  the 
Toronto  Globe  and  Mail,  has  emblazoned  on 
its  masthead  words  of  Junius:  "The  subject 
who  is  truly  loyal  to  the  chief  magistrate  will 
neither  advise  nor  consent  to  arbitrary 
measures." 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Such  as 
compulsory  arbitration. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  compulsory  arbitration, 
by  definition,  is   an  arbitrary  measure. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It's  true;  it's  a  brilliant 
speech. 

Mr.  Foulds:  If  short. 

We  as  legislators  on  this  side  of  the  House 
simply  cannot  advise  the  chief  magistrate  of 
the  province,  in  this  case  it  is  the  Lieutenant 
Governor,  to  proclaim  arbitrary  measures.  We 
would  not  feel  in  conscience  that  we  could 
continue  as  legislators  in  this  House  if  we 
allowed  this  section  of  the  bill  to  pass  without 
a  vote. 


MARCH  14,  1974 


333 


Mr.  Deans:  Mark  you,  that  has  nothing  to 
do  with  either  Junius  or  the  Globe  and  Mail. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  wish  you  hadn't  pointed  that 
out  to  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Deans:  No,  I  meant  from  our  point  of 
view. 

Mr.  Foulds:  If  the  clause  had  contained  a 
possibility  for  binding  arbitration  that  had 
voluntarily  been  argued  to  by  the  parties,  we 
would  have  had  no  difficulty  with  it. 

Mr.  Deacon:  There  would  be  no  bill  in 
those  circumstances. 

Mr.  Foulds:  But  the  fact  that  it  is  com- 
pulsory and  the  fact  that  it  makes  teachers 
and  the  board  submit  to  arbitrary  legislation, 
for  those  reasons  we  simply  cannot  support  it. 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well  said. 


Mr.  Chairman: 

Walkerville. 


The  member  for  Windsor- 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  intend 
to  oppose  this  bill.  We  made  our  comments 
concerning  compulsory  arbitration  on  second 
reading  of  the  bill.  In  the  clause  by  clause 
study  we  will  definitely  take  a  stand  and 
carr\-  out  our  responsibilities  by  voting  against 
it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  further  comment  on 
subsection  (1)?  I  will  put  the  question. 

Those  in  favour  of  subsection  (1)  of 
section  3  standing  as  part  of  the  bill  will 
please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

Ma\'  we  stack  it? 

Some  hon.  members:  No,  no! 

The  committee  divided  on  the  question  of 
having  subsection  ( 1 )  of  section  3  stand  as  a 
part  of  the  bill,  which  was  approved  on  the 
foIlGwing  vote. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
"ayes'"  are  61,  the  "nays"  are  31. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  declare  the  subsection 
stands  as  part  of  the  bill. 

Subsection   ( 1 )  of  section  3  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  We  have  discussed  sub- 
sections (1)  and  (3);  are  there  any  further  sub- 
sections before  subsection  13? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Yes. 


Mr.  Chairman:  Which  one? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Subsection  (2). 

Mr.  Chairman:  No.  2.  All  right. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  have  an  amendment  to  sub- 
section (2),  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Foulds  moves  that  the  following  words 
be  added  to  subsection  (2)  of  section  3:  "and 
that  the  award  on  the  pupil-teacher  ratio  shall 
not  be  above  the  provincial  average." 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  one  of  the 
contentious  issues  in  the  dispute  in  York 
county  has  been,  of  course,  the  pupil-teacher 
ratio.  It  is  admirable  that,  given  the  passage 
of  subsection  (1),  the  minister  has  spelled  out 
clearly  in  the  bill  that  the  ratio  is  arbitrable. 

What  I  am  attempting  to  do  here  is  to 
ensure  that  the  award  is  such  that  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  in  York  county  will  not  go  above 
the  ratio  of  the  provincial  average. 

lit  may  be  somewhat  confusing,  but  because 
it  is  a  pupil-teacher  ratio— i.e.  17.4  to  1,  or  17 
to  1— it  looks  in  the  wording  as  if  it  is  favour- 
able to  the  board.  In  fact  it  is  favourable  to 
the  teachers.  That  would  be  the  base  award 
that  they  would  receive.  That  is,  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  could  fall  below  17.4  or  16.9  to 
1— whatever  the  provincial  average  is— mean- 
ing there  would  be  fewer  pupils  per  teacher 
in  that  county. 

Now,  it  is  in  line  with  the  principle  the 
minister  has  already  established  in  tiie  bill 
when  he  appendied  the  salary  schedule  as  an 
app«idix  to  the  bill.  That  is  the  floor  below 
which  the  arbitrator  cannot  go.  The  same 
intention  is  applied  here— and  I  think  im- 
portantly applied  here.  It's  a  floor  below 
which  the  arbitrator  cannot  award  in  favour 
of  the  teachers.  I  think  that  as  the  minister 
took  the  pains  to  establish  such  a  floor  in 
salary,  wldch  was  not  the  most  contentious 
issue  in  York  county,  it  is  important  and 
significant  that  this  Legislature  include  a 
clause  that  supplies  a  floor  for  the  m<^t 
contentious  issue  in  the  county.  With  that, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  ask  the  minister  to 
accept  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville. 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  was 

there  is  such  a  thing  as  { 
teacher  ratio.  To  me  it 
establish  that,  really,  and 
ministry  has  one.  I  agree 
concepts,  that  the  member 
the  ramifications  of  it,  I 
mountable. 


just  wondering  if 
I  provincial  pupil- 
seems   difficult   to 

I  don't  think  the 
vdth  the  idiea,  the 
has  presented;  but 

think,    are   insur- 


334 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


If  you  get  into  a  system  in  which  a  lot  of 
academic  subjects  only  are  taught,  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  increases  considerably.  In  other 
words,  in  an  English  class  it's  nothing  to  have 
30,  35  even,  in  some  schools  40  in  a  class  to 
one  teacher.  But  if  you  get  into  a  technical 
school,  you  may  have  only  four  students  to  a 
teacher.  You  are  trying  to  equate  the  two 
and  I  think  it's  dijEBcult.  I  think  it  would  be 
better  if  you  said  that  the  pupil-teacher  ratio 
at  the  academic  level  would  be  a  given  ratio 
and  in  the  technical  level  it  would  be  another 
ratio.  That  would  sound  a  little  more  reason- 
able to  me. 

Generally,  the  technical  shops  don't  have 
more  than  20  students  per  teacher.  There  are 
only  20  desks  available  or  20  machines  or  20 
typewriters  or  20  pieces  of  equipment  so  you 
could  not  have  more  than  20. 

I  am  not  saying  that  some  school  boards 
don't  have  more  than  20  students  so  that  the 
students  have  to  share  a  piece  of  equipment. 
It's  nothing  unusual,  when  you  get  into  the 
grade  11  or  grade  12  programme,  when  the 
students  are  in  their  last  speciahzing  year  in 
auto  mechanics  or  in  machine  shop  or  even 
in  sheet  metal,  to  have  as  few  as  four  in  the 
class. 

When  you  turn  around  and  put  down  the 
number  of  students  in  that  class  for  the 
teacher,  you  can  see  that  makes  a  substantial 
difference.  You  take  a  machine  shop  teacher 
with  only  four  and  an  English  teacher  with 
35,  add  the  two  together  and  there  are  39 
students  being  taken  care  of  by  two  teachers. 
You  immediately  say  that  each  teacher  has  20 
pupils  he  has  to  take  care  of. 

That  may  be  true,  but  you  are  talking 
about  apples  and  oranges.  The  one  teacher 
still  has  too  heavy  a  load  by  having  35  in 
the  class,  whereas  the  other  teacher,  I 
don't  say  he  has  too  light  a  load,  but  with 
orily  four  or  five  students  each  student  gets 
individual  attention  and  each  student  is  able 
to  learn  to  the  maximum  of  his  potential. 

I  like  the  idea  of  the  student-teacher  ratio; 
but  I  think  it  would  be  better  if  it  were 
broken  up  into  an  academic  student-teacher 
ratio,  and  a  second  group  would  be,  possibly, 
a  commercial  student-teacher  ratio;  and  then 
a  technical  student-teacher  ratio.  To  take  all 
three— commercial,  academic  and  technical— 
and  find  one  ratio  for  all  three  I  think  is  a 
little  too  complicated  and  really  not  fair  to 
the  academic  teacher. 

\Ir.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  fact,  the 
pupil-teacher  ratio  is  computed  on  two  bases, 
one  for  academic  and  one  for  non-academic 


students.  It  is  not  our  job  to  make  the  award 
and  the  arbitrator  would  still  be  free- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  We  are  not  trying  to  make 
the    award.    He   is    not   trying   to   make   the 
award  at  all. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  arbitrator  would  still  be 
free,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  make  an  award,  as  has 
been  submitted  and  partly  negotiated  by  both 
parties  in  the  York  county  dispute  already, 
about  the  pupil-teacher  ratio  vis-a-vis  non- 
academic  students  and  vis-a-vis  the  academic 
student. 

The  principle  is  the  important  thing  here. 
We  are  not  defining  the  award.  What  we 
are  simply  saying  is  that  the  award  cannot 
fall  be'low  the  provincial  average.  The  arbitra- 
tor can  and  will  interpret  it  as  a  provincial 
average  for  the  academic  classes  and  for  the 
non-academic  classes,  because  both  sides  are 
going  to  submit  to  him  those  categories.  They 
have  been  talking  about  that  in  negotiations 
and  no  doubt  they  will  be  making  those 
presentations  to  the  arbitrator. 

The  pupil-teacher  ratio  is  simpK-  a  base 
from  which  you  work.  The  pupil-teacher  ratio 
basically  has  nothing  to  do  with  class  size. 
The  class  size  can  be  another  item  or  can  be 
worked  into  the  contract.  The  number  of 
pupils  a  teacher  must  teach  can  also  be 
worked  into  the  award  by  the  arbitrator,  but 
it  is  the  pupil-teacher  ratio  that  is  simply  the 
base  figure,  the  base  camp  from  which  you 
scale  Everest  so  to  speak. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  hon.  minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Chairman,  certainly 
the  ministry  or  this  government  has  never 
felt  there  should  be  a  provincially,  centrally- 
dictated  pupil-teacher  ratio.  In  conformity 
with  our  belief  in  the  local  autonomy  of  the 
board— something  which  I  know  members 
opposite  ho'ld  in  jest  many  times,  but  which 
really  is  there  to  a  much  greater  degree  than 
they  really  think,  and  which  is  something 
which  we  really  believe  in— and  in  keeping 
with  that  belief  this  is  a  matter  that  it  is  up 
to  the  local  people  to  decide. 

I  have  stated  very  categorically  that  I 
personally  believe,  and  we  be^lieve,  that  it  is 
an  item  for  negotiation.  We  are  asserting 
here  in  this  particular  case,  the  dispute  be- 
tween the  York  county  teachers  and  their 
board,  since  it  is  an  outstanding  matter  in  the 
dispute,  that  it  is  a  matter  for  arbitration  in 
this  arbitration.  But  I  think  it  would  be  un- 
wise and  not  in  keeping  with  our  general 
policy  to  put  in  any  level,  floor  or  any  sug- 


MARCH  14,  1974 


335 


gestion   of   any   provincial   direction   in   this 
regard. 

So,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  reject  that 
amendment. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  speak 
to  what  the  minister  has  said;  wow,  is  he 
dragging  a  red  herring  across  the  issue!  The 
Ministry  of  Education  in  fact  publishes  the 
statistics  in  its  annual  report  which  indicate 
an  average  for  the  province  of  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio.  It  is  not  a  question  of  dictation 
across  the  province;  it  is  not  a  question  of 
local  autonomy;  it  is  a  question  of  finding  in 
York  county  that  they  do  not  get  worse 
learning  conditions  for  their  kids  in  York 
county  than  they  get  for  the  average  board 
across  this  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  am  very  sure  that  this 
case  will  be  argued  very  fully  before  the 
arbitrator.  I  dont  think  that  we  need  any 
levels  put  in  there  to  guide  him.  The  whole 
case  will  be  argued  before  him  by  both  the 
teachers  and  the  board. 

Certainly  we  publish  the  provincial  aver- 
ages, just  as  we  publish  statistics  of  all  sort, 
averages  and  provincial  figures  for  all  the 
boards.  It  is  part  of  the  statistical  service,  but 
it  doesn't  suggest  that  we  say  that  that 
provincial  average  is  perfect  or  that  it  is  too 
high  or  too  low.  This  is  something  that  the 
school  board,  if  you  accept  as  I  do  that  it  is 
a  negotiable  item,  in  each  local  jurisdiction 
should  work  out  for  itself. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  would  think  that  the 
teachers  in  their  wisdom  in  negotiating  would 
certainly  present  very  strong  arguments  on 
their  own  behalf.  I  don't  think  we  should  tie 
the  hands  of  the  arbitrator  and  say  he  must 
come  down  to  this  level.  I  think  that  is  one 
of  the  items  they  will  agree  among  them- 
selves about. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth. 

Mr.  Deans:  There  is  a  problem,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. Obviously  whatever  the  arbitrator  in 
this  dispute  comes  down  with  it  is  going  to 
have  an  influence  on  the  future  of  arbitra- 
tions and  negotiations.  I  think  the  very  fact 
that  the  Ministry  of  Education  sees  fit  to 
include  a  statistic  called  pupil-teacher  ratio 
in  its  annual  report  is  sufficient  evidence  in 
itself  to  show  that  the  ministry  considers  it 
to  be  an  item  of  some  importance. 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  include  salaries  but 
we  don't  suggest  everyone  has  the  average 
salary  in  the  province. 

Mr.  Deans:  Nor  are  we  suggesting  every- 
one have  the  average  pupil-teacher  ratio.  You 
have  in  fact  suggested  in  the  bill  what  the 
base  salary  should  be  as  far  as  the  arbitration 
is  concerned. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Based  on  the  offer  made 
by  one  of  the  parties. 

Mr.  Deans:  That's  absolutely  right.  You 
have  said  in  the  bill  they  should  not  consider 
an  award  of  a  salary  less  than  the  schedule 
set  out  on  page  5  of  the  bill.  This  particular 
arbitration  is  going  to  be  a  milestone  in  the 
negotiation  process  in  education.  It's  also 
going  to  be  a  reference  point  for  future 
boards  of  arbitration.  The  minister  intends 
that  all  teacher  disputes  be  settled  by  arbitra- 
tion. The  minister  intends  to  bring  in  a  bill 
that  will  make  binding  arbitration  the  last 
resort  in  all  teacher  disputes. 

Therefore,  it's  necessary  in  this  dispute  to 
be  sure  that  whatever  conclusions  are  reached 
are  satisfactory  and  can  be  referred  to  satis- 
factorily by  future  arbitrators.  I  don't  think 
the  minister  would  expect— nor  would  I  for 
that  matter— that  an  arbitrator  would  come 
in  with  an  award  in  this  dispute  which  would 
exceed  the  provincial  average  or  for  that  mat- 
ter with  an  award  which  might  even  be 
higher  than  the  existing  pupil- teacher  ratio. 

It's  a  possibility— it's  not  likely  but  it's  a 
possibility— that  the  arbitrator  could  consider 
making  an  award  in  which  the  pupil-teacher 
ratio  is  higher  than  that  which  currently 
exists  within  the  school  jurisdiction.  The 
arguments  by  the  board  might  lend  them- 
selves to  that  kind  of  a  conclusion  at  this  par- 
ticular time;  and  it's  possible,  though  not 
probable,  that  that  then  could  result  in  a 
change  in  pupil-teacher  ratios  right  across  the 
province  as  they  become  negotiable  and 
arbitrable  in  all  future  negotiations. 

Frankly,  I  don't  see  why  the  minister 
wouldn't  agree  that  the  statistics  that  his  own 
department  have  come  up  with  have  set  out 
a  pupil-teacher  ratio  which,  if  not  satisfactory 
to  everyone,  is  at  least  bordering  on  being 
satisfactory  with  regard  to  the  ratio  of  pupils 
to  teachers  in  the  province  for  all  of  the 
boards.  He  should  then  say  that  the  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  as  it  exists  in  the  technical  or 
commercial  end,  and  as  it  exists  in  the 
academic  end  of  the  Province  of  Ontario,  as 
reported  in  the  statistics  of  the  Ministry  of 
Education,  shall  be  the  base  above  which  no 
award  shall  be  made. 


336 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  don't  understand  why  you  wouldn't  do 
that  to  make  sure  that  we  do  get  off  on  the 
right  foot  in  this  arbitration  and  ensure  that 
the  arbitration  will  be  satisfactory  and  accept- 
able to  the  teachers  in  the  province. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  York 
Centre. 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  certainly  feel  that  the  arbi- 
trator should  not  be  bound  by  this.  I  know 
the  ratio  at  the  time  the  teachers  walked  out 
in  York  was  17.1,  which  wasi  well  below  the 
provincial  average,  but  at  the  same  time- 
Mr.  Foulds:  The  provincial  average  is  16.9. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Well,  I  was  given  to  under- 
stand by  the  teacher  representatives  at  a 
meeting  the  other  night  that  in  fact  the  pro- 
vincial average  was  17.4.  I  may  have  been 
misled,  but  in  any  event  I  don't  think  we 
should  be  telling  the  arbitrators  here  what  to 
do  and  I  think  the  fact  that  it  is  being  arbi- 
trated is  the  key  issue. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Ready  for  the  question  then? 

Those  in  favour  of  Mr.  Foulds'  motion  will 
please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  "nays"  have  it. 

I  declare  the  motion  lost  and  subsection 
(2)  carried. 

We  discussed  subsection  (3). 

Anything  on  subsection  (4)?  If  not,  the 
member  for  Windsor-Walkerville  on  sub- 
section (5). 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  No,  Mr.  Chairman, 
subsection  (4),  not  subsection  (5),  is  the  one  I 
really  wanted'  to  talk  on;  and'  it  concerns  the 
appointment  of  the  arbitrator  where  both 
sides  are  unable  to  agree  as  to  who  should 
be  the  third  arbitrator  in^  the  dispute. 

Over  the  past  series  of  months  and  so  forth, 
we've  come  upon  situations  in  which  teachers 
have  not  had  any  confidence  in  the  boards, 
the  teachers  have  not  had  much  confidence 
in  the  ministry,  and  as  a  result  a  lot  of  hard 
feehngs  have  developed.  You  talk  with  them 
and  they  say:  "We  will  appoint  one  of  the 
arbitrators;  the  board  will  appoint  the  second. 
We  can't  agree  on  the  third  so  the  ministry 
is  going  to  appoint  the  other  arbitrator.  The 
ministry  is  taking  sides  right  away.  The  min- 
istry is  going  to  come  along  and  appoint  one 
who  is  favourable  to  the  board."  TTiat  is  how 
some  of  the  teachers  have  interpreted  the 
appointment  by  the  ministry. 

To  allay  all  their  fears,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
would  like  to  move  an  amendment,  an  addi- 


tion to  subsection  4,  so  that  the  ministry  will 
appoint  an  individual,  or  may  appoint  an^  indi- 
vidual who,  in  the  eyes  of  both  the  board 
and  the  teachers,  is  absolutely  impartial.  My 
suggestion  is  that  added  to  the  end  of  the 
paragraph  in  subsection  (4)  be  the  words  "who 
shall  be  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Ontario." 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Could  I  ask  if  it  is  the 

intent  of  the  hon.  member's  amendment  that 
the  person  the  minister  appoints  should  be  a 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ontario? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  If  necessary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  if- 

Mr.  Deacon:  No,  no. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Yes,  if  necessary.  If  the 
parties  agree  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  You  mean  if  the  parties 
don't  agree?  Yes.  If  the  parties  don't  agree. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  B.  Newman,  Windsor- 
Walkerville,  moves  that  secticm  3,  subsection 
(4),  be  amended  by  adding  thereto,— 

Mr.  Givens:  I  think  that  is  the  last  thing 
you  want. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Trans- 
poration  and  Communications):  Don't  you 
fellows  ever  get  together  and  discuss  these 
things? 

Mr.  Chairman:- the  words  "who  shall  be 
a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ontario." 

Mr.  Deans:  With  some  considerable  reluc- 
tance I  have  got  to  say  I  don't  agree. 

Mr.  Bullbro<4c:  Why  are  you  reluctant  to 
say  it? 

Mr.  Deans:  Because  I'd  like  to  agree. 

But  I  really  don't  agree  with  appointing 
people  from  the  judiciary  to  settle  matters  of 
arbitration  in  labour  disputes.  I  think,  first 
of  all,  it's  better  to  seek  someone  who  has 
some  knowledge  of  the  field  than  it  is  to  seek 
out  a  person  who  may  well  be  a  good' 
judge- 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  The  member 
for  Windsor-Walkerville. 

Mr.  Deans:  —but  who  quite  frankly,  may 
have  absolutely  no  knowledge  of  the  field. 

Mr.  Givens:  Get  your  map  of  learning  and 

start  looking. 

Mr.  Deans:  I'm  not  as  worried  about  the 
appointment  of  the  chairman— 


MARCH  14,  1974 


337 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  I'm  not  even  as  worried  about 
the  outcome  of  the  awards,  strangely  enough. 
I  would  prefer  to  leave  it  as  it  is  than  to 
have  someone  appointed  from  the  judiciary 
to  sit  as  the  chairman  of  the  arbitration. 

The  only  question  I  have  is— I'm  not  at  all 
clear  about  the  section,  if  I  might  just  ask- 
it  does  not  specifically  say  there  must  be  a 
third  person.  That's  what  I'm  not  sure  about 
in  the  section.  It  says:  The  two  persons  ap- 
pointed under  subsection  4  shall,  within  seven 
days  after  they  have  been  appointed,  appoint 
a  person  to  act  as  chairman." 

I  would  have  thought  it  should  have  said, 
"appoint  a  third  person  to  act  as  chairman," 
as  opposed  to  "they  may  appoint,''  just  to 
be  clear  that  there  has  to  be  another  person 
on  the  board. 

I  always  understood,  by  the  way,  that  the 
board  would  have  been  defined  as  "a  board 
of  arbitration  comprised  of  a  representative 
of  each  party  and  a  third  person  who  shall 
act  as  chairman."  I  thought  that  would  have 
been  a  section  in  the  Act  by  the  way;  it  isn't 
in  the  Act.  It  doesn't  really  spell  out  what 
the  board  of  arbitration  shall  be  comprised  of 
in  the  way  of  numbers  of  people. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I'm  reading  this,  I  think 
the  hon.  member  really  meant  this  to  be  an 
addition  to  subsection  (5),  on  the  appointment 
of  a  chairman. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Really,  I  wanted  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Yes.  That  is  subsection 
(5).  We're  really  talking  about  subsection 
(5),  the  appointment  of  the  chairman.  Does 
the  minister  have  any  Comments? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  I  would  prefer  to  leave  subsection  4  the 
way  it  is.  I  listened  with  great  interest  to 
the  comments  of  my  friend  from  Forest  Hill 
yesterday,  who  I  think  madb  some  very  good 
points  about  arbitrators,  although  he  didn't 
agree  with  the  arbitration  process. 

I  think  he  mentioned  that  we'd  have  a 
very  difficult  job  finding  people  and  some  of 
the  other  members  said  they  should  be  people 
with  special  expertise  in  the  field.  While 
certainly  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Ontario  have  great  expertise  in  a  lot  of 
things,  it  may  be  that  they  may  not  be  com- 
pletely the  proper  persons  for  this  kind  of 
arbitration. 

Also,  it  may  be  that  they  may  not  be 
able  to  serve.  It  is  my  understanding  that 
there  is  a  general  feeling  that  they  should 


not  be  taken  away  from  their  duties  on  the 
bench  and  given  these  other  dtities  at  this 
particular  time. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  You  don't  see  them  perform 
adjudicative  services  anymore.  But  they're 
called  upon  to  do  extra  work.  I  want  to 
speak  to  this  matter.  I  want  to  support  the 
motion  wholeheartedly. 

You  fail  to  understand  a  part  of  the  prob- 
lem when  you  talk  about  expertise  residing 
in  the  chairman.  It  isn't  expertise  we  want. 
It's  a  truly  objective  representation  of  the 
public  interest  on  that  board.  That's  all  we 
want.  That's  all  my  colleague  is  attempting 
to  show. 

We  don't  want  anybody  in  this  House  or 
any  group  of  teachers  or  any  group  of  trus- 
tees or  anyone  to  be  able  to  say,  as  is  hap- 
pening in  CSAO  now,  that  the  government 
has  injected  itself  into  the  truly  reciprocal 
equation  of  this  board.  This  is  the  type  of 
legislation  none  of  us  want.  You  don't  on 
that  side,  and  we  don't  surely  on  this  side. 

That's  why  my  colleague  puts  that  forward 
because  it's  known,  recognized  and  appre- 
ciated by  the  public  at  large  that  members 
of  the  judiciary  by  the  very  oath  of  their 
office  undertake  their  function  in  a  truly  ob- 
jective fashion.  Aside  from  that,  is  the  fact 
that  we  know  that  they  go  in  tabula  rasa. 
They  don't  know  about  it,  and  better  so  that 
they  do. 

They  are  the  chairman  of  that  board  and 
they  will  have  the  assistance  and  aid  of 
two  colleagues  on  the  board  of  arbitration, 
one  representing  the  point  of  view  perhaps 
of  the  teachers  and  one  representing  the 
point  of  view  of  the  trustees.  Subject  to 
some  comments  I  want  to  make  about  the 
Statutory  Powers  Procedure  Act,  the  chair- 
mani  will  have  the  ability  to  assess  the  evi- 
dence and  come  to  a  conclusion. 

I  think  the  amendment  is  an  extremely 
worthwhile  amendment.  I  don't  know  why 
you  turn  away  from  it,  because  it  really 
assists  you  in  the  future.  It  assists  you  now 
in  being  able  to  say  to  yourself  that  never  in 
the  future  will  you  be  accused  as  the  minis- 
ter of  showing  any  partiality  whatever,  be- 
cause you  invite  that  type  of  comment  if  you 
rely  solely  on  the  expertise  of  the  chairman 
rather  than  on  the  public  recognition  of  the 
true  objectivity  of  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill. 

Mr.  Givens:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  minister 
may  have  heard  me  remark  to  my  colleague 
here  that  probably  the  last  thing  you  would 


338 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


want  is  to  appoint  a  judge.  Right  here 
you  really  get  at  the  nub  of  the  point  that 
I  was  trying  to  make  last  night,  that  after 
weeks  and  weeks  of  negotiating  and  the 
hassle  that's  been  going  on  and  the  mess 
that's  developed,  where  are  you  going  to 
get  three  impartial  people?  Three  impartial 
people  who  are  so  wise,  so  sagacious,  so 
knowlegeable,  so  expert,  so  perceptive, 
so  Solomonic  that  they're  going  to 
cut  this  Gordian  knot— let  alone  the  baby, 
the  student,  that  they're  struggling  with  be- 
tween them— who  haven't  had  an  input  into 
this   matter   already. 

You  can't  find  such  people;  I  defy  you 
to  do  so.  You're  going  to  have  to  pick  people, 
but  you're  not  going  to  be  able  to  find  peo- 
ple with  that  100  per  cent  degree  of  ob- 
jectivity that  you're  striving  for  and  which 
my  colleague  is  striving  to  get. 

We  know  in  labour  relations  in  the  past 
labour  had  objected  to  people  with  a  legal- 
ized training  taking  part.  They  don't  like 
lawyers.  They  don't  like  judges,  because  the 
tendency  for  lawyers,  and  some  of  my  best 
friends  are  lawyers,  and  I'm  one  of  them— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  You're  your  own  best 
friend. 

Mr.  Deans:  His  only  best  friend. 

Mr.  Givens:  Don't  walk  out  on  me  now. 
This  is  the  first  time  I've  had  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  After  that  line,  I'll  be 
right  back. 

Mr.  Givens:  The  tendency  for  lawyers  is 
to  strictly  construe  language  and  to  strictly 
construe  laws.  We  were  all  through  this  dis- 
cussion last  night  where  we  were  agreed 
that  you're  dealing  in  a  field  of  human  rela- 
tions and  that  you  cannot  confine  strictly 
what's  in  the  parameters  of  any  given  lan- 
guage, no  matter  how  well  hewn  your  lan- 
guage is,  in  any  given  piece  of  legislation. 
This  is  what  makes  it  so  tough.  You're  up 
against  the  velvet  right  now  with  respect 
to  this  aspect  of  compulsory  arbitration, 
which  I  defy  you  or  anybody  else  to  solve. 
This  is  why  compulsory  arbitration,  in  my 
opinion,  is  basically  wrong;  because  you  can- 
not find  these  Solomonic  people. 

Maybe  you'll  bring  one  in  from  Alaska 
or  British  Columbia  or  from  somewhere  out- 
side the  jurisdiction.  It  isn't  possible  today 
to  think  of  anybody,  and  I  don't  care  whether 
he's  a  judge  or  anybody  else,  who  has  that 
kind  of  impartialit)'  and  objectivity,  who 
hasn't  formed  some  kind  of  an  opinion,  either 


consciously,  or  subconsciously  or  subliminally 
on  this  particular  question  who  lives  in  the 
community  known  as  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Everybody  has  got  an  opinion. 

I  suppose  that  you  can  argue  that  a  Su- 
preme Court  judge,  because  of  his  training 
and  background,  is  likely  to  be  the  most  ob- 
jective person  that  you  can  find.  Maybe  you 
can  argue  that,  but  I  dismiss  the  idea  that 
you  can  even  get  a  Supreme  Court  judge 
today  whose  mind  is  completely  and  totally 
a  blank  like  an  empty  blackboard  on  the 
subject.  This  is  not  possible  at  all.  This  is 
why  you  are  having  tibis  trouble. 

In  retrospect,  having  made  that  remark  at 
the  beginning  to  my  colleague,  that  he  would 
be  the  last  guy  I'd  pick,  I  suppose  that  this 
is  the  kind  of  person  to  pick,  compared  with 
picking  a  businessman,  a  bank  manager,  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  of  the  province,  another 
cabinet  minister,  or  whomever.  I  suppose  a 
Supreme  Court  judge  is  more  hkely  to  be  the 
the  most  objective  person.  But  I  rule  out  ob- 
jectivity and  impartiality  completely.  This 
is  why  I  consider  the  principle  of  compulsory 
arbitration  wrong,  particularly  in  this  par- 
ticular case. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Newman's    motion    will    please    say    "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  "nays"  have  it.  I  de- 
clare the  motion  lost. 

That  was  to  subsection  5,  was  it? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Yes. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Then  subsections  (4)  and 
(5)  are  carried. 

Is  there  anything  before  subsection  (13)? 
If  so,  which  subsection. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:   Subsection  (9). 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Subsection  (8). 

Mr.  Chairman:  Anything  before  subsection 
(8)?  ^      ^ 

Mr,  B.  Newman  moves  that  section  3  (8) 
be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the  words 
"who  shall  be  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Ontario." 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  won't  repeat  the  entire 
argument  this  time,  but  it  is  exactly  the  same 
argument  as  that  under  subsection  (5);  that 
is  where  the  chairman  is  not  agreed  upon, 
that  he  shall  be  a  justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Anv  further  discussion? 


MARCH  14,  1974 


339 


Those  in  favour  of  Mr.  Newman's  motion 
will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 
In  my  opinion  the  "nays"  have  it.  I  de- 
clare the  motion  lost. 

Mr.  Chairman:  On  subsection  (9)? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  just  want  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion of  the  minister. 

In  providing  in  subsection  (9)  for  the  use 
of  powers  imder  those  sections  of  the  Statu- 
tory Powers  Procedure  Act,  are  you  content 
through  your  advisers  that  the  provision  in 
section  4  of  the  Act,  to  the  efiFect  that  the 
dispute  may  be  concluded  without  a  hearing 
would  obviate  the  necessity  of  a  hearing?  Or 
are  you  satisfied  with  the  words  contained 
in  section  3(3),  the  the  negotiators  for  the 
teachers  and  the  board  will  have  an  ability 
to  present  evidence  and  make  submissions? 
I  just  want  to  make  sure  that  we  are  not 
going  to  have  an  in  camera  session  here. 

Perhaps  I  might  just  say  this:  Under  the 
Statutory  Powers  Procedure  Act  the  tribunal, 
as  you  know,  can  conclude  without  a  hearing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  right. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  Act  also  says,  ".  .  . 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  particular 
statute,"  which  we  are  talking  about  in  Bill 
12.  You  provide  for  the  presentation  of  evi- 
dence and  the  ability  to  submit  argument.  I 
take  it  that  your  intention  is  that  notwith- 
standing the  provisions  of  the  Statutory 
Powers  Procedure  Act  that  say  there  can  be 
a  conclusion  without  a  hearing,  tfhat  there  is 
going  to  be  a  hearing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Certainly,  Mr.  Chairman. 
I  intend  that  there  be  a  hearing,  and  cer- 
tainly it  is  the  intent  in  this  bill  that  there  be 
a  hearing.  If  my  friend,  who  is  a  lawyer, 
feels  that  section  4  of  this  Statutory  Powers 
Procedure  Act  causes  any  problem  in  this 
regard— again,  as  a  layman,  reading  it  over 
quickly,  I  am  not  sm-e  why  section  4  has  to 
apply  in  this  particular  case— but  if  he  is 
worried,  I  would  be  willing  to  ddete  that 
unless  there  is  some  particular  reason.  I  see 
why  the  other  sections  of  the  Statutory 
Powers  Procedure  Act  need  to  be  here  for 
certain  protections  and  so  forth,  but  I  am  not 
sure  about  section  4. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  see  the  need  for  the 
application  of  section  4,  because  the  parties 
might  by  consent  come  to  a  conclusion  with- 
out the  necessity  of  holding  extensive  hear- 
ings and  thereby  saving  public  funds  and  that 


would  constitute  an  award.  I'm  content  with 
that.  I  am  now  content  that  you  have  voiced 
publicly  that  it  is  your  intention  that  there 
be  a  public  hearing  in  connection  with  tlie 
submissions  to  be  made  to  the  board  of 
arbitration.  I  think  that  satisfies  me  entirely 
right  now. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Does  subsection  (9)  then 
stand  as  part  of  the  bill?  Agreed. 

Any  comments,  questions  or  amendments 
on  a  later  subsection,  before  subsection  ( 13 )  ? 
The  member  for  Port  Arthur. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  just  wanted  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion for  clarification  on  subsection  (10).  I 
assume  that  means  that  the  award  made  by 
the  arbitrator  cannot  therefore  be  appealed 
to  a  court.  Is  that  the  intention  of  subsection 
(10)— that  the  award  made  by  the  arbitrator 
in  this  case  will  be  final  and  binding  and 
there  can  be  no  appeal  to  the  court?  Tliat's 
the  reason?  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  subsection  (10) 
stand?  Subsection  (11);  subsection  (12). 

Mr.  Foulds:  Subsection  (12). 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  hon.  minister— oh,  is 
there  something? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Do  you  have  an  amendment 
to  12? 

Hon.  Mr.  WeUs:  No,  13. 

Mr.  Chairman:  If  you  have  comments  on 
12  you  may  make  them  now. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  once  again  want  a  point 
of  information  on  this.  Could  the  minister 
inform  the  House  if  any  items  had  been 
agreed  to  by  the  board  and  the  teacher  nego- 
tiators up  to  this  point?  Or  did  they  with- 
draw all  the  tentative  ofiFers  that  they  talked 
about  when  the  teachers  withdrew  their  ser- 
vices? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  really  can't  answer  that 
for  the  hon.  member,  because  of  course  we 
don't  know  until  each  put  in  their  list,  as  is 
provided  for  in  an  earlier  section  of  this  bill. 
They  will  each  put  in  what  they  feel  are 
the  items  still  in  dispute  and  it  may  be 
that  some  of  the  items  we  perhaps  assiuned 
had  been  agreed  to  may  still  be  in  dispute, 
because  some  of  them  were  conditional  upon 
others  being  agreed  to. 

This  section,  of  course,  is  also  there  so 
that  if,  as  the  arbitration  is  proceeding,  the 
parties  get  together  and  agree  on  some  of 
the  items  that  are  in  the  list  that  are  in  dis- 


340 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


pute,  they  can  present  to  the  arbitration 
board  their  written  agreements,  and  that  then 
means  the  arbitration  board  doesn't  have  to 
make  an  award  in  that  particular  matter. 

Mr.  Deans:  Just  one  question  along  the 
same  line:  Is  it  not  necessary  that  the  parties 
should  submit  a  list  of  all  matters  which 
were  entered  into  and  upon  which  negotia- 
tion was  originally  based,  a  list  of  the  mat- 
ters which  they  believe  to  have  been  re- 
solved and  then  a  list  of  the  matters  which 
are  still  in  dispute? 

The  reason  I  ask  is  that  if  a  party,  for 
example,  were  to  submit  a  list  of  the  matters 
that  they  consider  still  to  be  in  dispute  and 
leave  out  matters  which  they  thought  had 
been  resolved,  and  the  other  party  didn't 
deal  with  those  matters,  it  is  entirely  pos- 
sible that  the  there  may  not  be  an  agreement 
on  some  of  the  matters. 

In  other  words,  if  there  isn't  a  list  of  what 
in  fact  is  being  asked  for,  and  what  was 
asked  for  originally,  what  was  tentatively 
agreed  upon  and  what  is  still  in  dispute, 
then  it  is  possible  that  some  matters  might 
get  lost. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  suppose  anything  is 
possible,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I  can  assure 
the  member  that  under  this  section  that  we 
have  here,  I  think  the  parties  will  know 
very  well  what  are  the  matters  still  in  dis- 
pute and  will  be  able  to  put  them  in. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Subsection  (12)— I'm  sorry. 

Mr.  Deans:  Okay,  all  right. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  hon.  minister  has  an 
amendment  to  subsection  (13). 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moves  that  subsection  (13) 
of  section  3  be  amended  by  inserting  after 
"or"  in  the  third  line,  "with  the  approval  of 
the  minister." 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  this  motion  carry? 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Could  we  have  the  mean- 
ing of  this? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  meaning  of  this  is 
that  at  the  present  time  a  three-month  time 
limit  is  set  on  the  board  of  arbitration  with 
the  provision  that  they  may  extend  this  time 
themselves.  This  says  they  have  to  get  the 
approval  of  the  minister  if  they  are  going 
to  go  to  any  extension  beyond  the  three 
months.  Several  of  the  parties  in  this  arbi- 
tration have  suggested  they  would  like  that 
provision  in  so  that  we  can  have  the  arbi- 
tration carried  out  as  quickly  as  possible. 


Mr.  Foulds:  Could  I  ask  a  question  on  the 
minister's  intention?  I,  too,  have  had  the 
same  kind  of  information  that  both  parties, 
I  think,  are  a  little  imeasy  that  the  arbitra- 
tion might  drag  on  and  on.  Could  the  minis- 
ter give  an  assurance  to  the  House  that  he 
would  not  let  the  further  period  extend 
beyond  the  new  school  year,  say? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  would  hate  to  give  any 
assurance  of  time  to  the  hon.  member,  Mr. 
Chairman,  but  I  can  give  him  the  assurance 
that  I  will  do  everything  possible  to  see  that 
the  arbitration  board  completes  its  work  as 
quickly  as  possible. 

Three  months  seems  to  be  a  reasonable 
time,  but  of  course  we  all  know  things  can 
occur  which  might  make  it  necessary  for 
extensions.  That's  why  we  put  in  a  little  bit 
of  a  clause  in  the  legislation  to  allow  this  to 
happen  and  did  not  just  say  three  months. 

If  we  wanted  to  be  very  specific  we  could 
say  it  had  to  complete  its  work  within 
three  months  and  we'd  probably  be  all  right 
but  if  something  happened  we'd  find  we  had 
a  piece  of  legislation  and  we'd  have  to  come 
back  and  get  an  amendment.  I  can  assure 
the  hon.  member  I  will  not  in  any  way  let 
the  board  continue  for  an  unreasonable  length 
of  time. 

Mr.  Foulds:  There  is  a  technical  problem 
here,  of  course,  in  terms  of  the  dates  of  the 
teachers'  resignations.  That  is,  that  they  can 
in  law  resign  only  as  from  May  21  or  Nov. 
30.  Surely,  those  individual  teachers  who  do 
not  like  the  award  should  not  be  prolonged 
beyond  Nov,  30,  say,  in  the  employ  of  the 
board.  I  say  that  for  two  reasons:  First  so 
that  the  individual  teachers  who  are  dis- 
satisfied with  the  awards  can  seek  employ- 
ment elsewhere;  and  the  other  is  that  if  it  is 
only  a  one-year  award— if  the  arbitrators  de- 
cide that  the  contract  shall  only  be  for  the 
term  of  one  year— one  would  hope  they  get 
the  negotiations  or  awards  settled  before  they 
get  into  the  next  round  of  negotiations  in  the 
coming  year. 

I  appreciate  the  flexibility  that  the  minister 
wishes  to  give  the  arbitration  board  here, 
because  often  a  three  or  four-day  period  after 
a  three-month  period  might  be  the  crucial 
one.  But  we  would  caution  him  that  there 
are  those  constraints,  those  very  real  con- 
straints—the resignation  times  of  the  teachers 
and  the  negotiations  looming  into  the  com- 
ing year— to  be  considered  when  ministerial 
approval  is  being  considered  on  the  section. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  I  want  to  ask  a  question 
that  causes  me  concern.  It  is  a  general  ques- 


MARCH  14,  1974 


341 


tion,  if  you  "will  permit  it,  Mr.  Chairman, 
arising  out  of  comments  made  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Port  Arthur.  Is  there  a  possibility 
that  you  conceive  that  the  board  would  have 
the  power  to  award  in  excess  of  a  one-year 
contract? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  In  excess  of  one  year? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think  that's  possible. 
That's  one  of  the  matters  in  dispute. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That  causes  me  concern 
because  I  find  it  somewhat  reprehensible— 
I  am  sure  the  minister  finds  this,  too— that  we 
are  undertaking  the  responsibility  of  a  locally- 
elected  board.  I  can  see  that  in  the  matter 
of  urgency  perhaps  the  government  is  con- 
strained to  bring  forward  this  legislation  which 
we  don't  support.  But  now,  if  that  board  of 
arbitration  is  to  return  an  award  in  excess 
of  a  one-year  contract,  you  are  not  only 
usurping  the  function  of  the  board  for  this 
year,  you  are  imposing  upon  a  future  board 
perhaps;  or  at  least  restraining  the  right  of 
the  present  board  to  undertake  collective  bar- 
gaining procedures  in  the  future.  I'd  like  to 
hear  from  the  member  for  Port  Arthur  and 
my  own  colleagues  in  this  connection.  I  don't 
think  we  want  to  do  that  really. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  No. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  It  binds  the  teachers  also 
to  a  term.  Bill  275  anticipates  a  two-year 
term. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That's  a  different  ball  game. 
That's  general  legislation  that  we  will  even- 
tually debate  here  in  the  House.  But  giving 
the  right  to  this  board,  for  the  sake  of  exag- 
geration, to  award  a  three-year  contract, 
robs  both  the  teachers  and  the  trustees  of 
their  rights. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may, 
I  would  like  to  make  a  few  comments  on  this. 
In  line  with  what  my  colleague  is  saying, 
this  could  happen  at  a  point  in  time  when 
the  arbitration  award  is  not  down  but  there 
is  an  election  being  held,  a  completely  new 
board  may  have  been  elected— a  board  with 
a  completely  difiFerent  point  of  view  and  new 
thinking.  As  a  result,  if  a  two-year  or  a  three- 
year  contract  were  awarded  by  the  arbitrator, 
you  would  be  tying  future  boards  to  expendi- 
tures and  benefits  that  I  don't  think  vou 
should  be  tying  them  to  at  all. 


The  other  item  I  would  like  to  mention 
to  the  minister,  as  I  did  when  we  discussed 
section  3(3)  and  I  asked  the  minister  to 
explain  two  or  three  lines,  is  the  problem  of 
the  resignation  of  teachers. 

A  teacher  has  only  two  times  in  the  year 
which  he  can  retire  or  hand  in  his  resigna- 
tion. May  31  and  November  30.  Now,  if  the 
award  is  not  down  in  time,  before  the  teacher 
is  to  hand  in  his  resignation,  the  teacher  may 
be  dissatisfied  with  the  award  presented  by 
the  arbitrators,  but  he  will  not  have  the  op- 
portunity to  resign  and  look  for  employment 
with  another  board.  You've  sort  of  chained 
him  into  his  job  for  an  additional  year,  and 
you  would  have  to  extend  the  resignation  date 
for  teachers  beyond  May  31  and  possibly  put 
it  to  30  days  after  the  award  had  been  pre- 
sented by  the  arbitrator. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  just  want  to  make  one  com- 
ment. It  seems  to  me,  in  an  arbitration  which 
is  agreed  upon  voluntarily  by  both  parties, 
that  the  term  of  the  agreement  should  be 
subject  to  the  decision  of  the  arbitrator.  But 
in  a  dispute  where  it  is  involuntary,  where 
neither  party  wanted  the  arbitration  and 
where  the  arbitration  is  being  imposed  by 
us,  it  should  be  for  as  short  a  period  of  time 
as  is  reasonable.  It  seems  at  this  stage  that  a 
shortest  period  of  time  that  is  reasonable 
should  be  August  31,  1974,  and  the  award 
should  and  will  be  retroactive  to  September 
1,  1973. 

I  would  like  to  suggest  to  the  minister  that 
he  do  include  that.  Everyone— I  assume  so, 
anyway— is  going  to  be  under  general  legis- 
lation in  any  event  by  August  1,  1974,  and  in 
fact  negotiations  will  be  starting  afresh  across 
the  province  under  the  new  legis'lation  govern- 
ing teacher-board  negotiations. 

I  think  this  board  and  these  teachers  have 
to  move  as  swiftly  as  possible  into  that  new 
structure  and  get  back  together  again  as 
quickly  as  they  can  in  an  attempt  to  try  to 
attain  what  I  spoke  about  last  night,  the 
kind  of  mutual  respect  that  must  be  there 
if  there  is  going  to  be  any  sensible  and 
rational  negotiation  in  any  event. 

I  would  seriously  like  to  ask  the  minister 
whether  he  couldn't  find  a  way  to  say  that 
the  award  shall  be  for  a  one-year  duration, 
terminating  on  the  anniversary  date,  August 
31,  1974. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  this  point 
I  feel  that  I  should  rise  too,  because  I  am 
concerned  about  the  impflications  of  this  par- 
ticular piece  of  legislation  as  it  relates  to  Bill 
275.   I  would  like  to  have  the  assurance  of 


342 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  minister  that  in  forcing  two  people  into 
arbitration  it  should  not  be  expected  that  any 
award  could  be  made  for  any  longer  term 
than  one  year.  Surely  that  would  be  subject 
to  the  position  of  Bill  275.  Surdy  that  is  a 
part  of  negotiations  in  other  circumstances. 
And  since  Bill  275  has  not  yet  taken  effect, 
surely  it  would  be  most  improper  that  in 
these  highly  questionable  circumstances  they 
should  be  awarded  any  longer  period  of  time? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  further  comments? 
Those   in   favour   of  the   minister's   motion— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  must 
say  that  while  the  arguments  that  have  been 
put  forward  are  very  interesting  I  have  heard 
no  comments  from  either  of  the  parties  con- 
cerned in  this  dispute  that  there  was  not  a 
limitation  in  this  bill,  that  is,  making  it  apply 
to  a  one  year  contract. 

Now  we  are,  of  course,  reaching  the  end 
of  the  period  for  which  this  award  will  ac- 
tually apply.  By  the  time  the  award  is 
brought  down  the  end  of  the  year  for  which 
it  applies  will  practically  have  been  reached, 
because  this,  of  course,  is  for  a  contract  be- 
ginning September,  1973. 

I  would  say  that,  from  my  involvement 
with  the  negotiations  that  went  on,  the  dura- 
tion of  the  contract  was  one  of  the  matters 
that  was  in  dispute.  Whether  it  was  to  be  a 
12-,  16-  or  24-monh  contract  was  one  of 
the  matters  in  dispute.  I  am  not  sure  that 
in  limiting,  at  this  particular  time  by  this 
bill,  the  award  for  one  year  we  would  not  be 
intruding  upon  or  limiting  some  of  the  mat- 
ters that  were  in  dispute. 

Mr.  Deans:   You  are  doing  that  anyway— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  but  we  are  going 
to- 

Mr.  Deans:  They  said  they  shall  arbitrate 
pupil-teacher  ratio,  and  that  is  in  dispute, 
and  they  said  that  they  shall  have  a  base 
salary  of  X,  and  that  is  in  dispute  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think,  on  balance,  that 
I  would  rather  have  the  case  for  a  12,  16 
or  24  month  contract  argued  before  the  board 
of  arbitration  and  let  them  make  up  their 
mind.  It  is  a  very  difficult  matter.  I  don't 
think  we  had  thought  about  it  in  the  draft- 
ing, because  in  my  thinking  this  had  been 
one  of  the  matters  in  dispute  and  I  thought 
that  it  would  go  to  the  board.  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  would  feel  that  we  should  leave  it  the  way 
it  is. 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask 
of  the  minister  what  provision  he  is  making 
to  enable  a  teacher  to  submit  a  resignation 
at  a  date  later  than  May  31,  in  case  he  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  award  and  would  like  to 
seek  employment  with  another  board? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is 
nothing  in  this  bill  that  provides  for  that. 
He,  in  his  contract,  can  resign  on  May  31. 
Now  if  the  award  is  not  down  he  will  have 
to  wait  until  that  award  comes  down  and 
then,  as  the  hon.  member  for  Thunder  Bay 
mentioned— 

Mr.  Foulds:   Port  Arthur. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Port  Arthur;  excuse  me. 
Port  Arthur. 

Mr.  Foulds:  You  see,  you  did  get  it  wrong. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  yes,  there  you  are. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Private  joke. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes.  He  has  the  Nov.  30 
deadline  to  consider  if  he  wishes  to  resign. 
I  don't  think  that  is  a  matter  that  should 
be  considered  within  this  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  has  moved  that  subsection 
(13)  of  section  3  be  amended  by  inserting 
after  the  word  "or"  in  the  third  line  the  words 
"with  the  approval  of  the  minister." 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Are  there  any  further  com- 
ments, questions  or  amendments  in  any  later 
section  or  subsection  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  Deacon:  Section  4. 

Mr.  Deans:  Subsection  (15). 

Mr.  Chairman:  Subsection  (14)  is  it? 

Mr.  Deans:  No,  (15).  Can  the  minister  tell 
me  something  about  the  reason  why  he  de- 
cided that  the  bill  has  to  be  paid  within  30 
days?  What  is  all  this  about?  Why  are  you 
telling  the  parties,  who  have  entered  into  a 
private  arrangement  with  their  nominee  to 
the  board,  that  they  have  to  pay  the  nominee 
within  30  days?  I  don't  quite  follow  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  As  I  understand  it,  the 
draftsmen  for  this  bill  have  taken  this  from 
other  labour  legislation  and  the  30-day  pro- 
vision is  there.  We  like  everybody  to  be  paid 
promptly— just  like  the  government  pa\s  its 
bills. 


MARCH  14,  1974 


343 


Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Just  to 
comment  on  that  further.  Mr.  Chairman,  it 
seems  to  me  that  if  the  account  is  not  paid, 
does  the  minister  expect  that  the  person 
claiming  for  fees  or  disbursements  imder 
this  situation  would  have  any  better  result 
in  getting  paid  under  this  section  than  under 
the  general  law  of  contract  that  prevails  on  a 
quantum  meruit  basis   that  exists  now? 

I  just  don't  see  the  point  of  particularly 
requiring  this  kind  of  legislation  when  the 
fact  that  the  person  has  done  a  job  would 
allow  him  to  maintain  an  action  if  the  pay- 
ments were  not  there  just  on  the  fact  that 
he  had  done  the  job. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think  that  actually 
what  we  are  talking  about  here  is  that  the 
30  days  are  put  in  because  that's  the  time 
in  which  the  money  that's  required  is  to  be 
paid  by  the  teachers  who  are  a  party  to 
this  negotiation.  Now  those  teachers  are  not 
a  legal  entity  and  after  that  30  days  the  bill 
then  provides  that  the  Ontario  Secondary 
School  Teachers'  Federation  shall  pay  such 
moneys;  and  they,  of  course,  are  a  legal  body. 
It  passes  the  responsibility  for  those  dtebts 
from  the  teachers  who  had  been  a  party 
before  the  negotiations  to  a  legal  body,  the 
Ontario  Secondary  School  Teachers'  Federa- 
tion. The  board,  of  course,  is  a  legal  body  in 
the  beginning— right  way— and  of  course  it  has 
to  pay- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  only  makes  the  person 
involved  a  little  more  confident  that  if  there 
is  a  problem,  there  is  some  more  practical 
recourse  of  going  after  an  association  rather 
than  some  550  teachers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  there's  no- 
Mr.  Deans:  Just  one  question  —  they  are 
within  a  further  15  days  —  now  that  is  the 
last  point  I  want  to  make  with  you.    If  the 
board  doesn't  pay— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  You  can  take  that  out.  I 
don't— 

'Mr.  Deans:  I  think  you  should.  If  the 
board  doesn't  pay,  then  the  person  they  hire 
has  to  go  after  the  board  for  the  money. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Quite  so. 

Mr.  Deans:  If  the  teachers  dbn't  pay,  then 
obviously  the  person  they  hire  has  to  go  after 
the  federation  for  the  money.  How  they 
settle  is  their  business  and  how  long  it  takes 
is  their  business— and  I  am  not  interested  in 
getting  involved  in  how  long  it  takes. 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  All  right.  I  would  be 
agreeable,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  removing  "within 
a  further  15  days." 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  that  subsection  (15)? 
Who  is  moving  it  then? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  will  move  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  the  motion  understood 
then? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  You  might  read  it,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  mov- 
ing —  if  you  need  it  written  out,  I  — 

Mr.  Chairman:  No,  it  will  be  on  record. 

iHon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  it  will  be  on  record. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moves  that  the  words 
"within  a  further  15  days"  be  deleted  from 
the  last  part  of  section  3,  subsection  (15), 
and  it  stands  as  "shall  pay  such  moneys." 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  right,  the  mimster 
wishes  to  add  a  couple  of  words  in  sub- 
section (5)  of  section  3  to  further  clarify  it. 
Do  we  have  that  permission? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  well  I  just  recall 
that  it  was  mentioned  that  there  was  no  gen- 
eral definition  of  the  board  of  arbitration 
being  a  three-person  board. 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  I  asked  you  for  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  And  I  thought  that  we 
should  add  the  word  a  "third"  person  in  the 
third  line  of  subsection  (5). 

Mr.  Chairman:  So  it  shall  read  "appoint  a 
third  person." 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  "Appoint  a  third  person 
to  act  as  chairman  of  the  board  of  arbitra- 
tion." 

Mr.  Chairman:  Understood? 

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  that  agreed? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Is  that  just  before  "a  person" 
in  the  third  line? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  appoint  a  third  per- 
son. 

Mr.  Chairman:  That  amendment  is  carried 
then? 

Agreed. 


344 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Chairman:  Now,  anything  further  on 
section  3?  Do  subsections  (16)  and  (17) 
carry? 

Section  3  agreed  to. 

On  section  4: 

Mr.  Deacon:  Section  4.  It  has  been 
brought  to  my  attention  that  there  is  some 
concern  over  the  category  that  would  apply 
in  section  4  where  a  teacher  has  been  as- 
signed to  another  job  by  the  board. 

Mr.  Deacon  moves  that  section  4  be 
amended  by  the  addition  of  the  following 
sentence: 

The  category  applicable  under  this  sec- 
tion shall  be  that  for  which  a  teacher 
qualifies  and  the  specialty  for  which  the 
teacher  was  hired  unless  the  teacher  has 
specifically  requested  a  change  to  another 
specialty. 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  would  appreciate  the  min- 
ister's comments  on  this  because  there  is  some 
concern  that  there  could  be  confusion  be- 
cause of  previous  cases  of  shifting  between 
categories  that  the  board  carried  out  with 
some  of  the  teachers.  I  wanted  to  be  sure 
this  was  covered  and  clarified.  Would  the 
minister  agree  to  this  amendment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  no.  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  can't  agree  to  this  amendment  because  this 
guarantee  that's  put  in  the  bill  is  a  guarantee 
of  this  salary  offer  for  those  teachers  who 
are  in  that  category  as  of  the  time  specified 
here.  I  don't  think  in  this  bill  we  should  get 
into  a  dispute,  which  again  is  an  item  in  dis- 
pute, as  to  which  category  certain  teachers 
in  that  board  should  be  in.  We  don't  attempt 
to  get  into  that  in  this  particular  bill.  We 
merely  attempt  to  say  that  where  the  teacher 
is  placed  in  a  category,  this  is  the  new  salary 
schedule  for  him. 

As  the  hon.  member  knows,  the  placement 
in  categories  is  one  of  the  issues  in  dispute 
in  this  particular  instance. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Oh,  I  thought  that  was  an 
issue  that  had  been  agreed  to  prior  to  the 
actual  withdrawal. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well,  if  that  had  been 
agreed  to,  and  the  board  has  made  the  ad- 
justments in  the  categories,  then  the  board 
will  put  them  automatically  in  the  categories. 

Mr.  Deacon:  What  I  wanted  to  check  was 
that  since  the  actual  contract  hasn't  been 
signed,  but  as  I  understand  the  list  of  points 
that  were  agreed  to  as  they  worked  through 
the    negotiations,    that   was    one   where   they 


had  agreed  to  the  way  in  which  these 
categories  will  be  handled.  It  is  because  of 
that  agreement,  which  had  been  reached 
ahead  of  time,  that  I  am  making  this  sug- 
gestion. I  recognize  that  that  had  been  a 
point  of  dispute  before,  but  I  thought  it  had 
been  agreed  to  and  I  thought  it  should  be 
so  reported  in  this  bill. 

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

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  my  con- 
cern really  is  that  a  teacher  may  be  trans- 
ferred from,  say,  category  4  to  category  3, 
and  as  a  result  suflFer  a  decrease  in  salary 
on  the  transfer  between  categories  and  have 
the  board  just  arbitrarily  assign  him  a  differ- 
ent series  of  subjects  to  teach.  This  would 
simply  protect  the  rights  of  the  teacher  who 
had  been  in  any  one  of  the  categories— I'll 
use  category  4— so  that  he  does  not  drop 
below  the  category  4  level  if  he  had  been 
in  it  prior  to  that,  simply  because  the  board 
wants  to  give  him  another  discipline  to  teach. 
If  the  teacher  wishes  to  be  removed  from 
category  4,  well  then,  that's  quite  agreeable 
between  the  teacher  and  the  board. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think  my  friend  realizes, 
though,  that  we're  not  trying  to  set  that  policy 
in  this  bill.  All  we're  trying  to  do  is  set  a 
salary  schedule  effective  last  September.  How 
the  teachers  get  in  that  schedule  depends 
upon  the  policies  of  the  board  and  so  forth. 
As  I  said,  it  was  a  matter  in  dispute.  It  may 
have  been  settled.  If  it's  been  settled  I'm  sure 
that  the  rearranging  will  be  done  by  the 
board,  but  then  this  is  the  salary  schedule 
that  will  apply. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Deacon's  motion  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  "nays"  have  it. 

I  declare  the  motion  lost  and  the  section 
carried. 

Section  4  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Anything  on  section  5  of 
the  biU? 

On  section  5: 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  suggest  to  the  minister  that  section  5  is  no 
longer  applicable  because  a  Supreme  Court 
judge  will  not  need  to  make  a  judgement  in 
this  matter,  and  that  the  preamble  is  not 
apphcable  where  it  says,  "requires  that  all 
teachers  return  to  the  classroom,  and  that 
means    be    found   for   the    settlement   of    all 


MARCH  14,  1974 


345 


matters  of  dispute  between  the  board  and  its 
teachers,"  as  the  teachers  have  just  voted 
to  return  to  work  on  March  25.  I  would  like 
to  suggest  to  the  minister  that  if  that  were  the 
case,  we  should  suspend  discussion  of  this 
bill  and  see  if  both  parties  will  execute  a 
document  outside  this  House  tonight  so  that 
it  is  not  necessary  that  the  bill  be  proceeded 
with. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think 
I  received  this  resolution  from  the  teachers 
about  half  an  hour  ago.  I  think  what  the 
resolution  says  is  that  "in  anticipation  of 
royal  assent  to  Bill  12,  we,  the  resigned 
teachers  of  York  county,  agree  to  return  to 
our  classes  on  Monday,  March  25,  under 
duress." 

I  think  that  that  hinges  on  the  passing  of 
this  bill.  I  think  we  should  proceed  with  the 
bill.  It's  our  intention,  if  the  House  would 
agree  to  proceed  with  the  bill,  to  give  it 
passage  tonight  but  not  royal  assent  until 
tomorrow.  If  an  agreement  can  be  arrived  at 
before  tomorrow  it  will  not  receive  royal 
assent. 

But  I  suggest  that  both  parties  have 
agreed— the  board  has  agreed  to  take  all  the 
teachers  back  pending  the  passing  of  this 
bill,  and  the  teachers,  under  this  resolution, 
have  agreed  to  go  back  also  under  the  pass- 
ing of  this  bill— so  I  would  suggest  that  ap- 
parently they  have  decided  this  is  the  best 
way  finally  to  end  this  dispute.  I  would 
commend  them  both,  particularly  the  teach- 
ers, for  taking  the  position  that  they've  taken 
at  this  time. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  don't  know  when  we'll  pass 
the  bill,  but  I  assume  that  we  probably 
won't  pass  it  before  6  o'clock.  You  never 
know  about  these  things.  But  it's  entirely 
possible  that  the  legislation  will  not  be  re- 
quired in  its  present  form.  This  legislation 
compels  them  to  return  to  work.  Yet  you 
said  they're  going  anyway.  I  realize  you 
said  they  anticipate  the  legislation  passing;  I 
understand  that.  Is  it  not  possible  that  they 
are  now  recognizing  the  mood  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  are  prepared  to  go  back  to  work 
and  have  the  matter  submitted  to  arbitra- 
tion voluntarily? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  I'm  afraid,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  isn't  what  the  parties  have 
said.  I  took  the  hon.  member's  suggestion 
last  night  and  made  suggestions  to  both 
parties  to  sign  a  voluntary  arbitration  ar- 
rangement, but  apparently,  for  their  own 
reasons,  they  decided  not  to.  So  I  think  we 
must  proceed. 


Mr.  Foulds:  Excuse  ine,  was  that  last  night 
or  today? 

Hon.  Mr.  WeUs:  Last  night. 

Mr.  Foulds:  In  view  of  their  vote  this  af- 
ternoon, where  they  obviously  put  it  to  the 
teachers,  if  we  can  continue  tomorrow  morn- 
ing or  tomorrow  afternoon  and  it  could  re- 
ceive third  reading  and  royal  assent  tomorrow 
afternoon,  surely  this  evening  would  be  a 
time  to  make  the  approach,  so  that  we  don't 
get  enshrined  in  legislation  which  has  passed 
second  reading,  committee  stage  and  third 
reading  the  principle  of  compulsory  arbi- 
tration for  teachers.  If  it  fails  this  evening, 
then  well  and  good,  proceed  tomorrow  and 
the  bill  will  apply  as  of  March  25.  We  have 
been  desperately  looking  for  a  possible  way 
out.  It  may  be,  if  at  this  stage  we  did  not 
proceed  with  the  bill,  that  the  teachers 
would  not  feel  that  they  have  to  go  back 
to  the  classrooms  under  duress. 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  perl 
if  I  could  enter  this  matter  just  to  make  a 
suggestion  to  the  minister,  it  would,  I  think, 
appear  that  certainly  the  bill  will  complete 
its  stage  in  committee  this  afternoon.  The 
remaining  sections  are  just  formality.  I  don't 
think  it  would  be  in  the  best  interests  of  any 
of  us  in  the  House  to  stress  those  sections 
untowardly.  If  the  minister  might  consider 
it,  when  the  bill  is  completed  in  committee, 
if  this  happens  this  afternoon,  it  would 
surely  be  prudent  and  in  the  best  interests 
of  all  of  us  to  stand  over  the  third  reading 
until  tomorrow  morning.  I  would  think  then 
not  only  would  the  teachers  feel  that  this 
last  step  of  unfortunate  coercion  could  be 
drawn  back  from  by  their  formal  agreement, 
but  also  this  may  have  a  cooling  effect  on 
the  whole  situation. 

I  would  commend  to  the  minister  that 
approach  so  that  the  House  may  proceed 
with  other  business  after  we  complete  this 
committee  stage,  if  that  is  the  wish  of  the 
House  leader.  I  think  it  would  be  most 
worthwhile  for  us,  in  fact,  formally  to  com- 
plete the  committee  stage  on  this  bill,  so 
that  the  intentions  of  the  government  which 
have  been  well  advertised  are  proceeded  with 
in  an  orderly  fashion.  But  I  would  commend 
to  the  minister  the  idea  that  to  proceed  with 
third  reading  at  this  point  is  an  unnecessary 
strengthening  of  the  government  position. 
I  think  that  the  position  is  sufficiently  strong 
and  well  known  that  a  third  reading  debate, 
if  there  is  to  be  one  tomorrow  morning, 
would  be  a  prudent  way  of  handling  the 
matter. 


346 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Nothing  will  change, 
I'll  tell  you  that. 

Mr.  Deans:  I'm  sorry,  what  did  you  say? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Nothing  will  change 

Mr  Breithaupt:  The  Premier  suggests,  Mr. 
Chaiman,  that  nothing  will  change  before 
tomorrow  morning.  This  could  well  be.  How- 
ever, it  is  simply  my  personal  feeling,  and 
I  give  it  to  the  Minister  of  Education  for 
what  it's  worth,  to  do  it  a  day  apart  might 
be  a  prudent  thing. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  section  5  stand  as 
part  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  Foulds:  As  for  the  Premier's  com- 
ment that  nothing  will  change  tomorrow, 
something  already  has  changed.  The  teachers 
have  agreed  to  go  back  on  March  25  albeit 
under  duress. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  In  anticipation  of  the 
bill. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Surely  the  Premier  is  not  so 
cynical  as  to  say  that  it's  not  worth  making 
this  one  last  test,  or  does  he,  in  fact,  feel 
comfortable  with  compulsory  legislation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  as  none  of  us  do. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Fine, 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  if  royal  assent  can 
be  given  tomorrow,  we  can  finish  the  bill 
today.  The  resolution  is  very  clear.  It's  in 
anticipation  of  the  bill  being  passed.  Have 
you  read  the  resolution? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Certainly,  I  have  read  the 
reso'Iution. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  very  clear. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  section  5  stand  as 
part  of  the  bill? 

Section  5  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  further  comments, 
questions,  amendments  on  the  last  two  sec- 
tions of  the  bill? 

Sections  6  and  7  carried. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  the  bill  as  amended 
be  reported? 

Those  in  favour  of  the  bill  as  amended 
being  reported  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

Bill  12,  as  amended,  reported. 


Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  committee  rise 
and  report. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  resumed;  Mr.  Speaker  in  the 
chair. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  commit- 
tee of  the  whole  House  reports  one  bill  with 
certain  amendments  and  asks  for  leave  to 
sit  again. 

Report  agreed  to. 


THIRD  READING 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Bill  12,  An  Act  res- 
pecting a  certain  Dispute  between  the  York 
County  Board  of  Education  and  certain  of 
its  Teachers. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  have  already  expressed  our  op- 
position to  the  principle  of  compulsor\-  arbi- 
tration, one  to  which  we  continue  to  stick. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Just 
for  teachers.  Not  for  labour. 

Mr.  Deacon:  We  feel  that  every  other  re- 
course should  have  been  attempted.  It  wasn't 
in  this  case.  The  recourse  of  trusteeship  would 
have  solved  the  problem,  in  our  view,  much 
better. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deacon:  We  regret  that  this  oppor- 
tunity was  not  taken  which  would  have 
cleared  up  the  basic  division  that  has  arisen 
over  the  last  period  of  time  between  the 
board  and  the  teachers.  It  could  have  been 
resolved  by  that  method. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrell  (Minister  without 
Portfolio):  Absolutely  impossible. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  It 
would  haunt  the  member  for  the  rest  of  his 
days. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  He  hadn't  better  dare 
ever  talk  about  'local  autonomy  again.  Never. 

Mr.  Deacon:  That  would  have  reaUy  pro- 
vided the  basis  for  local  autonomy  to  be 
expressed  tru'ly  in  the  ballot  box, 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Nonsense. 

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

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Mr. 
Speaker,    I    do   not   believe    that   we    should 


MARCH  14,  1974 


347 


proceed  with  third  reading.  I  believe,  if  it  is 
necessary,  we  could  proceed  with  third  read- 
ing tomorrow  in  view  of  the  teachers,  and 
the  trustees'  decisions  that  one  last  attempt 
should  be  made  to  execute  the  document 
outside  the  Legislature,  so  that  we  do  not 
have  enshrined  in  legislation  compulsory 
arbitration  for  teachers,  therefore  contaminat- 
ing whatever  clearness  of  mind  we  may  bring 
to  bear  on  the  general  legislation  for  teacher- 
board  negotiations  which  will  be  coming  up 
sometime  this  session,  I  suppose. 

Therefore,  this  party  opposes  at  this  time 
the  third  reading  of  this  bill.  We  see  no 
reason,  if  an  agreement  could  not  be  reached 
overnight,  that  we  could  not  have  third  read- 
ing and  royal  assent  tomorrow,  if  that  is 
necessary. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  thought  I  heard  the  Premier  make 
a  comment  with  respect  to  royal  assent.  There 
wi'U  not  be  royal  assent  given  on  this  bill 
until  tomorrow?  I  just  wanted  to  clarify  that 
matter,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  Martel:  They  are  willing  to  hold  off 
until  tomorrow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  something  happens  to- 
night then  we  can  rescind  it  tomorrow. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville ) : 
If  I  may,  since  royal  assent  will  not  be  given 
imtil  tomorrow,  I  don't  see  why  the  govern- 
ment won't  accept  the  suggestion  of  the  hon. 
member  for  Kitchener  on  withholding  third 
reading  of  the  bill  until  the  time  we  sit  to- 
morrow. We  will  sit  tomorrow;  third  reading 
can  be  given.  Royal  assent  can  be  given  at 
that  time. 

We  in  this  party  have  voted  against  com- 
pulsory arbitration  as  far  as  teachers'  nego- 
tiations were  concerned  and  we  will  con- 
tinue that  fight. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  hon.  minister— 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  just  like  to  say  that 
I  believe  the  bill  should  be  given  third  read- 
ing at  this  time,  and,  as  the  Premier  has 
stated,  royal  assent  will  not  be  given  until 
tomorrow.  I  have  drafted  here  in  my  hands 
a  document  to  go  to  final  and  binding  arbi- 
tration, which  I  have  suggested  many  times 
to  the  parties  that  they  sign.  This  is  an- 
other redrafted  document,  similar  to  the  bill. 
I  stand  ready  to  hear  from  either  of  them 
tonight,  and  if  they'd  like  to  sign  this  then 


this  bill  will  not  receive  royal  assent.    It  is 
as  clear  and'  simple  as  that. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  May  I  ask  a 
question?  It  is  good'  to  stand  ready,  but  it 
would  be  nice  if  the  minister  might  simply 
initiate  some  direct  communication  between 
his  office  and  the  parties  in  the  dispute 
rather  than  wait  for  them,  and  say  this,  that 
it  is  the  mood  of  the  House  that  we  not 
have  compulsory  arbitration  imposed  by  this 
Legislature  —  that  is  the  mood  of  the  House 
—  and  ask  them  whether  there  is  not  yet  a 
way  before  we  have  to  have  it  receive  royal 
assent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Some  of  the  member's 
party  told  them  that  last  Sunday. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Before  this  hearing  goes 
on,  I'd  like  to  tell  the  hon.  member,  even 
though  I'm  speaking  the  second  time  on 
this  bill,  that  I've  communicated  many  times 
with  the  various  parties  to  ask  them  if  they 
would  be  interested  in  this,  and  this  time 
I  felt  that  if  perhaps  they  are  interested 
might  like  to  communicate  with  me. 

Mr.  Deans:  Now  look,  don't  stand  on 
formality.    Try  again. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  motion  is  for  third  read- 
ing of  Bill  12.  Is  it  the  pleasure  of  the 
House  that  the  motion  carry? 

Those  in  favour  of  Bill  12,  please  say 
"aye.' 

Those  opposed  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  "ayes"  have  it.  Call  in 
the  members. 

The  motion  is  for  third  reading  of  Bill  12. 

The  House  divided  on  the  motion  for  third 
reading  of  Bill  12,  which  was  approved  on 
the  following  vote: 


Ayes 
Allan 
Apps 
Auld 
Bales 
Beckett 
Bennett 
Brunelle 
Carruthers 
Carton 
Davis 
Dawner 
D}Tnond 
Eaton 
Gilbertson 
Grossman 


Nays 
Braithwaite 
Breithaupt 
Bullbrook 
Bun- 
Campbell 
Cassidy 
Davison 
Deacon 
Deans 
Dukszta 
Edighoffer 
Ferrier 
Foulds 
Gaunt 
Germa 


348 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Ayes 


Nays 


Hamilton 

Givens 

Havrot 

Haggerty 

Hodgson 

Lewis 

(Victoria- 

MacDonald 

Haliburton) 

Martel 

Hodgson 

Newman 

(York  North) 

(Windsor- 

Irvine 

Walkerville) 

Jessiman 

Nixon 

Kennedy 

(Brant) 

Kerr 

Paterson 

Lawrence 

Reid 

Leluk 

Riddell 

MacBeth 

Ruston 

Maeck 

Singer 

Mcllveen 

Spence 

McNeil 

Stokes 

McNie 

Worton-30. 

Meen 

Miller 

Momingstar 

Morrow 

Nixon 

(Dovercourt) 

Nuttall 

Parrott 

Reilly 

Rhodes 

Root 

Rowe 

Scrivener 

Smith 

(Simcoe  East) 

Timbrell 

Turner 

Walker 

Wardle 

Welch 

Wells 

Winkler 

Wiseman 

Yakabuski 

Yaremko— 53. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
"ayes"  are  53,  the  "nays"  30. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  declare  the  motion  carried. 

(Motion  agreed  to;  third  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Mr. 
Speaker,  before  we  adjourn,  on  behalf  of 
the  students  and  the  parents  of  York  county, 
I'd  like  to  thank  all  those  who  supported 
this  Bill  12. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  member  could  have 
done  that  in  caucus. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  it  the  intention  of  the 
House  leader  to  sit  this  evening? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  No,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I'll  say  that  tomorrow  morning  we  will  deal 
with  item  No.  5,  Bill  8,  and  then  we  will 
return  to  item  No.  1. 

I  was  going  to  call  another  order,  as  I 
had  announced  last  night,  but  regrettably  the 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 
(Mr.  Brunelle)  has  other  oflScial  arrangements 
for  tomorrow  and  we  will  call  his  bill  first 
thing  on  Monday,  March  25. 

Hon  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6:05  o'clock,  p.m. 


r 


MARCH  14,  1974  349 


CONTENTS 

I 


^  Thursday,  March  14,  1974 


Summer  employment  programme,  statement  by  Mr.  Timbrell  309 

Task  force  on  policing,  statement  by  Mr.  Kerr  311 

Community-sponsored  housing  programme,  statement  by  Mr.  Handleman  311 

Algonquin  Park  youth  camp,  statement  by  Mr.  Bernier  312 

Simcoe  county  steel  plant,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Breithaupt 312 

Environmental    Hearing    Board,    questions    of    Mr.    W.    Newman:     Mr.    Breithaupt, 

Mr.  Bullbrook,  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Good,  Mr.  Deacon 313 

Guaranty  Trust  Co.  of  Canada,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Breithaupt  314 

Operation  of  travel  agencies,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.  Singer, 

Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Givens,  Mrs.  Campbell,  Mr.  Turner  314 

Environmental  Hearing  Board,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Deacon, 

Mr.  W.   Hodgson,  Mr.   Sargent 317 

Algonquin  Forestry  Authority,  question  of  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Lewis 319 

Community-sponsored  housing  programme,   questions   of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.   Lewis, 

Mr.    Cassidy 319 

Noise  regulations,  question  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Lewis  320 

Tax  credit  information  centre,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Givens,  Mr.  Roy  320 

Resale    of    HOME    programme    houses,    questions    of    Mr.    Handleman:    Mr.    Deans, 

Mr.  Good,  Mr.  Singer  S20 

Effect  of  veterans'  service  in  calculating  pensions,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Reid 321 

Effluent  from  Belleville  General  Hospital,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Shulman 321 

Automotive  industry  pensions,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  B.  Newman 322 

Conservation  of  energy,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Burr  < 323 

Judgement  against  Ministry  of  Agricultiu:«,  question  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Gaunt 323 

Price  differences  in  Sears  catalogue,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Martel  323 

Brucellosis   compensation,   questions   of  Mr.   Stewart:   Mr.   Wiseman   324 

Ontario  Hydro  employment  policy,  question  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Sargent  325 

Presenting  report,  task  force  on  policing  in  Ontario,  Mr.  Kerr  325 

Presenting  report,  Ontario  Heritage  Foundation,  Mr.  Auld  325 

Regional  Municipalities  Amendment  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  White,  first  reading  ....- 325 


350  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Territorial  Division  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  White,  first  reading  325 

York  County  Board  of  Education  Teachers  Dispute  Act,  bill  respecting,  reported  326 

Third   reading   347 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  348 


No.  10 


Ontario 


Hegiglature  of  Ontario 


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


Friday,  March  15,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


353 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  o'clock,  a.m. 
Prayers. 

POINT  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Mrs.  M.  Scrivener  (St.  David):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  point  of  privilege  to 
draw  your  attention  to  an  article  published  on 
page  5  of  this  morning's  Globe  and  Mail, 
which  refers  to  the  member  for  St.  David.  By 
its  wording  and  presentation— and  there  is  no 
qualification— I  believe  the  Globe  and  Mail 
has  published  a  statement  which  is  misleading 
and  inaccurate,  and  which  implies  that  I  am 
against  co-operative  housing.  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
is  not  true. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  It  cer- 
tainly is  true. 

Mrs.  Scrivener:  The  article  in  question 
specifically  refers  to  my  opposition  to  a  co- 
operative housing  proposal  in  Don  Vale, 
although,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  publicly  stated 
that  I  opposed  this  particular  proposal  on  the 
grounds  that  it  is  badly  planned,  would  con- 
sume valuable  open  space  and  is  below  the 
minimum  standards  required  for  similar  resi- 
dential development  in  the  city  of  Toronto. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  member  is  destructive  of 
co-op  housing.  She  always  has  been. 

Mrs.   Scrivener:   Under  the  circumstances, 

Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  ( Riverdale ) :  It  is  not  a 

question  of  personal  privilege. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  It  is 
a  debate. 

Mrs.  Scrivener:  —I  wish  to  set  the  record 
straight  and  place  the  matter  in  proper  and 
truthful  context- 
Mr.  Renwick:  There  is  no  privilege  in- 
volved in  that.  The  Globe  and  Mail  statement 
is  perfectly  accurate, 

Mrs.  Scrivener:  —by  presenting  to  you  a 
public  statement  which  I  made  on  Jan.  22, 
1974,  and  an  article  I  wrote  which  was  pub- 
lished in  Seven  News  at  the  end  of  January. 


Friday,  March  15,  1974 

These  describe  my  reasons  for  not  supporting 
the  co-operative  housing  project  in  Don  Vale. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  is  a  perfectly  accurate 
statement  in  the  Globe  and  Mail  and  couldn't 
have  been  more  accurate  if  I  had  written  it 
myself. 

Mrs.  Scrivener:  I  hope  that  these  can  be 
included  in  the  Hansard  record. 

In  addition,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  that  the 
Globe  and  Mail  shodd  print  a  correction  of 
its  statement. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Globe  and  Mail  was  dead 
on.  The  member  opposed  that  project  and  she 
is  on  record  as  opposing  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  is  a  debate. 

Mr.  Lewis:  She  doesn't  like  co-op  housing 
or  non-profit  housing  which  the  government 
now  supports. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  The 
member  opposite  obviously  did  not  have  a 
good  night's  sleep, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber has  raised  a  matter  which  has  been 
introduced  as  a  point  of  privilege.  Of  course, 
if  there  was  an  inaccuracy  or  she  was  mis- 
quoted I  think  she  has  the  right  to  rise  on  a 
point  of  privilege. 

Mr.  Lewis:  She  wasn't  misquoted  on  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  that's  the  way. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  She  just 
doesn't  like  what  they  wrote. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  raised  it 
as  a  point  of  privilege,  and  I'm  not  at  all 
sure  it  was  a  point  of  privilege  after  having 
listened  to  her. 

Mr.  Deans:  You're  right. 

Mr.  Levris:  You  are  right.  You  are  a  per- 
ceptive Speaker,  a  discerning  man. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  should  like  at  this  time  to  intro- 
duce to  the  House  a  group  from  the  adult 
day  school  YMCA,  40  College  St.,  who  are 
here  with  Mr.  Lawlor  to  see  us  in  the  House. 


354 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I   would   ask   the   House   to  welcome  them. 
They  are  in  the  east  gallery. 

An  hon.  member:  A  fine  looking  bunch. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

EMERGENCY  MEASURES  PROGRAMME 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  hon.  mem- 
bers are  aware,  Hon.  James  Richardson,  Min- 
ister of  National  Defence,  in  a  statement  last 
October,  announced  federal  funds  allocated  to 
support  the  emergency  measures  programme 
in  the  provinces  would  be  cut  in  half,  from 
$3  million  to  $1.5  million. 

This  announcement  was  made  without  prior 
consultation  with  the  provinces.  Since  then, 
Ontario  and  the  other  provinces  have  made 
representations  to  Mr.  Richardson  for  some 
consultation  on  the  future  of  the  emergency 
measures  programme  in  Canada.  We've  had 
no  real  success  with  our  submissions. 

This  week  the  government  of  Canada 
further  annoimced  the  formation  of  an 
emergency  planning  secretariat  and  an 
emergency  planning  establishment  in  Ottawa 
to  deal  with  the  federal  response  to  natural 
or  man-made  crises  of  national  scale,  such  as 
oil  spills,  storms,  and  nudlear  and  chemical 
contaminations.  Again,  the  provinces  had  not 
been  informed  in  advance  of  this  restructur- 
ing. We  are  now  awaiting  the  details  of  these 
latest  proposals  so  that  we  can  assess  the 
effect  on  the  province's  capability  for  dealing 
with  these  emergency  situations. 

In  the  interim,  the  government  of  On- 
tario has  accepted  my  recommendation  to 
provide  the  necessary  funds  to  the  munic- 
ipalities to  enable  them  to  retain  their 
present  emergency  measures  planning 
capability  to  the  end  of  this  calendar  year. 
A  study  is  now  under  way  to  determine 
how  best  to  provide  a  more  effective  pro- 
gramme at  provincial  and  municipal  levels 
to  deal  with  civil  emergencies  within  the 
province,  in  the  face  of  the  greatly  reduced 
support  from  the  government  of  Canada. 
Since  the  impact  of  emergencies  are  always 
felt  at  the  municipal  level  the  study  will 
undertake  an  analysis  of  a  number  of  typical 
municipal  programmes. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Another  one  of  those  studies. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Very  short;  it  will  be 
ready  by  the  middle  of  April. 


Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Is  that 
a  green  paper  or  a  purple  one? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  In  addition,  it  will  ex- 
amine the  effectiveness  of  the  provincial 
response  to  such  emergencies.  The  repre- 
sentative area  programmes  being  surveyed 
include  Sudbury  region,  Windsor,  Essex 
county,  Metropolitan  Toronto  and  Bruce 
county. 

I  am  making  this  statement  today,  Mr. 
Speaker,  so  that  the  municipalities  will  have 
assurance  of  funding  for  their  programmes 
during  the  current  calendar  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


EMERGENCY  MEASURES  PROGRAMME 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Solicitor  General  following 
the  statement  he  just  completed.  Surely  it 
would  be  possible,  without  a  further  study, 
to  simply  decide  that  the  Ontario  Provincial 
Police,  with  their  excellent  communications 
network  and  strong  background  in  training, 
could  assume  the  responsibilities  that  have 
been  taken  by  the  Emergency  Measures  Or- 
ganization ever  since  the  great  atom  bomb 
scarces  some  years  ago  when  the  govenmient 
was  stockpiling  signs  on  how  to  get  to 
emergency  shelters?  Surely  it's  time  to 
abandon  that  programme  and  put  the  respon- 
sibility with  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police; 
stop  the  expense  and  stop  the  duplication? 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  He  might 
even  throw  away  the  signs. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  one 
of  the  things  the  study,  I'm  sure,  will  find 
out. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  not  just  try? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  a  study  to  escape  the 
obvious. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  However,  as  the  hon. 
member  knows,  the  case  of  a  civil  emergency 
involves  certainly  more  than  the  police.  It 
involves  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications.  It  involves  all  the  local  fire 
departments  and  other  agencies— 

An  hon.  member:  Red  Cross. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  The 
most  important  ones. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Another  $100,000  down  Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Things  like  the  Red  Cross 

the  drain.  and  other  private  or  municipal  agencies,  I 


MARCH  15,  1974 


355 


think  if  we  can  correlate  these  and  set  them 
up  in  a  way  they  meet  civil  emergencies 
within  our  province,  rather  than  a  sort  of 
wartime  oriented  structure  we've  had  until 
now,  then  when— heaven  forbid— we  really 
have  an  emergency  such  as  Hurricane  Hazel 
or  something  like  that  the  structure  will  be 
there  and  the  direction  will  come  from  here. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  structure  is  already 
there. 

Mr,  Singer:  By  way  of  a  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker,  could  the  Solicitor  General 
tell  us  if  it  is  the  government's  intention  to 
keep  up  the  cabinet  bunker  in  Barrie,  keep 
it  well  furnished  and  well  stocked  in  case 
there  is  an  emergency,  so  that  all  important 
cabinet  ministers  can  run  up  to  Barrie  and 
be  safe? 

An  hon.  member:  That  liquor  must  be 
getting   pretty   well    aged. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Run  up  on  the  CN  com- 
muter  train. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  I  didn't  realize  we  had 
that  type  of  structure  up  there,  but  if  we're 
there  it's  natural  that  we  should  be  pro- 
tected. 

An  hon.  member:  Thanks  for  letting  us 
know.  It's  nice  to  have  a  place  to  hide  from 
the  member. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  cyanide  pills  are 
there. 

Mr.   Singer:    Special  passes. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Travel  up  on  pogo 
sticks. 

An  hon.  member:  We're  going  to  have 
one   at   Minaki  as   well. 

An  hon.  member:  Put  one  up  at  Winisk. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Another  study  on  that 
is   certainly  not  required. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  minister  should  go  and 
have  a  look  at  it. 


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Housing,  in  connection  with  his 
speech  designating  seven  areas  for  special 
emergency  housing  programmes,  why  it 
was  that  he  did  not  make  more  direct 
reference  to  those  properties  in  Waterloo 
region  and  close  to  Brantford  where  there 
are    thousands    of    acres    owned   by    Ontario 


Housing  which  have  never  yet  been  desig- 
nated for  any  programme  use  or  service? 
Surely  those  communities  should  have  been 
a  part  of  the  programme  which  the  minister 
has  designated  as  an  emergency  programme. 
I  would  also  like  to  ask  him  specifically 
how  many  dollars  were  allocated?  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  sum  of  $4  million  was  men- 
tioned. Would  he  verify  that  this  is  the 
amount  going  along  with  this  emergency 
programme? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  the  two  questions  are  on 
two  different  programmes.  First  of  all,  de- 
spite the  headline  in  the  Globe  and  Mail,  I 
did  not  specify  seven  urban  centres— and  I'm 
reading  the  headline  right  in  front  of  me. 
What  I  did  specify,  and  very  carefully  stated, 
was  that  our  housing  action  programme  had 
designated  the  megalopolis  area,  Hamilton, 
Oshawa,  Metro  Toronto  region,  Sault  Ste. 
Marie,  Thunder  Bay  and  Ottawa-Carleton. 
I  don't  think  that  adds  up  to  seven.  It  was 
very  specifically  couched  in  general  terms 
because  we  have  not  yet  reached  an  agree- 
ment with  any  of  the  municipalities. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Give  us 
that  again?  "Very  specifically  couched  in 
general  terms"? 

Mr.  N.  G.  Leluk  (Humber):  The  member 
had  better  hone  up  on  his  vocabulary  and  he 
might  understand  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  With  regard  to  the 
area  that  the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
has  mentioned,  it  has  not  been  involved  in 
our  preliminary  studies  of  housing  action 
areas.  I  would  be  glad  to  look  at  it.  What 
we  are  concerned  with  at  the  present  time 
is  the  price  crisis  which  exists.  We  are  trying 
to  get  into  the  areas  which  will  be  the  most 
amenable  to  expanded  development  of  land, 
to  create  the  oversupply  that  we  are  trying 
to  achieve;  but  I  will  certainly  take  a  look 
at  the  areas  the  hon.  opposition  leader  has 
mentioned. 

The  second  part  of  the  question  refers  to 
my  statement  yesterday  on  non-profit  hous- 
ing. What  I  said  was  that  in  our  estimates 
this  year  there  is  an  amount  of  $4  million 
to  enable  us  to  start  the  programme  for  the 
first  year.  That  will  cover  the  10  per  cent 
grants,  the  expertise  and  the  assistance  in 
planning,  as  well  as  the  rent  supplement  pro- 
gramme that's  encompassed  in  that. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  I  wonder 
if  the  minister  would  undertake  to  table  in 
the  House  a  complete  list  of  properties  that 


356 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


might  be  said  to  be  part  of  Ontario  Housing's 
land  bank.  We  refer  frequently  to  the  Mal- 
vern properties,  which  have  been  held  for 
many  years,  and  the  large  acreage  in 
Kitchener-Waterloo— I  am  not  sure  how  big 
it  is,  but  is  it  as  big  as  10,000  acres? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Three  thou- 
sand acres 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Government 
Services):  Three  thousand,  yes 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Three  thousand  acres. 
And  the  1,000  acres  in  Brantford  are  readily 
memorable  because  they  have  been  referred 
to  in  the  House  so  frequently. 

Surely  the  idea  of  banking  these  proper- 
ties near  large  expanding  urban  centres  is  to 
utilize  them,  through  services,  when  the  time 
is  ripe— and  if  the  time  was  ever  ripe  it  is 
now.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Minister  of 
Housing  ought  to  move  into  these  land  bank 
areas,  to  see  that  they  are  serviced  and  that 
the  serviced  lots  are  provided  without  fur- 
ther delay. 

I  wonder,  then,  if  the  minister  could  un- 
dertake to  table  a  complete  list  of  the  land 
holdings  of  Ontario  Housing  not  yet  devel- 
oped; those  that  might  be  said  to  form  a 
part  of  the  land  bank  such  as  it  is? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  first 
glance  it  appears  to  be  a  reasonable  request 
and  I  will  certainly  look  into  it.  I  can't  think 
of  any  reason  right  now  why  that  informa- 
tion cannot  be  made  public- 
Mr.  Deans:  Given  time,  he  will  come  up 
with  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  However,  I  am  quite 
sure  the  hon.  member  understands— 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  has  been  on  the  public  rec- 
ord in  bits  and  pieces. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —that  OHC  is  con- 
stantly in  the  process  of  acquiring  land,  and 
I  am  sure  he  wouldn't  want  us  to  dividge 
acquisition  plans  that  are  now  in  progress 
which  might  assist  speculators. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Way  to  go! 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  am  talking  about  land 
that  has  been  acquired  up  until  now. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker!  Since  it  is  now  ap- 
proximately 6%  months  since  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  announced  the  housing  action 
progranmie,  which  was  intended  to  bring 
some    60,000    or    70,000    additional    lots    to 


market  than  would  have  come  in  the  normal 
process,  can  the  Minister  of  Housing  tell  us 
exactly  how  many  additional  lots  so  far 
have  been  brought  to  market  by  the  housing 
action  programme? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  call  it  the  housing 
"action"  programme? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  We  are  al- 
ways very  conservative. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  re- 
plied to  a  question  on  this  a  short  time  ago, 
and  the  hon.  member  knows  the  housing  ac- 
tion programme  is  just  now  getting  off  the 
ground. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  may  be  able  to 
take  some  comfort  in  the  fact  that  appar- 
endy  it  was  waiting  for  me  to  take  charge. 
I  am  taking  charge,  and  I  will  get  on  with 
the  job  as  quickly  as  possible. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary:  Is  that  why 
the  ministry  had  an  advertisement  in  the 
Globe  and  Mail  at  the  end  of  Februaiy  to 
hire  a  housing  co-ordinator  at  a  level  of 
$25,000  to  formulate  various  short-term 
housing  programmes?  I  mean,  not  a  thing 
has  happened  yet.  The  minister  hasn't  a 
single  plan  to  tell  us  about,  the  niunber  of 
serviced  lots  or  the  amount  of  money  to  be 
invested.  He  has  just  put  out  advertisements 
for  his  housing  coordinator.  The  whole  pol- 
icy is  a  sham  and  has  been  throughout. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right,  all  words. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
accept  that.  It  is  a  comment,  not  a  question. 
Yes,  we  have  adveirtised  for  housing  co- 
ordinators. We  are  appointing  them.  These 
people  are  to  be  located  in  local  areas  so 
thev  can  get  to  work  with  the  local  munic- 
ipalities. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  "oo-ordinator"— not  plural. 
There  was  nothing  plural  about  it. 

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


SOLID  WASTE  DISPOSAL 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  if  he  will 
table  the  report  having  to  do  with  solid 
waste  disposal,  referred  to  in  the  newspaper 
this  morning,  which  seems  to  reverse  the 
opinions  stated  by  many  so-called  authorities 


MARCH  15,  1974 


357 


on  the  disposal  of  soft  drink  and  other  drink 
containers?  Has  he  got  that  report  available 
and  why  have  we  not  had)  a  copy  of  it  here 
in  the  Legislature  before  we  read  about  it 
in  the  press? 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment): I  don't  know  why  hon.  members 
don't  have  a  copy.  I  just  got  mine  and  I 
haven't  had  a  chance  to  study  it  in  detail.  I 
have  just  received  it.  I  would  hope  to  table 
it  in  the  House  in  the  very  near  future. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Is  there 
a  possabihty  that  the  government  will  ever 
follow  up  on  the  commitment  made,  I  be- 
lieve, by  the  present  Solicitor  General  in  one 
of  his  previous  incarnations  as  having  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  environment,  when  he 
said  there  would  be  legislation  controlling  the 
non-returnable  containers  which  have  added' 
so  tremendously  to  the  solid  waste  disposal 
problem? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That  is  still  to  be  stud- 
ied. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Regulation. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Many  of  these  things 
were  covered  in— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  haven't  read  this  re- 
port. The  same  people  who  talked  to  the 
Premier  have  talked  to  me,  and  apparently 
they  are  wrong.    ' 

I'm  sorry,  what  is  the  minister  going  to 
do? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  didn't  know  whether 
the  hon.  member  wanted  an  answer  or  not. 
Well,  certainly  we  are  going  to  study  the 
report  and  there  will  be  certain  things  in 
the  report  that  we'll  be  taking  action  on.  I 
haven't  had  a  chance  to  read  the  report.  I 
have  just  had  it  on  my  desk  since  yesterday. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary:  Has  it  been 
drawn  to  the  minister's  attentioni  that  the 
man  who  did  the  research  for  the  report  indi- 
cates that  the  non-returnable  bottle  portion 
constitutes  about  6.7  per  cent  of  the  solid 
waste  and  that  the  other  93  per  cent  is  not 
being  studied  by  the  ministry  in  any  aspect? 
What  is  the  minister  going  to  do  about  that? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  In  the  report  there  are 
many  matters  that  were  studied  and  appar- 
ently in  the  conclusions  they  have  recom- 
mended an  ongoing  study  of  the  other  mat- 
ters. I  said  I  haven't  read  it  in  detail  yet. 


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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  no  more  ques>- 
tions,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Housing— 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer,  Minister  of  Eco- 
nomics and  Intergovernmental  Affairs):  Does 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  just  ask  ques- 
tions for  which  I  am  responsible  when  I  am 
out  of  the  city.  Is  that  how  it  works? 


SEVERANCE  PAYMENT  TO  AGENT 
GENERAL 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order,  perhaps  you  wHl  permit  me  just 
one  more  question. 

I  wonder  if  the  Treasurer  can  tell  the 
House  if  he  was  personally  responsible  for 
the  decision  to  fire  Allan  Rowani-Legg  and 
to  pay  him  severance  pay  well  beyond  the 
amount  permitted  by  the  regulations  and 
statutes  of  Ontario,  and  then  to  see  that  his 
campaign-  manager  was  fitted  into  that  par- 
ticular job  in  London,  England— since  he  is 
so  anxious  to  answer. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Was  the 
Treasurer  over  there  visiting? 

Hon.   Mr.   White:   I  was   personally— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  question  was  asked 
once  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Management 
Board  (Mr.  Winkler),  who  must  of  course 
have  had  something  to  do  with  those  deci- 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  Well,  we  have  been 
over  these  jumps  several  times  in  the  last 
several  years. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  have  not  had  an 
answer  from  the  Chairman  of  the  Manage- 
ment Board. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  was  personally  respon- 
sible for  relieving  Mr.  Rowan^Legg  of  his 
duties  in  London,  England,  because  I  didn't 
think  he  was  suitable  for  the  kind  of  job  I 
wanted  done. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  the  Treasurer  was 
looking  for  a  vacancy. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  had  him  removed  here 
to  Toronto,  where  an  efi^ort  was  made  to 
locate  him,  without  success.  When  it  became 
apparent  that  we  couldn't  locate  him  within 


358 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  ministry  or  in  any  other  ministry,  I  ob- 
tained advice  from  the  Attorney  General's 
department.  We  were  required  to  get  outside 
advice,  because  Mr.  Rowan-Legg  got  himself 
a  law>er— 

Mr.  Singer:  The  nerve  of  him! 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  We  paid  a  siun  of 
money,  which  I  was  told  on  the  best  advice 
of  the  Attorney  General's  department  and  the 
outside  solicitor,  was  less  than  he  would  have 
been  awarded  if  we  had  taken  the  matter  to 
court.  Now  that  is  the  situation.  And  if  the 
public  accounts  committee  want  to  go  into 
those  details,  they  are  free  to  do  so. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  reminiscent  of  the  way 
Hepburn  operated. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  He  didn't  even  pay  sever- 
ance! 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Now,  insofar  as  Ward 
Cornell  is  concerned,  he  had  all  of  the  attri- 
butes; it  had  nothing  to  do  with  whether  or 
not  he  worked  for  me, 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  went  out  of  sacrifice, 
great  economic  sacrifice. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  And  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  must  be  the  only  person  in  this 
chamber  who  is  not  aware  that  Ward  Cornell 
has  done  a  superlative  job  in  every  way. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  Treasurer  certainly  got 
fuelled  up  while  he  was  away. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Everyone,  including  Lib- 
erals, who  goes  to  London,  England,  knows 
this  is  a  fact.  Why  he  would  take  that  job  at 
something  less  than  $30,000  when  he  was 
making  $80,000  in  his  own  business,  I  don't 
know.  I  suppose  it  was  for  the  same  reason 
that  he  joined  the  Canadian  Army  during  the 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Now,  I  want  to  say  these 
kinds  of  cheap,  personal  shots  are  no  substi- 
tute for  Liberal  policy.  No  wonder  the  hon. 
member  is  sitting  over  there. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Does 
the  Treasurer  believe  that  the  Provincial  Audi- 
tor's criticism  of  his  stance  in  this  was  a 
cheap,  personal  shot?  How  is  he  going  to 
justify  the  criticism  that  came  from  the  Pro- 
vincial Auditor  that  the  money  for  the  sever- 
ance was  above  and  beyond  the  regulations? 


A  further  supplementary:  I  would  like  to 
ask  the  Treasurer  how  Mr.  Rowan-Legg  could 
have  been  maintained  in  this  high  and  lucra- 
tive office  in  London,  England,  when  he  was 
completely  incompetent,  as  far  as  the  Treas- 
urer has  said,  and  could  not  be  placed  in 
government  service? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  think  Mr.  Rowan-Legg 
is  competent  in  many  ways.  I  think  Mr. 
Rowan-Legg  is  probably  one  of  the  best 
diplomats  that  one  could  hire.  I  don't  think 
he's  a  hard-hitting  salesman.  I  wanted  to 
change  the  nature  of  Ontario  House  from 
some  kind  of  soft,  service  operation  to  a 
hard-hitting  sales  promotional  operation- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  service  centre  for 
Tories. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Why  didn't  the  Treasurer  bring 
Stanley  Randall  back? 

Hon.   Mr.   White:   —and  in  my   view  Mr. 
Rowan-Legg    didn't    have    those    particular 
qualities.  Now  insofar  as  the  Provincial  Audi- 
tor's report  is  concerned- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Yes? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —I  am  a  little  bit  sur- 
prised that  some  eflFort  wouldn't  be  made  to 
look  into  the  file  on  the  subject  and  see  that 
we  had  no  recourse  in  the  matter,  based  on 
the  advice  of  the  Attorney  General's  lawyers 
and  an  outside  lawyer  who  was  retained  to 
deal  with  Mr.  Rowan-Legg's  lawyer. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Table  it. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  If  you  will  permit  a 
further  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Is  the  Treasurer  not  acute  enough  to  realize 
that  the  criticism  directed  in  this  matter  is 
against  him  and  not  the  incumbent  of  the 
post?  We  are  not  talking  about  the  present 
incumbent's  qualifications  at  all,  other  than  it 
appears  that  he  had  an  ofiBce  opened  up  for 
him  at  the  decision  of  his  friend,  the  Trea- 


An  hon.  member:  Nonsense. 
Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  No  way. 


MARCH  15,  1974 


359 


An  hon.  member:  That's  cheap. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Cheap?  The  minister  is 
cheap.  He  is  incompetent. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Is  it  to  be— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position should  not  be— 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  No  wonder  the  NDP  are 
the  opposition  around  here. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  No  wonder  this  govern- 
ment is  going  to  cease  being  the  government 
around  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  We  don't  want  any  more 
of  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  accept  the 
validity  of  that  but  we  reject  what  is  being 
said  by  the  minister. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  Now  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  is  going  to  spoil  it  all. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Does  my  colleague  have  a  sup- 
plementary? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes,  I  do  have  a  supplemen- 
tary. This  is  a  wider  question  on  government 
policy,  as  a  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

In  view  of  the  payment  to  Mr.  Rowan- 
Legg,  is  it  now  government  poHcy  that  in  the 
case  of  secretaries,  carpenters  and  other  work- 
ing people  who  are  fired  by  the  government, 
that  they,  too,  will  be  paid  a  year's  sdary  or 
more? 

Mr.  D.  W.  Ewen  (Wentworth  North): 
Does  the  member  recommend  that?  Is  he 
recommending  that? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  As  a  golden  handshake? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  suppose  if  somebody 
gets  a  lawyer  in  certain  circumstances  and 
threatens  to  bring  suit  and  we,  in  turn,  get 
a  lawyer,  and  a  settlement  is  made,  I  suppose, 
in  certain  circumstances- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  To  him  who  hath,  the 
more  is  given! 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  a  law  for  the  rich  and 
another  for  the  poor. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

An  hon.  member:  He  must  be  o\erpaid 
if  he  hires  a  lawyer. 

An  hon.  member:  Does  the  member  need  a 
lawyer,  too? 

Mr.  Lewis:  At  the  risk  of  imperilling  the 
minister's  new-found  regard  for  this  party, 
could  I  ask  him— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  How  does  the  member 
know  it  is  new? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —to  table  the  material  on  the 
Rowan-Legg  situation  since  the  point  that 
fascinates  me,  I  must  say,  is  that  he  would 
have  had  sufficient  grounds  on  which  to 
threaten  suit  to  inspire  an  out-of-court  settle- 
ment? Therefore,  I  think  we  are  entitled  to 
know  what  the  circumstances  were. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  really  do  believe,  if  the 
member  wants  to  pursue  the  matter  further. 
that  it  should  be  done  in  the  public  accounts 
committee  where  there  will  be  access  to  the 
officials  who  were  involved  in  the  technical 
detail,  which  I  must  say,  were  beyond  my 
comprehension. 

Mr.  Lewis:  All  right  then;  thats  fine. 


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

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

As  part  of  the  housing  action  programme, 
I  noticed  that  Mr.  Martin,  the  co-ordinator, 
said  that  the  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  wiH 
build  17,000  units  instead  of  10,000  units 
over  the  next  two  years.  My  arithmetic  tells 
me  that  on  the  part  of  OHC  that  is  a  burst 
of  extravagance  of  7,000  additional  units  over 
a  two-year  period.  Does  that  work  out  to 
3,500  units  a  year?  How,  may  I  ask,  is  that 
going  to  help?  That's  for  the  whole  province. 
How  is  that  going  to  help  even  Metro  To- 
ronto where  there  are  now  8,000  families  on 
the  waiting  list? 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  Where 
does  the  member  want  to  build  them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  beheve  Mr.  Martin 
was  talking  about  the  entire  OHC  programme, 
not  simply  rent  supplement  units. 


360 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right.  He  was  talking 
about  the  whole  programme. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  He  also  may  have 
been  somewhat  on  the  cx)nservative  side  in 
his  estimates. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  does  the  member 
expect  him  to  be? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  have  asked  for 
those  figures.  The  preliminary  estimate  I  have 
is  that  we  will  well  exceed  that  amount;  but 
it  is  also  my  understanding— and  I'll  check 
into  it— that  that  is  a  one-year  figure,  not  a 
two-vear  figure.  They  were  talking  about 
17,000  in  1974-1975. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  would  appreciate  the  minis- 
ter's checking  into  it,  because  I  suspect  that 
Mr.  Martin's  information  is  the  authentic  in- 
formation. 

I  want  to  ask  quite  seriously  how  the  min- 
ister can  possibly  pretend  to  have  any  hous- 
ing programmes  at  all,  of  any  consequence, 
when  every  figure  that  emerges  puts  us 
further  and  further  behind  the  accepted  pub- 
lic need?  Can  he  consider  a  programme  to 
build  50,000  to  100,000  units  a  year  rather 
than  3,500  to  7,000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  know  the  hon. 
member  would  like  the  government  to  build 
all  the  units  in  the  province.  Our  housing 
starts  total— and  I  am  not  just  talking  about 
OHC  -  is  well  in  excess  of  the  50,000  or 
60,000  that  the  hon.  member  has  mentioned. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  am  talking  about  OHC. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  OHC  is  not  about 
to  build  all  the  houses  and  all  the  units  re- 
quired in  this  province. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  am  not  asking  for  all  the 
housing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  We  are  working 
with  the  municipalities  and  the  private  sec- 
tor. I  have  said  it  before.  There  is  a  philo- 
sophical difference  between  the  hon  member 
and  myself.  We  are  going  to  depend  greatly 
on  the  private  sector  for  delivery. 

Interjections  by  hon  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  the  minister  will  fail  be- 
cause they  have  failed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  However,  we  will 
have  our  input. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  best  in  the  world. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  claims  credit 
for  the  fact  that  housing  starts  in  the  prov- 
ince are  up.  Is  he  aware  that  housing  starts 
in  Metro  Toronto  last  year  were  down  by  10 
per  cent? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  In  Hamilton  city  they  were 
down  by  15  per  cent;  in  London  they  were 
down  by  28  per  cent;  m  St.  Catharines  they 
were  down  by  10  per  cent;  and  in  Windsor 
they  were  down  by  36  per  cent? 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  Ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Does  he  feel  that  that  means 
the  government  is  meeting  the  housing  de- 
mand in  the  areas  of  greatest  need? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Or  his  friends  in  the  pri- 
vate sector? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Unlike  the  hon, 
member  I  prefer  to  look  ahead  and  say  that 
we  will  do  the  job  in  1974-1975. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  A  supplementary  question. 

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

Mr  MacDonald:  No  wonder  they  change 
the  ministry  so  often  over  there. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  When  is  the  Minister  of  Housing 
going  to  start  to  correct  the  situation  cri- 
ticized in  the  Ontario  Economic  Council  re- 
port? When  is  he  going  to  stop  talking  about 
building  a  unit?  When  is  he  going  to  ac- 
tually attack  the  disease  in  this  province  and 
service  the  land  and  bring  it  in  here  to  this 
House? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  Don't  you  dare  bring  the  serv- 
iced lands  in  here! 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Sometimes  I  won- 
der, Mr.  Speaker,  whether  the  hon.  member 
listens  to  the  preceding  debate  and  the  pre- 
ceding questions. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:   "Action"  programme! 


MARCH  15,  1974 


361 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  HancQeman:  That's  exactly  what 
we  are  attempting  to  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order. 

Mr.  Deans:  A  supplementary  question,  Mr. 
Speaker.  If  the  minister  is  interested  in  pro- 
viding housing,  will  he  move  into  the  Saltfleet 
Mountain  area  where  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
have  adequate  land  to  build  for  the  needs  of 
80,000  people- 
Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Deans:  —and  will  he  put  the  money 
in  that  is  necessary  to  enable  it  all  to  be 
serviced  within  the  next  two  years?  And  will 
he  put  that  land  on  the  market  in  order  that 
people  in  the  area  can  have  housing  at  a  cost 
that  they  can  afford? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'll  cer- 
tainly look  into  that.  I've  been  meeting  and 
will  continue  to  meet  with  the  regional 
municipalities  to  discuss  the  ways  and  means 
in  which  we  can  co-operate  in  bringing  this 
type  of  land  onto  the  market  as  quickly  as 
possible. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  worse  than  his  prede- 
cessor. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  I  think  we'll  permit- 
Mr.   Lewis:   He  is  worse  than  his  prede- 
cessor and  that's  not  possible. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary?  One  more 
supplementary. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Can  the  minister  tell  the  House 
if  OHC  has  alternate  plans  for  providing 
senior  citizen  housing  in  Thunder  Bay,  in 
view  of  the  cancellation  of  the  project  in 
Fort  William  because  of  the  cosy  relationship 
between  the  chairman  of  OHC  and  the  mem- 
ber for  Fort  William  (Mr.  Jessiman)? 

Hon.  L.  Bernier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): That's  not  true. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Well,  I  know  of  the 
cancellation  of  that  project.  I'll  look  into  what 
alternative  plans  they  have  and  reply  to  the 
hon.  member  later. 


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

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville):  A 
supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  minister 
aware  that  the  needs  of  the  senior  citizens  in 
the  city  of  Windsor  are  not  decreasing?  Is 
he  aware  that  the  needs  are  still  for  well  over 
1,200  units  and  approximately  800  family 
units;  and  that  at  the  rate  Ontario  Housing  is 
attempting  to  remedy  the  situation  it  will 
never  be  remedied? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Well,  I  don't  accept 
that  it  will  never  be  remedied  but  I  will 
look  into  that  one  too  for  the  hon.  mem- 
ber and  report  back  to  him  as  to  the  progress 
we  are  making. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

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


DROPPING  OF  CHARGES  ARISING  FROM 
ARTISTIC  WOODWORK  DISPUTE 

Mr.  Lewis:  I'd  like  to  ask  of  the  Solicitor 
General,  if  I  may,  would  he  consider  recom- 
mending to  the  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Welch) 
that  all  of  the  outstanding  charges  that  flowed 
from  the  Artistic  Woodwork  dispute  be  now 
dropped,  given  the  fact  that  only  41  or  43 
convictions  have  been  found  out  of  over  91 
charges  laid,  and  given  the  incredible  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  and  evidence  that  are 
being  offered  between  the  police  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  public  on  the  other,  often  dis- 
crediting the  police? 

Does  he  not  think  that  it  has  come  to  the 
point  where  that  whole  squalid  episode  of 
police  involvement,  particularly  since  the  task 
force  report  is  now  before  us,  might  well  be 
rescued  by  a  sensible  and  intelligent  submis- 
sion on  his  part  to  the  Attorney  General  to 
have  the  charges  dropped  and  the  behaviour 
of  the  police  looked  into,  indeed  as  is  implied 
in  the  report  in  places? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  hon. 
member  has  imphed,  these  matters  have  been 
heard  now  for  some  weeks;  charges  have  been 
laid,  there  have  been  convictions,  there  have 
been  acquittals.  I  really  don't  see  how  I  could 
recommend  to  the  Attorney  General  that  the 
balance  of  those  charges  be  dropped. 

Certainly  there  can't  be  a  difference  in  the 
way  we  apply  the  laws  of  this  province,  in 
the  way  the  due  process  of  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  is  carried  out. 


362 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  That  is 
something  new  that  I  just  learned  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  It  is  my  understanding 
now,  particularly  in  the  last  several  hearings, 
that  the  matters  are  being  expedited  and 
that  there  are  more  acquittals  because  of  a 
great  deal  of  confusion  in  the  evidence;  but 
I  really  don't  see  how  I  could  make  the 
recommendation  suggested  by  the  hon.  mem- 
ber. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  One-sided  use  of  law. 

Mr.  Reid:  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  the  company 
did  hire  an  undercover  man,  someone  who 
infiltrated  the  union  and  who  was  subse- 
quently charged  for  causing  public  mischief 
and  with  other  charges  as  a  result  of  activi- 
ties on  the  picket  line,  and  whose  job  seemed 
to  be  to  put  the  union  in  a  bad  light  as  well 
as  doing  undercover  work  and  relaying  that 
infonnation  to  the  company?     * 

(Does  the  Solicitor-General  not  feel  that 
some  charges  should  perhaps  be  laid  against 
the  company  in  this  regard,  and  in  view  of 
the  kind  of  activities  this  man  engaged  in 
that  perhaps  the  charges  against  the  rest  of 
those  people  who  were  involved  should  be 
dropped? 

Hon.    Mr.   Kerr:    It   is   my   understanding, 
Mr.    Speaker,   that  the  so-called   undercover 
agent- 
Mr.  Lewis:  So-called?  He  was  an  industrial 
spy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —acted,  certainly,  exceed- 
ing any  type  of  instructions  that  he  had.  As 
the  hon.  member  has  said  he  was  charged. 
He  was  convicted  of  at  least  one  offense.  I 
believe  there  were  at  least  two  charges 
against  him. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Even  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre  (Mr.  Drea)  can't  swallow 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  He  was  dismissed  by  his 
employer.  Any  licence  that  he  had  has  been 
cancelled. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  After  he  had  done  his 
job. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  got  paid  for  his  work. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Certainly  if  the  firm  was 
in  breach  of  any  existing  law,  it  should  be 
charged.  I  agree  with  that,  but  that  doesn't 
really— 

Mr.   Cassidy:   That  is  sickening. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  I  think  we  should 
alternate  on  the  supplementaries. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  is  proving 
it  is  an  uneven  application  of  the  law. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  That  doesn't  realK"  relate 
to  the  situation  as  enunciated  by  the  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  West. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well,  more  to  the  point,  when 
is  the  Solicitor-General  going  to  mo\e  to 
put  an  end  to  the  use  of  these  investigation 
agencies  in  labour  disputes,  andi  when  is  he 
going  to  move  to  make  the  people  who  hire 
them  equally  responsible  for  their  actions,  in 
order  to  ensure  that  we  don't  have  the  kind 
of  things  happening  on  picket  lines  that 
have  been  occurring  in  the  Province  of  On- 
tario at  the  instigation  of  people  who  have 
no  direct  interest  in  the  dispute  itself? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  As  the  hon'.  member 
knows,  we  have  legislation  dealing  with  pri- 
vate police  organizations  and  so-called  se- 
curity firms  and  we  hope  to  look  at  that 
legislation  this  year. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  is  as  bad  as 
the  member  for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  Yaremko) 
used  to  be. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  this 
man  was  employed  by  a  stibsidiar\-  of  an 
American  company  and  that  he  was  in  here 
disrupting  an  orderly  picket  line  and  causing 
a  lot  of  trouble  for  the  people  who  are  not 
even  in  the  dispute,  and  he  may  well  have 
instigated  much  of  the  damage  that  oc- 
curred? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary:  How  does  the 
minister  say  we  have  legislation  when  the 
task  force  review  which  was  published  yes- 
terday asked  on  an  urgent  basis  for  "a  spe- 
cific and  comprehensive  review  of  private 
security  forces"  dealing  precisely  with  this 
kind  oJF  dispute?  Does  he  not  recognize  that 
the  private  security  sector  is  in  a  shambles 
and  often  abused,  and  that  there  are  no 
protections  for  the  public  if  they  abuse  it? 

Mr.  Deans:  And  no  codte  of  ethics. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  No.  The  taskforce  has 
said,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  our  existing  legisla- 
tion and  the  regulations  are  inadequate  and 
that  the  whole  thing  should  be  reviewed. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right,  so  don't  fall  back  on 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  And  we  intend  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 


MARCH  15,  1974 


363 


NIAGARA  ESCARPMENT 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Treas- 
urer, if  I  may,  Mr.  Speaker.  When  did  the 
Treasurer  proclaim  the  dtevelopment  controls 
for  the  Niagara  Escarpment?    i 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  We  have  in  the  last  few 
weeks  proclaimed  the  development  area  but 
we  have  not  as  yet  registered  the  develop- 
ment control  areas  within  the  planning  area. 
There  is  an  enormous  amount  of  technical 
work. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  phrased  my  question  that 
way  because  I  was  afraid  I  had  missed  it. 
As  I  recall  it,  it  was  first  announcedi  on  June 
4,  1973.  The  Treasurer's  acute  embarrass"- 
ment  at  thinking  that  the  development  con- 
trols had  been  applied.'  occurred  somewhere 
toward  the  end  of  1973.  It  is  now  March 
of  1974  and  we  still  have  no  development 
controls  applying  to  the  escarpment  area. 
What  is  it  about  this  new  legislation  that  was 
supposed  to  save  the  escarpment  that  is  so 
difficult  to  apply? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  There  are  controls- 
Mr.  Lewis:  But  there  is  still  development. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —and  there  is  no  develop- 
ment taking  place.  It  is  necessary  for  a 
developer  with  a  proposal  to  go  to  somebody, 
and  when  he  goes  to  that  somebody  the 
answer  is,  "No,  not  at  the  present  time";  so 
there  are  contrds  and  there  is  no  develop- 
ment. 

Mr.  Martel:  There's  a  freeze. 

Mr.  Lewis:  There's  a  freeze. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It's  the  same  thing. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  reason  the  regula- 
tions themselves  are  not  proclaimed  is  because 
it  takes  an  enormous  amount  of  technical 
detail.  I  can  assure  the  member  this  is  being 
done  as  fast  as  humanly  possible  and  I  can 
assure  him  that  I  did  everything  possible 
myself  to  have  these  things  in  place  before 
this  session  started. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  we  almost  believe 
the  Treasurer. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  understand  his  personal  agi- 
tation but  when,  oh  lord,  is  it  coming?  That 
was  a  generic  term. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  As  fast  as  the  human 
beings  assigned  the  responsibility  can  do  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 
The  hon.  member  for  Kitchener. 


PART-TIME  REAL  ESTATE  AGENTS 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  with  respect 
to  the  registration  of  part-time  real  estate 
agents:  Can  the  minister  advise  us  how  many 
of  these  part-time  registrations  have  been 
accepted  and  what  are  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions for  the  qualification  of  the  people  for 
whom  these  registrations  have  been  issued? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial!  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
believe  there  have  been  somewhere  around 
15  to  18  so-called  part-time  real  estate  sales- 
men registered.  As  the  hon.  member  knows, 
it  has  been  the  policy  of  the  registrar,  and  I 
stress  policy  for  a  number  of  years,  not  to 
register  those  individuals  as  salesmen  unless 
they  were  inclined  to  be  full-time  except  in 
certain  sparsely  settled  areas  in  the  province. 
There  was  no  legislation  either  by  way  of 
statute  or  regulation  giving  credence  to  this 
particular  policy. 

Now  there  have  been  people  come  forward. 
I  think  of  one  in  particular  who  works  one 
hour  a  day  in  another  occupation  with  a  com- 
munication medium  here  in  Metro  and  who 
wished  to  be  registered,  in  fact  passed  the 
exam,  received  80  marks,  and  the  registrar 
was  of  the  opinion  that  she  would  be  part- 
time. 

This  is  really  what  has  brought  this  matter 
to  our  attention.  She  took  the  opinion,  and 
perhaps  quite  properly,  that  she  was  not 
part-time  in  that  she  was  working  only  an 
hour  a  day,  five  days  a  week  in  another  field 
and  was  prepared  to  spend  six,  eight  or  10 
hours  a  day  selling  real  estate.  So  it  has  been 
interpreted  by  many  that  the  registrar  has 
suddenly  changed  the  policy. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  I  don't  think 
that  as  a  matter  of  policy  we  had  the  right 
to  preclude  someone  such  as  I  have  described 
from  coming  forward  and  sdling  real  estate 
as  part-time.  There  are  those  who  profess  to 
be  full-time  and  yet  spend  only  a  few  hours 
a  day  because  they  are  occupied  in  the  home 
as  a  homemaker.  There  are  those  who  work 
full-time  six  or  eight  months  a  year  and 
spend  the  balance  of  the  year  perhaps  retired 
in  Florida  and  this  sort  of  thing. 

The  part  that  bothers  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  in 
the  interests  of  the  consumer,  is  the  question 
of  whether  the  qualifications  of  the  individual 
agent  are  being  watered  down  and  thus  the 
consumer  is  suffering  in  the  event  that  these 
part-time  people  are  permitted.  I  met  with  the 
real    estate    association    and   numerous    indi- 


364 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


viduals.  I  am  genuinely  concerned  about  it 
and  it  might  well  be  that  we  are  going  to 
have  to  define,  by  way  of  regulation,  what 
part-time  means  and  preclude  such  people 
from  coming  into  the  industry. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  supple- 
mentary, I  share  the  views  of  the  minister 
that  in  the  public  interest,  qualified  persons 
must  certainly  be  there.  I  think  for  any 
solicitor  who  has  been  invo'lved  with  the 
various  offers  to  purchase  and  sell,  there  are 
various  problems  that  can  arise.  But  will  the 
minister  assure  us  that  the  present  real  estate 
agents  and  boards  within  the  province  are 
made  well  aware  of  his  views  on  this  subject, 
because  there  appears  to  be  some  confusion 
and  some  particular  concern  that  the  gates 
are  going  to  be  widely  opened  to  persons  who 
may  not  have  the  qualifications  that  we  all 
beflieve  should  exist. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  agree 
with  the  comments  of  the  hon.  member.  In- 
sofar as  qualifications  are  concerned,  before 
one  can  be  an  agent  now  one  must  under- 
go the  course  and  receive  a  passing  mark 
of  not  less  than  75  per  cent.  If  the  person 
comes  forward,  takes  that  course  and  ob- 
tains that  mark  or  better  as  the  law  now 
stands  he  or  she  is  entitled  to  identify  with 
a  broker. 

I  have  also  pointed  out  to  the  associa- 
tion that,  in  fact,  some  of  the  brokers  in 
this  province  are  encouraging  these  people 
to  do  it.  An  agent  can't  sell  except  through 
connection  with  a  broker's  office.  I  can  only 
conclude  that  some  brokers  do  not  regard 
this  as  a  serious  matter. 

However,  I  am  still  looking  at  it.  I've 
met  with  numerous  real  estate  people  in- 
cluding the  incoming  president  and  the  out- 
going president  of  the  association.  As  I  said 
earlier,  perhaps  by  regulation  we  may  have 
to  define  part-tme  and  preclude  those  who 
would  work,  as  we  traditionally  understand, 
six  or  eight  hours  a  day  in  an  industry  and 
then  go  out  in  the  evenings  and  sell  for 
two  or  three  hours  a  week.  I  think  this  is 
the  thing  we're  generally  concerned  about— 
that  the  oonsumer  who  deals  with  that  type 
of  agent  may  not  have  the  benefit  of  dealing 
with  someone  much  more  experienced  and 
devoted  to  the  profession. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury is  next.  The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury? 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Not  on  a 
supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  understand 
my  colleague  is  on  a  supplementary. 


Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  sorry.  I  didn't  even  say 
supplementary. 

Mr.  Foulds:  For  clarification,  is  it,  in  fact, 
the  case  that  any  real  estate  salesman  has 
to  meet  standards  of  the  ministry,  or  are 
they  internal  standards  of  the  real  estate 
profession  in  Ontario?  Secondly,  can  a  broker 
hire  people  without  qualifications  to  sell  for 
him? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  think  it  was  in  July, 
1971,  when  it  became  mandatory  by  way  of 
regulation  that  before  a  person  could  qualify 
from  that  date  on  as  a  broker  or  an  agent, 
as  the  case  may  be,  he  or  she  had  to  under- 
go a  course.  These  courses  for  the  salesmen 
are  given  at  community  colleges  throughout 
the  province.  It's  a  90-hour  course  spread 
over  three  weeks.  The  examination  is  written 
by  the  salesman  and  he  or  she  must  obtain 
a  mark  of  75  per  cent  or  better.  If  they  do 
not,  then  before  they  can  qualify  they  must, 
of  course,  take  the  course  over  again,  unless 
they  appeal  the  mark  directly  to  the  regis- 
trar. 

The  answer  to  the  second  portion  of  the 
hon.  member's  question  is  no,  a  broker  can- 
not hire  a  real  estate  agent  unless  he's  quali- 
fied by  virtue  of  this  particular  course.  A 
second  extension  of  that  is  that  if  a  person 
individually  owns  real  estate  he  can  have 
an  employee  sell  it.  If  the  member  has  a 
parcel  of  real  estate  and  wishes  to  develop 
it  himself,  he  need  not  be  a  broker  and  he 
can  have  his  employees  act  as  his  salesmen 
for  that  particular  parcel,  of  course. 

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


FIRE  HAZARDS  IN  SENIOR 
CITIZENS'  HIGHRISE  BUILDINGS 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Housing:  Is  the  minister  aware  of 
a  relatively  minor  fire  which  occurred  in 
a  senior  citizens'  highrise  unit  in  the  city 
of  Sudbury,  which  caused  confusion  and 
fear  among  all  residents,  even  in  the  upper 
levels?  Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  par- 
ticular hazard  in  these  senior  citizens'  high- 
rise  buildings?  Would  he  consider  putting 
in  a  communications  system  in  all  of  these 
buildings  in  order  that  those  people  trapped 
on  the  upper  levels  may  be  directed  on  the 
proper  action  to  take? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
aware  of  the  fire.  I  understand  it  was  a 
relatively    minor    grease    fire    which    caused 


MARCH  15,  1974 


365 


no  stnictural  damage  and  no  injury.  However, 
any  fire,  no  matter  how  small,  is  going  to 
cause  some  consternation  and  confusion 
among  elderly  people.  I  have  been  advised 
that  there  is  a  good  programme  of  education 
going  on,  and  has  been  going  on  for  quite 
some  time,  to  inform  the  residents  as  to 
how  they  should  behave  and  how  they  should 
react  in  case  of  fire.  Certainly  the  hon. 
member  has  made  a  suggestion  about  the 
installation  of  a  communications  system.  I 
will  look  into  it  and  see  what  we  can  do. 

Mr.     Speaker:     The     hon.     member     for 
Downsview  is  next. 


GOVERNMENT  ACTION  AGAINST 
DOW  CHEMICAL 

Mr.  Singer:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Solicitor  General. 
Could  he  bring  us  up  to  date  on  the  latest 
developments  on  the  action  the  Province  of 
Ontario  brought  against  Dow  Chemical  and 
give  us  the  latest  report?  Can  he  tell  us 
whether  or  not  he  agrees  with  comments  made 
by  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  when 
this  matter  was  questioned  by  the  Provincial 
Auditor,  and  the  ministry  advised  the 
auditor  that  the  ministry  says  it  does  not 
now  appear  that  this  will  happen  in  the 
near  future?  That  is,  that  there  will  be  com- 
pensation and  that  the  suit  will  be  settled 
in  the  near  future.  Would  the  minister 
care  to  comment  on  that  and  tell  us  whether 
he  agrees  vidth  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  sug- 
gest that  the  hon.  member  ask  the  Attorney 
General. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  the  minister  has  checked 
out  of  that,  has  he? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  As  far  as  the  present  state 
of  the  suit  is  concerned  I  understand,  for  ex- 
ample, that  the  action  has  been  discontinued 
against  the  American  parent  company. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  was  months  ago. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  was  last  year. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  was  last  year's  answer. 
He  needs  a  new  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Now  proceedings  are  con- 
tinuing. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  has  been  SVe  years  now. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Since  the  minister  in- 
troduced it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Remember  he  took  his  shoe  off 
for  the  first  time.  The  first  time  he  has  taken 
his  shoe  off— 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Well,  it's  out  of  my  hands. 
As  I  say,  the  member  must  ask  the  Attorney 
General.  As  members  know,  Mr.  Robinette  is 
counsel.  He's  a  very  competent  counsel. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  doesn't  mind  staying 
on  as  counsel. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  It's  in  his  hands.  It's  in  the 
lawyer's  hands.  It's  not  in  the  Legislature's 
hands  at  this  time.  I  don't  want  to  make  any 
observation  as  to  the  comment  of  the  Minis- 
ter of  Natural  Resources.  As  the  hon.  member 
knows,  there's  been  a  decision  in  Ohio  and 
I'm  sure  this  may  affect  our  proceedings  to 
some  extent. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  minister  wouldn't  want  to 
comment  on  that,  no. 

By  way  of  a  supplementary,  would  the 
minister  agree  with  the  comment  recenUy 
made  by  my  colleague  from  Sarnia  that  one 
would  expect  finality  to  this  matter  perhaps 
by  the  year  2000? 

An  hon.  member:  Optimist! 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  I  think  he's  pessimistic,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mark  it  down  to  1998. 

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

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  By 
the  way,  this  is  the  Solicitor  General's  year 
to  swim  in  Hamilton  Bay.  Don't  forget. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  No,  it  is  next  year.  Don't 
risk  it,  please! 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  He  vdll  be  able  to  walk 
across  it  by  then. 


WARRANTY  ON  NEW  HOMES 

Mr.  Deaiis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations.  What  has  become  of  his  warranty 
on  new  houses? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
warranty  oil  new  housing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  has  nothing  on  housing. 


366 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  The  question  of  a  war- 
ranty on  residential  housing  has  been  a  mat- 
ter of  great  interest  and  discussion  for  some 
time.  I  received  an  invitation  this  past  week 
to  attend  in  Ottawa,  at  the  request  of  Mr. 
Basford,  along  with  other  consumer  minis- 
ters, a  discussion  on  the  question  of  housing 
warranties.  Presumably  he  is  interested  in 
some  type  of  federal  legislation  to  apply  right 
across  Canada. 

Mr.  Deans:  No,  please  don't.  We  are  sick 
and  tired  of  that.  Don't  get  sucked  into  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Oh,  no.  I  won't  get 
sucked  into  that.  I  want  to  find  out  what  Mr. 
Basford  intends  to  do.  Certain  propositions 
put  before  him  by  private  groups  have  been 
refused- 
Mr.  Renwick:  The  minister  has  the  juris- 
diction. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  It  may  well  be  that  this 
province  is  going  to  embark  on  warranty  leg- 
islation relating  to  housing  later  on  this  year. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Where  housing  is  concerned, 
everything  is  expendable. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  But  at  the  present  time 
I  want  to  see  what  Mr.  Basford's  position 
is  at  that  meeting  in  Ottawa  which,  I  believe, 
will  be  two  weeks  from  now. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  minister  doesn't  have  to 
see  Mr.  Basford's  position. 

Mr.  Deans:  A  supplementary  question: 
Does  the  province  have  a  position  on  war- 
ranties on  new  housing?  Is  the  minister  go- 
ing to  go  ahead  with  or  without  federal 
participation? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes,  why  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
is  such  an  important  subject  that  if  it  isn't— 

Mr.  Martel:  If  it  is  so  important  why 
doesn't  the  minister  move  on  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Can  I  not  give  the 
answer?  Do  you  fellows  not  want  to  hear  the 
answer? 

Mr.  Renwick:  We  are  sick  and  tired  of  that 
answer. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  think  this  province 
is  going  to  have  to  initiate  housing  warran- 
ties if  the  feds  don't. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Because  the  minister  can't  do 
it  with  words,  he  has  to  act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Qement:  I  think  we  have  to.  It's 
a  matter  of  great  concern.  I  tell  the  mem- 
bers it's  a  matter  of  great  concern  and  they 
hoot  and  howl.  I  don't  know  whether  they've 
got  worms  or  what  it  is. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Chairman  of  Man- 
agement Board  has  the  answer  to  a  question 
previously  asked. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  was  asked  a  couple  of  questions 
some  days  ago,  one  of  which  the  leader  of 
the  Liberal  Party  referred  to  and  the  answer 
to  which  I  had  prepared  this  morning.  How- 
ever I  wouldn't  have  missed  that  exchange 
for  the  world  and  I  suppose  we've  dealt  with 
it  now. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  the  Treasurer  felt 
he  wanted  to  defend  the  indefensible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  would  have  also  sub- 
stantiated the  support  for  Mr.  Ward  Cornell, 
maybe  even  in  broader  terms. 

However,  this  question- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Probably  more  effectively. 
Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Pardon  me? 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Probably  more  efiFectively. 

Hon.  Mr  Winkler:  I'm  not  too  sure  about 
that,  but  I  wouldn't  have  missed  the  ex- 
change in  any  event. 


PUBLIC  SERVICE  ACT  CONFLICT 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  was  asked  a  question 
by  the  member  for  Kitchener,  in  regard  to 
Mr.  Douglas  Wright,  and  the  answer  to  that 
question  is  that  section  33  of  the  Act  referred 
to  was  amended  effective  Sept.  21,  1973, 
"and  expanded  to  cover  conflict  of  interest." 
But  the  new  terms  of  the  section  would  still 
not  apply  to  this  particular  situation.  As  the 
work  was  carried  out  in  this  particular  case 
all  within  the  government  service,  provisions 
of  section  33  did  not  apply. 

There  was  another  question,  Mr.  Speaker, 
from  the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 


MARCH  15,  1974 


367 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Could  I  have  a  supple- 
mentary to  that  answer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Yes. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  How  is  it  that  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Management  Board  could  allow 
the  payments  to  the  post-secondary  commit- 
tee to  get  so  seriously  out  of  hand  to  the 
point  where  probably  one  of  the  most  se- 
rious criticisms  from  the  auditor  was  directed 
in  that  way?  Does  the  Chairman  of  the  Man- 
agement Board  remember  this  matter  coming 
before  the  Management  Board,  or  was  it  just 
handled  by  people  at  another  level  as  rou- 
tine approval  for  expenditure  far  exceeding 
that  which  was  envisaged  when  the  commit- 
tee was  set  up? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Certainly  not,  Mr. 
Speaker.  The  matter  is  referred  to  Manage- 
ment Board  by  the  ministry  concerned  and 
considered  accordingly  in  regard  to  the  re- 
sponsibilities assigned. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  So  the  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  takes  responsibility  for 
the  tremendous  cost  of  that  committee  and 
the  allocation  of  those  funds? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  will  accept  respon- 
sibility for  the  decision  in  regard  to  Dr. 
Wright;  yes. 

There  was  another  question  from  the  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  West  in  regard  to 
a  name;  I  think  I  have  the  question  which— 

Mr.  Lewis:  1  think  that  was  answered  by 
the  press. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  It  was  answered  by  the 
Star  the  next  day— but  the  answer,  of  course, 
was  David  Black. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  One  of  the  NDP  sup- 
porters? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  don't  think  so.  We  cancelled 
his  membership. 

He  made  so  much  money  he  joined  an- 
other party. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  direct  that  the  time  has 
now  expired  for  oral  questions.  In  fact  it 
has  been  exceeded. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  hon. 
members  will  recall,  in  June,  1972,  this  gov- 
ernment appointed  Dr.  Osmond  M.  Solandt, 
former  chairman  of  the  Science  Council  of 
Canada,  to  inquire  under  the  terms  of  the 


Public  Inquiries  Act  into  the  routing  of  On- 
tario Hydro's  proposed  500-kv  transmission 
line  between  the  two  generating  stations  of 
Nanticoke,  on  Lake  Erie  south  of  Hamilton, 
and  Pickering,  on  Lake  Ontario  east  of  To- 
ronto. This  major  new  line  will  not  only 
connect  these  two  generating  stations,  but 
also  serve  to  connect  with  other  parts  of 
Ontario  Hydro's  500-kv  grid  system,  and  with 
existing  and  future  lower  voltage  distribution 
lines. 

Commissioner  Solandt  held  an  initial  set 
of  public  hearings  in  August  and  September, 
1972,  into  routes  then  proposed  by  Ontario 
Hydro  for  this  Nanticoke  to  Pickering  line. 
During  these  hearings,  individual  citizens, 
municipahties,  associations  and  other  groups 
made  submissions  to  the  commission. 

On  Oct.  31,  1972,  commissioner  Solandt 
submitted  an  interim  report  in  which  he 
stated,  and  I  quote: 

The  main  conclusion  that  I  have  reached 
as  a  result  of  the  evidence  presented  to 
the  commission  is  that  while  Ontario  Hy- 
dro has  demonstrated  that  the  preferred 
route  which  they  have  selected  is  not  a 
completely  unsatisfactory  route  for  the 
proposed  line,  they  did  not  produce  ade- 
quate evidence  to  support  the  view  that 
it  is  the  best  available  route.  Hydro's  al- 
ready extensive  studies  must  be  supple- 
mented by  a  much  more  widespread  and 
systematic  study  of  the  entire  area  before 
it  can  be  concluded  that  Hydro's  preferred 
route  is  the  best  available  route,  or  that 
some  other  route  is  preferable. 

This  recommendation,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  government,  and  the  Solandt 
commission  retained  the  Toronto  firm  of 
BHI  Ltd.,  environmental  consultants,  to 
undertake  the  reconmiended  study  to  deter- 
mine the  preferred  route  for  the  transmis- 
sion line.  The  consultants  were  requested  to 
involve  the  public  in  their  work  from  the 
outset. 

The  report  of  this  study,  with  a  recom- 
mendation as  to  the  location  for  the  500-kv 
transmission  line,  was  submitted  to  the 
Solandt  commission  on  Sept.  1,  1973. 

In  their  report,  the  consultants  recom- 
mended that  the  500-kv  line  should  foUow, 
wherever  possible,  the  so-called  Parkway  Belt 
West. 

Following  circulation  of  this  report,  the 
Solandt  commission  held  a  further  series  of 
public  hearings  in  October,  November  and 
December,  1973,  in  order  that  interested 
parties  would  have  an  opportunity  to  speak 
to  those  recommendations. 


368 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


After  consideration  of  the  evidence  pre- 
sented at  these  public  hearings,  commis- 
sioner Solandt  has  dehvered  to  me  his  report 
on  this  public  inquiry,  which  I  now  table.  In 
it,  he  has  put  forward  for  consideration  by 
the  public  and  by  this  government  his  recom- 
mendation as  to  the  preferred  location  for 
the  500-kv  transmission  line  between  Nanti- 
coke  and  Pickering. 

The  inquiry  by  the  commission,  Mr. 
Speaker,  introduced  an  innovative  approach 
to  public  participation  in  seeking  commentary 
on  a  major  project  which  will  have  significant 
environmental  impact  on  those  communities 
through  which  the  500-kv  corridor  will  tra- 
verse. 

I  would  like  at  this  time,  sir,  to  express 
publid\-  the  government's  thanks  and  my 
personal  thanks  to  commissioner  Solandt  and 
his  staff  for  their  tremendous  enthusiasm, 
dedication  and  the  hard  work  which  went 
into  this  report. 

In  my  view,  sir,  it  will  long  stand  as  a 
landmark  experiment  in  public  participation 
in  matters  which  are  not  only  extremely  com- 
plex but  also  of  all-pervading  public  con- 
cern. Copies  of  the  commission  report  are 
being  delivered  to,  or  will  shortly  be  delivered 
to  the  hon.  members,  and  it  will  also  be 
available  through  the  Ontario  government 
bookstore. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Mr. 
Speaker,  on  a  matter  of  dlarification  may  I 
ask  the  minister  a  question?  Would  the  min- 
ister clarify  for  me  whether  or  not  the  align- 
ment proposed  by  the  Solandt  report  accords 
with  the  alignment  proposed  by  Ontario 
Hydro? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  would  say  the 
answer  to  that  is  no.  But  the  hon.  member 
can  judge  for  himself  in  just  a  few  minutes 
when  he  sees  the  map  which  is  attached  to 
the  report. 

Mr.  A.  W.  Downer  ( Dufferin-Simcoe ) :  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  have  a  very  distinguished  visitor 
in  the  House  this  morning,  a  man  who  has 
served  here  as  a  member,  and  as  a  member 
of  the  cabinet,  and  rendered  great  service  to 
this  province  and  to  this  country.  I  refer  to 
Mr.  John  Foote,  VC. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  when  the  House 
adjourns  today,  it  stands  adjourned  untU 
Mondav,  March  25. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills. 


RIGHTS  OF  LABOUR  ACT 

Mr.  Drea  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  respecting  the  Rights  of 
Labour. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  biU. 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  purpose  of  the  bill  is  to  estab- 
lish a  set  of  safeguards  to  protect  individual 
members  of  trade  unions  in  a  number  of 
situations : 

Part  two  deals  with  the  right  to  know  the 
financial  dealings  of  union  officers  with  union 
funds  and  with  employers  with  whom  there 
is  a  relationship. 

Part  three  deals  with  insider  reporting,  the 
intention  of  which  is  basically  to  take  the 
labour  racketeer  out  of  the  sphere  of  the 
Attorney  General's  ministry  and  put  him  in 
the  sphere  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  to 
take  the  company  spy,  about  wliom  so  much 
was  heard  today,  out  of  the  sphere  of  the 
Attorney  General  and  put  him  as  well  within 
the  sphere  of  the  Minister  of  Labour,  along 
with  fines  of  up  to  $25,000. 


SAFETY  COMMITTEES  ACT 

Mr.  Haggerty  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Estab- 
lishment of  Safety  Committees. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose 
of  the  bill  is  hopefully  to  reduce  the  nrnnber 
of  accidents  in  industry  and  to  allow  em- 
ployers and  employees  to  share  in  the  input 
on  safety  matters  throughout  industry  in 
Ontario. 


GOOD  SAMARITAN  ACT 

Mr.  Haggerty  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled  An  Act  to  relieve  Persons  from 
liability  in  respect  of  Voluntary  Emergency 
Medical  and  First  Aid  Services. 

Motion  agreed'  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose 
of  the  bill  is  to  relieve  persons  from  liability 
in  respect  of  voluntary  emergency  first  aid 
assistance  or  medical  services  rendered  at  or 
near  the  scene  of  an  accident  or  other  sud- 
den emergency. 


LEGISLATIVE  PAGES 

Mr.  Speaker:  Before  the  orders  of  the  day 
I  should  like  to  point  out  to  the  hon.  mem- 


MARCH  15,  1974 


369 


bers  that  the  present  group  of  pages  are 
serving  their  last  day  with  us  today.  They 
have  done  a  very  good  job  for  us.  As  is 
customary,  I  should  like  to  read  the  names 
of  the  individual  pages  into  the  record.  I 
might  say  that  we  do  send  each  page  a  copy 
of  Hansard  later  on  with  the  names  appear- 
ing there. 

They  are  Tony  Ali,  Clarkson;  Stephen 
Armitage,  Toronto;  Ron  Bambrick,  Orono; 
Richard  Bennett,  Toronto;  Lisa  Charters, 
Oakville;  Emily  Cole,  Peterborough;  Allen, 
Goss,  Nestleton;  Tom  Harrington,  Toronto; 
Richy  Haus,  Weston;  Krissy  Howe,  Oak- 
ville; Bruce  Manors,  Oakville;  Martha  Milne, 
Kincardine;  Ian  Mitchell,  Weston;  Marcia 
Morris,  Islington;  Scott  Perldn,  Mississauga; 
Denise  Ryan,  Toronto;  Susan  Skolnik,  Wil- 
lowdale;  Michael  Walkington,  Scarborough; 
Charles  Williams,  Brampton,  and  Cathryn 
Willson,  Dutton. 

Orders  of  the  day. 


MUNICIPAL  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine,  in  the  absence  of  Hon. 
Mr.  White,  moves  second  reading  of  Bill  8, 
An    Act    to    amend    the    Municipal    Act. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order,  before  the 
member  of  the  Liberal  Party  begins,  could 
the  minister  say  a  few  words  about  the  gen- 
eral federal-provincial  agreement  and  what 
other  projects  we  can  expect  shortly  arising 
out  of  it,  in  addition  to  the  one  which  is 
specifically  facilitated  by  this  bill? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  perhaps  if  the  hon. 
minister  wishes  to  make  those  comments  be- 
fore he  comments  finally  after  all  members 
have  spoken,  it  would  be  acceptable. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  I  gave  a  general  outline 
when  I  introduced  the  bill.  I  think  it  would 
be  more  in  order  if  I  heard  from  the  official 
opposition  party  first.  Then  I  can  answer  the 
spokesman  for  the  NDP  in  dtie  course. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  comments  I  would  make  on  this 
bill  follow  generally  the  views  that  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  has  just  raised.  We 
have  seen  in  the  Throne  Speech  the  an- 
nouncement with  respect  particularly  to  the 
decision  by  this  government  to  enter  into 
this  form  of  agreement  with  the  federal  De- 
partment of  Regional  Economic  Expansion. 
Certainly  it's  pleasing  to  all  of  us  to  see  that 
the  city  of  Cornwall  has  received  the  amount 
of  S14  million  as  the  first  beneficiary  of  this 


particular  kind  of  developmental  programme 
entered  into  with  the  federal  government. 

When  one  can  see  the  future  of  a  city 
hke  Cornwall  with  the  development  of  an 
industrial  park,  the  civic  centre  and'  also 
some  tourist  and  recreational  areas,  then  I 
think  it  is  apparent  that  in  an  area  such  as 
Cornwall  that  has  had  some  serious  unem- 
ployment and  job  opportunity  problems  in 
the  last  few  years  this  programme  is  most 
welcome  and  I  believe  most  worthwhile.  I 
too  am  interested,  of  course,  in  the  future 
development  of  this  land  of  a  programme 
because  there  are  a  number  of  other  com- 
munities, notably  in  northemi  Ontario,  that 
can,  and  I  hope  will,  benefit  from  the  ex- 
perience   of   the    Cornwall   project. 

The  minister  announced  in  bringing  for- 
ward this  bill  for  first  reading  that  this  item 
will  allow  the  general  legislation  to  be 
changed  so  that  future  agreements  can  be 
entered  into  by  the  provincial  government, 
presumably  whenever  certain  projects  are 
thought  to  be  worthwhile.  I  would  appre- 
ciate hearing  from  the  minister  jiist  what  the 
p;eneral  terms  and  conditions  are  going  to 
be  that  will  allow  municipalities  to  consider 
whether  or  not  they  too  would  be  able  to 
enter  into  these  kinds  of  developmental  proj- 
ects. 

In  addition,  I  would  appreciate  hearing 
from  the  minister,  if  he  is  able  to  tell  us 
this,  what  other  municipalities  particularly  are 
developing  plans,  or  at  least  preliminary 
stages,  hopefully  to  take  advantage  of  this 
kind  of  project.  Is  there  a  fixed  amount  of 
money  that  is  available  to  us  or  wil'l  each 
project  be  looked  upon  on  its  own  merits  and 
funds  made  available  on  whatever  basis  it 
may  be  from  the  federal  government? 

Then,  finally,  can  the  minister  tell  us  the 
length  of  the  term  that  these  programmes  are 
expected  to  be  available,  so  that  municipalities 
will  be  able  to  know  how  and  when  they 
will  be  able  to  take  advantage  of  this  kind  of 
a  project? 

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

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  have  a  number  of  questions 
about  this  as  well,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  think  the 
comments  that  are  made  in  the  material  that 
was  released  at  the  time  of  the  signing  of 
the  Cornwall  agreement  are  really  rather  an 
indictment  of  what  has  been  happening  in 
regional  development  in  the  province  over  the 
last  seven  or  eight  years,  let's  say,  since  the 
introduction  of  the  Design  for  Development 
pdlicy  back  in  1966. 

Here's  what  the  federal  and  provincial  gov- 
ernments agreed  to  say  about  eastern  Ontario 


370 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


and  about  northern  Ontario  when  the  agree- 
ment was  signed  last  month  in  Cornwall.  They 
mention  the  fact  that  Ontario  is  among  the 
most  prosperous  of  the  10  provinces  and  on 
an  overall  basis.  But  then  they  say  in  fact: 

The  rate  of  development  of  northern  On- 
tario and  a  significant  portion  of  eastern 
Ontario  has  not  kept  pace  with  that  in  the 
province  as  a  whole  or  in  Canada  generally. 
Unemployment  rates  and  per  capita  income 
levels  in  these  areas  compare  unfavourably 
with  the  corresponding  provincial  and 
national  averages. 

They  refer  to  the  relatively  narrow  range  of 
economic  activities  in  the  north,  consisting 
mainly  of  exploitation  and  export  of  mineral 
and  forest  products.  They  talk  about  the 
relative  lack  of  processing  facihties  in  service 
operations  which  acted  as  a  serious  constraint 
on  the  number  of  income  and  employment 
opportunities— that's  in  the  north. 

They  talk  about  the  serious  lack  of  public 
services— this  is  in  the  north.  They  talk  about 
the  overall  consequences  of  that,  reflected  in 
such  indicators  as  a  rate  of  population  growth 
approximately  one-quarter  of  the  provincial 
figure,  a  below-average  rate  of  labour  force 
participation,  particularly  on  the  part  of 
females,  ond  a  relatively  high  rate  of  unem- 
ployment. Then,  turning  to  eastern  Ontario, 
the  federal-provincial  economists  and  evalu- 
ators  who  had  participated  in  deciding  on 
the  outlines  of  this  general  agreement  said: 

The  imdeilying  cause  of  the  region's 
comparatively  unfavourable  unemployment 
and  per  capita  income  records  is  a  decline 
in  labour  requirements  of  the  traditionally 
important  agricultural  and  forest  industries, 
together  with  a  relative  lack  of  growth  in 
manufacturing  job  opportunities. 

While  new  industries  have  been  attracted  to 
the  area  of  eastern  Ontario,  they  have  served 
largely  "to  counterbalance  the  disappearance 
or  decline  of  dlder  manufacturing  establish- 
ments in  the  wood-using  and  textile  fields." 
Ottawa  had  mitigated  the  region's  unim- 
pressive economic  performance  because  of  the 
federal  government  growth  in  Ottawa,  but 
Ottawa's  economic  influence  had  been  rela- 
tively localized  and  had  been  insufiicient  to 
dominate  the  regional  totals.  Tourism  in 
eastern  Ontario  has  not  yet  developed  to  the 
point  where  it  is  generating  substantial  in- 
come and  employment  opportunities  outside 
the  major  centres.  Within  some  parts  of 
eastern  Ontario  there  is  an  overdependence 
on  a  narrow  range  of  economic  activities.  This 
lack  of  a  diversified  economic  structure  has 


frequently   meant   instability   and   unemploy- 
ment. 

You  know,  this  isn't  an  NDP  speech,  Mr. 
Speaker,  although  it  certainly  may  sound  like 
one.  This  is  an  ofiBcial  document  which  in 
fact  was  obviously  released  with  the  approval 
of  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  and  Mr. 
Andras,  and  of  the  other  people— political 
people  and  bureaucrats— who  were  involved 
in  the  drawing  up  of  this  general  agreement. 

As  I  am  sure  the  Minister  without  Portfolio 
expected,  we  don't  intend  to  oppose  the 
specific  requirements  of  this  specific  bill  here, 
but  I  think  that  he  and  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  will 
accept  that  this  is  one  opportunity,  and  maybe 
the  only  opportunity  that  we  have  in  the 
Legislature  to  discuss  not  only  the  specific 
question  of  whether  municipalities  should  be 
permitted  to  sign  agreements  relative  to  this 
new  federal-provincial  programme,  but  also 
relative  to  the  government's  failure  and  suc- 
cesses in  the  regional  developments  which 
municipalities  are  now  being  allowed  to  take 
a  part  in. 

I  would  like  to  remind  the  minister  that 
long  before  he  or  I  came  into  the  Legislature 
the  government  launched  its  Design  for  De- 
velopment programme.  In  fact  it  was  back 
in  1966  that  the  then  Premier,  Mr.  Robarts, 
called  for  good  regional  planning  and  made 
a  number  of  statements  about  the  way  in 
which  the  regional  planning  process  would 
work  in  order  to  encourage  me  less  favoured 
regions  of  the  province,  and  that,  as  you 
know,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  mainly  the  eastern  and 
northern  parts  of  the  province. 

Mr.  Robarts  talked  about  the  need  for 
planning  and  co-ordinating  the  timing  and 
impacts  of  large  and  expanding  investment 
expenditures,  public  investments.  He  talked 
about  a  central  authority  which  could  cut 
across  both  departmental  lines  and  county 
and  municipal  boundaries  in  meeting  and 
solving  regional  problems. 

He  has  said  that  regional  development 
policies  would  be  instrumental  aspects  of  a 
broader  provincial  growtii  policy.  He  has 
said  that  appropriate  regional  development 
required  comprehensive  planning.  He  spoke 
of  the  need  for  regional  land  use  planning. 
He  spoke  about  the  planning,  referring  not 
only  to  land  use  but  also  to  the  social  and 
economic  potential  of  the  region  and  its  cen- 
tres and  an  approach  that  would  concentrate 
on  developing  these  centres  in  the  interests 
of  the  region  as  a  whole.  He  spoke  of  the 
need  for  the  regions  of  Ontario  to  develop 
their  xx)tential  for  speciahzation. 


MARCH  15,  1974 


371 


Mr.  Robarts  said  that  the  smoothing  out 
of  conspicuous  regional  economic  inequah- 
ties  would  be  sought  through  the  regional 
distribution  of  government  budgetary  expen- 
ditures, through  the  provision  of  technical, 
financial  and  administrative  services,  and 
through  programmes  selected  to  encourage 
labour  mobility,  tourism,  agriculture,  re- 
source development,  manufacturing  and  other 
forms  of  economic  activity. 

He  spoke  of  the  need  of  an  effective  two- 
way  system  of  communication,  and  he  spoke 
of  the  need  for  new  redevelopment  struc- 
tures, but  ones  that  would  not  disturb  the 
existing  power  and  authority  of  municipal 
and  county  councils  within  the  regions. 

That  was  back  in  1966,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
more  words  have  been  spawned  and  spoken 
by  the  government  about  its  Design  for  De- 
velopment programme  in  the  intervening 
years.  If  you  look  to  the  points  that  I  have 
enumerated  out  of  that  original  statement 
though,  the  tragic  and  overwhelming  con- 
clusion you  come  to  is  that  in  fact  virtually 
none  of  those  things  have  been  done,  or  if 
they  are  being  done  it  is  only  in  the  very 
recent  past. 

We  have  the  business  about  the  creation 
and  then  disbandment  of  regional  develop- 
ment councils  over  that  period  of  time.  We 
don't  have  an  effective  two-way  system  of 
communication.  In  most  of  the  less-favoured 
regions— in  fact  I  think  in  all  of  them,  apart 
from  maybe  the  past  year  in  northwestern 
Ontario— there  has  been  no  attempt  at  pro- 
gramming government  expenditures  in  line 
with  regional  development  priorities.  There 
is  no  broad  provincial  growth  policy  eight 
years  after  Mr.  Robarts  said  his  government 
was  going  to  have  it.  We  don't  have  regional 
land  use  plaiming  at  this  time.  We  have  some 
abortive  attempts.  There  are  people  over  in 
the  Frost  block— is  it  the  Whitney  block?— 
who  are  working  in  that  direction,  but  right 
now  we  don't  have  any  land  use  planning 
on  either  a  provincial  or  on  a  regional  basis. 

There  has  been  no  planning  of  major  gov- 
ernment expenditures,  which  is  why  we  have 
abortions  such  as  the  Arnprior  dam  which 
won't  create  a  single  new  job,  and  yet  it's 
the  largest  single  government  expenditure  in 
eastern  Ontario  in  the  life  of  this  Parliament. 
It's  why  we  have  projects  such  as  Maple 
Mountain,  a  ski  resort  in  an  area  where  for 
30  or  40  days  out  of  every  ski  season,  as  I 
understand  it,  the  climate  is  simply  unfavour- 
able and  is  such  as  to  discourage  completely 
anybody  from  skiing.  We  have  Old  Fort 
William,  an  historical  recreation  of  an  old- 
time    fur    traders'    fort,    a    tourist    attraction 


which  was  built  eight  miles  inland  from 
where  the  fort  used  to  lie.  And  that's  it,  Mr. 
Speaker;  that's  it. 

That  is  the  kind  of  development  that  we 
are  getting.  There  is  not  effective  regional 
planning  yet.  I  accept  and  understand  that 
there  are  certain  difficulties  in  all  of  this. 
I  do  not  accept  and  I  do  not  understand  the 
kinds  of  delays  that  have  taken  place.  The 
reason  for  those  delays  very  simply,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  there  has  not  been  a  real 
commitment  on  the  part  of  the  government. 
It  conjured  with  words,  just  as  it  conjures 
with  words  over  the  housing  problem.  It  con- 
jures with  words  over  Artistic  Woodwork. 
It  conjures  with  words  over  the  need  for 
decent  labour  relations  legislation.  It  con- 
jures with  words  over  the  problems  of 
teachers'  negotiations  and  so  on  and  on  and 
on. 

There  is  no  commitment  as  far  as  regional 
development  is  concerned.  That  is  how  we 
come  to  this  position  where  almost  eight  years^ 
to  the  day  after  Mr.  Robarts  first  announced 
the  Design  for  Development  programme,  we 
have  an  implementation  of  regional  develop- 
ment policy  in  eastern  Ontario  specifically,^ 
but  one  which  comes  as  a  result  of  an  initi- 
ative taken  not  by  this  government  but  by 
the  federal  government  under  the  Depart- 
ment of  Regional  Economic  Expansion. 

It  so  happens  that  the  amount  of  money^ 
involved  is  pitiful,  $14  million  for  one  par- 
ticular community  which  has  had  more  than 
its  share  of  problems;  $14  million  after  eight 
years.  This  is  what  is  finally  cranked  out  of 
the  government's  regional  development  plans 
or  proposals  for  eastern  Ontario,  and  that's  it. 

Mr.  Lamoureaux,  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Guindon),  and  the  other  members  from 
the  St.  Lawrence  front  have  been  aware  of 
the  problems  at  Cornwall.  They  were  there 
when  the  now  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Mr. 
Irvine)  responsible  for  municipal  affairs  was- 
the  mayor  of  the  neighbouring  municipality 
of  Prescott.  The  member  for  Stormont  (Mr. 
Guindon)  has  been  a  member  and,  in  fact,  a 
minister  for  most  of  the  past  eight  years.  Cer- 
tainly my  party  and  other  parties  have  been' 
weeping  over  the  situation  of  Cornwall.  There 
are  unemployment  rates  of  10,  11,  13  and  15- 
per  cent,  of  a  very  high  rate  of  people  on 
welfare  and  problem  after  problem  in  a  region 
and  in  an  area  and  in  a  city  which,  frankly, 
should  not  have  suffered  and  need  not  have 
suffered  the  way  it  was,  given  adequate  pro- 
vincial support  and  adequate  regional  plan- 
ning. 


372 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Here  you  have  a  community  which  for  10 
years  has  been  suffering  exceptionally  low 
growth  and  exceptionally  high  unemploy- 
ment, which  according  to  the  analysis  which 
is  made  available  has  not  even  been  able  to 
provide  jobs  for  its  own  people.  It's  had  a 
high  rate  of  migration  of  its  own  people  and 
certainly  hasn't  been  able  to  provide  jobs  for 
the  changing  rural  sector:  It  is  the  same  in 
Glengarry  county  where  the  milk  industry  has 
declined  by  half  over  the  last  10  years.  The 
number  of  dairy  farmers  has  gone  down  by 
half  over  that  period  of  time. 

All  that  has  been  happening  in  that  com- 
munity, and  yet  it's  on  the  major  rail  link 
between  Toronto  and  Montreal.  It's  within  a 
day's  truck  transport  distance  of  the  largest 
single  market  in  Canada.  A  market,  I  be- 
lieve, of  probably  about  10  million  people  is 
available  within  a  day's  truck  journey  of 
Cornwall.  It  probably  has  a  larger  market 
within  a  day's  round  trip  by  truck  than  any 
other  city  in  the  country,  because  of  its  posi- 
tion part  way  between  Toronto  and  Montreal. 
It  is  in  a  similar  position,  therefore,  with 
Brockville,  Kingston  and  Bellevillte— cities  that 
have  not  suffered  the  same  problems  as  Corn- 
wall. 

For  that  matter,  it  is  also  within  a  day's 
truck  transport  distance  of  New  York  City 
and  the  entire  eastern  seaboard  of  the  United 
States.  It  is,  therefore,  at  the  core  of  a  mar- 
ket of  not  just  10  million  in  Canada,  but  of 
an  additional  50  million  or  60  million  people 
in  the  United  States.  It  has  rail;  it  has  High- 
way 401;  it's  within  an  hour  and  20  minutes' 
drive  of  Ottawa  International  Airport  and 
within  an  hour's  drive  of  the  Dorval  interna- 
tional airport  with  air  freight  services  which 
are  the  best  in  Canada,  and  it's  on  the  major 
water  transportation  route  for  this  country,  the 
St.  Lawrence  Seaway. 

With  all  of  these  advantages,  this  govern- 
ment has  not  been  able  to  do  anything  for 
eight  years  until  eventually  the  federal  gov- 
ernment comes  along  with  the  proposals  for 
the  joint  programme  which  we're  being  asked 
to  permit  Cornwall  to  get  involved  in. 

One  just  sort  of  says,  "Well,  what  gives?" 
What  on  earth  is  it  that  has  made  the  reg- 
ional policy  development  of  the  government 
so  laggard  that  nothing  can  be  done  as  far 
as  that  particular  area  is  concerned? 

One  also  has  to  say  that  this  is  fine  as  a 
one-shot  effort.  I  have  to  assume  that  the  par- 
ticular projects  which  are  being  underwritten 
under  this  DREE  agreement— or  infrastruc- 
ture for  the  community  centre,  the  civic  cen- 
tre and  arena,  the  large  industrial  park  and 


the  tourist  facilities— have  been  well  thought 
through  in  terms  of  Cornwall's  particular 
needs.  I  don't  profess  to  be  an  expert  on  those 
particular  things. 

I  think  it's  fair  to  ask  the  ministers  that 
since  a  substantial  portion  of  the  investment 
is  going  into  a  single  industry  site— I  think 
that's  the  phrase;  in  other  words,  preparing 
the  site  for  one  very  large  industry— then 
what  kinds  of  industry  are  in  mind  for  that 
particular  site,  or  is  there  a  particular  in- 
dustry which  is  waiting  in  the  wings  until 
Cornwall  signs  this  particular  agreement, 
and  which  will  then  come  forward  with  a 
major  investment  for  that  particular  area? 

I  might  remind  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
some  time  last  year  during  the  debate  on 
Stelco's  going  into  Haldimand-NorfoUc  and 
all  the  disruption  that  that  was  going  to 
create  in  that  area— an  area  which  essentially 
did  not  need  growth  the  way  it  is  needed 
in  eastern  Ontario— members  of  this  party 
offered  a  suggestion  to  the  minister  to  locate 
the  Stelco  mill  right  in  Grenville  county,  an 
area  which  has  also  suffered  from  declining 
employment.  In  fact,  we  offered  it  within 
sight  of  the  minister's  home  overlooking 
the  St.  Lawrence  River  in  Prescott,  and  he 
refused.  That  should  go  on  the  record— that 
the  minister  refused  a  steel  mill  right  there 
on  his  doorstep  in  Grenville  county.  He 
wouldn't  go  to  bat  for  his  people,  let  alone 
the  people  in  Cornwall  or  anywhere  else. 

You  know,  it  seems  a  bit  perverse  that 
the  government  goes  along  with  a  develop- 
ment dovm  in  Haldimand-Norfolk  of,  I've 
forgotten,  $400  million  or  $500  million 
worth  of  investment  in  an  area  which  may 
need  a  few  jobs,  but  which  essentially  could 
be  easily  integrated  into  the  Toronto-Ham- 
ilton-St.  Catharines  industrial  complex  with- 
out a  need  for  major  investment,  yet  at  the 
same  time  it  is  preparing  a  large  industrial 
site  at  Cornwall  which  I  presume,  among 
other  things,  could  have  accepted  the  steel 
mill  which  is  instead  going  where  it  is  less 
needed. 

Maybe  the  minister  can  talk  about  that. 
But  why  on  earth  wouldn't  this  goverimient 
have  gone  to  Stelco  and  said,  "Look,  we 
really  do  care  about  Cornwall.  If  you  want 
to  have  this  kind  of  investment  and  the 
kind  of  spinoffs  that  come  from  it,  why 
don't  you  bring  your  steel  mill  to  Cornwall 
and  we'll  help  you?  Here's  a  site.  It's  all 
ready.  We'll  have  it  ready  for  you  in  six 
months.  And  we'll  even  talk  to  the  opposition 
and  get  their  co-operation  in  getting  the  bill 
passed."  But  no,  this  government  doesn't 
believe  in  that. 


MARCH  15,  1974 


373 


That  raises,  of  course,  a  very  fundamental 
question  about  the  growth  poHcy  or  growth 
strateg}'  of  the  government.  I've  said  that 
there  is  none.  If  there  is  any  to  speak  of,  it 
is  a  use  of  carrots  and  only  of  carrots.  In 
other  words,  the  government  will  use  certain 
types  of  incentives  from  time  to  time  in 
•order  to  try  to  encourage  the  location  of 
industries  in  areas  where  it  feels  that  they 
ought  to  go.  Those  incentives  are  relatively 
limited;  in  fact,  I  have  some  figures  that 
suggest  to  me  that  the  incentives  are,  if  any- 
thing, a  bit  perverse  in  their  application, 
because  they  seem  to  be  giving  more  to 
those  who  already  have  than  to  those  who 
have  not.  These  are  figures  for  1973  per- 
formance loans  made  by  the  Ontario  De- 
velopment Corp.  and  the  Northern  Ontario 
Development  Corp. 

I  recognize  there  are  other  programmes 
of  the  ODC  but,  nevertheless,  this  is  how 
the  government  seeks  to  help  smaller  en- 
trepreneurs to  locate,  presumably  in  areas 
that  have  some  need  for  this  kind  of 
growth: 

In  1972-1973,  Brantford  got  $580,000 
worth  of  these  performance  loans,  Bowman- 
ville  got  $230,000,  Cobourg  got  $280,000, 
Trenton  got  $700,000  and  Belleville  got 
$540,000  worth  of  these  particular  loans. 
But  then  we  come  to  Cornwall,  which  of  all 
the  communities  that  I  mentioned,  I  think 
•ever>one  would  acknowledge  is  the  com- 
munity that  was  most  in  need  of  new  jobs 
and  of  new  industries.  Maybe  it  could  have 
used  a  few  entrepreneurs  of  its  own.  Poor 
old  Cornwall  got  two  loans  worth  only 
$71,000,  which  is  a  third  of  what  Bovraian- 
ville  got,  a  fourth  of  what  Cobourg  got  and 
as  little  as  a  tenth  of  what  was  given  to 
Trenton,  a  community  which  is  already 
doing— 

Hon.  F.  Cuindon  (Minister  of  Labour): 
Cornwall  got  $7.2  million  from  this  govern- 
ment two  weeks  ago. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Two  weeks  ago?  All  right. 
The  hon.  minister  is  finally  getting  through 
to  them,  but  it  has  taken  an  awful  long  time. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  He  thought 
his  seat  was  in  danger. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right.  And  other  things 
are  happening  in  ComwaU.  I  recognize  and 
acknowledge  that.  There's  $14  million— oh 
wait,  is  the  $7  million  the  provincial  share 
on  this  programme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Exactly. 


Mr.  Cassidy:  Wait  a  minute.  That's  double 
counting.  I've  already  given  credit  to  the 
member  for  Grenville-Dundas  (Mr.  Irvine), 
and  to  the  government  for  doing  it.  This 
minister  can't  claim  it  too. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrell  (Minister  without 
Portfolio):  If  the  hon.  member  can  repeat 
himself  why  can't  the  hon.  minister? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Okay,  they  got  $7  million 
two  weeks  ago.  But  what  was  the  govern- 
ment doing  for  Cornwall  in  1973,  1972,  1971, 
1970,  1969,  1968,  1967  and  1966,  when 
the  Design  for  Development  programme  was 
announced  initially?  What  kind  of  record  is 
it  for  the  government  that  during  these 
times,  when  we  have  had  basically  high 
employment  in  the  province,  a  prosperous 
province,  pretty  high  rates  of  growth  and 
so  forth,  that  the  rate  of  unemployment  in 
Cornwall  has  consistently  been  around  nine 
and  10  per  cent  and,  from  time  to  time,  has 
'^one  as  high  as  13  and  14  per  cent?  Where 
has  the  Minister  of  Labour  been  all  of  that 
time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Well,  he  was  on  the 
job.  It  is  now  down  to  seven  per  cent. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes,  now.  But  it  has  taken 
nil  of  that  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  for  that  to 
happen. 

Mr.  Foulds:  In  one  of  his  previous  in- 
carnations he  was  busy  with  Old  Fort  Wil- 
liam. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  particular 
programmes  mentioned  in^  the  general  de- 
velopment agreement  that  is  being  made 
with  the  province,  include  this  Cornwall  area 
agreement,  which  I  might  point  out  is  not 
$7  million  outright.  I  would  point  out  to 
this  minister  and  to  the  Minister  of  Labour 
that,  in  fact,  the  Cornwall  agreement  calls 
for  the  expenditure  of  only  $4  million  in 
1974-1975,  of  which  $2  million  will  come 
from  the  provincial  government.  This  isn't 
a  wild  amount  of  money.  When  the  Minister 
of  Labour  goes  back  to  his  people  in  the 
1975  campaign— supposing  there's  a  spring 
campaign  in  1975-by  that  time  the  provin- 
cial government,  over  the  life  of  this  Par- 
liament, will  have  spent  the  grand  total  of 
$2  million  in  encouraging  development  in 
Cornwall.  It's  all  going  to  be  jam  tomorrow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Plus  the  fact  that  we 
will  have  a  very  heavy  industry  settling  dovm 
by  that  time. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  will  have  an  announce- 
ment of  a  very  heavy  industry.  This  is  a 
government  that  lives  by  announcements. 
I'm   pleased  that  a  heavy  industry  is   going 


374 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


into  Cornwall  if  that  will  mean  jobs  and 
economic  development  for  an  area  that  needs 
it.  I'm  pleased,  naturally,  by  anything  like 
this  that  helps  a  city  in  eastern  Ontario  or 
the  region  as  a  whole.  The  major  investment, 
$8  million,  however,  under  this  particular 
programme  won't  be  until  1975-1976. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Man  does  not  live  by  an- 
nouncements alone. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right.  And  then  there 
is  a  further  $2  million  in  1976-1977.  Since 
the  Minister  of  Labour  mentions  it,  we 
should  look  at  the  fact  that  the  single  indus- 
try site  in  the  westend  of  Cornwall,  which 
obviously  is  the  location  for  the  heavy  in- 
dustry that  he  is  talking  about,  and  which 
is  attracting  $3.4  million  of  federal-provin- 
cial investment,  will  have  only  $900,000  of 
federal-provincial  investment  in  1974-1975. 
To  be  more  specific;  of  $2.4  million  to  be 
spent  on  the  trunk  services,  the  sanitary 
sewers,  water  mains,  and'  so  on  to  service 
that  site,  only  one^third  of  that  amount  will 
be  spent  in  1974-1975.  An  additional  $1.1 
million  will  be  in  1975-1976,  and  then,  fi- 
nally, $400,000  in  1976-1977. 

The  pattern  of  that  expenditure,  Mr. 
Speaker,  suggests  to  me  that  the  heavy  in- 
dustry site  in  the  westend  of  Cornwall  will 
not  be  ready  for  the  new  industry  to  go  into 
production  until,  at  the  very  earhest,  the 
beginning  of  1976.  While  there  may  be 
construction  jobs  in  the  area  prior  to  that, 
there  will  not  be  full-time  permanent  em- 
ployment created  in  Cornwall  until  well 
after  the  1975  election,  whenever  that  elec- 
tion is  to  be  held. 

I  am  open  to  correction  on  these  points, 
and  I  hope  that  the  hon.  member  for  Stor- 
mont  gets  involved  in  the  debate  as  well  as 
the  hon.  member  for  Grenville-Dundas.  But 
nevertheless,  it  is  a  matter  of  jam  tomorrow. 
By  the  time  that  heavy  industry  opens  up  at 
Cornwall  it  will  have  been  a  full  10  years, 
Mr.  Speaker,  from  the  time  that  the  original 
announcement  was  made  about  what  the 
government  is  going  to  do. 

As  far  as  eastern  Ontario  is  concerned, 
there  is  no  other  indication  in  the  federal- 
provincial  agreement  that  the  government 
has  a  programme  or  a  plan  for  aiding  other 
areas.  I  would  ask,  specifically,  what  about 
Pembroke?  What  about  Smiths  Falls  or 
Perth  or  Smiths  Falls-Perth  taken  together, 
two  other  locations  in  eastern  Ontario  where 
it  would  seem  to  me  to  make  sense  to  be 
encouraging  ind'ustrial  development  away 
from  the  immediate  economic  orbit  of  the 
city  of  Ottawa? 


The  same  questions  present  themselves 
when  one  looks  at  what  has  been  announc- 
ed about  the  general  development  agree- 
ment as  far  as  it  affects  northern  Ontario. 
It  is  very  vague,  and  what  is  said  here 
d^oesn't  give  me  much  confidence  that  eco- 
nomic development  in  and  around  the  cities 
of  northern  Ontario  is  at  all  involved  ra 
what  the  government  is  talking  about.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  announcements  we 
have  had  recently  about  economic  develop- 
ment in  the  northwest  of  the  province  have 
come  about,  not  as  a  result  of  government 
policies,  but  have  come  about  simply  be- 
cause of  the  changing  economic  circum- 
stances of  the  pulp  and  paper  industry  which 
have  made  investments  in  those  areas  now 
more  favourable  than,  say,  when  the  Design 
for  Development  for  northwestern  Ontario 
was  prepared. 

iThe  forest-based  industry  problem  in 
northern  Ontario,  whether  it  is  northwest 
or  northeast,  will  only  be  resolved  when 
the  government  takes  over  the  cutting  opera- 
tions on  Crown-owned  land,  and  when  it 
then  contracts  to  ensure  that  there  is  an 
adequate  supply  of  wood  fibre  and  of  woodi 
for  the  various  uses,  whether  it  be  lumber 
mills  or  pulp  or  paper  or  further  production 
and  processing,  rather  than  leaving  this  in 
individual  hands.  The  hon.  member  for 
Thunder  Bay  (Mr.  Stokes)  has  told  me  that 
there  are  stands  of  timber  which  are  rotting 
in  northern  Ontario  because  they  happen  to 
be  on  limits  controlled  by  companies  that 
don't  happen  to  have  a  need  for  them,  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  are  industrial  in- 
vestments that  are  simply  not  going  forward 
in  his  region  because  of  the  fact  that  the 
entrepreneurs  can't  get  a  sufficient  wood 
fibre  guarantee.  There  is  not  that  kind  of 
commitment  in  the  general  development 
agreement  that  has  been  made  with  the 
federal  gfovemment,  obviously,  because  the 
provincial  government  Tories  and  the  federal 
government  Liberals  are  constantly  hung  up 
bv  the  fact  that  they  are  so  wedded  to  the 
private  sector  that  they  will  not  act  for  the 
benefit  of  the  people  of  northern  Ontario  or 
of  the  rest  of  the  province. 

Then,  Mr.  Speaker,  when  you  look  in  more 
detail  at  the  rest  of  the  programme,  there 
are  some  useful  comments  about  single  in- 
dustry towns,  but  the  other  material— indus- 
trial incentives,  the  air  strips  programme,  the 
roads  programme,  and  the  rural  development 
programme— all  exist  right  now.  The  pattern 
being  followed  is  simply  the  old  government 
game;  if  it  wants  to  announce  something 
new  it  brings  everything  else  in  as  well  in 
order  to  pump  up  the  package  and  make  it 
look  better  than  it  was  before. 


MARCH  15,  1974 


375 


The  final  reference  is  to  something  new 
which  is  special  project  initiatives,  again 
very  vaguely  couched.  The  only  thing  I  can 
really  see  it  applying  to  is  the  Maple  Moun- 
tain campaign  and  Maple  Mountain  pro- 
posals vi'hich  have  been  made  by  the  Min- 
ister of  Indtistry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Bennett). 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  us,  in  this  party, 
.the  government  cannot  only  work  with  in- 
centives in  ensuring  grovdJi  in  the  less  fav- 
oured regions  of  the  province.  This  is  the 
fundamental  mistake  being  made  by  the  gov- 
ernment because  of  the  fact  it  is  wedded  so 
completely  to  the  private  sector.  If  one  gives 
.a  guy  a  few  bucks,  he  won't  move.  Give  him 
-a  lot  of  bucks  and  he's  got  a  ripoff  and  that's 
essentially  the  position  of  the  government  as 
it  stands  right  now. 

When  incentives  are  given  to  industry 
they  should  be  accompanied  by  part-'owner- 
ship  on  the  part  of  the  public  in  the  project 
actually  being  built.  We  should  get  value 
for  money  in'  that  way  and  we  should  have 
public-private  partnerships.  In  addition,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  development  p>olicy  for  the  less 
favoured  regions  has  got  to  be  part  of  an 
overall  provincial  grov^dh  plan,  and)  that 
doesn't  exist  right  now. 

A  growth  plan  will  Kmit,  will  set  targets 
for  grov^dh  in  the  more  favoured  regions,  par- 
ticularly the  Toronto-centred  region,  which 
will  aim  at  limiting  the  growth  of  these  reg- 
ions, of  the  Toronto-centred  region.  It  is 
choking  on  its  growth  right  now.  There  is  too 
much  growth  here  while  Cornwall  and  other 
areas  in  eastern  Ontario  are  starving  for  lack 
of  growth.  Certainly  the  north  is  starving  for 
lack  of  growth. 

There  are  many  footloose  industries  which 
are  settling  in  the  Toronto  area,  the  Hamilton 
area,  the  Brantford,  Kitchener  and  London 
areas  because  they  are  nice  places  for  the 
-executives  to  live.  Or  because  the  existing 
plant  is  there  right  now  and  it  is  simpler  to 
-expand  the  existing  plant  than  put  the  new 
process,  the  new  facility,  in  some  other  part 
of  the  province. 

The  reasons  being  advanced  or  used  within 
industry  to  justify  these  plant  locations  are 
often  pretty  trivial.  Sometimes,  in  fact,  it  just 
isn't  economic.  There  are  economic  advant- 
ages to  locating  in  other  parts  of  the  province 
but  they  are  being  ignored  by  the  manage- 
ment. If  they  are  in  a  fairly  uncompetitive 
field  where  the  profit  margins  are  pretty  sub- 
stantial then,  in  fact,  there  is  not  the  incen- 
tive to  cut  the  final  dollar  off  their  costs. 
Therefore,  the  executives  don't  want  to  trans- 
fer  out  of  Don   Mills  or  out  of  some  nice 


suburb  in  Kitchener  or  London,  wherever  the 
plant  happens  to  be,  and  locate  there. 

There  was  the  announcement  the  other  day 
of  the  location  of  Philips,  I  think  it  was, 
which  has  decided  to  set  up  or  establish  a 
plant  on  provincially-owned  industrial  land 
in  the  Malvern  area.  The  sale  price  of  the 
land  was  something  like  $2  million  and  the 
price  per  acre  was  in  the  order  of,  I  don't 
know,  maybe  $25,000,  $35,000,  $40,000  per 
acre,  an  incredible  sum  by  contrast  with  the 
prices  charged  for  industrial  land  elsewhere 
in  the  province.  The  company  felt  it  could 
do  it  rather  than  face  the  problems  of  de- 
veloping skilled  manpower  and  attracting  the 
labour  pool  in  other  parts  of  the  province. 

Frankly,  the  problems  are  not  insurmount- 
able. There  are  lots  of  willing  hands  and 
willing  brains  in  other  parts  of  the  province 
and  the  problem  of  developing  skills  can  be 
overcome  once  there  is  a  will.  There  are  no 
sticks  being  used  by  the  province  in  order  to 
encourage  companies  now  locating  in  the 
Toronto  or  Hamilton  areas  even  to  look  at 
other  parts  of  the  province. 

As  part  of  its  growth  policy,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  government  should  not  only  be  providing 
certain  types  of  incentives  to  help  offset  any 
additional  costs  of  locating  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  province  or  in  the  east.  It  should 
also  be  providing  certain  kinds  of  disincen- 
tives in  order  to  make  it  less  favourable  to 
locate  in  the  Toronto-centred  region.  Those 
disincentives  could  be  in  the  form  of  an  em- 
ployment tax  or  some  other  kind  of  tax  to  be 
paid  by  an  industry  locating  in  this  particular 
area,  or  they  could  well  be  in  the  form  of  a 
straight  licensing  of  new  employment  oppor- 
tunities being  created  in  the  Toronto-Hamil- 
ton area.  Any  employer  then  who  wished  to 
create  more  than,  say,  25  new  jobs  would  be 
compelled  to  seek  a  licence,  maybe  even  to 
pay  for  a  licence  with  the  provincial  govern- 
ment. The  allocation  of  these  licences  would 
then  be  a  part  of  the  provincial'  development 
and  growth  plan. 

I  accept  completely  that  under  no  circum- 
stances should  any  government  in  Ontario  say 
to  an  individual,  "No,  you  can't  come  to 
Metro."  If  young  people  from  northern  On- 
tario or  eastern  Ontario  want  to  come  to 
Toronto  to  study  for  a  few  years  or  to  work 
for  a  few  years,  that's  fine.  I  think  that's  good 
and  it's  a  part  of  a  person's  education.  In 
many  cases  though,  these  young  people  as 
they  grow  up,  marry  and  begin  to  have 
families,  are  saying  to  themselves,  "We'd  like 
to  go  back  to  Prescott,  "We'd  like  to  go  back 
to    Pembroke,"    "We'd   like    to    go   back   to 


376 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Kapuskasing,"  "We'd  like  to  go  back  to 
Thunder  Bay."  In  many  cases  they  are  finding 
that  there  are  not  adequate  work  opportun- 
ities in  those  areas,  that  the  cost  of  housing 
is  as  beyond  reach  in  those  areas  that  they 
stem  from  as  it  is  in  Toronto,  and  that  they 
are  trapped  down  here  because  this  is  where 
the  jobs  are. 

If,  in  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  control  the 
creation  of  employment  in  the  Toronto  area, 
and  then  equally  encourage  those  industries 
to  locate  in  the  less-favoured  parts  of  the 
province,  if  that  is  accompanied  by  a  planned 
development  in  areas  like  Cornwall  and 
Prescott  and  Cardinal,  like  North  Bay,  like 
Sudbury,  Timmins  or  Kapuskasing,  or  Thun- 
der Bay,  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  jobs  are 
becoming  available,  that  housing  at  reason- 
able cost  is  becoming  available,  that  the  other 
kinds  of  infrastructures  are  being  put  into 
the  ground,  that  the  kinds  of  social  amenities 
we  expect,  in  terms  of  be  it  arenas  or  cultural 
facilities  as  are  being  built  at  Comv/a31,  are 
coming  on-stream,  then  you  will  see  a  real 
renaissance  in  the  smaller  communities  in  the 
less-favoured  regions  of  the  province. 

But  we  have  not  seen  that  from  the  govern- 
ment right  now  and  the  basic  and  funda- 
mental reason  is  because  it  wiU  not— the  min- 
ister and  his  government— interfere  with  the 
decisions  of  the  private  sector,  even  where  it's 
clear  that  the  social  costs  of  having  industry 
continue  to  crowd  into  the  Toronto  area  are 
tremendous  and  are  growing  apace  day  by 
day  and  week  by  week.  You  can  chart  it 
readily  in  that  way  if  you  look,  say,  at  the 
escalation  of  housing  prices  in  the  Toronto 
area. 

The  other  point  I  wanted  to  raise  more 
specifically  in  relation  to  the  bill,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  that  this  bill  permits  municipalities  to  enter 
into  agreements  with  the  Crown  regarding 
regional  economic  development,  and  also  with 
the  approval  of  the  minister— I  am  not  sure 
which  minister;  I  suppose  it's  the  Treasurer— 
to  also  enter  into  any  ancillary  or  subsidiary 
agreements  vdth  any  person  as  is  required  as 
a  result  of  entering  into  the  agreement  with 
the  Crown  in  right  of  Ontario. 

Now,  it  waives  the  requirement  for  a  local 
consultation  in  the  form  of  a  referendum,  and 
also  waives  the  requirement  for  participation 
in  the  form  of  the  access  the  public  has  when 
a  matter  has  to  be  approved  by  the  Ontario 
Municipal  Board.  That  is  the  effect  of  these 
two  particular  amendments.  It  gives  the 
power  to  the  municipality  to  pass  bylaws  for 
the  effect  of  implementing  these  general  de- 
velopment   agreements    and    it    waives    the 


necessity  to  go  through  two  established,  if 
perhaps  somewhat  archaic,  means  of  public 
consultation  or  public  participation. 

It  seems  to  us  that,  in  fact,  there  should  be 
a  guarantee  of  public  involvement  written  into 
the  bill  at  the  same  time  that  the  permission 
is  being  given  to  the  municipality  to  bvpass 
the  Ontario  Municipal  Board  and  to  bvpass 
the  referendum.  We  don't  really  disagree 
with  that  part  of  it;  we  do  disagree  with  the 
fact  that  there  has  been  no  attempt  by  the 
government  to  find  any  alternative. 

What  this  means,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  since 
there  is  not  a  requirement  that  municipalities 
meet  to  discuss  issues  like  this  in  public 
meeting— there  is  no  such  requirement  in 
Ontario  law  at  this  moment— it  means  that  a 
municipality  like  Cornwall  or  Kapuskasing  or 
some  other  community  like  that  can  meet  in 
camera,  the  members  of  council  can  decide 
what  to  do,  they  can  negotiate  with  the  pro- 
vincial people,  they  can  negotiate  with  the 
federal  people,  and  all  of  that  can  be  done 
with  no  public  consultation  whatsoever. 
Eventually,  for  a  very  brief  minute  or  two, 
the  council  is  required  to  meet  in  pubHe 
session  in  order  to  actually  pass  the  bylaws 
which  are  referred  to  in  articles  293  and  352 
of  the  Municipal  Act  and  affected  by  this 
particular  bill. 

Now,  that  plainly  just  isn't  adequate,  par- 
ticularly where  you  have  some  pretty  funda- 
mental decisions  being  made  affecting  the 
economic  future  of  communities  which  have 
had  a  lot  of  problems,  such  as  the  community 
of  Cornwall. 

I  must  accept  that  it  runs  part  of  a  piece 
with  the  who'le  government  approach  to  eco- 
nomic planning.  There  have  been  a  number 
of  meetings,  I  gather,  held  on  the  sly  between 
the  economic  planners  for  eastern  Ontario  at 
Queen's  Park  and  local  planning  staffs  and 
other  local  bureaucrats  like  that. 

Obviously  there  have  been  meetings  held 
with  the  city  of  Cornwall,  the  provincial 
people  and  the  federal  people,  over  this  par- 
ticular plan.  But  there  has  not  been  enough 
public  consultation.  I  have  to  confess  to  a 
bit  of  ignorance  as  to  what  was  done  in 
Cornwall  as  far  as  public  discussion  of  this 
particular  proposal  is  concerned.  My  recol- 
lection is  that  the  major.  Mayor  Lumley,  a 
fine  guy,  sort  of  kept  on  saying,  "Look,  it's 
coming,  it's  coming,  it's  coming."  As  is  the 
pattern  in  these  depressed  communities,  there 
is  a  constant  pattern  of  promises,  promises, 
and  eventually  for  every  five  promises  you  get 
one    new    industry    or    one    new    federal    or 


MARCH  15,  1974 


377 


provincial  government  intervention.  That's 
what  happens. 

Another  community  could  close  off  the 
public  involvement  completely  and  it  would 
not  be  breaking  the  law  which  is  proposed 
to  be  passed  by  this  provincial  government. 

In  other  words,  this  bill  permits  councils 
to  evade  local  involvement.  It  happens  that, 
under  the  way  that  the  powers  adhere  in  the 
Crown  in  the  right  of  Ontario,  the  general 
development  agreement  signed  between  Can- 
ada and  Ontario  is  not  a  matter  of  debate. 
It  doesn't  get  tabled  in  the  Legislature.  It 
is  only  obliquely— because  it  happens  to  re- 
quire a  change  in  the  Municipal  Act— that 
we  get  to  debate  it  in  the  Legislature  prior 
to  the  minister's  estimates,  which  may  not 
come  up  for  close  to  another  year.  I  just 
suggest  to  the  minister  and  to  the  govern- 
ment as  a  whole  that  an  amendment  be 
passed  on  committee  stage  of  this  bill  to  re- 
quire public  consultation  at  the  municipal 
level  and  that  the  government  clearly  states 
its  intentions  as  far  as  public  involvement 
in  further  agreements  that  will  be  drawn  up 
—particularly  with  reference  to  the  north, 
where  there  are  many  communities  that  are 
not  organized— in  order  to  ensure  that  there 
is  full  public  consultation  prior  to  the  enter- 
ing into  of  agreements. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I  have  a  couple  of  little  points  I  want 
to  raise  on  this  bill.  It  is,  I  suppose,  a  far- 
reaching  bill  to  some  extent.  It  brings  the 
federal  government  into  almost  direct  and 
yet  indirect  relationship  with  municipalities, 
and  this  is  something  that  the  province  of 
course  would  never  allow— the  federal  gov- 
ernment becoming  involved  in  local  munici- 
pahties. 

This  is  something  that  is  going  to  have  to 
be  expanded  on  in  the  future.  I  think  the 
federal  government,  in  more  ways  than  this 
maybe,  is  going  to  have  to  be  involved  in 
the  cities  and  maybe  the  time  is  not  too  far 
away  when  income  tax  and  other  forms  of 
taxation  will  probably  have  to  be  poured 
back  into  the  cities  to  even  keep  them  viable. 
We  see  in  the  States  what's  happened  there 
to  many  of  the  cities,  where  they  are  going 
down  and  without  federal  aid  they  may  not 
survive  at  all  hardly. 

In  this  plan  it  would  appear  that  it  will 
be  covering  eastern  and  northern  Ontario. 
So,  being  in  southwestern  Ontario  I  don't 
expect  that  there  would  be  too  much  in- 
volved now  with  DREE.  There  are  some 
plans  administered  in  our  own  area  with 
regard  to  the  protection  of  agricultural  land 


under  ARDA,  which  is  administered  through 
the  DREE  programme,  and  we  do  get  in- 
volved in  that  part. 

What  I  am  wondering  about  is  what  some 
of  these  projects  may  be  with  regard  to  the 
provincial  and  federal  governments  in  the 
municipalities.  I  am  assuming  they  could  be 
sewage  works,  watermains,  health  centres, 
medical  centres  and  recreational  facilities 
and  so  forth.  In  the  last  year  or  so  we  have 
had  a  federal-provincial  winter  capital  works 
programme.  The  money  comes  through 
DREE  for  those  projects,  and  I  know  we 
have  been  entitled  under  that  programme 
to  obtain  some  of  those  funds.  But  as  nearly 
as  I  can  understand  from  the  bill  and  the 
minister's  remarks  at  the  introduction  of  it, 
this  programme  is  to  be  funded  predomi- 
nandy  by  the  provincial  and  federal  govern- 
ments and  more  or  less  with  agreements,  but 
not  necessarily  finances  from  the  municipality. 

Now,  I  am  concerned  with  these  type  of 
things  and  that  the  eastern  and  northern 
parts  of  the  province  develop  properly.  I 
don't  think  that  I,  as  a  southwestemer,  if 
there  are  lots  of  opportunities  for  jobs,  can 
sit  back  in  my  easy  chair  and  see  northern 
Ontario  or  eastern  Ontario  suffering  from  a 
high  unemployment  rate.  If  that  happens, 
then  they  cannot  buy  the  things  we  produce 
and  then  we  are  all  in  trouble.  That  is  why 
I  say  that  I  am  a  Canadian  first,  and  then 
an  Ontarian.  I  don't  think  that  it  is  any  good 
to  me  as  an  Ontarian  to  be  in  a  rich  prov- 
ince if  somebody  in  Newfoundland  or  New 
Brunswick  can't  afford  to  have  the  benefits 
of  life  that  we  have. 

So  we  have  to  consider  that  we  are  all 
one  country  in  that  way. 

Now,  perhaps  there  are  other  things  that 
could  be  done  to  get  industry  to  come  into 
these  eastern  and  northern  areas.  The  pre- 
vious speaker  did  mention  something  about 
a  tax  on  employees,  the  number  of  em- 
ployees who  would  be  hired  if  they  came 
into  already  built-up  areas.  That  might  be 
feasible. 

I  think  there  are  other  areas  that  could 
be  explored.  One  might  be  the  amount  of 
tax  that  they  would  pay  as  a  corporation  tax; 
maybe  there  should  be  a  lower  rate.  Rather 
than  just  provide  giveaway  programmes,  I 
would  be  more  inclined  to  think  that  we 
should  be  looking  at  the  tax  structure  for 
the  number  of  years  that  they  first  go  irito 
these  areas,  and  perhaps  favour  them  with 
benefits  in  their  income  tax  structure  and 
items  like  that. 

We  also  should  be  looking  at  the  freight 
rate  structure  in  these  areas;  that  could  have 


378 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


a    major    efFect    on    encouraging    industry    to 
go  into  those  areas. 

Those  are  some  of  the  items  that  I  had 
wanted  to  mention.  I  think  I  would  look 
forward  to  hearing  the  minister's  remarks 
when  he  winds  up  the  speeches. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  any  other  hon.  mem- 
ber wish  to  speak  on  this? 

The  member  for  Thunder  Bay. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Yes,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  feel  it  incumbent  upon  me  to 
say  a  few  words  about  this  bill,  inasmuch  as 
it  does  deal  with  the  DREE  programme  at 
the  federal  level  and  the  participation  by 
the  Ministry  of  the  Treasury,  Economics 
and  Intergovernmental  AflFairs,  which  is 
responsible  for  the  regional  development  pro- 
grammes in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

The  eastern  part  of  the  province,  par- 
ticularly Cornwall,  at  this  point  hasn't 
reached  the  stage  in  the  Design  for  Develop- 
ment programme  for  Ontario  that  would  give 
us  an  overview  of  what  might  take  place 
and  what  the  government  sees  as  the 
priorities  for  regional  development  in  eastern 
Ontario.  However,  I  am  familiar  with  the 
way  they  have  established  their  priorities  in 
the  only  two  economic  regions  in  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  where  they  have  been 
studied  to  the  extent  that  this  government 
has  accepted  as  government  policy  the  recom- 
mendations contained  in  the  Design  for  De- 
velopment for  the  Toronto-centred  region 
and  the  economic  region  that  is  known  as 
northwestern  Ontario. 

This  is  the  kind  of  a  bill  that  no  one  in 
his  right  mind  would  oppose.  It  is  the  kind 
of  development  that  has  been  sorely  needed 
in  eastern  Ontario  for  many  and  many  a 
year.  It  is  the  kind  of  development  that  I 
have  been  advocating  for  northwestern  On- 
tario for  as  long  as  I  have  had  tie  pleasm-e 
to  sit  in  this  Legislature-and  will  continue 
to  do  so. 

Because  of  the  inability  of  the  DREE 
programme  at  the  federal  level  to  efFect  the 
kinds  of  changes  and  to  ofiFer  the  kinds  of 
incentives  that  really  make  the  difference 
when  you  are  trying  to  entice  an  industry, 
whether  it  be  primary  or  secondary,  to  estab- 
lish in  any  given  location,  one  has  to  question 
the  ability  of  that  programme  at  the  federal 
level  to  effect  any  kinds  of  change  that  would 
be  meaningful.  So,  while  we  do  welcome  the 
implication  of  this  bill,  I  think  the  jury  is 
still  out  on  how  effective  DREE  has  been 
in  the  past  and  how  effective  it  may  be  in  the 
future. 


I  want  to  refer  to  an  article  that  appeared 
some  months  ago  in  the  Globe  and  Mail 
as  a  result  of  a  study  that  was  done  by 
Prof.  David  Springate,  a  professor  of  finance 
at  the  University  of  Tennessee,  and  was 
based  on  his  observations  on  research  for 
his  doctorate  thesis  in  business  administration 
at  Harvard  University.  The  article  had  this 
to  say,  Mr.  Speaker: 

Grants  under  the  Act  are  the  main 
method  by  which  the  federal  Department 
of  Regional  Economic  Expansion  provides 
incentives  for  the  construction  or  expan- 
sion of  secondary  manufacturing  plants 
in  disadvantaged  regions.  Dr.  Springate 
looked  at  31  grants  made  as  the  pro- 
gramme got  under  way  in  1970  and  early 
1971. 

He  said:  "Such  a  study  can  yield  indicative 
findings."  He  maintains  that  some  of  the 
investment  decisions  were  pursued  in  con- 
siderable detail.  His  assessment  of  the  in- 
vestment decision  process  of  the  31  com- 
panies, says  the  article,  is  that: 

"By  and  large  DREE's  grants  did  not 
affect  the  area  in  which  companies  made 
their  plant  location  choices.  If  companies 
do  not  consider  parts  of  the  country  other 
than  those  they  normally  would  have 
chosen,  DREE  is  not  going  to  be  able  to 
disperse  or  direct  manufacturing  activity 
to  less  desirable  places  on  a  broad  scale." 
[He   went  on  further  to  say]: 

"While  incentive  grants  may  not  greatly 
affect  plant  location  decisions,  they  may 
be  justified  if  they  speed  up  investment. 
But  they  do  not  have  the  effect  of  speed- 
ing up  the  planning.  Overall,  the  field  re- 
sults suggest  that  grants  are  relatively  un- 
important in  affecting  the  initial  design  or 
consideration  of  investment  proposals,  and 
strategic  or  technical  factors  rather  than 
financial  considerations  tend  to  predomi- 
nate at  this  stage." 

Indeed,  it  may  be  more  accurate  to  say 
that  the  programme  delays  investment 
rather  than  promotes  it,  as  the  government 
takes  some  months  to  consider  applications 
for  grants. 

I  have  had  some  knowledge  of  the  incentive 
programme  at  both  the  federal  and  the  pro- 
vincial levels,  Mr.  Speaker. 

On  one  occasion,  Kimberly-Clark  corpora- 
tion was  to  establish  a  tissue  plant  someplace 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario  where  it  would 
use  the  wood  pulp  from  northern  Ontario  to 
feed  this  tissue  plant.  I  think  it's  accurate  to 
say  that  the  then  Minister  of  Lands  and  For- 
ests,  the   hon.   member  for  Cochrane  North 


MARCH  15,  1974 


379 


(Mr.  Bninelle),  and  myself  were  trying  to  per- 
suade that  company  that  it  should  have  an 
even  greater  degree  of  processing  much  closer 
to  the  source  of  the  raw  material.  Of  course, 
we  were  suggesting  that  that  tissue  plant  be 
constructed  at  either  Terrace  Bay  on  the 
limits  of  Kimberly-Clark  or  in  the  Kapuskas- 
ing  area  based  on  the  Spruce  Falls  operation 
of  that  company  in  the  Kapuskasing  area. 

We  were  unsuccessful  in  our  efforts.  In 
spite  of  any  incentives  that  might  have  been 
forthcoming  at  the  federal  or  the  provincial 
levels,  nothing  we  could  say  or  offer  to  them 
would  have  persuaded  them  to  build  other 
than  where  they  did  ultimately  build  the 
plant,  and  that  was  in  Hunts ville. 

On  asking  the  president  of  that  company  at 
that  particular  time  what  kind  of  incentives 
we  would  have  had  to  offer  them  in  order 
to  persuade  them  they  should  build  their 
tissue-making  facility  much  closer  to  the 
resource,  thereby  providing  increased  eco- 
nomic viability  for  those  northern  communi- 
ties and  in  the  process  creating  more  jobs. 
The  president  at  that  time  said,  "Nothing 
any  government  at  whatever  level,  nothing 
that  they  would  have  done,  would  have  per- 
suaded us  to  build  it  other  than  where  we 
did  build  it  down  at  Huntsville." 

He  said  it  was  a  matter  of  transportation 
costs.  It  was  availability  of  labour  at  a  price 
that  they  were  prepared  to  pay,  and  much 
closer  to  their  traditional  markets.  If  this  is 
the  attitude  that's  being  taken  by  all  indus- 
trial and  commercial  enterprises  at  this  point 
in  time,  I  think  that  we  have  to  take  a  much 
more  realistic  look  at  the  effectiveness  of  the 
DREE  programme  that  we  are  becoming  a 
part  of  here  in  this  bill,  or  the  programmes 
under  the  aegis  of  the  Ontario  Development 
Corp. 

When  you're  talking  about  the  DREE  pro- 
gramme as  it  affected  the  establishment  of 
a  processing  capacity  in  the  Timmins  area, 
where  Texasgulf  has  brought  on  stream  its 
Kidd  Creek  property,  it's  my  understanding 
that  that  would  have  been  done  there  in 
any  event.  The  $8  million  or  so  project  that 
was  provided  by  DREE  would,  of  necessity, 
been  done  there  in  any  event.  When  you 
look  at  some  of  the  so-called  incentive  pro- 
grammes under  Ontario  Development  Corp., 
where  $500,000  in  forgivable  loans  in  two 
instances  were  provided  to  Kraft  to  assist 
them  in  their  food  plants  in  eastern  Ontario, 
based  on  raw  milk  that  they  had  in  such 
abundance  there,  where  else  would  they  have 
established  the  plants?  When  you  consider 
the   $500,000  forgivable  loan  that  was  pro- 


vided to  Allied  Chemicals  to  process  a  sul- 
phuric acid  plant  in  the  Sudbury  region, 
where  else  would  they  have  established  an 
enterprise  that  was  to  use  the  abundance  of 
sulphur  that  emanates  from  the  operations  of 
Falconbridge   and    International   Nickel? 

I  am  just  wondering,  Mr.  Speaker,  just  how 
effective  this  kind  of  programme  is  going  to 
be.  As  I  look  over  the  information  that  was 
made  available  in  the  joint  announcement 
released  by  Hon.  Don  Jamieson  and  the 
Treasurer,  it's  a  very  sophisticated  package 
whereby  they  do  in  a  very,  very  broad 
sense  say  the  kinds  of  things  that  they 
would  hope  for  by  way  of  economic  de- 
velopment for  the  Cornwall  region.  There's 
no  evidence  in  at  the  present  time  that  any 
real  benefits  are  going  to  accrue.  They  do 
state  that  they  are  going  to  spend  several 
million  dollars  in  order  to  try  to  provide  the 
kind  of  incentives.  There's  no  indication  in 
the  joint  programme  that  it  will  be  restricted 
to  purely  Canadian  companies. 

I  have  a  small  excerpt  here  from  the  Han- 
sard, a  record  of  the  debates  over  in  Ottawa. 
I  want  to  refer  the  House  briefly  to  com- 
ments made  by  Hon.  Don  Jamieson,  who  is 
the  minister  responsible  for  economic  activity 
and  expansion  at  the  federal  level.  I  would 
like  to  hearken  back  to  things  that  he  had 
to  say  at  that  time. 

In  the  region  that  I  know  best,  the  At- 
lantic provinces,  the  whole  area,  all  four 
provinces,  are  littered,  quite  literally,  with 
the  remnants  of  foreign- controlled  indus- 
tries that  milked  the  region  for  whatever 
they  could  get  out  of  it  and  then  departed 
and  left  us  to  clean  up  the  mess. 

Now,  that's  from  the  minister  who  is  a 
co-partner  in  this  programme  that  we're 
speaking  of  in  this  bill  that's  before  us  in 
the  Legislature,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Mu- 
nicipal Act. 

As  I  say,  I'm  not  going  to  oppose  this  bill 
and  nobody  in  this  party  is  about  to  do  so. 
We  are  looking  for  any  ray  of  hope  at  all  by 
way  of  a  concerted  effort  by  either  the  pro- 
vincial or  the  federal  governments  to  get  this 
whole  project  under  way  and  to  give  the 
people  of  Cornwall  the  kind  of  economic  lift 
that  they  have  looked  for  for  so  long.  If  it 
will  provide  any  economic  stimulus,  bring 
them  into  the  mainstream  of  activitiles  in 
the  province,  economically,  certainly  we're 
not  going  to  oppose  it  and  we  would  hope 
that  it  would  do  the  kinds  of  things  that 
Mr.  Jamieson  and  the  Ontario  Treasurer  hope 
to  achieve. 


380 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  do  see  in  the  announcement  that  was 
made  that  they  too  are  going  to  provide  this 
kind  of  money  for  economic  activity  in  north- 
western Ontario.  There's  no  evidence  that 
the  DREE  programme  has  been  even  re- 
motely effective  in  northwestern  Ontario  to 
foster  the  kind  of  development  that  is  possi- 
ble with  a  much  greater  processing  of  the 
ores  and  the  forest  products  right  on  our 
doorstep;  and  we  would  welcome  it. 

In  the  Hedlin  Menzies  and  Associates  Ltd. 
report  that  was  commissioned  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Natural  Resources  a  little  over  three 
years  ago,  they  quoted  some  very  interesting 
statistics.  They  said  that  six  out  of  every 
10  jobs  directly  and  indirectly  related  to  the 
forest  products  industry  are  located  in  places 
other  than  where  the  resources  are  located. 

This  means  that  six  out  of  every  10  jobs 
are  located  in  southern  Ontario,  or  other 
parts  of  Canada,  with  only  four  jobs  out  of 
the  10  located  right  on  the  doorstep  of  the 
resources. 

I  don't  need  to  tell  the  members  what  the 
implication  of  that  statistic  would  be  if  we 
just  reversed  that  and  said  six  out  of  every 
10  jobs  should  be  located  near  or  on  the 
doorstep  of  the  resources,  while  the  other 
four  should  be  located  elsewhere.  We  would 
provide  tens  of  thousands  of  new  jobs  in 
northern  Ontario  in  an  area  where  they  need 
it  so  badly,  where  we  do  have  a  mass  exodus 
of  our  youth  from  the  area  because  there 
is  a  lack  of  job  opportunities. 

I've  spoken  about  this  on  many,  many  oc- 
casions in  the  past,  and  I  just  say  it  for 
the  benefit  of  the  new  minister.  If  this  pro- 
gramme that  we're  talking  about  in  eastern 
Ontario  is  going  to  have  any  significant 
economic  effect  at  all,  we're  going  to  have  to 
insist  on  the  kind  of  development,  the  kind 
of  processing,  the  kind  of  industrial  activity 
taking  place  that  will  have  a  maximum 
effect  on  the  economy.  It  must  provide  more 
jobs  and  more  economic  viability.  There 
must  be  a  better  tax  base  that  will  provide 
the  services  for  people  who  are  responsible 
for  creating  this  new  wealth  and  provide 
them  with  a  level  of  services  and  a  lifestyle 
to  which  we  feel  everybody  in  the  province 
is  entitled,  regardless  of  where  they  may  live. 

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

Mr.  Foulds:  I  don't  want  to  prolong  the 
<lebate  unduly,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  understand 
there  is  some  urgency  about  getting  the  bill 
through,  but  I  do  want  to  make  a  couple  of 
specific  points  about  the  general   agreement 


between  the  federal  and  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment and  the  priorities  that  both  those 
governments  have  with  regard  to  the  DREE 
programme.  I  want  to  make  some  specific 
references  to  the  city  of  Thunder  Bay. 

I  don't  think  anyone  in  the  province  be- 
grudges the  initiatives  taken  for  the  Corn- 
wall area,  but  I  would  like  to  point  out  to 
the  minister  that  the  city  of  Thunder  Bay 
specifically  has  been  in  correspondence  with 
his  ministry,  with  the  Treasurer,  in  regard 
to  the  use  of  some  funding  through  the 
DREE  programme  for  the  development  of 
an  economic  infrastructure  in  the  city  of 
Thunder  Bay. 

I  think  that  if  there  is  a  second  priority,  it 
must  be,  as  my  colleague  from  the  riding  of 
Thunder  Bay  indicated,  all  of  northwestern 
Ontario.  Northwestern  Ontario  was  ignored 
in  the  Throne  Speech  announcements.  North- 
western Ontario  has  as  great  a  need  for 
sensible  economic  planning  as  any  other 
region  in  the  province. 

The  city  of  Thunder  Bay  specifically  was 
not  given  any  provincial  assistance  in  terms 
of  funding,  as  were  other  regional  munici- 
palities throughout  the  province.  And  al- 
though it  can  be  argued  that  the  city  of 
Thunder  Bay  is  not  a  regional  government, 
it  has  some  of  the  same  problems  as  the  re- 
gional governments  have  in  providing  ser- 
vices. The  land  territory  of  the  city  is  enor- 
mous in  comparison  to  most  cities,  and  what 
were  formerly  rural  parts  of  the  city  par- 
ticularly need  tremendous  development  in 
terms  of  sewage  treatment  plants,  bus  service, 
extra  policing,  the  development  possibility 
of  industrial  parks,  and  so  on. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  to  the  new 
minister  with  these  responsibilities,  that  I 
have  been  in  direct  correspondence  with  the 
Treasurer,  as  has  the  city  clerk  of  Thunder 
Bay,  stretching  back  to  before  December, 
1972.  And  constantly,  as  my  colleague  from 
Ottawa  Centre  has  said,  carrots  have  been 
vaguely  held  out  to  the  city  in  the  hope 
that  something  would  be  forthcoming. 
Finally,  by  about  May  of  this  year,  there  is 
the  idea  that  the  designation  of  Thunder  Bay 
under  the  DREE  programme  might  be  used. 

I  would  hope  that  the  minister  could  make 
some  definite  commitment  to  Thunder  Bay, 
which  is  presently  outlining  its  proposals 
to  the  ministry.  That  commitment  should 
be  given  to  them  so  that  the  kind  of  prob- 
lems they  are  facing— over  the  Hydro  thermal 
generation  plant  in  Thunder  Bay  and  raw 
sewage  being  disposed  of  directly  into  Lake 
Superior  with  the  water  intake  for  half  of  the 
city  in  almost  exactly  the  same  area— can  be 


MARCH  15,  1974 


381 


quickly  and  readily  solved  before  the  city 
gets  itself  into  the  kind  of  environmental 
problems  that  are  faced  here  in  the  "golden 
horseshoe." 

Mr.  Speaker,  people  in  the  outlying  areas 
of  northwestern  Ontario  often  look  to  the 
city  of  Thunder  Bay  in  the  way  that  the 
people  in  the  rest  of  the  province  look  to 
the  city  of  Toronto.  In  many  ways  the  city 
of  Thunder  Bay  is  the  metropolitan  centre 
for  that  huge  land  mass,  that  58  per  cent 
of  the  province.  And  it  faces  a  number  of 
the  same  problems  in  terms  of  housing  and 
in  terms  of  the  infrastructure  I  talked  about 
earlier. 

I  would  urge  the  minister  to  consider  very 
seriously  that  the  city  of  Thunder  Bay 
specifically  be  given  a  commitment  about 
the  brief,  and  the  proposals  it  is  presenting 
to  the  Treasurer  with  regard  to  the  assist- 
ance the  provincial  government  now  has 
received  from  the  federal  government  imder 
the    DREE    programme.    Thank    you    very 


Mr.  Speaker:  Does  any  other  member 
wish  to  speak  to  this  bill?  If  not,  the  hon. 
minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Thank  you  Mr.  Speaker, 
I'd  like  first  of  all,  to  express  my  appreciation 
at  the  way  that  the  member  for  Kitchener 
(Mr.  Breithaupt)  made  his  remarks  very 
direct  and  brief.  I  will  try  to  answer  them 
as  briefly  as  possible.  Also  I'd  like  to  say 
to  the  member  for  Essex-Kent  (Mr.  Ruston) 
and  Thunder  Bay  (Mr.  Stokes)  I  appreciate 
their  remarks  very  much. 

I  followed  to  a  degree  the  remarks  that 
were  made  by  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  (Mr.  Cassidy),  until  he  rambled  on 
for  such  a  long  time  that  I'm  afraid  I  lost 
the  point;  so  I  may  have  to  come  back  to 
him  at  a  later  date.  In  any  event,  I'll  try 
to  answer  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

Certainly  I  will  answer  the  member  for 
Port   Arthur  (Mr.   Foulds)   directly. 

The  purpose  of  this  bill,  Mr.  Speaker,  is 
to  advise  the  members  of  this  House  that  this 
is  a  general  development  agreement,  signed 
by  the  federal  goverimient  and  the  Province 
of  Ontario  in  Cornwall  on  Feb.  26,  for  a 
10-year  period.  It  is  the  follow-up  of  further 
agreements  that  have  been  signed  by  the 
provinces  of  Newfoundland,  Saskatchewan 
and  Prince  Edward  Island  in  the  past.  We 
expect  to  be  signing  specific  agreements 
which  will  come  out  of  this  bill  with  the 
municipalities  affected,  not  only  Cornwall 
but  manv  others  in  the  futvue. 


We  would  like  to  deal,  first  of  all,  with 
the  way  that  the  programme  operates.  The 
federal  government  and  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment have  agreed  that  the  programme 
should  be  a  programme  that  will  increase 
jobs  in  areas  of  high  unemployment  and  will 
also  improve  the  quality  of  the  job  oppor- 
tunities in  those  areas  throughout  the  province 
which  have  had  slower  growth. 

I  think  I  have  to  go  back  to  the  statement 
which  was  prepared  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment and  go  through  it  to  some  degree, 
because  of  some  of  the  remarks  that  have 
been  made  before  me  today.  The  problems 
which  we  have  in  northern  Ontario  have 
not  been  forgotten  and  will  be  dealt  with 
^'*^rv  specifically  by  this  province  in  the  very 
near  future  in  certain  areas. 

The  federal  government  has  said  that 
subsidiary  agreements  might  be  developed  to 
allow  for  advanced  planning  where  a  non- 
renewable resource  is  on  the  verge  of  ex- 
haustion. It  also  has  said  there  is  the  matter 
of  transportation  facilities  that  must  be  con- 
sidered, the  lack  of  or  the  inadequate  trans- 
portation facilities  that  exist  in  certain  areas. 
They  particularly  refer  to  air  transport  in 
the  more  remote  parts.  We  have  agreed  that 
there  is  the  possibility,  and  it  should  be 
very  seriously  considered  by  all  concerned, 
of  certain  airstrips  being  built  to  develop 
some  areas,  rather  the  development  of  high- 
ways which  are  much  more  expensive  in 
northern  Ontario. 

We  have  mentioned  that  people  who  live 
in  isolated  communities  should  be  given 
consideration  by  the  northern  subsidiary 
agreements.  However,  the  final  form  of 
agreement,  Mr,  Speaker,  will  depend 
very  much  on  the  consultations  which  we 
have  to  have  with  the  local  people.  This  is 
what  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  was  say- 
ing before,  that  we  apparently  have  this  mis- 
understanding whereby  the  people  have  not 
been  consulted.  They  certainly  are  con- 
sulted and  have  been  very,  very  much  in  the 
instance  of  Cornwall. 

I  might  add  at  this  moment  that  Cornwall 
is  delighted  with  the  fact  that  we  have  the 
federal  government  co-operating  with  the 
provincial  government  and  the  city  of  Corn- 
wall in  an  agreement  which  brings  in  mil- 
lions of  dollars,  much  more  than  what  was 
indicated  this  morning  by  the  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre.  As  a  matter  of  fact  my  figures 
are  this,  that  of  $7.1  million  up  to  approxi- 
mately $8  million  by  the  federal  government, 
the  same  will  be  put  in  by  the  Province  of 
Ontario  and  up  to  $4  to  $5  million  by  the 
city   of   Cornwall   over   a   three-year  period. 


382 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


which  is  a  very  significant  amount  and  will, 
in  my  opinion,  be  the  start  of  a  boom  for 
all  of  eastern  Ontario. 

I  want  to  just  go  through  this  general 
agreement  in  order  that  the  member  for 
Kitchener  will  understand,  first  of  all  what 
the  general  development  agreement  is  all 
about  and  why  it  is  vague  in  certain  cases. 
It  has  to  be  by  necessity.  We  recognize  full 
well  in  northern  Ontario  that  there  are 
certain  key  industries,  such  as  pulp  and  paper 
and  other  types  of  wood-using  manufac- 
turers. We  know  that  the  government  must 
take  this  into  consideration  by  subsidiary 
agreements  with  those  areas  that  are  in- 
volved. 

(The  federal  government  has  taken  into 
consideration  the  fact  that  we— that  is,  the 
province— have  an  office  in  Thunder  Bay. 
They  have  also  opened  a  new  office  in 
Thunder  Bay  to  take  care  of  the  problems 
that  we  know  exist  in  northern  Ontario.  I 
think  the  hon.  member  will  appreciate  the 
fact  that  this  opening  was  just  a  few  days 
ago,  and  I  believe  he  was  there  at  the  time. 

So  the  general  agreement  itself  is  very 
important  to  us  on  the  basis  that  we  have 
not  been  satisfied  in  Ontario  with  the  amount 
of  money  that  has  been  brought  into  Ontario 
by  the  federal  government,  nor  have  we  been 
satisfied  with  the  amount  of  money  which 
was  spent  all  over  Canada  to  assist  those 
areas  of  low  economic  status  compared  with 
other  provinces.  We  feel  the  federal  gov- 
ernment has  been  remiss  in  not  having  more 
money  appropriated  for  Ontario. 

They  have  given  us  the  undertaking  that 
in  the  future  they  will  appropriate  more 
fund's  for  Ontario.  I  cannot  say  to  the  hon. 
members  here  today  how  much  they'll  give 
us,  but  they  have  given  us  the  undertaking 
we  will  get  a  fair  share,  and  I  believe  this  is 
a  start  in  the  right  direction. 

Mr.  Stokes:  The  figure  of  $40  million  for 
northwestern  Ontario  has  been  bandied 
about.  Has  the  minister  any  information  on 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  This  is  my  understanding, 
that  this  figure  of  $40  million  has  been  men- 
tioned. But  what  I  would  like  to  say  to  the 
members  is  that  I  don't  think  any  figure  is 
firm  until  you  get  your  subsidiary  agreements 
signed.  Then  you  know  how  much  money  is 
going  to  be  spent  in  Ontario,  as  an  overall 
amount  for  the  province. 

We  want  to  have  the  subsidiary  agree- 
ments establishing  a  set  of  programmes  which 
relate    to    the    economic    development    in    a 


specific  region  of  the  province.  We  want 
them  to  co-ordinate  the  existing  federal  and 
provincial  programmes  involving  a  particular 
development  opportunity.  We  also  want  the 
agreements  to  provide  specific  support  not 
available  through  other  federal  or  provincial 
programmes.  And  we  want  their  subsidiary 
agreements  to  establish  continuing  pro- 
grammes to  fill  gaps  in  the  existing  range 
of  government-funded  programmes.  In  a 
broad  sense,  that  is  what  the  development- 
agreement  is  all  about. 

As  far  as  the  Cornwall  agreement  is  con- 
cerned, and  as  far  as  the  ancillary  agree- 
ments which  Cornwall  will  enter  into  after 
the  passing  of  this  bill  are  concerned,  it  will 
mean  that  of  the  funds  that  we  are  providing 
from  the  federal  and  provincial  governments 
and  from  the  city  of  Cornwall  itself,  the 
people  will  have  the  funds  to  establish  and 
complete  an  industrial  park.  They  will  be 
able  to  establish  a  single-industry  site  which 
will  provide,  as  I  understand  it,  up  to  1,200 
jobs. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What's  the  industry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  What's  the  industry? 
Combustion  Engineering. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Right.    What  kind  of  plant? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  It's  a  boiler-making  indus- 
try which  is  a  male-employment  industry.  I 
think  the  member  is  well  aware  of  the  facts. 
It's  been  in  the  press  and  I  am  sure  the 
member  reads  the  press  as  well  as  I  do.  It's 
located  in  Quebec  and  I  would  hope  that  it 
doesn't  cancel  its  plan  to  come  into  Corn- 
wall. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  When  will  construction  begin 
and  when  will  the  plant  enter  production? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Well,  it'll  begin,  I  sup- 
pose, as  soon  as  we  get  this  bill  through.  I 
would  try  to  say  to  the  member  again,  if  the 
hon.  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  would  ever 
learn  to  make  his  point  and  get  it  over  with, 
maybe  this  House  could  do  its  business  in  a 
more  reasonable  way.  I  am  sick  and  tired 
of  having  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre, 
all  the  time,  time  after  time  after  time,  say 
nothing  for  half  an  hour.  If  he  could  stand 
up  and  make  his  point  and  get  it  over  with, 
we  would  have  had  this  bill  through  by  now. 
But  he  has  been  yakldng  up  there  for  half 
an  hour,  saying  nothing. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  That's  not 
so. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,— 


MARCH  15,  1974 


383 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

iMr.  Cassidy:  —this  personal  attack  is  not 
justified.    The  minister  has  had  the  bill  sit- 
ting around  for  months- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  There  is  no 
point  of  order. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —and!  for  him  to  babyishly 
whine  about  the  loss  of  half  an  hour  of  his 
precious  time  is  ridiculous. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  no  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  first  intelligent  exposi- 
tion of  the  problems  of  that  area  for  many 
years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  other 
facihties  that  will  be  improved'  in  Cornwall 
will  include  the  dock  facilities.  They  will  in- 
clude barge  facihties;  there'll  also  be  rail 
facilities  provided  at  the  western  end  of 
Cornwall.  We'll  have  a  new  tourism  and 
recreation  area  adjacent  to  the  industrial  site. 
We'll  also  have  a  complete  civic  centre,  as 
I  understand  it,  if  the  city  of  Cornwall  wishes 
to  proceed  with  it.  We  are  also  going  to 
develop  some  of  the  canal  lands  which  have 
been  of  little  use  to  the  city  and  to  the 
people  of  that  particular  area. 

The  federal  government  has  agreed  to 
provide  a  new  training  institute  in  Cornwall 
which  will  accommodate  some  800  students. 
I  think  this  is  a  very  honest  attempt  by  the 
federal  government  and  the  provincial  govern- 
ment to  provide  job  opportunities  in  Corn- 
wall and  the  area.  I  was  ddighted  to  hear 
that  the  Liberal  Party  has  agreed  to  this,  too, 
and  that  certainly  now  we  are  co-operating, 
in  a  fashion  which  I  hope  we  will  carry  on. 

We  have  had  some  discussions  this  morning 
about  why  we  did  not  relocate  Stelco  from 
where  it  is  proposing  to  locate  in  southern 
Ontario.  I  think  it's  a  matter  of  economics 
and  the  feasibility  of  what  industries  one 
can  'locate. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Does  it  make  any  sense 
to  relocate  a  steel  company  when  there  is 
absolutely  no  way  anyone  can  prove  to  me 
that  it  can  be  provided  wdth  its  raw  materials 
and  that  its  transportation  costs  will  be  as 
equitable  as  they  would  be  where  the  com- 
pany is  now;  where  it  can  get  the  labour 
and  where  it  can  get  housing  and  all  the 
other  things  that  go  along  with  it? 


Mr.  Foulds:  Why  doesn't  the  government 
do  something  about  housing? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  look 
into  it?  There  is  no  housing  in  Haldimand. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  We  have  discussed  this 
feasibihty  with  the  company  and  with  other 
companies. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Nonsense.  The  company  made 
its  announcement  before  even  telling  the 
government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  We  are  considering  the 
feasibility  of  having  industries  locate  in  cer- 
tain areas.  If  it's  feasible  to  do  so,  we  wiU 
certainly  assist  them  as  far  as  the  government 
is  concerned. 

We  are  not  going  to  say  to  industries, 
"Locate  in  an  area  so  that,  in  five  years'  time, 
you're  out  of  business."  That  makes  abso- 
lutely no  sense  whatsoever. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Bunch  of  patsies. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  I  cannot  agree  with  the 
socialist  attitudes  of  the  NDP,  which  say  take 
over.  There  is  no  way.  This  government,  as 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  depends  on  private 
enterprise  to  make  the  economy  of  our  prov- 
ince as  good  as  it  is. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  would  destroy  the  poHcy. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Certainly  we  will  carry 
on  doing  so,  in  the  future. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  What  we  have  done  as 
a  government,  through  the  Ontario  Develop- 
ment Corp.  and  the  Eastern  Ontario  Develop- 
ment Corp.,  has  been  to  assist  by  way  of 
loans- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  The  govenunent  is  giving 
welfare  to  corporations. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  —in  providing  job  oppor- 
tunities. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Why  does  the  government  call 
them  incentives  when  it  gives  them  to  cor- 
porations and  welfare  when  it  gives  them 
to  individuals? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Our  socialist  friends 
would  like  the  government  to  take  over  every- 
thing. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 


384 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  I  am  glad  they  are  on 
record.  That's  just  terrific. 

Mr.  Foulds:   Corporate  welfare  bums, 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  It's  just  terrific  that  they 
are  on  record  as  wanting  to  take  over  every- 
thing because  there  is  absolutely  no  way  the 
NDP  is  going  to  make  any  impression  in 
eastern  Ontario  or  in  any  other  part  of  On- 
tario when  its  members  talk  such  nonsense. 
No  way  whatsoever. 

I  would  think  that  serious  consideration- 
Mr.   Foulds:   That's   why  this   government 
has  a  minority  of  seats  in  the  north. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  —should  be  given  to  the 
party  philosophy  before  its  members  stand  up 
any  more. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  We  are  dealing 
wdth  the  principle  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That's  why  the  anti -labour 
member  for  Timiskaming  (Mr.  Havrot)  is 
going  to  lose  his  seat. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  As  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned the  government  has  assisted  by  way  of 
grants,  and  will  continue  to  do  so,  to  locate 
industries  in  those  areas  which  haven't  had 
the  growth  we  have  experienced  in  certain 
parts  of  Ontario. 

I  want  to  say  very  briefly  at  this  time  that 
the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  has  brought 
up  the  point  of  inadequate  consultation  with 
the  people.  How  far  does  one  go  on  the  mat- 
ter of  consultation?  This  matter  has  been  dis- 
cussed at  some  length  in  the  city  of  Cornwall. 
All  the  province  is  providing  by  way  of  this 
bill  is  allowing  the  municipality  to  enter  into 
an  agreement  which  will  go  beyond  the  term 
of  the  present  council,  in  regard  to  a  de- 
benture debt.  It  does  not  change  the  fact 
that  one  must  have  an  OMB  hearing  for  any 
change  of  zoning  and  therefore  I  believe  that 
it  is  not  in  the  best  interests  of  ill  con- 
cerned to  consider  an  amendment  to  this  bill 
whatsoever,  when  the  debt  that  is  being 
incurred  is  certainly  in  the  best  interests  of 
all  the  people  at  the  local  level  and  if  there 
is  a  change  in  planning  there  will  be  a 
hearing. 

iSo,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  say  again  that 
we  look  forward  in  the  next  few  weeks  — 
maybe  the  next  few  days  —  to  entering  into 
specific  agreements  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment and  with  areas  in  northern  Ontario- 


Mr.  Cassidy:  Which  ones? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  I  am  not  at  liberty  to- 
name  the  areas,  but  we  look  forward  to 
doing  that  and  will  be  doing  that,  I  under- 
stand, very  shortly,  and  I  think  at  that  time 
those  areas  that  are  affected  will  be  as 
appreciative  as  the  area  of  Cornwall.  Thank 
you. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Don't  count  on  it. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
bill.  ^ 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  this  bill  be  ordered  for 

third  reading? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  that  agreeable  to  the  minis- 
ter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  So  directed. 


ROYAL  ASSENT 

Mr.  Speaker:  Before  we  proceed  with  the 
next  order  of  business,  I  beg  to  inform  the 
House  that,  in  the  name  of  Her  Majesty  the 
Queen,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor has  been  pleased  to  assent  to  a  certain 
bill  in  his  chamber. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  following  is  the 
title  of  the  bill  to  which  His  Honour  has 
assented: 

•An  Act  respecting  a  certain  Dispute  be- 
tween the  York  Coimty  Board  of  Education 
and  certain  of  its  Teachers. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Order  for  committee 
of  the  whole  House. 


MUNICIPAL  ACT 

iHouse  in  committee  on  Bill  8,  An  Act  to- 
amend  the  Municipal  Act. 

Mr.    Chairman:    Are   there   any   questions,, 
comments  or  amendments  to  section  1? 
Section  1  agreed  to. 
On  section  2: 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre. 

Mr.  Cassidy  moves  that  section  2  of  the 
bill  be  amended  by  adding  the  following 
words  at  the  end  of  paragraph  74a: 

Provided  that  no  municipality  shall  enter 

into    such    an    agreement   without   a   pro- 


MARCH  15,  1974 


385 


gramme  of  public  consultation,  including 
'public  meetings,  on  this  proposed  agree- 
ment, and  such  consultation'  shall  be  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  minister. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  I  just 
want  to  raise  a  specific  point  and  pursue  it. 
We  raised  it  briefly  during  the  course  of  the 
debate  and  I  think  that  the  hon.  minister 
(Mr.  Irvine)  in  fact  misunderstood  some  of 
the  points  that  I  was  making  on  that  parti- 
cular thing. 

The  minister  lives  a  few  miles  away  from 
Cornwall  and  is  better  aware  than  I  am  of 
the  degree  of  public  consultation  that  is 
taking  place  on  the  presently  proposed  $14 
million  plan  in  Cornwall,  and  I  am  willing 
to  take  his  word  for  it  that  it  is  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  minister  that  there  has  been 
adequate  consultation  in  that  particular  area. 
It  is  a  fait  accompli  at  any  rate;  the  agree- 
ment has  been  signed  and  it  is  just  a  matter 
of  time  now  before  we  go  ahead. 

But  this  bill  doesn't  affect  only  Cornwall. 
It  is  not  a  Cornwall  bill,  it  is  a  general 
amendment  to  the  Municipal  Act  and  there 
will  be  other  communities— Blind  River  or 
Geraldton  or  Thunder  Bay  or  North  Bay  or 
maybe  even  Pembroke  or  Smiths  Falls— which 
will  be  involved  under  this  particular  new 
set  of  powers.  The  purpose  of  the  amend'- 
ment  is  to  affect  them  as  well. 

The  minister's  reply  is  that  people  who 
wish  to  comment  on  the  agreement  will  have 
the  opportunity  if  a  zoning  change  is  in- 
volved. However,  my  concern,  and  our  con- 
cern, is  that  the  strategy  of  development 
assistance  being  adopted  for  that  particular 
municipality  should  be  a  subject  of  public 
participation  or  public  consultation,  and  the 
present  state  of  the  law  would  permit  a 
municipality  in  fact  to  go  through  all'  of  the 
stages  in  negotiations  with  the  federal  and 
provincial  governments  without  even  letting 
the  municipality  know  what  is  happening. 
That  is  what  the  legal  state  of  the  law  is 
right  now,  up  to  the  point  where  the  agree- 
ment is  signed  and  the  bylaw  is  passed.  It 
is  simply  unacceptable  in  diis  day  and  age. 

If  you  want  to  take  an  example,  Mr. 
Chairman,  from  the  situation  at  Cornwall, 
one  of  the  major  parts  of  the  programme  is 
a  cultural  centre  and  I  believe  an  arena. 
Now,  that's  part  of  the  strategy  in  order 
to  improve  the  livability  of  Cornwall,  and 
therefore  make  it  more  attractive  to  new 
industries  and  to  management  and  workers 
of  new  industries  coming  in. 

Now,  it  may  well  be  that  people  in  the 
community   have   got  pretty   strong   feelings 


that  there  are  other  things  that  they  would 
put  as  their  priority  in  improving  the  liva- 
bility of  the  community.  It  might  be  a  golf 
course.  It  might  be  a  tennis  court.  It  might 
be  a  sailing  club.  I  don't  know— it  might  be 
something  quite  different.  But  at  any  rate 
that't  the  kind  of  thing  that  you  need  to 
discuss  publicly  beforehand  rather  than  get- 
ting locked  into  it  with  the  federal  and 
provincial  governments  beforehand. 

In  addition,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  par- 
ticular requirement  is  necessary  because  of 
the  very  pronounced  tendency  of  the  fed- 
eral government  to  want  to  work  behind 
closed  doors.  They  just  have  that  tendency. 
I  know  that  the  minister  is  aware  of  it. 

As  a  resident  of  Ottawa  and  as  a  former 
observer  of  the  federal  government,  I  am 
certainly  aware  of  it.  And  this  is  without 
commenting  on  the  fact  that  the  provincial 
government  is,  I  am  afraid,  subject  to  the 
same  tendency,  too.  So,  if  you  will,  the 
amendment  is  proposed  to  protect  against 
these  tendencies  at  the  various  levels  of 
government  who  want  to  work  in  privacy. 

Now,  in  the  copy  that  the  minister  has— 
I  am  sorry,  I  seem  to  have  lost  the  copy  for 
the  Liberal  Party,  I  apologize-I  had  origi- 
nally suggested  the  amendment  refer  to  tihe 
details  of  the  proposed  agreement,  taking  the 
words  "the  details"  out  and  simply  refer 
to  it  that  on  "the  proposed  agreement,  there 
should  be  public  consultation  on  the  pro- 
posals made  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
minister." 

Now,  if  you  will,  then  that  becomes  a 
statement  of  intent.  It  is  up  to  the  minister 
and  the  local  council  to  establish  whether 
one  public  meeting  a  few  weeks  before  the 
signing  of  the  agreement  is  adequate,  or 
whether  in  fact  there  should  be  a  series  of 
public  meetings  and  information  provided  to 
the  public  over  the  period  of  a  year  before 
the  signing  of  an  agreement. 

It  probably  depends  on  the  nature  of  the 
proposals,  how  radical  or  revolutionary  they 
are,  the  amount  of  investment  involved  and 
that  kind  of  thing.  But  I  do  hope  that  the 
minister  will  reconsider  the  points  that  I 
made  before  and  will  accept  this  particular 
amendment. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Chairman,  in  speaking  to  this  amendment, 
I  would  encourage  the  minister  to  give  it 
some  consideration. 

On  this  side  of  the  House,  we  are  con- 
cerned as  I  am  certain  the  minister  is,  with 
adequate   public   involvement   and    consulta- 


386 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tion  before  decisions  are  made  that  develop 
areas  into  a  certain  way  that  they  cannot  be 
changed.  I  think  that  the  matters  of  pubhc 
concern  are  most  important  here. 

We  have  seen  in  the  past  agreements  en- 
tered into  on  occasion  wherein  knowledge 
of  the  local  community  was  not  as  broad  as 
it  should  be.  And,  of  course,  these  are  deci- 
sions which  are  going  to  affect  not  only  the 
people  who  are  living  in  the  community 
now,  but  their  sons  and  daughters  and  their 
grandsons  and  granddaughters.  I  would  en- 
courage the  minister  to  have  as  much  public 
consultation  as  is  possible  in  these  matters. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  signing  of  these 
agreements,  which  are  going  to  involve  sub- 
stantial amounts  of  public  funds,  must  always 
be  done  in  such  a  way  that  the  public  in- 
terest is  adequately  served.  A  good  way  to 
serve  that  public  interest  is  to  encourage 
various  groups  within  the  communities  to 
involve  themselves  in  planning,  in  the  making 
of  choices  as  to  the  kinds  of  facilities  that 
can  best  suit  the  community— and  of  course, 
then  in  not  only  backing  the  agreements  and 
making  their  communities  better  places  in 
which  to  live,  but  also  being  able  to  feel 
that  they  have  been  part  of  this  consultative 
process. 

I  would  hope  that  the  minister  could  con- 
sider this  kind  of  an  amendment.  I  think  it 
would  be  a  most  worthwhile  one. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  I  would 
like,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  speak  in  favour  of 
the  amendment  proposed  by  my  colleague 
from  Ottawa  Centre.  I  hearken  back  to  a 
series  of  exchanges  that  I  have  had  with  the 
provincial  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  over  a  num- 
ber of  months.  It  was  precipitated  by  the 
action  of  the  regional  development  people 
within  his  ministry  to  withdraw  their  eco- 
nomic support  and  assistance  from  the  re- 
gional development  councils  across  the 
province.  When  that  took  place,  about  a  year 
and  a  half  ago,  it  meant  that  we  effectively 
cut  off  any  kind  of  advisory  capacity,  any 
kind  of  consultative  capacity  or  any  kind 
of  liaison  that  went  with  the  activities  of 
the  various  development  councils  across  the 
province. 

At  that  time,  since  northwestern  Ontario 
had  reached  the  stage  where  Phase  3  of 
Design  for  Development  had  been  accepted 
as  government  policy  and  was  to  be  imple- 
mented, there  was  no  local  presence  for 
ongoing  consultation  and  dialogue  with  the 
regional  development  branch  of  the  Ministry 
of  Treasury,  Economics  and  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs. 


It  was  just  about  a  week  ago  that  the 
Treasurer  saw  fit  to  set  up  what  he  referred 
to  as  MAC,  the  municipal  advisory  commit- 
tee, which  will  comprise  the  heads  of  coun- 
cils of  all  of  the  northwestern  region  and 
will  act  wholly  and  solely  in  an  advisory 
capacity  to  the  minister  in  his  responsibilities 
for  regional  and  industrial  development. 

Therefore,  it  looks  as  though  we  are  going 
to  have  a  vehicle  for  that  kind  of  dialogue. 
I  don't  know  how  effective  it  will  be. 
Certainly  I  know  that  the  kind  of  response 
the  minister  had  from  the  northwestern  On- 
tario regional  development  council  was 
meaningful  and  very  useful;  it  was  a  vehicle 
that  everybody  in  the  region  could  identify 
with  and  feel  they  were  a  part  of.  But  since 
the  councils  were  disbanded,  a  tremendous 
void  has  been  left.  And  the  person  who  is 
solely  responsible  for  the  implementation  of 
Design  for  Development  for  northwestern 
Ontario  sits  in  an  office  in  the  Frost  Building 
down  here.  This  is  the  kind  of  consultation 
that  has  gone  on  since  the  government  dis- 
banded the  regional  development  councils 
and  withdrew  any  financial  support  to  them. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Stokes:  All  I'm  saying  is  that  what  my 
colleague  is  attempting  to  do  here  is  to  pro- 
vide assurance  to  people  in  those  regions 
that  they  will  be  given  adequate  opportunity 
for  consultation  before  the  fact,  not  after  the 
fact.  I'm  not  aware  of  the  kind  of  consul- 
tation that  went  on  with  the  coimcil  of  the 
city  of  Cornwall,  but  I  think  it's  absolutely 
essential  that  we  provide  this  vehicle. 

The  minister  has  already  said  that  there 
has  been  adequate  consultation,  and  before 
any  decisions  of  this  nature  are  taken  in  the 
future  there  will  be  complete  and  adequate 
consultation  with  those  whose  lives  are  likely 
to  be  affected.  I  see  no  reason  why  it  couldln't 
be  incorporated  in  this  bill.  And  I  would 
hope  that  the  minister,  in  view  of  his  re- 
marks earlier,  would  accept  this  amendment 
in  good  faith.  It  can  do  no  harm,  and  it  can 
do  a  lot  of  good. 

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

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  rising  at  this  time  to 
support  the  proposed  amendment.  Siurely 
one  of  the  things  we  have  learned,  or  at 
least  we  hope  the  government  will  learn,  is 
that  there  has  to  be  adequate  consultation 
with  people,  particularly  in  those  areas  of 
planning  which  so  vitally  affect  their  lives. 


MARCH  15,  1974 


387 


In  looking  at  this  particular  piece  of  pro- 
posed legislation,  I  was  very  sorry  that  once 
more  there  seemed  to  be  a  thrust  away  not 
only  from  letting  the  people  be  aware,  but 
from  letting  them  be  a  part  of  the  planning 
process.  T^is  is  something  for  which  I  have 
stood  personally  through  my  whole  political 
career  and,  of  course,  this  caucus  has  been 
pointing  it  out  in  all  of  the  regional  dis- 
cussions that  have  gone  on  since  I've  been 
in  the  House  and  I'm  sure  before  that  time. 

It  is  certainly  urgent  that  people  once  more 
believe  that  they  are  living  in  a  form  of 
democracy  which  is  meaningful,  that  they 
are  not  just  left  in  the  position  that  their 
only  rights  are  to  vote  every  so  many  years, 
whatever  they  may  be,  having  in  mind  the 
government  that  is  relevant  to  that  situa- 
tion. It  has  been  demonstrated  that  this  is 
what  the  people  of  this  province  want,  and 
surely,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  would  be  important 
that  we  give  this  kind  of  emphasis  to  legis- 
lation of  this  sort  which  is  so  important  to 
the  people  of  this  province.    Thank  you. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Are  there  any  other  com- 
ments from  hon.  members?    The  minister. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Chairman,  I  recognize  full  well 
the  importance  of  public  consultation.  That's 
been  the  philosophy  of  this  government  all 
along  and  we're  not  denying  that  by  this 
Act  in  one  small  way  or  one  large  way, 
whichever  way  you  want  to  put  it.  It's  not 
denied  at  all.  What  we're  saying  is  that  the 
minister  will  determine  with  the  local  elected 
people  as  to  how  much  consultation  has  been 
held  with  the  people  in  the  area.  I  would 
hope  that  we  agree  that  the  local  people 
that  are  elected  are  the  ones  that  should 
determine  how  much  public  consultation  is 
necessary. 

Mr.  Stokes:  In  many  areas  you  (k)n't  even 
have  a  vehicle.  In  this  case,  you're  getting 
one  that's  a  municipal  council.  In  many 
areas  you  don't  have  a  legal  entity,  unless 
you've  got  an  umbrella  type  of  organization. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  recog- 
nize what  the  hon.  member  is  referring  to  as 
unorganized  territories.  If  you  look  at  the 
Throne  Speech  carefully  enough,  you'll 
notice  that  we  have  some  plans  to  look  after 
the  areas,  where  they  don't  have  local  elected 
representatives,  and  I  expect  these  will  come 
about  in  the  very  near  future  also. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  It  is  a  matter  of  choice, 
isn't  it? 


Mr.  Stokes:  Have  you  been  told  not  to 
accept  anything  from  the  opposition? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Have  you  got  your  orders 
again? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  As  far  as  I'm  concerned 
this  amendment  doesn't  do  anything  but  what 
will  happen  in  any  event.  It's  the  usual 
attempt  by  the  NDP  to  bring  forth  an  amend- 
ment which  is  not  relevant  to  the  whole  Act 
at  all. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  It  is  the 
hard-line  approach  of  the  govenmient  to 
avoid  consultation  with  the  people. 

Mr.  Stokes:  It  can  only  reinforce  what 
you've  already  said. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  It  is  an  attempt  to  say 
the  legislation  is  not  drawn  up  properly. 

Mr.  Renwick:  You  need  a  litde  stiffening 
of  the  backbone  when  it  comes  to  public 
consultation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  I'm  saying  the  legislation 
is  drawn  up  properly,  taking  into  considera- 
tion that  we  believe  in  the  local  elected 
people  making  these  decisions  for  their  people. 
We  believe,  full  well,  that  the  minister  will 
recognize  whether  or  not  there  is  full  con- 
sultation at  the  local  level.  I  say  to  the 
members  who  have  supported  this  amend- 
ment, that  it's  redundant  and  I  reject  it. 

Mr.  Renwick:  You  are  redundant. 

Mr.  Stokes:  You  make  me  sick. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Cassidy  moves  that 
section  2  of  Bill  8  be  amended  by— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Hold  on,  Mr.  Chairman.  I 
just  want  to  make  a  comment  or  two  and 
I  have  the  right  to. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon  (Doveroourt):  Oh,  get  off  it! 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What's  wrong  with  you?  It's 
only  12:50.  We've  got  a  few  more  minutes. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  just  don't  imderstand  it. 
The  minister  says  that  the  government,  or  the 
minister,  will  determine  with  the  council  the 
amount  of  public  consultation.  That  is  pre- 
cisely what  the  amendment  says.  I  just  don't 
understand  why  he  rejects  it  except  for  the 
suggestion— 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Because  it  is  not 
necessary. 


388 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Renwick:  He  doesn't  believe  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  It's  not  necessary, 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  happens  that  the  opposition 
party  and  the  New  Democratic  Party,  from 
our  experience  on  municipal  councils  and  in 
the  way  in  which  governments  work  in  all 
three  levels,  do  feel  that  it's  necessary. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  I  know  you  are  an  expert 
in  everything,  but  maybe  there  is  a  day  when 
you  will  recognize  there's  something  you're 
not  expert  in. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Oh!  I  happen  to  be  critic 
in  this  particular  area  and  I  have  a  certain 
amount  of  knowledge  and  some  experience 
as  well.  I  have  some  knowledge  about  the 
ways  in  which  municipal  councils  work.  My 
own  council  back  in  Ottawa,  for  example,  did 
have  a  rather  bad  habit  of  suppressing  infor- 
mation and  feeling  that  because  they  were 
elected  they  knew  everything  and,  there- 
fore, they  would  not  let  information  out  to 
the  public  that  could  affect  other  councils 
around  the  province  which  were  dealing  with 
questions  of  regional  development  agreements. 
We  simply  want  to  ensure  that  that  doesn't 
happen  by  putting  it  in  this  legislation. 

I  would  hope,  with  the  minister,  that  the 
provision  of  the  amendment  is  completely 
redundant. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  You  are  trying  to  say  that 
these  people  who  are  elected  should  not  have 
anything  to  do.  They  should  go  to  everybody 
and  say- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  I  am  trying  to  say  that  the 
process  of  elected  government  in  the  1970s 
should  involve  going  back  to  the  electors,  the 
people,  on  many  occasions,  whenever  there 
are  important  things,  in  order  to  see  what 
people  feel.  It  may  be  that  the  elected  re- 
presentatives listen  to  the  people  and  then 
sav,  "We  reject  it.  We  think  you  are  wrong" 
and  they  make  another  decision.  Right  now 
the  situation  left  is  that  they  can  make  a 
decision  and  not  go  back  at  all  to  see  what 
the  people  feel.  They  have  the  right  or  the 
power  to  impose  a  fait  accompli. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Just  look  at  the  prac- 
ticalities for  once. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Okay.  What  are  the  prac- 
ticalities? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  If  you  go  back  to  the 
days  when  you  were  elected,  maybe  you 
might  remember  you  did  consult  with  some 


people  before  you  took  a  certain  stand  on 
an  issue.  If  it's  controversial,  I  am  sure, 
you  are  going  to  contact  a  lot  of  people. 
Any  responsible  local  council  would  do  the 
same  and  I  expect  that  will  be  done  in  the 
future. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  can  cite  examples  of  this 
Legislature  and  this  government  not  doing 
precisely  that  and  I  can  cite  two  examples 
of  local  councils  which  meet  in  camera. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  meet  in  camera  and 
reach  a  decision  on  a  controversial  issue  and 
then  go  into  public  session  merely  for  the 
matter  of  passing  the  bylaw.  The  electorate 
wakes  up  the  next  day  and  finds  itself  with 
a  fait  accompli. 

Mr.  Renwick:  No  question. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  will  give  you  one  example. 
In  the  new  township— I  can't  remember  the 
name  now— which  has  taken  in  Stittsville, 
Richmond  and  Goulbourn  townships,  early 
in  February,  the  councillors,  who  had  been 
working  very  hard  on  organization,  held  a 
closed  meeting  at  which  they  decided  they 
would  increase  their  salaries  from  the  maxi- 
mum of  about  $1,800  paid  to  the  reeve 
of  one  of  the  constituent  municipalities  prior 
to  1974,  to  the  figure  of  about  $10,000  for 
the  mayor  and  $6,000  for  the  councillors. 
There  were  rumors  around  the  community 
about  that  but  nobody  could  get  any  firm 
information.  When  the  press  went  to  the 
local  clerk-treasurer  and  said,  "What's  hap- 
peninij?"  he  said,  "We  can't  find  the  ma- 
terial." A  month  later  the  issue  surfaced  when 
the  council  in  public  session  simply  passed, 
without  comment,  a  bylaw  that  brought  in 
those  increased  salaries. 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Certainly  that  is  a  matter 
for  the  local  people  to  decide. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Okay.  In  two  years  or  three 
years  they  will  eventually  get  to  an  election 
when  they  can,  in  fact,  bring  their  people 
into  line.  There  was  no  consultation  be- 
forehand. I  learned  the  local  people  felt 
generally  that  maybe  pay  levels  of  about 
two-thirds  of  those  chosen  would  be  rea- 
sonable; it  was  a  very  large  increase  from 
what  had  been  paid  before.  It  was  recognized 
the  previous  level  was  unreasonable  but  that 
was  never  tested  by  that  particular  council. 

There  is  instance  after  instance  of  that 
happening  around  the  province  and  we  are 
simply  saying  "Put  it  in  the  legislation." 
Let's  hope,  with  you,  that  it  is  not  neces- 


MARCH  15,  1974 


389 


sary  because  every  council  will  be  so  full  of 
good  intentions  that  it  will  do  it  anyway, 
but  let's  make  sure  they  do  have  the  con- 
sultation that  is  required. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Cassidy's  amendment  will  please  say  "aye." 
Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  "nays"  have  it. 

I  declare  the  amendment  lost. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Before  we  let  section  2  go 
I  am  intrigued  by  the  suggestion  by  the 
minister  that  the  $14  million  to  be  spent  by 
the  two  senior  governments  and  the  $4  mil- 
lion to  be  spent  by  Cornwall  will  be  and 
I  quote,  "the  start  of  an  economic  boom" 
for  all  of  eastern  Ontario.  If  that's  the  case, 
where  on  earth  has  this  government  been  for 
the  last  eight  or  10  years  when  to  start  an 
economic  boom  in  eastern  Ontario  would 
have  cost  so  little  money? 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  right. 

Mr.   Chairman:   Any  further  comments? 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Mr.  Chairman,  very 
briefly,  let  me  say  this  to  you  and  to  other 
members  of  the  House;  as  far  as  the  people 
of  eastern  Ontario  are  concerned  they  ap- 
preciate very  much  what  this  government  has 
done  for  them  and  they  will  show  in  the 
next  election  exactly  what  they  think  about 
the  NDP. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  further  conmients  or 
questions  on  this  bill? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  NDP  vote  doubled  at 
the  last  election  in  Ontario  and  it  will  double 
again. 


Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  the  bill  be  reported? 
Bill  8  reported. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  rise  and  report. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  resumed;  Mr.  Speaker  in  the 
chair. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  committee 
of  the  whole  House  begs  to  report  a  cer- 
tain bill  without  amendments  and  asks  for 
leave  to  sit  again. 

Report  agreed  to. 

THIRD  READING 

The  following  bill  was  given  third  read- 
ing upon  motion. 

Bill  8,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal  Act. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
fore I  move  the  adjournment  of  the  House 
I  would  like  to  say  that  because  of  the 
absence  of  some  members  on  March  25,  I 
will  suggest  that  we  move  the  consideration 
of  Bill  7,  item  4,  to  the  following  day,  the 
26th,  and  therefore  on  the  25th  we  will 
resume  the  debate  in  accordance  with  item 
1. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjom-nment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1.00  o'clock  p.m. 


390  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  March  15,  1974 

Emergency  Measures  programme,  statement  by  Mr.   Kerr  354 

Emergency  measures  programme,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Singer  354 

Housing   programmes,    questions   of  Mr.   Handleman:    Mr.   R.   F.   Nixon,   Mr.   Cassidy 

Mr.  Lewis  355 

Solid  waste  disposal,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  356 

Severance   payment   to    Agent   General,    questions   of   Mr.    White:    Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon, 

Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Lewis  357 

Housing    programmes,    questions    of   Mr.   Handleman:    Mr.    Lewis,    Mr.   Cassidy,   Mrs. 

Campbell,  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Foulds,  Mr.  B.  Newman  359 

Artistic  Woodwork  dispute,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Reid,  Mr.  Deans  361 

Niagara  Escarpment,  questions  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Lewis  363 

Part-time  real  estate  agents,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.  Foulds  ....  363 

Fire  hazards  in  senior  citizens'  highrise  buildings,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman: 

Mr.  Germa  364 

Government  action  against  Dow  Chemical,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Singer  365 

Warranty  on  new  homes,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Deans  365 

Public  Service  Act  conflict,  questions  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  366 

Presenting  report,  re  Solandt  commission  public  inquiry  on  Hydro  route,  Mr.  Grossman  367 

Motion  re  spring  adjournment,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  368 

Rights  of  Labour  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Drea,  first  reading  368 

Safety  Committees  Act,  bill  intituted,  Mr.  Haggerty,  first  reading  368 

Liabihty  in  respect  of  Voluntary  Emergency  Medical  and  First  Aid  Services,  bill  to 

relieve  persons  from,  Mr.  Haggerty,  first  reading  368 

Municipal  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  White,  second  reading  369 

Royal  assent,  York  County  Board  of  Education  Teachers  Dispute  Act,  the  Honourable 

the  Lieutenant  Governor  384 

Municipal  Act,  biU  to  amend,  reported  384 

Third  Reading  389 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  389 


No.  11 


Ontario 


Hcstslature  of  ([Ontario 


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


Monday,  March  25, 1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


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

I 


CONTENTS 


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


393 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  o'clcx;k,  p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

SUNDAY  TRUCKING  OPERATIONS 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  ( Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
March  14,  1974,  the  Canadian  Transport 
Commission  granted  exemption  to  two 
Manitoba-based  highway  carriers  under  the 
Lord's  Day  Act.  The  decision  means  that 
these  two  truckers  may  use  the  highways  in 
Ontario  and  Quebec  to  run  their  trucking 
operations  on  Sunday. 

Last  week  I  issued  instructions  to  my  stajff 
to  appeal  these  two  decisions.  I  have  been 
advised  that  applications,  piu^uant  to  section 
28  of  the  federal  Court  Act,  have  been  filed 
today  requesting  the  federal  Court  to  review 
these  decisions. 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  will  recall  that  in  October 
and  November  of  last  year  the  motor  vehicle 
committee  of  the  Canadian  Transport  Com- 
mission held  hearings  in  Toronto  respecting 
the  requests  of  these  two  carriers  for  exemp- 
tion, and  the  governments  of  Quebec  and 
Ontario  intervened  against  the  granting  of 
such  exemptions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

Tlie  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


PRICE  FREEZE  ON  PETROLEUM 
PRODUCTS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  Premier  whether 
Ontario  has  conveyed  a  position  to  the  Prime 
Minister  of  Canada  and  the  governments  of 
Alberta  and  Saskatchewan  regarding  the 
freeze  on  the  price  of  oil  and  petroleum 
products?  Are  we  in  a  position  to  assist  in 
the  negotiations  that  seem  to  be,  let's  say 
breaking  down  to  some  extent  as  the  deadline 
for  the  price  change  comes  closer? 


Monday,  March  25,  1974 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  understanding  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
last  first  ministers'  meeting  was  that  there 
would  be  some  adjustment  of  price  on  April 
1.  The  Prime  Minister  of  Canada,  according 
to  the  press— and  I  think  it  is  accurate— has 
had  meetings  with  the  premiers  of  both  Al- 
berta and  Saskatchewan;  and  of  course  he  is 
convening  a  meeting  of  all  the  provincial 
premiers  imder  his  chairmanship  on  Wednes- 
day. 

I  can't  predict,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  the  re- 
suits  of  that  meeting  may  be.  The  position  of 
this  government  was,  I  think,  very  dearly 
stated  a  few  days  ago  in  this  House  by  the 
Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  McKeough).  While 
we  don't  totally  understand  the  $6  figure, 
whi<ih  was  used  by  the  federal  government  as 
a  possibility  at  the  last  meeting,  we  did  state, 
or  the  minister  did  in  this  House,  that  we 
would  not  take  violent  exception  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  $6  price. 

Now,  whether  or  not  tiiis  will  materialize 
on  Wednesday,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  I  could 
teM  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition.  I  would 
like  to  know  whether  it  will,  in  fact,  be 
accepted  by  everybody  and  that  that  will  be 
the  result  of  the  meeting;  but  quite  honestly 
I  can't  at  this  stage,  nor  can  I  give  him  any 
further  guidance  at  this  moment  imtil  after 
the  Wednesday  meeting. 


NORTH  PICKERING  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  further  question  of  the 
Premier:  Is  it  the  plan  of  any  member  of  the 
administration,  on  behalf  of  the  government, 
to  submit  any  material  to  the  commission  that 
is  investigating  the  Pickering  airport  while 
they  are  holding  their  hearings  in  the  Malton 
area,  with  the  idea  of  the  possibility  of 
expanding  Malton  instead  of  stickiag  with  the 
Pickering  airport? 

Has  the  government  of  Ontario's  position 
on  this  changed  in  any  way?  Are  there  any 
surveys  that  are  available  to  the  Premier,  or 
any  member  of  the  ministry,  having  an  impact 
on  this  that  could  lead  the  government  of 
Ontario  to  indicate  that  they  feel  the  present 
Pickering  plan  should  not  go  forward  in  its 
present  form? 


394 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
no  additional  information  as  it  relates  to  the 
need  or  otherwise  of  the  second  international 
airport.  We  have  communicated,  to  Mr. 
Justice  Gibson  I  believe  it  is,  that  if  there  are 
certain  factual  things  that  might  emerge 
diuing  the  hearing  where  information  from 
the  province  would  be  helpful,  we  would  be 
quite  prepared  to  supply  it. 

But  as  I  recall  the  terms  of  reference,  they 
are  relatively  narrow  and  they  are  confined 
to  the  question  of  need;  and  here  we  feel, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  area  for  the  federal  gov- 
ernment, of  course,  to  make  the  ultimate 
determination;  and  of  course  this  is  the 
rationale  for  the  hearing  itself. 

Certainly,  if  there  are  certain  facts  that 
emerge  or  certain  questions  that  are  raised 
during  this  hearing  where  ministries  or  per- 
sonnel in  the  government  can  be  helpful  in 
answering  them,  we  have  communicated  to 
the  commission  that  we  would  be  prepared 
to  provide  information. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Is  there 
any  change  in  the  government's  attitude,  that 
was  first  expressed  by  the  present  Minister 
of  Energy,  that  Pickering  is  the  ideal  site 
as  far  as  Ontario  is  concerned? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  like 
to  quote  a  colleague.  I  think,  as  I  recall  it, 
the  present  Minister  of  Energy  stated  that 
if  there  was  to  be  a  second  international  air- 
port, that  we  felt  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
province  there  was  merit  in  having  that  in- 
ternational airport  east  of  Metropohtan  To- 
ronto rather  than,  say,  some  substantial  dis- 
tance north  or  west. 

I  don't  think  the  Minister  of  Energy,  the 
then  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs, 
said  it  was  the  best  site;  because  I  don't 
think  we  are  in  a  position  to  make  that  de- 
termination. What  we  did  say  was  that  if 
there  was  to  be  a  second  airport— if  there 
was  in  fact  a  need  for  a  second  one— that  it 
would  fit  in  v^dth  the  TCR  and  the  desire 
on  the  part  of  this  government  to  see  de- 
velopment created  east  of  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto rather  than  the  continuation  of  the 
pressures  to  the  west. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  By  way 
of  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker:  Since  the 
Premier  placed  it  in  the  context  that  he  has, 
he  would  agree  that  the  scheme  envisaged 
by  the  Toronto-centred  region  plan  did  not 
permit  of  an  airport  immediately  on  the 
periphery  of  Metropolitan  Toronto,  that  this 
would  in  fact  violate  the  plan,  but  considered 
grov^h  somewhat  farther   east  than   that  in 


order  to  conform  with  government  objec- 
tives. Since  the  Premier  put  it  in  that  con- 
text himself,  why  does  he  not  now  make  a 
submission  to  the  Airport  Inquiry  Commis- 
sion indicating  the  inconsistency  of  the  pres- 
ent site,  given  the  overall  economic  objectives 
of  his  government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  great 
respect  to  the  hon.  member,  as  I  understand 
the  function  of  the  commission  it  is  to  deter- 
mine not  the  location  of  a  second  intema- 
ional  airport,  but  in  fact  whether  a  second 
airport  is  necessary. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
if  we'd  all  had  our  druthers,  if  the  airport 
had  been  X  number  of  miles  farther  east  it 
would  have  been  more  consistent— no  ques- 
tion about  that-wdth  the  TCR.  But  I  think 
it  is  not  a  question  of  saying  it  should  go- 
Mr.  Lewis:  We  wouldn't  have  had  the 
airport  then— it  achieves  the  same  purpose. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  it  is  not  a  ques- 
tion of  saying  it  should  be  farther  east;  I 
think  the  commission  really  is  inquiring  into 
whether  there  is  a  need  for  a  second  facility, 
period. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Shouldn't  this  govern- 
ment have  a  report  on  that? 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Mr  Speak- 
er, by  way  of  supplementary  to  the  Pre- 
mier, is  it  reasonable  to  conclude  from  what 
he  has  just  said  that  he  is  going  to  move 
with  prompt  dispatch  to  establish  residential 
facilities  in  the  North  Pickering  site?  Or  is 
that  still  left  in  abeyance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
it  is  fair  to  state  that  we  will  be  moving 
wdth  all  reasonable  dispatch  to  provide  resi- 
dential accommodation  in  that  area,  because 
that  is  consistent  with  the  TCR  and  with  the 
objective  of  this  government  to  provide  hous- 
ing. I  would  assume,  as  we  get  into  this  dur- 
ing the  estimates  of  one  ministry  or  another, 
that  the  members  opposite  vml  be  as  en- 
thusiastic about  a  residential  community  out 
there  as  we  are. 

Mr.  Singer:  In  line  with  that  answer,  Mr. 
Speaker,  could  the  Premier  explain  the  rea- 
son for  a  report  addressed  to  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  and  dated  February, 
1974,  which  relates  to  water  services  for 
North  Pickering.  It  says:  "Stage  three:  Pro- 
vide for  the  completion  of  the  water  supply 
system  for  North  Pickering— 1985  ultimate. ' 
Does  that  tie  in  with  the  Premier's  statement 
about  prompt  development? 


MARCH  25,  1974 


395 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
it  does.  There  are  two  aspects  of  servicing. 
As  the  hon.  member  for  Downsview  is  fully 
aware,  there  is  the  question  of  the  long 
term  and  the  major  trunks;  there  is  nothing 
to  preclude  a  certain  amount  of  develop- 
ment going  ahead  without  the  complete 
overall  servicing.  We've  done  this  in  other 
areas  of  the  province,  and  this  really  should 
be  asked  of  the  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr, 
Handleman).  But  I'm  relatively  optimistic 
that  we  can  move  ahead  without  completion 
of  the  total  water  and  sewage  systems. 

Mr.  Singer:  Is  the  Premier  familiar  with 
that  report  and  the  staging  of  the  services? 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary:  Why  doesn't 
the  Premier  make  public  now  all'  the  private 
little  studies  that  are  taking  place  on  North 
Pickering,  that  have  been  requested  by  the 
members  of  the  management  consortivmfi,  who 
are  working  on  the  whole  project,  in  order  to 
give  the  citizens,  with  whom  the  government 
pretends  to  consult  publicly,  some  sense  of 
what  is  going  on  in  the  background  of  the 
government  plans? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  the  in- 
tent of  the  government,  and  this  was  made 
very  clear  by  the  former  minister,  that  we 
involve  the  people  of  the  area  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  overall  plan.  This  was  quite  con- 
sistent with  the  fact  that  the  three  hamlets,  as 
I  call  them,  will  be  maintained,  that  the 
people  there  will  not  be  expropriated,  that 
they  will  be  part  of  the  overall  plan  for  the 
area  and  that  they  will  be  involved  in  the 
process  itself. 

I  can't  comment  this  afternoon,  Mr. 
Speaker,  as  to  what  reports  will  be  made 
available  to  the  consortimn  that  is  developing 
the  plan,  or  how  relevant  this  is.  I  can  only 
assure  the  hon.  member  it  is  the  intent  of 
this  government  to  take  into  consideration,  in 
the  overall  plan,  the  views  of  the  people  who 
are  continuing  to  live  in  that  area.  There's 
no  question  about  it;  it  makes  a  great  deal  of 
sense  and  we  intend  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Singer:  Like  this  report  of  February? 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker:  Since  the  inquiry  com- 
mission is  now  studying  whether  or  not  there 
should  be  an  airport,  I  want  to  ask  the 
Premier  if  in  the  event  it  is  decided  a  second 
airport  is  not  necessary  at  this  time,  would 
the  present  freeze  on  areas  of  Whitchurch, 
Stouffville,  Uxbridge  and  Scott  township  be 


lifted  immediately  after  the  commission's  re- 
port comes  out? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Oh  yes;  right  away. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
think  that  if  the  federal  government  decides 
that  there  will  not  be  a  second  international 
airport  in  that  area,  then  the  restrictions  we 
have  placed  upon  some  of  that  area  at  the 
request  of  the  federal  government  quite 
obviously  would  be  lifted  forthwith. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 


PARKWAY  BELT    : 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Premier  if  he  can  explain  to  the  House  why 
there  is  a  continuing  delay  in  making  public 
the  detailed  descriptions  of  the  boundaries  of 
the  land  covered  by  the  Parkway  Act  that 
went  through  the  Legislature,  I  believe  last 
June.  Are  there  still  negotiations  between  the 
government  and  individual  landholders  con- 
cerned with  whether  certain  parcels  will  be 
included  or  not,  or  is  this  just  a  delay  in  the 
bureaucracy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
are  no  negotiations  with  any  owners  wdthin 
the  parkway  belt.  The  finalization  is  a  com- 
plex matter  as  far  as  metes  and  bounds  de- 
scriptions are  concerned,  and  of  course  this 
information  then  will  be  the  subject  of  a 
hearing  before  a  hearing  oflBcer.  It  it  our  hope 
that  we  can  start  these  hearings  sometime  in 
the  next  two  or  three  months.  It  will  be  a 
compHcated  process- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  government  starts 
the  hearing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  it  has  to  go  through 
hearings.  There  is  the  establishment  of  the 
parkway  committee— I  forget  the  exact  term- 
inology—which will  have  some  involvement  in 
the  general  concept  of  the  scheme;  but  the 
details  of  it,  of  course,  are  complex.  The 
rough  outlines  are  there  and  there  are  no 
negotiations  with  owners  within  the  parkway 
as  to  whether  the  line  might  be  moved  a  little 
bit  north,  south,  east  or  west.  That  is  not 
going  on. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Why 
wouldn't  the  hearing  take  place  before  the 
metes  and  bounds  descriptions  are  made 
public?  Surely  there  is  some  room  for  argu- 
ment before  the  final  boundaries  are  estab- 
lished and  the  hearings  should  take  place 
before  that  is  determined. 


396 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  great  respect,  Mr. 
Speaker,  it  really  should  be  just  the  reverse. 
We  will  lay  down  what  we  think  the  boun- 
daries should  be.  The  people  who  are  af- 
fected will  then  have  an  opportunity  to  pre- 
sent their  points  of  view  to  the  hearing  oflB- 
cer,  who  in  turn  makes  recommendations  to 
the  government.  When  those  recommenda- 
tions are  received  then  it  is  the  responsibility 
of  the  government— and  I  think  we  bring  it 
before  the  House,  I  am  not  sure— to  accept  or 
reject  the  recommendations  of  the  hearing 
officer. 

If  we  were  to  do  it  on  the  general  basis 
now,  it  could  be  that  some  owners  who,  when 
the  metes  and  bounds  descriptions  are  final- 
ized, would  not  be  aflFected,  might  have  to 
go  to  the  trouble  of  going  and  preparing 
some  information  for  a  hearing  officer;  and 
then  find  out,  subsequently,  that  they  wasted 
their  time.  It  is  also  possible  that  the  reverse 
may  be  true. 

As  I  say,  it's  a  complex  legal  matter  that 
has  to  be  fiinalized.  I  think  really  to  have  the 
metes  and  bounds  descriptions  and  so  on 
finalized  before  the  hearings  is  really  the  only 
logical  way  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary,  can 
the  Premier  tell  us  why  it  is  taking  so  long 
to  prepare  the  metes  and  bounds  descrip- 
tions? They  were  promised  in  November,  in 
January,  in  February,  and  according  to  ad- 
vice I've  received  they  are  still  now  two 
months  delayed.  Yet  when  metes  and  bounds 
descriptions  are  necessary,  such  as  those  the 
government  needed  for  North  Pickering,  they 
are  produced  very  quickly.  Is  the  real  reason 
why  they  haven't  been  produced  that  the 
government  is  intending  to  abandon  the 
whole  parkway  belt  concept? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  recognize 
that  the  member  for  Downsview,  for  reasons 
that  completely  escape  me— and  perhaps  other 
members  of  his  party— would  like  to  see  this 
government  abandon  the  parkway  concept, 
and  see  nothing  but  urbanization  from  the 
centre  of  downtown  Toronto  to  north  of 
Snelgrove— nothing  but  concrete  and  asphalt 
—which  is  a  view  shared,  I  am  sure,  by  the 
member  for  York-Forest  Hill  (Mr.  Givens). 
But  I  want  to  assure  the  member  for  Downs- 
view  that  we  are  not  that  reactionary.  We 
do  believe  in  urban  control- 
Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Just 
inquiring. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  reactionary? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  intend  to  stick  to  the 
parkway  belt  concept;  the  answer  to  that  is 
yes. 


Mr.  Singer:  Well  why  does  it  take  so  long 
to  make  the  metes  and  bounds  descriptions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Because  we  want  to  do 
it  right. 

Mr.   Singer:    Oh,   baloney!   Baloney. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  is  taking  a  long  time. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  I  am 
glad  to  see  the  Premier  pays  attention  to  some 
of  the  things  the  members  of  the  opposition 
ask. 

Doesn't  the  Piemier  think  that  it  is  terribly 
unfair  to  people  who  are  caught  up  in  this 
parkway  belt,  that  the  government  has  waited 
a  whole  year  before  even  coming  around  to 
public  hearings,  and  that  it  will  probably 
take  at  least  another  year  until  a  report  comes 
in  after  the  hearings  are  held?  At  the  rate 
the  government  is  going,  it  will  probably 
take  five  years  before  it  is  ready  to  come  in 
with  a  report  as  to  where  it  finally  stands 
with  the  parkway  belt.  Doesn't  the  Premier 
think  it  is  terribly  imfair  to  people  who  are 
involved  in  this  scheme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
think  that  if  it  took  five  years,  it  would  be 
somewhat  less  than  equitable.  In  that  it 
won't  take  five  years,  I  don't  think  it  will  be 
less  than  equitable. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It'd  be  more  inequitable— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  can  only  say  to  the 
member  for  York-Forest  Hill  that  this  is  a 
very  major  programme  and  undertaking  by 
this  government.  We  believe  we  are  doing 
this  in  the  interests  of  the  general  popula- 
tion, and  while  I  recognize  without  any  ques- 
tion that  there  are  some  people  within  the 
parkway  belt,  some  corporations,  some  de- 
velopers, who  are  being  aflFected,  without 
any  question,  who  are  being  inconvenienced— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Some  private  owners. 

Mr.  Singer:  Some  farmers;  a  lot  of  farm- 
ers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Not  that  many  farmers, 
with  great  respect.  They  are,  in  fact,  being 
inconvenienced— 

Mr.  Singer:  How  many  is  many?  More 
than  one? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  recognize  this,  but 
at  the  same  time,  if  one  is  going  to  undertake 
as  comprehensive  a  programme  as  this,  to 
say  you  are  going  to  do  it  without  some 
degree  of  inconvenience  to  some  of  the  own- 


MARCH  25,  1974 


397 


ers  is  just  not  realistic.  However,  I  can  assure 
the  hon.  member  for  York-Forest  Hill  it  will 
not  take  five  years. 

Mr.  Singer:  How  many  surveyors  has  the 
government  working  on  it? 

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

The  hon.   member  for  Scarborough  West. 


TRAILWIND  PRODUCTS 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour.  I'd 
like  the  Minister  of  Labour  to  tell  me  some- 
thing about  his  view  of  the  metes  and 
bounds— it's  clearly  a  fashionable  phrase  now 
—of  the  behaviour  of  Trailwind  Products 
division  of  Indal  Products  Ltd.  closing  down 
its  plant  on  Friday  afternoon,  with  less  than 
eight  hours  notice  to  its  workers,  to  move  to 
Brampton  in  order  to  pay  lower  wages  to  the 
work  force  without  guaranteeing  further  em- 
ployment to  those  whose  employment  was 
terminated  on  Friday. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  And  lower 
taxes! 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  matter  was  brought  to  my 
attention  just  before  coming  into  the  Legis- 
lature today  and  I  promised  to  look  into  it. 
I  will  be  glad  to  report  to  my  hon.  friend 
tomorrow. 

Mr.  Lewis:  All  right.  Well  I  have  a 
supplementary  then.  Could  the  minister  in 
the  process  of  his  report  explain  how  this  is 
possible,  since  the  Employment  Standards 
Act  section  on  termination  says  no  employer 
shall  terminate  the  employment  of  a  person 
who  has  been  employed  for  three  months 
or  more,  unless  he  gives  a  certain  amount  of 
notice;  and  the  employees  received  notice  on 
Friday  for  a  shutdown  that  day? 

I  want  to  know,  in  his  reply,  what  the 
minister  is  going  to  do  with  respect  to 
provisions  of  the  Employment  Standards 
Act.  Could  he  also  explain  whether  it  is 
now  desirable  in  Ontario  for  a  plant  de- 
liberately to  lower  the  wages  of  workers  and 
deny  certification  to  a  union  by  shifting  in 
this  fashion? 

Would  the  minister  do  that  when  he 
answers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker; 
that's  the  reason  I  would  like  to  get  all  the 
facts  before  I  make  a  decision. 


UNION  GAS 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Can  he 
bring  the  House  up  to  date  on  negotiations 
between  Union  Gas  and  the  OCAW? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr,  Speaker,  all  I  can 
report  at  this  time  is  that  the  parties  did  meet 
last  week— as  recently  as  last  Thursda\  — on 
their  own, 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary:  Is  the  minister 
aware  that  negotiations  broke  off  at  10:10 
(n  the  morning  last  Friday  with  no  re- 
scheduling? And  has  the  minister  taken  a 
look  at  the  possibility  that  the  prolongation 
of  this  strike,  now  into  its  seventh  week, 
might  have  some  serious  connection  with 
the  company's  present  rate  application  and 
its  wish  to  plead  poverty  before  the  Energy 
Board  in  order  to  make  a  case?  Doesn't  he 
think  that  is  a  useful  thing  for  the  Ministry 
of  Laboiu-  to  examine  when  it  is  looking 
over  this  strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
keeping  very  close  to  this  strike  at  the 
present  time,  along  with,  my  senior  oflBcials, 
and  I  will  continue  to  do  so. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Cdn  the  minister  t^l 
the  House  if  the  Minister  of  Energy's,  let's 
say,  rather  quick  decisions  to  ask  that  the 
OPP  be  brought  in  to  proteut  certain  facili- 
ties, has  in  any  way  affected  the  negotiations 
that  have  now  been  broken  oflF? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply, 
I  would  say  to  my  hon.  friend,  not  to  my 
knowledge. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Are  the  OPP  still  guard- 
ing these  facilities? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  As  far  as  I  know, 
they  are. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr,  Speaker,  if  the  minister 
has  kept  in  touch,  does  he  realize  that  the 
matter  has  bogged  down,  essentially,  on 
non-monetary  issues;  which  is  very  unusual  in 
prolonging  this  kind  of  a  strike?  Would  he 
report  to  the  House  the  behaviour  of  Union 
Gas  over  the  first  two  or  three  weeks  of  the 
strike  in  its  bargaining  position?  Can  he 
do  that? 


398 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  I'd  be  glad  to  report 
any  information  I  can  possibly  give  at  this 
time. 


PENSIONS  TO  SPOUSE 

Mr.  Lewis:  All  right,  I  have  another 
question  for  the  minister  about  the  Horton 
strike  in  Fort  Erie,  it  is  a  subsidiary  of 
Chicago  Bridge.  Is  the  minister  aw^are  that 
this  strike  has  occurred  because  the  com- 
pan\-  refuses  to  provide  a  50  per  cent  pay- 
ment to  the  spouse  in  the  event  a  man  should 
die  before  pensionable  age  of  65?  Does  the 
minister  not  think,  in  the  light  of  what 
has  been  recommended  from  the  Law  Re- 
form Commission  and  to  the  Canada  Pension 
Plan,  that  he  might  speak  to  the  company 
about  the  appropriateness  of  making  these 
pension  funds  available  to  the  spouse? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  I  would  like  to  see  the 
collective  agreement  in  this  particular  case, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
surely  the  minister  would  recognize  that  they 
were  in  negotiations  and  that  this  is  now  a 
negotiable  item?  Doesn't  the  hon.  minister 
think  it  makes  sense  that  the  widow  should 
receive  50  per  cent  at  least  of  the  pensionable 
benefits  if  the  worker  dies  before  retirement? 
After  all,  he  has  paid  into  them,  presumably. 
Doesn't  the  minister  think  that  is  a  worthy 
basis  for  his  intervention? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  Quite  right,  Mr.  Speak- 
er. I  know  it  is  a  negotiable  item  and  I  am 
sure  the  two  parties  will  resolve  it. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary;  the  hon. 
member  for  Welland  South. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
On  the  Horton  Steelworks,  Fort  Erie,  Ont., 
the  question  I  want  to  ask  the  minister  is  a 
follow-up  to  what  the  leader  of  the  NDP 
asked.  I  believe  the  minister,  two  years  or  a 
year  ago,  repojted  to  the  House  that  there 
was  a  study  to  be  made  on  such  items  as 
mentioned— survivors'  benefits,  dealing  with 
pensions  and  so  forth;  is  that  report  ready 
now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  haven't 
had  the  report  as  yet,  although  I  do  expect 
it  at  any  moment;  I  would  say  within  weeks. 

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


TTC  SUBSIDY 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions: Can  the  minister  indicate  to  the  House 
whether  or  not  he  might  be  willing  to  increase 
the  subsidy  to  the  Toronto  Transit  Commis- 
sion in  order  to  maintain  fares  at  their  present 
level  and  in  order  to  avert  the  fare  increase 
that  would  be  forthcoming;  all  of  this  given 
his  alleged  policy  on  public  transit? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  a 
subject  which  is  being  considered  at  the 
present  time.  There  are  a  number  of  discus- 
sions going  on  and  I  don't  think  I  can  give 
a  direct  answer  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  I 
take  it  that  an  additional  subsidy  to  the  TTC 
is  therefore  now  under  consideration  with  a 
view  to  holding  the  line  on  fares? 

An  hon.  member:  No. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
answer  is  that  we  have  already  stated  there 
was  to  be  some  increase  made  to  the  subsidy. 
I  think  that  has  been  discussed  already  by  the 
TTC. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  the 
minister  is  saying  that  the  previous  announce- 
ment, which  will  require  an  increase  in  fares, 
will  in  fact  be  endorsed  by  this  government; 
I  ask  him  what  it  does  to  his  emphasis  on 
public  transit  to  allow  fares  to  rise  to  a  pro- 
hibitive level? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
well  aware  of  the  circumstances  at  the  present 
time,  and  if  there  is  any  further  information 
for  the  House  I  will  be  pleased  to  bring  it 
here. 

Mr.  Civens:  A  supplementary. 

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

Mr.  Civens:  Having  regard  for  the  fact 
that  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  revenue 
raised,  which  is  paid  by  the  transportation 
user,  goes  on  the  payment  of  sales  tax— the 
provincial  sales  tax  on  rolling  stock,  equip- 
ment and  diesel  fuel— would  the  minister  con- 
sider exempting  these  articles  from  the  pro- 
vincial sales  tax  in  order  to  keep  fares  down? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  afraid 
the  question  of  exemptions  from  the  provin- 
cial sales  tax  or  the  federal  sales  tax  doesn't 
fall  within  my  jurisdiction. 


MARCH  25,  1974 


399 


Mr.  Givens:  But  can  he  not  recommend  it 
to  the  appropriate  ministers? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Attome}-  General,  if  I  may. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

PROSECUTION  OF  DENTURISTS 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  understand  why  the  member 
for  York-Forest  ffill  is  exercised  because  the 
government  does  nothing  for  public  transit 
except  talk  about  it. 

'May  I  ask  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General,  if  he  can  under- 
take to  the  House  not  to  permit  any  fmther 
prosecutions  of  denturists  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  while  discussions  are  taking  place 
behind  the  scenes  with  the  Minister  or  Health 
(Mr.  Miller)  about  a  possible  revision  to  the 
Denture  Therapists  Act? 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Mr.  Speaker, 
it  would  be  quite  improper  and  irresponsible 
on  the  part  of  the  Attorney  General  to  give 
such  an  undertaking. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  is  it 
not  equally  improper  to  persecute  selectively 
or  prosecute  selectively— both  are  appropriate 
—individual  denturists;  particularly  when  there 
is  clearly  some  kind  of  re-examination  taking 
place  of  the  legislation?  Why  hoimd  people 
through  the  courts  when  retroactively  the 
government  will  exonerate  them? 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  No  further  questions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Housing  has 
the  answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  hon. 
member  for  Brant  (Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon)  asked 
on  March  15  if  I  would  undertake  to  table  a 
complete  list  of  the  land  holdings  of  Ontario 
Housing  not  yet  developed  that  might  be  said 
to  form  part  of  the  land  bank,  such  as  it  is. 

In  answer  to  the  hon.  member's  question, 
I  am  tabling  a  list  of  the  Ontario  Housing 
Corp.'s  land  bank  inventory.  [See  appendix, 
page  425.] 


iThe  list  of  some  18,000  acres  of  land  in- 
cludes some  land  now  under  development, 
such  as  that  in  Hamilton  and  Saltfleet.  As 
well,  it  includes  lands  being  held  for  future 
development,  such  as  Niagara  Falls,  Waterloo 
and  Ottawa-Carleton.  These  lands  wall,  of 
course,  be  developed  in  accordance  with 
regional  and  mimicipal  land  development 
priorities,  and  we  will  be  working  closely 
vdth  them. 

In  addition,  any  acquisition  the  corporation 
is  assembling  or  vidll  assemble  in  the  future 
will  be  annoimced  when  the  assemblies  have 
been  completed. 

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


HOUSING  COSTS 

Mr.  Givens:  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minis- 
ter of  Housing  whether  he  considers  an  apart- 
ment vacancy  rate  of  less  than  one  per  cent 
in  Metropolitan  Toronto  and  an  average  house 
price  of  $50,000— particularly  when  one  hasn't 
got  the  money— psychological  or  economical? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
assume  the  hon.  members  question  wbs 
facetious.  I  don't  consider  the  situation  to  be 
satisfactory. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary? 

Mr«  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
East  with  a  supplementary— Ottawa  West  with 
a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Ottawa  Centre,  Mr.  Speakerl 
In  view  of  the  minister's  comments  about 
there  only  being  a  housing  price  crisis,  does 
he  feel  that  the  fact  that  housing  starts  have 
declined  in  major  urban  centres  in  the  prov- 
ince is  only  a  reflection  of  the  housing  price 
crisis,  or  reflects  a  genuine  housing  shortage? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Well  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  don't  know  whether  the  hon.  member  has 
checked  his  facts,  but  housing  starts  have, 
in  fact,  not  decreased  in  the  urban  centres 
of  the  province— and  therefore  I  can't  answer 
the  question. 

Mr.  Cassidy:   In  major  urban  centres. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  have 
a  supplementary?  If  not,  the  hon.  member 
for  High  Park. 


400 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Has  the  min- 
ister considered  bringing  in  rent  control  as 
one  way  of  bringing  down  the  cost  of  hous- 
ing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
answer  is  no. 

An  hon.  member:  Why  not? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 


WATER  AND  SEWAGE  SYSTEMS 
REPORT 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 
Would  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  ad- 
vise us  about  the  recommendations  received 
by  his  ministry  in  a  report  called:  "Water 
and  Sewage  Systems,  Central  York  and 
Pickering  Areas"?  It  says,  among  other 
things,  the  development  of  these  projects 
over  the  last  seven  years  has  been  delayed 
several  times;  and  that  when  the  recommen- 
dations in  the  report  are  carried  out,  the 
recommendations  call  for  the  building  of 
watermains  and  sewermains  in  the  period 
projected  beyond  1985  but  very  little  be- 
tween 1974  and  1975,  How  is  the  govern- 
ment going  to  build  houses  and  relieve,  in 
the  words  of  the  report  "the  pressures  for 
serviced  land  and  housing,"  if  it  is  going  to 
stick  by  these  recommendations,  which  are 
to  be  considered,  the  report  says,  "not  the 
proposals  of  a  single  ministry  but  rather  a 
provincial  undertaking  as  a  whole"?  Can  the 
minister  tell  us  how  he  is  going  to  get  on 
with  housing  if  the  government  doesn't 
build  anything  until  1985? 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  Now  if  the 
minister  can  remember  the  question. 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  Envi- 
ronment): Well  quite  obviously  the  member 
didn't  read  the  initial  report  that  came  out 
three  years  ago. 

Mr.  Singer:  No,  I  am  talking  about  this 
report  in  February,  1974. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  The  whole  programme 
is  a  staged  programme;  and  the  member  is 
talking  about  far-reaching  parts  of  the  area 
in  1985. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  but  the  government  is  not 
doing  anyfiiing  in  1974  and  1975. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  There  has  been— 


Mr.  Singer:  In  dollars  or  anything  else. 
Hon.  W.  Newman:  Oh,  yes- 
Mr   Speaker:   Was   that   a  supplementary? 
It  didn't  sound  like  one. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  supplementary.  How 
many  serviced  lots  does  the  government  ex- 
pect to  be  able  to  release  in  the  North 
Pickering  area  within  the  next  three  to  four 
years? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Well,  as  the  member 
knows,  there  is  still  an  environmental  board 
hearing  to  be  held  on  the  York-Pickering 
sewer  lines.  This  will  be  started  very  shortly. 
I  can't  give  the  member  the  exact  number 
of  lots  that  will  be  released  for  building  in 
1974-1975. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  further 
supplementary,  having  to  do  with  the  prob- 
lem that  was  expressed  by  the  member  for 
Downsview:  Has  the  Minister  of  the  Envi- 
ronment got  a  report  that  indicates  there 
is  a  threat  of  serious  deep-well  pollution 
in  the  York  area,  because  of  the  develop- 
ment that  has  gone  on  in  an  improperly- 
serviced  manner  in  an  area  called  the  Oak 
Ridges  moraine;  which,  in  fact,  provides  the 
water  facilities  for  a  good  deal  of  the  area 
under  consideration. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  know  they  are  rapid- 
ly running  out  of  water  in  that  area,  but 
certainly  I  haven't  seen  that  particular  report. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  fur- 
ther supplementary:  Does  this  report  repre- 
sent government  policy,  or  is  the  staging 
going  to  be  as  the  report  sets  out?  Or  what 
staging  does  the  minister  have  in  mind  and 
how  is  he  going  to  provide  serviced  lots  in 
the  central  York  and  Pickering  area? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  As  the  member  knows, 
the  hearings  are  already  over  on  the  matter 
of  the  plan.  We  are  moving  forward  as 
quickly  as  possible  in  our  ministry,  and  we 
are  also  working  with  the  Ministry  of  Hous- 
ing on  this  project. 

Mr.  Singer:  Is  the  minister  following  the 
schedule  in  the  report? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Which  report  is  the 
member  talking  about? 

Mr.  Singer:  Ah,  the  one  of  February,  1974, 
with  the  name  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Envi- 
ronment on  it. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  working  on  a 
programme    to   expedite    water   and   sewage 


MARCH  25,  1974 


401 


as   quickly   as   possible   so   that   the   people 
of  this  province  may  have  homes. 

Mr.  Singer:   But  nothing  in  1974. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  believe  that  I  called 
two  members  of  the  Liberal  Party  in  succes- 
sion the  last  time;  therefore,  in  the  interests 
of  equalization  of  opportunity,  I  shall  call 
two  members  of  the  New  Democratic  Party. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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


BECKER  MILK  CO. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Thank  you  very 
much,  Mr.  Speaker;  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Labour  a  question.  How  long  is 
it  going  to  be  before  the  Becker  Milk  Co.  is 
required  to  adhere  to  the  recommendations 
of  Mr.  Carter,  after  he  inquired  into  the  un- 
fair practices  which  it  has  with  regard  to  its 
employees? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
the  hon.  member  is  referring  to  the  Becker 
case,  of  course.  Four  of  the  former  employees 
have  been  dealt  with,  I  think,  by  Prof.  Carter. 
I  understand  that  if  there  are  any  other 
applications,  or  any  other  employees  who  feel 
they  come  under  the  same  category,  they 
would  have  to  apply  to  the  company. 

However,  I  must  admit  that  this  is  a  fairly 
complex  case  which  has  lasted  several  months, 
and  I  will  probably  have  to  refresh  my 
memory  before  giving  the  member  a  definite 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  should  get 
Anthony  Bazos  on  that. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well,  is  it  the  intention  of  the 
government  to  bring  Becker  Milk  Co.  em- 
ployees imder  the  Employment  Standards  Act 
and  give  them  the  khid  of  protection  that's 
required?  Is  it  the  intention  of  the  government 
to  do  it  now  and  to  put  a  stop  to  the  kind  of 
practices  that  employees  of  Becker  Milk  have 
been  undergoing  and  taking  over  the  last  10 
years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  This  is  very  actively  be- 
ing considfered  by  myself  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Deans:  Oh,  supplementary  question: 
I'm  not  interested  in  whether  it's  actively  be- 
ing considered.  Is  it  the  intention  of  the 
government  to  do  just  what  Prof.  Carter  in 
fact  recommended,  and  find  that  the  Becker 
Milk  employees  are  in  fact  employees  rather 


than  franchised  dealers,  and  give  them  the 
protection  that  other  employees  in  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  have? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes.  As  I  said,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  given  this  some  serious  con- 
sideration in  recent  months,  and  I  propose 
some  day  to  amend  the  Employment  Stand- 
ards Act  to  protect  these  people. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


MUMPS  VACCINE 

Mr.  Shulman:  Question  of  the  Minister  of 
Health,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  When  is  he  going  to  re- 
sign? 

Mr.  Shulman:  In  view  of  the  minister's 
well-known  interest  in  preventive  medicine, 
why  has  his  department  consistently  refused 
to  supply  mumps  vaccine  to  doctors  and 
clinics? 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  he  must  have  an  opening 
line. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Well,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I've  been  investigat- 
ing a  triple  vaccine,  just  to  show  the  member 
that  I  know  there  is  one. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  a  relief. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  sometimes  wonder  if 
the  hon.  member  is  more  interested  in  ques- 
tions than  in  answers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What  does  the  minis- 
ter think? 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  He 
gets  so  few  answers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  The  question  of  vaccines 
is  being  considered  at  this  very  moment  by 
the  ministry,  as  to  which  ones  should  or 
should  not  be  issued  at  the  government's  cost 
to  various  clinics  in  the  province.  I  have  it 
under  consideration. 

Mr.  Shulman:  As  a  supplementary,  if  I 
may:  Inasmuch  as  all  other  vaccines  are  now 
being  issued  free— all  other  routine  vaccines, 
such  as  measles,  smallpox,  diphtheria,  polio 
and  the  rest— why  has  mumps  vaccine  been 
singled  out  as  not  to  be  given? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  can't  answer  that 
specifically.  As  I  say,  I  know  that  we  were 
offered  a  single  vaccine  that  incorporated 
three  different  treatments— the  NMR  vaccine 


40^ 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


—which  we  thought  would  have  certain  cost- 
benefit  factors  when  we  allowed  for  the 
medical  cost  of  injecting  the  vaccine.  It  was 
about  three  months  ago  that  we  started  study- 
ing this,  and  I  hope  to  have  an  answer  on  it 
very  shortly.  I  imderstand  the  group  within 
the  ministry  has  just  about  finished  its  calcula- 
tions and  is  about  to  make  a  recommendation 
to  us. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Welland 
South  is  next. 


COST  OF  POLICING 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Solicitor  General.  I'm 
sure  the  minister  is  well  aware  of  the  high 
cost  of  policing  services  in  the  regional  munic- 
ipality of  Niagara  and  in  other  conmiunities 
throughout  Ontario.  What  progress  has  been 
made  through  his  ministry  in  negotiating  an 
agreement  with  the  federal  government  to 
provide  financial  assistance  on  a  cost-sharing 
formula  similar  to  other  provinces  throughout 
the  Dominion  of  Canada?  I  believe  that  under 
the  cost-sharing  formula,  48  per  cent  is  picked 
up  by  the  federal  government.  What  progress 
is  being  made  by  the  ministry  now? 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  I  am 
sorry,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  didn't  hear  the  first  part 
of  the  question.  Is  the  member  talking  about 
police  or  policing?  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  cost  of  policing  in  the 
regional  municipality  of  Niagara  and  in 
other  areas  and  communities  throughout  On- 
tario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
have  been  no  discussions  with  the  federal 
government  directly  in  respect  to  regional 
police  or  municipal  policing. 

As  the  member  knows,  Ontario  has  a  pro- 
vincial pohce  force,  as  has  Quebec,  while 
the  other  provinces  have  the  RCMP.  We 
have  attempted  to  have  some  sort  of  con- 
sideration given  to  Ontario  for  the  fact  that 
we  provide  our  own  provincial  police.  Que- 
bec, particularly,  took  the  lead  in  attempt- 
ing to  obtain  some  compensation  in  that 
regard  and  were  turned  down.  However,  as 
far  as  direct  subsidy  from  Ottawa  for  polic- 
ing in  a  municipality  is  concerned  there  has 
been  no  discussion  on  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 


WIND  ENERGY  SEMINAR 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside).^  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Energy,  of  which  he  has  had  prior  notice. 
Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  wind  energy 
seminar  to  be  held  in  May  at  the  University 
of  Sherbrooke? 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  the  hon. 
member  was  good  enough  to  write  me  about 
it. 

Mr.  Burr:  Is  the  minister  going  to  send 
observers  to  this  seminar? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  The  conference,  I 
think,  for  the  benefit  of  the  House,  concerns 
wind  energy. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  minister  ought  to 
know  about  that. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  At 
least  the  conference  is  concerned  with 
energy. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Is  the  min- 
ister the  guest  speaker? 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Is  the 
minister  going  to  give  a  demonstration? 

Hon  Mr.  McKeough:  The  ministry  has  not 
yet  made  a  determination  as  to  whether  we 
will  send  observers  to  that  conference,  nor 
will  we  make  such  a  determination  lighdy. 
I'm  sure  the  Management  Board  will  have 
to  be  consulted. 

Mr.   Bounsall:    Is   the  Management  Board 

interested  in  energy?  Lots  of  wind  there! 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I'm  sure  that  be- 
cause it's  out  of  the  province  we  will  be  con- 
sulting with  the  Premier,  but  when  we  make 
a  decision  we  will  certainly  inform  the  mem- 
bers- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 
River. 


INQUIRY  INTO  HOSPITAL  EMPLOYEES' 
REMUNERATION 

Mr.  Reid:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker;  I  have 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Can 
the  minister  indicate  the  exact  date  that  the 
report  of  his  commission  investigating  the 
problems  in  the  hospitals  and  witii  hospital 
employees  will  be  brought  down?  Will  it  be 
available  before— I  believe  it's  May  1  when 
the    hospital    workers    have    threatened,    at 


:;il!MARCH  25,  1974 


403 


least  In   Toronto   I   believe,   to   go   out   on 
strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  sev- 
eral weeks  ago  I  appointed  a  commission  of 
inquiry  to  look  into  the  remuneration  of 
employees,  particularly  in  the  service  indus- 
tries, in  hospitals.  I  met  with  this  commission 
myself  a  few  weeks  ago;  we  have  done  some 
work  at  the  ministry  level. 

Mr.  Deans:  That  is  a  delaying  tactic. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  see  that  they  are  now 
inviting  submissions  by  persons  or  organiza- 
tions interested  in  making  a  presentation  to 
the  commission.  Now  as  you  know,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  scope  of  this  inquiry— the  mag- 
nitude of  it— is  fairly  large.  I  must  admit  I 
do  not  expect  a  report  before  May  1,  al- 
though the  commission  has  been  told  to  pro- 
ceed as  quickly  as  possible. 

Mr.  Reid:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  may:  Does  the  minister  not  agree  that 
the  whole  problem  crystallizes  itself  into  the 
fact  that  hospital  workers  are  imderpaid  as 
compared  to  people  in  similar  occupations 
outside  of  the  hospitals- 
Mr.  Deans:  Oh,  that  is  what  the  problem 


Mr.  Reid:  That  these  people  are  being  ex- 
ploited and  that  the  ceilings  imposed  by  this 
government  on  hospitals  are,  in  fact,  one  of 
the  reasons  why  these  people  are  so  poorly 
paid?  And  does  the  minister  not  feel  it  en- 
cumbent upon  himself  to  provide  some 
guidelines  so  that  these  people  can  be  paid 
a  fair  wage? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
exactly  the  purpose  of  the  commission,  of 
course;  to  give  guidelines  to  both  parties 
when  the  time  comes  for  negotiations. 

I  must  stress  the  fact  that  last  year  there 
were  awards  which  were  above— and  as  a 
matter  of  fact  far  above— the  ceilings  during 
the  course  of  the  year. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  Does  the 
minister  realize  that  the  Province  of  New 
Brunswick  has  just  now  granted  a  $125 
wage  increase  as  a  cost  of  living  allowance 
to  hospital  workers  in  the  middle  of  existing 
contracts  because  of  the  rise  of  the  cost  of 
living? 

Does  the  minister  realize  that  the  Province 
of  British  Columbia  just  negotiated  a  prov- 
ince-wide contract  giving  $1  to  $1.50  more 
per  worker,  per  job,  than  is  received  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario? 


Doesn't  the  minister  think  he  has  an 
obligation,  moral,  political  and  otherwise, 
to  say  to  his  cabinet  colleagues:  "Get  oflF  the 
backs  of  the  hospital  workers  in  Ontario  and 
pay  them  a  legitimate  wage";  in  advance  of 
any  strike  order? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
never  been  on  the  backs  of  the  hospital 
workers. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  certainly  has. 
It  is  a  shocking  position  they  take,  the  gov- 
ernment and  its  commissions.  The  hospital 
workers  are  20  per  cent  behind  the  other 
public  sectors. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  '  ' 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  That's  the  reason  the 
commission  of  inquiry  was  appointed  by  me. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  does  the  minister  need  a 
commission  of  inquiry  for?  What  does  he 
need  it  for? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  When  it  is  self-evident. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a 
matter  of  fact  my  hon.  friend  will  recall 
that  both  the  former  Minister  of  Health  and 
myself  have  recognized  the  fact  that  hospital 
workers  were  underpaid. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  the  government  going 
to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  That's  the  reason  for 
the  appointment  of  the  commission— hope- 
fully they'll  provide  the  guidelines. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  Give  them 
bargaining  rights  and!  tiie  minister  won't  have 
to  be  so  paternalistic. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Who  needs  a  commission? 
What  use  are  they? 

Mr.  Reid:  The  facts  are  self-evident. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  knows  the  dif- 
ference. Why  doesn't  he  rescind  the  Act  and 
raise  the  ceilings? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well  that  business  about  rais- 
ing it  above  the  ceilings  last  year— Aey  need 
40  per  cent  to  become  aligned. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  Minister  of 
Revenue  has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously.  The  hon.  the  Minister  of  Revenue. 


404 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections    by    hon.    members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order, 

ASSESSMENT  NOTICES 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  was  asked  a  question  by 
the  member  for  St.  George  (Mrs.  Campbell) 
on  Tuesday,  March  12,  as  to  why  my  min- 
istry was  not  issuing  assessment  notices  this 
year  to  the  citizens  of  this  province,  except 
in  si)eciai  cases  and  for  new  construction. 

I  would  advise  the  hon.  member  that  on 
Oct.  18,  1973,  the  former  Minister  of  Reve- 
nue (Mr.  Grossman)  read  a  statement  to  this 
House  which  included  a  commitment  to  re- 
turn new  and  updated  assessment  rolls  to 
every  assessed  person  in  all  municipalities  in 
Ontario  in  1974  for  1975  taxes  and  for  each 
year  thereafter.  As  a  result,  every  assessed 
person  will  receive  an  assessment  notice  in 
1974  and  each  year  thereafter. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  also  asked  a  supple- 
mentary question  by  the  hon.  member  for  St. 
George  about  a  successful  appeal  by  the  owner 
of  a  condominium  apartment  in  her  riding. 
The  owners  of  the  condominiums  at  40  Home- 
wood  have  very  recently  written  to  the 
assessment  division  of  my  ministry  with  re- 
spect to  the  appeal  that  was  made  and  the 
court  decision  that  reduced  the  assessment  of 
one  of  the  owners  of  the  condominium.  The 
remaining  owners  want  to  know  whether  or 
not  this  decision  afiFects  them. 

The  matter  is  presently  being  investigated 
by  the  assessment  commission,  and  while  in 
previous  property  cases  the  reduction  in 
assessment  by  the  court  only  accrues  to  a 
person  who  nas  successfully  conducted  such 
an  appeal  and  not  to  anyone  else,  there  may 
be  a  diflFerence  in  the  case  of  a  number  of 
substantially  identical  condominiiuns.  My 
legal  oflBciads  will  be  looking  into  this  matter. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Windsor  West  is  next. 


LETTUCE  LABELLING 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, Mr.  Speaker.  Has  he  commenced,  and 
if  not  will  he  commence,  an  investigation  into 
or  initiate  legal  action  against  Dominion 
Stores,  which  on  Thursday  of  last  week  in 
Toronto   deliberately  and  falsely  mislabelled 


lettuce  as  being  United  Farm  Workers  lettuce; 
a  fact  discovered  by  three  Toronto  clergymen? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  ( Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  no  jurisdiction  on  misleading  advertising; 
that  would  come  under  the  federal  Combines 
Investigation  Act. 

Mr.  Reid:  Use  your  head. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Nineteen  cents  a  head. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  not  aware  whether 
there  has  been  a  charge  laid  or  not  relating 
to  that  particular  situation.  I  know  there  are 
some  280  charges  outstanding  now.  Initiated 
by  the  federal  authorities,  dealing  with  similar 
situations. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  a 
supplementary  question,  isn't  the  minister 
aware  that  there  is  a  section  of  the  Consumer 
Protection  Act  of  the  Province  of  Ontario 
dealing  with  misleading  advertising? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Of  course,  it  is  specific. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  I  am  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  has  never  been  used  but 
it  still  exists. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  I  am  well  aware 
that  exists.  But  we  are  of  the  opinion  it 
doesn't  apply  to  people  in  this  particular 
instance,  that  it  applies  to  itinerant  salesmen. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Just  a  certain  kind  of  mis- 
leading advertising. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Just  a  moment,  what  was  that? 
The  ministry  has  a  section  under  the  Con- 
sumer Protection  Act  which,  if  I  recall,  ex- 
plicitly sets  out  areas  where  complaints  can 
be  laid  against  misleading  advertising  or  mer- 
chandising practices.  There  are  penalties  ap- 
plied. 

There  is  no  reference  to  itinerant  salesmen 
or  merchandising  of  any  kind.  It  is  to  protect 
the  consumer  in  Ontario.  And  the  minister  is 
saying  that  would  have  no  application,  either 
to  the  case  at  Dominion  Stores,  or  for  instance 
to  the  increase  in  prices  in  the  course  of  one 
day  at  A  &  P  last  weekend?  None  of  that 
would  apply? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  advised  by  my 
law  oflBcers  that  is  correct. 


it? 


Mr.  Lewis:  Is  the  minister  going  to  change 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes  sir! 


MARCH  25,  1974 


405 


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

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Mr.  Henderson,  from  the  select  committee 
on  land  drainage,  presented  a  report  which 
was  read  as  follows  and  adopted: 

Your  committee  recommends  that  it  be  au- 
thorized to  sit  concurrently  with  the  House 
on  Tuesdays  between  the  hours  of  3  o'clock, 
p.m.,  and  5  o'clock,  p.m.,  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  its  final  report. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  just  cost  us  $10,000 
a  word. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Who  will  pay  for  this  report? 

Mr.  Singer:  A  report  of  13  pages. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Is  that  the 
entire  report— 13  pages? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That's  not  much  of  a  re- 
port. 

Mr.  Carruthers  presented  the  final  report 
of  the  select  committee  on  motorized  snow 
vehicles  and  all-terrain  vehicles. 

Mr.  A.  Carruthers  (Durham):  Mr.  Speaker, 
additional  copies  of  this  report  vidll  be  avail- 
able as  soon  as  they  are  received  from  the 
printers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


BEDS  OF  NAVIGABLE  WATERS  ACT 

Mr.  Haggerty  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Beds  of 
Navigable  Waters  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  provide  a  uniform  interpretation 
of  the  deeds  of  property  boimded  by  navi- 
gable water  so  that  the  high-water  mark  shall 
be  deemed  to  be  the  boundary  of  riparian 
ovmed  lands  and  so  that  certain  rights  shall 
still  be  reserved  to  the  Crown. 

Mr.  Speaker:  May  I  have  the  permission  of 
the  House  to  revert  to  reports?  One  of  the 
hon.  ministers  forgot  to  present  a  report  or 
was  not  here. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  depends  on  the  minister. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Do  I  have  the  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  House?  The  hon.  Attorney 
General. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch  presented  the  sixth  annual 
report  of  the  Ontario  Legal  Aid  Plan  for  the 
year  ended  March  31,  1973. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resinn- 
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.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Mr.  Speaker, 
this  speech  has  had  a  rather  long  gestation 
period.  I  had  intended  to  speak  before  the 
recess  on  at  least  three  different  occasions, 
but  because  my  long-winded  friend  from 
Ottawa  Centre  was  as  long-winded  as  I  intend 
to  be  today,  I  didn't  quite  make  it. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  There 
couldn't  be  two. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Imitation  is 
the  sincerest  form  of  flattery. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  On  a  point 
of  order,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  haven't  said  a  word 
in  this  debate  yet.  The  member  is  well  in 
advance  of  himself. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I'm  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  didn't 
intend  to  be  imduly  provocative. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Oh,  go  ahead. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  was  just  anticipating  my 
friend,  based  on  his  past  performances,  and  I 
thought  it  hkely  that  he  would  give  one  of 
his  extended'  presentations  again. 

In  any  case,  it  is  a  pleasure  for  me  to 
participate  in  this  debate.  I  really  don't  want 
to  say  very  much  about  the  Throne  Speech; 
actually  there  isn't  much  to  talk  about  in 
regard  to  the  Throne  Speech.  I  think  the  lack 
of  government  initiatives  in  regard  to  that 
particular  speech,  particularly  in  some  very 
vital  areas  including  housing,  inflation, 
agriculture,  land-use  planning,  and  so  on, 
indicate  that  really  it  was  a  tired  old  song 
by  a  tired  old  government. 

Some  hon.  members:   Right. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  should  perhaps  make  some 
mention  about  the  cabinet  changes  that  took 


406 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


place.  I  was  very  interested  to  see  the 
changes.  Actually,  I  noticed  one  press  report 
in  which  the  Premier  had  billed  the  cabinet 
changes  as  an  effort  on  his  part  to  bring  new 
blood  into  the  cabinet  and  to  add  some  youth 
and  vigour.  I  noticed  that  there  were  some 
cabinet  ministers  who  were  53,  and  they 
were  replaced  by  cabinet  ministers  who  were 
50,  and  I  couldn't  quite  understand  how  that 
was  going  to  result  in  a  new  and  vigorous 
cabinet. 

In  any  case,  I  want  to  congratulate  all  of 
those  people  who  were  appointed  to  the 
cabinet,  the  new  parliamentary  assistants,  and 
of  course  I  want  to  pay  tribute  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  for  your  fairness  and  your  patience 
in  what  has  to  be  a  most  diflRcult  job— cer- 
tainly it  is  the  most  diflScult  on  many  occa- 
sions, I  am  sure. 

The  main  burden  of  what  I  have  to  say 
today  centres  on  Ontario  Hydro— the  power 
line  corridor  from  Bruce  generating  station 
to  Bradley  junction,  from  Bradley  junction 
to  Wingham,  and  thence  to  Seaforth,  and 
from  Bradley  junction  to  Georgetown.  This 
last  leg  of  the  corridor  is  now  under  study 
and  public  meetings  are  being  held— I  rather 
believe  that  they  are  just  about  concluded— 
to  get  input  from  farmers  as  to  where  the 
lines  should  be  located.  The  hearings  of 
necessity  under  the  Expropriations  Act  for 
the  other  legs  of  the  corridor  were  completed 
as  of  two  weeks  ago. 

In  this  past  series  of  meetings,  and  for  at 
least  the  past  year,  it  has  been  painfully  ob- 
vious that  Hydro  has  lost  the  complete  con- 
fidence of  the  farmers  and  the  property  own- 
ers vdth  whom  it  is  trying  to  deal. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Right. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  want  to  study  this  situation 
for  a  moment,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  I  pose 
the  question:  What  has  happened;  what  has 
gone  wrong?  One  only  has  to  listen  to  the 
comments  and  understand  the  tactics  that 
have  been  used  to  appreciate  the  depth  of 
feeling  and  bitterness  that  radiates  from 
these  meetings.  Hydro  is  charged  with  mis- 
representation and  with  playing  one  farmer 
against  another  to  get  a  price  advantage,  of 
leaving  scars  which  will  never  be  healed  and 
of  not  having  accurate  information.  Indeed, 
on  that  point.  Hydro's  soil  maps  have  been 
inaccurate,  its  corridor  maps  have  mistakes 
in  them,  and  its  impact  study  for  Wallace 
township  was  almost  totally  useless. 

They  showed  the  power  line  would  have 
a  low  impact  in  that  particular  township 
even  though  the  township  contains  99.7  per 
cent  class  1  and  2  land.  Hydro  came  into  the 


hearings  of  necessity  on  the  first  day.  They 
said,  "We  told  you  all  along  that  we  wanted 
540  ft  right  of  way  from  Bradley  junction  to 
Wingham.  But  now  we've  decided,  because 
the  farmers  don't  want  us  to  take  so  much 
land,  that  we  need  only  490  ft."  Why  the 
sudden  change? 

Needless  to  say,  it  threw  that  hearing  into 
a  morning  of  chaos.  If  Hydro  had  been  sin- 
cere, that  change  could  have  been  made  at 
least  six  months  ago  because  Hydro  knew 
for  at  least  a  year  that  the  landovmers  were 
opposing  the  land  acquisition.  They  knew 
that.  Hydro  undoubtedly  thought  it  would 
be  the  sugar  topping  to  make  the  hearings 
go  smoothly.   It  had  the  reverse  effect. 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  when  Hydro  called 
a  public  meeting  in  the  Howick  Central 
School  for  Feb.  27,  the  meeting  lasted  more 
than  five  hours— three  hours  after  Hydro  offi- 
cials had  tried  to  adjourn  the  meeting.  Hydro 
oflBcials  were  told  that  farmers  did  not  trust 
their  negotiating  methods.  Every  tactic  in 
the  book  had  been  used,  they  said— negotiat- 
ing with  the  threat  of  expropriation,  and  tak- 
ing pieces  of  paper  and  writing  offers  on 
them  with  no  date,  no  signature,  no  letter- 
head, just  a  few  figures  on  them.  I  have  a  few 
examples  here. 

If  you  can  tell  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  those 
types  of  ofi^ers  indicate  a  good  business  pro- 
cedure on  the  part  of  a  corporation  like 
Ontario  Hydro— its  now  a  Crown  corporation 
—I  must  be  mistaken.  On  a  plain  piece  of 
paper,  foolscap  paper,  it  says  without 
prejudice";  the  name  of  the  person;  Hydro 
requirements;  the  amoimt  of  land  needed; 
and  the  price  per  acre.  It's  totalled  up  at  the 
bottom  and  the  price  at  the  bottom  is  divided 
by  the  mmiber  of  acres  to  get  the  cost  per 
acre.  There  is  no  letterhead,  no  signature. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Is  it  written  in  pencil? 

Mr.  Gaunt:  That  one  is  written  in  ink.  This 
one  is  written  in  pencil. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  dull  pencil. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  What's 
the  matter? 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  can't  understand  what 
possesses  Hydro  to  deal  with  land  owners  in 
this  fashion.  How  unprofessional  can  one  get? 
It's  a  shameful  exhibition  for  a  public  cor- 
poration, the  third  largest  power  producer  in 
the  world. 

Hydro  has  oflFered  $175  per  acre  to  a 
farmer;  then  gone  right  across  the  road  and 
offered  another  farmer  $300  per  acre  simply 
because  the  first  farmer  was  an  old  age  pen- 


MARCH  25,  1974 


407 


sioner  and  looked  an  easy  mark  to  the  buyer. 
There  is  no  other  explanation. 

This  entire  display  by  Hydro  on  this  power 
line  has  been  nothing  short  of  scandalous.  It 
has  been  a  fiasco  from  beginning  to  end. 
People  have  no  quarrel  with  the  local  Hydro 
oflScials,  it's  head  office.  Every  time  someone 
from  head  office  comes  up,  it  seems  it  ends 
up  in  an  entire  fiasco.  It's  a  comedy  of  errors 
from  beginning  to  end. 

It  seems  that  every  time  someone  leaves 
620  University  Ave.  their  new-found  freedom 
goes  to  their  head  and  they  take  leave  of 
their  senses.  There  is  certainly  no  other 
explanation  for  their  unusual  behaviour.  Is  it 
any  wonder  that  Hydro  officials  were  told 
their  public  meetings  were  ridiculous?  One 
farmer  said  this  travelling  road  show  should 
be  halted'  until  Hydro  had  the  information 
that  people  were  seeking. 

I  don't  really  enjoy  making  a  speech  like 
this,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  think  these  things 
have  to  be  said.  What  Hydro  has  been  doing 
and  the  tactics  it  has  been  using  in  negotiat- 
ing have  been  wrong— dead  wrong.  It  is  about 
time  Hydro  cleaned  up  its  act.  When  these 
things  were  cited  to  Hydro  official's  they 
would  always  deny  it;  theH'  the  same  thing 
would  happen  the  very  next  day. 

It's  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  appar- 
ently these  things  have  not  only  been  going 
on  in  our  area,  in  my  riding,  they  have  been 
going  on  elsewhere  as  well.  I  received  this 
morning  a  letter  from  a  lady  at  Hagersville. 
She  had  had  word  that  I  had  some  interest 
in  the  matters  related  to  Hydro  and  its  land 
acquisition  policies  and  so  on,  so  she  under- 
took to  write  to  me  to  cite  a  few  of  the  things 
that  she  and  her  husband  had  encoxmtered 
with  respect  to  Ontario  Hydro  and  Hydro's 
desire  to  purchase  property  from  these  people 
for  a  hydro  power  line. 

She  talks  about  how  they  dealt  v^dth  them; 
how  unfairly  Hydro  dealt  with  them.  She 
says: 

We  had  150  acres.  Hydro  towers  will  go 
across  the  back  of  the  farm  halfway  and 
then  take  off  one  side  of  the  farm  on  a 
slant.  We  keep  at  least  50  beef  cattle  all 
the  time  and  the  43  acres  Hydro  has  taken 
will  certainly  curtail  our  beef  operation. 

She  goes  on  to  say  a  little  later: 

Land  is  one  commodity  that  cannot  be 
substituted.  They  keep  mentioning  that 
agricultural  land  is  so  important  and  vital 
to;  our  nation  so  how  is  it  that  the  Ontario 
government  and  Hydro  can  walk  in,  take 
our  land  by  expropriation,  and  pay  mere 


farmers  just  what  they  want  to,  while  they 
give  developers,  no  dfoubt,  what  they  ask? 

In  that  connection,  as  she  has  cited  earlier  in 
her  letter,  these  people  were  offered  $600  an 
acre.  Right  across  the  road  there  was  land 
which  was  set  aside  apparently  for  develop- 
ment—it was  owned  by  a  developer— and 
Hydro  gave  the  developer  $2,000  an  acre. 
She  is  complaining  that  their  land  was  just 
as  valuable  to  them  as  the  land  was  to  the 
developer.  I  simply  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
Hydro  has  certainly  dealt  most  unfairly  with 
the  farmers  in  my  area. 

All  of  these  things,  I  suppose,  are  never 
without  their  lighter  moments,  and  we  have 
had  a  number  of  lighter  moments  wdth 
respect  to  the  dealings  of  Ontario  Hydro  in 
our  area.  I  cite  to  you  one  which  is  some- 
what amusing  but  indicates  the  point,  I  think, 
that  I  am  trying  to  make. 

A  Hydro  buyer  approached  a  farmer  and, 
for  some  reason  or  other,  he  thought  he 
was  talking  to  his  neighbour.  The  Hydro 
official  proceeded  to  tell  the  farmer  what  a 
good  price  he  was  being  offered  for  his  land 
and  how  much  better  it  was  than  what  his 
neighbour  was  getting.  After  the  farmer 
listened  to  this  for  some  time,  he  finally 
said:  "Well,  you  know,  111  have  to  tell  you 
that  I  am  the  one  who  is  getting  the  lower 
price."  That  actually  happened,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  can  get  an  affidavit  to  that  effect. 

I  simply  say  to  you  that  this  certainly  is 
not  the  way  to  instill  trust,  it  is  not  the 
way  to  conduct  good  faith  bargaining.  The 
tragedy  of  it  all  is  that  it  could  have  been 
avoided.  If  Hydro  had  dealt  with  the  far- 
mers in  a  forthright,  honest  way  and  oflFered 
them  $500  or  $600  an  acre  for  their  land 
at  the  start— it  will  have  to  be  considerably 
higher  now— most  of  the  land  would  have 
been  purchased,  I  venture;  perhaps  even  90 
per  cent  of  it  would  have  been  piurchased 
and  nothing  could  have  been  done  about 
changing  the  alignment  of  that  route. 

The  hearings  of  public  necessity  may  not 
have  been  necessary  and  the  entire  atmos- 
phere and  attitude  toward  Ontario  Hydro 
would  have  been  different.  Instead,  Hydro 
started  on  a  path  of  deception  early  on,  and 
it  has  done  nothing  but  breed  contempt  and 
disdain.  This  is  evident  from  a  letter  which 
was  written  by  the  then  Minister  of  the 
Environment  (Mr.  Auld)  to  Gordon  Hill, 
president  of  the  OF  A,  in  response  to  a  letter 
Mr.  Hill  had  sent  asking  for  a  full  in- 
dependent environmental  assessment  on  the 
line  from  Douglas  Point  to  Seaforth. 

This  letter  to  Mr.  Hill  is  dated  March  15, 
1973,   and  in  it  the  hon.  minister  indicates. 


408 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


as  one  of  the  major  reasons  for  refusing  such 
a  study,  the  fact  that  about  half  the  prop- 
erties had  been  already  acquired.  I  will  just 
read  that  paragraph  to  you:  "Hydro  gen- 
erally endeavours  to  satisfy  as  much  as  pos- 
sible the  preferences  of  land  owners,  and  I 
understand  that  agreements  have  already 
been  reached  on  about  half  the  properties." 

That  statement,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  simply  not 
true.  Undoubtedly  that  information  came 
from  Hydro  to  the  minister,  and  the  minister 
was  relying  on  Hydro  to  give  accurate  in- 
formation to  Mr.  Hill  and  to  provide  him 
with  accurate  facts  on  the  situation.  Hydro 
certaily  did  not  give  the  minister  accurate 
information. 

One  vear  later,  March  12,  1974,  only  one- 
third  of  the  land  owners  have  reached  agree- 
ment. Yet  a  year  ago  Hydro  was  telling  the 
minister  that  about  half  the  land  owners  had 
reached  agreement  with  respect  to  acquisi- 
tion for  the  power  line. 

Hvdro  was  censured  on  the  report  on  the 
head  office  building  for  doing  exactly  the 
same  thing  in  regard  to  supplying  the  min- 
ister with  misleading  and  inaccurate  in- 
formation, which  he  in  turn  supplied  to  the 
House  in  relation  to  Hydro's  contract  with 
Canada  Square. 

Learning  seems  to  be  diflBcult  for  Hydro 
I  can't  understand  how  that  organization  can 
be  so  brilliant  in  some  fields  and  so  obtuse 
in  others.  However,  I  want  to  deal  with  the 
central  issue  in  this  controversy,  the  matter 
of  Hydro  corridors  slashing  through  prime 
agricidtural  lands  when  other  alternatives 
through  poorer  farm  land  are  available  to 
them. 

Three  continents— North  America,  Europe 
and  Australia— export  more  food  than  they 
import.  Asia,  Africa  and  South  America  im- 
port more  food  than  they  export.  However, 
this  situation  is  changing  very  rapidly.  There 
are  a  number  of  reasons  why  it's  changing. 
One  of  the  reasons  for  this  change  is  the  fact 
that  prime  agricultural  land  is  being  gobbled 
up  for  development,  whether  it  be  for  in- 
dustry, housing,  highways  or  power  corridors. 

In  this  province  we  are  losing  26  acres  of 
prime  agricultural  land  per  hour  to  develop- 
ment. In  the  last  three  years,  Ontario  has 
last  over  683,000  acres  of  prime  land.  This 
represents  about  1,626,857  tons  of  com.  If 
this  is  not  stoppyed,  Ontario  will  not  have 
any  prime  agricultural  land  left  50  years 
from  now.  Ponder  the  implications  of  that 
for  someone  shopping  in  the  supermarkets. 
It's  startling.  The  downturn  in  our  food  pro- 
duction has  already  started. 


In  1973,  we  imported  62.6  million  pounds 
of  butter  into  Canada,  most  of  which  came 
from  New  Zealand  and  Australia.  In  our  own 
province,  the  consumption  of  fluid  milk  in- 
creased by  1.6  per  cent.  Production  was  down 
from  the  previous  year  by  five  per  cent, 
which  meant  we  had  a  shortfall  of  6.6  per 
cent  in  fluid  milk  production  last  year  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario. 

To  be  sure,  we  have  an  energy  crisis.  How- 
ever, we  have  our  priorities  in  the  wrong 
order.  The  No.  1  priority  is  not  the  energy 
crisis,  it's  the  potential  food  crisis.  And  if 
we  don't  take  steps  to  preserve  our  top 
agricultural  land  immediately,  it  will  be- 
come our  No.  1  problem.  If  we  don't  do 
something  about  this  now,  we  will  have 
people  starving  on  this  continent  within  five 
years. 

That's  not  an  hysterical  comment,  that's  a 
distinct  possibility.  People  won't  be  able  to 
get  food,  not  because  the  price  is  too  high, 
but  because  it  won't  be  available  at  any 
price.  Ultimate  development  of  the  world 
and  Canada  will  depend  on  how  much  food, 
not  on  how  much  energy  we  have. 

If  food— the  most  important  ingredient  in 
human  survival— is  to  be  available,  the  pro- 
ducer must  be  encouraged  to  farm  the  land 
that  produces  this  food.  Farmers  must  be 
allowed  to  do  so  without  interference.  We 
in  Canada  have  never  contemplated  the  pos- 
sibility of  going  hungry.  Let  me  tell  you  why 
it  is  a  possibility,  and  I  call  upon  a  number 
of  experts  to  alert  us  as  to  the  danger  signals 
which  are  now  on  the  horizon. 

Raymond  Ewell,  professor  of  chemical 
engineering  at  the  State  University  of  New 
York  in  Buffalo  and  a  recognized  expert  on 
fertilizer  production,  has  recently  returned 
from  Asia.  His  observations  are  pertinent.  He 
indicated  that  India  used  about  3.5  million 
tons  of  chemical  nutrients  in  1973.  This  year 
she  will  have  to  make  do  wath  2.5  million 
tons.  This  will  reduce  India's  grain  harvest 
by  some  10  million  tons,  a  tenth  of  last 
year's  total. 

The  US  Department  of  Agriculture  es- 
timates a  shortage  of  more  than  a  million 
tons  of  fertilizer  this  year.  There  are  some 
conflicting  reports  on  that,  but  the  best  and 
the  latest  information  apparently  is  that  they 
are  going  to  have  a  shortage  of  approximate- 
ly a  million  tons  this  year. 

The  oil  crisis  is  the  immediate  reason  for 
diflSculties  in  fertilizer  production.  Demand 
for  more  food  has  always  been  met  by  ex- 
panding cropland.  Now,  the  arable  land  has 
just  about  run  out.  TTbere  is  certainly  no 
more    worthwhile    acreage    available    in    the 


MARCH  25,  1974 


409 


most  densely-populated  areas  of  the  world. 
So  an  increase  in  our  food  supply  has  to 
come  from  more  intensive  cultivation  of  the 
available  land.  This  is  where  fertilizer  comes 
in. 

Figures  on  fertilizer  usage  are  certainly 
revealing.  In  1945  American  com  growers 
used  about  7  lbs  of  nitrogen,  the  most  im- 
portant fertilizer  element,  per  acre.  In  1970 
they  were  using  112  lbs— sixteen  times  as 
much.  Large  amounts  of  fertilizer  are  neces- 
sary for  intensive  cropping.  Yet  the  energy 
crisis  is  a  major  dislocating  factor  because 
it  takes  energy  in  large  amounts  to  make 
nitrogen  fertilizer.  It  comes  from  ammonia, 
which  in  turn  is  made  from  a  hydrocarbon, 
usually  gas  or  oil.  It  takes  a  ton  of  oil  to 
make  a  ton  of  ammonia,  which  converts  to 
two  to  three  tons  of  fertilizer,  depending  on 
the  type. 

The  principal  raw  material  of  modern  US 
and  Canadian  agriculture  is  fossil  fuel.  The 
recent  shortages  in  the  Middle  East  oil  situa- 
tion have  had  an  immediate  effect  on  fer- 
tilizer production.  Japan,  which  has  been  the 
largest  exporter  of  nitrogen,  is  said  to  have 
cut  shipments  by  about  30  per  cent,  to  the 
distress  of  China,  India  and  Indonesia. 

Zooming  energy  prices  will  have  a  perma- 
nent impact  on  fertilizer  economics.  The 
statement  made  by  the  Minister  of  Energy 
(Mr.  McKeough)  before  the  Easter  break  in 
relation  to  energy  and  the  pricing  of  oil  cer- 
tainly mentioned  this  fact.  I  was  interested 
to  learn  just  a  few  days  ago  of  a  big  fer- 
tilizer plant  which  is  going  to  be  built  out 
in  Alberta.  That's  certainly  going  to  help  our 
situation  here;  but  even  with  that,  it  all  de- 
pends on  the  oil  and  gas  that  we  have  avail- 
able in  order  to  make  the  fertilizer. 

Eighteen  months  ago  urea,  a  nitrogen  nu- 
trient, was  selling  for  $50  a  ton.  In  some 
places  in  the  world  it  has  recently  sold  for 
as  high  as  $225  a  ton.  Prof.  Ewell  feels  the 
Indians  should  be  using  at  least  10  million 
tons  of  fertilizer,  because  they  now  have  the 
seed,  the  land  and  the  water.  Ewell  con- 
cludes by  saying: 

The  present  world-wide  shortage  of 
fertilizer  will  continue  indefinitely,  at  least 
for  the  next  five  years  and  probably  for 
the  rest  of  human  history. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  expanding  world 
population  is  straining  the  limits  of  land  and 
agricultural  technology.  The  world  popula- 
tion presently  stands  at  close  to  four  billion 
people.  By  the  year  2000  world  population 
is  projected  to  be  close  to  seven  billion 
people.  That  is  close  to  an  80  per  cent  in- 


crease. And,  incidentally,  Mr.  Speaker,  that's 
down  from  the  projections  of  a  few  years 
ago. 

Can  we  increase  our  food  production  by 
80  per  cent  in  the  same  period?  Maybe,  just 
maybe,  we  can.  But  we  can't  if  we  put 
asphalt  and  concrete  on  all  our  best  land. 
We  must  preserve  that  land  if  we  want  to 
be  fed.  Dr.  Norman  Borlaug,  1970  winner 
of  the  Nobel  prize  for  peace  said  civilization 
as  it  is  known  today  could  not  have  evolved, 
nor  could  it  survive,  without  adequate  food 
supply.  Yet  food  seems  to  have  been  taken 
for  granted  by  most  of  the  world  leaders 
today. 

Canada's  Maurice  Strong,  of  the  United 
Nations  Environmental  Secretariat,  warned 
us  about  misuse  of  our  heritage.  His  report 
says: 

A  global  picture  of  food  scarcity  is  now 
emerging  with  disquieting  implications 
both  for  hungry  people  and  for  world  poli- 
tical stability.  We  have  no  safety  margins 
left.  Another  international  crop  failure 
like  that  of  1972  or  the  recurrence  of  a 
dust  bowl  like  that  of  1932  in  the  US 
could  now,  with  scant  reserves,  trigger 
major  regional  disaster. 

I  also  came  across  an  article  in  one  of  the 
farm  magazines;  and  it  quotes  a  person 
whom  I  would  consider  to  be  somewhat  of 
an  expert  in  this  regard,  an  agriclimatologist 
by  the  name  of  G.  D.  Williams.  He's  with 
the  Canada  Department  of  Agriculture's 
Chemistry  and  Biology  Research  Institute  in 
Ottawa.  He  says: 

Farm  land  is  already  scarce  in  areas  with 
the  best  growing  chmates.  Farm  land,  like 
oil,  is  not  in  limitless  supply.  People  should 
not  rely  on  the  false  security  they  might 
feel  when  looking  at  vast  unpopidated  ex- 
panses dominating  the  map  of  Canada. 
Only  one-twentieth  of  the  country  consists 
of  improved  farmland  and  a  minuscule  two 
per  cent  of  that  small  amount  is  blessed 
with  excellent  rainfall  and  temperatures. 

Although  Canada  has  twice  as  much 
farmland  per  person  as  the  United  States 
our  climate  makes  Canadian  land  only  half 
as  productive  on  the  average  as  that  in  the 
United  States.  Instead  of  increasing  to  meet 
growing  food  demand,  the  land  suitable  for 
farming  in  the  cUmatically-favoured  parts 
of  Canada  is  actually  decreasing  at  the  rate 
of  about  100  acres  per  thousand  person 
increase  in  the  urban  population. 

Mr.  Williams  estimates  that  about  400,000  of 
Canada's  160  million  acres  of  farmland  are 


410 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


covered  by  urban  development  every  10  years. 

He  says: 

Unfortunately,  those  400,000  acres  tend 
to  come  from  areas  most  climatically  suit- 
able for  farming.  Nearly  half  of  the  farm- 
land losses  to  urban  encroachment  in 
Canada  is  coming  from  the  best  one- 
twentieth  of  our  farmland.  Tliis  is  a  serious 
problem,  if  not  a  crisis,  and  it  is  cause  for 
concern  and,  perhaps,  alarm. 

I've  called  upon  a  few  experts;  it's  not  only 
my  view,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  think,  with  the 
knowledge  that  these  men  have  in  inter- 
national affairs  and  as  serious  students  of  the 
situation,  their  words  are  well  worth  noting. 
Anyone  who  says  we've  all  kinds  of  good 
farmland  left  in  this  country  or  in  the  United 
States  isn't  very  astute  or  isn't  a  very  serious 
student  of  what  is  happening  on  the  world 
scene  today  with  respect  to  food  production. 

I  noticed  an  article  also  in  the  Farm  and 
Country  over  the  weekend  in  which  one  of  the 
experts  was  indicating  that  as  far  as  climatic 
conditions  are  concerned  our  climates  are 
changing  because  the  atmospheric  circulation 
is  changing  and  it's  afiPecting  our  rairifall.  It's 
affecting  our  rainfall  in  areas  of  good  farm- 
land. It  follows  from  that,  of  coiu-se,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  it  is  affecting  the  rainfall  in 
areas  of  high  food  production.  That's  another 
implication  that's  easy  to  draw  because  if  our 
climates  are  changing,  and  if  we  have  a  poor 
crop  this  year,  next  year,  the  year  following, 
we're  going  to  be  in  real  trouble  from  a  world 
food  standpoint. 

These  are  matters  which  Ontario  Hydro 
does  not  seem  to  understand  and  appreciate. 
Agriculture  has  a  low  priority  on  its  scale  of 
values.  The  Sibbald  study,  a  private  report 
done  for  the  affected  Bruce  and  Huron  farm- 
ers, indicates  that  in  this  corridor  of  68  miles, 
for  every  900  ft  width,  farmers  will  be  losing 
approximately  108  acres.  For  every  mile  of 
540  ft  width  approximately  80  acres  will  be 
lost. 

The  present  Hydro  alignment  from  Bruce 
GS  to  Bradley  junction,  to  Wingham  to 
Seaforth,  chops  through  about  80  per  cent 
of  class  1  and  2  agricultural  land.  The  con- 
ceptual ahgnment  proposed  by  the  Huron- 
Bruce  power  negotiating  committee  would 
utilize  about  half  the  class  1  and  2  land  or 
about  40  per  cent.  But  Hydro's  argument  is 
that  this  route  would  increase  its  costs  of 
constructing  the  line.  Further,  the  Huron- 
Bruce  proposition  is  based  solely  on  soil 
capability. 

That's  true.  There's  no  question  that  the 
Huron-Bruce    proposition    is    based    on    soil 


capabihty  but  it's  a  very  important  consider- 
ation and  one  which  Hydro  hasn't  properly 
recognized. 

When  it  comes  to  the  Bradley  junction- 
Georgetown  route,  Hydro  is  going  through 
some  of  the  best  agricultural  land  in  the 
townships  of  Tumberry,  Howick  and  Wallace. 
Wallace  township  alone  has  99.7  per  cent 
class  1  and  2  land.  In  Howick  township,  the 
line  is  cutting  across  some  excellent  corn- 
land.  It  is  chopping  up  farms,  some  of  them 
operated  by  young  people  who  basically  are 
just  getting  started.  Interestingly  enough,  a 
survey  was  done  in  Howick  township  on  tiie 
age  of  the  farmers  in  that  particular  location. 
There  are  15  over  the  age  of  40,  37  between 
the  ages  of  35  and  40,  and  26  under  35 
years  of  age.  It  is  obvious  that  these  farmers 
have  a  great  stake  in  the  future  of  their  land 
because  they  are  going  to  be  aroimd  for 
some  time. 

If  a  farmer  is  operating  a  100-acre  farm, 
and  Hydro  comes  along  and  takes  10  acres, 
it  is  obviously  going  to  have  a  very  serious 
effect  on  his  operation.  This  is  what  is 
happening.  Yet  Hydro  says  there  is  no  prob- 
lem, that  it  will  license  the  land  back  to  the 
farmer  for  a  nominal  fee  so  that  he  can  work 
between  the  towers,  and  the  only  land  that 
will  be  lost  will  be  the  land  on  which  the 
towers  are  sitting.  This  at  first  blush  sounds 
good.  The  sad  part  of  it  is  that  it  isn't. 

This  is  forcefully  underlined  in  the  study 
Bruce  Hewlett  did  for  the  Solandt  commis- 
sion on  the  power  line  between  Middleport 
and  Pickering.  Part  of  that  study  addressed 
itself  to  the  impact  of  powerlines  on  agricul- 
tural land.  It  is  found  in  appendix  1  of  the 
report  and  is  entitled,  "Concerns  expressed 
regarding  impact  of  transmission  corridors  on 
prime  agricultiu-al  lands."  I  want  to  read  some 
of  the  more  i)ertinent  points  made  by  Mr. 
Hewlett  in  this  coimection  because  I  think  it 
bears  directly  on  what  I  am  talking  about. 
Hewlett  says,  and  111  quote  the  entire  report, 
or  most  of  it,  here: 

Towers  to  support  the  500,000-volt  lines 
at  present  being  considered  by  the  So^landt 
commission  will  be  over  100  ft  high,  neces- 
sitating broad-based  areas.  From  three  to 
five  of  these  towers  will  stand  abreast  in 
the  corridors,  but  will  be  separated  enough 
to  allow  service  helicopters  to  land  between 
them.  Obviously  farmers  who  rerit  the  cor- 
ridor back  from  Hydro  will  have  great 
difficulty  in  cultivating,  sowing  or  harvest- 
ing areas  around  and  between  the  towers 
in  each  group.  Such  areas  will  riot  Only 
involve    non-productive    land    for    which 


MARCH  25,  1974 


411 


I 


rentals  will  be  paid,  but  will  create  weed 
problems  causing  additional  costs. 

If  I  may  just  interject  a  point,  Mr.  Speaker, 
when  we  are  talking  about  reducing  or  in- 
creasing costs  and  reducing  eflBciency,  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  at  the  Wingham 
hearings  of  necessity  the  farmers  there  made 
the  point  that,  if  these  power  lines  reduce 
their  efficiency  and  increase  their  costs  by  10 
per  cent,  that  means  that  their  profit  has  dis- 
appeared. I  think  for  any  farmer  trying  to 
make  a  living  today  producing  food  that  that 
has  a  serious  implication.  To  continue  with 
what  Mr.  Hewlett  says: 

In  spite  of  the  plan  to  service  by  heli- 
copter, Hydro  reserves  the  right  to  use  the 
corridor  for  trucks  to  transport  materials 
and  men  for  special  services  to  tower  lines. 
It  is  clear  that  major  damage  to  crops  will 
occur  when  such  services  are  carried  out. 

Farming  operations  between  and  around 
the  towers  will  be  slower  and  time-consiun- 
ing.  In  any  period  of  limited  good  weather 
and  good  soil  conditions,  such  wasted  time 
could  be  costly.  Any  farmer  who  has  ex- 
perienced the  frustration  and  loss  caused 
dtiring  seeding  or  harvest  by  a  delay  which 
prevented  him  from  finishing  his  operation 
in  time  to  avoid  a  week  or  more  bad 
weather  or  wet  soil  will  appreciate  what 
such  time  loss  can  mean. 

The  farmer  who  rents  back  the  corridor 
and  who  uses  high  powered  tractor  equip- 
ment will  need  to  exercise  great  care  if  he 
attempts  to  operate  such  equipment  close 
to  the  towers.  He  will  be  responsible  for 
'any  damage  done  to  them,  and  any  such 
damage  caused  by  a  heavy  farm  tractor 
could  be  of  a  serious  and  costly  nature. 
Turning  too  short  and  not  allowing  space 
enough  for  the  implements,  especially  if 
tiaore  implements  tfian  one  are  being  drawn 
at  the  time,  have  been  the  cause  of  such 
accidents.  The  only  way  to  minimize  the 
farm  problems  caused  would  be  to  place  it, 
that  is  the  corridor,  in  the  centre  of  a  con- 
cession al'ong  the  rear  of  farm  properties. 
Here  the  Imes  would  be  as  distant  as  pos- 
sible from  farm  dwellings  since  these  are 
usually  located  near  the  roads.  There  is  no 
question  that  huge  towers  in  a  broad  cor- 
ridor cutting  a  farm  diagonally  in  two 
sections  would  seriously  depreciate  its  value 
iDoth  now  and'  in  the  future. 

Hydro's  payment  for  the  land  would  be 
in  terms  of  land  values  today.  If  the  trend 
toward  higher  land  values  continues,  such 
payments  would  be  far  below  the  value  of 
the  land  a  few  years  hence. 


Farm  producers  are  currently  meeting 
many  difficulties  through  high  costs  of 
loperation  and  narrow  profit  margins  caused 
by  fluctuating  sale  prices.  Further  complica- 
tions caused  by  land  loss  to  hydro  corridors 
may  well  be  sufficient  to  prevent  some 
farms  from  being  operated. 

When  consideration  is  given  to  the  rate 
at  which  Ontario's  limited  farming  land  is 
disappearing  from  agricultural  use,  the  risk 
of  further  loss  occasioned  by  hydro  lines 
being  routed  through  areas  specifically 
designated  for  future  farming  is  a  serious 
one. 

Surveys  of  citizen  opinion  to  find  out 
what  environmental  impact  by  power  line 
corridors  is  least  acceptable,  usually  reveal 
large  numbers  of  people  concerned  over 
lines  going  through  wooded  areas  of 
countryside.  Many  of  these  people  do  not 
live  in  the  areas  under  consideration  but 
are  organized  through  membership  in  con- 
servation groups,  naturalist  associations  and 
Sierra  clubs.  They  are  reached  through 
•mailing  lists  and  so  can  voice  their  opinions 
in  overwhelming  numbers. 

Worthy  as  their  objectives  are  in  con- 
nection with  such  aspects  of  the  environ- 
ment as  woods,  streams  and  wildlife,  they 
frequently  display  a  remarkable  lack  of 
concern  over  farmlands  and  the  operations 
(which  provide  our  food.  This  lack  of  con- 
cern frequently  arises  from  ignorance  of 
farm  activities,  which  is  understandable 
since  many  members  of  conservation  groups 
are  urban  dwellers. 

The  emphasis  provided  by  such  people, 
through  their  nmnbers  and  their  legal 
representatives,  tends  to  outweigh  that  from 
farm  people,  who  usually  are  widely 
scattered,  relatively  small  in  number  by  the 
very  nature  of  large  farmland  areas,  and 
often  not  as  efficientiy  organized'— and  I  may 
add  eflPectively  organized— to  make  their 
wishes  known  in  a  concerted  fashion. 

iThe  choice  for  hydiro  corridors  frequently 
is  to  go  through  eithei  wooded  regions  or 
farming  districts.  Surveys  of  public  opinion 
obviously  place  the  farm  voice  is  an  un- 
favourable position  in  deciding  the  choice. 
Yet  farmers  are  the  people  whose  liveli- 
hood is  directly  and  adversely  affected  by 
hydro  lines  passing  through  their  farms, 
while  many  active  conservationists  live  in 
urban  areas  that  are  in  no  way  aflFected  by 
the  corridors. 

Then  finally,  as  far  as  Howlett  is  concerned, 
I  just  wanted  to  refer  to  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Herb  Grown,  who  is  the  director  of  the  ARDA 


412 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


branch  here  in  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture 
and  Food.  Part  of  Mr.  Crown's  letter  says: 

There  is  a  very  limited  supply  of  class  1 
and  class  2  agricultural  land  in  this  prov- 
ince, and  with  the  many  dtemands  that  are 
being  placed  for  non- agricultural  use  on 
this  land— such  as  residential,  industrial  de- 
velopment, transportation  corridors,  energy 
corridors,  and  recreation  areas— this  minis- 
try of  the  government  is  greatly  concerned 
that  there  be  minimal  intrusion  made  on 
this  high-quality  agricultiu-al  land  for  non- 
farm  purposes.  We  recognize  that  this 
hydro  line  must  be  built.  Our  recommenda- 
tion is  that  it  be  located  through  low 
agricultural-productive  lands. 

That  letter,  incidentally,  was  dated  March  8, 
1973,  So  I  think  a  good  case,  Mr.  Speaker, 
can  be  made  for  routing  these  hydro  power 
lines  through  poor  agricultural  land,  I'm  sure 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  W. 
Newman)  can  appreciate  this  particular  point, 
being  a  farmer  himself  and  being  one  who  is 
interested  in  farmers  and  food  production. 

The  report  of  the  hearing  oflBcer,  Mr.  Craig 
from  Owen  Sound,  will  come  directly  to  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment.  My  hope  woidd 
be  that,  without  prejudging  what  the  report 
is  going  to  say— because  I  have  no  idea  what 
it  is  going  to  say— but  without  prejudging  it, 
I  would  hope  that  the  minister— and  I  am  go- 
ing to  talk  to  him  about  this— would  suggest, 
along  with  the  Minister  of  Energy,  that  On- 
tario Hydro  take  another  look  at  this  entire 
line. 

If  these  ministers  don't  want  to  bear  the 
full  burden  of  assuming  the  responsibility  for 
having  Hydro  review  the  situation,  then  I 
suggest  that  perhaps  the  only  other  alter- 
native is  to  come  up  vdth  a  feasibility  study 
on  the  entire  line  to  see  if  that  is  the  proper 
route  for  that  line,  in  view  of  what  I  have 
been  talking  about. 

This  is  really  where  I  criticize  Hydro 
severely.  They  really  have  no  intimate  knowl- 
ed-ge  of  agricultural  matters.  They  hired  a 
conservationist  not  too  long  ago  to  advise 
them  vdth  respect  to  rural  lands  and  rural 
areas  when  they  were  deciding  the  routing 
of  these  power  lines;  but  they  really  have  no 
expertise  in  agricultural  matters— none.  And 
this  is  pretty  obvious  when  you  get  them  out 
to  a  farm  meeting.  They  don't  understand; 
they  don't  appreciate. 

Frankly,  I  think  Ontario  Hydro  should  be 
setting  up  an  agricxiltural  department;  they 
should  be  setting  up  a  department  with 
people  who  are  fully  conversant  with  agricul- 
ture. It  needn't  be  large.  I  am  not  suggesting 


that  Hydro  increase  its  present  great  numbers 
of  staff  to  any  extent.  I  am  not  suggesting  that 
at  all.  But  I  think  that  it  woul(hi  t  hurt— in- 
deed, it  is  vital— for  Hydro  to  have  some  ex- 
pertise with  respect  to  agriculture,  and  they 
certainly  haven't  got  it  now.  Two,  three  or 
four  people  would  do  it;  that's  all  they  need. 
And  I  suggest  they  had  better  do  it  very 
quickly. 

All  of  these  points— the  points  that  I  have 
been  talking  about  with  respect  to  agricul- 
tural land  and  the  need  for  saving  it— apply 
to  the  Bruce-to-Georgetown  and  the  Bmce- 
to-Seaforth  power  corridors. 

This  is  really  an  aside,  but  I  think  that 
the  Food  Prices  Review  Board  and  Mrs. 
Plumptre's  posse  up  in  Otta\va  would  be 
much  better  employed  if  they  decided  to  do 
a  study  on  what  the  loss  of  good  agricultural 
land  is  doing  to  food  prices,  rather  than  go- 
ing around  nipping  at  the  heels  of  the  various 
marketing  boards,  which  really  isn't  a  very 
effective  exercise.  It  certainly  is  not,  in  my 
view,  the  way  to  locate  the  ciilprit  in  the  food 
pricing  system, 

I  think  that  such  a  study  should  be  done 
and  I  believe  that  this  government  could 
undertake  it.  I  understand  Mrs.  Plumptre  is 
looking  for  something  to  do,  so  I  would  think 
that  it  would  be  well  for  her  group  to  under- 
take a  serious  study  to  determine  the  degree 
of  impact  the  loss  of  good  agricultural  land 
has  had  on  the  price  of  food  over  the  past 
10  years.  I  think  that  study  might  be  quite 
revealing. 

There  are  other  matters  in  relation  to  the 
power  line  problems  I  would  like  to  mention. 
I  have  talked  about  the  loss  of  good  agricul- 
tural land,  and  I  have  talked  about  the  fact 
that  these  power  corridors  should  be  going 
through  poorer  land  that  is  not  suited  for 
food  production,  but  there  are  other  things 
too  that  worry  me  with  respect  to  these 
power  lines. 

I  noticed  an  article  in  a  Detroit  paper 
dated  March  3,  1974,  describing  the  diflB- 
culties  experienced  by  farmers  and  other 
people  in  the  State  of  Michigan  who  were 
affec^ed  by  the  power  lines  going  through- 
no,  I  am  sorry,  it  is  not  the  State  of  Michi- 
gan, it  is  Indiana— going  through  the  State 
of  Indiana,  around  a  place  called  North 
Liberty.  These  power  lines  are  taking  a 
swath  about  200  yd  wide,  I  understand,  and 
it's  possible  for  a  person  who  is  walking 
near  those  power  lines  with  a  fluorescent 
tube  in  his  hand  to  have  that  tube  light  up. 
And  the  article  goes  on  to  say  that  this  is  no 
sleight  of  hand  parlour  trick. 


MARCH  25,  1974 


413 


Tthe  tube  glows  because  of  ultra-high 
voltage  electrical  curent  passing  through 
12  thick  strands  of  power  transmission  line 
strung  high  overhead  between  giant  towers. 
Air  normally  is  a  good  insulator,  but  its 
insulation  properties  break  dowTi  beyond  a 
certain  critical  voltage  and  electricity  is 
discharged.  The  electrical  field  that  sur- 
rounds the  ultra-high  voltage  wires  radiates 
for  many  yards  in  all  directions  around  it. 
It  is  strong  enough  100  yd  away  to  light 
a  fluorescent  tube. 

Now,  you  can  imagine  what  the  farmers  in 
Bruce  and  Huron  counties  wall  be  doing  if 
they  walk  out  some  morning  with  a 
fluorescent  tube  and  the  thing  happens  to 
light  up  on  them. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Hydro  hasn't  informed  the  people  of  this. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  That's  a  problem.  You  know, 
the  environmentalists  say,  "Well,  it  looks  as 
though    there    may    be    some    damage    from 
that."  Hydro  says,  "No,  it's  perfectly  harm- 
less." But  I'm  not  so  sure. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  The  iMin- 
ister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  W.  Nevraian) 
is  listening. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  There  are  other  matters  here 
too.  These  people  in  Indiana  apparently  are 
voicing  numerous  complaints.  One  farmer 
said  that  he  gets  a  shock  if  he  is  riding  on 
his  tractor  when  he  goes  under  the  line. 
And  he  says:  "You  try  to  keep  your  arms 
insulated  on  a  cushion." 

Well  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  can  you  imagine 
farmers  during  the  busy  seeding  time  and 
harvest  time— you  come  up  to  the  power  line 
and  you  have  to  stop  and  tuck  in  the  cushion 
so  you  won't  get  a  shock  when  you  drive 
under  the  power  line?  ReaUy,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  think  that  Hydro  is  glossing  over  these 
problems,  because  I  think  they  are  real. 
They  have  been  experienced  by  other  people 
and  I  suggest  there  is  a  danger  that  our 
people  are  going  to  be  confronted  with  the 
same  thing. 

People  have  been  shocked  when  touching 
farm  implements.  People  complain  about  TV 
reception.  Here  is  another  complaint— the 
main  complaint  is  about  electrical  shocks 
from  farm  equipment  operated  within  the 
electrical  field  that  surrounds  the  lines  and 
even  from  wet  weeds  and  grass.  And  the  one 
farmer  said  that  his  cows  wouldn't  go  un- 
derneath the  line  in  damp  weather  because 
they  get  a  shock. 

So  that  really  these  are  problems  with 
which  Hydro  has  not  come  to  grips.  They 


are  not  prepared  to  compensate  for  these 
things.  They  simply  gloss  over  them  and 
say:  "Well,  there  is  no  problem.  We'll  look 
after  that.  Our  research  has  indicated  that 
these  things  don't  happen  and  I  don't  know 
why  people  are  talking  about  them."  That's 
basically  their  answer.  But  yet  experiences 
in  other  areas  have  indicated  otherwise. 

Hydro  has  assured  farmers  time  and  time 
again  that  no  such  ill-effects  vdll  take  place. 
I  think  it's  important  for  me  to  put  on  the 
record  what  I  consider  to  be  an  eloquent 
plea  from  a  farmer  faced  with  the  prospect 
of  having  his  land  crossed  by  these  Hydro 
towers. 

His  name  is  Bruce  Nunn.  He  is  a  Wallace 
township  farmer  and  he  has  travelled  into 
many  parts  of  the  province  where  these 
tower  lines  have  gone.  He  calls  the  tower 
lines  "a  spreading  cancer  of  rural  blight." 

I  want  to  quote  what  he  says  in  an 
article  in  the  Listowel  Banner.  This  was  at 
a  public  meeting  conducted  by  Hydro  and 
he  says: 

As  farmers  we  have  only  to  drive  down 
the  roads  that  front  these  tower  lines  to 
see  the  change  in  the  rural  life  habits  of 
the  people.  This  was  not  an  isolated  case 
but  rather  the  general  rule  from  end  to 
end. 

And  just  on  that  point,  I  believe  that  Bruce 
took  his  aeroplane  and  he  flew  these  lines 
from  one  end  to  the  other.  I  think  he  took 
in  at  least  four  or  five. 

My   friend   from   Perth   knows    Mr.    Nunn 
and  he  does  have  a  plane  of  his  own.  I  be- 
lieve that  he  flew  these  lines  to  get  a  perspec- 
tive of  what  sort  of  changes  these  lines  make 
with  regard  to  rural  communities.  He  goes  on: 
We  saw  empty  farm  houses,  empty  bams, 
the  skeletons  of  gutter  cleaners  that  pre- 
viously dairy  herds  had  stood  in  front  of. 
We  saw  the  signs  of  absentee  cash  croppers 
that  moved  in  to  acquire  large  acreages  of 
frontal  lands  adjoining  these  power  lines. 
The  heartbreak  that  must  be  covered  by 
these    boarded    windows    and    dilapidated 
bams    can   only   be   judged   by   a   fanner 
whose  Uvelihood  comes  from  his  farm,  as 
well  as  his  very  reason  for  life. 

Mr.  Nunn  is  making  the  point  there  that  these 
lines,  in  direct  opposition  to  what  Hydro  is 
saying,  are  creating  changes  in  rural  life. 
They  do  affect  farmers'  ability  to  make  a 
livelihood  and  they  do  have  an  impact  on  the 
communities  which  they  cut  through. 

There  is  no  question  in  my  mind  that  the 
impact  of  these  lines  running  across  good 
agricultural  land  is  substantially  greater  than 


414 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


we  have  been  led  to  believe  by  Hydro  oflB- 
cials.  Yet  Hydro  is  not  prepared  to  alter  its 
position  and  indeed  takes  every  opportunity 
to  drive  a  hard  bargain.  They  are  not  pre- 
pared to  alter  their  compensation  and,  on  top 
of  that,  they  often  drive  a  very  hard  bargain 
indeed.  They  not  only  intend  ripping  up  good 
agricultural  land,  they  want  to  steal  it  into 
the  bargain.  They  are  not  paying  enough  for 
injurious  affection.  They  are  not  taking  into 
account  the  hardships  for  the  farmer  and  the 
economic  impact  on  his  operation. 

I  want  to  indicate  briefly  what  I  feel  should 
be  done  with  respect  to  Hydro  vdth  regard 
to  going  across  agricultural  land.  The  first 
thing  that  Hydro  should  do  is  reconsider  its 
position  that  its  power  needs  will  double 
every  10  years.  I  do  not  believe  that  to  be 
so.  Even  Bob  Macaulay  doesn't  believe  that 
to  be  so  and  he  is  a  much  more  authoritative 
person  than  I  when  it  comes  to  dealing  with 
Hydro.  As  I  recall  it,  he  was  Hydro's  counsel 
at  $75  an  hour  before  the  Energy  Board  in 
Ottawa  some  while  ago.  I  would  think  that 
he  should  have  the  ear  of  Hydro  with  respect 
to  some  of  these  matters. 

Hydro  should  be  stressing  conservation  in- 
stead of  greater  consumption.  ConsoHdated 
Edison  in  the  United  States  had  a  growth  rate 
of  eight  per  cent.  In  1973  they  put  on  a  con- 
servation drive  and  they  reduced  consimiption 
by  10  per  cent.  I  am  sure  that  Ontario  Hydro 
could  do  as  well  or  perhaps  even  better  if 
they  reallv  tried. 

A  complete  independent  assessment  of  the 
routing  of  these  lines  from  Douglas  Point 
should  be  undertaken  immediately,  because 
Hydro  should  not  be  going  over  class  1  and 
2  agricultural  land.  As  I  said  previously,  if 
the  Minister  of  the  Em'iroimient  and  the  Min- 
ister of  Energy  will  not  take  a  firm  position 
with  Hydro  in  regard  to  this  line,  then  I 
think  the  other  alternative  is  to  come  up  with 
an  independent  assessment  as  to  where  these 
lines  should  go. 

If  the  government  won't  do  this,  then  I 
think  the  minister  should  insist  that  Hydro 
take  500  instead  of  900  ft  coming  from 
Douglas  Point.  Five  hundred  feet  is  suflBcient 
for  the  facilities  presently  approved  and  is 
certainly  able  to  handle  all  the  power  capable 
of  being  produced  until  1990  and  even 
beyond.  Hydro  is  actually  land  banking  at 
today's  prices.  In  my  strong  view,  they  should 
not  be  allowed  to  do  so. 

Hydro's  methods  of  negotiation  and  acquisi- 
tion are  severely  lacking,  even  mediaeval.  For 
goodness'  sake,  I  think  Hydro  has  to  clean 
up  its  act  in  this  regard,  I  think  it's  disgrace- 


ful. Surely  there  are  enough  problems  without 
inviting  them,  and  all  they  do  is  invite  them. 
They  go  in  to  a  fanner  and  say,  "We  are 
prepared  to  give  you  so  much  money.  Take  it 
or  leave  it.  If  you  don't  want  it,  we'll 
expropriate."  That's  the  basis  upon  which 
they  get  started,  and  then  it  just  goes  on 
from  there  and  gets  stead^y  worse. 

If  they  would  go  in  and  ask  the  farmer— 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  They 
sit  around  the  kitchen  table. 

Mr.  Ruston:  A  good  place  to  do  it,  some- 
times. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  When  they  sit  around  the 
kitchen  table,  it  often  means  that  the  farmer 
ends  up  pounding  the  table  and  the  Hydro 
negotiator  is  almost  thrown  out  bodily.  I  think 
Hydro  should  sit  down  wdth  its  buyers  and 
negotiators  and  come  up  with  a  uniform 
policy  in  this  regard. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Right.  Right  on. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  There's  no  point  in  one  buyer 
going  out  and  saying,  "Look,  weTl  give  you 
$500  an  acre"  and  the  farmer  refuses  it,  then 
another  buyer  coming  back  a  month  later  and 
saying,  "Well,  we've  reconsidered.  We  will 
maybe  go  up  to  $550,"  What  should  be  done 
is  for  the  buyer  to  go  in  and  ask  the  farmer 
how  much  he  wants  for  his  land,  then  start 
from  that  basis.  No  other  buyer  in  the  world 
would  go  in  and  say  to  a  farmer  or  a  property 
owner,  "This  is  what  we  are  going  to  give 
you.  Take  it  or  leave  it  or  we  are  going  to 
expropriate  it."  That  would  raise  the  hackles 
of  anyone,  and  I  don't  blame  property  own- 
ers for  getting  upset. 

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  Or  trying  to  offer 
a  farmer  less  money  when  they  found  out 
he  had  more  land. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  That's  right.  I  think  it's  fair 
to  say  that  Hydro,  in  terms  of  this  particiJar 
line,  has  tried  just  about  every  trick  in  the 
book  in  regard  to  purchasing  land.  I  don't 
know  why  they  have  done  it.  I  can't  under- 
stand it,  but  tihat's  what  they  have  done.  I 
think  it's  wrong,  and  I  think  it  should  be 
corrected.  When  we  tell  Hydro  about  it,  they 
say,  "Oh,  we  are  not  doing  that,"  but  they 
go  out  and  do  exactly  the  same  thing  the 
very  next  day.  It's  frustrating  to  say  the 
least. 

There's  another  point  I  think  that  should 
be  made  in  regard  to  the  easements.  I  got 
a  letter  from  a  George  Adams,  who  is  the 
chairman  of  the  Tumberry-Howick  corridor 


MARCH  25,  1974 


415 


committee,  and  I  think  he  makes  a  very 
good  point  in  respect  to  these  rights  of  way. 
He  says: 

Hydro  should  oflFcr  a  third  option  to  land 
owners  on  the  Hydro  right  of  way.  This 
would  be  a  lease  agreement.  This  lease 
would  be  for  as  long  as  there  are  Hydro 
installations  on  the  land.  This  lease  would 
pa;y  so  much  per  year  for  the  land  that 
is  used.  The  rent  would  be  revised  in 
stated  intervals,  perhaps   every   10  years. 

This  would  give  the  next  land  owner 
compensation  for  the  installations.  The 
way  it  is  now,  he  has  to  buy  the  property 
at  a  reduced  price  to  equivalent  land 
vdues  in  the  area  or  he  does  not  receive 
any  compensation  for  the  installations  on 
the  land. 

This  would  also  keep  the  land  in  the 
farmers'  hands.  The  money  received  would 
go  to  help  finance  the  operation  and  not 
to  pay  off  the  low-interest  mortgages  they 
now  have. 

Now,  just  on  that  point,  when  Ontario  Hydro 
comes  through,  they  ask  for  a  severance;  and 
that  farmer  may  have  a  mortgage  on  his 
farm  with  Farm  Credit  or,  if  it's  an  old  one, 
with  Junior  Farmers.  If  it's  with  Junior 
Farmers,  anyway,  it's  at  five  per  cent,  so 
Junior  Farmers  will  ask  for  some  of  their 
loan  to  be  paid  off  because  their  equity 
position  has  been  reduced.  This  is  what's 
happening:  Not  only  is  the  farmer  getting 
a  poor  price  for  his  land  but  he's  losing  his 
low-interest  rate  financing.  I  think  that  point 
is  very  valid  and  hopefully,  if  Hydro  listens 
to  any  of  these  remarks  at  all,  it  will  consider 
that  particular  proposal. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  They  should 
be  made  to  capitalize  the  income  that's  lost. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  want  to  turn  now  for  a  few 
moments  to  another  matter;  it's  still  really 
dealing  with  Hydro  but  it's  another  facet 
of  what's  happening  at  Douglas  Point.  It's  a 
problem  which  confronts  the  town  of  Kin- 
cardine. This  is  a  parochial  problem  but  it's 
nonetheless  an  important  one  and  I  want  to 
raise  it  because  I  think  Ontario  Hydro  should 
reconsider  its  rate  of  compensation  not  only 
to  Kincardine  but  to  the  other  towns  affected 
by  Douglas  Point. 

Let's  take  Kincardine,  as  an  example  and 
I'll  cite  the  situation  in  the  town  in  1965. 
The  town  had  carried  out  studies  in  regard 
to  its  official  plan  and  it  was  established 
that  the  plans  and  services  within  the  town 
were  capable  of  providing  serviced  lots  for 
more   than    25    years    of    normal    residential 


growth.  Specifically,  the  studies  indicated 
that  the  population  of  Kincardine  had  been 
increasing  very  slowly  in  the  years  1960  to 
1964.  The  growth  in  that  period  was  from 
2,790  to  2,882. 

The  household  formation  rate,  while  in- 
creasing more  rapidly  than  total  population, 
grew  only  from  802  units  in  1951  to  915 
units  in  1961,  an  average  of  10.27  per  cent. 
On  any  accepted  basis  for  projecting  popula- 
tion growth  it  was  imlikely  that  the  popula- 
tion would  reach  3,900  by  the  year  1990, 
and  that  a  more  probable  1990  level  would 
be  3,300. 

In  1965  Kincardine  had  an  inventory  of 
serviced  and  serviceable  land  which  was 
capable  of  meeting  its  needs  for  at  least 
25  years. 

Now  let's  take  a  look  at  the  situation  in 
the  town-  in  1974.  The  Bruce  nuclear  power 
development  drastically  altered  all  of  this 
and  the  changes  are  apparent  in  the  figures 
which  I  want  to  put  on  the  record.  In  the 
year  1965  the  dwelling  starts  in  Kincardine 
were  10;  in  1966  five;  in  1967  seven.  Then 
we  move  up  to  1971  to  indicate  what  sort  of 
impact  Douglas  Point  is  having  on  Kincardine 
and  other  towns  in'  the  area— Port  Elgin, 
Southampton  and  so  on.  In  1971  the  dwelHng 
unit  starts  were  58;  in  1972,  51,  and  in  1973 
well  over  100.  In  1969-1970  Kincardine  ex- 
tended its  sewer  and  water  services  to  a  219- 
lot  subdivision  beyond  the  town  limits,  and  at 
least  170  dwellings  have  been  constructed 
there,  bringing  the  total  for  the  1965-1973 
period  to  562. 

This  growth,  562  dwelling  units,  is  almost 
exactly  double  the  projected  growth  for  the 
25-year  period'  to  1990.  The  impact,  in  terms 
of  housing  demand,  of  just  the  first  stage  of 
the  Bruce  nuclear  power  development  has 
seriously  depleted  the  stock  of  serviced  and 
serviceable  lots.  Even  if  each  and  every  re- 
maining serviced  or  serviceable  lot  in  Kin- 
cardine was  available  for  building,  the  supply 
would  be  totally  exhausted  by  mid^l975.  In 
point  of  fact,  all  possible  lots  are  not  avail- 
able and  there  will  be  an  absolute  shortage 
of  serviced  building  sites  by  mid-1974. 

The  rapid  depletion  of  Kincardine's  service- 
able land  reserve  since  1968  reflects  cxnJy  the 
impact  of  the  first  stage  of  development  at 
the  Bruce  nuclear  power  development.  The 
impact  of  the  doubling  programme  announced 
in  June,  1973,  is  just  now  about  to  be  felt 
while  the  effect  of  the  redoubling  annoimced 
on  Jan.  17,  1974,  staggers  the  imagination. 

If  Kincardine  is  to  replenish  its  supply  of 
serviceable  land  to  meet  this  anticipated  de- 


416 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


mand,  it  must  open  a»  entirely  new,  serviced 
district. 

I'd  like  to  cite,  just  for  the  record,  the  cost 
of  doing  this.  To  improve  and  enlarge  its 
sewage  treatment  fecihties  would  cost 
$250,000.  The  cost  of  building  an  outfall  line 
from  the  treatment  facility  to  deep  water 
would  be  $230,000;  to  provide  a  trunk  force 
sewer  main  and  piunping  station,  $170,000; 
to  provide  increased  elevated  water  storage 
capacity,  $250,000;  to  provide  increased'  tnmk 
water  line  capacity,  $116,000;  to  construct 
some  arterial  roads,  an  estimated  cost  of 
$145,000-for  a  total  of  $1,161,000. 

And  that's  a  minimum,  Mr.  Speaker;  that's 
a  bare  minimum.  This  $1,161,000  minimum 
cost  does  not  include  any  work  within  new 
development  areas.  This  cost  is  not  all- 
inclusive.  It  represents  only  that  portion  of 
the  cost  for  which  provisions  must  be  made 
before  any  steps  can  be  taken  to  plan  for 
development  of  the  new  areas. 

I  should  mention  that  Hydro  is  spreading 
a  payment  throughout  the  area  to  alleviate 
some  of  the  pressures  for  education,  housing 
and  development  generally.  That  payment  this 
year  will  bring  in  to  the  town  of  Kincardine 
something  in  the  neighbourhood  of  $7,900. 
When  the  redoubling  programme  was  an- 
nounced in  January,  Hydto  said  it  would  give 
the  town  of  Kincardine  another  $250,000.  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  is  far  short  of  what  these  re- 
quirements are  going  to  cost,  and  unless  Kin- 
cardine is  in  a  financial  j>osition  to  undertake 
these  projects,  there  is  going  to  be  a  very 
serious  housing  problem  indeed  in  that  entire 
area. 

The  problem  of  meeting  the  requirements 
to  permit  development  of  any  new  residential 
areas  is  twofold.  First,  there  is  the  absolute 
inability  of  the  town  to  finance  any  imder- 
taking  of  this  magnitude  even  if  the  Kin- 
cardine taxpayers  were  willing  to  assume  an 
ad<litional  debt  of  about  $1,000  per  house- 
hold. Secondly,  before  any  additional  lot  ser- 
vicing can  be  undertaken,  several  time-con- 
suming procedtires  must  be  completed. 

The  depletion  since  1968  of  the  supply  of 
serviceable  land  in  Kincardine  has  been  the 
direct  result  of  Ontario  Hydro  and  its  an- 
nounced expension  programme.  In  1965  Kin- 
cardine was  in  a  position  to  absorb  its  ex- 
pected growth  for  25  years  or  more  without 
requiring  substantial  increases  in  non^resi- 
dential  assessment.  The  Bruce  development 
changed  that.  It  caused  the  town  to  use  up 
25  years*  reserve  of  serviceable  land  in  just 
five  years.  Fortunately,  the  development  of 
the  Bruce  facility  has  not  sparked  a  corres- 


ponding increase  in  commercial  and  industrial 
aevelopm«it  within  Kincardine. 

The  Bruce  development  is  local  in  its  im- 
pact on  housing  demand  but  it  is  provincial 
in  terms  of  benefit.  So  that's  why  I  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  Ontario  Hydro  and  the  govern- 
ment shoiJd  be  in  a  position,  and  should  be 
prepared  and  willing,  to  pay  to  Kincardine 
and  to  the  other  towns  aflFected  by  the  impact 
of  Bruce,  more  money  to  allow  them  to  de- 
velop their  serviced  land  and  to  allow  them 
to  build  new  roads,  so  that  we  won't  have 
this  tremendous  increase  in  taxation  at  the 
local  level,  as  I  indicated  previously,  of  at 
least  $1,000  per  household. 

I  make  that  plea  to  Ontario  Hydro  and  to 
the  government  in  the  hope  that  thew  will 
come  up  with  some  more  money  to  alleviate 
these  very  pressing  needs  on  behalf  of 
the  towns  m  Kincardine,  Port  Elgin  and 
Southampton  particularly. 

I'll  conclude  my  remarks,  Mr.  Speaker, 
because  I  have  taken  longer  than  I  antic- 
ipated. These  problems  are  important  to 
my  constituents,  important  to  the  people 
whom  I  have  tiie  privilege  of  representing 
in  this  House,  and  I  thought  it  my  duty  to 
bring  them  to  your  attention,  sir,  and  to  the 
attention  of  the  government  in  the  hope  that 
something  can  be  done  about  them. 

In  conclusion  I  just  want  to  say  that  I 
hope  that  all  members,  after  serious  con- 
sideration, will  support  the  amendment  put 
forward  by  my  leader  in  his  reply  to  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne.  It  is  a  reasoned 
amendment.  It  sets  out  the  deficient  areas  in 
the  Throne  Speech  and  in  the  government 
programme.  I  hope  that  all  members,  after 
serious  reflection,  will  decide  to  vote  with 
my  leader  and  this  party  on  the  amendment 
put  forward  by  him.  Thank  you  very  much 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  first  I  should  like  to  pay  my  re- 
spects to  you.  We  are  all  glad  to  have  you 
back  and  to  see  you  in  such  good  form  and 
in  good  spirits. 

I  have  two  topics  I  wish  to  discuss  today. 
One  is  in  the  field  of  health  regarding  the 
denturists,  and  the  other  is  in  the  fields  of 
environment  and  energy.  I  announce  this  in 
case  any  of  those  ministers  wish  to  come 
in  and  listen  to  the  remarks. 

On  Monday,  March  11,  during  the  private 
members'  hour  debate  on  the  denturists,  the 
member  for  Scarborough  Centre  (Mr.  Drea), 


MARCH  25,  1974 


417 


asked  a  very  good  question— but  he  failed  to 
answer  it. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  is  usual. 

Mr.  Burr:   He  asked: 

How  can  you  equate  the  training  that  a  dentist  or 
a  dental  surgeon  goes  through  with  the  training  that 
there  is  for  a  denturist  or  a  denture  therapist? 

This  drew  to  my  attention  one  aspect  of 
the  controversy  that  has  been  largely  over- 
looked: the  relative  training  of  the  dentists 
on  the  one  hand  and  of  the  denture  makers 
on  the  other.  If  Alberta  is  any  criterion,  a 
precise  answer  is  to  be  found  in  the  January, 
1974,  issue  of  the  Journal  of  Prosthetic  Den- 
tistry in  an  article  by  a  University  of  Alberta 
faculty  of  dentistry  professor,  Dr,  Allan  D. 
Fee.  On  page  20,  he  says: 

A  dental  student  receives  600  hours  of 
instruction  in  complete  and  removable  par- 
tial prosthodontics.  A  dental  mechanic  stu- 
dent receives  1,334  hours  of  instruction  in 
complete  dentures  alone.  A  dental  student 
treats  seven  edentulous  patients.  A  dental 
mechanic  student  makes  dentures  for  200 
people. 

The  point  is,  that  even  before  graduation  a 
dentist's  experience  in  making  a  complete  set 
of  dentures  is  limited  to  seven  patients, 
whereas  a  denture  maker's  experience  has 
reached  200  patients.  After  graduation,  of 
course,  very  few  dentists  ever  make  another 
set  of  dentures,  whereas  denture  makers  work 
at  the  job  daily. 

May  I  remind  the  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre  that  it  is  the  denture  maker  who  is 
the  expert,  not  the  dentist,  in  the  making  of 
dentures? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Well  said. 

Mr.  Burr:  Some  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture may  not  realize  that  when  a  patient 
ordeils  dentures  through  a  dentist  the  set  is 
made  by  a  denture  maker  who  often  does 
not  know  whether  the  teeth  are  for  a  man 
or  for  a  woman.  He  does  not  know  anything 
about  the  patient's  colouring,  or  size  or  per- 
sonality. Any  skilled  denturist  can  do  a  better 
job  and  take  a  greater  interest  in  his  work 
when  he  deals  directly  with  the  patient. 

When  a  dentist  orders  a  set  of  dentures 
they  are  often  made  in  an  assembly-line 
type  of  operation.  As  anyone  informed  about 
dentures  knows,  the  age,  sex  and  physical 
personality  can  be  and  should  be  reflected 
in  the  shading,  the  positioning  and  contour- 
ing of  the  teeth— yet  some  dentists  fail  to 
provide  the  dental  lab  with  any  of  this  per- 
tinent information.  A  denture  maker  who 
meets  his  patient  can  do  a  far  better  job  than 


he  can  do  for  a  person  he  has  never  seen 
or  heard  of.  That  is  logical.  As  the  member 
for  Scarborough  Centre  says,  it  is  just  com- 
mon sense.  As  Dr.  Fee  sums  up  in  his  article: 

In  four  of  our  provinces  [he  should  have 
said  five,  Mr.  Speaker]  the  dental  me- 
chanics have  won  their  independence  from 
the  dental  profession.  They  have  by  their 
owoi  efforts  raised  their  standards.  There 
has  not  been  a  public  outcry  about  poor 
service.  There  is  no  indication  that  the  leg- 
islation will  be  rescinded.  They  are  pro- 
viding complete  dentures  to  an  increasing 
number  of  people. 

The  only  other  real  point  of  concern  is  that 
a  denture  maker  dealing  directly  with  the 
public  might  fail  to  recognize  an  abnormal 
condition  in  the  mouth  because  he  lacks  the 
training  to  do  so.  This  is  not  a  valid  objection 
for   two   reasons. 

Firstly,  for  the  past  year  the  Ontario  den- 
turists  have  been  insisting  on  certificates  of 
oral  health,  signed  by  a  medical  or  dental 
practitioner,  as  is  the  requirement  in  British 
Columbia  since  March  29,  1962,  and  in 
Manitoba  since  Nov.  1,  1972. 

Secondly,  the  denturists  want  and  are 
eager  to  improve  their  knowledge.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  two  years  ago  the  Ontario  Den- 
tm-ists  Society  asked  for  a  course  to  be  given 
at  Humber  community  college.  On  the  basis 
of  favourable  discussions  wdth  government 
and  college  officials  they  prepared,  at  con- 
siderable expense,  not  only  a  course,  but  also 
the  number  of  hours,  and  costs  itemized  to 
the  last  penny. 

When  Bill  203  was  introduced,  revisions 
were  made  to  bring  the  coiu-se  into  complete 
conformity  with  the  bill.  The  denturists 
agreed  that  the  course  shoidd  be  mandatory 
and  that  any  denture  makers  who  could'  not 
pass  the  course  successfully  would  not  be 
allowed  to  deal  with  the  public. 

'A  hundred  years  ago  the  time  of  most 
dentists  was  spent  in  extracting  teeth  and 
making  dentures.  Dentistry  has  come  a  long 
way  since  then,  with  emphasis  on  preser- 
vation of  teeth.  In  fact,  the  ideal  family 
dentist,  in  my  opinion,  is  one  who  spends 
time  with  his  patients  warning  them  of  the 
various  sugar-filled  foods  and  drinks  that 
cause  tooth  decay  and  encouraging  them  to 
avoid  such  items.  The  family  dentist  should 
consider  that  he  has  failed  when  he  has  to 
extract  the  final  teeth  from  the  patient.  That 
would  be  the  ideal  situation. 

(Furthermore,  just  as  a  doctor  cannot  also 
be  an  undertaker,  so  a  dfentist  should  have  no 
further  financial  interest  in  a  patient  whose 


418 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


teeth  he  has  been  unsuccessful  in  protecting 
and  preserving.  Denture  makers  are  to  den- 
tists what  undertakers  are  to  physicians.  The 
sooner  the  spheres  of  activity  are  clearly 
delineated,  the  better  for  everyone  con- 
cerned. 

Mr.  Speaker,  denturists  are  recognized  as 
legal  practitioners  in  British  Columbia,  Al- 
berta, Manitoba,  Nova  Scotia  and  Quebec. 
Newfoundland  and  Saskatchewan  will  be  fol- 
lowing with  legislation  this  year,  it  is  thought. 

Although  Prince  Edward  Island  has  no 
legislation  on  the  subject  one  way  or  the 
other,  there  is  no  objection  to  denturists  in 
that  province. 

When  will  the  Conservatives  of  Ontario 
become  progressive,  at  least  in  the  matter  of 
false  teeth? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Never. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Just  in  name  only.    That's  all. 

Mr.  Burr:  My  colleague  suggests  maybe  to- 
morrow. 

Mr.  Foulds:  No,  never.  Although  we  can 
always  hope— "hope  springs  eternal  in  the 
human  breast." 

Mr.  Burr:  On  another  topic,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  wish  to  speak  on  nuclear  power.  I  intend 
to  speak  at  first  mostly  about  the  type  used 
in  the  American  enriched'  uranium  light  water 
reactors  rather  than  the  Canadian  reactors. 

One  reason  for  my  emphasis  on  the  Ameri- 
can type  is  that  we  in  Essex  county  are  im- 
mediately threatened  by  the  presence  of 
enriched  uranium  nuclear  reactors  in  Michi- 
gan and  not  so  much  by  the  CANDU  (Cana- 
dian Deuterium  Uranium)  stations  at  Bruce, 
Douglas  Point  and  Pickering.  One  might  say 
that  I  am  taking  a  parochial  view.  Actually 
I  am  merely  starting  from  a  parochial  view- 
point. 

Being  downwind,  Lambton  and  Kent  coun- 
ties may  also  feel  equally  threatened  by  the 
Michigan  reactors,  a  factor  that  may  have 
caused  our  Ontario  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr. 
McKeough)  to  criticize  the  American  nuclear 
system.  He  says  of  it,  and  I  quote  him,  "If  a 
pressure  vessel  containing  enriched  uranium 
should  crack,  the  results  could  be  very  seri- 
ous." In  making  this  statement,  he  is  merely 
echoing  the  opinions  and  fears  of  many  far 
more  knowledgeable  men,  many  of  them 
scientists  who  have  worked  for  the  United 
States'  Atomic  Energy  Commission  for  years. 

The  nuclear  establishment's  motto  is  "trust 
us."  Yet  according  to  the  AEC's  1973  task 
force   report,   there  had  been  850  accidents 


in  the  previous  17  months— an  average  of  50 
per  month  or  of  five  every  three  days.  At 
any  rate,  one  can  truthfully  say  that,  on 
average,  the  nuclear  power  station  accident 
rate  in  the  United  States  is  daily. 

One  such  accident  happened  at  the  Enrico 
Fermi  atomic  power  plant  at  Laguna  Beach 
on  Lake  Erie,  30  miles  south  of  Detroit  and 
Windsor.  This  plant,  costing  at  least  $133 
million,  was  begxm  in  1958  and  went  into 
test  operation  in  August,  1963.  It  was  to 
provid>e  enough  electricity  for  a  city  of 
75,000  by  1964  and  for  a  city  of  150,000 
by  1969. 

At  the  end  of  August,  1965,  hearings  were 
held  before  an  AEC  safety  and  licensing 
board  to  get  permission  for  the  plant's  op- 
erating level  to  go  from  the  testing  level 
of  one  thermal  megawatt  to  the  full  poten- 
tial of  200  megawatts.  Giving  testimony,  Dr. 
Hans  Bethe,  a  Cornell  University  professor 
of  physics  and  a  consultant  on  the  nuclear 
reactor  project,  billed  in  the  newspapers  as 
an  internationally  known  nuclear  physicist, 
said:  "I  am  confident  that  the  Fermi  plant 
can  be  operated'  safely  and  will  give  satis- 
factory results." 

The  board  took  his  word.  The  plant  did 
operate  at  full  200-megawatt  capacity,  but 
only  on  26  different  days  and  for  a  total  of 
only  378  hours  during  its  10-year  life. 

On  Oct.  6,  1966,  the  plant  was  closed  for 
nearly  three  years  for  repairs  after  a  metal 
object  clogged  the  flow  of  coolants  and  caused 
the  nuclear  substance  in  the  reactor  to  melt. 
It  is  recorded  that  the  involved  executives 
and  scientists  were  terrified  by  the  threat  of 
a  catastrophe  if  the  melted  radioactive  matter 
should  reassemble  in  a  critical  mass  and  re- 
sult in  an  explosion.  Evacuation  of  Detroit 
was  considered.  However,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can 
find  no  mention  that  evacuation  of  Windsor, 
La  Salle,  Amherstburg,  Harrow,  Chatham  or 
any  other  Ontario  community  was  considered. 

At  the  Fermi  plant  the  automatic  cutoff 
system  apparently  failed  to  function.  For- 
tunately a  cool-headed  workman  had  the 
presence  of  mind  to  shut  doAvn  the  reactor 
manually.  The  Fermi  plant,  incidentally,  was 
the  first  fast  breeder  reactor  to  be  built. 

So  the  closing  of  the  Enrico  Fermi  plant 
was  announced  on  Nov.  30,  1972.  The 
amount  of  electricity  it  had  produced  cost  $4 
a  kilowatt  hour,  not  the  four  mills  that  we 
had  been  promised.  In  other  words,  1,000 
times  more  than  we  had  been  promised.  The 
plant's  nuclear  core  was  removed  and  dis- 
posed of  by  the  Atomic  Energy  Commission 
at  an  imdisclosed  location.  It  was  aimounced 


MARCH  25,  1974 


419 


that  the  30,000  gal.  of  sodium  coollant  would 
be  frozen  and  stored  in  stainless  steel  tanks 
enclosed  in  concrete  vaults  on  the  plant  site. 

The  nuclear  establishment  is  undeterred  by 
its  mistakes.  On  May  9,  1969,  the  Detroit 
Edison  Co.  applied  to  the  Atomic  Energy 
Commission  for  permission  to  build  one  of  the 
biggest  atomic  plants  in  the  world,  producing 
1,127  megawatts  of  electricity,  enough  for 
a  city  of  one  milHon.  It  was  scheduled  to 
open  in  1974  and  it  was  to  be  built  right 
beside  the  original  Enrico  Fermi  plant,  about 
seven  miles  north  of  Monroe,  Mich.,  30  miles 
from  Detroit  and  Windsor  and  about  12  miles 
from  Amherstburg. 

Dr.  Edward  Teller,  the  father  of  the  atomic 
bomb,  said  of  the  Enrico  Fermi  accident  in 
particular  and  of  the  whole  nuclear  pro- 
gramme in  general,  "We  have  been  extremely 
lucky,"  At  least  five  United  States'  nuclear 
plants  have  so  malfunctioned  that  they  have 
had  to  be  abandoned.  Sealing  off  a  radio- 
active plant  raises  the  problem  of  continued 
radiation  seepage.  United  States'  plants  have 
a  life  expectancy  of  20  to  30  years;  after  that 
they  become  tombs  which  can  never  be 
opened,  at  least  for  thousands  of  years. 

At  a  later  date  I  hope  to  discuss  the 
economics  of  nuclear  power  in  some  detail 
but  for  the  moment  I  shall  record  briefly  the 
following  facts. 

The  United  States  has  had  nuclear  plants 
producing  electricity  for  many  years  but  it 
was  not  xmtil  near  the  end  of  1971  that  the 
total  electrical  energy  generated  by  its  nu- 
clear power  plants  exceeded  or  equalled  the 
accumulated  amount  of  electricity  that  had 
been  used  up  by  the  enrichment  plants  to 
produce  the  required  nuclear  fuel.  In  other 
words,  the  whole  nuclear  system  had  used 
up  more  electric  energy  than  it  had  produced 
until  the  end  of  1971. 

\A^hen  one  takes  into  consideration  the 
billions  of  dollars  contributed  by  the  United 
States  taxpayers  to  build  those  plants,  pay 
for  research  and  development,  the  nuclear 
system  was,  at  the  end  of  1971,  a  colossal 
financial  disaster. 

However,  there  are  far  worse  sins  than 
ripping  off  the  taxpayer.  One  of  these  is  sub- 
jecting him  to  unnecessary  risks  to  his  health, 
his  environment  and  his  descendants'  genetic 
legacy— unnecessary  because  of  the  many  safe, 
clean,  inexhaustible,  feasible  alternatives. 

Atomic  Energy  of  Canada  Ltd.  prides  it- 
self on  its  low  emission  rate  of  radioactive 
materials  and  on  its  apparent  ability  to  con- 
tain, so  far^  any  radioactive  releases  resulting 
from  internal  accidents.  Apart  from  pointing 


out  that  the  permitted  emission  levels  are  set 
by  man  and  not  necessarily  by  nature,  and 
that  the  only  safe  level  is  zero,  as  most  people 
agree,  I  shall  not  question  the  oontaiimient 
capabilities  of  the  CANDU  reactors. 

What  can  be  questioned,  however,  is  the 
wisdom  and  morality  of  man  creating 
plutonium  whether  for  war  or  for  peace.  We 
must  all  question  the  wisdom  and  morality 
of  building  these  huge  nuclear  bombs  which 
we  euphemistically  refer  to  as  power  plants; 
there  are  about  40  of  them  already  in  the 
United  States  and  four  or  five  already  in 
Canada. 

The  Atomic  Energy  Commission  talks  of 
1,000  reactors  in  the  United  States  within  25 
years  as  well  as  2,500  fast  breedere  within 
about  45  years.  Everyone  of  these  reactors 
becomes  a  target  for  saboteurs,  terrorists  and 
assorted  maniacs.  Every  one  of  these  becomes 
a  potential  Hiroshima  bomb  or  even  worse. 

At  least  four  years  ago  I  dtew  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  House,  and  especially  to  the 
then'  Minister  of  the  Environment,  the  danger 
presented  by  nuclear  power  plants.  My 
examples  back  in  1969  were  chiefly  American. 
The  minister's  reply  was  that  because  On- 
tario's CANDU  reactors  did  not  use  enriched 
uranium,  they  were  much  safer  than  the 
American  ones.  This  was  some  comfort  and 
events  have  so  far  vindicated  the  minister 
as  far  as  the  apparently  safe  operation  of 
Ontario's  nuclear  power  plants  has  been  con- 
cerned. 

Unfortunately,  since  that  time,  hijacking  of 
planes,  kidnappings  for  ransom  and  kidnap- 
pings for  reasons  of  political  blackmail  have 
become  so  common  that  many  well-known 
and  well-informed  persons  have  become  in- 
creasingly concerned  about  the  possibility, 
the  likelihood,  perhaps  even  the  certainty, 
that  nuclear  power  plants  and  nuclear  fuel 
will  become  part  of  that  game  now  being 
played  so  frequently  and  so  successfully  by 
terrorists  of  various  kinds. 

Theodore  Taylor,  a  nuclear  physicist  who 
has  made  atomic  bombs,  is  now  trying  to 
alert  any  politician  who  will  listen— in  fact 
everybody— to  the  grim  probabihty  that  un- 
authorized persons,  meaning  those  outside  the 
military,  will  steal  or  hijack  fissionable  mate- 
rial and  make  one  or  more  bombs.  He  is 
quoted  in  the  Wall  Street  Journal  of  June 
18,  1973,  as  saying: 

Scientists  are  raising  a  horrendous  new 
possibility.  It  is  too  easy  for  a  crazed  man, 
a  revolutionary,  or  a  criminal  to  make  an 
atomic  bomb.  I  have  been  worried  ever 
since  I  built  my  first  one. 


420 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Theodlore  Taylor's  views  on  this  possibility 
are  explained  at  great  lengths,  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  four  issues  of  the  New  Yorker,  beginning 
at  the  end  of  November,  1973. 

The  Washington  Monthly  for  January, 
1973,  contained  an  article  entitled",  "Nuclear 
Hijacking  Now  Within  the  Grasp  of  Any 
Bright  Lunatic."    One  sentence  read: 

Man's  blindness  and  vanity  that  sug- 
gests that  he  can  do  anything,  even  play 
with  vast  quantities  of  the  most  intense 
and  long-lasting  poisons,  could  any  day 
lead  to  the  biggest  disaster  in  history. 

Even  at  the  University  of  Toronto,  Dr. 
Philip  Jones,  chairman  of  the  Institute  of 
Environmental  Sciences  and  Engineering,  has 
within  the  past  year  referred  to  the  possi- 
bility of  nuclear  hijacking.  He  used  the  same 
words:  "Any  bright  lunatic  could  do  it." 

Dr.  Jan  Prawitz,  of  the  National  Research 
Institute  of  Stockholm,  believes  that  he  could 
produce  a  nuclear  explosion  from  essentially 
any  grade  of  reactor-produced  plutonium  that 
might  be  available.  There  are  others  who 
believe  that  plutonium  produced  from  the 
uranium  in  the  fission  process  may  fall  into 
the  wrong  hands.  Their  fear  grow  with 
every  new  nuclear  plant  that  is  announced. 

Even  if  all  nuclear  reactors  operated  per- 
fectly and  all  the  humans  in  charge  of  tnem 
made  no  mistakes,  and  even  if  the  safe  dis^ 
posal  of  radioactive  wastes  for  ever  and  ever 
were  feasible,  still  the  possibility  of  sabotage 
or  hijacking  makes  the  proliferation  of 
nuclear  power  an  act  of  extreme  rashness. 
Some  people  have  called  it  criminal  insanity. 

So  much  for  nuclear  hijacking  by  terror- 
ists. I  have  been  asked  whether  anyone  else 
has  raised  this  possibility.  The  answer  is 
that  as  long  ago  as  the  1969  Los  Al-amos 
nuclear  safety  symposium,  it  was  accepted 
that  "supply-stimulated"  theft  would  develop 
rapidly  as  more  and  more  plutonium  was 
created  and  became  accessible. 

A  former  FBI  man  told  that  meeting  that 
the  transportation  industry  in  the  United 
States  is  riddled  with  Mafia  members,  any  of 
whom  might  be  interested  in  making  deals 
for  big  money  to  obtain  plutonium.  He  also 
foresaw  deals  with  foreign  groups. 

The  matter  was  discussed  at  a  recent  Pug- 
wash  conference.  A  British  nuclear  physicist 
reported  that  the  international  security  system 
is  incapable  of  coping  with  these  extra  legal 
and  extra  technical  problems. 

Let  us  consider  now  the  safety  of  nuclear 
reactors  on  site  and  the  problem  of  disposal 
of  radioactive  wastes  after  the  fuel  has  been 
used.     These   two  dangers   could  be  treated 


separately  but  I  have  not  had  time  to  sep- 
arate them.  As  many  scientists  are  equally 
alarmed  by  the  on-site  danger  and  by  the 
unsolved  problems  of  successful  disposal,  I 
shall  discuss  them  together. 

*In  July,  1971,  the  Union  of  Concerned 
Scientists,  consisting  of  several  hundred 
scientists  in  the  United  States,  wamedi  that 
the  licensing  of  nuclear  power  plants  with 
dubious  emergency  core  cooling  systems 
might  result  in  "a  catastrophe  and  loss  of  life 
exceeding  anything  this  nation  has  known." 

The  first  chairman  of  the  United  States 
Atomic  Energy  Commission,  David  LiHen- 
thal,  was  reported  in  the  New  York  Times 
of  July  20,  1968,  as  warning  that  crucial 
problems  were  still  unsolved.    He  said: 

Once  a  bright  hope  shared  by  all  man- 
kind, including  myself,  the  rash  prolifera- 
tion of  atomic  power  plants  has  become 
lone  of  the  ugliest  clouds  hanging  over 
'America. 

Albert  Einstein  said: 

The  splitting  of  the  atom  has  changed 

everything,    save   our   modes   of   thinking, 

and    thus    we    drift    toward    unparalleled 

catastrophe. 
Science  magazine  of  Sept.  1,  8,  15  and  22, 
1972,  had  four  articles  on  nuclear  safety.  The 
author  said  that  the  plan  for  safety  in  one 
reactor  "outlines  139  unsettled  safety  ques- 
tions and  designates  44  of  them  as  very 
urgent  key  problem  areas." 

Dr.  George  L.  Weil,  the  first  chief  of  the 
Atomic  Energy  Commission's  reactor  branch, 
said  in  an  article  entitled,  "Nuclear  Energy: 
Promises,  Promises,"  just  two  years  ago: 

Today's  nuclear  power  plant  projects  are 

too    many,    too    large,    too    soon,    too    in- 

eflBcient.  In  short,  they  offer  too  little  for 

too  many  risks. 

Philip  Spom,  the  former  head  of  American 
Electric  Power,  a  representative  of  the  pri- 
vate sector,  said  several  years  ago  (Nov.  15, 
1968): 

We  ought  to  slow  down.  We  are  going 
to  have  some  accidents  with  atomic  plants. 

We  don't  want  to,  but  we  are  going  to. 

Rene  Dubos  and  Barbara  Ward,  the  authors 

of  "Only  One  Earth,"  say: 

Men  are  not  making  a  simple  calculation 
of  gain  or  convenience.  They  are  con- 
fronting their  own  survival,  that  of  their 
children  and  grandchildren  and  the  whole 
race  of  men. 

I  could  quote  many  other  scientists,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  many  well-informed  persons  on 


MARCH  25,  1974 


421 


this  subject,  but  suflBce  it  to  say  that  there 
is  a  movement  in  the  United  States  to  stop 
further  development  of  nuclear  plants. 

As  some  members  may  know,  Sen.  Mike 
Gravel  introduced  a  bill  on  March  14,  1973, 
to  phase  out  the  operation  of  all  existing 
civilian  nuclear  power  plants  in  the  United 
States  no  later  than  January,  1980.  The 
shutdown  would  last  indefinitely  or  until  the 
electric  utilities  had  demonstrated  that  nuclear 
power  plants  will  not  be  a  significant  danger 
to  public  health  and  safety  or  render  the 
country  vulnerable  to  blackmail,  terrorism 
or  economic  chaos,  which  I  think  cannot  be 
proven. 

Members  who  saw  Sen.  Howard  Baker 
of  Tennessee  at  the  televised  Watergate  hear- 
ings will  be  interested  in  his  May  31  state- 
ment on  a  Frank  Reynolds  ABC-TV  show 
after  he  had  said:  "I  don't  think  we  can  have 
a  fi\e-year  moratorium.  I  think  we  have  to  go 
forward  as  fast  as  possible  with  the  develop- 
ment of  a  nuclear  energy  system."  When  the 
interviewer  asked,  "You  do  acknowledge  the 
risk?"  Sen.  Baker  replied:  "There  is  a 
risk.  It's  probably  the  biggest  risk,  the  biggest 
single  risk  that  any  civilization  has  ever 
taken." 

Later,  Sen.  Baker  sent  Sen.  Gravel 
the  fallowing  clarification  of  what  he  meant 
to  say: 

The  containment  and  storage  of  radio- 
active wastes  is  the  greatest  single  respon- 
sibility [he  underlined  the  word  responsi- 
bility] ever  consciously  undertaken  by  man. 
We  can  ill  afford  to  fall  short  in  our  obh- 
gation  to  protect  future  generations. 

This  statement  applies  to  Ontario  just  as  much 
as  it  does  to  any  other  country  contemplating 
more  nuclear  power  plants.  Either  of  Sen. 
Baker's  statements,  the  one  on  risk  or  the 
one  on  responsibility,  should  be  printed  across 
the  letterhead  of  every  page  that  issues  from 
the  offices  of  the  Minister  of  Energy  and  from 
the  oflBces  of  Ontario  Hydro.  Wishing  to  be 
helpful  to  the  Minister  of  Energy,  I  have 
composed  a  letterhead  statement  for  him,  al- 
though Hydro  has  100  PR  personnel,  men 
and  women,  who  could  do  it  for  him. 

^  My   first  draft,    a  hurried   one   of  course, 

I  is  as  follows:  "Containment  and  storage  of 
radioactive  wastes  is  the  greatest  single  risk 
any  civilization  has  ever  undertaken."  I  have 
a  few  words  left  over  that  could  be  added, 
such  as,  "of  its  own  free  will,  foolishly,  stu- 
pidly, insanely,  criminally."  But  I'll  leave  this 
rough  draft  for  the  PR  men  to  polish.  They 
probably  have  more  time  than  I  have,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Certainly  some  of  them  must  have 


long  periods  of  wakefulness  at  night  before 
they're  able  to  fall  asleep. 

I  should  hke  to  make  a  few  remarks  about 
what  I  shall  call,  using  the  kindest  euphe- 
mism I  can,  the  myth  that  nuclear  power  is 
clean.  Electricity,  generated  from  water 
power,  may  deserve  the  label  "clean,"  al- 
though after  listening  to  the  hon.  member 
for  Huron-Bruce  this  afternoon  on  the  effect 
of  the  transmission  of  power  in  huge  amounts 
by  the  hydro  towers,  perhaps  I  should  revise 
that  label  somewhat.  Electricity  is  generally 
regarded,  let  us  say,  as  being  clean,  but 
nuclear  power  is  filthy. 

Instead  of  calling  this  a  myth,  I  toyed 
with  such  expressions  as  "the  greatest  false- 
hood ever  told,"  but  then  I  found  that  Dr. 
John  W.  Gofman,  whose  study  of  nuclear 
power  and  whose  appreciation  of  its  perils 
have  been  intense,  had  a  better  description. 
He  says :  "Eco-pomography  takes  many  forms, 
but  none  exceeds  such  statements  as  'nuclear 
power  is  clean.' " 

We  all  know  that  coal-fuelled  electric 
power  plants  are  dirty,  but  at  least  after  one 
of  them  has  been  operated  for  a  span  of 
time  and  is  shut  dovm  there  is  then  no 
further  poUtition,  beginning  the  next  day. 
But  a  filthier  process  than  nuclear  fission  is 
inconceivable.  It's  the  only  process  which 
creates  pollutants  so  terrifying  that  they 
must  somehow  be  kept  out  of  man's  environ- 
ment for  at  least  24,000  years.  Can  any  mem- 
ber in  this  House  call  that  a  clean  source  of 
energy?  In  the  long-term,  nuclear  power  is 
not  merely  filthy,  it  is  obscene. 

Anthony  Tucker,  science  editor  of  the 
Manchester  Guardian,  a  fairly  well  respected 
newspaper,  said  on  Feb.  19,  1972,  that  if 
the  predictions  of  professional  engineers  are 
correct  about  the  number  of  nuclear  power 
plants  we  shall  have  by  the  year  2000,  then 
"the  United  States  and  Europe  jointly  will 
each  day  have  to  bury  or  dispatch  into  space 
the  equivalent  of  2,000  Hiroshima  bombs." 
Every  day,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  yet  Ontario 
Hydro  propagandists  have  the  effrontery  to 
call  nuclear  fission  clean. 

Do  the  members  know  how  hopeless  and 
desperate  the  search  for  an  effective  disposal 
site  for  fission  wastes  has  become?  Dr. 
James  Schlesinger,  a  recent  chairman  of  the 
United  States  Atomic  Energy  Commission, 
has  urged  the  development  of  a  space  shuttle 
vehicle  which  would  fire  radioactive  wastes 
to  the  sun. 

Now  if  any  member  of  this  Legislature  had 
suggested  such  a  fantastic  idea  he  would 
have  been  laughed  right  out  of  this  House. 


422 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Yet  such  is  the  prestige  of  these  high  priests 
of  nuclear  fission  that  this  proposal  was 
printed  in  the  newspaper  with  no  loss  of 
respect  to  Dr.  Schlesinger.  Perhaps  the 
reason  no  one  laughed  was  the  sobering 
statement  which  accompanied  his  proposal. 
He  said: 

We  hope  to  remove  these  wastes  per- 
manently from  the  environment  of  man 
■and  that  means  for  tens  of  thousands  of 
years,  because  some  traces  of  plutonium, 
which  has  a  half-life  of  24,000  years,  re- 
main in  the  waste. 

The  United  Nations  environmental  pro- 
gramme issued  a  97-page  report  early  this 
month.  It  was  referred  to  in  the  media  as  a 
"state  of  the  environment"  report  and  the 
member  for  Huron-Bruce  referred  to  that 
same  report,  I  believe,  an  hour  or  so  ago. 
On  page  23  we  find  two  paragraphs  that 
include  the  following  comments— this  is  the 
United  Nations,  Mr.  Speaker: 

A  possible  outer  limit  on  energy  conver- 
sion through  nuclear  fission  is  imposed  by 
its  production  of  large  quantities  of  ex- 
tremely toxic  radio-isotopes  with  half-lives 
of  the  order  of  thousands  to  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  years.  Plutonium  239,  a 
.  bone-seeking,  24,400-year,  hard  alpha  emit- 
ter that  is  toxic  in  sub-microgram  quanti- 
ties and  can  form  respirable  aerosols,  is  a 
prominent  example. 

Such  substances  require  infallible  and 
perpetual  isolation  from  the  biosphere  and 
it  is  hard  to  imagine  how  this  can  be 
done.  Plans  to  manufacture  large  amounts 
of  transuranic  isotopes  must  therefore  be 
urgently  re-examined.  Many  classes  of  sub- 
stances can  now  be  identified  which  may 
he  so  hazardous  that  man  cannot  trust 
himself  to  take  care  of  them.  Identifying 
such  a  risk  is  a  technical  problem;  decid- 
ing whether  to  incur  it  in  the  pursuit  of 
some  benefit  is  a  pohtical  and  ethical 
problem. 

That  last  sentence,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  text 
for  my  speech  today.  Remember,  it  is  not 
merely  my  opinion;  it's  the  carefully  con- 
sidered opinion  of  the  United  Nations  en- 
vironmental programme. 

As  recently  as  December,  1973,  at  the 
Pugwash  conference  at  Oxford,  Prof.  Bernard 
Feld  of  MIT  stated  that  the  diversion  of 
small  quantities  of  plutonium,  produced  in 
nuclear  fission  power  plants,  could  result  in 
the  clandestine  production  of  hundreds  of 
nuclear  weapons  and  possible  blackmail  by 
terrorists  groups. 


Members  of  this  Legislature  should  keep 
in  mind  that  for  each  pound  of  uranium  that 
is  mined,  CANDU  produces,  in  its  natural 
uranium  heavy  water  reactors,  three  times 
as  much  plutonium  as  do  the  enriched 
uranium  light  water  United  States'  plants. 
In  that  respect  CANDU  is  three  times  as 
dangerous  as  the  United  States'  t\-pe  of 
nuclear  reactor. 

Lome  Gray,  chairman  of  Canada's  AECL, 
is  authority  for  this  statement,  yet  the  AECL 
has  no  present  plans  for  using  this  accumu- 
lating stockpile  of  plutonium  and  no  long- 
term  plan  for  its  safe  disposal.  In  the  United 
States,  the  AEC  has  scores  of  bookkeepers 
keeping  an  inventory  of  this  most  toxic  sub- 
stance whose  half-hfe  is  over  24,000  years, 
but  with  every  day  that  passes,  chances  of 
theft  increase  as  the  stockpile  increases. 

With  every  new  atomic  plant  that  is  put 
into  operation  that  stockpile  of  wastes  in- 
creases. In  the  May,  1972  edition  of  the 
Bulletin  of  Atomic  Scientists,  Hannes  Alfven, 
Nobel  prizewinner  in  physics,  says: 

Fission  energy  is  safe  only  if  a  number 
of  critical  devices  work  as  they  should, 
only  if  a  number  of  people  in  key  positions 
follow  all  their  instructions,  only  if  there 
is  no  sabotage,  no  hijacking  of  transports, 
only  if  no  reactor  fuel-processing  plant  or 
repository  anywhere  in  the  world  is  situ- 
ated in  a  region  of  riots  or  guerrilla  ac- 
tivity and  no  revolution  or  war,  even  a 
conventional  one,  takes  place  in  these 
regions.  The  enormous  quantities  of  dan- 
gerous material  must  not  get  into  the 
hands  of  ignorant  people  or  desperadoes. 
No  acts  of  God  can  be  permitted. 

The  twin  dangers  of  nuclear  fission  power 
plant  operation  and  of  the  relentless,  hourly 
accumulation  of  long-lived  radioactive  wastes 
are  the  concern  not  only  of  such  well-known 
individuals  as  Dr.  John  Gofman,  Linus  Paul- 
ing, Ralph  Nader,  and  Sen.  Mike  Gravel,  but 
also  of  such  groups  as  the  Federation  of 
American  Scientists,  the  Union  of  Concerned 
Scientists,  the  Institute  of  Electrical  and 
Electronic  Engineers,  the  Rand  Corp.,  and 
such  lay  groups  as  Voice  of  Women. 

Last  October  the  committee  of  presidents 
of  29  leading  chemical  societies  in  the  United 
States,  representing  about  300,000  chemists, 
urged  a  review  of  the  whole  xwogramme  of 
nuclear  fission.  Recently  the  prestigious 
Sierra  Club  in  the  United  States  has  de- 
clared itself.  In  addition,  there  is  widespread 
discord  among  top  scientists  of  the  Atomic 
Energy  Commission  itself  over  the  safety  of 
reactors,  standards,  waste  disposal,  the  threat 


MARCH  25,  1974 


423 


to  public  health,  and  even  their  economic 
validity. 

I  shall  give  one  example  only.  Alvin  Wein- 
berg, director  of  Oak  Ridge  National  Lab- 
oratory, after  referring  to  the  military  priest- 
hood which  guards  against  inadvertent  use 
of  nuclear  weapons  by  the  United  States, 
said  in  the  July  7,  1972  issue  of  Science: 
It   seems   to   me   that   peaceful   nuclear 

energy    will    make    demands    of   the   same 

sort  on  our  society  and  possibly  of  even 

longer  duration. 

We  nuclear  people  have  made  a  Faus- 
tian  bargain  with  society.  On  the  one 
hand,  we  offer  an  inexhaustible  source  of 
energy,  but  the  price  we  demand  of  so- 
ciety is  both  of  vigilance  and  a  longevity 
of  OUT  social  institutions  to  which  we  are 
not  quite  accustomed. 

Reactor  safety,  waste  disposal,  trans- 
port of  radioactive  materials  are  complex 
matters  about  which  httle  can  be  said  with 
absolute  certainty.  [He  asked  the  ques- 
tion:] Is  mankind  prepared  to  exert  the 
eternal  vigilance  needed  to  ensure  proper 
and  safe  operation  of  its  nuclear  system? 

There,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  my  text  again,  dif- 
ferent from  the  United  Nations'  wording, 
but  the  same  in  thought. 

The  answer  to  this  question  is  twofold. 
First,  an  emphatic  no.  Fallibility  is  so  char- 
acteristic of  man  that  a  perfect  performance 
Is  a  rare  and  admirable  event.  Even  the 
achievements  of  astronauts  have  been  flawed, 
although  not  always  fatally,  by  failure  of  men 
and  man-made  equipment,  although  actually 
three  astronauts  were  incinerated  at  the  be- 
ginning of  what  was  supposed  to  be  a  routine 
jBight  into  space.  A  set  of  figures,  checked 
by  at  least  100  different  experts,  contained 
one  simple  error.  No,  man  cannot  provide 
infallible  vigilance,  even  for  a  short  time. 
Eternal  infallible  vigilance  is  a  fool's  dream. 

If  the  first  part  of  the  answer  is  "No,  he 
cant"  the  second  part  is  "Why  should  he?" 
Why  should  he,  indeed,  when  there  is  no 
necessity  whatsoever? 

The  Faustian  bargain,  described  by  Wein- 
berg—that  is,  a  theoretically  inexhaustible 
supply  of  energ>'  in  return  for  handing  on 
to  all  our  descendants  the  agonizing,  ines- 
capable and  probably  impossible  burden  of 
eternally  guarding  the  filthy,  radioactive, 
gene-changing  carcinogenic  wastes  of  the 
nuclear  system— is  a  bargain  that  has  already 
been  accepted  by  a  few  without  disclosing 
the  details  to  the  rest  of  us.  It  is  not  too 
late  to  cancel  the  bargain,  although  it  be- 
comes   increasingly    difficult    as    month   after 


month  goes  by  and  the  proponents  of  filthy 
nuclear  power  promote  their  concepts  re- 
lentlessly to  all  governments. 

The  atomic  establishment  in  the  United 
States  is  facing  increasing  opposition.  Just 
recently  it  was  refused  permission  to  build  a 
nuclear  reactor  near  Philadelphia  because  of 
the  large  population  living  there  but  it  was 
told  it  could  build  it  in  a  rural  area  where 
the  population  was  less  dense.  Rural  people 
are  apparently  more  expendable.  Conse- 
quently, the  American  nuclear  establishment 
is  now  trying  to  get  Canada  to  build  nu- 
clear reactors  with  which  to  supply  the 
United   States   with  electricity. 

This  arrangement  seems  headed  for  suc- 
cess in  Nova  Scotia.  It  seems  headed  for 
success  in  Ontario.  In  British  Columbia  the 
plan  to  get  an  atomic  plant  built  at  Skagit 
seems  to  have  run  into  some  trouble.  Pre- 
mier Barrett  has  turned  thumbs  down  on 
nuclear  power  in  British  Columbia. 

Let's  take  a  second  look  at  this  Faustian 
bargain.  The  offer  is  a  supposedly  inexhaust- 
ible supply  of  energy.  Attractive?  Of  course. 
But  we  have  an  alternative  choice  of  a  dif- 
ferent but  guaranteed  inexhaustible  supply  of 
energy,  namely  solar  energy. 

It  seems  likely  that  all  of  this  continent's 
electrical  needs  could  be  supplied  even  from 
wind  power  alone.  From  the  Windsor  Star 
of  March  22,  1974,  we  learn  that  United 
States'  scientists  in  the  National  Aeronautics 
and  Space  Administration  are  even  now  de- 
signing inexpensive,  efficient  windmills  which 
could  generate  10  megawatts  of  power  in 
moderate  winds.  Twenty  thousand  of  these 
spaced  across  the  western  plains  on  their  own 
transmission  towers  could  provide  half  of  the 
present  United  States'  consumption. 

Let  us  do  a  quick  environmental  impact 
study  on  wdnd  power,  keeping  in  mind  what 
the  answers  might  be  to  the  same  question 
if  one  did  an  environmental  impact  study  on 
fossil  fuel  and  nuclear  power  plants. 

First,  carbon  monoxide  effluent,  zero;  car- 
bon dioxide  effluent,  zero;  sulphur  dioxide 
effluent,  zero;  hydrocarbon  effluent,  zero; 
plutoniiun  produced,  none;  strontium  90  pro- 
duced, none;  cesium  137  produced,  none; 
carbon  14  produced,  none;  tritium  produced, 
none;  probability  of  radioactive  discharge, 
zero;  probability  of  a  melt-down  of  radio- 
active core,  zero;  need  for  everlasting  dis- 
posal sites,  none;  number  of  uranium  miners 
incurring  lung  cancer,  none;  number  of  lakes 
and  streams  polluted  by  radioactive  effluent, 
none;  number  of  poison  gas  shelters  required 
in  case  of  leaks  of  deadly  hydrogen  sulphide, 


424 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


like    those    near    Kincardine    at    Inverhuron, 
none;  thermal  pollution,  zero. 

I  outlined  some  of  the  dangers  of  thermal 
pollution  on  June  4,  1973.  Hansard  records 
them  on  pages  3207  and  3208  and  I  have  no 
intention  of  repeating  them  today.  But  the 
above  list  of  problems  that  will  vanish  with 
the  development  of  wind  power  or  other 
forms  of  solar  energy  is  not  complete,  of 
course.  Although  I  may  have  exhausted  my 
listeners  I  have  not  exhausted  the  list  of 
pollutants  that  will  be  eliminated  from  man's 
burden  and  environmental  worries  when 
various  forms  of  solar  energy,  such  as  wind 
power,  replace  the  enormously  wasteful  and 
dirty  methods  now  being  used. 

Mephistopheles'  legendary  offer  of  great 
skill  and  magical  powers  required  Dr. 
Faustus  to  give  his  soul  in  return.  The 
nuclear  establishment  threatens  not  only 
our  souls,  if  we  accept  this  immoral  bar- 
gain, but  also  our  bodies,  or  at  least  those 
of  our  descendants,  through  the  genetic 
havoc  which  some  of  them  will  almost  cer- 
tainly suffer. 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Speaker,  nature 
offers  us  a  safe,  clean,  limitiess  power,  with 
no  strings  attached.  Nature's  offer  is  an 
offer  that  we  cannot  refuse.  There  is  prob- 
ably only  one  man  in  Ontario  who  is  in  a 
position  to  end  this  Faustian  bargain,  and 
that  of  course  is  our  Minister  of  Energy. 
This  is  not  a  technical  or  a  technological 
problem,  it  is  a  moral  or  ethical  problem. 
The  minister  is  not  a  technical  man,  but  sure- 
ly he  is  an  ethical  man. 

Mr.  Foulds:  But  is  he  not  a  moral  man 
either?  He's   ethical,  yes. 

Mr.  Burr:  We  have  a  choice  either  of  vari- 
ous forms  of  solar  energy  or  of  nuclear 
energy.  The  former  have  virtually  no  dis- 
advantages; they  have  all  the  virtues  of  an 
angel:  safe,  clean,  moral  and  eternal 

Mr.  Foulds:  But  the  minister  is  not  eternal. 

Mr.  Burr:  The  latter  is  open  to  every  pos- 
sible kind  of  objection.  It  is  hazardous  in 
the  extreme,  eternally  filthy,  downright  im- 
moral;  in  short,   devilish. 


A  speech  prepared  by  the  Deputy  Minister 
of  Energy  for  an  engineers'  meeting  in  Thun- 
der Bay,  Nov.  23,  1973,  appealed  for  citizen 
input. 

The  minister  has  made  it  clear  in  a  nmn- 
ber  of  his  speeches  that  there  is  a  further 
informal  group  from  which  we  have  cer- 
tain expectations,  I  refer  to  citizens  who 
have  new  ideas  or  concepts. 

Later,  the  deputy  minister  added: 

We  need  the  support  of  all  those  peo- 
ple who  are  the  real  authorities  and  ex- 
perts on  energy  matters.  You  name  the 
area— wind  power,  etc;  pick  your  own— 
and  I  can  assure  you  that  we  need  on  that 
subject  a  greater  depth  and  breadth  of 
knowledge. 

Professor  William  E.  Heronemus  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Massachusetts,  probably  the  best- 
known  authority  on  wind  power,  will  be 
speaking  at  a  University  of  Sherbrooke  (Que- 
bec) seminar  on  wind  energy  in  May,  a 
few  weeks  from  now.  At  both  McGill  Uni- 
versity and  the  University  of  Sherbrooke, 
there  are  groups  very  interested  in  wind 
power  conversion.  Our  Minister  of  Energy 
should  send  observers  to  the  seminar  in  order 
to  gain  the  "greater  depth  and  breadth  of 
knowledge"  so  eagerly  sought. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  And  to 
contribute  too, 

Mr.   Foulds:   Get  him  out  of  our  hair. 

Mr.  Burr  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion   agreed   to. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
fore I  move  the  adjourimient  of  the  House, 
I  would  like  to  say  that  tomorrow  we  will 
proceed  with  item  No.  4  and  then  return  to 
this  debate  of  item  No.  1. 

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

Motion    agreed   to. 

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


MARCH  25,  1974 


425 


APPENDIX 
(See  page  399) 

LAND  BANK  INVENTORY 


Location  Acreage 

Atikokan    ......„.....,.,^..,..... 1,200. 

Aurora 55.8 

BeUeville    4.651 

Bowmanville   102.144 

Brantford  City .....;  59.1 

Brantford  Township  996.7 

Brockville 79. 

Cobourg  179.7 

Cornwall     ..: 39.8 

Hamilton 124. 

Iroquois  Falls  55. 

Kingston    217. 

Kitchener 302.8 

Lindsay    4.9 

London    92.7 

Malvern   1,288.3 


Location  Acreage 

Nepean    438.5 

Niagara  Falls   48.4 

Oakvnie 1,297.899 

Oshawa 45.3 

Ottawa 5,302. 

Peterborough  210. 

Port  Hope   42. 

Saltfleet    1,662.6 

Stratford  29. 

Teck  Township  10.1 

Thunder  Bay  158.4 

Valley  East  217. 

Waterloo    2,966.8 

Windsor  762.3 


TOTAL    17,991.894 


426  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  March  125,  1974 

Sunday  trucking  operations,  statement  by  Mr.  Rhodes  393 

Price  freeze  on  petroleum  products,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  ....   ....  393 

North   Pickering  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.   R.  F.   Nixon,   Mr.  Lewis, 

Mr.   Singer,   Mr.   W.   Hodgson 393 

Parkway  belt,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Givens  394 

Trailwind  Products,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon 397 

Union  Gas,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  397 

Pensions  to  spouse,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Haggerty  398 

TTC  subsidy,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Givens  398 

Prosecution  of  denturists,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Lewis  399 

Housing  programmes,  question  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon 399 

Housing  costs,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Givens,  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Shulman    .  399 

Water  and  sewage  systems  report,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Lewis 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  400 

Becker  Milk  Co.,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Deans  401 

Mumps  vaccine,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Shulman  401 

Cost  of  policing,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Haggerty  402 

Wind  energy  seminar,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Burr  402 

Inquiry   into  hospital   employees'  remuneration,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:   Mr.  Reid, 

'Mr.    Lewis    402 

Assessment  notices,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mrs.  Campbell  404 

Lettuce  labelling,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Bounsall,  Mr.  Renwdck,  Mr.  Lewis  404 

Presenting  report,  select  committee  on  land  drainage,  Mr.  Henderson  405 

Presenting  report,  select  committee  on  motorized  snow  vehicles  and  all-terrain  vehicles, 

Mr.    Carruthers    405 

Beds  of  Navigable  Waters  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Haggerty,  first  reading  405 

Presenting  report,  Ontario  Legal  Aid  Plan  annual  report,  Mr.  Welch  405 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Gaimt,  Mr.  Burr  405 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Burr,  agreed  to  424 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  424 

Appendix:  OHC  land  bank  inventory 425 


No.  12 


Ontario 


Hesislature  of  d^ntario 


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


Tuesday,  March  26,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT   BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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.  R.  B.  Beckett  (Brantford):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  at  this  time  to  have  the 
opportunity  to  introduce  to  this  House  35 
ladies  from  the  women's  institutes  of  Brant 
county,  which  is  the  birthplace  of  Adelaide 
Hoodless  Hunter  who  was  the  founder  of  the 
Women's  Institute.  They  are  in  the  east 
gallery,  sir,  and  I  ask  this  House  to  receive 
them. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  introduce,  in  the 
west  gallery,  grade  12  and  13  students  from 
Port  Credit  Secondary  School  with  their 
teacher,  Mr.  Chaffe,  from  the  great  riding  of 
Peel  South. 

Mr.  D.  A.  Evans  (Simcoe  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  introduce  to  you,  and 
through  you  to  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, 40  grade  12  students  from  Barrie  Central 
Collegiate  Institute  in  the  great  city  of  Barrie. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 


URANIUM  AND  ASSOCIATED 
NUCLEAR  FUELS  POLICY 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  recognize  that  the  hon.  members  here  ap- 
preciate that  uranium  is  of  particular  im- 
portance to  the  Province  of  Ontario,  About 
80  per  cent  of  the  national  inventory  of 
proven  reserves,  which  represents  almost  20 
per  cent  of  the  western  world  supply,  is  foimd 
within  the  borders  of  Ontario.  This  places 
upon  us  a  particular  responsib^ity  in  the 
national  context.  It  is  our  view  that,  in  eflFect, 
we  hold  these  resources  in  trust  for  the  total 
country. 

Uranium  is  of  great  importance  to  Ontario 
at  the  present  time.  We  should  anticipate  that 
its  relative  importance  will  increase  with  the 
realization  of  the  physical  limitations  of  sup- 
ply of  oil  and  gas  and  our  vulnerability  with 
respect  to  price.  As  a  case  in  point,  a  25- 
cent-per-barrel  increase  in  the  price  of  crude 
oil  is  equivalent  to  an  increase  of  $7.50  a 
pound  for  uranium,  given  that  one  pound  of 


Tuesday,  March  26,  1974 

uranium  is  roughly  equivalent  to  30  barrels 
of  oil  as  an  energy  source.  Electrical  gener- 
ating systems  based  on  nuclear  fuel  are  ob- 
viously less  sensitive  to  price  increases  than 
those  based  on  fossil  fuels. 

As  hon.  members  are  aware,  Ontario  Hydro 
has  recently  announced  a  nuclear  programme 
that  calls  for  an  additional  8,000  megawatts 
of  capacity  to  be  in  operation  by  1984.  Added 
to  the  2,000  megawatts  at  Pickering  and  the 
3,000  at  Bruce,  this  will  result  in  Ontario 
having  an  installed  nuclear  generating 
capacity  of  over  13,000  megawatts. 

To  put  this  into  perspective,  only  10  coun- 
tries in  the  world  have  total  electrical  gener- 
ating capacities  equal  to  this  current  Ontario 
nudear  commitment.  The  Canadian  Nuclear 
Association  estimates  that  by  the  year  2000, 
nuclear  generating  capacity  in  Canada  will 
total  133,600  megawatts,  of  which  62,800 
megawatts  will  be  installed  in  this  province. 
That  compares  with  the  present  nuclear  oper- 
ating capacity  in  Ontario  of  2,300  megawatts 
and  3,000  now  under  construction.  It  is  pro- 
jected that  the  total  capacity  in  Ontario  that 
year  will  be  approximately  100,000  mega- 
watts. 

Quite  obviously  the  projected  increase  in 
nuclear  generation  has  important  implications 
to  Ontario  and,  further,  introduces  particular 
responsibilities  in  national  terms  because  of 
the  dominance  of  Ontario  as  a  supplier  of 
uranium.  The  presence  of  uranium  within  our 
borders  and  the  expansion  of  nuclear  gener- 
ating facilities  will  reduce  our  provincial  de- 
pendence on  energy  sources  from  beyond  our 
borders. 

At  the  same  time,  Ontario's  uranium  re- 
sources must  be  so  managed  that  the  avail- 
ability of  uranium  does  not  become  a 
constraint  on  the  projected  expansion  of  nu- 
clear generation  in  the  other  regions  and 
provinces  of  Canada,  on  the  exploitation  of 
CANDU  and  potential  sales  to  foreign 
markets. 

It  is  the  view  of  the  government  of  Ontario 
that  present  national  policy,  as  it  applies  to 
uranium,  fails  to  best  serve  the  national  inter- 
est and  the  interests  of  this  province.  It  is 
our  view  that  joint  federal-provincial  planning 
is  necessary  to  ensure  that  Canada's  uranium 


430 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


resources  and  the  associated  nuclear  fuels  are 
developed  in  the  best  uiterests  of  nation  and 
pro\ince. 

Hon.  members  will  recollect  that  in  the 
energ\-  policy  paper  prepared  by  my  then 
parliamentary  assistant— now  the  Minister  of 
Energy  (Mr.  McKeough)— it  was  noted  that 
the  Atomic  Energy  Control  Act  of  1946, 
which  vested  control  of  uranium,  thorium 
and  plutonium  in  the  Atomic  Energy  Control 
Board,  was  passed  at  a  time  when  the  prin- 
cipal use  of  uranium  was  expected  to  be 
military-,  rather  than  peaceful.  Changing  cir- 
cumstances have  modified  the  validity  of 
this  Act,  and  its  impact  in  terms  of  explora- 
tion, development  and  processing  is  no  longer 
serving  the  national  interest. 

In  our  energy  policy  paper  the  following 
statement  was  made: 

Consistency  in  mineral  poHcy  and  the 
necessity  of  Ontario  assuring  a  secure  sup- 
ply of  uranium  dictate  that  Ontario  should 
seek  the  restoration  of  the  control  of  ura- 
nium and  thorium  to  its  jurisdiction.  Na- 
tional concerns  should  be  fully  satisfied 
that  the  government  of  Canada  retains 
control  of  plutonium.  The  international 
and  interprovincial  movement  of  uranium 
and  thorium  should  continue  to  be  under 
federal  control  .  .  .  The  policies  of  the 
federal  government  with  respect  to  equity 
control  of  uranium  mines  are  such  that 
exploration  and  development  is  greatly 
impeded.  Modifications  of  these  policies 
should  be  sought. 

At  the  first  ministers'  conference  on  energy 
in  January,  the  Ontario  position  was  stated: 

In  order  to  assure  the  continuing  avail- 
ability of  uranium  at  reasonable  cost  to 
Canadian  users,  Ontario  supports  its  pro- 
duction and  marketing  as  a  national  com- 
modity controlled  in  the  national  interest. 

Certainly  we  have  a  point  of  view  as  to  pol- 
icy changes  that  would  contribute  to  the 
accomplishment  of  these  purposes.  We  are 
of  the  view  that  the  orderly  and  optimum 
development  of  the  uranium  industry  would 
be  served  if  there  were  increased  provincial 
control  over  exploration,  production  and 
processing. 

We  are  in  no  sense  unsympathetic  to  the 
objective  of  retaining,  to  the  extent  practi- 
cable, the  control  of  Canadian  resources  in 
the  hands  of  nationals.  We  are  not,  however, 
convinced  that  equity  requirements  with  re- 
spect to  the  ownership  of  uranium  mines  and 
the  granting  of  exploration  permits  should  be 
significantly  diff^erent  than  those  that  apply 


to  oil,  gas  and  coal.  At  present  they  are  sig- 
nificantly diff^erent. 

The  regulations  applied  to  uranium  are 
sufiiciently  restrictive  as  to  have  inhibited 
exploration  at  a  time  when  increasing  de- 
mand—national and  international— would  sug- 
gest that  exploration  and  development  should 
be  engaging  the  attention  of  an  increasing 
number  of  exploration  companies.  Ontario 
suggested  at  the  first  ministers'  conference 
on  energy  that  incentives  should  be  designed 
which  would  tend  to  increase  exploration  for 
uranium. 

A  formula  should  be  developed  which  will 
establish  the  long-term  requirements  for 
uranium  in  Canada,  and  guidelines  govern- 
ing the  export  of  uranium  should  be  so  de- 
signed that  they  will  assure  adequate  sup- 
plies for  Canadian  users.  The  amount  of 
uranium  that  will  be  required  in  Canada- 
given  our  current  projections  for  the  con- 
struction of  nuclear  plants— is  substantial.  In 
Europe  or  Japan  and  in  the  United  States 
there  is  a  similar  swing  to  nuclear  generation 
which,  it  is  fair  to  assume,  could  well  re- 
sult in  a  sudden  short-supply  situation  on 
a  world  scale. 

The  government  of  Ontario  has  made  a 
commitment  to  the  transfer  of  nuclear  tech- 
nology to  the  private  sector  to  facilitate  the 
use  of  Canadian  technology  in  domestic  and 
foreign  markets.  This  province  would  wel- 
come a  national  commitment  to  the  achieve- 
ment of  this  purpose. 

It  is  the  view  of  Ontario  that  the  federal 
and  provincial  governments  should  jointly 
seek  further  means  of  upgrading  any  ura- 
nium exported  from  this  country.  This  would 
contribute  to  the  broadening  of  the  indus- 
trial base  of  the  nation  and  assure  that  the 
maximum  economic  benefit  associated  with 
the  presence  of  a  scarce  and  valuable  indi- 
genous   resource   was    achieved. 

The  clear  objective  of  the  government  of 
Ontario  is  to  assure  that  the  very  large  in- 
vestment made  in  nuclear  generation  facili- 
ties by  Ontario  will  be  protected  and  that 
the  plans  or  intentions  of  other  provinces 
will  not  be  frustrated  through  shortages  of 
uranium  resulting  from  inappropriate  na- 
tional policy. 

Shortly-at  3  o'clock,  Mr.  Speaker-the  gov- 
ernment will  table  a  paper  outlining  our  posi- 
tion on  a  uranium  policy  for  Canada.  We 
would  be  pleased  to  discuss  this  with  other 
provinces  and  with  the  federal  government 
with  a  view  to  establishing  as  quickly  as 
possible  a  national  uranium  policy  designed 
to  serve  the  best  interests  of  all  Canadians. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


431 


Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (RiverdJale):  What  the 
government  gave  up  30  years  ago,  it  is  trying 
to  get  back.  Unbelievablel 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


URANIUM  AND  ASSOCIATED 
NUCLEAR  FUELS  POLICY 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  A  question  of  the 
Premier  following  the  statement  he  just  made, 
copies  of  which  are  not  yet  available. 

For  clarification,  I  want  to  ask  the  Premier 
if  his  statement  indicates  that  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  would  have  no  objection,  for 
example,  if  the  controlling  equity  of  Denison 
Mines  were  to  pass  into,  lets  say,  American 
hands,  as  almost  happened  three  years  ago. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speiaker,  I  think  there 
are  degrees,  of  course.  It's  not  a  question  of 
controlling  equity;  it's  a  question  of  a  degree 
of  equity  to  enable  further  exploration  to  take 
place.  This  government,  I  think,  has  con^ 
sistently  been  in'  support  of  greater  Canadian 
control  over  our  commercial  and  industrial 
base,  to  the  etxtent  that  it  is  practical.  But  I 
think  it  is  also  fair  to  point  out  that,  as  it 
relates  to  uranium,  it  has  been  inhibiting  and) 
far  more  restrictive  than  in,  say,  the  case  of 
oil,  gas  or  coal. 

What  we  are  seeking  is  some  balance 
whereby  further  exploration  capital  can  be 
found  to  develop  what  we  think  is  a  very 
important  potential  resource  for  this  province. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Belonging  to  the  people! 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Would 
the  Premier  then  be  seriously  proposing  to 
the  government  of  Canada  that  it  should 
allow  the  control  or  ovmership  of  this  emerg- 
ing energy  source  to  go  the  same  way  as  un- 
fortunately it  has  allowed  the  ovmership  and 
control  of  the  gas  and  oil  resources  of  this 
nation  to  go? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
member  for  Brant  is  suggesting  that  it  is  un- 
fortimate  that  oil  and  gas  are  not  under  the 
total  control  of  Canada,  I  think  that  is  some- 
thing we  might  debate  on  some  other  occa- 
sion. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  consider  it  unfortunate. 
Doesn't  the  Premier? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  What  I  am  saying  in  this 
statement   is  that  we  have  to  find  a  better 


balance  to  encourage  development  and  ex- 
ploration for  uranium. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  The  Premier's 
statement  really  says  nothing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  it  is  important  that 
it  is  done,  and  that  it  is  done  very  shortly. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  Premier  says  this  is  a 
resource  being  held  in  trust  for  Canadians. 
That's  what  he  said.  That's  part  of  his  state- 
ment. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Supplementary 
question:  Is  the  Premier  rejecting  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  government  may  acquire  the 
equity  in  the  public  interest? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  recognize 
that  the  hon.  member  would  have  the  public 
control  the  equity  in  everything  in  this  prov- 


Mr.  Deans:  I  would  certainly  have  them 
control  m-aniiun. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —we  just  don't  happen  to 
share  that  poHtical  point  of  view. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  our  view  that  the 
private  sector  has  a  role  to  play^ 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury):  Why  do  Euro- 
pean countries  do  as  they  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  it  was  obvious 
from  the  statement  of  the  Minister  of  Etnergy 
a  few  weeks  ago,  whereby  we  are  involving 
the  private  sector  in  the  further  development 
of  nuclear  technology,  that  we  are  anxious  to 
see  that  this  is  done. 

Mr.  Deans:  We  are  being  held  to  ransom 
by  the  private  sector. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthiu^):  They've 
sold  us  out  for  the  last  30  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  it  is  also  important 
to  point  out  that  if  there  is  potential,  and  we 
believe  there  is,  in  the  exploitation  of  the 
CANDU  system,  it  is  important  to  have  the 
private  sector  involved  for  marketing  pur- 
poses. And  I  would  say  that  there  is  nothing 
inconsistent- 
Mr.  Deans:  For  marketing  uranium? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  For  marketing  the 
CANDU  system. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  But  not 
the  ownership  of  uranium. 


432 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Renwick:  Surely  not  the  ownership  of 
uranium. 

Hon.   Mr.   Davis:   And  I  would  say,   Mr. 

Speaker,  that  we  are  making  it  very  clear  in 

this  statement- 
Mr.    Deans:    The   government   has   always 

said  it  would  provide  80  per  cent  of  it.  Don't 

be  silly! 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —that  we  want  a  greater 
degree  of  input  into  the  decision-making  pro- 
cess, that  we  are  anxious  to  have  greater 
exploration  because  we  think  uranium  is  an 
important  resource  and  should  be  available 
for  the  total  country. 

Mr.  Deans:  Then  move  into  the  field. 

Mr.  Renwick:  And  it  belongs  to  the 
people. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  think  this  is  the  most 
intelhgent  way  to  proceed  with  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Samia. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  Supplementary:  Would  the 
Premier  attempt  to  resolve  for  me  an  obvious 
dichotomy  in  his  statement?  As  I  recall,  part 
of  his  statement  said  that  the  government  of 
Ontario  recognized  this  as  a  resource  held  in 
trust  for  the  people  of  Canada.  How  does 
the  Premier  resolve  that  with  his  lack  of 
response  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition, 
when  he  could  give  no  assurance  he  wouldn't 
permit  control  to  go  outside  the  borders  of 
Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  guess  one 
can  argue  about  what  one  means  by  control. 
Quite  obviously,  control  is  always  with  the 
province  or,  in  the  case  of  uranium,  control 
at  this  moment  is  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment. What  we  are  talking  about  is  the 
question  of  further  development  of  the 
uranium  resource.  Yes,  control  will  be  as- 
sumed by  the  province  or  the  federal  govern- 
ment, we  hope  on  some  sort  of  co-operative 
basis.  What  we  are  seeking,  as  I  say,  is 
additional  input  into  the  development  of 
this  very  important  resource. 

The  question  of  the  control  of  the  actual 
company,  as  to  who  may  be  doing  it,  is 
something  that  would  be  consistent  with  our 
total  policy,  one  aspect  of  which,  of  course, 
is  the  question  of  Canadian  directors  forming 
the    majority   on   any   Ontario   corporation. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  it 
is  very  important  to  point  out  that  this  is  an 


important  resource.  We  must  have  further 
development  and  the  present  policies  of  the 
federal  government  are  totally  inhibiting. 
That's  one  reason  we  have  not  had  the  kind 
of  exploration  that  we  think  is  essential. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  What  degree  of  provincial  in- 
vestment does  the  Premier  intend  to  provide 
in  the  development  and  exploration  which 
he  proposes?  To  what  extent  is  he  willing 
to  alienate  this  energy  resource  from  the 
private  sector  beyond  that  which  is  now  in- 
volved? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  great  respect,  Mr. 
Speaker,  once  again,  political  philosophies 
differ.  There  is  a  very  distinct  diflFerence 
between  control  in  the  sense  that  this  prov- 
ince or  the  federal  government  would  have 
control  over  exports  and  the  use  of  that 
resource,  and  the  question  of  who  puts  in 
money  or  capital  for  its  development.  I  would 
say  that  the  two  are  totally  consistent  if  one 
wants  to  apply  a  particular  philosophy,  and 
certainly  inconsistent,  I  am  sure,  in  the  view 
of  the  member  for  Scarborough  West. 

Mr.  Lewis:   Who  has  the  ownership? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Who  owns  it? 

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

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  I  wonder 
if  the  Premier  could  tell  us  if  this  statement 
is  made  in  light  of  a  particular  proposition 
that  has  been  put  to  the  government?  What 
kind  of  ownership  criteria  is  he  thinking 
about?  Has  he  got  some  specific  proposal'  on 
his  platter  now  which  motivates  this  state- 
ment and  this  whole  thing  which  bothers  us 
so  much;  can  he  expand  on  what  the  criteria 
are? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  think  the 
hon.  member  for  Downsview  is  singling  out 
one  particular  aspect  of  the  statement.  What 
we  are  primarily  concerned  about  is— 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Yes,  he  is— that's  what  he  is 
concerned  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —the  existing  degree  of 
federal  control  over  uranium,  its  export  and 
its  development  or  exploration.  What  we  are 
saying  is  that  when  that  Act  was  passed,  and 
I'm  not  quarrelling  with  it,  uranium  was 
looked  upon  as  a  strategic  resource  in  a 
military  sense. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


433 


I 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  What  we  are  saying  to- 
day is  that  that  day  has  passed.  There  is 
still  a  degree  of  strategic  importance,  I  am 
sure,  but  we  are  looking  at  it- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  It  is  strategic  in  the  national 
jSense,  not  the  provincial  sense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —from  the  standpoint  of 
an  energy  source. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Within  the  context  of  an 

energy  resource- 
Mr.  Ren  wick:  Just  as  strategic  as  tihe  oil  in 
the  Middle  East. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —we  are  saying  that  the 
province  should  be  given  more  jurisdiction  so 
that  we  can  encourage  development  of  this 
resource  in  an  intelligent  and  logical  fashion. 
To  me  it  is  relatively  simple. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Stephen 
Roman  couldn't  have  said  it  better. 

Mr.  Singer:  Couldn't  the  Premier  answer 
a  simple  question?  He  has  avoided  both  my 
questions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Does  the 
Premier  agree  or  disagree  with  his  fellow 
Conservati\e,  Stephen  Roman,  who  believes 
the  control  of  the  largest  amount  of  uranium 
in  this  province,  Denison  Mines,  should  be 
sold  to  American  interests? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
made  my  position  clear  several  months  ago. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  His  position 
is  never  clear. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  happen  to  believe,  to 
the  extent  that  it  is  practical,  that  there 
should  be  as  great  a  degree  of  Canadian 
ownership  of  the  resource  industries  as  is 
possible.  I  think  this  has  to  be  measured 
against  the  international  situation,  on  which 
the  hon.  member  for  High  Park  is  a  far 
greater  expert  than  I  am— I  won't  go  back  to 
his  many  appearances  on  television— but  he 
did  make  some  observations  about  multi- 
national companies,  if  memory  serves  me  cor- 
rectly, and  their  important  role  in  international 
trade. 


control  which  is  essential,  and  that  is  the  use 
of  this  resource  for  the  consumers  of  Ontario 
and  Canada,  this  province  intends  to  exercise 
its  jurisdiction.  I  think  that  has  to  be  separ- 
ated from  the  way  the  resource  itself  is 
developed. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  have  now  been  seven 
supplementaries  which  is  a  reasonable  nirni- 
ber.  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That's  the  most  important 
statement  we  have  had  in  years. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  important  for  what  it  does 
not  say  as  well  as  for  what  it  does  say. 

Mr.  Ren  wick:  I  can  hardly  wait  until  3 
o'clock. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 


INQUIRY  INTO  HOSPITAL  EMPLOYEES' 
REMUNERATION 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  another  question 
of  the  Premier.  Following  the  statement  made 
by  the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Guindon) 
yesterday  with  regard  to  the  projected  strike 
by  the  hospital  workers,  which  is  intended  to 
take  place,  I  believe  on  May  1,  in  10  Toronto 
hospitals;  since  the  result  of  the  commission 
investigation  is  not  going  to  be  available  until 
May  6  at  the  earliest,  when  I  believe  the 
last  submissions  are  going  to  be  available,  is 
the  Premier  in  contact  with  the  CUPE  locals 
concerned  so  that  there  is  not  going  to  be 
the  intrusion  of  a  strike  situation— particularly 
since  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller) 
indicated,  I  believe,  in  a  speech  in  Muskoka 
early  in  March  that  he  thought  the  ceilings 
on  hospital  increases  might  be  broken  in  this 
year's  budget  in  order  to  accommodate  the 
hospital  workers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  try  to 
recall  that  rather  lengthy  question.  If  the 
hon.  member  for  Brant,  Mr.  Speaker,  is 
asking  whether  or  not  we  are  concerned 
about  the  possibility  of  a  strike  on  May  1, 
the  answer  to  that  is  quite  obviously  yes. 
If  he  is  asking  whether  this  government 
wHl  be  in  touch  with  those  unions  which 
are  involved,  the  answer  to  that  is  yes.  It  is 
our  hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  any  potential 
strike  that  has  been  talked  about  will  not 
in  fact  materialize. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.   R.   F.   Nixon:   A  supplementary:    Can 
the  Premier  indicate  when  the  reccnnmenda- 
Hon.    Mr.    Davis:    I   can   only   assure   the      tions  of  the  commission  that  is  looking  into 
member  for  High  Park  that  in  the  area  of      this   will   be   available?   And   does  he  really 


434 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


believe  that  those  recommendations  could  be 
anything  other  than  a  recommendation  that 
their  pay  be  increased? 

Mr.  Roy:  The  Premier  is  just  biding  his 
time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
have  said  this  before  but  I  will  repeat  it.  I 
will  be  very  surprised  if  the  commission 
recommendations  do  not  include  some  in- 
crease for  hospital  workers  in  this  province.  I 
will  be  very  surprised  if  they  do  not. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  By  way  of  supplemen- 
tary, would  the  Premier  not  consider  it  an 
act  of  good  faith,  since  the  control  of  this 
whole  matter  lies  in  his  own  hands  and  with 
the  Minister  of  Health,  that  there  be  some 
statement  made  to  the  workers  involved  that 
there  will  be  at  least  a  minimum  increase  that 
might,  in  fact,  keep  them  at  their  posts  in  the 
hospitals  until  such  time  as  he  is  prepared  to 
make  a  further  statement?  Surely  he  could 
give  an  indication  of  good  faith  similar  to 
what  the  Premier  has  just  said,  that  he  ex- 
pects the  recommendation  to  be  for  an  in- 
crease, and  that  if  it  isn't,  he  is  going  to 
have  to  increase  it  anyway. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  this 
has  already  been  stated.  It  is  our  hope  that 
when  it  is  further  stated  to  the  members  of 
the  unions  it  will  be  understood  then  that 
their  thoughts— and  I  express  it  that  way— 
of  a  walkout  or  strike  on  May  1  will  not 
materialize  and  will  not  be  necessary. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  is 
the  Premier  saying  in  this  roundabout  fash- 
ion, that  some  Hme  before  May  1  an  under- 
taking is  to  be  made  publicly  by  government 
that  the  hospital  workers  can  expect  an  in- 
crease which  may  have  to  go  beyond  the 
legislated  ceiling,  whether  by  the  govern- 
ment's decision  or  the  commission's  decision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  get  into 
this  somewhat  grey  area,  as  the  hon.  mem- 
ber suggests,  of  legislated  ceilings.  There  are 
ceilings  on  health  expenditures.  There  have 
not  been  ceilings  as  they  relate  to  the  amount 
that  has  been  awarded  to  the  hospital  em- 
ployees, in  many  cases  by  way  of  arbitration. 
It  is  quite  consistent  with  the  question  that 
we  have  been  discussing  here  as  it  relates 
to  ceilings  on  school  board  expenditures. 
This  government  has  not  legislated  the 
amount  of  increase  that  can  be  given  to  hos- 
pital employees  or  the  school  teachers,  much 
as  those  people  across  the  House  would  like 
to  misinterpret  this  to  the  general  public. 


Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  Is  the  Pre- 
mier really  trying  to  argue  that  the  ceilings 
have  not  predetermined  the  outcome  of 
wages  for  hospital  workers?  Is  he  suggesting 
the  ceilings  haven't  affected  the  amount  of 
money  which  the  hospital  worker  now  needs 
in  order  to  receive  parity  with  similar  areas 
in  the  work-force? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it  is 
obvious    that    there    are    many    factors    that 
affect  it.  All  I  am  saying  is  there  is  nothing, 
as  the  hon.  member  suggested,  by  way- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  is  just  rot. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —of  provincial  legislation 
or  regulation  that  says  to  the  hospital  boards 
that  the  negotiations  have  to  be  based  on  a 
certain  amount, 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  nonsense. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  that  is  not  so. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  if 
the  ceiling  level  is  7.7  per  cent  or  whatever  it 
is— 7.9  or  eight  per  cent— and  if  in  order  to 
make  up  the  gap  the  hospital  worker  re- 
quires 15  to  20  per  cent,  which  most  mem- 
bers in  the  House  would  concede  on  the 
simple  face  of  it,  how  can  that  possibly  be 
accommodated  within  the  overall  ceilings 
applied  to  the  hospital,  so  much  of  which 
goes  to  income? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  due  respect,  that 
is  not  what  the  hon.  member  asked.  I  would 
quite  agree  that  if  the  determination  is  made 
that  the  hospital  employees  must  have  more 
by  way  of  increase  than  can  be  accom- 
modated within  the  ceilings,  then  we  have 
to  take  a  look  at  the  ceilings.  No  one  has 
ever  argued  this.  What  I  am  saying  is  that 
we  have  not  legislated  ceilings,  because  the 
hon.  member  has  on  other  occasions  sug- 
gested that  we  have  legislated  ceilings,  in 
the  same  way  as  the  people  in  his  part>-  have 
been  saying  all  around  the  province  that  we 
have  legislated  increases  in  teachers'  salaries 
which,  in  fact,  is  what  we  have  not  done.  We 
haven't  done  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  the  way  it  works  no 
matter  how  the  government  plays  games 
with  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


435 


Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  has  wage 
controls  in  the  hospital  sector.  That's  what 
it  has. 

Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 

SEATBELTS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  make  it 
clear  as  to  whether  or  not  he  intends  to  bring 
in  legislation  regarding  the  compulsory  use 
of  seatbelts,  or  is  he  going  to  follow  the 
recommendations  of  his  parliamentary  assist- 
ant and  drop  the  whole  thing? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transpor- 
tation and  Communications):  Well,  Mr. 
Speaker,  first  of  all  the  parliamentary  assist- 
ant did  not  recommend  that  it  be  dropped. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Obviously  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  wasn't  paying  at- 
tention when  the  hon.  member  made  his 
address. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  He  never  does. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  He  just 
hears  what  he  wants  to  hear. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  As  I  have  already  stated 
to  the  press,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  working 
on  the  proposed)  legislation  and,  as  I  said 
earlier,  it's  not  an  easy  piece  of  legislation  to 
put  together.  Eventually  it  will  be  brought 
before  this  Legislature. 

Mr.  Rullbrook:  How  does  the  minister  feel 
about  it? 

Mr.  J.  R.  Hreithaupt  (Kitchener):  What 
about  the  member  for  Glengarry  (Mr. 
Villeneuve)? 

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


FOOD  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  first,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Premier.  Does  the  Premier 
recall  back  in  August  that  he  indicated  at 
the  provincial  coiiference  in  Charlottetown 
when  he  was  asked  questions  about  food 
prices  that  some  of  the  food  chains  were 
quite   "irresponsible"?   The  Premier  said,   "I 


mean  this  business  of  having  food  prices  one 
thing  in  the  morning  and  then  changing  them 
in  the  afternoon  is  something  that  should  be 
discouraged." 

Given  the  evidence  that  last  weekend!  cer- 
tain food  chains  in  the  Metropolitan  Toronto 
area  were  changing  their  prices  in  the  course 
of  the  day,  several  labels  appearing  on  one 
item,  has  he  asked  the  Minister  of  Consiuner 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Clement)  to 
take  action  against  the  supermarkets  involved? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  hon, 
member  wants  me  to  recall  more  specifically 
what  was  said,  I  beHeve,  in  Charlottetown 
some  time  in  the  first  week  of  August,  1973, 
I  think  I  can  recall  rather  precisely  what  I 
said.  I  said  that  if  the  news  media  are  correct 
as  to  food  chains  which  have  existing  stocks 
on  the  shelf,  or  in  supply,  raising  those  prices 
to  meet  what  was  a  shortage,  or  what  they 
felt  a  legitimate  increase,  and  if  that  in  fact 
was  happening,  I  felt  it  was  irresponsible.  I 
want  to  put  what  I  said  in,  its  proper  con- 
text and,  I  think,  more  precisely. 

!Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  complete  confidence 
in  the  minister  responsible  for  pursuing 
matters  of  this  kind  and  I  have  every  con- 
fidence that  he  will  continue  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  don't. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  that  what  the  Premier  said? 
Thank  you. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  a  story  undfer  the  byline  of 
a  chap  named'  Webster.  Websterl  I  am  sorry 
he  didn't  put  the  Premier  precisely  in  con- 
text. He  just  quoted  him  specifically. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  it  is  one  of  those  aggrava- 
tions. What  has  the  Premier  done  about  the 
clear  evidence  of  the  price  changing,  the 
markup  of  articles  which  has  now  appeared? 
Has  he  instructed'  his  minister  or  has  he  dis- 
cussed with  his  colleague  the  possibility  of 
taking  action  against  the  supermarkets  since 
the  Premier  expressed  such  concern'  just  a  few 
months  ago? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  said  to 
the  hon.  member,  it  is  not  a  question  of  my 
directing  a  minister.  Unlike  his  own  feeling 
for  some  of  his  own  cabinet  colleagues,  I 
happen  to  have  complete  confidence  in  the 
capacity  of  the  ministers  of  this  government- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  That's  why 
he  just  switched  all  of  them. 


436 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —in  reacting  to  their  own 
areas  of  responsibility. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  thank  the  Premier  for  that 
but  it  is  a  few  months  premature. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  How  can  the  Premier  say  that  he 
has  complete  confidence,  when  in  that  speech 
—well,  statement— in  Charlottetown  he  put  the 
problem  in  the  hands  of  his  then  new  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  the 
member  for  Niagara  Falls,  who  came  down  to 
his  office  the  next  morning  at  6  a.m.  with  his 
sleeves  rolled  up  and  has  done  absolutely 
nothing  about  it  since?  Surely  the  Premier 
must  agree  that  there  is  some  action  that 
could  be  taken  by  his  minister  other  than  the 
bland  assurances  that  nothing  can  be  done. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  dis- 
cussed this  issue  at  some  length  and  the  min- 
ister, I  think,  has  handled  it  very  ably.  I 
would  only  say  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion and  to  the  member  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  that  if  their  people  really  wanted 
to  solve  this  problem,  then  their  respective 
national  leaders  in  Ottawa  should  get  out  of 
bed  together  and  do  something  about  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  member  for 
High  Park. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  privilege. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  used  the  wrong  phrase. 

Mr.  Lewis:  David  Lewis  has  been  in  bed 
vdth  only  one  person  in  his  life  and  I  am 
here  to  prove  it.  Does  the  Premier  understand 
that? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Does  the  member  mean 
he  is  Trudeau's  son? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  that  the  point  of  privilege? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  he  may  regret  it;  but 
that's  his  problem. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Premier  ask  his 
minister  if  he  has  any  influence  on  Gen. 
Kitching  to  stop  the  Liquor  Control  Board 
from  double-pricing? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  resent  that.  That's  not  a 
supplementary. 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  the  hon.  member  for  High  Park,  who 
has  never  been  shy  or  reluctant  to  my  knowl- 
edge, really  has  the  capacity  to  ask  the  min- 
ister this  question  himself  very  directlv-  if  he 
so  chooses. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes.  I  might  say  the  last 
question  certainly  is  not  supplementary  to 
the  original.  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
East. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  the  Premier's  response  to  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  about  national 
leaders,  is  he  prepared  to  follow  his  national 
leader's  dictum  and  bring  in  price  and  wage 
controls? 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  the  next  step  after 
compulsory  arbitration. 

Hon.    Mr.    Davis:    I    have    made    it    very 
clear- 
Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —and  I've  made  it  very 
clear  to  the  first  minister  of  Canada,  that 
when  the  federal  government  sought  some 
initiatives,  some  way  to  come  to  grips  with 
inflation,  this  government  would  co-operate 
fully. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  say  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Ottawa  East,  who  I  know  is 
totally  famihar  with  the  federal  scene  and 
probably  is  contemplating— well,  no,  I  don't 
think  he  is  contemplating  running  federally 
again;  he's  running  so  fast  for  the  provincial 
Liberal  leadership  he  trips  oyer  himself  on 
occasion- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —I  would  only  say  to 
him  that  when  our  national  leader  does  be- 
come Prime  Minister  of  Canada,  we  will 
support  him  in  any  initiatives  that  he  takes 
to  solve  the  problem  of  inflation  in  Canada. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Gome  on,  a  little  desk-thump- 
ing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  glad  the  member 
asked  the  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  there  have  l^een  a 
reasonable  number  of  supplementaries  on 
this  particular  question. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


437 


Mr.  Singer:  Jack  Horner  doesn't  think  very 
much  of  the  Premier  these  days. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  say  the  Premier  is 
interfering. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  he  take  this  matter 
seriously? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Premier 
doesn't  take  inflation  seriously.  We'll  go  to 
his  colleague  who  has  the  authority. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I'll  tell  the  member  who 
doesn't  take  it  seriously 

Mr.  Lewis:  Say,  the  Premier  is  getting 
pretty  excited  today. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I'm  really  surprised.  The 
dynasty  is  getting  to  the  Premier. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  we  might  proceed 
with  the  question  period. 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  minister- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  My,  the  Premier  is  getting 
anxious.  There'll  be  a  federal  election  in 
time. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  a  question? 

Mr,  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations:  If  he 
were  able  to  do  anything  about  it,  or  if  he 
wished  to  do  anything  about  the  price  goug- 
ing of  certain  supermarket  chains,  I  take  it 
he  feels  it's  not  possible  because  he  has  no 
authority  to  move  under  the  Consumer  Pro- 
tection Act  as  it  is  now  drafted? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Take  that  as  notice. 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Well  first,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  publicly  to  thank  my 
leader  for  the  confidence  be  has  expressed 
in  me  today. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Singer:  That's  the  worst  sign.  That's 
the  worst  sign. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  can't  hear  all  the 
members,  but  if  they'd  like  to  write  me  indi- 
vidually, I'd  be  gkd  to  receive  their  letters. 


Secondly,  to  the  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party,  it  is  my  opinion— and  I  am  so 
advised  and  we  touched  on  this  yesterday— 
that  under  certain  sections  of  the  Consumer 
Protection  Act  the  practices  that  he  described 
cannot  be  prosecuted.  A  year  ago  October 
or  November,  I  instructed  that  a  study  into 
business  practices  legislation  be  completed  by 
a  then  professor  at  ^e  University  of  York  law 
school.  I  have  since  received  that  study  from 
that  particular  individual,  and  in  prior  dis- 
cussions in  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
touched  on  the  question  of  introducing  into 
this  Legislature  a  fair  business  practices  Act. 
I  presume  that  would  be  one  of  the  matters 
touched  upon  in  that  Act.  Insofar  as  double 
ticketing  is  concemed-and  the  matter  is  of 
concern  to  every  member  in  this  House— I  am 
advised  that  the  Hon.  Herbert  Gray,  the  fed- 
eral minister,  has  already  introduced  legisla- 
tion dealing  with  double  ticketing. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Is  that  right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Insofar  as  the  question 
directed  to  my  leader  a  few  minutes  ago  by 
the  member  for  High  Park  is  concerned,  it  is 
a  matter  of  law  of  this  province' that  liquor 
must  be  sold  at  the  same  prices  at  all  ouuets 
in  this  province  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  supplemen- 
tary, doesnt  the  minister  recognize  that  sec- 
tion 47  of  the  Consurner  Protection  Act,  sup^ 
ported  as  it  is  by  the  definition  section,  does 
give  him  authority  to  protect  the  consumer 
against  the  totally  illegitimate  jumps  in  the 
cost  of  living  that  some  supermarkets  use,  and 
that  what  he's  getting  from  the  law  oflRcers  of 
the  Crown  is  simply  a  delaying  tactic— he's 
getting  what  he's  asking  for,  in  order  to 
avoid  that  protection?  He  can  read  the  Act 
as  weU  as  any  other  member  of  the  House. 
Its  intent  is  clear. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  thought 
the  member  would  never  ask  that  today  and 
that's  why  I  got  the  report  from  the  law 
officers  of  the  Crown  in  writing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  They  tell  me-just  going 
through  this— one  takes  a  look  at  the  definition 
of  seler— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  -and  it  says,  "someone 
who  sells  goods  or  services  to  a  buyer." 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes. 


43$ 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Then  they  define  buyer 
as  "one  who  enters  into—' 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  like  Dominion  Stores 
selling  lettuce  to  a  customer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  "A  buyer  is  a  person 
who  purchases  goods  or  services  imder  an 
executory  contract." 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  An  executory  contract 
is  defined  as  one  "for  services  or  goods  to  be 
provided  in  tlie  future  at  a  cost  in  excess  of 
$50." 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  bill  needs  amending. 

Mr.  Stokes:  The  minister's  legislation  is  a 
farce. 

An  hon.  member:  Read  the  bill. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Come  away!  What  law 
oflBcer  of  the  Crown  gave  the  minister  that 
opinion? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  the  law  is  an  ass. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  My  colleague  from  Riverdale 
says  the  minister  is  wrong  and  liierefore  he 
is  wrong. 

Mr.  Renwick:  And  I'm  supported  by  my 
colleague  from  Lakeshore. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  That  is 
prett\'  toothless. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


An  hon.  member:  Maybe. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'd  be  glad 
to  take  that  question  as  notice  and  provide 
the  answer. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  is  that?  Never  heard  of  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  All  right.  Well,  may  I  ask  of 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  can 
we  have  an  undertaking  from  him  that  no 
annoimcement  will  be  made  about  the  pro- 
posed Maple  Mountain  project  until  the  ques- 
tion of  title  is  clear  in  the  minds  of  the 
residents  in  the  area? 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  minister  should  tell  him 
he  has  to  consult  the  Attorney  General. 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  a  supplementary, 
when  does  he  expect  to  make  his  announce- 
ment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  beg  the  member's 
pardon? 

Mr.  Lewis:  When  does  he  intend  to  make 
that  announcement  that  is  continually  de- 
layed? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Tomorrow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  in- 
dicated to  the  House  that  as  soon  as  cabinet 
has  dealt  with  the  item  we  will  be  reporting 
to  this  House. 

Mr.  Stokes:  In  10  days.  That's  tomorrow. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No  further  questions?  The 
hon.  Minister  of  Labour  has  the  answer  to  a 
question  asked  previously. 


MAPLE  MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  want  to  ask  a  question  of  the 
Attome}'  General,  but  I  won't  ask  about  the 
Consumer  Protection  Act- 
Mr.  Renwick:  No,  don't  ask  him  about  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —because  I  don't  trust  the 
minister's  answer.  What  is  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral doing  about  the  cautions  laid  against  title 
by  the  Indian  band  involved  in  the  Maple 
Mountain  area  in  northeastern  Ontario? 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes  or  no. 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  I've  got  to 
take  that  question— I  m  sorry- 


TRAILWIND  PRODUCTS 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  Yes, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Yesterday  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  asked  a  question  about  a 
plant  closing  at  Trailwind  Products  in  Rex- 
dale. 

I  am  informed  the  employees  were  not 
given  the  necessary  written  notice  but  they 
were  given  pay  in  lieu  of  notice,  which  is  in 
accordance  with  the  Employment  Standards 
Act.  The  employees  were  also  given  all  back 
wages  and  vacation  pay. 

This  morning,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  met  with  a 
delegation  from  the  Steelworkers  which  repre- 
sents the  employees  of  Trailwind,  but  not  the 
employees  of  Indal  Products  Ltd.,  Brampton. 


'-March  26,  i974 


439 


The  collective  agreement  at  Trailwind  will 
not,  it  appears,  carry  over  to  Brampton  be- 
cause the  terms  of  the  agreement  only  extend 
to  Metropolitan  Toronto.  Following  this 
morning's  meeting  I  sent  a  telegram  to  the 
chief  executive  officer  of  Indal  Products  Ltd. 
requesting  that  a  meeting  be  arranged  to  dis- 
cuss the  problem  of  the  displaced  employees, 
some  50  or  51  of  them.  I  vdll  report  to  the 
House  the  results  of  our  meeting. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  if  I  may:  Is 
the  minister  prepared  to  ask  of  the  company, 
which  is  even  now  hiring  through  the  Canada 
Manpower  office,  that  it  employ  the  50  or  51 
displaced  people  from  Trailwind,  as  an 
obvious  way  of  coping  with  this  sudden  and 
abrupt  loss  of  work? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  one 
of  the  many  questions  I  would  like  to  ask. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Energy 
has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 


ONTARIO  HYDRO 
EMPLOYMENT  POLICY 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  March  14  the  hon. 
memljer  for  Grey-Bruce  (Mr.  Sargent)  asked 
a  question  with  reference  to  Ontario  Hydro's 
liiring  policy,  and  I  undertook  to  get  him  an 
answer. 

I  can  assure  the  hon.  member,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  that  Hydro  has  a 
clearly  defined  employment  policy,  which  is 
outlined  in  its  management  guidfe  and  it  is 
not  in  any  way  discriminatory  in  its  nature. 
Hydro  hires  its  employees  in  accordance  with 
widely  accepted  practices,  with  due  regard  to 
its  responsibilities  to  maintain  an  efficient 
electric  power  system  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario. 

As  part  of  these  practices,  inquiries  are 
made  into  a  person's  background  from  the 
standpoint  of  edtication,  experience,  health 
and  security.  These  inquiries  are  generally 
made  before  a  person  is  hired. 

'In  the  particular  case  to  which  the  hon. 
member  referred,  regrettably  the  inquiries 
were  not  made  ahead  of  time.  The  member 
referred  to  a  specific  case,  at  the  Bruce 
nuclear  power  development,  where  a  certain 
individual  was  discharged  as  a  result  of  a 
belated  security  check.  This  was  done  in 
error  and  Ontario  Hydro  has  readily  admitted 
it;  and  as  the  hon.  member  I  believe  knows, 
the  man  has  since  been  rehired. 

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


AMBULANCE  SERVICES 

Mr.  D.  A.  Paterson  (Essex  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Health: 
Is  it  factual  that  part  of  the  ministry's 
austerity  budget  requires  that  emergency 
vehicles  in  the  province,  that  is  ambulances, 
get  150,000  miles  on  them  before  the\-  are 
turned  in  for  new  vehicles?  In  this  regard,  is 
the  minister  aware  that  his  official  in  charge 
of  this  programme  has  ofi"ered  one  of  the 
ambulance  squads  in'  my  area  a  1968  vehicle, 
that  already  has  90,00*0  miles  on  it,  as  its 
front-line  vehicle  for  servicing  hospitals  some 
20  miles  away?  Will  the  minister  look  into 
this  matter? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  has  the  member  for  High  Park 
changed  his  place  in  the  House?  Because  if 
it  is  a  question,  it  must  be  the  member  for 
High  Park. 

Mr.  Roy:  Where  is  the  minister's  hmnour? 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South):  He  is 
waiting  in  line. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  is  next. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
would  be  unfair  to  say  that  vehicle  replace- 
ment is  based  upon  mileage  alone;  and  I 
would  hate  to  think  that  a  $2.2  billion  budget 
could  be  truly  called  an  austerity  budget.  I 
think  in  fact  it  is  one  of  the  most  generous 
health  budgets  in  North  America. 

Some  Hon.  members:  Hear,  hear. 

Mr.  Reid:  The  doctors  like  it. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  doctors  like  it.  What  about 

the  hospital  workers?  :  -  ,- 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  However,  I  think  mem- 
bers would  agree  that  any  oonmiercial  vehi- 
cle should  be  utilized  until  its  useful  tenn  of 
life  has  passed. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  there  is  a  good  policy 
statement. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): That  is  fiscal  responsibility. 

Mr.  Reid:  Is  that  off  the  top  of  the  min- 
ister's head? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Weil,  it  happens  that  I 
had  quite  a  few  years  as  a  car  dealer. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Spoken  like  a  true  used-car 
dealer. 


440 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  Would  members  buy  a 
used  vehicle  from  that  man? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  That's  how  I  got  elected. 
A  lot  of  my  used-car  customers  voted  for  me. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Just  to  get  the  minister 
out  of  business. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  We  still 
wouldn't  buy  one  from  him. 

Mr.  Reid:  They  wanted  to  get  the  min- 
ister out  of  the  business. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  these  gentlemen 
are  becoming  facetious,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Roy:  Does  it  bother  the  minister? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  No. 

Mr.  Reid:  The  minister  is  getting  as  bad 
as  the  Premier.  The  minister  hasn't  got  an 
answer  either. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  six  minutes  remain- 
ing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  certainly  would  be 
pleased  to  look  into  the  question  of  a  vehicle 
being  given  to  the  member's  area  at  a  mileage 
of  80,000  miles,  if  in  fact  it  is  the  OEdy 
vehicle  that  particular  unit  has  for  service.  I 
will  be  pleased  to  give  the  member  an  under- 
taking that  I  s'haU  do  so.  The  moment  I  have 
an  answer  on  it  I  will  be  glad  to  contact  him. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  on  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Why  has  the  ministry  posted 
notices  in  all  the  hospitals  that  the  govern- 
ment is  now  going  to  a  private  tender  for 
ambulance  services  across  Ontario? 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  not  supplementary 
to  the  original  question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  It  is  on  the  same  line  as  we 
are  talking  about. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  I  can't  detect  that  the 
question  is  supplementary  to  the  original. 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  doesn't  even  know  about 


Mr.  Roy:  That  is  a  good  supplementary, 
right  on.  The  minister  is  embarrassed,  isn't 
he? 


Mr.  Sargent:  Is  this  true? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  the  origind  question 
had  to  do  with  something  other  than  tender- 
ing for  ambulance  services. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Is  this  true? 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  The  am- 
bulance and  the  use  ot  such  equipment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  if  the  hon.  member  for 
St.  George  says  so,  I  will  accept  it  as  a 
supplementary. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Does  the  minister  know  the 
answer  or  doesn't  he  know  the  answer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
point  out  that  I  do  not  believe  the  member 
is  correct.  I  would  hke  him  to  show  me  one 
of  those  signs  to  indicate  that  we  have  called 
for  public  tender. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  will  do  that.  The  minister 
doesn't  even  know  about  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Essex- 
Kent  on  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Yes,  sup- 
plementary of  this  minister:  Since  his  regula- 
tions or  rules  call  for  150,000  miles  on  a 
vehicle,  how  is  it  that  the  Ontario  Provincial 
Police  force  demands  not  more  than  90,000 
miles  on  its  cars  before  they  must  be  re- 
placed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  First  of  all,  the  member 
jumped  to  a  conclusion.  I  did  not  say  that 
there  was  a  regulation.  In  fact  there  are 
no  regulations  governing  the  number  of  miles 
per  vehicle  under  the  Ambulance  Act— of  that 
I  can  assure  the  members— since  at  this  point 
in  time  no  regulations  have  been  proclaimed. 

Mr.  Reid:  How  about  the  cabinet 
limousines?  How  many  miles  do  they  have 
to  have? 

Mr.  Roy:  Until  the  licence  plates  get 
dirty. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  It  is  a  simple  question. 
If  you  looked  at  the  number  of  miles  a 
commercial  vehicle  in  service  with  any  min- 
istry is  able  to  perform  before  it  is  with- 
drawn from  service,  you  would  find  that  in 
the  main  it  is  in  excess  of  100,000  miles. 
The  real  answer  is  that  when  the  cost  of 
maintenance  exceeds  the  values  of  the  service 
in  the  future,  then  you  withdraw  a  vehicle 
from  service. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


441 


Mr.   Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  is  next. 


POLICE  RAID  ON  RECREATION  CLUB 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  question  of  the  Solicitor 
General:  Can  he  explain  why,  when  the  OPP 
recei\  ed  a  tip  from  American  police  that  led 
them  to  raid  the  Bay  Centre  Recreation  Club 
and  the}'  succeeded  in  seizing  on  Louis 
Tavano— whose  sins  as  the  head  of  organized 
crime  were  related  here  in  the  Legislatiu-e 
on  Xo\\  6,  1970;  a  man  who  has  received 
some  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  of  layoflF 
bets  from  Ontario— why,  when  the  Solicitor 
General  had  him  in  his  hands,  did  he  let  him 
go  without  an\-  charge? 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  was  no  reason  to  lay  a  charge 
against  one  Louis  Tavano,  if  he  is  the  same 
person  to  whom— 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  could  always  fine  a 
dentuiist 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —the  hon.  member  is  re- 
ferring. They  were  attending  a  stag;  there 
were  some  charges  laid  under  the  Liquor 
Control  Act.  There  were  no  charges  laid 
under  the  Code;  there  was  no  illegal  game  in 
progress  when  the  raid  took  place. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  He  was  here  to  see  Casa 
Loma. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  So  there  was  no  reason 
to  hold  or  seize  or  charge  Tavano. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary,  if  I  may,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Were  the  officers  who  held  Tavano 
for  those  brief  moments  not  aware  of  the 
tape  of  the  phone  recordings  of  Tavano's 
con\ersations  with  one  Nicoletti  of  Niagara 
Falls?  The  OPP  now  hold  these.  They  were 
sent  to  the  Solicitor  General  by  the  New 
York  police  and  prove  that  Tavano  is  the 
person  who  has  been  receiving  all  the  layoflF 
bets  from  Ontario.  Did  the  OPP  who  held 
him  not  realize  that? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Question. 

Mr.  Shulman:  And  if  they  did  hold  him, 
wh\-  did  the>  not  lay  charges  of  bookmaking? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  said, 
there  were  no  charges  laid  against  anyone 
attending  that  particular  stag.  There  were 
charges  la  id- 
Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  We  know 
that:  w  h\-  not? 


Mr.  Shulman:  That  is  wrong. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —as  far  as  liquor  was  con- 
cerned, with  those  people  who  were  operat- 
ing the  stag.  Tavano  wasn't  in  that  category. 
There  are  no  charges  pending  against  Tavano 
in  Canada  at  the  present  time;  and  we  are 
not  aware  of  any  charges  at  the  present  time 
in  the  US  against  one  Tavano. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  member  for  Bellwoods 
(Mr.  Yaremko)  used  to  do  better. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  principle. 

Mr.  Shulman:  May  I  ask  a  further  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  I  will  permit  one  more. 

Mr.  Roy:  Make  it  quick. 

Mr.  Shulman:  In  view  of  the  evidence  the 
OPP  now  holds  against  Tavano,  if  the  Solici- 
tor General  gets  him  again  will  he  lay  charges 
against  him? 

Mr.  Roy:  They'll  never  get  him  again;  no 
way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  have 
to  investigate  the  evidence  that  the  OPP 
has  against  Tavano,  if  it  is  the  same  Tavano 
to  which  the  hon.  member  is  referring.  But 
certainly  Tavano  is  well  known  to  the  OPP. 
If  it  is  the  sam^  man,  and  there*  are  reasons 
to  lay  charges,  charges  would  be  laid. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Maybe 
there  are  two  of  them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Attending  a  stag  is  reason 
enough. 

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


USE  OF  CRIMINAL  RECORDS 

Mr.  Roy:  To  the  same  minister,  the  Soli- 
citor General:  This  involves  a  Mr.  John  Rice 
from  Hamilton  who  was  refused  by  a  com- 
pany to  be  bonded  because  of  a  criminal 
record.  It  was  subsequently  found  out  by  the 
police  that  they  had  made  a  mistake,  after 
long  and  painful  inquiry.  Does  the  minister 
not  feel  that  police  should  make  disclosure 
of  criminal  records  of  individuals  when  they 
ask;  and  secondly,  that  prints  and  photo- 
graphs taken  subsequent  to  an  indictable 
offence  should  be  destroyed  after  the  charge 
is  dismissed  against  the  individual? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:   I  would  say  yes  to  both 

of  those  questions. 


442 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:  A  supplementary  to  my  question, 
Mr.  Speaker:  If  an  innocent  victim  is  denied 
a  job  or  suffers  financial  losses  because  of 
refusal  of  bonding  when  an  error  is  made, 
does  he  not  feel  that  such  innocent  victims 
should  receive  some  form  of  compensation, 
either  from  the  Criminal  Injuries  Compensa- 
tion Board  or  otherwise? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  no 
provisions  at  the  present  time  to  compensate 
victims  of  that  kind.  There  could  be  an  ex 
gratia  compensation  payment,  I  suppose,  de- 
pending on  the  circumstances;  but  it  is  pos- 
sible that  civil  charges  could  be  laid  in  a 
case  like  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Compassionate  compensation. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  I  may  ask  just  one  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  Roy:  Just  a  quickie. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  has  been  exceeded. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Mr.  Morrow,  from  the  standing  procedural 
affairs  committee,  presented  the  committee's 
report,  which  was  read  as  follows  and 
adopted: 

Your  committee  has  carefully  examined  the 
following  applications  for  private  Acts  and 
finds  the  notices,  as  published  in  each  case, 
sufficient: 

City  of  Belleville; 

St.  Catharines  Slovak  Club  Ltd.; 

City  of  Hamilton  (Nos.  1  and  2); 

City  of  Ottawa;  WeHington  County  Board 
of  Education  (Township  of  Puslinch); 

Niagara  Peninsular  Railway  Co.; 

Incorporated  Synod  of  the  Diocese  of  On- 
tario; 

Town  of  Strathroy; 

Root's  Dairy  Ltd.; 

Town  of  Ingersoll; 

City  of  Niagara  Falls; 

Tara  Exploration  and  Development  Com- 
pany Ltd.; 

Town  of  Walkerton; 

City  of  Kitchener; 


City  of  Orillia; 

Diamond  and  Green  Construction  Co. 
Ltd.; 

Victoria  Hospital  Corp.  and  the  War  Me- 
morial Children's  Hospital  of  Western 
Ontario; 

Borough  of  North  York; 

City  of  Toronto  (No.  1); 

University  of  Western  Ontario; 

Dominion  Cartage  Ltd.  and  Downtown 
Storage  Co.  Ltd. 

Your  committee  further  recommends  that 
copies  of  the  Canadian  Parliamentary  Guide 
be  purchased  for  distribution  to  the  members 
of  the  assembly. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough  presented  the  joint 
report  by  the  Ministry  of  Energy  and  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  on  uranium 
and  associated  nuclear  fuel. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  commencing 
tomorrow  and  until  further  order  this  House 
will  not  sit  in  the  chamber  on  Wednesdays. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  May  I  ask  the  House 
leader,  through  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  wh)'  we 
don't  sit  on  Wednesday?  Am  I  correct  in 
assuming  it's  purely  to  facilitate  the  cabinet? 
The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  many  of  us 
come  from  far  away  and  we  want  to  have— 

An  Hon.  member:  Tell  us  about  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  We  have  obligations  in  our 
own  ridings;  albeit  that  we  are  now  financially 
assisted  in  returning  to  our  ridings,  I  think 
that  begs  the  question.  Why  don't  we  sit  on 
Wednesday?  The  cabinet  surely  can  do  its 
business  on  some  other  day. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes  Why  doesn't  the  member 
come  Mondays?  Why  doesn't  he  sit  on 
Mondays? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  If  the  government  wants  to 
pick  a  day  when  the  House  doesn't  sit,  why 
don't  we  do  away  with  Friday  because  it  is 
only  for  a  few  hours  at  best? 

Mr.  Roy:  Right;  that's  right. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  am  not  trying— with  all  the 
catcalling  and  the  claptrap,  I  want  sincerely 


MARCH  26,  1974 


443 


to  ask  this  question,  because  I  find  myself 
here  tomorrow.  There  is  some  constituency 
work  to  be  done  but  also  there  are  obligations 
back  in  the  Samia  riding.  I  don't  like  the 
idea  of  going  back  on  Wednesday  and  coming 
back  here  on  Thursday. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon  (Dovercourt):  Two  days  a 
week. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  can  cut  his  law  practice 
down. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  suggest  to  the  House 
leader  that  we  move  it  to  Friday  and  then 
we  can  go  home. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  know 
the  hon.  member  knows  full  well  that  the 
committees  are  now  being  constituted  and 
as  soon  as  the  budget  is  in  there  will  be  all 
kinds  of  adequate  work  for  the  committees 
to  participate  in  regardless  of  what  the  mem- 
bers do  on  Friday. 

Mr.  Sargent:  We  can  sit  in  the  mornings. 

Mr.  Roy:  Answer  the  question. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  1  just  want  to  say,  sir,  and 
I  sav  this  indelicately,  that  is  hogwash. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  A  member  may  speak 
onl\-  once  during  motions. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Does  the  minister  recognize 
that- 

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

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —only  three  per  cent  of 
bills  went  to  committee  anyway? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  devote 
myself  to  the  comments  of  the  hon.  member 
for  Samia.  Rather  than  moving  the  day  from 
Wednesday  to  Friday,  could  I  ask  the  House 
leader  if  he  would  attempt  to  make  sure  that 
there  is  suflBcient  work  being  done  in  the 
committees  to  justify  having  a  day  out  of  the 
House.  We  can  have  delegations  before  the 
committees.  We  can  have  work  being  done 
on  Wednesdays- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  That  is  the  point.  They 
don't  do  anything. 

Mr.  Deans:  —so  that  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  are  kept  busy,  because  Wednes- 


day has  to  be  a  working  day  like  every  other 
day. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  That's  the  way  it  will 
be. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That  isn't  the  way  it  used 
to  be. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  motion  carry? 

Those  in  favour  of  the  motion  will  please 
say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

I  declare  the  motion  carried. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  of  the  House  leader, 
Mr.  Speaker,  if  there  are  copies  of  that 
uranium  document  available? 

Mr.  Roy:  We'll  get  it  next  Wednesday. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  isn't  3  o'clock. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  It  is  my  understanding 
that  they  were  to  be  distributed.  Where  they 
were  distributed,  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Foulds:  To  the  press. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  are  not  distributed.  They 
have  been  given  to  the  media.  It  would  be 
nice  if  we  could  have  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  They  may  be  in  the 
member's  post  office  box. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills. 


CITY  OF  ORILLIA  ACT 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Orillia. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  NIAGARA  FALLS  ACT 

Mr.  Morningstar  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respectnig  the  City  of 
Niagara  Falls. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


TARA  EXPLORATION  AND 
DEVELOPMENT  CO.  LTD.  ACT 

Mr.    Yakabuski,    in    the    absence   of    Mrs. 
Scrivener,  moves  first  reading  of  bill  intituled, 


444 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  Act  respecting  Tara  Exploration  and  De- 
velopment Co.  Ltd. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


DIAMOND  AND  GREEN 
CONSTRUCTION  CO.  LTD.  ACT 

Mr.  Singer  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  Diamond  and 
Green  Construction  Co.  Ltd. 


rOrateur,  que  ce  bill  est  pour  la  protection 
des  droits  fondamentaux  himiains  de  tous  les 
individus  de  la  province  et  presentement  il 
n'y  a  aucune  legislation  au  niveau  provincial 
qui  protege  les  droits  des  individus  contre  la 
legislation  provinciale. 

Je  considere  ce  genre  de  legislation  essentiel 
ici  dans  la  province.  Vous  etes  d'accord,  je 
suis  certain  que  voiis  etes  d'accord  avec  cela, 
M.  rOrateur. 


Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill.  M""'  Speaker:  I  believe  that  was  in  order. 


ROOT'S  DAIRY  LTD.  ACT 

Mr.  Allan  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  Root's  Dairy  Ltd. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

CITY  OF  HAMILTON  ACT  (No.  1 ) 

Mr.  J.  R.  Smith  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Hamilton. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  HAMILTON  ACT  (No.  2) 

Mr.  J.  R.  Smith  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Hamilton. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


ONTARIO  BILL  OF  RIGHTS  ACT 

Mr.  Roy  moves  first  reading  of  bill  intituled, 
An  Act  to  establish  the  Ontario  Bill  of  Rights. 

Motion  *greed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  you  know,  the 
Canadian  Bill  of  Rights  enacted  by  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Canada  in  1960  provides  for  the 
protection  of  certain  human  rights  and  funda- 
mental freedoms,  but  its  eflFectiveness  is 
limited  by  the  fact  that  it  operates  only  within 
the  federal  field.  The  Ontario  Bill  of  Rights  is 
intended  for  the  protection  of  the  same 
human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms  so 
that  those  rights  and  freedoms  will  have  the 
protection  in  both  provincial  and  federal  fields 
of  legislative  jurisdiction.  As  you  know,  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  number  of  other  provinces  have 
enacted  similar  legislation  and  we  in  this 
province  consider  that  il  is  important,  espe- 
cially when  we  have  some  of  the  steamrolling 
legislation  that  is  presented  in  this  House. 

I  might  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  French,  je 
voudrais    dire    simplement    en    frangais,    M. 


CITY  OF  BELLEVILLE  ACT 

Mr.  Taylor  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  the  City  of  Belle- 
ville. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


TOWN  OF  WALKERTON  ACT 

Mr.  Sargent  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  the  own  of  Wal- 
kerton. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


TOWN  OF  INGERSOLL  ACT 

Mr.  Parrott  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  the  Town  of  Inger- 
soll. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  TORONTO  ACT  (No.  1> 

Mr.  Wardle  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  the  City  of  To- 
ronto. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


NIAGARA  PENINSULAR  RAILWAY 
CO.  ACT 

Mr.  Deacon  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  the  Niagara  Penin- 
sular Railway  Co. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


INCORPORATED  SYNOD  OF  THE 
DIOCESE  OF  ONTARIO  ACT 

Mr.  Nuttall  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
titu^efl,  An  Act  respecting  the  Incorporated 
Synod    of   the    Diocese    of    Ontario. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


445 


ST.  CATHARINES  SLOVAK  CLUB 
LTD. 

Mr.  Johnston  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  St.  Catharines 
Slovak  Club  Ltd. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

DEVELOPMENTAL  SERVICES  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle  moves  second  reading 
of  Bill  7,  the  Developmental  Services  Act, 
1974. 

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

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker— 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may, 
I  have  some  remarks  I  think  would  be  of 
interest  to  all  members. 

The  purpose  of  the  Developmental  Ser- 
vices Act,  1974,  is  to  transfer  administrative 
responsibilities  for  facilities  for  mentally  re- 
tarded persons  from  the  Ministry  of  Health 
to  the  Ministry  of  Community  and  Social 
Services. 

This  legislation  is  the  first  phase  of  the 
implementation  of  the  green  paper  policy 
which  called  for  the  integration  of  all  pro- 
grammes for  the  mentally  retarded  under  the 
Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Services. 
This  bill  is  the  enabling  legislation  to  effect 
that  transfer  as  of  April  1,  1974.  The  bill  is 
designed  to  enable  the  programme  currently 
operated  by  the  Ministry  of  Health  to  be 
transferred  essentially  as  is,  thus  ensuring 
continuity  of  operation. 

As  hon.  members  will  recall,  a  year  ago 
in  March,  1973  a  green  paper  was  released 
outlining  a  new  policy  focus  of  the  Ontario 
government  with  respect  to  the  needs  of  the 
retarded.  This  was  entitled,  "Community 
Living  for  the  Mentally  Retarded  in  On- 
tario: A  New  Policy  Focus."  We  have  copies 
of  this  paper  in  our  ministry.  It's  a  very 
interesting  brochure,  and  if  some  of  the  hon. 
members  would  like  to  have  a  copy  we  would 
be  pleased  to  make  it  available.  This  fol- 
lowed upon  recommendations  made  earlier 
in  the  1971  Williston  report. 

We  asked  for  reaction  to  this  statement 
of  policy,  and  invited  suggestions  from  the 
people  of  Ontario  as  to  how  this  policy 
might  be  most  suitably  implemented  with 
local  communities.  The  response  we  received 


has  been  most  favourable,  and  brought  with 
it  many  constructive  suggestions.  Many  in- 
dividuals and  groups  have  written  to  com- 
mend the  government  for  adopting  this  new 
policy  stance.  Since  that  time,  the  Ministry 
of  Health  and  oflBcials  with  my  own  Ministry 
of  Community  and  Social  Services  have  de- 
termined a  feasible  plan  and  the  transfer  will 
be  effective  this  April  1. 

On  Jan.  25  last,  a  special  joint  meeting 
of  the  Ontario  Association  for  the  Mentally 
Retarded  and  our  ministry  was  held  here 
at  Queen's  Park  to  discuss  the  various  as- 
pects of  the  transfer  and  to  receive  the  views 
of  all  those  concerned.  This  was  an  impor- 
tant and  valuable  interchange  of  information. 
Following  these  discussions,  a  special  meet- 
ing of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  asso- 
ciation was  held,  and  I  understand  that  a 
summary  of  our  discussions  and  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  board  have  been  circu- 
lated to  all  local  associations  for  the  mentally 
retarded  throughout  the  province. 

The  position  of  the  provincial  government 
concerning  the  concept  of  community  living 
for  the  mentally  retarded  is  straightforward. 
The  government  has  adopted  a  policy  in 
which  the  following  considerations  are  im- 
plicit: 

First,  that  the  mentally  retarded  person 
be  given  every  opportunity  to  develop  to 
his  ultimate  potential;  in  other  words,  that 
he  be  given  the  greatest  possible  degree  of 
participation  in  society.  Second,  that  society 
must  maintain  for  him  the  maximum  degree 
of  normalcy  in  all  of  his  experiences  to  allow 
him  a  healthy  and  happy  develoment  as  a 
total  person;  and,  third,  that  the  mentally 
retarded  person  has  access  to  the  full  range 
of  community  services.  ^ 

Of  the  several  thousand  adults  and  chil- 
dren presently  in  institutions  throughout  the 
province  because  of  mental  retardation,  we 
are  convinced  that  many  could  benefit  from 
living  as  an  integral  part  of  the  community. 
I  would  like  to  emphasize  that  community 
participation  is  the  cornerstone  on  which  the 
philosophy  of  community  care  for  the  re- 
tarded has  been  established,  and  yet  we  rec- 
ognize that  this  may  well  be  the  most 
difiicult  part  of  our  task  ahead. 

There  must  be  a  variety  of  linkages  to 
the  services  already  available  in  the  com- 
munity. Moreover,  there  must  also  be  an 
extension,  expansion  and  diversification  of 
such  services  in  communities  not  only  to 
meet  the  needs  of  those  returning  to  them 
from  institutions,  but  also  of  those  persons 
with  developmental  handicaps  now  living  in 


446 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  community.  It  will  be  apparent  to  all 
that  such  a  programme  —  community  living 
for  the  mentally  retarded  —  will  take  some 
time  to  develop  and  eflFect  properly.  This 
expansion  of  activities  will  require  additional 
funds  at  a  time  when  many  other  urgent 
needs  also  merit  attention. 

One  source  of  funding  which  we  have 
been  exploring  is  cost-sharing  with  the  fed- 
eral government.  We  have  developed  this 
bill  keeping  this  in  mind.  A  number  of  other 
provinces  have  followed  this  approach 
through  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan. 

As  members  know,  the  basic  piupose  of 
the  Canada  Assistance  Plan  is  to  authorize 
the  making  of  contributions  by  the  federal 
government  towards  the  cost  of  provincial 
assistance  and  social  services  in  respect  of 
persons  in  need. 

Ontario's  family  benefits  programme  meets 
the  Canada  Assistance  Plan  guidelines.  Sev- 
eral thousand  adults  with  developmental 
handicaps  presently  living  in  communities 
are  already  receiving  family  benefits  allow- 
ances. We  propose  to  extend  eligibility  to  all 
individuals  aged  18  and  over  who  are  resi- 
dent in  the  facilites  for  the  retarded  being 
transferred  to  the  Ministry  of  Community 
and  Social  Services.  Such  an  arrangement 
would  provide  to  a  mentally  retarded  person 
the  care  and  other  assistance  he  requires 
while  a  resident  in  an  institution,  and  the 
allowances  under  the  Act  while  in  his  local 
community.  In  either  case  there  would  be 
provision  for  his  needs. 

Additionally,  for  those  who  can  return  to 
community-based  living,  family  benefits  al- 
lowances would  be  portable  and,  therefore, 
the  present  waiting  period  for  the  allowance 
following  discharge  would  be  avoided.  Thus 
this  policy  will  facilitate  mobility  for  those 
adults  presently  institutionalized  whose  par- 
ents wish  them  to  return.  It  could  also 
relieve  parents  of  some  expense  and  their 
anxietv  over  the  future  security,  care  and 
costs  in  respect  of  their  retarded  sons  and 
daughters  for  under  this  plan  these  persons 
would  receive  lifelong  care  and  service  if 
required. 

The  individual  mentally  retarded  adult  is, 
in  a  vast  majority  of  cases,  a  person  unable 
to  provide  for  his  needs  and  as  such  should 
readily  qualify  under  the  Family  Benefits 
Act.  Eligibility  would  be  determined  in  re- 
spect of  the  mentally  retarded  adult  and  not 
on  the  basis  of  his  family.  Virtually  all  adult 
residents  of  institutions  transferring  from 
"Health  to  Community  and  Social  Services 
are  without  assets  and  therefore  eligible  for 
familv  benefits. 


In  respect  of  mentally  retarded  children 
the  procedures  might  be  slightly  different  but 
the  benefits  for  them  would  be  just  as  great. 
Here,  too,  greater  mobility  and  access  to 
facilities  appropriate  to  the  individual  need 
could  be  achieved.  For  these  situations  pro- 
vision is  made  for  a  parent  to  enter  into  an 
agreement  for  the  care  and  training  of  his 
child.  This  agreement  could  be  on  such  a 
basis  and  the  care  and  training  could  be  at 
such  a  location  as  was  deemed  appropriate 
to  the  needs  of  the  child  at  any  given  point 
of  time  in  the  child's  development.  The 
amount  a  parent  might  be  expected  to  pay 
would  be  reduced  by  taking  into  account  not 
only  his  ability  to  pay  but  also  the  burden 
of  any  extra  costs  he  bears  in  respect  of  such 
child. 

The  government  has  not  yet  decided 
whether  to  adopt  the  agreement  for  service 
approach  and  we  will  not  decide  imtil  there 
has  been  further  opportunity  to  consult  fully 
with  parents  and  other  interested  persons. 

Iti  conclusion,  the  most  important  jK)int  is 
that  we  assist  individuals  to  develop  to  the 
maximum  of  their  potential.  This  entails  ex- 
panding people's  abilities  as  much  as  pos- 
sible by  training,  and  then  using  their  cap- 
abilities to  the  maximum  extent.  In  doing  so, 
we  want  to  ensure  that  they  are  members 
of  the  community  and  society  in'  general. 
Community  services  and  facilities  must  be  an 
integral  part  of  that  process. 

We  must  strive  to  make  living  arrange- 
ments within  the  community  as  normal  as 
possible.  The  support  systems  of  the  Ministry 
of  Community  and'  Social  Services  should  help 
in  the  establishment  of  such  care  systems  in 
a  community  setting  which  is  a  primary  reason 
for  transferring  the  mental  retardation  pro- 
gramme to  our  ministry. 

We  recognize,  of  course,  that  institutional 
care  is  the  only  appropriate  method  of  pro- 
viding for  the  needs  of  some  individuals.  Be- 
cause of  this,  we  will  ensure  that  our  facil- 
ities will  continue  to  provide  a  high  level  of 
care  and  service. 

In  summary,  the  Development  Services 
Act,  1974,  is  essentially  enabling  legislation: 

To  effect  the  transfer  of  responsibilities  for 
services  to  the  mentally  retarded  in  Ontario 
from  the  Ministry  of  Health  to  the  Ministry 
of  Community  and  Social  Services; 

To  authorize  the  Ministry  of  Commimity 
and  Social  Services  to  operate  and  administer 
the  programme; 

And  to  provide  the  legislative  base; 

To  expand  the  programme,  to  re-orient  the 
programme  toward  community  living  for  the 
mentally  retarded; 


MARCH  26,  1974 


447 


(And  to  attract  federal  cost-sharing. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  introduction  of  the  De- 
velopmental Services  Act,  1974,  is  just  the 
beginning.  The  recent  Speech  from  the 
Throne  referred  to  some  of  our  programme 
plans.  We  look  ahead  over  the  next  months 
and  years  to  the  development  of  a  full  co- 
ordinated range  of  services  for  the  mentally 
retarded  in  this  province  based  on  the  frame- 
work we  are  now  establishing. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  our  party  will 
support  this  bill  in  principle.  It  is  achieving 
what  we  feel  is  long  overdue,  the  elimina- 
tion of  confusion  between  those  mentally  re- 
tarded or  mentally  handicapped  who  have 
been  in  hospitals  and  those  who  could  be 
moved  from  those  hospitals  into  the  com- 
munity if  the  community  was  in  a  position  to 
provide  the  facilities. 

We  had  an  interesting  situation  in  York 
county  a  couple  of  years  ago.  There  was  a 
proposal  for  a  major  expansion  of  the  Aurora 
hospital,  and  it  would  have  been  using  funds 
that  could  be  better  used  for  the  develop- 
ment of  further  facilities  of  a  community 
nature  similar  to  High  Point,  which  has  been 
built  and  is  successfully  operating  in  the  town 
of  Markham. 

The  closer  we  can  get  these  people  to  the 
community,  the  more  opportunity  we  have  as 
citizens  to  understand  the  contribution  they 
can  make.  We  learn  a  great  deal  from  them 
in  their  own  way.  It  is  amazing.  As  you  work 
with  these  people  you  realize  they  may  be 
handicapped  in  some  ways  but  they  certainly 
aren't  in  others  and  they  have  a  lot  to  teach 
us.  The  change  that  has  occurred  in  the  last 
20  or  25  years  in  our  attitude  toward  those 
with  handicaps  is  certainly  gratifying.  Instead 
of  hiding  them  away  and  forgetting  them,  we 
seem  to  be  recognizing  that  they  do  provide 
something  in  the  community  in  a  way.  Even 
though  it  is  always  looked  upon  as  a  tragedy 
it  sometimes  actually  results  in  benefits  to  all 
of  us. 

We  have  some  of  the  concerns  in  the  bill. 
We  are  concerned  to  know  what  facilities  are 
being  transferred.  I  think  of  Orillia,  Bruce 
Springs,  Smiths  Falls,  where  I  have  been  at 
scouting  conferences  where  we  have  had  exist- 
ing groups  of  mentally  retarded!  in  those  in- 
stitutions. Will  they  now  become  institutions 
operated  by  this  department,  to  gradually  be 
phased  out?  Will  the  community  have  to  fund 
these  20  per  cent,  as  is  most  of  the  funding, 
I  believe,  imder  this  department's  programme 
of  assistance  to  local  communities  with  regard 
to  commtmity  type  developments?  I  think 
that  our  home  at  High  Point  is  funded  to  the 


extent  of  80  per  cent— the  balance  has  to 
come  from  the  commimity,  the  municipality— 
whereas  100  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the 
Ministry  of  Health  facilities  is  provided  by 
the  province.  These  are  things  we  want  to 
find  out  about,  and  others  in  our  party  will 
have  further  comments  to  make  on  this  bill. 

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

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  delighted  by  the  minister's 
latest  statement.  It  contains  a  good  deal 
more  than  the  original  statement  he  had, 
and  I  think  it  left  many  people  who  had 
seen  it  somewhat  in  a  bit  of  a  dilemma  as 
to  what  the  government  intended  to  do  in 
this  particular  ministry  with  respect  to  fund- 
ing. I  will  come  back  to  that  in  a  while. 

I  am  delighted  at  the  bill,  because  at  last 
we  are  not  going  to  look  on  this  as  strictly 
a  medical  problem,  but  in  fact  we  are  going 
to  look  at  the  mentally  retarded  as  people. 
The  former  has  been  going  on  for  too  long. 

I  am  not  going  to  deal  with  conditions  of 
the  past,  because  I  think  those  people  who 
work  in  this  field,  the  doctors  and  the  nurses, 
did  an  absolutely  fantastic  job  under  rather 
trying  circumstances,  such  as  the  overcrowd- 
ing. One  could  go  on  at  great  length  to 
point  out  the  bleakness  of  the  situation,  but 
then  I  think  when  one  recalls  some  of  the 
efforts  made  by  people  under  terrible  hard- 
ships to  make  life  at  least  palatable  for  the 
mentally  retarded  one  has  to  give  them  a 
good  deal  of  consideration. 

However,  if  the  government  is  merely  in- 
tent on  an  administrative  shift  and  that  is 
all— and  certainly  this  statement  indicates 
something  more  than  that,  but  if  it  is  just  a 
shift  from  one  administration  to  another, 
then  we  are  deluding  the  public  and  we  are, 
in  fact,  creating  a  hope  in  many  munici- 
palities, where  for  a  long  time  there  hasn't 
been  any,  with  respect  to  the  mentally  re- 
tarded. In  other  words,  I  am  saying  I  hope 
that  along  with  the  shift  from  one  ministry 
to  another  there  is  going  to  be  a  tremendous 
attack  on  the  problem  itself  as  it  has  con- 
fronted us  up  to  this  point.  But  simply  to 
shift  it  over  from  Health  to  Community  and 
Social  Services  and  do  nothing  beyond  that, 
we  are  really  going  through  a  formality  then. 

The  reasoning  for  this  is  quite  simple.  In 
the  past  we  had  a  habit  of  actualy  incarcerat- 
ing people.  We  put  them  in  a  holding  tank 
in  an  institution  and  we  left  them  there.  We 
looked  after  their  health  needs  and  we 
looked  after  their  sustenance,  but  did  noth- 
ing with  respect  to  training.  As  the  minister 


448 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


knows  after  our  battles  last  year  and  the 
year  before  during  his  estimates,  I  hold  a 
great  hope,  not  only  for  the  mentally  re- 
tarded but  for  anyone  who  comes  into  this 
particular  jurisdiction,  that  retraining  has 
to  be  the  answer  to  resolving  many  of  the 
problems  confronting  people. 

I  would  hope  that  the  efforts  made  by 
many  private  citizens— and  I'll  come  back  to 
that  in  a  moment  too— will  also  be  enhanced. 
I'm  talking  particularly  of  something  I  be- 
lieve came  under  this  ministry  before,  the 
funding  of  workshops  for  the  mentally  re- 
tarded which  was  certainly  inadequate,  both 
in  the  capital  costs  and  any  financial  assist- 
ance to  continue  to  maintain  it. 

That  is  one  of  the  concerns  I  expressed 
earlier.  If  we  are  going  to  continue  along 
the  line  of  funding  the  workshops  for  the 
mentally  retarded  as  we  have  in  the  past, 
then  in  fact,  we  are  just  having  an  adminis- 
trative transfer.  Some  of  the  long  green  is 
going  to  have  to  be  provided  if  the  minister's 
statement  is  going  to  have  credence. 

By  that.  I  mean  if  we  are  going  to  retrain 
we  are  going  to  have  to  have  facilities.  If 
we  are  going  to  have  people  become  useful, 
we  are  going  to  have  to  have  facilities.  I 
believe  that  the  25  per  cent  you  now  fund 
for  workshops,  as  I  said  during  the  minister's 
estimates,  is  inadequate  and  if  we're  going 
along  that  stream  then  in  fact  we  are  pipe- 
dreaming— we  are  not  going  to  do  a  thing 
different  to  what  went  on  in  the  past. 

In  the  past  of  the  people  who  were  forced 
into  institutions,  either  those  administered  by 
the  Ministry  of  Health  or  into  private  insti- 
tutions, those  who  went  into  strictly  govern- 
ment institutions  such  as  Smiths  Falls  received 
total  financial  assistance.  I  understand  there 
was  a  meeting  the  other  night  in  Toronto 
which  a  representative  of  the  ministerial  staff 
attended  and  there  was  a  great  concern  ex- 
pressed there  as  to  what  the  funding  would 
actually  be.  I  see  in  the  minister's  statement 
today  that  there  is  still  no  real  finalization  of 
what  is  going  to  go  on. 

Tn  he  past  if  you  went  to  an  institution  it 
was  totally  funded.  If  the  placement,  let's  say, 
were  made  by  the  Children's  Aid  Society,  we 
were  talking  about  $733.95  per  month,  I  be- 
lieve, for  a  person  in  an  institution.  And 
if  we  included  food  and  clothing  we  were 
talking  about  $776.95.  Now  if  we  bring  them 
back  into  society,  and  hopefully  we  will,  I 
would  hope  that  the  government  is  willing 
to  spend  as  much  money  if  necessary  to  assist 
that  individual  as  has  been  the  case  in  the 
past. 


If  it  is  simply  to  cut  costs  for  the  Ministry 
of  Health  by  trying  to  dump  them  back  into 
the  community,  then  again  it  is  a  concern  I 
have  that  we  are  not  going  to  do  what  we 
are  setting  out  to  do.  I'm  not  saying  the 
government  has  to  be  wedded  to  that  figure 
in  any  way,  shape  or  form,  but  if  it  took  that 
much  for  someone  in  an  institution  sponsored 
by  the  government,  I  would  hope  that  equal 
amounts  of  money  are  going  to  be  available 
within  the  community  itself  to  assist  those  in 
the  community  who  need  it. 

As  I  understand  it  children  placed  by 
parents  in  private  institutions  of  a  sort  re- 
ceived 80  per  cent  funding  from  the  govern- 
ment in  the  past.  But  the  parents  in  fact  had 
to  meet  a  commitment  of  $146.79,  if  I 
understand  it  correctly.  Again,  Mr.  Speaker, 
there  is  great  concern  out  there.  The  people 
I  have  spoken  to  in  the  last  couple  of  weeks— 
those  working  with  social  planning  councils 
and  a  whole  variety  of  people  I  meet  with 
regularly— indicate  that  their  concern  is,  what 
is  going  to  happen  there?  Is  the  government 
going  to  continue  this  funding  or  are  the 
parents  in  fact  going  to  lose  that  type  of 
financial  assistance? 

I  have  grave  concern  as  to  what  is  going 
to  happen,  as  do  the  public  and  the  various 
associations  concerned,  when  the  minister's 
statement  indicates  that  there  is  nothing 
settied  yet.  If  it  means  that  parents  will  bring 
young  people  or,  as  the  minister  indicates, 
those  over  18  back  into  the  community  with- 
out a  clear  definition  of  what  the  financial 
implications  are  going  to  be  then  we  leave 
a  tremendous  amount  of  unrest  out  there. 

I  understand  there  was  unrest  in  the  meet- 
ing that  was  held,  I  believe,  on  Wednesday 
or  Thursday  of  last  week,  here  in  Toronto. 
Certainly  the  people  I  spoke  to  today— and  I 
have  only  been  in  for  a  few  moments  since 
the  House  opened— weren't  satisfied  with  the 
answers  that  were  given.  There  were  still 
some  grey  areas.  The  minister  indicates  or 
hints  at  that  in  his  statement  when  he  says, 
"In  respect  of  the  mentally  retarded  children 
the  procedures  might  be  slightly  different." 

I  think  we  should  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  what 
the  financial  implications  are,  not  only  with 
respect  to  those  placed  directly  into  mental 
institutions  but  those  placed  by  Children's 
Aid  Societies  or  directiy  by  parents.  I  think 
the  community  has  a  right  to  know  the  spe- 
cific terms  under  which  we  are  going  to  bring 
them  back  into  the  community  and  the  type 
of  funding  that  parents  and  the  commimity 
itself  can  expect  in  bringing  those  young 
people  or  those  over  18  back  into  the  com- 


MARCH  26,  1974 


449 


munity.  I  am  a  little  disturbed  by  the  grey 
area. 

I  would  also  like  to  ask  the  minister  if 
we  are  entering  into  a  social  rehabilitative 
programme  and  not  just  holding  tank  opera- 
tion, as  has  been  the  case  in  the  past.  We 
are  going  to  have  to  consider  such  things  as 
rehabilitation  for  those  who  are  employable. 
At  the  present  time  in  th  city  of  Sudbury 
we  are  trying  to  raise  funds  for  the  Jarrett 
Centre;  we  are  out  there  begging,  borrowing 
and  stealing  trying  to  raise  $100,000  so  we'll 
have  a  workshop.  If  necessary  we'll  steal  to 
have  a  workshop  for  the  mentally  retarded. 
I  think  the  government  has  got  to  provide 
more  funding  than  is  now  the  case  for  the 
capital  funding  for  the  workshops  for  these 
people,  if  it  is  going  to  be  meaningful.  I 
don't  think  we  can  ask  the  community  simply 
to  hope  it  can  raise  the  money  because  if  it 
is  aU  based  on  hope  that  it  can  raise  the 
money,  the  programme  itself  is  doomed  to 
failure.  It's  doomed  to  failure  before  it  even 
gets  off  the  ground. 

We  will  have  to  have  other  things  —legal 
aid.  Certainly  we  are  going  to  have  to  have 
more  legal  aid  for  those  people.  I  have  a 
prime  example  of  a  young  person  who  is 
deficient  who  was  recently  in  an  automobile 
accident  and  who  has  been  accused  of  driv- 
ing the  automobile  but,  in  fact,  was  not.  We 
are  tryins;  to  get  that  straightened  out  at  the 
present  time.  Again,  we  are  going  to  have  to 
make  sure  that  legal  aid  is  more  receptive. 

We  are  going  to  need  more  counselling. 
The  education  costs  are  going  to  be  greater 
and  I  don't  know  how  much  discussion  has 
gone  on  with  the  Ministry  of  Education  with 
respect  to  getting  these  young  people  back 
into  the  regular  school  stream.  I've  heard  a 
lot  about  it  in  the  years  I've  been  in  the 
Leeislature  and  yet  I  haven't  seen  a  great 
deal  that  impresses  me  about  getting  young 
peon^e  fitted  into  the  regular  school  pro- 
gramme. 

In  fact,  just  digressing  for  a  moment,  we 
ha\e  probably  the  finest  school  programme 
for  the  deaf  in  the  Sudbury  area  now,  ad- 
-nni  t^  p ^  by  ^he  board  of  education,  and 
we  can't  get  the  necessary  funding  for  that 
nart'CT7la^  programme.  If  we  are  talking  about 
getting  these  young  people  back  into  a  regu- 
lar school  situation  or  if  not  into  the  actual 
•"^assroom  at  least  into  the  same  school  facil- 
ity, again  there  has  to  be  funding.  I  wonder 
out  loud  at  the  present  time  just  how  much 
dialogue  there  has  been  between  the  Min- 
istr>-  of  Education  and  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  for  the  necessary 
funding?  Certainly  the  regular  type  of  grant 


structure  as  we  understand  it  for  the  normal 
child  isn't  going  to  work. 

If  the  minister  is  going  to  try  to  put  a 
retarded  child  into  a  regular  classroom  situa- 
tion using  the  type  of  enrolment  figures  we 
have  today,  he  is  going  to  have  disaster.  In 
that  field  I  do  speak  with  a  littie  authority, 
having  run  a  school  for  some  eight  years. 
These  are  questions  the  minister  is  going  to 
have  to  answer  when  he  rises  to  answer  on 
second  reading. 

We  are  also  going  to  have  to  look  into 
income  security— I've  mentioned  that  already 
very  briefly-but  again,  from  the  minister's 
own  statement,  the  programme  seems  to  be 
fairly  decided  for  those  over  18.  I  am  con- 
cerned about  those  under  18.  I  am  told  that 
for  people  who  have  very  high  incomes  of 
$13,000  to  $14,000,  if  they've  got  three  or 
four  other  kiddies,  it  becomes  almost  an  im- 
possibility to  carry  on  family  life  with  the 
same  amounts  of  money;  it  takes  a  good  deal 
more— I  don't  have  first  hand  experience  of 
that— having  a  mentally  retarded  child  in  the 
natural  home. 

The  minister  talks  about  some  group  hous- 
ing and  could  I  ask  him,  for  God's  sake,  not 
to  do  what  they  did  in  Sudbury?  They  built 
an  institution  in  Sudbury  at  Algoma  San  for 
treating  the  emotionally  disturbed  and  that's 
no  closer  to  the  natural  environment  of  the 
child  than  this  building  is.  It  is  an  edifice; 
it  houses  10  or  12  kids.  It's  totally  away 
from  what  Vanier  has  in  Europe  and  what 
Bro\vn's  camps  have  in  Ontario  for  the  emo- 
tionally disturbed.  It  is  too  elaborate.  It  is  too 
lush. 

Emotionally  disturbed  children  in  the  Sud- 
bury area  don't  come  from  homes  that  are 
worth  $200,000,  but  that  is  what  that  place 
is  like.  It  is  a  way  too  elaborate,  because  if 
you  try  to  work  the  child  back  into  the  regu- 
lar home  situation  and  the  regular  home 
style  he  is  completel  divorced  from  it.  It  is 
an  institution;  it  is  an  edifice  to  an  architect. 
It  is  a  wasse  of  money—  all  these  great,  gran- 
diose buildings  that  don't  meet  needs.  If  we 
were  talking  about  putting  people  in  a  set- 
ting which  is  close  to  their  own  home  situa- 
tion, then  by  and  large  what  we  should  be 
talking  about  is  small  oottage^type  homes  and 
not  the  nonsense  that  was  built  at  Algoma 
San  two  years  ago.  It  was  a  waste  of  money. 

I  have  already  mentioned  workshops.  I 
hope  the  minister  can  indicate  today  that  he 
is  willing  to  fund  the  workshops/  in  the 
various  communities,  particularly  capital 
costs,  to  get  them  established.  I  mentioned 
the  Jarrett  institution.  They  are  trying  to  raise 
$100,000.    I   would   suspect   that   under  the 


450 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


present  programme  the  most  they  could  an- 
ticipate from  the  province  would  be  $25,000. 
I  might  even  be  a  little  high  on  that,  but  we 
are  presently  using  an  old  school  building 
which  is  totally  inadequate. 

A  friend  of  mine,  a  principal,  went  to  visit 
it  a  couple  of  weeks  ago,  and  he  phoned  me. 
He  said:  "I  couldn't  believe  it.  I  just  couldn't 
believe  we  were  working  with  mentally  re- 
tarded adults,  in  that  type  of  building.  No 
discredit  to  the  people  who  are  trying  to 
operate  it,  but  that  we  would  put  people  in 
there  in  that  type  of  facility  to  work  is 
ridiculous. 

The  main  reason  for  that  of  course  is  that 
there  is  inadequate  funding  to  build  the 
adult  workshops.  We  are  going  to  have  to 
put  more  money  in  there  if  we  hope  to  make 
the  programme  work  of  getting  these  people 
back  into  and  involved  in  the  community  and, 
if  possible,  doing  some  type  of  work.  I  men- 
tioned that  during  the  ministry's  estimates. 

Of  course,  the  final  point  I  want  to  make 
on  what  we  are  going  to  have  to  look  at  is 
the  long-term  continuity  of  care.  I  can  recall 
a  number  of  years  ago  asking  the  Ministry  of 
Health  to  look  into  the  radar  base  in  Falcon- 
bridge  and  take  it  over.  I  understand  that 
Dr.  Zarfas  has  looked  the  facility  over.  I  don't 
want  to  make  the  point  about  the  radar  base, 
but  a  want  to  make  the  point  of  medical  serv- 
ices that  are  going  to  be  available  in  the  com- 
munity as  a  backup  when  we  bring  these 
young  people  or  those  over  18  back  into  the 
community.  Medical  services  are  going  to 
have  to  be  available  much  more  readily  than 
is  presently  the  case.  I  would  suggest  to  the 
minister  that  some  type  of  co-ordination  has 
to  go  on  to  guarantee  that  the  proper  type 
of  medical  assistance  is  available. 

If  I  could  just  itemize  my  other  concerns, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  put  them  as  questions  to 
the  ministry.  Is  it  the  ministry's  intention  to 
continue  to  subsidize  present  costs  at  least 
to  80  per  cent  as  is  now  the  case?  Will  there 
be  a  needs  test  involved  for  the  parents? 
The  reason  that  I  put  that  question  forward 
is  that  I  would  suspect  that  if  we  move  to 
small  cottage-type  settings  for  some,  although 
they  are  back  within  the  community, 
they  might  not  be  living  with  their  parents. 
In  fact,  maybe  the  parents  can't  cope  with 
the  situation. 

What  would  be  the  funding  for  that  type 
of  child?  Is  it  still  going  to  be  $147  a  month? 
It  is  my  understanding  that  we  are  talking 
probably  about  an  additional  $1  or  $2  a  day. 
I  don't  know,  but  I  think  it  must  be  made 
abundantly  clear  today  what  we'  are  talking 


about.  I  indicated  that  I  have  been  talking 
to  a  number  of  people.  One  of  the  people  I 
was  talking  to  was  a  social  worker  in  Toronto 
and  she  referred  to  a  family  of  six  where  the 
father  was  earning  $14,000,  but  the  level 
from  which  the  Ministry  of  Health,  who  had 
this,  started  to  assist  that  family  was  so  high 
that  they  in  fact  fell  outside  the  financial 
assistance  and  it  became  a  real  hardship.  I 
think  the  ministry  has  to  indicate  that  as  a 
third  point. 

Fourthly,  is  there  going  to  be  additional 
cost  to  the  family  if  we  bring  them  back  into 
the  community?  I  think  that  has  to  be  \ery, 
very  clearly  put.  he  minister  has  indicated 
that  they  are  going  to  use  the  Canada  Assist- 
ance Plan  and  I  am  delighted  by  that,  be- 
cause for  two  years  I  have  been  urging  the 
minister,  during  the  estimates,  to  make  a 
good  deal  more  use  of  the  Canada  Assistance 
Plan.  I  think  this  ministry  has  fallen  flat  on 
its  face  with  respect  to  using  the  Canada 
Assistance  Plan.  Other  provinces  very  quickly 
got  the  jump  on  the  federal  go\ernment  and 
were  able  to  get  a  good  deal  more  funding 
than  this  province  has  even  attempted  to  get, 
and  the  minister  knows  well  of  what  I  speak. 

I  could  illustrate  what  Barrett  has  done  to 
get  $209  a  month  for  senior  citizens  or  for 
the  handicapped  in  BC.  He  made  use  of 
the  Canada  Assistance  Plan.  He  tells  me, 
however— and  I  give  this  to  the  minister 
as  warning— that  the  federal  government 
has  cottoned  on  to  what  it  had  really 
opened  up.  It  wasn't  itself  aware  of  the 
costs  that  it  was  opening  up.  In  speaking  to 
the  Premier  of  BC,  he  indicated  that  the 
federal  government  is  becoming  somewhat 
more  tightfisted  in  its  handout  of  money 
under  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan,  and  I  cau- 
tion the  minister  because  Mr.  Barrett  tells 
me  that  when  he  tried  to  get  extra  money 
for  his  income  plan  the  federal  government 
started  to  back  oflF  very  quickly. 

I  hope  when  it  comes  this  branch  of  the 
ministry  will  have  a  little  more  toughness 
about  it  than  it  did  in  that  section  under  the 
Homes  for  the  Aged  Act.  I  am  still  more  than 
a  little  bit  upset  that  Pioneer  Manor,  which 
was  scheduled  for  a  200-bed  addition,  was 
reduced  by  100  beds  and  I  understand  that 
there  are  all  kinds  of  efforts  being  made 
now  to  fmther  reduce  it  by  the  extra  100 
beds. 

Oh  yes,  Mr.  Minister,  I  too  have  my  "ins" 
and  I  know  that  at  a  meeting  about  three 
weeks  ago  last  night  it  was  suggested  that 
the  additional  100-bed  addition  scheduled  for 
Pioneer  Manor  this  year  could  well  be  put  oflF 


MARCH  26,  1974 


451 


for  at  least  another  year,  because  there  is  a 
building  in  Sudbury  to  which  the  people  in 
Smiths  Falls  are  presently  directing  the  men- 
tally retarded.  In  fact,  in  the  last  two  or  three 
weeks  the  parents  have  been  getting  letters 
from  Smiths  Falls  saying,  "We  are  going  to 
send  our  young  people  back  to  the  city  of 
Sudbury,  We  have  a  facility  for  them."  The 
same  facility  happens  to  be  the  place  where 
we  are  putting  the  home  for  the  aged.  It  sits 
on  a  highway— not  25  ft  back  from  the 
highway— Highway  69,  and  the  yotmg  men- 
tally retarded  are  being  placed  in  that  build- 
ing, Mr.  Minister,  at  the  present  time. 

In  fact,  a  part  of  that  building  is  going  to 
be  for  nursing  home  purposes,  a  part  will  be 
a  home  for  special  care  and  a  part  will  be  for 
residential  care.  Now,  need  I  tell  the  House 
who  has  an  interest  in  that  home?  The  former 
member  for  Nickel  Belt  has  an  interest  in 
that  building. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Is  that 
Gaston  Demers? 

Mr.  Martel:  And  we  are  bringing  back  the 
mentally  retarded  and  we  are  putting  them 
in  a  building  where  there  is  no  yard,  none. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Genua  (Sudbury):  No  swim- 
ming pool,  no  theatre. 

Mr.  Martel:   Nothing!  A  pile  of  rock. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Are  we  putting  Gaston  in  the 
building? 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  30  ft  away  from  the  main 
highway,  Highway  69  south,  and  we're  put- 
ting them  in  with  senior  citizens.  We're  put- 
ting them  in  with  those  who  need  nursing 
home  care;  and  we're  going  to  have  the 
mentally  retarded.  That  is  a  great  arrange- 
ment! That  ministry  should  be  ashamed  of 
itself  as  should  be  the  Ministry  of  Health  for 
allowing  that.  If  we're  ever  wedded  to  that 
we'll  never  get  the  money  out  of  this  gov- 
ernment for  the  type  of  facility  necessary. 
And  the  government  is  into  it  now. 

As  I  say,  the  efforts  are  being  made  as  a 
result  of  a  meeting,  and  I  had  a  friend  at 
the  meeting  so  I  know  full  well  what  went 
on  three  weeks  ago.  I  wrote  the  minister  as 
a  result  asking  him  what  in  God's  name  was 
going  on  concerning  the  further  suggestion 
that  we  don't  add  the  100  beds  to  Pioneer 
Manor. 

The  first  time  we  got  wind  that  the  mentally 
retarded  were  coming  back  to  Sudbury  was 
in  an  open-line  show  I  did  from  my  oflBce 
here  in  Toronto  on  a  hook-up  to  Sudbury  a 
week  ago  Wednesday.  A  couple  of  mothers 


phoned  in  and  told  me  they  were  advised  that 
their  children  were  coming  back  to  the  com- 
munity. I  suggested  the  parents  should  phone 
the  chief  medical  oflBcer  of  health,  Dr.  Barney 
Cook,  who  might  know  something  about  it 
because  I  certainly  didn't.  And  Barney  Cook 
didn't  know  anything  about  it. 

The  minister  wonders  why  a  little  earher  I 
mentioned  that  we  have  to  make  sure  there 
are  adequate  mental  facilities  and  so  on,  and 
adequate  medical  assistance.  There  was  the 
chief  medical  officer  of  health  totally  unaware, 
as  were  the  doctors  in  Sudbmy,  that  young 
people  were  being  sent  back  to  Sudbury  from 
Smiths  Falls.  What  kind  of  nonsense  is  that? 

Mr.  Germa:  They've  got  to  save  Gaston. 

Mr.  Martel:  Right.  Heon— what's  his  name? 
I  have  it  here  somewhere— Mr.  Heon  from 
New  Liskeard,  I  believe,  it  is;  our  friend 
Gaston  is  there.  As  I  say,  I  hope  the  new 
section  of  the  ministry  has  a  lot  more  con- 
viction that  the  group  which  headed  up  the 
nursing  home  section  under  Mr.  Crawford.  I 
can  we'll  recall  him  on  TV  saying,  "We  have 
to  cut  back.  We're  not  going  ahead  with  the 
200-bed  addition  to  make  sure  that  the 
private  facility  is  filled  up." 

Maybe  that's  the  way  Tories  think.  I  don't. 
I  happen  to  think  we  think  of  the  needs  of 
the  community.  The  best  senior  citizens'  facil- 
ity in  the  whole  province  has  to  be  the  one 
in  Sudbury  run  by  Ken  MacRae,  Pioneer 
Manor,  and  when  I  see  that  one  cut  back  to 
make  sure  that  Gaston's  private  nursing  home 
is  going  to  be  filled  up,  I  shudder— unless  the 
new  group  coming  in  has  a  lot  more  intestinal 
fortitude  than  was  demonstrated  in  that  little 
charade  last  spring  when  the  reduction  came. 

I  hope  the  minister  can  guarantee  to  me 
that  we're  not  going  to  see  a  further  delay 
in  the  100-bed  addition  to  Pioneer  Manor.  I 
hope  the  minister  can  indicate  to  me  that 
we're  not  going  to  be  tied  in  to  having  young 
mentally  retarded  in  a  building  which  doesn't 
have  a  ward,  as  I  say,  and  which  is  right  on 
the  highway. 

If  we  ever  get  into  that— and  I  know  par- 
ents are  going  to  object  to  what  I  say  today 
because  they  simply  want  their  young  people 
back,  I  sympathize  with  them  that  they 
want  them  back  so  they  don't  have  to  travel 
all  the  way  to  Smiths  Falls.  It's  not  a  very 
popular  position  to  take,  that  I  should  op- 
pose them  going  into  that  facility  at  the 
present  time  because  they  want  their  young 
people  back  and  because  it's  too  far  to  go 
to  Smiths  Falls.  But  I  know  that  if  we  ever 
get  wedded  to  that  those  young  people  will 


452 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


be  in  that  bloody  building  with  no  place 
to  go,  on  a  pile  of  rock,  for  the  next  20 
years. 

The  question  then  remains,  Mr.  Minister, 
are  we  serious,  are  we  really  serious,  about 
treating  these  young  people  as  people;  not 
—as  I  started  out  by  saying— as  mentally  re- 
tarded, but  as  people. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  St.  George. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, when  I  first  reviewed  this  proposed  legis- 
lation I  felt  it  was  possibly  a  step  forward, 
that  we  were  moving  in  a  somewhat  enlight- 
ened fashion  to  deal  in  this  area. 

And  yet,  having  read  the  statement  by  the 
minister,  I  am  very  deeply  concerned.  It 
seems  to  me  that  once  again  we  have  before 
us  a  piece  of  legislation  the  principles  of 
which  could  well  be  endorsed  by  all  of  those 
concerned  in  the  field.  However,  it  is  the 
same  sort  of  thing  you  see  in  the  philosophy 
developed  in  the  Ministry  of  Health;  that 
it  is  important  to  remove  people  from  active 
treatments  beds  and  to  see  that  they  have 
care  in  the  community,  only  what  we  get  in 
Toronto  in  this  case,  as  the  minister  laiows, 
is  not  home  care  or  really  extended  care,  but 
a  do-it-yourself  medical  treatment  program- 
me. 

It  is  because  of  this  that  I  am  deeply  wor- 
ried; because  again  we  see  a  philosophy 
proposed  that  these  people  who  are  unfor- 
tunately handicapped  shall  have  the  fullest 
opportunity  to  be  in  the  community,  but  if 
it's  left  like  that  then  I'm  afraid  that  I  can- 
not support  this  sort  of  legislation  without 
something  which  would  have  a  little  more 
teeth  in  it. 

I  look  at  some  of  the  things  talked  about 
in  the  bill  itself,  and  in  the  philosophy  of 
the  bill,  and  I  see  that  we  are  talking  in  two 
terms,  one  for  those  over  18  and  one  for 
children.  And  we  aren't  quite  sure  today 
what  we're  going  to  do  about  the  children. 
We  really  haven't  made  up  our  mind.  We're 
going  to  think  about  whether  we're  going 
to  move  on  an  agreement  for  service,  a  pur- 
chase of  service  approach.  We're  going  to 
think  about  it;  but  when?  And  why  hasn't 
it  been  thought  about  before  it's  introduced 
here  today?  Because  without  this  kind  of 
policy  we're  like  certain  daycare  centres, 
without  regulation.  We're  like  the  same  pic- 
ture in  the  Ministry  of  Health  that  I've  men- 
tioned; full  of  sound  and  fury  and  signifying 
precisely  nothing. 

In  the  Ministry  of  Health  one  of  their 
problems,  or  their  ripoffs— and  I'm  not  sure 


which  it  was— is  in  trying  to  assess  a  child's 
retardation.  As  you  know,  they  try  to  break 
it  down  into  mental,  emotional  or  environ- 
mental retardation.  I  would  like  to  know 
from  this  minister  whether  we're  going  to 
have  to  deal  between  two  ministries  to  really 
come  up  with  a  definition  of  the  person  with 
whom  we're  dealing.  Quite  candidly,  one  of 
the  first  things  I'd  like  the  minister  to  do 
is  explain  the  definition  of  the  area  with 
which  we're  dealing  because  I  don't  under- 
stand it.  I  can't  understand  the  meaning  of 
something  that  says  its  "developmental  han- 
dicap that  is  associated  with  limitations  in 
adaptive  behaviour." 

I  do  hope  the  minister  wiU  explain  that, 
because  I  can't  really  foUow  what  we  are 
talking  about;  particularly  in  those  terms 
which  may  be  grey  areas  between  mental, 
environmental  or  emotional  retardation,  and 
what  parents  do  and  what  in  fact  the  courts 
do.  Are  the  courts  going  to  have  some  kind 
of  assistance  in  dealing  with  these  children  as 
they  may  appear  in  the  courts?  Because  up 
until  now  it  has  been  a  pretty  poor  show 
so   far  as  the   Health  ministry  is  concerned. 

What  about  those  children  who  at  present 
are  in  care  in  a  residential  area,  in  a  facility 
for  children  or  juveniles  attached  to  our 
Ontario  Hospitals?  Where  are  they  going  to 
be  while  we  make  up  our  minds?  Is  this 
ministry  going  to  fund  that  portion  of  that 
kind  of  residential  cars,  or  is  it  still  going 
to  come  within  the  Health  ministry?  There 
is  nothing  here  to  say  any  thought  has  been 
given  to  that  situation. 

When  we  come  to  the  person  who  comes 
out  of  some  such  residential  facility,  we 
make  the  nice  statement  that  we  want  to 
make  the  living  arrangements  as  normal  as 
possible  within  the  community.  And  it  has 
already  been  touched  on  that  obviously  the 
question  in  that  case  is,  if  someone  over  18 
is  returned  to  the  community,  is  that  person 
returned  to  the  parents  with  the  usual  pious 
platitudes  which  are  so  often  mouthed  by  this 
particular  ministry  in  other  areas.  It  won't 
wash. 

To  me,  as  I  see  it,  what  we  have  here  is 
purely  and  simply  an  administrative  Act  that 
enables  a  transfer  to  be  made  as  of  April 
1,  and  nothing  else—and  no  assurance  that 
there  ever  will  be  anything  else.  There  is 
nothing  in  this  bill  itself  that  indicates  any 
concern  for  the  person  about  whom  this 
legislation  is  supposedly  drafted.  It  expresses 
concern  that  they  be  able  to  function  in  the 
community,  but  there  is  nothing  to  indicate 
to    what   extent   or   how   services   are   to   be 


MARCH  26,  1974 


453 


related  to  these  imfortimately  handicapped 
people. 

^  I  have  doubts  about  the  placement  of  such 
people  by  this  ministry  when  I  realize  that 
in  answer  to  my  questions  on  the  estimates, 
the  minister  stated  unequivocally  that  the 
physically  handicapped  children  could  go 
into  the  homes  for  the  aged  unless  the  local 
municipalities  or  private  agencies  provided 
the  service.  It  was  stated,  of  course,  that  so 
far  as  the  homes  for  the  aged  in  the  area 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  were  concerned, 
only  one  person  who  was  not  aged  was  actu- 
ally admitted  to  that  home,  and  that  was  a 
man  of  55  years.  There  is  no  denial  of  the 
fact  that  if  there  are  no  other  services  or 
facilities  available,  that  is  this  government's 
commitment  to  those  who  are  physically 
handicapped. 

I  have  no  sense  of  any  different  philosophy 
here,  unless  I  see  something  which  is  marked 
by  some  action  other  than  pious  statements. 

I  would  ask  the  minister  to  be  very  care- 
ful in  outlining,  if  he  will,  precisely  the 
phasing,  as  he  sees  it,  of  the  implementation 
of  this  legislation,  so  that  we  may  at  least 
have  less  doubt  than  we  have  at  the  moment 
as  to  the  real  purpose  and  emphasis  of  this 
legislation. 

Thank  >-ou,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Parkdale. 

Mr.  J.  Dukszta  (Parkdale):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
was  struck  by  the  hon.  member  for  St. 
George's  remarks  that  this  bill  is  largely  an 
administrati\-e  gesture.  I  sincerely  hope, 
echoing  her  sentiment,  that  it  is  not  an 
administrative  gesture  but  that  it  is  more  a 
statement  of  a  major  policy. 

I  found  the  green  paper  on  which  this 
policy  is  based  fairly  exciting.  Some  part  of 
it,  stating  as  it  does  the  community  approach 
to  our  treating  of  what  people  call  the 
mentally  retarded,  is  both  acceptable  and 
very  humane. 

Basicalh',  it  was  an  administrative  report 
which  has  many  of  its  own  very  good  features. 
The  point  is  how  many  of  them  wall  be  im- 
plemented? The  statements  issued  by  the 
minister  and  the  Act  itself  suggest  they  have 
at  the  moment  been  taken  seriously.  I  sup- 
pose I'm  saying  that  I  approve  of  the  bill 
generally  with  some  reservation,  which  I'll 
bring  later  on,  if  the  intentions  which  are 
stated  in  the  bill  are  going  to  be  implemented 
as  they  are  stated. 

We've  had  a  rather  notable  lack  of  imple- 
mentation of  ideas  in  the  Ministry  of  Health 
b)'    the    previous    Minister    of    Health,    who 


piously  mouthed  sentiinents  of  a  community 
health  approach  without  ever  doing  anything 
about  it— in  fact  doing  the  exact  opposite.  I 
am  almost  tempted  to  bestow  another  kiss  of 
death  on  Dr.  Zarfas  by  saying  that  I  approve 
of  many  things  he  did,  since  I've  ruined  his 
career  before  presiunably.  Anyway  he  is  leav- 
ing the  Ministry  of  Health  at  the  moment,  so 
I  can't  hound  him  anymore  by  saying  that  I 
liked  many  things  he  did. 

But  there  are  a  number  of  points  which  we 
should  look  into  in  this  bill.  The  whole  com- 
munity approach  towards  treating  the  men- 
tally retarded  is  excellent  in  principle.  There 
are  many  problems  which  arise,  as  people 
who  have  worked  in  the  field  know.  One  of 
the  major  ones  is  that  quite  often  when  we 
start  moving  people,  who  are  not  being 
moved  back  to  the  family  but  are  being 
moved  out  to  the  other  smaller  centres,  there 
is  a  strong  reaction  in  objections  from  the 
community;  and  that  is  something  we  have  to 
deal  with. 

'I  do  believe,  and  I  state  this  over  and  over 
again,  that  most  of  the  people,  not  only  those 
who  are  now  in  mental  hospitals,  but  espe- 
cially the  ones  who  are  retarded  and  in  the 
institutions  for  the  retarded,  should  be  largely 
helped  in  the  community  and  helped  outside 
the  oflBcial  framework.  In  that  sense,  the 
whole  approach  to  the  mentally  retarded  as 
specified  in  this  bill  is  fine,  because  the 
problem  of  mental  retardation  is  no  anatom- 
ical problem.  It  does  not  really  belong  in  the 
Ministry  of  Health  but  belongs  in  the  field  of 
social  services,  and  almost  belongs  in  the  field 
of  education.  More  obviously,  in  our  present 
framework  it  belongs  in  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services,  which  is  the  one 
for  which  this  minister  is  responsible;  the 
sooner  we  move  it  there  the  better,  that  is 
extremely  good. 

Whether  the  objections  that  the  member 
for  St.  George  has  had  to  the  biU  are  going 
to  come  true,  we'll  have  to  see.  Like  her,  I'm 
putting  my  present  hesitations  on  paper 
merely  so  that  the  minister  remembers  that 
it  is  not  enough  merely  to  move  the  whole 
thing  administratively;  the  whole  community 
approach  now  has  to  be  even  more  accentu- 
ated and  augmented  than  has  been  the  case 
so  far. 

I  do  say  it  has  been  going  well,  but  the 
minister  will  have  to  do  more.  I  think  we 
have  to  go  further  than  that  in  respect  of 
large  institutions  like  Orilha.  I  don't  suppose 
there  is  a  more  unpleasant  place,  a  more 
horrible  place  than  Orillia  as  it  is  now.  The 
sooner  it  is  abolished  the  better.  I  think  it 
will  be  for  our  own  self-worth,   if  nothing 


454 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


else,  apart  from  the  enormous  advantages  that 
will  accrue  to  people  who  are  already  in 
Orillia. 

It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the  govern- 
ment will  do  it  over  a  period  of  years.  We 
should  move  -with  all  deliberate  speed  to 
abolish  institutions  like  that.  This  means 
extra  money,  and  the  present  largesse  is  quite 
inadequate  as  it  is.  If  the  minister  is  applying 
to  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan  for  money 
merely  to  substitute  for  the  money  he  is 
spending  now,  then  the  bill  is  nothing.  If  he 
is  applying  to  get  money  from  the  Canada 
Assistance  Plan  and  through  the  various 
family  benefit  things  to  augment  and  to  add 
to  payments  for  extra  problems,  then  this  is 
worthwhile  and  to  be  applauded. 

!But  really,  at  the  end  of  this  hour  of  speak- 
ing, the  minister  must  commit  himself,  since 
he  did  not  really  commit  himself  when  I 
talked  to  him  personally,  as  to  whether  there 
is  going  to  be  more  money  spent  on  it  or  not. 
That  has  been  the  theme  through  many  of 
the  objections  of  the  people  who  have  been 
heard.  If  it  is  only  the  same  amount  of 
money,  then  in  spite  of  the  conceptual 
change,  which  is  fine,  it  is  not  really  good 
enough.  If  the  minister  is  saying  that  we  are 
going  to  have  extra  money,  to  really  move 
the  whole  problem  of  dealing  wath  the  men- 
tally retarded  in  the  community  from  the  in- 
stitutional setting,  if  he  is  going  to  expand 
this  considerably,  then  he  is  to  be  applauded. 

But  if  it's  only  to  reduce  the  Health  bud- 
eet  so  that  it  apoears  less  and  to  reduce  his 
own  hndpet  so  that  he  gets  more  money  to 
sh'ft  the  burden  of  responsibility  from  the 
provincial  government  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment, then  it's  really  iust  a  ioke  or  a  game 
that  is  being  indulged  in  in  this  case. 

T  can  think  of  a  number  of  programmes 
fhat  are  now  nm  by  volunteers  but  which 
should  be  supported  by  this  ministry.  The 
minister  has  shown  a  certain  reluctance  to 
do  th-s  in  terms  of  many  socially-oriented 
oroqrrammes,  such  as  the  ones  started  by 
LIP,  so  I  am  loath  to  believe  that  he  is 
p-eoared  at  the  moment  to  support  other 
rommum'ty-oriented  proja^ammes,  whether 
thev  deal  with  the  retarded  or  otherwise. 

I  can  think  immediately  of  one  such  pro- 
f^ramme  which  is  run  by  volunteers  in  the 
First  Davenport  Church;  they  have  some 
money  but  could  be  of  much  greater  benefit 
if  they  had  some  more  money  from  the 
ministrv  to  expand  the  programme.  They  deal 
with  the  kids  who  are  very  retarded  and 
usually  live  at  home  and  who,  unless  they 
got  the  twice-a-week  help  from  the  volun- 


teers in  this  church,  would  have  to  stay  at 
home. 

There  are  difficulties  in  dealing  at  home 
level  with  people  who  are  grossly  retarded. 
The  longer  they  can  stay  at  home,  the  better 
it  is  for  them  and,  presumably,  for  the  com- 
munity, except  that  they  do  have  to  have 
some  kind  of  specialized  help. 

The  whole  community  approach  to  this  is 
somewhat  expensive  at  first.  In  the  long  run 
it  always  pays.  It  pays  because  it  is  better  for 
the  individual  and  it  is  better  for  the  com- 
munity at  large.  But  at  first  we  have  to  spend 
some  money  and  provide  expertise.  Above 
all,  we  need  to  change  the  approach  to  ac- 
cppKng  that  the  help  at  this  level  does  not 
n"r>essari1y  need  to  be  all  that  professional. 
We  need  some  professionals,  of  course,  but 
we  need  the  professionals  who  are  taught  to 
deal  with  this  type  of  problem  more  than 
the  professionals  who  have  been  fashioned 
in  the  mental  health  field  so  far.  That  is  not 
to  say  that  the  ministry  hasn't  been  doing  it; 
I  think  there  has  been  a  lot  of  work  done.  I 
am  very  careful  in  saying  that  there  has  been 
a  lot  of  work  done  in  that  particular  depart- 
ment. I  cannot  really  say  that  about  any 
other  single  department  in  the  Ministr>-  of 
Health,  but  at  least  in  this  particular  depart- 
ment, I  can  partially  say  that. 

I  have  one  other  objection  I  would  like  to 
raise,  an  objection  that  is  of  some  signifi- 
cance to  me  and  will  be  of  some  significance 
to  parents.  I  would  question  the  whole  con- 
cept of  doing  it  if  the  parents  of  the  mentally 
retarded  children  have  to  pay  more.  Whether 
it  is  $1  a  day  or  more,  it  is  still  extra  money. 
I  am  not  sure  whether  that  means  that  we 
will  not  have  to  introduce  a  means  test  to 
find  out  which  parents  are  able  to  pay  and 
which  are  not.  That  in  itself  I  would  have 
to  question.  We  must  remember  that  until 
now,  for  many  parents,  there  have  been  no 
costs  except  travelling  cost,  which  in  itself 
nn  be  quite  enormous. 

Mr,  R.  Gisbom  (Hamilton  East):  There's 
the  cost  of  clothing. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  No,  not  if  they  are  in  an 
institution. 

But  if  parents  now  have  to  pay  extra 
money,  this  will  put  an  enormous  burden  on 
the  family.  Will  the  minister  in  his  reply 
assure  us  that  it  is  not  going  to  be  so?  If  it 
is  going  to  be  so,  I  think  he  should  specify 
how  much  it  will  cost  for  individual  parents 
and  how  many  parents  will  be  affected  by  it, 
because  this  is  one  of  the  current  major  fears 
of    many   parents    and   associations. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


455 


One  other  point  relates  to  this  approach 
to^^'ard  the  community— and  I  raise  this  as  a 
question  because  I  have  no  idea  as  to  what 
is  going  on.  So  far  the  whole  approach  has 
been  community-oriented,  community-involv- 
ing e\'en,  and  of  course  in  the  public  sector. 
By  the  switchover  to  this  ministry,  has  there 
been  any  consideration— if  so  I  would  find  it 
loathsome— has  there  been  any  considera- 
tion that  there  be  more  and  more  private 
invohement  in  this  area.  Has  there  been  an 
attempt  to  reprivatize  many  of  the  facilities 
which  are  now  under  public  control?  That  is 
a  question  more  than  a  comment,  because  I 
ha\'e  \-er>-  little  knowledge  of  it,  except  some 
suspicion. 

If  the  minister  can  answer  those  questions 
to  our  satisfaction,  obviously  we'll  support 
th's  bill  on  the  conceptual  level  and  on  many 
other  levels. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Simcoe 
East. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith  (Simcoe  East):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I  would  like  to  rise  and  make  a  few 
comments.  First  of  all,  I  would  like  to  go  on 
record  as  supporting  the  principle  of  this  bill. 
I  \\ould  like  to  make  one  or  two  very  brief 
comments  concerning  the  facilities  in  my 
area,  namely  the  Ontario  Hospital  School  at 
Orillia,  as  well  as  the  rehabilitation  centre 
at  Edgar. 

From  my  personal  experience,  I  am  aware 
of  the  retraining  programmes  that  are  being 
carried  out  by  the  ministry,  and  previously 
by  the  Ministry  of  Health,  through  its  mental 
retardation  branch.  In  Orillia,  for  example, 
one  of  the  retraining  programmes  is  the  oper- 
ation of  Orillia  Services,  which  is  redly  a 
small  industry  that  manufactures  crating  and 
other  small  wooden  products  which  it  sells 
to  local  industry.  This  product  isn't  being 
produced  commercially  any  other  place. 

It's  a  wonderful  training  for  these  young 
people  to  attempt  to  become  valuable  to 
this  type  of  industry,  and  I  was  pleased  to 
note  that  in  order  to  remove  it  from  the 
atmosphere  of  the  hospital  at  the  Orillia 
grounds,  because  of  the  fact  that  they  have 
outgrown  the  facility,  and  to  give  it  a  better 
atmosphere,  they  have  moved  it  into  an  in- 
dustrial building  in  the  city  proper.  I  really 
feel  this  is  tremendous  training  for  these 
yoimg  people,  to  try  to  equip  them  to  go  out 
and  earn  their  livelihod  in  industry  in  gen- 
eral. I  would  hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  many 
of  these  programmes— this  one  in  particular 
that  I  have  mentioned  and  also  the  one  at 
the  rehabilitation  centre  at  Edgar,  where 
their    services   bureau   is   providing   a   useful 


commercial  fimction  to  small  industry— will 
continue.  I  would  hope  that  the  minister  will 
be  able  to  give  us  some  assurance  to  this 
effect. 

I  also  would  like  to  express  some  concern 
that  the  previous  ministry  did  see  fit  to  phase 
out  the  farm  and  garden  programme  at  the 
Ontario  Hospital  School.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  therapy  was  good.  I  realize  the  farm 
was  a  losing  proposition,  but  we  cannot  en- 
tirely assess  any  therapeutic  programme  on 
a  commercial  basis.  The  therapy  was  good. 
The  activity  for  those  children  —  who  will 
never  perhaps  be  able  to  be  absorbed  in 
industry  or  gainful  employment— this  expe- 
rience on  the  farm  was,  I  think,  very  valu- 
able. 

If  you  can  have  children,  or  for  that  mat- 
ter adults,  out  of  doors  on  the  land  it's  good 
for  them.  They  may  never  learn  to  drive 
a  tractor  but  certainly  they  can  be  gainfully 
employed  picking  vegetables,  doing  some 
weeding  and  some  of  the  casual  labour  that 
could  be  offered  to  them. 

I  would  hope  that  the  minister  and  the 
mental  health  staff  would  take  a  long  look 
at  perhaps  reassessing  the  value  of  the  farm 
programme  and  perhaps  re-introducing  it. 

Finally,  if  I  may  comment,  both  the  hon. 
member  for  Ontario  (Mr.  Dymond)  and  my- 
self have  many  constituents  who  are  employed 
at  both  of  these  facilities  that  I  have  men- 
tioned, both  as  professional  staff  and  also  as 
staff  members.  Many  have  expressed  their 
concern  to  me  that  their  jobs  may  be  in 
jeopardy  due  to  the  transfer  of  the  existing 
programmes  from  one  ministry  to  the  other. 
I'm  hoping  that  the  minister  can  give  us 
some  assurance  that  these  jobs  wiU  not  be 
in  jeopardy,  that  the  good  programmes  will 
continue  and  that  he  will  reassess  the  farm 
programme  with  some  thought  to  its  value 
in  rehabilitating  some  of  these  people. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
land  South. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  like  to  add  my 
comments  on  the  bill  and  support  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  bill. 

I  can  recall  not  too  long  ago  that  the 
minister  was  in  the  Welland  South  riding 
at  the  oflBcial  opening  of  the  retarded  resi- 
dence one  Webber  Rd.  in  the  town  of  Pel- 
ham.  This  is  a  residence  for  those  of  age 
18  and  over.  I'm  sure  the  minister  is  well 
aware  of  the  facilities  that  are  available  in 
the  Niagara  region  right  at  the  present  time 
for  the  retarded  associations  and  their  pro- 


456 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


grammes.  The  former  county  of  Welland, 
in  my  opinion,  is  one  of  the  pioneers  in 
developing  programmes  to  meet  the  local 
needs  of  the  less  fortunate  citizens  of  this 
province  in  providing  community-based  liv- 
ing accommodations  and  educational  pro- 
grammes. I  can  recall  some  20  years  ago  that 
one  of  the  first  retarded  schools  built  in  the 
Niagara  Peninsula  was  built  in  the  township 
of  Burleigh,  where  at  one  time  I  happened 
to  be  elected  as  a  deputy  reeve.  These  are 
the  things  that  I  think  are  great  strides  in 
the  advancement  of  the  retarded  people  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario. 

We  perhaps  have  one  of  the  best  ARC 
industries  throughout  the  Province  of  On- 
tario. We  have  another  programme  that  has 
been  sponsored  by  local  citizens;  and  com- 
munity involvement  by  unions,  by  social  or- 
ganizations, fraternity  clubs  and  so  forth— 
Lion's  Club,  you  name  it,  they  are  there— 
and  there  is  the  Niagara  technical  training 
programme  in  the  region.  Of  course,  they  are 
having  some  diflBculties  in  keeping  their  pro- 
gramme going. 

Perhaps  I  should,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  House 
permits  me,  read  into  the  records  some  of 
their  programmes  for  the  retarded  people  in 
the  area. 

NTEC  is  a  charitable,  non-profit  corpora- 
tion and  it  has  been  formally  operating  since 
March,  1970,  as  an  experimental  and  demon- 
stration project.  Its  purpose  is  to  assist  young 
adults  in  the  regional  municipality  of 
Niagara— with  a  population  of  approximately 
300.000— who  are  considered  unemployable 
for  their  lack  of  skills  and  work  disciplines. 

The  day-to-day  operation  of  the  centre  is 
the  responsibility  of  the  committee  of  manage- 
ment composed  of  persons  representing  edu- 
cation, industry,  business,  unions,  government 
and  social  and  service  clubs.  This  project  aims 
to  provide  meaningful  work  experience  in  an 
adapted  industry  setting  for  those  persons 
who  have  not  or  likely  will  not  be  able  to 
obtain  suitable  employment  otherwise. 

Employment  will  be  provided  on  an  em- 
ployer-employee basis  on  projects  resulting 
from  negotiated  contracts  with  local  business 
and  industrial  firms.  Such  contracts  will  not 
be  gained  by  competing  with  established 
private  business.  Examples  of  such  contracts 
are  salvaging  of  copper  wire  from  obsolete 
electric  motors.  A  minimimi  of  three  years 
work  is  assured  on  contracts  such  as  janitorial 
service,  general  building  maintenance  and 
assembly  line  production. 

The  long-term  aim  is  to  establish  a  business 
for  the  disadvantaged,  which  could  eventually 


be  operated  by  them  and  be  self-supporting. 
The  short-term  aim  is  to  provide  the  workers 
with  the  independence  and  self-work  disci- 
pline to  find  employment  in  the  open  market. 
Special  emphasis  should  be  on  those  who  are 
within  the  first  year  of  learning  following 
school.  The  overall  age  bracket  is  from  16 
to  25  years. 

The  emphasis  is  on  subjecting  the  employee 
to  work  or  experience  where  he  is  assessed, 
supervised  and  directed  to  acquire  sufficient  " 
skill  and  develop  attitudes  and  discipline 
necessary  to  make  him  a  desirable  employee. 
It  demonstrates  to  management,  and  partic- 
ularly personnel  societies,  tiiat  the  individual 
is  a  competent  and  desirable  potential  em- 
ployee. 

I  might  add,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  many  have 
been  trained  to  work  in  the  vineyards  of  the 
Niagara  Peninsula;  to  go  out  and  prune  the 
grapes.  I  think  11  is  very  important  that  these 
persons  can  be  gainfully  employed. 

I  think  they  have  a  good  programme  but, 
of  course,  there  is  one  problem  with  it- 
money.  Where  does  the  money  come  from  to 
support  these  different  projects  for  the  re- 
tarded? I  am  a  little  bit  concerned  when  I 
find  that  the  minister  says  the  transfer  of 
this  programme  will  be  on  April  1,  1974. 
Transfer  to  what?  Perhaps  the  hon.  member 
for  St.  George  is  right— it  is  for  administrative 
purposes  only.  What  accommodations  are 
available  now  in  local  municipalities? 

Is  there  going  to  be  a  rush,  perhaps,  to 
say  to  the  regional  municipality  of  Niagara: 
'Xook,  you  have  to  go  out  and  find  land.  You 
have  to  go  out  and  find  accommodation  for 
these  persons  that  we  are  moving  from  the 
mental  institutions  in  the  Province  of  On- 
tario." 

And,  again,  at  what  cost  to  the  local  tax- 
payer? This  has  been  raised  by  other  mem- 
bers, and  I  am  a  little  bit  concerned  about 
this.  It  was  mentioned  about  the  cost-sharing 
programme  of  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan. 
I  hope  that  this  isn't  going  to  leave  this  20 
per  cent  to  be  picked  up  by  local  mimicipal- 
ities,  because  I  don't  think  they  can  afford 
this  anymore. 

The  minister  is  well  aware  that  when  he 
attended  the  official  opening  of  the  Webber 
Rd.  home  the  people  involved  in  that  insti- 
tution had  been  pounding  at  the  minister's 
door  over  a  period  of  three  years  to  get 
approval  for  such  a  worthwhile  project.  I  can 
recall  former  staff  members  of  the  ministry 
saynig:  "You  have  to  go  back  to  the  regional 
municipalities  and  get  their  approval."  Well, 
the  red  tape  to  get  approval  takes  about  three 


MARCH  26,  1974 


457 


years,  and  there  is  another  two  years  for 
construction— there  is  about  a  five-year  period 
involved.  Again,  the  member  for  St.  George 
is  probably  right. 

The  20  to  80  per  cent;  I  would  like  the 
minister  to  clarify  this.  Is  this  going  to  be  a 
100  per  cent  deal?  Is  the  province  going  to 
assume  all  the  costs— the  total  costs  of  this 
programme— or  is  it  going  to  be  borne  by  the 
local  municipahties  again?  Also,  consideration 
should  be  given,  when  it  comes  to  the  edu- 
cational theme  of  this  programme,  to  whether 
th^  grant  is  going  to  be  the  same  for  the  type 
of  NTEC  programme  as  it  is,  say,  in  the 
high  school  or  the  public  school?  Is  it  going 
to  be  $600  a  year  or  is  it  going  to  be  $200  or 
$40  a  month?  My  concern  is  that  the  grant 
should  be  of  the  same  structure. 

The  other  question  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
minister  is  when  we  come  to  the  public 
trustee  I  think  there  should  be  changes  in 
that  particular  section  of  the  Act  so  that  a 
person  doesn't  have  to  go  through  red  tape 
to  see  that  these  persons  are  being  looked 
after. 

Again,  I  suppose,  if  there  is  a  retraining 
programme  by  which  these  youngsters  can 
go  out  and  be  gainfully  employed,  it  comes 
under  the  regulations  of  the  Disability  Act; 
what  is  it  now— $147  a  month?  These  persons 
cannot  earn  any  income,  I  understand,  be- 
yond that.  There  should  be  some  provisions 
under  the  Act  so  that  those  persons  can  still 
maintain  part  of  that  disability  pension  along 
with  their  income. 

Again,  this  is  where  I  say  I  think  the  Public 
Trustee  Act  should  be  checked  into  or  looked 
into  to  see  that  there  are  some  changes  made 
and  that  there  isn't  the  red  tape  involved  in 
it  as  there  is  now  for  those  persons.  Many  of 
them,  I  suppose,  will  go  out  and  work  on 
farms,  and  some  of  them  do  that  today;  but 
there  is  a  clause,  in  the  Public  Trustee  Act  I 
guess  it  is,  that  if  there  is  any  money  being 
paid— and  there  is  money  being  paid— it  must 
go  into  trusteeship.  Sometimes  this  can  hold 
up  proceedings  of  further  employment  for  the 
person  involved. 

I  would  ask  the  minister  if  his  legal  staff 
would  look  into  this  to  see  that  there  isn't 
the  red  tape  involved  in  this.  With  those  few 
comments,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  vdll  support  the 
principle  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Scarborough 

West. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  simply  want  to  reinforce  a  couple 
of  comments  made  by  colleagues  in  the  New 
Democratic  caucus  and  to  raise  some  ques- 


tions, perhaps  not  quite  so  sympathetically 
or  amicably  as  they  have  been  raised  with  the 
minister  so  far  this  afternoon  by  some. 

It  makes  good  social  sense  and  it's  hard  to 
resist  the  principle  that  the  transfer  of  re- 
tardation from  health  to  social  and  community 
services  can  be  construed  as  beneficial,  and 
if  that  is  really  the  principle  inherent  in  the 
bill  no  one  can  resist  it;  it  would  be  folly. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  are  not  prepared  to 
accept  whole  the  material  in  the  minister's 
introductory  statement  about  acting  on  the 
provisions  of  the  green  paper  and  doing 
things  which  are  obviously  so  beneficial  to 
mankind.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the 
government  has  dragged  its  feet  in  the  area 
of  mental  retardation  in  a  fashion  which  is 
barely  human,  considering  the  circumstances 
which  have  prevailed  in  so  many  of  the  hos- 
pital schools  for  so  many  years.  To  try  to 
pat  itself  on  the  back  with  this  belated  trans- 
fer is  neither  honourable  nor  worthy. 

It's  rather  interesting  that  the  point  at 
which  the  transfer  comes  is  not  as  a  logical 
extension  of  social  philosophy  involved  in 
treatment  of  retardation.  The  point  at  which 
the  transfer  comes  is  the  most  cynical  point 
in  time  that  is  possible— that's  when  the  gov- 
ernment can  get  some  money  for  doing  it. 
When  it  gets  some  money  for  doing  it,  it 
finally  considers  retardation  something  that 
can  be  dealt  with  in  the  community  rather 
than  in  the  constrained  institutional  frame- 
work where  it  has  locked  retarded  people  for 
so  many  years  and  during  so  many  exposes. 

I  can  remember  in  this  House,  10  years  ago, 
when  I  was  critic  of  the  field  of  health  and 
welfare  for  the  New  Democratic  Party,  deal- 
ing with  the  member  for  Ontario  who  was 
then  the  Minister  of  Health  about  the 
conditions  that  were  obtaining  in  the  Ontario 
Hospital  School  at  Smiths  Falls.  I  can  re- 
member speaking  to  Dr.  Franks,  that  mag- 
nificent superintendent  of  Smiths  Falls,  about 
what  had  to  be  done  for  the  mentally  re- 
tarded and  hearing  his  eloquent,  absolutely 
magnificent  plea  that  Smiths  Falls  be  dis- 
membered, that  it  be  divided  into  small 
cottage  units,  that  a  more  human  and  civilized 
approach  be  taken  to  the  retarded  in  Ontario. 

Ten  years  later  the  government  publishes 
a  green  paper,  uttering  all  the  nonsensical 
homilies  about  community  care  for  the  re- 
tarded that  everybody  has  understood  and 
subscribed  to  for  a  decade.  Then,  the  minis- 
ter brings  in  this  bill  and  fails  to  say  what  is 
really  at  the  heart  of  it. 

The  only  reason  this  government  has  de- 
cided to  move  into  the  field  of  community 
care  for  the  retarded  is  that  it's  now  fina-^- 


458 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cially  Ijeneficial  for  its  treasury  board.  It's 
as  cynical  and  as  blunt  as  that.  Until  we 
can  wrest  a  commitment  from  the  govern- 
ment on  the  floor  of  this  House  this  after- 
noon, which  I  very  much  doubt,  that  every 
single  penny  it  gains  on  the  Canada  Assist- 
ance Plan  will  be  reinvested  in  extended 
facilities  for  the  retarded,  then  make  no 
false  claims  for  this  piece  of  legislation. 

As  it  now  stands,  the  ministry  has  some 
5,010  adults,  representing  60  per  cent  of 
those  who  may  be  covered  by  this  legislation, 
in  the  adult-retarded  group  in  the  various 
institutions.  It  has  3,084  children  who  are 
non-wards  and  may,  therefore,  be  eligible 
under  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan.  Although 
the  minister  failed  to  mention  it  in  his  open- 
ing statement,  interestingly  enough  his  min- 
istry will  receive  from  the  Canada  Assistance 
Plan  something  in  the  area  of  $25  million  to 
•S35  million  when  this  transfer  takes  place 
from  Health  to  Community  and  Social  Ser- 
vices. 

Is  the  minister  prepared  to  stand  in  his 
place  and  say  that  every  single  penny  of  that 
money  presently  invested  by  the  province 
will  be  reinvested  in  the  other  plans?  Can 
we  have  from  him  the  details  of  what  he 
intends  to  do  with  the  money?  Can  he  in- 
dicate to  us  now  how  he  intends  to  use  the 
additional  dollars? 

Can  he  tell  us  with  respect  to  the 
$600,000,  which  will  probably  be  the  amount 
of  payment  required  from  individual  parents 
and  families  under  the  means  test  provision 
of  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan,  can  he  tell 
us  whether  he  will  devise  a  formula  in  order 
ot  relieve  them  of  that  $600,000  burden?  Or 
is  that  a  sudden  cost,  to  be  assumed,  courtesy 
of  the  Ontario  government,  by  parents  and 
families  who  have  not  up  until  now  been 
paying  for  care  of  the  retarded,  but  who  will 
be  required  to  pay  under  the  means  test 
provision  of  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan? 

In  this  friendly  littie  scheme,  in  this  happy 
environment  of  the  move  from  Health  to 
Community  and  Social  Services,  there  are  a 
number  of  questions  which  require  answer- 
ing. If,  in  good  faith,  this  government  is 
going  to  accept  $25  million  to  $35  million 
from  the  federal  government— the  federal 
government  which  it  so  willingly  abuses  but 
which  is  giving  this  money  now,  I  believe, 
to  three  or  four  provinces,  to  Alberta,  Sas- 
katchewan and  New  Brunswick,  under  the 
Canada  Assistance  Plan— if  this  government 
is  going  to  now  accept  this,  how  is  it  going 
to  use  the  equivalent  $25  million  to  $35 
million  provincially? 


Is  the  government  going  to  restructure 
Smiths  Falls  and  Orillia?  Is  it  going  to  fund 
entirely  the  adult  workshops?  Is  it  going  to 
provide  some  of  the  money  for  the  educable 
retarded  that  is  not  now  available?  Is  it 
going  to  subsidize  the  money  which  will  be 
required  to  be  paid  by  parents  and  families? 

How  is  it  that  the  minister's  statement 
spoke  in  such  lovely  generalities  without 
getting  to  the  heart  of  what  is  involved,  that 
is  the  willingness  of  this  government  to  com- 
mit itself  to  the  expansion  of  programmes 
for  the  retarded  about  which  people  have 
argued  for  a  decade?  Now,  all  of  us  are 
relatively  charitable.  The  ministry  is  going 
to  move  the  retarded  from  institutions  into 
the  community.  Who  dares  say  no?  All  of  us 
have  felt  the  need  for  years.  All  of  us  viewed 
the  green  paper  with  a  kind  of  bemusement 
that  such  a  revelation  should  have  occurred 
to  the  Social  Development  ministry,  when  it 
has  occurred  to  other  jurisdictions  and  other 
professionals  in  the  field  for  as  long  as  we  can 
remember. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  And  the 
government  has  been  told  by  the  people. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  the  quality  of  the  minis- 
ter's commitment  will  consist  of  what  he 
can  say  at  the  end  of  second  reading  about 
the  programmes  he  intends  to  undertake,  and 
the  dollar  value  assigned  to  them  when  he 
gets  the  money  from  the  Canada  Assistance 
Plan.  It's  easy  for  the  minister  to  stand  and 
say  it  is  our  intention  to  reinvest  the  Canada 
Assistance  Plan  money.  If  I  counted  up  the 
intentions  of  the  Tory  government  around 
health  and  welfare,  there  wouldn't  be  a 
provincial  debt.  But  I  want  to  hear  from  the 
minister,  my  colleagues  want  to  hear  f^-om 
him,  the  opposition  generally  wants  to  haer 
from  him  how  he  is  going  to  reinvest  that 
$25  million  to  $35  million  which  he  now 
has,  courtesy  of  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan; 
and  which  is  the  real  reason  for  the  shift 
from  Health  to  Community  and  Social  Ser- 
vices, because  he's  not  entitled  to  that  money 
under  the  Ministry  of  Health.  Isn't  it  in- 
teresting that  the  minister  suddenly  embraces 
enlightenment  toward  the  retarded  at  pre- 
cisely the  moment  when  the  dollars  become 
available? 

That  doesn't  make  one  very  warm,  or  very 
secure,  about  the  nature  of  the  programmes 
which  he  intends.  If  he  puts  them  in  the 
hands  of  David  McCoy  and  Dr.  Ron  Farmer 
and  Dr.  Don  Zarfas  then  he  will  put  them 
in  the  hands  of  people  who  are  absolutely 
and  totally  committed  to  the  field  and  to 
everything  that  can  be  achieved.  But  if  the 


MARCH  26,  1974 


459 


minister  is  not  prerpared  to  redistribute 
wealth,  new-found  wealth,  then  this  bill  con- 
tains a  social  principle  which  may  or  may 
not  prove  valid,  and  we'll  have  to  test  it 
several  years  hence. 

So  let's  hear  the  declaration  of  commit- 
ment from  the  minister,  which  wasn't  con- 
tained in  his  opening  statement.  Let's  hear 
what  he  intends,  in  specific  terms,  for  the 
use  of  the  $25  million  to  $35  million  which 
he  vvdll  receive  as  soon  as  he  puts  it  into 
effect.  Let's  hear  how  he  is  going  to  over- 
come the  means  test  provision  for  those 
people  who  have  paid  out  so  much  in  their 
lives  for  the  care  of  the  retarded  now,  or 
who  should  not  now  begin  to  pay. 

Let's  hear  it  in  specific  terms,  and  enough 
of  the  well-wishing  and  the  benign,  the  sort 
of  benevolent  optimism  which  is  contained  in 
the  introductory  statement;  because  really, 
patience  runs  out  in  this  field  more  than 
most. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Prince  Ed- 
ward-Lennox. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I'd  like  to  commend  the  Min- 
ister of  Community  and  Social  Services  on 
this  bill.  I  think  it's  just  tremendous. 

I  read  his  remarks  and  I  listened  to  the 
remarks  made  by  the  minister,  and  when  I 
did  I  related  those  to  the  complex  known 
as  Prince  Edward  Heights  in  my  riding,  and 
I  can  say  that  we  are  proud  to  have,  in  my 
riding,  a  complex  such  as  that,  in  which  are 
housed  the  mentally  retarded.  It's  an  asset  to 
the  entire  commimity. 

When  I  read  the  philosophy  implicit  in 
the  minister's  remarks,  I  can  see  how  that 
was  actually  being  played  out  in  our  com- 
mimity. This  isn't  just  a  hollow  promise,  I 
can  assure  you  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  because 
it's  not  a  question  of  the  mechanical  trans- 
fer, as  the  member  for  St.  George  said  wdth 
sceptical  cynicism.  It's  not  a  question  of  new- 
found gold,  or  moving  in  a  new  direction 
because  of  some  financial  benefit  that  we 
expect  may  come  our  way  from  Ottawa. 
That's  not  it  at  all,  for  the  very  simple 
reason  that  we  are  doing  those  very  things 
in  Prince  Edward  Heights  now. 

The  residents  of  that  complex  are  integrat- 
ing with  the  community.  They  have  their 
own  workshops.  They  operate  a  carwash. 
They  operate  a  snack  bar  in  the  armoury 
mall.  They're  out  into  the  community  and 
making  positive  and  constructive  contribu- 
tions to  our  entire  community. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  one  of  the  problems 
which  is  mentioned  in  the  statement  by  the 


minister  as  probably  being  one  of  the  difiB- 
cult  ones  to  overcome,  namely  the  accept- 
ance of  the  integration  of  these  persons  in 
our  community,  has  actually  been  achieved 
in  our  particular  community.  We  are  warm 
toward  these  people  because  they  are  mak- 
ing a  positive  and  constructive  contribution 
to  our  community  and  we  do  not  have  any 
feeling  of  ill  will.  We  are,  again,  proud  to 
see  that  the  fact  which  we  are  experiencing 
is  now  being  recognized  in  legislation  and 
that  the  transfer  is  being  made  from  Health 
to    Cormnunity   and    Social   Services. 

Again,  I  wish  to  commend  the  minister 
on  this  legislation  and  the  work  that  he  is 
doing  in  this  field. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Rainy  River. 

Mr.  Reid:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  My 
remarks  will  be  few.  I,  too,  rise  to  support 
the  principle  of  this  bill,  but  with  a  certain 
amount  of  scepticism  as  other  members  have 
expressed. 

It  seems  strange  that  the  government,  in 
its  wisdom,  would  finally,  after  all  the  years 
and  all  the  advice  that  it  has  received  from 
the  various  people  dealing  with  the  retarded, 
see  the  light  and  move  in  the  direction  of 
putting  the  mentally  retarded  back  into  the 
communities  where  they  can  function  as 
normally  as  is  possible. 

However,  I  am  a  little  concerned  after 
rereading  the  minister's  statement,  particu- 
larly about  the  first  paragraph.  The  min- 
ister has  a  reputation  for  being  one  of  the 
most  vague  and  obtuse  people  when  you  try 
to  pin  him  down  on  something;  but  in  the 
first  paragraph  the  minister  says: 

The  purpose  of  the  Developmental  Serv- 
ices Act,  1974,  is  to  transfer  administrative 
responsibihties  for  facilities  for  mentally 
retarded  persons  from  the  Ministry  of 
Health  to  the  Ministry  of  Community  and 
Social  Services. 

Obviously  that  is  the  principle  of  the  bill. 
What  I  am  afraid  of  is  that  the  mentally  re- 
tarded will  not  in  fact  be  treated  the  way 
they  should  be  and  that  they  in  fact  will  not 
be  put  back  in  the  community  as  quickly  as 
possible. 

We  have  heard  other  speakers  say  that 
this  has  been  recommended  over  the  years. 
We  finally  had  the  government  move— we 
have  had  Mr.  Williston  bring  in  his  report, 
and  then  the  green  paper,  and  now  finally 
this.  But  as  others  have  said,  there  is  no 
guarantee;  there  is  no  commitment  on  the 
part  of  the  minister  as  to  what  is  actually 
going  to  take  place. 


460 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


If  I  can  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  words 
the  minister  used  in  his  opening  remarks 
were  that  this  was  enabling  legislation.  In 
other  words,  this  meant  that  the  government 
could  go  ahead  with  these  programmes  and 
these  plans  and  these  policies,  but  there  was 
no  "should"  in  that  matter.  There  was  no 
requirement,  in  fact,  that  the  government 
proceed  in  the  way  it  suggests  that  it  is 
going  to  proceed.  All  through  it  the  state- 
ment of  the  minister  is  shot  through  with 
"in  the  future,"  and  "when  it  becomes 
feasible,"  and  "in  a  couple  of  years."  On 
page  5,  and  I  quote,  Mr.  Speaker: 

It  will  be  apparent  to  all  that  such  a 
programme  —  community  living  for  the 
mentally  retarded-will  take  some  time  to 
develop  and  effect  properly.  This  expan- 
sion of  activities  will  require  additional 
funds  at  a  time  when  many  other  urgent 
needs  also  merit  attention. 

Well  again,  that  leaves  me  with  the  uncom- 
fortable feeling  that  all  that  is  going  to  hap- 
nen  with  this  legislation  is  that  in  fact  it 
is  going  to  be  enabling-that  some  time  in 
the  unspecified  future,  in  the  fullness  of  time, 
perhaps  we  will  get  to  the  objective  of  hav- 
ing the  retarded  lead  a  normal  community 
life  in  the  community  in  which  they  were 
bom  and  mostly  raised. 

So  we  are  sceptical,  and  we  too  want  to 
know  what  is  the  price  tag  on  this?  What  is 
happening  to  the  funds  that  have  been  com- 
mitted under  the  Ministry  of  Health?  Have 
those  funds  been,  as  a  block,  switched  to 
the  minister's  budget,  earmarked  for  the 
specific  purpose  of  assisting  the  mentally 
retarded?  What  is  going  to  happen  with  the 
Canada  Assistance?  What  programmes?  What 
policies? 

And  finally,  really  I  suppose  what  it  al- 
wavs  comes  down  to,  how  many  dollars  are 
eoing  to  be  committed  and  what  are  the 
time  frames  for  this  policy  to  be  enacted? 

Because  surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  those  people, 
those  families,  those  people  most  intimately 
concerned  with  this  problem,  have  been  wait- 
ing a  long  time,  an  unconscionably  long 
time,  for  the  government  to  become  aware 
of  its  responsibility  in  this  regard.  Mr. 
Speaker,  while  I  commend  the  government 
for  finally  moving  and  espousing  this  policy 
that  others,  particularly  in  the  two  opposition 
parties,  have  been  pressing  on  the  govern- 
ment for  some  time,  I  hope  that  the  minister 
gives  us  the  commitment,  gives  us  those  time 
frames,  tells  us  what  dollars  are  involved,  so 
that  those  people  who,  as  I  say,  have  been 
carrying  the  burden  for  years  can  know  and 


can  be  content  and  comfortable  in  the  knowl- 
edge that  there  are  specific  time  limits,  spe- 
cific moneys  available  and  that  they  know 
how  they  can  integrate  with  this  programme. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  comment  briefly 
on  the  bill  before  us  and  to  also  commend 
the  minister  on  bringing  this  forward.  It 
is,  I  suppose,  as  dramatic  a  change  in  this 
field  of  endeavour  as  has  occurred  since  the 
government  first  became  involved  in  the 
schools  for  the  retarded  and  started  to  share 
that  burden  with  the  local  associations. 

Mr.  Reid:  It's  not  dramatic  from  our  view- 
point. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Well  it  is.  It  is  a  very,  very 
significant  item;  very  much  so. 

Mr.  Reid:  It  is  significant  but  it  is  cer- 
tainly not  new.  It  isn't  something  dramatic, 
it  isn't  something  new. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Well,  it  depends  on  your 
interpretation  of  dramatic,  Mr.  Speaker. 

But  I  know  there  is  a  very  active  associa- 
tion in  Peel  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  is 
a  meeting  of  it  tonight.  I  know  there  will 
be  a  great  deal  of  interest  in  knowing  this 
bill  has  now  come  forward  and  is  being  de- 
bated on  second  reading. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  what  the 
ministry  sees  as  the  potential  here.  That  is, 
of  each  100  persons  who  are  now  confined 
how  many  might  appear  to  be  eligible  for 
such  a  programme?  Would  it  be  50  per  cent, 
or  a  quarter,  or  is  it  something  that  wiU 
increase  over  the  years  as  additional  therapy 
is  developed? 

I  would  like  to  ask  as  well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  might— Ortona  Barracks  has  been  pre- 
pared now,  and  I  believe  it  is  now  taking 
people  who  were  at  OriHia  and  presumably 
other  locations.  Does  this  change  the  direc- 
tion or  the  capacity  that  might  be  needed 
there?  I  mention  the  matter  as  to  how  many 
might  become  involved  in  the  communitv 
based  living  and  I'm  sure  well  await  with 
interest  the  programme  as  the  details  are 
devdoped. 

I  do  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  great 
potential  here,  because  we  have  the  ARC 
Industries— there  are  several  of  these  through- 
out the  province  and  it  is  demonstrated 
through  these  endeavours  that  there  is  a  role 
for  those  people  in  our  society  who  are,  per- 
haps, less  fortunate  than  many. 

So,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  conclude  with  those 
few   comments,    and   a   couple  of  questions. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


461 


Again,  I  am  just  so  pleased  that  this  action 
has  been  taken  by  the  ministry  and  we'll 
watch  it  develop.  My  commendations  to  the 
minister. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Windsor- 
Walk  erville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville ) : 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  make  a  few 
comments  on  Bill  7,  the  Developmental  Serv- 
ices Act,  1974,  and  say  that  it  is  pretty  diffi- 
cult for  one  not  to  agree  with  the  principle  of 
the  bill,  especially  after  sitting  in  this  House 
for  a  few  years  and  having  espoused  such  an 
approach  on  the  part  of  government— request- 
ing, suggesting,  year  after  year  and  seeing  no 
action  from  government. 

AU  of  a  sudden  they  come  out  riding  white 
chargers.  They  have  found  something  com- 
pletely new,  something  revolutionary,  some- 
thing outstanding,  something  dramatic.  It  took 
them  in  my  estimation  15  years  to  reach  this 
dramatic  stage.  They  are  following  up  in  their 
approach  to  mental  retardation  in  the  same 
wav  that  they  have  followed  up  in  the  ap- 
proach to  resolving  the  housing  problem. 
Thev  are  still  hving  back  15  and  20  years 
ago.' 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  idea  of  centreing  the 
treatment  and  the  services  to  the  mentally 
retarded  on  the  community  is  a  good  prin- 
ciple. No  one  can  come  along  and  criticize 
that.  Criticizing  that  would  be  almost  like 
being  against  motherhood  but,  Mr.  Speaker, 
we  certainly  have  to  give  an  awful  lot  of 
credit  to  the  various  volunteer  organizations 
and  service  clubs  which  have  fought  for  the 
needs  of  the  retarded  over  many  years  in 
the  past. 

I  recall  in  my  own  community  the  Kins- 
men's service  club  which  has  played  an  ex- 
tremely active  role  in  what  the  previous 
member  mentioned,  ARC  Industries,  the 
Association  for  Retarded  Children.  They  have 
done  such  an  outstanding  job  in  assisting  the 
retarded  that  within  the  next  month  or  so 
the\-  are  actually  going  to  have  a  mortgage- 
burning  ceremony,  having  paid  off  the  mort- 
gage. They  have  shown  that  the  mentally 
retarded  can  become  a  valuable  asset  to  the 
community  in  spite  of  some  of  the  handicaps 
they  have. 

The  thing  that  does  disturb  me  a  bit,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  why,  all  of  a  sudden,  this  area  of 
social  need  is  being  transferred  from  the  Min- 
istry of  Health  to  the  Ministry  of  Community 
and  Social  Services.  I  think  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party  probably  brought  out 
one  substantial  point  of  view  and  that  is  that 


all  of  a  sudden  the  ministry  has  found  there 
are  funds  available  through  the  federal  gov- 
ernment and  now  it  is  going  to  take  advan- 
tage of  it. 

We  have  heard  so  often  that  Ontario  is  the 
leader.  The  leader  of  what?  It  is  gonig  to  be 
the  fourth  province  in  Canada  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  federal  funding.  As  far  as  retarda- 
tion is  concerned,  as  far  as  taking  advantage 
of  funds  available  from  federal  sources  is 
concerned,  this  government  certainly  isn't  a 
leader;  it  certainly  isn't  a  follower;  it  really 
is  the  sheep  in  the  field.  It  is  far  behind  other 
provinces  which  are  not  as  affluent  and,  we 
think,  which  are  not  as  forward-looking  as 
we  are  in  Ontario.  But  when  it  comes  to 
mental  retardation,  we  certainly  can't  say  that 
Ontario  was  forward-looking. 

I  can  recall  sitting  in  this  Legislature  and 
listening  to  the  Minister  of  Health  of  the 
day,  the  member  for  Ontario  when  he 
was  extolling  the  virtues  of  building  Cedar 
Springs  Hospital.  Here  we  have  this  big 
complex  to  warehouse  —  if  I  am  not  mis- 
taken that  was  even  one  of  the  terms  used  in 
those  days— to  warehouse  these  unfortunates; 
1,000  people  in  an  institution.  We  tried  to 
point  out  to  him  that  that  was  not  the  hu- 
mane way  to  approach  mental  illness  —  I 
shouldn't  say  mental  iDness— but  a  misfor- 
tune, something  could  have  been  resolved 
had  the  ministry  of  the  day  looked  forward 
and  followed  the  recommendations  not  only 
of  opposition  members  but  all  those  who 
were  knowledgeable  in  the  field  of  mental 
retardation.  How  hard  it  was  to  convince  the 
government  opposite  to  act  when  it  came  to 
the  case  and  the  needs  of  the  mentally  re- 
tarded. 

Even  with  the  present  legislation,  Mr. 
Speaker,  you  will  notice  that  it  is  still  a 
discriminatory  type  of  legislation.  There  is 
age  discrimination  here.  We  are  going  to 
restore  to  the  community  first  those  over  18. 
The  minister  can  correct  me  if  I  am  wrong 
but  this  is  what  I  understand— that  those  over 
18  are  the  ones  we  are  going  to  be  con- 
cerned with  first.  I  would  hope  that  wouldn't 
be  the  case  because  if  it  is  good  enough  for 
those  over  18,  it  certainly  should  be  good 
and  possibly  better  for  the  younger  ones 
because  the  sooner  we  can  tackle  the  prob- 
lem of  mental  retardation,  the  sooner  we'll 
find  answers  for  it  and  the  sooner  will  come 
the  betterment  of  the  individual. 

One  of  the  comments  made  by  the  mem- 
ber for  St.  George  was  concerning  the  pres- 
ent division  of  responsibilities  between  the 
Ministry  of  Health  and  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  and  I  wonder  how 


462 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  is  going  to  be  resolved  by  the  ministry. 
Is  one  class  of  individual  going  to  be  the 
responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of  Health  and 
the  other  now  the  responsibility  of  the  Min- 
istry of  Community  and  Social  Services? 

Mr.  Speaker,  now  there  has  been  a  new 
look  at  the  retarded  I  would  say  that  we 
hope  this  legislation  may  lead  to  a  brighter 
hope,  not  only  for  those  in  Cedar  Springs, 
hut  a  brighter  hope  for  all  who  have  suf- 
fered so  long  and  so  hard  with  this  problem. 
I  refer  not  only  to  the  retardate  but  also  to 
the  many  dedicated  volunteers  and  the  par- 
ents who  had  this  affliction  to  contend  with 
when  they  had  a  mentally  retarded  young- 
ster. 

If  it  took  the  ministry  about  15  or  so 
years  to  act  on  recommendations  of  mem- 
bers opposite  and  of  those  who  were  knowl- 
edgeable in  the  field  of  retardation,  I  won- 
der how  long  it  is  going  to  take  now  for  him 
to  implement  the  programme  as  recommend- 
ed and  as  outlined  in  Bill  7.  We  hope  it 
doesn't  take  another  15  years. 

What  the  ministry  is  really  setting  up  now 
is  going  to  be  sort  of  a  halfway  house  ap- 
proach. I  can  recall  this  being  a  recommen- 
dation for  those  in  Correctional  Services. 
The  minister  is  going  to  have  an  area,  or  he 
may  set  up  an  area,  between  the  present 
institution  and  the  family  home,  in  some 
instances.  In  other  instances,  the  individual 
may  go  directly  into  the  family  home. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  how  this 
is  going  to  affect  the  educational  system  in 
a  community,  with  budgetary  ceilings  ad- 
versely affecting  the  quality  of  education.  I 
am  wondering  if  the  ministry  is  going  to 
subsidize  or  pay  allotments  to  educational 
boards  in  a  community  for  the  retardates  who 
are  going  to  be  attending  local  institutions. 
I  am  wondering  if  there  is  going  to  be  a 
higher  per-pupil  grant  as  a  result,  because 
to  be  effective  in  educating  or  training  the 
retardates,  the  minister  is  going  to  have  to 
have  a  very  low  pupil-teacher  ratio,  and  the 
lower  the  pupil-teacher  ratio,  the  more  ex- 
pensive the  education  becomes. 

So  we  are  not  going  to  be  able  to  accom- 
modate the  individual  who  has  this  problem 
in  the  elementary  level  on  the  normal  allot- 
ment of  funds  if  it  is  some  $675  or  $700,  and 
in  the  secondary  level  if  it  is  $1,100  or 
$1,200.  It  is  going  to  have  to  be  substan- 
tially higher  to  assist  and  enable  boards  to 
provide  top-quality  education  to  those  who 
really  need  the  services  of  our  educational 
institutions. 

I  likewise  wonder,  now  that  the  retardates 
are  going  back  into  the  community,  whether 


the  local  taxpayer  is  going  to  be  required  to 
pay  for  20  per  cent  of  the  services  provided. 

If  the  individual  on  welfare  is  being  as- 
sisted by  the  community,  the  community 
finds  that  20  per  cent  of  the  cost  burden 
is  shouldered  by  the  local  taxpayer,  while 
30  per  cent  is  funded  by  the  provincial 
authorities  and  50  per  cent  by  the  federal 
authorities.  Even  the  20  per  cent  additional 
burden  is  a  little  too  much  for  all  of  the 
communities.  The  demands  for  various  types 
of  services  by  the  citizenry  are  so  great  that 
this  additional  burden  of  20  per  cent  could 
be  beyond  the  municipalities'  financial  capa- 
bilities. 

I  likewise  wonder  if  the  ministry  has  any 
intention  of  using  the  students  at  commimity 
colleges  who  are  taking  programmes  deal- 
ing with  the  retarded.  Is  it  the  intention 
of  using  graduate  students  from  our  com- 
munity colleges  to  assist  in  the  programme? 

The  programme  is  going  to  be  extremely 
expensive— certainly  a  little  more  expensive 
than  we  anticipate  at  present— because  we 
had  gone  into  the  building  of  these  smaller 
group  homes  10  or  15  years  ago,  we  could 
have  put  up  these  facilities  at  a  substantially 
lower  cost  than  we  can  today.  I  understand 
the  grant  from  the  ministry  is  about  $5,000, 
and  the  minister  well  knows  that  we  certainly 
couldn't  put  up  a  facility  in  a  community  to 
house  12  or  15  for  less  than  $100,000.  It  is 
extremely  costly. 

Perhaps  the  minister  has  the  intention  of 
putting  up  slightly  larger  group  homes,  but 
we  hope  he  doesn't  build  little  Cedar  Springs 
accommodations  in  communities.  We  want 
them  to  be  with  their  families  or  in  foster 
homes,  where  they  can  get  a  sort  of  one-to- 
one  relationship  and  obtain  the  maximum 
assistance  from  close  association  with  their 
fellow  man  or  woman,  boy  or  girl,  as  the 
case  may  be. 

Mr.  Speaker,  one  of  the  needs  that  I  am 
afraid  may  be  bypassed  is  the  communica- 
tion between  the  community  and  the  hospi- 
tal. I  am  afraid  tihat  some  of  the  individuals 
may  be  sent  into  the  community  without  the 
community  even  knowing  that  they  are  in 
that  community.  I  happen  to  have  been  con- 
tacted in  the  past  week  by  one  individual  who 
was  placed  in  the  community.  He  has  been 
in  the  community  for  approximately  two 
months,  but  his  disability  or  family  benefits 
did  not  follow  him.  He  had  to  go  on  to 
welfare  to  be  accommodated.  There  obvious- 
ly was  a  breakdown  in  this  case.  I  am  not 
saying  that  this  is  generally  the  case,  but 
it  did  happen  to  this  individual.  I  had  to  in- 
tercede  with  this  department  on  his  behalf 


MARCH  26,  1974 


463 


to  resolve  the  issue,  and  I  am  sure  that  the 
issue  will  be  resolved.  It  shouldn't  be  that 
much  of  a  problem. 

But  we  have  to  inform  the  community  if 
these  people  are  going  to  be  removed  from 
one  of  the  hospitals  and  put  into  the  com- 
munity. Likewise,  we  are  going  to  have  to 
work  \ery  closely  wdth  Canada  Manpower. 
A  lot  of  the  individuals  are  going  to  need 
special  programmes,  and  we  are  perhaps 
going  to  depend  on  Canada  Manpower  to 
develop  some  of  the  programmes,  especially 
in  areas  that  may  not  have  an  association  for 
the  mentally  retarded. 

I  am  quite  concerned  that  individuals 
may  be  released  into  a  community  where 
there  is  no  association  that  can  sort  of  assist, 
follow  up  and  be  of  maximum  help  to  the 
person  who  is  released  into  the  community. 
Likewise  there  is  the  need  for  a  citizens' 
advocacy  programme.  I  understand  it  is  in 
operation  in  some  areas  but  I  think  the  min- 
ister is  going  to  have  to  expand  that  opera- 
tion. I  know  in  my  own  community  the  re- 
tarded attempted  to  get  a  $12,000  LIP  grant 
to  operate  a  citizens'  advocacy  programme 
and  were  unsuccessful,  so  I  would  think  that 
the  ministry  will  have  to  pick  up  that  tab 
to  make  sure  that  we  do  have  trained  social 
workers  to  match  up  and  to  counsel  these 
who  are  released  into  the  community. 

The  advocate  could  be,  in  many  oases, 
sort  of  an  ombudsman  for  the  retarded  so 
that  he  could  act  as  a  go-between  for  the 
indi\idual  and  any  complaints  that  he  or 
she  might  have  concerning  any  agency  in 
the  community. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  make  just  a 
few  more  short  comments  concerning  this 
bill,  and  in  making  these  comments  to  read 
from  a  letter  that  was  published  in  the  Wind- 
sor Daily  Star.  It's  a  letter  written  by  Gordon 
S.  Smith,  executive  director  of  the  Windsor 
Association  for  the  Mentally  Retarded.  He 
certainly  spells  out  the  problem  well.  He 
looks  forward  with  brighter  hope  for  the 
area  and  for  those  suffering  from  this  han- 
dicap and  he  writes  as  follows: 

There  is  no  residence  for  trainable  re- 
tarded children  under  12  for  either  long- 
.  term  or  emergency  care  in  Windsor.  There 
is  a  need  for  a  day  activity  programme 
for  the  more  severely  and  multi-handi- 
capped retarded  adult,  and  more  foster 
and  boarding  homes.  I  am  happy  to  say 
that  the  association  is  presently  working 
on  these  needs.  We  hope  that  this  legis- 
lation will  accelerate  this  work  and  enable 
the  mentally  retarded  association  in  the 
community  to  resolve  the  problems. 


In  addition  to  these  important  needs, 
there  has  to  be  more  support  services. 
Although  the  Ministry  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  may  soon  bring  its  protec- 
tive programmes  to  Windsor  and  provide 
a  social  worker  to  look  after  the  legal 
problems  of  the  retarded,  this  will  only 
provide  partial  assistance.  If  there  are 
other  adequate  support  services,  such  as  a 
citizens'  advocacy,  many  of  the  legal  prob- 
lems will  be  eliminated,  also  many  more 
Cedar  Springs  residents  wall  be  able  to 
make  it  in  the  community. 

'All  these  programmes  and  services  cost 
money  and  it  is  true  that  the  Windsor 
Association  for  the  Mentally  Retarded  can 
only  raise  so  much  money.  If  government 
is  really  intent  on  phasing  down  institu- 
tions, then  it  must  be  prepared  to  redirect 
some  of  the  taxes  back  into  the  com- 
munity to  provide  it  with  increased  capital 
'grants  for  construction,  renovations  and 
equipment,  and  larger  operating  subsidies. 
Instead  of  Cedar  Springs  looking  at  sites 
in  Windsor  with  an  eye  to  building  a 
small  community  residence,  those  funds 
iwhich  are  available  to  do  this  should  be 
directed  to  the  associations  who  presently 
can  only  obtain  $5,000  per  bed  and  not 
100  per  cent  of  the  cost,  as  would  be 
'provided  through  Cedar  Springs. 

It  is  time  to  co-ordinate  and,  if  neces- 
sary, consolidate  all  services  for  handi- 
capped persons  to  give  them  that  brighter 
hope.  Finallv,  the  Windsor  Association  for 
the  Mentally  Retarded  is  no  longer  con- 
tent with  the  second  best.  We  ask  that 
mentally  retarded  people  be  free  to  partic- 
ipate in  all  aspects  of  commimity  Hfe,  to 
be  provided  with  appropriate  services,  not 
left  to  regress  physically  and  mentally; 
free  to  live  and  work  in  society  and  to 
know  some  degree  of  economic  security; 
(free  to  have  a  qualified  guardian,  such  as 
a  citizen  advocate,  to  protect  a  retarded 
person's  well-being  and  interests;  free  to 
enjoy  the  same  basic  rights  as  other  citi- 
zens.  It  is  not  too  much  to  ask. 

That  was  signed  by  Gordon ,  Smith,  execu- 
tive director  of  the  Windsor  Association  for 
the  Mentally  Retarded. 

Mr.  Sfpeaker,  with  these  few  comments  I 
will  support  the  principle  of  ^the  bill,  hoping 
that  the  minister  can  implement  that  as 
quickly  as  possible,  so  that  we  don't  wait  for 
15  years  to  have  what  had  been  recom- 
mended  to  government  for  15  years.  Thank 
you. 


464 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  Does  any  other  member  wish 
to  participate? 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  few  comments  with  re- 
spect to  the  bill.  It  was  interesting  to  receive 
the  minister's  original  statement  at  the  time 
when  we  were  finishing  off  the  debate  on 
the  York  teachers'  bill.  As  you  will  recall, 
sir,  we  were  prepared  to  proceed  with  that 
bill  before  this  House  took  its  break  last 
week. 

In  the  meantime,  though,  it  was  interest- 
ing as  well,  when  the  minister's  statement 
was  read  today,  to  see  that  suddenly  four 
pages  had  become  nine  pages.  Those  addi- 
tional pages  dealt  with  some  things  which 
apparently  had  been  greatly  the  concern  of 
a  number  of  groups  within  our  community. 
I  was  concerned,  in  some  preparation  for 
this  bill,  in  reviewing  a  couple  of  press 
articles  that  appeared  in  the  London  Free 
Press  and  in  the  Globe  and  Mail.  They 
dealt  particularly  with  the  concerns  of  many 
parents  as  to  the  background  and  the  knowl- 
edee  that  they  felt  they  should  have  had 
bef-^re  this  decision  was  made  to  transfer 
under  this  bill  the  responsibility  for  men- 
tally retarded  persons. 

I'm  quite  siue  the  minister  may  state  that 
it  is  only  natural  that  every  person  may  not 
know  in  depth  the  details  or  may  not  be 
aware  of  the  legislation  that's  coming  up. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  views,  at  least 
reported  from  the  meetings  in  London  and 
in  Toronto,  were  somewhat  more  serious 
than  that.  The  areas  of  concern  that  were 
discussed  there  apparently  have  now  been 
included  at  least  in  additional  statements  and 
assurances  which  the  minister  has  made,  par- 
ticularly with  respect  to  funding. 

It  has  been  said  this  afternoon,  as  it  has 
been  said  for  some  years,  that  this  present 
administration  in  Ontario  has  not  moved  as 
promptly  or  as  well  as  it  should  in  order 
to  take  advantage  of  the  Canada  Assistance 
Plan.  The  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  referred  to  the  numbers  involved,  some 
5,000  who  are  over  18  years  of  age,  some 
60  per  cent  of  the  total  of  some  8,000,  who 
are  now  going  to  be  able  to  obtain  the  kind 
of  financial  support  from  the  federal  govern- 
ment that  we  have  suggested  could  have 
been  arranged  some  years  ago.  The  Prov- 
inces of  Alberta,  Saskatchewan  and  New 
Brunswick  have  already  taken  advantage  of 
this  programme,  as  my  colleague  from  Wind- 
sor-Walkerville  has  pointed  out. 

But  I  think  that  there  are  still  some  con- 
cerns that  the  minister's  statement  has  now 


met,  at  least  part-way.  The  matter  of  cost- 
sharing  with  the  federal  government,  of 
course,  is  important.  While  we  become  the 
fourth  province,  we  have  not,  in  fact,  led  the 
way  as  we  should  have  in  making  this  kind 
of  legislation  an  important  change  in  the 
approach  which  has  been  taken  to  retarded 
persons  within  our  community. 

Increases  of  grants  for  construction  of 
workshops  and  for  day  nurseries  are  another 
important  aspect  that  we  hope  is  going  to 
result  from  this  bill.  I  am  most  interested  in 
knowing  whether  the  approach  that  some  of 
the  parents'  groups  have  referred  to  with 
respect  to  the  costs  to  individuals  has  been 
properly  and  fully  explained  to  them.  I  think 
the  minister  has  an  obligation— I'm  sure  he 
feels  it  too— to  make  certain  that  the  parents 
and  guardians  and  other  concerned  with  re- 
tarded persons  in  the  community-  are  well 
aware  of  what  the  financial  picture  is  going  to 
be.  Is  it  going  to  be  a  burden?  Is  it  going  to 
be  a  benefit? 

I  think  the  minister  must  make  certain  that 
the  various  associations  for  retarded  persons 
have  all  the  knowledge  they  must  ha\e  so 
they  know  that  various  benefits  which  are 
going  to  be  received  from  the  federal  govern- 
ment are  going  to  be  fully  used  in  the  de- 
velopment of  better  facilities  and  in  the  kinds 
of  facilities  that  he  has  suggested.  We  also,  I 
think,  have  to  make  certain  that  the  various 
payments  which  have  been  called  for,  by  and 
from  parents,  for  support  of  retarded  children 
or  young  persons,  are  no  longer  going  to  be  a 
requirement. 

The  minister,  in  his  statement  on  page  5, 
has  set  out  the  eligibility  extension  and  I'm 
pleased  to  see  it  here  in  detail  because  it 
wasn't,  of  course,  in  the  earlier  statement. 
If  the  minister  is  correct  that  many  parents 
are  going  to  be  reheved  of  expense  and  cer- 
tainly over-anxiety  for  the  care  and  develop- 
ment of  their  retarded  children  and  young 
people,  then  I  certainly  wish  him  well  as  this 
legislation  proceeds. 

The  member  for  Windsor-Walkerville  has 
suggested  that  this  matter  has  been  dis- 
cussed in  the  House  for  certainly  the  15  years 
that  he  has  been  here,  and  I'm  certain  those 
members  who  have  served  in  the  House 
longer  than  that  period  of  time  will  also  refer 
to  earlier  discussions  and  comments  which 
they  no  doubt  have  had  concerning  the  re- 
quirement for  this  kind  of  change. 

While  the  member  for  Peel  South  seems  to 
feel  this  is  a  dramatic  announcement,  I  think 
the  minister  will,  at  least,  understand  that 
we  in  the  opposition  cannot  quite  share  his 


MARCH  26.  1974 


465 


colleague's  approval  of  the  legislation  as  a 
dramatic  step.  We  think  it's  a  step  which  is 
long  overdue.  We  think  the  failure  of  the 
government  to  take  advantage  of  the  financial 
benefits  that  the  federal  government  has  made 
available  is  most  regrettable,  because  funds 
which  could  have  been  obtained  have  not 
been  obtained  over  the  past  several  years. 
As  a  result,  there  is  perhaps  some  cynicism  in 
our  view  that  this  change  is  being  made  as 
much  for  financial  reasons  as  it  is  for  the 
honest  concern  that  we  all  should  have  with 
attempting  to  bring  persons  who  have  re- 
tarded facihties  and  abilities  back  into  our 
community. 

I  was  interested  in  seeing  the  minister's 
comrrient  that  he  believes  some  50  per  cent 
of  persons  who  are  now  in  facilities  will  stand 
a  very  good  chance  of  coming  back  into 
society.  I  certainly  hope  he's  correct. 

I  think  the  procedure  which  is  being  taken 
to  develop  the  cottage  approach,  shall  we  say, 
as  opposed  to  a  large  institutional  approach,  is 
most  worthwhile.  One  thing  I  would  leave 
with  the  minister  as  a  comment  is  that  when 
the  cottages,  or  the  single-family  homes,  or 
whatever  it  is  that  is  going  to  be  coming, 
is  in  fact  developed,  that  he  does  not  go  too 
far  in  tiuning  them  simply  into  mini-insti- 
tutions. 

I  think,  for  example,  that  in  large  build- 
ings, no  doubt  particularly  in  the  ones  that 
we  have  seen  developed  over  the  past  years, 
various  fire,  safety  and  other  facilities  have 
been  very  important  criteria  as  to  the  de- 
velopment of  those  buildings.  But  I  would 
suggest  to  the  minister  that  if  he  is  going  to 
attempt  to  develop  and  bring  these  retarded 
persons  into  our  society,  it  should  be  done 
with  an  eye  to  the  kinds  of  homes  that  they 
are  going  to  be  going  into  eventually. 

There  is,  of  course,  some  vallie  in,  and 
we  must  indeed  be  concerned  about,  fire 
and  emergency  exits  and  these  other  things 
which  do  add  a  goodly  amount  of  cost  to 
an  ordinary  home  if  it  is  to  be  used  for  that 
particular  purpose.  But  I  hope  a  certain  bal- 
ance will  be  kept  because  I  think  the  funds 
can  be  used  to  good  advantage.  The  funds, 
indeed,  could  be  used  perhaps  to  better 
advantage  in  building  more  standard  kinds 
of  homes^the  kinds  of  homes  to  which  these 
persons  are  going  to  return  as  they  become 
more  and  more  a  part  of  society.  Of  course, 
we  have  to  have  standards  of  fire  safety. 
Naturally  enough  we  must  make  sure  that 
there  are  the  required  exits*— that  construc- 
tion is  sound— and  that  especially  persons  who 
might  become  easily  confused  in  the  event 


of  an  accident  or  a  fire,  or  whatever,  have 
clear  and  unobstructedi  ways  of  escape. 

But  I  would  suggest  that  some  considera- 
tion be  given  in  retaining  the  home  atmos- 
phere. If  that  last  safety  aspect  is  bent  a 
little  bit,  perhaps  it  will  at  least  be  worth- 
while to  consider  as  we  look  to  the  cost  and 
the  future  real  benefit.  This  is,  of  course, 
to  get  retarded  persons  back  into  our  society. 

We  in  the  opposition  vdll,  of  course,  sup- 
port this  bill.  We  are  concerned  that  all  of 
the  details  are  made  fully  known  to  the 
parents,  to  the  guardians  and  to  the  persons 
who  are  working  with  retarded  persons.  Many 
of  these  young  persons  are  going  to  be  par- 
ticularly vulnerable  to  all  sorts  of  problems. 

Indeed,  unfortunately,  some  of  our  com- 
munities may  not  take  the  decision  to  wel- 
come this  kind  of  facility  as  we  would  hope 
they  would  take  it.  I  hope  that  all  the  needs 
of  the  persons  who  are  going  to  be  turned 
over  by  this  programme  are  going  to  be 
properly  met. 

Of  course,  there  udll  be  a  large  transfer 
of  civil  servants;  I  understand  some  7,000. 
And  in  the  press  it  was  reported  that  the 
value  of  the  programme  is  some  $93  million; 
so  that  indeed  we  are  dealing  with  a  sub- 
stantial number  of  Ontario's  civil  servants 
and  we  are  dealing  wdth  a  lot  of  our  re- 
sources. 

I  hope  that  the  ministry  is  ready  to  handle 
this  change.  I  hope  that  the  transfer  is  not 
just  going  to  be  one  in  name,  but  in  fact 
will  be  one  in  substance.  Surely  the  prob- 
lems that  can  occur  are  well  known  to  the 
minister.  I  hope  they  have  been  thought 
through,  so  that  the  transfer  of  staff,  the 
transfer  of  facilities,  and  the  development  of 
this  programme  is  really  going  to  be  a  new 
step  in  the  treatment  of  the  one  person  in  a 
thousand  within  our  society  who  requires 
this  kind  of  facility. 

I  wash  the  government  well  in  the  develop- 
ment of  this  kind  of  programme.  We  cer- 
tainly welcome— albeit  after  many  years  of 
request— the  final  decision  that  the  govern- 
ment has  made  to  make  this  kind  of  transfer 
and  to  give  a  new  hope  to  those  persons 
in  our  society  who  are  retarded. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  any  other  member  wish 
to  participate  in  this  debate?  If  not,  the  hon. 
minister. 

iHon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish 
to  thank  the  hon.  members  for  their  con- 
structive comments.  The  consensus  is  that 
they  are  in  agreement  with  the  principle  of 
this  bill.    As  I  have  indicated,  the  main  pur- 


466 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


pose  of  this  bill  is  to  provide  enabling  legis- 
lation in  order  to  transfer  the  administrative 
responsibility  from  the  Ministry  of  Health  to 
our  ministry. 

However,  just  as  important,  if  not  more 
important,  this  legislation  will  provide  the 
framework  for  the  mentally  retarded  to  live 
in  a  community  setting.  That  is  the  pur- 
pose: to  transfer  it  from  the  Ministry  of 
Health,  where  it  was  a  hospital  patient- 
oriented  model,  to  a  community  resident 
model. 

I  would  like  to  assure  the  hon.  members, 
Mr.  Speaker,  of  the  main  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing federal  sharing  in  the  Canada  Assistance 
Plan.  All  that  money  will  be  definitely  used 
to  expand  the  facilities  and  the  services  for 
the  mentally  retarded  in  order  that  they  can 
take  their  just  place  in  society. 

Mr.  Cisbom:  Will  it  be  new  money?  That 
is  what  we  are  talking  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Yes,  within  our  own 
ministry  —  when  our  budget  is  presented  — 
there  are  additional  funds.  Again,  I  would 
like  to  reiterate  that  the  funds  from  the 
Canada  Assistance  Plan  will  be  used  entirely. 
We  don't  know  how  much  at  this  time.  The 
leader  of  the  NDP  says  $35  million.  We 
estimated  it  will  be  somewhere  between  $25 
million  to  $35  million. 

I  wish,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  deal  with  the 
remarks  of  each  individual  member;  but  I 
think  there  are  a  couple  of  things  that  should 
be  said.  As  I  indicated  in  my  remarks,  there 
will  be  no  problem  with  the  adxdts  sharing 
under  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan.  The  great 
majority  of  adults  vdll  be  eligible.  The  ad- 
vantage of  having  assistance  under  the  family 
benefits  plan  is  that  when  they  move  from 
an  institution  to  a  residence  they  will  have 
mobility  and  their  assistance  will  go  with 
them.  So  there  will  be  no  delays  as  there  are 
now  when  an  application  is  made  for  FBA. 

lAs  far  as  the  children  are  concerned— and 
this  is  the  area  of  concern— again  I'd  like  to 
emphasize  that  in  my  remarks  I  mentioned 
that  we  have  not  yet  comei  to  any  decision. 
There  have  been  many  discussions  with  the 
Ontario  Association  for  the  Mentally  Re- 
tarded and  with  the  parents  of  the  children 
and  this  whole  question  is  still  under  active 
consideration.  However,  our  legislation  is 
designed  in  such  a  way  that  there  could  be 
cost  sharing. 

There  will  be  an  annual  meeting  of  the 
Ontario  Association  of  the  Mentally  Retarded 
in  May  in  Peterborough  and  this  matter  will 
be  fully  discussed  between  now  and  that 
time  with  the  association  and  the  parents. 


The  hon.  member  for  York  Centre,  Mr. 
Speaker,  asked  to  have  the  names  of  the 
facilities  that  will  be  transferred.  I  will  be 
pleased  to  send  him  a  Hst  of  the  names  of 
those  facilities  that  are  government  operated. 
There  are  12  institutions,  plus  three  with 
partial  facilities.  There  are  eight  institutions 
operated  by  boards.  I  will  be  pleased  to 
send  this  to  the  hon.  member  for  York  Centre 
and  any  other  member  who  would  like  to 
have  the  names  of  those  institutions. 

The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury  East  refer- 
red to  several  matters,  Mr.  Speaker.  One  is 
with  reference  to  funding  and  again  I  just 
mention  that  the  funds  from  the  Canada 
Assistance  Plan  will  definitely  go  for  expan- 
sion of  additional  facilities  and  services. 

Children  who  are  in  institutions  now  under 
the  Ministry  of  Health  are  presently  funded 
100  per  cent  by  the  Ministry  of  Health  and 
this  will  continue.  Those  which  are  funded 
luider  our  ministry— for  instance  homes  for 
retarded  persons— we  fund  about  80  per  cent. 
At  the  present  time  this  legislation  does  not 
change  the  funding;  it  is  strictly  an  adminis- 
trative process  from  one  ministry  to  the 
other.  But  as  time  goes  on  we  will  integrate 
and  have  a  more  co-ordinated  plan  of  fund- 
ing. 

The  member  referred  to  capital  grants  for 
workshops.  He  referred  to  this  matter  in  our 
estimates  and  again  I  agree  with  him  that 
certainly  this  is  an  area  where  we  intend 
to  provide  more  funding.  The  present  assist- 
ance of  25  per  cent  in  many  areas  is  not 
adequate.  However  this  is  not  part  of  this 
legislation;  this  ^viM  come  at  a  later  date. 

He  referred  to  the  new  nursing  home  in 
Sudbury.  I  am  advised,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this 
home  will  be  under  the  homes  for  special 
care.  Only  specifically  chosen  persons  will  be 
placed  in  this  home  and  they  will  be  adults; 
no  children  will  be  placed  in  this  home. 
Also,  this  proposed  move  is  still  in  the 
planning  phase  and  the  parents  will  be  con- 
sulted. If  there  are  strong  objections  we 
certainly  wdll  take  them  into  consideration, 
because  in  all  these  matters,  Mr.  Speaker, 
we  must  deal  with  the  parents,  we  must  deal 
with  the  local  associations.  We  must  have 
their  full  co-operation  and  everything  will  be 
done  in  co-operation  with  the  parents  and 
the  associations. 

The  hon.  member  referred  to  Pioneer 
Manor.  I  am  in  agreement  with  what  he  said, 
that  it  is  one  of  the  best  homes  in  the  prov- 
ince. As  the  hon.  member  knows— I  believe 
I  wrote  to  him  recently— we  have  given  ap- 
proval for  an  addition  of  100  beds  to  this 
home. 


MARCH  26,  1974 


467 


The  hon.  member  for  St.  George  referred 
to  the  definition  of  the  meaning  of  develop- 
mental handicap.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  know 
whether  I  can  elaborate  further  on  the  defi- 
nition as  it  is  contained  in  the  Act.  This  term 
"developmental  handicap"  applies  to  retarded 
persons  but  is  not  as  much  of  a  stigma— if 
I  may  use  that  expression.  It  is  also  indicated 
here  that  it  means  "a  condition  of  mental 
impairment  present  or  occurring  during  a 
person's  formative  years,  that  is  associated 
with  limitations  in  adaptive  behaviour." 

The  member  also  referred,  Mr,  Speaker, 
to  the  sort  of  do-it-yourself  services  under 
the  Minister  of  Health.  It  is  our  intention  to 
expand  special  services  to  families,  such  as 
family  counselling,  homemaker  services,  de- 
velopment daycare  centres  and  so  forth.  This 
will  all  be  done  again  in  partnership  with  the 
local  associations  for  the  mentally  handi- 
capped. Also  our  legislation  provides  for  the 
purchase  and  provision  of  services.  We  will 
be  purchasing  certain  services  from  the  Min- 
istry of  Health  and  also  from  local  organiza- 
tions. 

She  referred  to  accommodation,  and  I 
agree  with  her.  She  mentioned  this  during 
our  estimates,  that  there  is  certainly  a  need 
for  accommodation  for  the  handicapped, 
both  the  mentally  and  the  physically,  where- 
by those  younger  persons  should  not  be 
placed  with  elderly  persons.  This  is  an  area 
that  we  will  be  improving.  The  new  Ministry 
of  Housing,  I  believe,  has  legislation  that 
will  provide  for  more  accommodation  for  the 
handicapped.  We  will  be  amending  some  of 
our  own  legislation.  For  instance,  last  year 
we  amended  the  Charitable  Institutions  Act 
whereby  we  can  provide  debt  retirement 
under  CMHC.  There  are  many  retarded 
homes  today  that  can  be  built  under  OMHC, 
if  there  were  assistance  from  our  ministry. 
They  can  obtain  the  mortgages.  It  is  our 
intention  to  amend  our  legislation  to  provide 
for  debt  retirement  under  those  circum- 
stances. 

The  hon.  member  for  Parkdale,  Mr. 
Speaker,  also,  made  some  very  constructive 
comments.  Again,  I  wish  to  reiterate  to  him 
and  to  the  members  that  the  main  purpose 
of  our  transfer  for  the  mentally  retarded  is 
to  develop  their  potential  to  the  maximum. 
The  hon.  member  for  Simcoe  East  referred 
to  the  two  institutions  in  his  riding— Edgar, 
the  adult  occupational  centre,  and  the  one 
at  Orillia,  the  Huronia  regional  centre.  I 
wish  to  assure  him  that  the  farm  and  garden 
programme  has  not  been  discontinued.  It  is 
being  reviewed  in  order  to  incorporate  it 
into  the  community  trust  with  reference  to 
this  new  legislation. 


With  regard  to  staff,  this  is  quite  a  con- 
cern. It  is  understandable.  I  believe  it  has 
been  mentioned  that  there  are  somewhere,  I 
believe,  around  7,800  staff  which  will  be 
transferred  from  Health  to  our  ministry. 
There  have  been  many  meetings  with  the 
staff  of  the  Ministry  of  Health,  along  with 
some  of  our  own  ofiicials  meeting  with  the 
various  staffs  and  their  institutions  to  inform 
them  of  the  transfer  of  this  programme,  and 
they  have  been  assured  that  their  employ- 
ment will  not  be  jeopardized.  In  certain  in- 
stances, of  course,  there  could  be  a  changing 
of  the  role  of  that  institution  and  there  will 
have  to  be  some  adaptation.  But  there  cer- 
tainly is  no  question  of  their  employment 
being  jeopardized  as  a  result  of  this  transfer 
or  any  other  benefits  that  they  are  presently 
receiving. 

The  hon.  member  for  Welland  South  re- 
ferred to  several  matters,  Mr.  Speaker,  Like 
previous  members,  he  referred  to  the  inade- 
quate funding  for  residential  facilities  as  well 
as  workshops.  I  am  entirely  in  agreement  with 
him.  We  hope  to  provide  more  assistance. 

He  referred  to  the  public  trustee.  As  far 
as  the  public  trustee  is  concerned,  Mr, 
Speaker,  the  services  available  presently 
under  the  Ministry  of  Health  will  continue 
under  our  ministry.  There  is,  of  course,  an 
area  of  guardianship  that  is  a  very  important 
area.  There  is  a  committee  presently  review- 
ing this  matter,  composed  of  our  ministry, 
the  Ministry  of  Health  and  the  Attorney 
General's  department,  and  looking  into  this 
whole  question  of  guardianship  for  the  men- 
tally retarded.  We  also  are  instituting  an 
adult  protective  service  programme,  which 
will  provide  counselling  and  support  services, 
including  trusteeship,  to  retarded  persons 
within  the  community.  It's  a  very  important 
area,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  it's  one  where  we 
certainly  will  do  our  best  to  provide  the 
necessary  services. 

The  leader  of  the  NDP  is  not  here,  Mr. 
Speaker,  but  again  his  main  concern  was  that 
the  transfer  was  mainly  a  bid  to  obtain  fed- 
eral money  without  any  assurance  that  it 
would  be  reinvested  in  facihties  for  the  re- 
tarded.   Again,  this  will  definitely  be  done. 

I  appreciated  the  remarks  from  the  hon, 
member  for  Prince  Edward-Lennox;  a  very 
fine  constituency  and  a  very  fine  member, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  wasn't  necessary.  The 
minister  had  to  spoil  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  The  member  for  Rainy 
River  referred  to  funding. 


468 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  That's  a 
fine  riding,  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Will  funds  for  the 
mental  retardation  programme  in  health  be 
transferred  to  our  ministry?  Definitely  the 
funds  will  be  transferred.  I  was  looking  at 
this  new  policy  brochure  for  the  fiscal  year 
of  1971-1972;  and  the  amounts  for  the  Minis- 
try of  Health,  I  believe,  were  about  $83,680,- 
000.  The  funds  for  those  programmes  that 
were  in  Health  and  are  coming  over  to  our 
ministry  will  definitely  be  transferred. 
The  hon.  member  for  Peel  South- 
Mr.  Martel:  Forget  about  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  —asked  about  the  num- 
bers of  person  who  could  be  rehabilitated 
and  it  is  estimated  that  about  half  of  those 
who  are  now  in  institutions  could  be  re- 
habilitated within  a  community  setting. 

The  hon.  member  for  Windsor- Walkerville, 
Mr,  Speaker,  brought  many  matters  to  my 
attention  and  I  believe  I  may  be  omitting 
some  of  the  matters  he  brought  up.  I 
would  like  to  assure  all  the  hon.  members 
that  on  those  matters  they  brought  to  my 
attention  I  will  write  to  them  and  give  them 
answers.  In  the  meantime,  I  will  do  my 
best  to  try  to  reply  to  some  of  the  matters 
he  brought  out. 

In  my  remarks  I  referred  to  the  age  of 
18;  18  years  of  age  is  the  age  eligibility  for 
assistance  under  the  Family  Benefits  Act. 
Therefore,  all  the  adults  who  are  18  years 
of  age  and  over  in  the  institutions  will  be 
eligible  for  a  pension  or  assistance  imder  the 
Family  Benefits  Act.  This  does  not  mean 
that  we  will  be  considering  those  adults 
first  for  rehabilitation,  those  who  can  be,  of 
course,  into  a  community  setting. 

Children  certainly  merit  every  considera- 
tion and  quite  a  large  number  of  those 
children  will  be  rehabilitated  within  their 
own  communities.  When  I  say  within  their 
communities,  some  could  go  back  to  their 
families.  Some  may  go  to  foster  homes. 
Others  could  go  to  group  homes.  The  18 
years  old  age  reference  is  mainly  for  eligi- 
bility under  the  Family  Benefits  Act. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Will  there  be  financial 
provisions  for  the  parents  who  take  their 
children  back? 

Hon,  Mr.  Brunelle:  On  this  whole  ques- 
tion, as  I  said,  with  adults  there  is  no  prob- 
lem; the  problem  is  with  the  children.  This 
is  the  area  we  are  giving  consideration  to 
and  where  we  are  working  closely  with  the 


parents  and  with  the  local  associations.  It  is 
our  intention,  once  we  have  arrived  at  some 
agreement,  that  there  would  be  agreements 
with  the  families  and  with  our  ministry,  and 
it  will  depend  on  the  financial  ability  of 
those  families. 

There  will  be  some  sort  of  an  income 
test  whereby  those  families  will  contribute 
what  they  normally  would  contribute  for  a 
normal  child.  In  some  cases,  say  low  wage 
earners  or  persons  who  are  on  pensions,  they 
may  not  make  any  contribution  except, 
maybe,  for  the  minimum  of  the  family 
allowance,  which  is  now  $20  a  month.  So 
this  whole  area  is  one  of  concern,  one  where 
we  certainly  need  the  full  co-operation  of 
the  parents  and  the  local  associations  and 
one  upon  which  there  has  been  no  decision 
made. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  won't  have  anything  to  do 
with  the  father's  income  but  rather  the  cost 
of  the  care  provided. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Well,  under  the  CAP 
there  has  to  be  a  needs  test,  and  for  many 
parents  there  is  no  problem;  many  parents 
of  low  income  earners  and  those  who  are 
on  pensions  will  qualify,  except  that  they 
may  have  to  pay  the  $20  family  allowance. 

With  reference  to  graduates  of  colleges 
and  universities,  they  certainly  will  be  con- 
sidered for  employment  in  facilities  and  ser- 
vices for  the  mentally  retarded.  The  hon. 
member  may  be  familiar  with  the  group  of 
young  Canadians  —  I  forget  what  they  call 
themselves— who  are  very  interested  in  assist- 
ing the  mentally  retarded.  They  operate 
across  Canada,  but  I  forget  the  ofiBcial  name 
of  the  group.  We  do  now  employ  graduates 
of  colleges  and  universities  and  there  prob- 
ably could  be  an  expansion  of  courses  in  this 
area. 

With  reference  to  Canada  Manpower, 
again  we  certainly  agree  that  we  will  work 
very  closely  with  Canada  Manpower  in  trying 
to  place  those  retarded  who  can  obtain  em- 
ployment. We  also  intend  to  work  closely 
with  industry  in  this  area.  More  should  be 
done;  there  should  be  incentives  to  industry 
in  order  to  provide  employment  to  those  who 
can  work  in  an  industrial  area. 

The  hon.  member  referred  to  capital  grants 
for  residential  facilities.  As  I  indicated  earlier, 
I  am  in  agreement  that  there  should  be  an 
improvement;  our  present  grant  of  $5,000 
per  bed  under  the  Charitable  Institutions  Act 
is  not  adequate  in  this  day  and  age. 

As  I  indicated  earlier,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sure  that  I  missed  some  of  the  matters  that 


MARCH  26,  1974 


the  hon.  member  brought  to  my  attention, 
and  I  will  be  pleased  to  send  him  written 
reply  to  all  the  matters  that  he  did  bring 
up  and  that  I  have  missed  at  the  present 
time. 

The  hon.  member  for  Kitchener  brought  up 
the  areas  of  concern  to  the  parents  with 
respect  to  the  funding  and,  as  I  indicated 
earlier,  this  has  not  yet  been  decided.  I  agree 
with  him  also  about  residential  facilities,  that 
although  they  should  meet  the  health  and 
the  fire  standards,  they  should  be  such  that 
they  provide  a  home-like  atmosphere.  There 
also  should  be  provision  so  that  when  a 
person  leaves  an  institution  and  goes  to  a 
group  home,  eventually  he  could  go  from 
there  to  a  regular  apartment  or  home  of  his 
own.  Certainly  it  is  our  intention  to  provide 
as  much  of  a  home-like  atmosphere  as  pos- 
sible. 

Mr.  Speaker,  again  I  thank  the  hon. 
members  for  their  contribution,  and  I  wish 
to  assure  them  that  it  is  definitely  our  in- 
tention to  improve  the  facilities  and  the 
services  to  the  mentally  retarded. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
bill. 

r  Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  bill  be  ordered  for 

third  reading? 

Agreed. 

'  Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 

ing the  adjourned  debate  on  the  amendment 
to  the  amendment  to  the  motion  for  an  ad- 
dress in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the  Honour- 
able the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the  opening 
of  the  session. 


'     THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Mr.  Speaker, 
before  you  proceed  with  this  order,  I  wonder 
if  I  may  ask  for  the  concurrence  of  the  House. 
The  hon.  member  for  Sandwich-Riverside 
(Mr.  Burr)  was  speaking  when  the  debate 
was  adjourned.  He  is  unfortunately  required 
to  be  with  the  select  committee  this  after- 
noon dealing  with  the  preparation  of  the  re- 
port and  is  unable  to  be  in  the  House.  If  the 
House  could  grant  unanimous  consent  to 
permit  him  to  complete  his  speech  at  a  sub- 
sequent sitting,  it  would  certainly  be  appre- 
ciated by  the  hon.  member  and  by  me  on 
behalf  of  the  party. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  say  that  there  is  an- 
other hon.  member,  in  addition  to  the  hon. 
member    for    Sandwich-  Riverside,    who    had 


moved  adjournment  of  the  debate  previously. 
It  was  my  intention,  if  either  of  these  hon. 
members  wishes  to  pursue  his  participation 
in  this  debate,  that  I  would  ask  for  the 
concurrence  of  the  House.  I  am  sure  tbere 
will  be  no  difBculty  at  that  time.  With  our 
provisions  in  the  standing  orders,  no  member 
may  speak  twice;  and  I  would  need  concur- 
rence, which  I  will  seek  if  and  when  the  time 
arises. 

Mr.  J.  Root  (Wellington-Dufferin):  Well, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  hoped  to  complete  my 
remarks  tonight,  but  I  have  been  sitting  here 
for  two  afternoons  and  I  am  afraid  that  I 
am  not  going  to  get  very  far  into  what  I 
want  to  say,  but  if  you  want  me  to  proceed, 
I  will  start. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  the  member  tell 
a  couple  of  jokes  or  something? 

Mr.  Root:  All  right,  I  will.  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  welcome  the  opportunity  to  make  some 
comments  regarding  the  speech  that  was 
delivered  by  his  Honour,  the  Lieutenant 
Governor,  at  the  opening  of  this  session  on 
March  5. 

First  of  all,  let  me  commend  you,  sir,  on 
the  fair  manner  in  which  you  preside  over  the 
debates  in  this  House,  endeavouring  to  give 
everyone  a  fair  chance  to  be  heard. 

I  realize  that  your  task  is  not  easy,  because 
I  must  say  that  having  sat  in  this  House 
for  over  22  years  I  have  seen  Legislatures 
that  were  more  orderly  than  the  present 
Legislature. 

I  have  wondered  sometimes  whether  mem- 
bers of  the  opposition,  in  particular  the  NDP, 
are  hard  of  hearing.  I  note  when  you  call 
the  leader  of  that  party  to  order,  he  quite 
often  turns  and  faces  the  other  way  and  goes 
right  on  talking.  It  may  be  that  he  has  diffi- 
culty hearing,  or  it  may  be  that  he  wants  to 
interject  into  other  members'  speeches- 
Mr.  Deans:  No  way. 

Mr.  Root:  —so  that  he  can  get  his  com- 
ments out  in  the  Hansard  and  destroy  the 
effect  of  the  other  member's  speech. 

Mr.  Deans:   If  I  had  known  the  member 
was  going  to  be  that  nasty- 
Mr.    Root:    Well,   I   am   trying  to   accom- 
modate the  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  this  part  of  the  member's 
speech? 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  This  is 
one  of  the  jokes. 


470 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Root:  At  any  rate,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.    Deans:    Did   he   write    that   into    his 
speech? 

Mr.    Root:    At    any    rate,    Mr.    Speaker,    I 
favour  a  two-party  system- 
Mr.  Deans:  I  bet  he  does. 

Mr.  Root:  —where  you  have  a  government 
and  you  have  an  opposition  that  has  the 
responsibility  of  keeping  the  government  on 
its  toes.  I  used  to  wonder  why  we  had  a 
third  party,  but  sometimes  when  I  look 
across  and  see  members  of  that  third  party 
sitting  with  their  feet  on  their  desks,  with 
their  coats  off,  interjecting,  and  sometimes 
their  language- 
Mr.  Deans:  He  means  when  he  is  here 
he  looks  across  and  he  sees  that. 

Mr.  Root:  —in  my  opinion,  is  not  appro- 
priate language  for  a  parliament,  I  can  see 
where  perhaps  there  is  a  useful  purpose  by 
having  a  third  party  to  attract  that  type  of 
member. 

Mr.  Deans:  It's  such  a  pleasure  to  hear 
from  him. 

Mr.  Root:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  you  well 
in  the  days— this  is  the  type  of  thing,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  I  am  referring  to,  that  con- 
tinual interjecting  to  get  into  my  speech. 

Mr.  Deans:  That's  right.  It  is  the  unpro- 
vocative  nature  of  the  member's  comments. 

Mr.  Root:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  you  well  in 
the  days  that  lie  ahead.  I  know  we  are  all 
pleased  to  see  you  back  in  the  chair.  I  know 
that  you  will  do  your  best  to  deal  fairly 
with  all  members. 

I  want  to  pay  tribute  to  the  Honourable 
W.  Ross  Macdonald,  who  has  been  a  worthy 
representative  of  the  monarchy  here  in  On- 
tario. He  has  been  a  credit  to  that  institution 
and  retires  with  the  respect  of  all  members 
of  the  House. 

With  regard  to  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne,  I  was  interested  to  note  that  despite 
projection  of  slower  economic  growth  this 
year,  it  is  still  hoped  that  the  level  of  em- 
plovinent  achieved  in  1973,  which  produced 
a  record  of  149,000  new  jobs,  will  be  main- 
tained. 

I  also  note  that  for  the  second  consecutive 
year  dwelling  starts  in  Ontario  have  exceeded 
100,000  units,  a  rate  of  construction  which 
is  consistent  with  the  government's  overall 
objective  of  one  million  new  d'welling  units 
in  10  years. 


These  two  comments  indicate  the  effect  of 
the  sound  progressive  policies  that  have  been 
pursued  by  the  Progressive  Conservative 
Party  during  the  years  this  party  has  been 
charged  with  the  responsibility  of  govern^ 
ment. 

Mr.  Deans:  Oh,  balderdash. 

'Mr.  Root:  Look  at  the  record  of  some  of 
our  sister  provinces.  I  noted  in  the  Globe 
and  Mail  on  Sept.  27,  1973,  that  the  popu- 
lation of  Saskatchewan  had  dropped  by 
52,000  from  1968  to  1973- 

Mr.  Deans:  Isn't  there  a  rule  that  members 
are  not  allowed  to  read  in  the  House,  Mr. 
Speaker? 

Mr.  Root:  —or  at  the  rate  of  10,400  a  year, 
while  in  the  same  period,  from  1966  to 
1973- 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  No  oppor- 
tunity there! 

Mr.  Root:  —Ontario's  population  had 
grown  by  some  956,000  or  an  increase  of 
136,590  per  year.  This  shift  in  population 
reflects  the  confidence  that  people  ha\e  in 
this  dynamic  province,  which  has  become  a 
land  of  opportunity  imder  the  soimd  policies 
of  this  government. 

I'm  sure  that  the  thousands  of  people  who 
are  getting  out  from  under  the  dfead  hand 
of  socialism  in  Saskatchewan  are  pleased  that 
there  are  provinces  like  Ontario  that  are  pro- 
viding up  to  140,000  or  more  new  jobs  in 
one  year  and  100,000  new  housing  starts. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Root:  I  know  that  all  fair-minded 
people  realize  that  in  expanding  an  economy 
at  times  we  have  to  go  into  deficit  financing. 

I  have  heard  hon.  members  complaining 
about  our  debts,  and,  really,  no  one  likes 
debt.  But  when  you  realize,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  this  province  has  become  so  prosperous 
that,  according  to  last  year's  budget,  our 
revenue  went  up  to  over  $6  billion  and  the 
debt  was  less  than  $3  billion.  We  can  realize 
also  that  if  we  stopped  all  the  programmes 
we  could  wipe  out  our  debt  in  less  than  six 
months. 

Mr.  Deans:  What  programmes? 

Mr.  Root:  Well,  maybe  the  hon.  member 
will  start  telling  us  what  programmes  he 
wants  wiped'  out. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  If  the 
member  believes  in  deficit  financing  why 
doesn't  he  say  it? 


MARCH  26,  1974 


471 


'Mr.   Root:    That's   the  way   I   bought  my 
farm,  absolutely. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Root:  In  addition  to  financing  our  own 
programmes  and  providing  the  job  oppor- 
tunities for  a  population  that  has  grown  by 
nearly  four  million  since  the  party  took  office, 
we  are  providing  almost  half  of  the  national 
budget.  I  am  sure  that  Mr.  Trudeau  and 
his  finance  minister  are  pleased  that  Ontario 
has  prospered  as  no  other  province  has 
prospered,  so  that  from  us  they  can  get  the 
revenue  to  help  provinces- 
Mr.  Deans:  Come  on  now!  British  Coliun- 
bia  has  done  pretty  well.  The  member 
shouldn't  be  so  niggardly  in  his  praise. 

Mr.  Root:  I  am  sure  that  Mr.  Trudeau 
and  his  finance  minister  approve  that  Ontario 
has  prospered  as  no  other  province  has  pros- 
pered, so  that  from  us  they  can  get  the 
revenue  to  help  provinces  that  haven't  had 
the  good  fortune  to  live  under  Conservative 
policies  for  the  years  that  we  have  in  Ontario. 

Mr.  Deans:  BC  can  finance  its  own  projects. 

'Mr.  Root:  I  agree  with  the  statement  in  the 
Throne  Speech  that,  if  we  are  to  alleviate 
the  causes  and  eflPects  of  inflation,  the  prob- 
lem can  only  be  dealt  with  in  the  national 
context  with  all  governments  co-operating.  1 
am  sure  that  everyone  in  Ontario  will  appre- 
ciate a  comprehensive  programme  to  improve 
essential  services  in  remote  areas  of  the 
province. 

During  the  years  I  served  on  the  Ontario 
Water  Resources  Commission  I  had  the 
privilege  of  visiting  many  of  the  remote 
areas  of  the  province.  I  sometimes  wonder 
whether  our  people  realize  the  expanse  of 
this  great  province,  I  wonder  if  we  reahze 
that  the  most  northerly  part  of  Ontario  is 
many  hundreds  of  miles  south  of  the  Arctic 
Circle,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  Soviet 
Union  has  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people 
living  north  of  the  Arctic  Circle. 

•Mr.  Deans:  Even  with  that  knowledge  what 
would  the  government  do  with  it? 

Mr.  Root:  I  think  it  is  forward  thinking 
to  make  every  possible  effort  to  develop  that 
part  of  our  province.  I  note  that  there  are 
plans  for  a  road  link  to  James  Bay  through 
Moosonee— 

Mr.  Deans:  Again? 

Mr.  Root:  —and  that  a  power  line  will  be 
constructed  into  that  area  and  studies  will  be 


made  regarding  the  establishment  of  a  port 
facility  in  the  James  Bay  area,  to  bring  poten- 
tial supplies  of  gas,  oil  and  mineral  from 
sources  in  the  eastern  Arctic. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  Lieutenant  Governor  read 
all  that  three  weeks  ago. 

Mr.  Root:  I  remember  the  first  time  I  visited 
Moosonee  about  20  years  ago  and  rubbed 
out  clover  seed  fully  matured  in  September. 
I  predicted  at  that  time  that  there  would  be 
great  developments  in  the  northern  part  of 
the  province- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion ) :  Was  the  member  around  the  first  time 
they  predicted  that? 

Mr.  Root:  —that  will  affect  not  only  ship- 
ping and  transportation  but  agriculture.  The 
north  is  grass  country.  I  want  to  commend 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Mr. 
Stewart )  and  his  ministry  on  their  programme 
to  develop  a  cow-calf  operation  in  that  part 
of  the  province.  I  think  there  can  be  a  great 
future  for  that  type  of  industry  and  the  feeder 
cattle  can  come  south  into  the  com  belts 
where  they  can  be  finished. 

The  development  into  the  northern  part  of 
the  province  is  a  continuation  of  the  policies 
that  have  been  pursued  by  the  Conservative 
Party.  During  the  time  I  have  served  in  this 
Legislature  I  have  seen  the  government  build 
a  new  highway  on  the  north  shore  of  Lake 
Superior  and  on  through  to  Atikokan. 

An  hon.  member:  The  Trans-Canada. 

Mr.  Deans:  He  must  have  been  here  for 
a  long  time. 

An  hon.  member:  Not  long  enough. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  going  to  be  here 
a  lot  longer,  too. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  Just 
listen  to  the  words  of  wisdom. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet ) :  Members  opposite 
needn't  be  jealous. 

Mr.  Root:  From  there  we  went  on  through 
to  Fort  Frances,  where  the  Noden  Causeway 
was  built  to  shorten  the  traffic  route  from  Fort 
Frances  in  that  part  of  the  province  to  the 
head-of-the-lakes.  I  have  travelled  the  new 
highway  that  was  built  by  this  government 
to  Red  Lake.  I  remember  the  first  time  I 
was  in  Hornepayne;  we  went  in  by  train 
and  people  wanted  a  road  out.  I  remember 
stopping  at  one  station  in  the  morning— in- 


472 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cidentally,  there  were  no  liberals  on  that 
trip;  they  didn't  seem  to  be  interested'  in  the 
north. 

Mr.  J.  N.  Allan  (Haldimand-Norfolk):  All 
good  Tories. 

Mr.  Root:  The  people  wanted  a  road  out. 
That  was  a  members  tour.  That  road  has 
been  built.  There  are  new  highways  into 
Manitouwadge  and  Elliot  Lake;  improved 
highways  from  Espanola  to  Little  Current; 
a  bridge  giving  access  to  St.  Joseph's  Island. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Did  the  member  ride  over 
Highway  11  between  Beardmore  and  Gerald- 
ton? 

Mr.  Root:  I  have  mentioned  but  a  few  of 
the  developments  that  have  taken  place  in 
northern  Ontario.  I  remember  the  first  time 
I  was  in  Moosonee  I  drove  from  Cochrane 
to  Kapuskasing  on  a  dirt  road  which  was 
under  construction.  There  was  no  bridge  at 
Smooth  Rock  Falls. 

Mr.  Stokes:  They're  still  building  it. 

Mr.  Root:  We  had  to  go  over  the  dam.  All 
of  these  improvements  have  taken  place  and 
I  must  say  I  get  a  little  weary  when  I  hear 
some  people  saying  that  this  government  has 
done  nothing  for  northern  Ontario.  I  sug- 
gest this  government  has  a  record  of  service^ 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  This  government  has  done 
nothing  for  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Root:  —that  has  not  been  equalled'  by 
any  government  at  any  time  in  the  province. 

I  am  sure  the  northern  people  will  appre- 
ciate the  fact  that  following  the  success  of 
the  norOntair  air  service  this  is  to  be 
extended  into  more  communities  in  north- 
western Ontario.  Air  service  means  a  lot  in 
the  northern  part  of  the  province,  with  the 
great  distances  that  have  to  be  travelled.  I 
remember  one  day  just  a  few  weeks  ago 
when  I   had   to  sit  in   on  a  meeting 


ks    ago 
of  the 
Environmental  Hearing  Board  at  Sioux  Nar- 


Mr.  Deans:  That's  something  else  we  want 
to  change. 

Mr.  Root:  Because  of  the  air  service  pro- 
vided in,  the  north,  I  was  able  to  Ifeave 
Toronto  in  the  morning,  fly  to  Dryden, 
travel  on  a  ministry  plane  to  Sioux  Narrows, 
hold  the  hearing  and  be  back  in  Toronto  in 
time  for  supper.  This  is  the  type  of  service 
that  is  bringing  our  province  together  in  a 
compact,    easily-served   community. 


Mr.  Stokes:  Unfortunately,  there  are  not 
too  many  people  who  can  fly  with  the  minis- 
try. 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  member  does. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  The  member  for 
Thunder  Bay  gets  his  fair  share;  dWt  com- 
plain. 

Mr.  Stokes:  No  more  than  what's  due. 

Mr.  Deans:  Was  the  member  for  Welling- 
ton-Dufferin  also  being  paid  at  the  same 
time? 

Mr.  Root:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will  await  with 
interest  Ontario's  policy  on  the  control  and 
develt>pment  of  uranium  as  a  provincial 
natural  resource.  I  must  say  I  was  pleased 
to  hear  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  come 
out  in  support  of  the  CANDU-type  reactor. 
This  is  a  complete  about-face  from  some  of 
his  speeches  in  the  past  when  he  was  pro- 
moting other  forms  of  power  generation. 
However,  that  is  not  the  first  time,  nor  prob- 
ably the  last  time,  that  the  leader  of  the 
Liberal  Party  will  right-about-face 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Where  does  the  member 
stand  on  the  denturists?  Is  he  going  to 
change  with  the  government  this  week? 

Mr.  Root:  However,  I  think  the  leader  of 
the  Liberal  Party  is  an  honourable  member. 
He  may  have  diflBculty  in  getting  support 
from  some  of  his  members,  and  that  may  be 
the  reason  he  changes  course  from  day  to 
day. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it's  6  o'clock.  With  your  per- 
mission I  wili  move  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate  and  I  will  be  pleased  to  resume  my 
remarks  at  a  later  date. 

Mr.  Root  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  House  I  will 
say  we'll  return  to  this  debate  on  Thursday 
when  we'll  have  the  pleasure  of  listening  to 
the  concluding  remarks  of  the  member  for 
Wei  lington-Dufi^erin . 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6  o'clock,  p.m. 


MARCH  26,  1974  473 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  March  26,  1974 

Uranium  and  associated  nuclear  fuels  policy,  statement  by  Mr.  Davis  429 

Uranium  and  associated  nuclear  fuels  policy,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon, 

Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Bullbrook,  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Shulman  431 

Inquirv  into  hospital  employees'  remuneration,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon, 

Mr.    Lewis    433 

Seatbelts,  question  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  435 

Supermarket    food    prices,    questions    of    Mr.    Davis    and    Mr.    Clement:    Mr.    Lewis, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Shulman,  Mr.  Roy  435 

Maple  Mountain  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch  and  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Lewis  ...  438 

Trailwind  Products,  questions  of  Mr.  Cuindon:  Mr.  Lewis  438 

Ontario  Hydro  employment  policy,  question  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Sargent  439 

Ambulance  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Pattdrson,  Mr.  Roy,  Mr.  Sargent, 

Mr.  Ruston,  Mr.  Reid  439 

Police  raid  on  recreation  club,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Shulman  441 

Use  of  criminal  records,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Roy  441 

Presenting  report,  standing  procedural  ajffairs  committee,  re  applications  for  private  Acts, 

Mr.  Morrow  442 

Presenting  report,  re  uranium  and  associated  nuclear  fuels  policy,  Mr.  McKeough  442 

Motion  re  sitting  of  House,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  442 

City  of  Orillia  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith,  first  reading  443 

City  of  Niagara  Falls  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Momingstar,  first  reading  443 

Tara   Exploration   and  Development   Co.   Ltd.   Act,  bill   respecting,   Mrs.   Scrivener, 

first  reading  443 

Diamond  and  Green  Construction  Co.  Ltd.  Act,  biU  respecting,  Mr.  Singer,  first  reading  444 

Root's  Dairy  Ltd.  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Allan,  first  reading  444 

City  of  Hamilton  Act  (1),  bill  respecting,  Mr.  J.  R.  Smith,  first  reading  444 

City  of  Hamilton  Act  (2),  bill  respecting,  Mr.  J.  R.  Smith,  first  reading  444 

Ontario  Bill  of  Rights  Act,  bill  to  establish,  Mr.  Roy,  first  reading 444 

City  of  Belleville  Act,  bill  respecting,   Mr.  Taylor,  first  reading  444 

Town  of  Walkerton  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Sargent,  first  reading  444 

Town  of  Ingersoll  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Parrott,  first  reading  444 

City  of  Toronto  Act  (1),  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Wardle,  first  reading  444 


474  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Niagara  Peninsular  Railway  Co.  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Deacon,  first  meeting  444 

Incorporated  Synod  of  the  Diocese  of  Ontario  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Nuttall,  first 

•reading 444 

St.  Catharines  Slovak  Club  Ltd.  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Johnston,  first  reading  445 

Developmental  Services  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr,  Brunelle,  second  reading  445 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Root 469 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Root,  agreed  to  472 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  .^ 472 


No.  13 


Ontario 


Hegtslature  of  Ontario 


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


Thursday,  March  28,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT   BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


477 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

OIL  PRICES 

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

In  order  to  avoid  what  I  would  consider 
a  serious  confrontation  throughout  this  coxm- 
trv  at  a  very  critical  point  in  its  history,  some 
consensus  simply  had  to  be  reached  yester- 
day. This  was  impressed  upon  me  very  deep- 
ly as  I  participated  yesterday  afternoon.  In 
the  final  analysis,  I  felt  that  the  only  reason- 
able course  of  action  for  a  Premier  of  On- 
tario was  to  modify  his  initial  position  to 
accept  a  somewhat  higher  price  than  I  would 
have  preferred,  bearing  in  mind  the  infla- 
tionary effects  of  any  increase. 

I  believe  that  the  agreement  finally  arrived 
at  recognizes  to  a  considerable  degree  the 
very   different   interests   of  the   different  re- 

fions  of  the  country  and  will  be  to  the  bene- 
t  of  Canada  as  a  whole.  For  that  reason, 
perhaps  rather  than  reasons  of  eventual  price 
determination,  I  am  not  unhappy  with  the 
results.  The  consensus  arrived  at  provides  for 
a  wellhead  price  of  oil  of  $6.50  a  barrel, 
effective  on  April  1  and  lasting  for  at  least 
12  and  possibly  15  months.  Prior  to  the  end 
of  this  initial  period  the  price  will  be  re- 
viewed and  may  be  then  continued,  raised 
or  lowered. 

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


Thursday,  March  28,  1974 

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

This  agreed  price  is  somewhat  higher  than 
the  price  advocated  by  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment, but  is  much  lower  than  that  originally 
sought  by  the  producing  provinces.  After  all, 
$6.50  is  some  $4  less  than  the  current  world 
price  and  some  $2  less  than  the  average 
American  price.  The  effect  of  the  agreement 
will  probably  result  in  an  increase  of  ap- 
proximately seven  cents  a  gallon  for  gasoline 
and  heating  oil,  and  an  increase  of  somewhat 
more  than  one  percentage  point  on  the  con- 
sumer price  index.  The  exact  timing  of  retail 
price  increases  to  Ontario  consumers  has  not 
been  determined,  but  we  could  fully  expect 
the  federal  government  and  the  industry  will 
be  able  to  maintain  existing  prices  until 
present  stocks  are  exhausted. 

In  spite  of  this  cost  which  will  have  to 
be  paid  by  consumers  in  Ontario,  I  am  con- 
vinced that  we  have  preserved  for  Cana- 
dians the  benefits  of  this  country's  vast  en- 
ergy resources.  The  increased  price  will  per- 
mit rapid  development  of  new  energy  re- 
sources; the  lower-than-world  price  will 
maintain  a  competitive  advantage  for  Cana- 
dian industry;  consumers  in  the  eastern  prov- 
inces will  be  protected  from  the  high  cost  of 
imported  oil,  the  western  provinces  will  have 
a  base  on  which  to  diversify  their  economic 
development,  Canadians  will  have  a  stable  oil 
price  for  at  least  a  year  while  the  rest  of  the 
world  faces  uncertainty,  and  Canada  will  be 
spared  a  potentially  divisive  constitutional 
confrontation. 

I  would  hope  that  oiu:  efforts  since  Janu- 
ary to  come  to  grips  with  a  national  oil 
policy  will  prove  to  have  paved  the  way 
for  the  next  steps,  which  must  include  ar- 
rangements for  natural  gas,  and  a  more 
permanent  federal-provincial  mechanism  that 
will  make  unnecessary  the  crisis  bargaining 


478 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  the  last  few  days.  In  this  regard,  we  will 
continue  to  work  together  with  the  federal 
government  and  our  sister  provinces. 

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


BUDGET  DATE 

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

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

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

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

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


OIL  PRICES 

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

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

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

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


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

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  it  is  a  very  commendable  objecti\e,  to 
the  extent  that  it  is  practical  and  equitable, 
to  have  equalization  of  prices  within  Onta- 
rio. This  government  has  been  endeavouring 
to  come  to  grips  with  it.  We  have  done  it, 
as  I  recall,  with  beer- 
Mr.  Deans:  It  is  not  a  necessity— not  yet 
anyway. 

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

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

Mr.  Deans:  It  may  almost  be  in  the  Pre- 
mier's house,  but  in  mine  it  isn't. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  (Mr.  Rhodes) 
has  been  endeavouring  to  do  this  with  re- 
spect to  some  commodities  in  the  northeast- 
ern corridor. 

Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth, I  believe,  should  have  a  supplementary 


Mr.  Deans:  Supplementary  question:  I 
would  like  to  ask,  is  the  answer  then  that 
the  government  is  not  going  to  do  anything 
for  northern  Ontario?  And,  secondly,  what 
kind  of  mechanism  does  the  government  in- 


MARCH  28,  1974 


479 


tend  to  set  up  to  make  sure  that  no  price 
gouging  takes  place  in  Ontario  as  a  result 
of  such  things  as  heating  cost  increases, 
which  will  be  passed  on  by  landlords  to  ten- 
ants right  across  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sure  the  member  for  Wentworth  likes  to  use 
the    term    "gouging"    whenever    he    possibly 
can- 
Mr.  Deans:  Only  when  it  is  appropriate. 
Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  makes  headlines. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  can  only  say  to  the  hon. 
member  that  this  government  does  a  great 
deal  for  the  north,  will  continue  to  do  so 
and  has  a  far  greater  interest  than  have- 
Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbuiy  East):  Try  to 
convince  the  people  of  northern  Ontario  of 
that! 

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

Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  have  a  supplementary  pertaining  to  the 
Premier's  statement.  I  realize  the  meeting 
in  Ottawa  was  in  private.  Can  he  tell  the 
House  whether,  on  behalf  of  Ontario,  he 
indicated  some  concern  that  under  the  federal 
policy  an  additional  $1.5  billion  is  going  to 
accrue  to  the  treasury  of  Alberta  on  the 
basis  of  the  present  circumstances,  even 
though  it  is  going  to  be  shared  v^dth  the 
producers  on^  the  basis  of  provincial  decision? 
Is  he  of  the  impression  that  this  sort  of  an 
allocation  of  funds  is  going  to  be  dislocating 
now,  and  will  be  increasingly  dislocating? 
Did  he  suggest  .that  we  in  Ontario  were 
prepared  to  leave  the  jurisdiction  of  uranimn 
resources  at  the  federal  level  if,  in  fact,  the 
advantages  to  the,  let's  say,  specially-inflated 
prices  of  oil  were  going  to  accrue  to  all  of 
Canada  rather  than  just  one  provincial  juris- 
dic'ion? 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Sarnia):  A  great  ques- 
tion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  great  respect,  of 
course,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition    has    once    again   not   totally   ap- 


preciated what  has  happened,  or  the 
mathematics  of  it.  The  last  person  to  say  that 
the  Province  of  Alberta  and  the  Province  of 
Saskatchewan  are  not  going  to  do  well  out 
of  tliis  would  be  myself.  But  to  say  that  all 
of  these  funds  are  accruing  to  the  two  pro- 
ducing provinces  for  their  resource  is  just 
categorically  incorrect. 

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

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

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

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

Mr.  Roy:  Right.  Did  the  Premier  under- 
stand the  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker— and  I  know 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  would  like  us 
to  be  fair— I  would  Hke  to  point  out- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

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

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

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


480 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

Mr.   Speaker:   The  hon.   member  for  Port 

Arthur. 

Mr.  BuIIbro(^:  The  Premier  has  a  com- 
mitment in  connection  with  uranium.  It's 
the  same  thing  as  far  as  uranium. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  A  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker,  referring  to  the  answer 
the  Premier  gave  to  a  supplementary- 
Mr.     Speaker:     Is    this    a    supplementary 
question? 

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

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  iMr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
said  this  government  is  powerless.  This  gov- 
ernment is  not  powerless.  And  I  have  not 
said- 
Mr.  Foulds:  Why  hasn't  the  Premier  done 
anything? 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Just  gut- 
less, that's  all. 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DENTURE  THERAPISTS 

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

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  can  assure  the  member 
that  I  tried  to  make  my  position  relatively 
clear  in  the  fact  that  I  was  giving  this  a  great 
deal  of  consideration  as  a  new  minister,  that 
there  were  a  number  of  options  open  to  me, 
if  in  fact  any  changes  were  required  at  all,  that 


MARCH  28,  1974 


481 


either  I  should  make  a  change  in  the  near 
future  or  I  should  not,  depending  upon  the 
conclusion  Which  I  may  reach. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

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

COST-SHARING  PROGRAMME  RE 
MENTALLY  RETARDED 

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

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

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

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Sit  down  and  listen. 
Everything  is  being  done  in  full  consulta- 
tion with  the  parents  of  the  retarded  and  with 


the  local  associations  and  there  will  be  no 
decision  reached  in  this  area  for  se\eral 
months. 

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

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

Mr.  Reid:  They  are  not  in  agreement. 

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

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth  on  behalf  of  the  New  Democratic  Party. 


INCORPORATION  APPLICATIONS 
BY  US  BOOK  PUBLISHERS 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Premier.  In  view  of  the  statement  of 
the  commission,  on  book  pubhshing  that  addi- 
tional Ontario-based  publishing  enterprises 
owned  or  controlled  by  nonresidents  should 
no  longer  be  permitted  in  Ontario  without 
prior  approval,  and  in  view  of  the  govern- 
ment's seeming  rellictance  to  move  in  this 
field,  will  the  Premier  order  that  there  be  an 
inquiry  into  the  proposition  that  Houghton, 
Mifflin,  a  US  based  company,  has  applied  for 
incorporation  in  Ontario  to  establish  a  pub- 
lishing firm,  and'  that  Allyn  and  Bacon  is  in 
the  process  of  doing  similarly?  This  is  not  in 
keeping  with  either  the  intent  of  the  recom- 
mendation or  the  stated  intent  of  the  go\"ern>- 
ment  at  the  time  the  recommendations  w  ere 
released. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  rela- 
tively famihar  with  the  contents  of  that  par- 
ticular report.  I  can  only  say  to  the  hon. 
member  that  we  wiU  be  taking  a  look  at  both 
of  those  applications.  I  think  we  have  made  it 
abundantly  clear  that,  certainly  to  the  extent 
it  is  practical,  this  government  is  very  com- 
mitted to  the  concept  of  the  publishing  indus- 
try being  Canadian,  and  I  think  we  have 
demonstrated  this  rather  conclusively. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

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

Mr.  Foulds:  A  supplementary. 

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

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

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

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

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

Mr.  Foulds:  When  another  firm- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth. 


URANIUM  AND  ASSOCIATED 
NUCLEAR  FUELS  POLICY 

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


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

Mr.  Reid:  A  supplementary. 

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

Mr.  Reid:  The  Premier's  remarks  seemed 
to  indicate  that  it  was  a  problem  of  explora- 
tion and  development;  would  he  consider  a 
consortium,  perhaps  such  as  al^ng  the  lines 
of  Panarctic,  with  the  involvement  of  the 
Ontario  government  and  the  involvement  of 
Canadian  mining  firms  to  carry  out  the  ex- 
ploration and  development  of  uranium  in 
Ontario? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Heaven  forbid. 

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

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

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

Mr.     Deans:     A    supplementary     question: 

Does  the  Premier  feel- 
Mr.  Reid:  Why  doesn't  he  at  least  do  away 

with— 

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

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  referred  to  the  price 
that  was  to  be  paid  to  the  producing  prov- 
inces. 

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


MARCH  28,  1974 


483 


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

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

Mr.  Bullbrook:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
would  the  Premier  clarify  for  me,  in  connec- 
tion with  his  statement  made  two  days  ago, 
the  following  words: 

We  are  not,  however,  convinced  that 
equity  requirements  with  respect  to  the 
ownership  of  uranium  mines  and  the  grant- 
ing of  exploration  permits  should  be  sig- 
nificantly different  from  those  that  apply 
to  oil,  gas  and  coal. 

Does  the  Minister  of  Energy  concur  and  does 
that  sentence  mean  what  it  says? 

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

Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Singer:  He  couldn't  claim  to  be  mis- 
quoted because  it's  all  here. 

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

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  the  Minister  of 
Energy,  in  discussions  with  the  press  both 
the  same  day  and  subsequently,  has  clarified 
it- 
Mr.  Singer:  Has  clarified  what  the  Premier 
really  meant  to  say. 

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

Mr.  Singer:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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


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

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  he  would  be  de- 
lighted to  do  so. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

An  hon.  member:  No! 

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

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  what  it  really  means. 

An  hon.  member:  Out  of  order. 

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 
Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  the  question  has  been 
withdrawn.  The  hon.  member  for  Wentworth. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


484 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.   Mr.   Davis:    Mr.   Speaker,   of  course 
we're  concerned  about  the  position  of  miners 
in  any  capacity- 
Mr.  Martel:  When  did  that  start? 

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

Mr.  Burr:  As  a  supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth.  There  have  been  a  reasonable  nimiber 
of  supplementaries  now.  The  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth. 

Mr.  Laughren:  They're  received  no  answer. 

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


COST  OF  DENTAL  CARE 

Mr.  Deans:  Good  questions,  no  answers. 

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

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

Mr.  Deans:  Will  the  minister- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  That's  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Deans:  —request  that  the  superinten- 
dent of  insurance  investigate  the  policies  cur- 
rently in  operation  with  regard  to  dental  care 
with  a  number  of  major  companies,  such  as 
Dofasco  and  Steel'  Co.  of  Canada,  to  deter- 
mine the  basis  upon  which  the  fee  schedule 
was  arrived  at,  and  to  find  out  why  dentists 
are  charging  more  to  patients  who  are  in- 
sured than  they  charge  for  similar  services  to 
patients  who  are  uninsured? 

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

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


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Reid:  Let's  hope  he  has. 

PREVENTIVE  MEDICINE 

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Mfller:  It's  number  4008,  Aug.  II, 
1972.  It  said,  as  the  member  knows,  that  well- 
female  examinations,  as  such,  are  not  a  bene- 
fit and  should  be  treated  and  accepted  as 
oflBce  visits.  If  Pap  smears,  etc.,  are  necessary, 
charges  should  be  as  specified  in  the  OMA 
fee  schedule. 

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

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

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  the  member 
simply  needs  to  do  a  bit  of  the  research  that 


MARCH  28,  1974 


485 


he's    so    good    at    by    looking    through   the 
papers. 

An  hon.  member:  Pap  is  back. 

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

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


MAPLE  MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPMENT 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Mr.  Speaker, 
on  Tuesday  last  the  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  (Mr.  Lewis)  directed  a  ques- 
tion to  me  concerning  a  caution  that  had 
been  registered  under  section  48  of  the  Land 
Titles  Act  with  the  master  of  titles  at  North 
Bay  in  respect  to  all  unpatented  land  in  the 
110  townships  in  the  district  of  Nipissing. 
This  matter  was  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  Ministr)'  of  the  Attorney  General,  and 
we  have  commenced  studies  in  order  to  have 
a  very  careful  evaluation  of  the  historical 
facts  and  indeed  the  legal  content  of  the 
claim  upon  which  the  cautions  are  based. 

As  the  hon.  members  wiU  appreciate,  this 
will  involve  a  fairly  thorough  review  of  the 
files  of  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  and 
the  federal  Department  of  Indian  and  Nor- 
thern AflFairs  concerning  the  Bear  Island 
Foundation.  We  will  be  conducting  a  study 
of  all  the  relevant  constitutional  law  relating 
to  native  rights  and  treaties  in  Canada.  This 
would  be  ail  the  information  which  I  could 
provide  to  the  hon.  member  at  this  time. 

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

Hon.  Mr.  Welcjfa:  Yes. 

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

An  hon.  member:  At  overtime  costs? 

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

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


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

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

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

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

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

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

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


486 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

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

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

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  view  of  the  minister's  comments  that  it  is 
physically  impossible  to  accelerate  develop- 
ment of  those  lots,  as  was  suggested  by  the 
hon.  member  for  Wentworth,  can  he  assure 
the  House  that  it  will  be  physically  possible 
to  increase  the  supply  of  lots  by  approximate- 
ly half  in  Toronto,  Hamilton.  Ottawa  and 
some  oth»r  centres  such  as  in  Thunder  Bay, 
as  is  proposed  in  the  housing  action  pro- 
gramme for  the  next  two  years? 

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

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

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


Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.    Speaker:    I    think   there    has    been   a 

reasonable    number    of    supplementaries    on 

that  question. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


KINGSTON  TOWNSHIP  SERVICES 

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  White:  No. 

Mr.  Roy:   He  is  playing  politics. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 


MARCH  28,  1974 


487 


Mr.  Speaker:   Supplementary?  All  right. 

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

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

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

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

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Coch- 
rane South. 


SUMMER  EMPLOYMENT  AT  HOSPITALS 

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  dis- 
cussed this  matter  with  the  member  pre- 
viously. I  requested  that  the  budget  be  re- 
viewed for  that  hospital  and  for  other  hos- 
pitals that  had  similar  budget  cuts.  I  am  in- 
formed that  that  review  is  in  progress  right 
now  and  there  is  a  good  possibility  of  the 
reinstatement  of  some  budgetary  moneys  to 
provide  summer  employment  opportunities. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 


OPERATION  OF  TRAVEL  AGENCIES 

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

In  view  of  yet  another  collapse  of  a  travel 
agency  -  Four  Seasons  Travel  Agency  I 
think  it  is  —  is  the  minister  prepared  to  take 
any  steps  to  provide  hcensing,  trust  funds  and 
control  of  advance  deposits,  or  to  exercise  the 
type  of  controls  that  his  department  presently 


uses  for  plumbers,  real  estate  agents,  used 
car  dealers,  mortgage  brokers  or  people  enter- 
ing into  pyramid  schemes? 

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

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

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

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

Mr.  Shulman:  But  bonding  does. 

Hon.   Mr.   Clement:   Bonding  does  if  the 
travel  agent- 
Mr.  Singer:  Control  of  trust  funds  does. 

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

Mr.  Deans:  That  frequently  has  been  the 
problem. 

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

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  The  only  way,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  something  like  that  can  arise 
would  be  for  a  substantia]  compensation  fund 
to  be  developed  by  perhaps  the  travel  agents 


488 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


themselves,  and  this  is  the  very  matter  to 
which  we  have  turned  our  minds.  I  am  not 
going  to  see  the  Province  of  Ontario  allo- 
cate several  millions  of  dollars  for  a  compen- 
sation fund  for  this  particular  segment  of 
industry. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  didn't  suggest  a  compensa- 
tion fund. 

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

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

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

Mr.  Singer:  What  about  qualification  tests? 

Mr.  Renwick:  No  problem  at  all. 

Mr.  Shulman:  What  is  so  difficult  about 
that? 

Mr.  Renwick:  They  do  it  in  ever>'  other 
market. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Even  do  it  for  lawyers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Did  I  hear  the  word  "supple- 
mentary"? 

All  right,  the  hon.  member  for  Windsor- 
Walker\-ille. 

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

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

Mr.  Speaker:  Point  of  order. 

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

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

An  hon.   member:   Besides  there  are  very 

few  members- 
Mr.    R.    D.    Kennedy    (Peel    South):    Mr. 

Speaker,  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  point  of  order  over  here. 

An  hon.  member:  Proportionately  we 
have- 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  point  of  order  please. 

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

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

Mr.  Speaker:  Was  that  a  supplementary  to 
the  original  question  asked  by  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Dovmsview? 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Yes  it  was. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right,  I'll  permit  a  sup- 
plementary. 

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

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

Mr.  Roy:  Tell  him  to  mind  his  own  busi- 
ness. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  don't  think  the  in- 
vestigation has  been  completed  in  its  en- 
tirety, Mr.  Speaker.  I  was  advised  by  my  staff 
on  Monday  or  Tuesday  of  this  week  that  I 
could  anticipate  further  information  with  ref- 
erence to  this  particular  agency  to  which  the 
member  refers.  When  I  have  that  informa- 
tion I'll  make  it  available  to  any  member  of 
the  House  who  wants  it. 

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


REFUSAL  FOR  CARDIOVASCULAR 
UNIT  IN  WINDSOR 

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

Mr.  Shulman:  And  quite  rightly  so. 

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


MARCH  28,  1974 


489 


Mr.  Shulman:  Sheer  waste. 

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

Mr.  Givens:  Now  we  know  the  NDP  posi- 
tion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be  in 
Windsor  tomorrow- 
Mr.  Roy:  That  should  help. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:   —and  I  am  fully  aware 
of  the  problem  that  has  just  been  mentioned 
by  the  member.  There  is  no  justification- 
Mr.  Roy:   Does  the  minister  mean  to  say 
he  is  presenting  his  bill  tomorrow? 

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

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

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

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:   Supplementary,  yes. 

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

Mr.  Shulman:  Oh,  that  is  waste  too, 

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

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

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

Mr.  Shulman:   Shut  them  down. 

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


that  to  the  best  of  my  ability  with  the  advice 
I  get  from  within  the  ministry. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Sup- 
plementary, Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  One  more  supplementary. 

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

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

Mr.  Shulman:  Good  idea. 

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

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

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

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


QUETICO  PARK 

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

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): I  didn't  hear  the  first  part. 

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

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

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

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


490 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:  Just  yes  or  no. 

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

Mr.  Roy:  Good! 

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

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 

Centre. 


KINGSTON  TOWNSHIP  SERVICES 

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  There's  a  switch. 

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

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

H-^n.  Mr.  Davis:  I  can  only  say  this,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  we  are  obviously  concerned 
with  respect  to  the  problems  in  Kingston 
township.  I  met  with  some  of  the  council- 
lors there  some  time  ago  when  I  was  in 
Kingston.  The  member  from  that  consti'tuency 
has  expressed  his  concern  as  well. 

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

While  I  am  on  my  feet,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  like,  on  behalf  of  the  member  from 
the  riding,  to  welcome  to  the  Legislature  the 
••e»"ve  and  members  of  Kingston  township 
^ounc'1  who  I  understand  are  in  the  gallery 
here  tiiis  afternoon. 

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

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary. 

Interfections  by  hon.  members. 


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

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

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

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  Premier  himself  con- 
cerned? 

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Shame. 

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

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

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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


MARCH  28,  1974 


491 


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

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What  has  the  mem- 
ber got  against  professors? 

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

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

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

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

The  third  part  of  the  report  on  the  adlmin- 
istration  of  the  courts  deals  with  a  wdde 
variety  of  practice-oriented  matters  relating 
to  the  operation  of  the  Master's  office,  the 
rules  committee,  court  interpreters,  court  re- 
porters, special  examiners,  pretrial  confer- 
ences, the  role  of  the  legal  profession,  law 
reporting  and'  the  small  claims  court. 

Like  the  two  preceding  volumes  which 
were  the  subject  of  a  very  lengthy  statement 
of  govenmient  policy^  to  which  as  Attorney 
General  I  am  committed,  part  three  vdll  re- 
ceive careful  and  considered  attention  by 
members  of  my  ministry- 
Mr.  Singer:  Is  the  government  committed 
to  the  first  two  volumes  in  their  entirety? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —and  will  be  inclu(fed 
within  the  consultative  process  already  imder- 
way  with  members  of  the  judiciary,  the  pro- 
fession and  the  public  at  large. 

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


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

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

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

In  this  report,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  commis- 
sion presents  proposals  for  clarifying  the  way 
in  which  a  member  of  the  public  or  a  lawyer 
can  have  an  accoimt  or  agreement  for  legal 
services  reviewed  by  an  appropriate  judicial 
ofiBcer  in  a  way  that  promises  to  be  simpler, 
faster  and  fairer  than  the  system  which  we 
adopted  in  Ontario  from  the  English  practice 
many  years  ago. 

Mr.  Singer:  Good  idea,  good  idea. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  commission  has  pro- 
posed preservation  of  the  desirable  features 
of  the  present  practice,  the  modernization  of 
the  legislation  in  line  with  current  legal' 
thought- 
Mr.  Singer:  How  about  the  elimination  of 
the  undesirable  pieces? 

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

(The  report  is  receiving  careful!  study  by 
officials  of  my  ministry  and  will,  I  trust,  re- 
ceive the  same  from  the  legal  profession  and 
the  members  of  the  pubhc.  Although  this  sort 
of  subject  matter  is  sometimes  characterized 
as  "lav^T^ers*  law,"  it  is  no  less  true  to  say 
that  is  is  "people's  law"  as  well.  I  look  for- 
ward to  a  moughtful  public  and  professional 
response  to  this  report  so  that  in  this  area,  as 
in  all  other  areas  of  law  reform,  we  can  en- 
sure that  appropriate  and  timely  changes  can 
be  made. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  question  of 
clarification,    there    was    one   phrase   in    the 


492 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


minister's  statement  I  didn't  quite  follow.  He 
talked  about  an  independent  system  for  ad- 
ministering the  courts.  Did  he  mean  that  the 
system  was  going  to  be  independent  of  his 
ministry,  or  independent  of  the  courts;  or  in- 
dependent to  what  extent? 

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

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  period  has  ex- 
pired. We  are  on  reports. 

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

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


FARM  PRODUCTS  GRADES  AND 
SALES  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Farm  Products 
Grades  and  Sales  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill  pro- 
vides for  the  hcensing  under  the  Act  for 
various  persons  engaged  in  dealing  in  farm 
produce.  It  provides  for  a  licence  review 
board  under  the  Statutory  Powers  Procedmres 
Act  and  it  also  provides  for  a  produce  arbitra- 
tion board  to  arbitrate  disputes  arising  out  of 
contracts  entered  into  in  respect  to  the 
marketing  of  farm  products. 


AGRICULTURAL  SOaETIES  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Agricul- 
tural Societies  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

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


Mr.  Haggerty:  There  are  not  toe  many 
left. 

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

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

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:   Shame,  shame. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Very  good. 

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

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

I  would  like  to  read  the  Ontario  Veterinary 
Association's  centermial  announcement: 


MARCH  28,  1974 


493 


1974  is  the  centennial  year  of  the  On- 
tario Veterinary  Association.  Veterinarians 
across  the  province  have  justifiable  pride 
in  their  association  which  has,  in  large  part, 
helped  to  foster  the  competence  and  eflFec- 
tiveness  apparent  today  in  so  many  vet- 
erinary disciplines. 

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

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

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

Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 


THIRD  READING 

The  following  bill  was  given  third  reading 
upon  motion: 

Bill  7,  The  Developmental  Services  Act, 
1974. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  second  order,  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  Hon- 
ourable the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  session. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
lington-Duff erin. 

Mr.  J.  Root  (Wellington-Duff  erin):  Mr. 
Speaker,  when  I  was  speaking  for  a  few 
moments  on.  Tuesday  evening  or  afternoon, 
I    was   paying   tribute    to   the   work   that  has 


been  done  in  northern  Ontario  by  this  gov- 
ernment, and  the  various  programmes  for 
future  development  in  that  area  —  highways 
through  to  James  Bay  and  the  possibility  of 
a  port  on  James  Bay. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


494 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

I  want  to  make  another  suggestion,  and 
that  is  with  regard  to  the  collection  of  the 
sales  tax.  I  feel  the  small  businessman  should 
receive  a  reasonable  remuneration  for  his 
efforts.  I  think  we  all  realize  that  he  has  to 
keep  accurate  records,  since  we  have  inspec- 
tors going  around  from  time  to  time  to  see 
that  the  tax  is  being  collected  and  sent  on  to 
the  government.  The  people  who  do  the  in- 
spection are  paid.  I  realize  there  may  be  a 
problem  with  the  large  corporations  receiving 
the  lion's  share  of  any  payment  that  might 
be  made,  so  I  would  suggest  that  payment 
would  be  considered  on  a  percentage  basis 
with  a  ceiling  on  the  amount  that  any  one 
merchant  could  receive.  In  that  way  there 
would  be  a  full  recognition  of  this  important 
service  that  these  small  businessmen  are 
rendering  to  the  province. 

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

An  hon.  member:  Poppycock! 

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

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


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

Mr.  Speaker,  there  has  to  be  a  better  way 
of  resolving  disputes  that  cannot  be  settled 
without  closing  dov^m  the  schools  and  turn- 
ing the  children— the  greatest  asset  this  prov- 
ince possesses— out  on  the  street. 

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

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

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

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

I  am  pleased  to  know  that  a  health  educa- 
tion programme  will  be  prepared,  providing 
information  on  such  health  hazards  as  alco- 
hol, tobacco  and  other  drugs,  and  to  encour- 
age better  use  of  our  public  health  care  sys- 
tem. I  feel  that  too  often  we  may  have  been 
swayed  in  our  judgement  by  the  clamour  of 
opposition  members  and  others  asking  for 
more  liberalized  liquor  policies.  We  may  have 


MARCH  28,  1974 


495 


been  swayed  by  the  smooth  advertising  that 
we  see  on  television  and  in  the  press.  I  can 
only  say  that  that  advertising  does  not  con- 
form with  what  I  have  in  my  files  when  I  am 
trying  to  help  solve  the  problems  that  are 
created  by  the  extensive  use  of  alcoholic 
beverages. 

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

Du'-ins;  the  discussion  of  the  estimates 
at  th'^  last  session  I  raised  the  question  of 
the  cost  of  alcohol  problems  to  the  health 
system  or  programme.  The  Addiction  Re- 
search Foundation  provided  certain  informa- 
tion, estimating  that  the  expenditures  at- 
tributable to  alcoholism,  about  the  normal 
expectancy,  were  calculated  at  $89  million 
in  the  public  hospital. svstem.  In  the  psychia- 
tric hospital  system  the  figure  was  $16.8 
million.  Studies  among  social  agencies  have 
calculated,  expenditures  at  $8.5  million  at- 
tributable to  alcohol  in  the  welfare  pro- 
'^'■amme  under  the  Family  Benefits  Act. 
Under  the  children's  aid  programme,  ex- 
penditures attributable  to  alcoholism  were 
$11  million.  Some  $8.6  million  was  given  to 
the  Addiction  Research  Foundation. 

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

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

I  put  these  figures  in  the  record  to  In- 
dicate that  health  and  social  costs  to  our 
population    should    be    weighed    very    care- 


Fully  when  matters  of  policy  in  regard  to 
alcoholic  beverages  are  being  considered.  I 
think  that  we  all  realize  that  alcohol, 
tobacco  and  drugs  do  create  a  health  prob- 
lem. I  can  understand  when  some  groups, 
and  I  could  refer  to  the  Mennonite  people, 
wonder  why  they  are  forced  into  a  com- 
mon insurance  scheme  to  finance  the  pro- 
grammes that  have  accelerated  costs  be- 
cause of  the  consumption  of  alcohol,  tobacco 
and  drugs.  This  affects  not  only  our  health 
insurance  costs;  it  also  affects  automobile 
insurance  premiums. 

I  am  sure  that  everyone  will  want  to 
support  the  government  in  any  steps  that 
are  taken  to  make  the  public  aware  of  the 
problems  and  costs  that  are  associated  u^ith 
th'-s'^  matters.  I  noticed  in  the  Toronto  Star 
on  f  uesdav,  March  19,  that  teen  car  deaths 
have  doubled  since  the  drinking  age  was 
lowered. 

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

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

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

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


496 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Solandt  goes  on  to  say  that  this  proposal 
received  considerable  popular  support  at  the 
hearings.  As  far  as  the  commission  knows 
there  was  no  one  in  the  area  affected  by  the 
Bruce  to  Essa  line  at  the  meeting,  so  it  was 
unlikely  there  would  have  been  any  opposition 
expressed.  Ontario  Hydro  looked  at  the  pro- 
posal very  carefully  and  discussed  the  pros 
and  cons  in  presentation  and  cross-examination 
before  the  commission.  They  say  Ontario  had 
repeatedly  expressed  its  opposition  to  system 
R  on  both  security  and  aesthetic  grounds. 
During  the  cross-examination  they  did  agree 
that  the  proposal— this  is  the  Bruce  to  Essa 
proposal— would  improve  the  security  system 
for  the  short-term  future,  but  felt  that  the 
Bruce  to  Essa  proposal  had  no  other  advan- 
tages. Hon.  members  can  read  the  comments 
regarding  the  Bruce  to  Essa  proposal  on  pages 
54  and  55  of  the  Solandt  report. 

I  am  interested  in  the  last  paragraph  on 
page  55,  where  Dr.  Solandt  says: 

Following  the  close  of  the  commission 
hearings,  the  group  submitted  a  final  paper 
on  their  proposal.  Further  studies  of  the 
proposals  convinced  me  that  it  would  not 
be  easy  to  find  a  socially  and  environmen- 
tally acceptable  route  for  the  Bruce  to  Essa 
line,  because  it  might  have  to  traverse  some 
of  the  most  popular  scenic  and  recreational 
terrain  in  southern  Ontario.   Since  Ontario 


MARCH  28.  1974 


497 


Hydro  presented  convincing  evidence  that 
the  Bruce  to  Essa  hne  would  not  produce 
useful  improvement  in  the  transmission 
system,  the  commission  concludes  that  no 
further  consideration  should  be  given  to  the 
Bruce  to  Essa  line. 

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

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

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

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

I  can  only  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  farm 
people  of  Wellington  county  are  greatly  con- 
cerned. The  various  lines  that  may  lead  into 
Erin  township  cross  practically  every  munic- 
ipality in  the  area  that  I  have  the  honour  to 


represent.  I  would  be  remiss  in  my  duties  if 
I  did  not  say  the  government  had  better  take 
another  look  at  crossing  over  on  low-grade 
agricultural  land  and  coming  down  on  the 
Essa^Kleinburg  corridor  which  we  are  advised 
has  space  for  another  line.  I  know  that  Hydro 
feel  that  sometime  in  the  future  they  may 
want  that  space,  but  with  advancing  tech- 
nology and  the  possibiUty  of  underground 
lines  in  the  future,  surely  we  don't  have  to 
criss-cross  over  choice  agricultural  land  when 
there  are  other  alternatives  available. 

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

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

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

(Six  years  ago,  in  1968,  members  will  find 
in  Hansard  certain  comments  I  mad^e  regard^- 
ing  agriculture.  At  that  time  the  government 
had  come  out  for  a  48-hour  week  and  an 
eight-hour  day,  and  the  opposition  tried  to 
suggest  it  should  be  a  40^hour  week.  I  said 
I  was  surprised  to  see  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition,  the  hon.  member  for  Brant  (Mr. 
R.  F.  Nixon),  supporting  this  idea  because,  I 
said,  we  had  never  developedi  cows  that 
would  stop  milking  Friday  nights  and  come 
back  into  production  on   Monday.   No   way 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


can  that  be  done.  Hens  persist  in  laying  eggs 
over  the  weekend;  and  if  a  fanner  didn  t  look 
after  his  livestock  and  feed  them  he  would 
have  the  Humane  Society  breathing  down  his 
neck. 

The  hon.  member  for  York  South  (Mr. 
MacDonald),  who  was  then  leader  of  the 
NDP,  ridiculed  me  and  said:  "Just  try  that 
horse-and-buggy  Tory  policy  in  the  next  elec- 
tion and  we'll  see  what  happens."  I  want  to 
say  to  him  that  I  tried  it  and^  I  had  more 
votes  than  the  candidate  for  his  party,  the 
Liberal  Party  and  an  independent  had  com- 
bined. The  farm  people  want  to  be  fair.  They 
don't  mind  people  expressing  their  views- 
Mr.  G.  Nixon  (Dovercourt):  Great  stufiF. 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

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

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

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

I  understand  the  average  dairy  farmer  to- 
day is  about  58  years  old.  He  can't  find  young 


people  to  take  over  the  operation  so  he  sells 
o£F  his  herd,  sells  his  farm  and  goes  out  of 
production.  The  same  is  happening  in  my 
own  area  with  regard  to  beef  farmers,  hog 
breeders  and  so  on. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


MARCH  28,  1974 


farm."  Some  of  these  men  have  said:  "Since 
I  can't  get  a  severance,  I'm  going  to  sell  the 
farm  and  quit." 

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

I  am  concerned  about  the  size  of  some  of 
our  cities.  We  are  building  these  cities,  in 
many  cases,  on  some  of  the  best  farm  land 
in  Canada.  They  are  getting  so  large  we  are 
creating  traffic  problems,  pollution  problems 
and  housing  problems.  But  people  have  to 
live  somewhere,  so  I  would  hope  that  we 
would  make  it  possible  for  people  to  estab- 
lish their  homes  in  other  parts  of  the  prov- 
ince if  they  would  like  to  live  there;  and 
perhaps  give  incentives  to  move  certain  types 
of  industry  out  of  the  large  centres.  Restrict- 
ing development  in  some  areas  plays  into  the 
hands  of  a  developer  in  the  unrestricted  area. 
I  think  the  old  law  of  competition,  supply 
and  demand,  would  solve  some  of  the  prob- 
lems that  are  not  being  solved  under  the 
present  Planning  Act. 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

There  are  two  points  I  am  trying  to  make.  The 
first  is  that  the  nuclear  fission  system  is  a  controver- 
sial, hazardous  one  and  in  any  event  uses  an  ex- 
haustible source  of  fuel.  The  other  is  that  it  is  un- 
necessary to  resort  to  nuclear  fission  because  there 
are  so  many  kinds  of  power  that  can  be  developed 
and,  with  a  little  expenditure  on  technology,  these 
could  be  brought  into  use  on  a  wide  scale  in  a  rela- 
tively short  time. 

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

Until  I  became  aware  in  the  last  couple  of 
years  that  there  were  alternatives— alternative 
feasible  sources   of  energy;   far  better  alter- 


500 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


natives  in  fact— I  had  become  reconciled,  re- 
luctantly of  course,  to  living  with  more  and 
more  nuclear  power.  But  now  that  I  know 
that  many  reliable  scientists  have  assured  us 
of  the  feasibility  of  the  other  sources  of 
energy,  I  cannot  remain  silent  on  this  subject. 
I  am  sure  that  my  reaction  is  a  normal  human 
reaction:  Tolerate  what  cannot  be  changed 
but  try  to  change  what  cannot  be  tolerated. 

Someone  has  asked  me  whether  I  am  ex- 
pressing oflBcial  NDP  policy.  At  the  federal 
NDP  convention  in  July,  1973,  there  was  a 
lengthy  discussion  out  of  which  a  three^page 
policy  statement  on  energy  emerged.  Included 
was  the  follovdng: 

There  are  serious  unresolved  problems  in 
nuclear  energy  production.  We  believe  that 
the  federal  government  must  undertake  ex- 
tensive research  into,  first,  various  types  of 
reactors;  second,  methods  of  disposal  of 
tnuclear  wastes;  third,  thermal  pollution, 
and  fourth,  radiation  hazards. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  long  as  we  have  any  nuclear 
power  plants  in  operation  I  agree  with  this 
position  wholeheartedly.  But  I  go  further  and 
say:  Now  that  it  is  no  longer  necessary,  for- 
get the  whole  thing;  phase  it  out.  Under  the 
topic  of  energy  research,  the  federal  NDP 
convention  recommended  that  the  federal  gov- 
ernment should  undertake  the  chief  research 
role  in  the  energy  field,  and  I  quote: 

We  need  research  in  areas  such  as,  first, 
mew  sources  of  energy  including  solar,  geo- 
thermal  and  tidal  power.  We  should  seek 
soiu-ces  which  are  least  harmful  to  people 
and  the  enviroimient. 

What  better  description  of  solar  power  or 
wind  power  could  one  want  than  that,  Mr. 
Speaker? 

Just  a  month  ago,  on  Feb.  27,  the  Montreal 
Star  interviewed  Sir  George  Porter,  a  British 
1967  Nobel  Prize  winner  in  chemistry.  He 
warned  of  the  perils  of  going  miclear  and  said 
that  the  siui's  rays  could  be  hamessedi  to 
meet  man's  needs  for  power.  He  was  not 
worried  so  much  about  the  clandtestine  making 
of  atomic  bombs  by  unauthorized  persons  as 
he  was  by  sabotage  of  a  nucltear  plant  by  the 
use  of  a  simple  conventional  bomb.  I  quote 
him: 

Ordinary  miclear  reactors  have  more  than 
enough  plutonium  in  them  to  poison  count- 
less people.  What  really  worries  me  is  the 
possibility  of  sabotage  and  the  fact  that  the 
Kvorld  is  as  anarchic  as  it  is.  We  now  have 
more  sabotage  and  terrorism  in  the  world 
than  we  have  ever  had  in  the  past. 

Sir  George  Porter  said  that  if  one-tenth  of 
one  per  cent  of  the  effort  in  manpower  and 


money  already  devoted  to  the  development 
of  nuclear  power  had  been  allocated  for 
solar  energy  research,  the  energy  problem 
would   have  been  solved  by  now. 

An  award-winning  series  of  articles  began 
in  the  Windsor  Star  of  June  25,  1973,  en- 
titled, "Nuclear  Power:  A  Blessing  or  Even- 
tual Curse?"  I  don't  know  whether  the 
Windsor  Star  or  their  writer,  Brian  Vallee, 
took  any  bow^  for  this  article  but  1  should 
like  to  extend  my  belated  congratulations 
to  them  both. 

This  is  an  objectively  written  article,  pre- 
senting as  one  can  tell  from  the  tide,  both 
sides  of  the   controversy.   I   quote: 

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

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

On  the  other  hand,  you  have  responsible 
ecologists,  scientists  and  people  like  con- 
sumer advocate  Ralph  Nader,  deploring 
proliferation    of    nuclear    power    plants. 

Later,  the  article  says: 

But  Dr.  Fred  Knelman,  a  prominent 
nuclear  critic,  whose  department  at 
Montreal's  Sir  George  Williams  University 
studies  the  social  consequences  of  tech- 
nology, says  that  serious  accidents  at 
nuclear  power  plants  are  inevitable. 

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

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

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


i 


MARCH  28,  1974 


501 


The  Windsor  Star  article  reported  that 
Dr.  Knelman  said  the  United  States  is  hav- 
ing serious  problems  in  two  of  its  plants 
in  the  United  States  itself  and  in  a  third 
built  by  the  Americans  in  Switzerland.  I 
quote: 

"The  cylindrical  materials  that  hold  the 
fuel  have  cracked  and  they  don't  really 
know  why.  This  is  terribly  serious  because 
they  are  getting  a  direct  leak  of  hot  fuel." 

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

"The  accidents  have  involved  the  escape 
of  hot  radioactive  materials,  and  the 
Columbia  River  is  now  the  most  radio- 
active body  of  water  in  the  world." 

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

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

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

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

The  chairman  of  Ontario  Hydro  made  a 
public  statement  in  the  early  part  of  1973, 
defending  Hydro's  promotional  advertising 
policy.  One  of  his  arguments  was  that  if 
Hydro  stopped  advertising  there  would  be 
an  acceleration  in  the  demand  for  scarce 
fuels,  such  as  oil  and  natural  gas.  Now 
obviously  this  does  not  refer  to  lighting; 
therefore,  it  must  refer  to  heating.  What 
Mr.  Gathercole  seemed  to  be  saying  is  that 


greater  use  of  electricity  for  heating  is  a  de- 
sirable goal.  If  Ontario  Hydro  produced  all 
its  power  from  water— that  ever-renewable 
source  of  energy— who  could  disagree?  But 
as  it  is,  any  further  increase  in  electricity  for 
heating  purposes  in  Ontario  uses  up  power 
derived  from  one  of  the  fossil  fuels,  all  of 
which  are  unrenewable. 

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

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

The  great  fallacy  in  Mr.  Gathercole's  argu- 
ments lies,  of  course,  in  the  fact  that  he 
ignores  those  alternative  sources  of  energy 
which  are  aU  renewable,  and  in  most  in- 
stances unpoUuting.  I  refer  to  solar  radiation 
power.  All  are  100  per  cent  safe,  all  are  non- 
create  electric  power;  organic  methane  gas  is 
a  fourth  source. 

On  a  continental  basis  there  are  also  geo- 
thermal  power,  sea  thermal  power  and  tidal 
power.  Ail  are  10  per  cent  safe,  all  are  non- 
polluting  and  ^1  are  renewable.  Ontario 
Hydro  ignores  these  sources.  It  hands  out  to 
visitors  at  the  Pickering  nuclear  power  plant 
literature  published  by  the  Canadian  Nuclear 
Association.  It  has  these  opening  words: 
"Question:  Is  nuclear  power  necessary? 
Answer:  In  fact  there  is  today  no  alternative 
if  we  are  to  conserve  the  world's  resources  of 
fuel."  Now  if  one  can  swallow  this  trans- 
parent falsehood,  one  can  swallow  everything 
else  one  is  told  by  the  literature  handed  out 
by  Ontario  Hydro  and  published  by  the 
Canadian  Nuclear  Association. 

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

Ontario  Hydro  has  a  pubhc  rdations  divi- 
sion paid  to  hand  out  or  produce  misleading 
statements  of  this  kind.  Apparently  carried 
away  by  its  own  rhetoric,  which  I  have  just 
quoted,  it  repeats  the  statement  by  para- 
phrasing it  as  follows:  "Only  by  substituting 
nuclear  fuels  for  fossil  fuels  can  we  meet  the 
increasing  demand  for  electricity."  Then  it 
adds:  "And  not  only  preserve  Ijut  enhance 
our  environment." 


502 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

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

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

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

As  far  as  it  goes  that  statement  is  accurate. 
Nuclear  power  plants  do  not  produce  visible 
air  pollution  and  they  are  aesthetically  more 
pleasing  to  the  eye,  but  this  is  a  very  narrow 
interpretation  of  pollution.  What  happens  to 
the  spent  fuel?  What  happens  to  the  moun- 
tains of  uranium  tailings  at  the  mine,  a  by- 
product of  the  process  that  produces  fuel  for 
nuclear  power  plants?  Both  before  it  is  used 
to  boil  water  and  afterwards,  this  fuel  is  the 
worst  of  all  possible  pollutants. 

Nuclear  power  does  pollute.  Thermal  pollu- 
tion and  radioactive  emissions  are  unavoid- 
able when  nuclear  fission  is  in  operation.  In 
Par  Pond,  where  the  Oak  Ridge  laboratory 
dumps  some  of  its  low-level  wastes,  it  was 
found  that  even  when  the  concentration  of 
cesium  137  was  only  three-hundredths  of  a 
millionth  of  a  millionth  of  a  curie,  the  flesh 
of  bass  caught  in  the  pond  contained  1,000 
times  this  amount.  Similarly,  strontium  90  in 
the  bones  of  bluegill  was  2,000  times  the  level 
in  the  water  and  radioactive  zinc  was  8,720 
times  the  level  in  the  water.  In  the  Columbia 
River,  into  which  the  Hanford  nuclear  plant 
discharges,  larvae  of  a  certain  kind  achieve 
concentrations  350,000  times  that  of  the  level 
in  the  water.  Birds  also  concentrate  radio- 
activity, and  being  higher  up  the  food  chain 


they  end  up  with  correspondingly  higher  con- 
centrations. 

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

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

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

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

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

Is  it  any  wonder  that  many  atomic  scien- 
tists are  appalled  by  the  consequences  of 
unsuccessful  containment  of  radioactivity.  Dr. 
Harmes  Alfven,  the  1970  Nobel  laureate  for 
physics,  says:  "In  a  full-scale  fission  pro- 
gramme, the  radioactive  waste  will  soon 
become  so  enormous  that  a  total  poisoning 
of  our  planet  is  possible".  That  is  in  the 
bulletin  of  the  Atomic  Scientist  of  Septem- 
ber, 1971. 

Soon  afterwards,  in  the  December,  1971, 
issue   of   Nuclear   News,   the   director   of  the 


MARCH  28,  1974 


503 


AEC's  Oak  Ridge  national  laboratory,  Dr. 
Alvin  Weinberg,  said:  "Technical  deficiencies 
in  a  plutonium  economy,  if  unremediable, 
could  mean  catastrophe  for  the  hmnan  race." 
In  Science,  Feb.  25,  1972,  the  former  direc- 
tor of  the  AEC's  Argonne  National  Labora- 
tory, Dr.  Albert  Crewe,  after  discussion  of 
the  medical  foresight,  the  engineering  skill 
and  the  administrative  controls  required  by 
nuclear  technology,  summarized  as  follows: 
"Should  any  of  these  three  lines  of  defence 
fail,  then  the  entire  population  of  the  world 
would  be  in  serious  danger". 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  spank  little  children  for 
plaving  with  matches.  What  should  we  do 
to  those  human  beings  who  are  foisting  upon 
us  the  unthinkable  hazards  of  nuclear  power? 
Let  us  return  to  the  consideration  of  the 
possibilities  of  a  major  accident  at  a  nuclear 
plant  as  described  by  Gordon  Edwards,  a 
mathematician  at  the  University  of  British 
Columbia,  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  this 
and  some  other  sections  of  my  remarks.  He 
says: 

A  single,  relatively  small,  100  megawatt 
reactor,  after  one  year  of  operation  con- 
tains more  radioactive  cesium,  strontium 
and  iodine  than  all  the  nuclear  weapon 
tests  ever  conducted. 

In  his   famous    Brookhaven  report  of   1957, 

he  says: 

The  AEC  indicated  what  the  results  of  a 
single  major  accident  at  a  relatively  small 
-reactor  40  miles  from  a  city  might  be: 
3,000  to  4,000  deaths  immediately  from 
radiation  poisoning;  50,000  deaths  later  on 
from  radiation-induced  injuries;  up  to  150 
square  miles  of  land  contaminated— not  to 
mention  contamination  of  water  supplies 
and  evacuation  of  half  a  million  people. 

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

Gordon  Edwards  asked: 

How  do  you  compute  the  probability  of 
an  accident?  Do  you  include  or  do  you 
exclude  the  possibility  of  sabotage?  Do  you 
include  the  possibility  of  war?  Do  you 
exclude  the  possibility  of  an  undeclared 
war?  What  would  happen  if  an  old-fash- 
ioned conventional  bomb  were  dropped 
on  a  reactor?  Do  you  include  the  possi- 
bility of  an  airplane  crashing  into  a  re- 
actor? Remember,  Pickering  is  going  to 
be  the  site  of  a  huge  airport  as  well  as 


the  site  of  the  huge  reactor.  As  recently  as 
November,  1972,  we  witnessed  the  spec- 
tacle of  a  band  of  hijackers  threatening  to 
crash  a  plane  into  a  nuclear  installation  at 
Oak  Ridge. 

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

All  this  does  not  begin  to  consider  the 
very  real  possibility  of  a  large  industrial  acci- 
dent occurring  within  the  plant  as  a  result 
of  mechanical  and/or  human  failure.  Acci- 
dents have  occurred  at  Chalk  River,  resulting 
in  the  release  of  10,000  curies  of  fission  prod- 
ucts; at  the  Enrico  Fermi  plant  between 
Toledo  and  Detroit  leading  to  a  partial  melt- 
down of  the  core  and  fears  of  explosion;  and 
at  the  Windscale  plant  in  Great  Britain 
which  spewed  out  vast  quantities  of  radio- 
active debris;  and  at  others. 

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

There  is  another  danger  after  the  fuel  has 
served  its  purpose— the  very  serious  problem 
of  waste  disposal.  Where  tnis  involves  trans- 
portation to  a  disposal  site,  we  have  the 
eventual,  inevitable  railway  or  highway  acci- 
dent to  face.  Another  problem  is  that  plu- 
tonium, the  essential  ingredient  for  making 
atom  bombs  inexpensively,  will  almost  cer- 
tainly become  a  black  market  item.  When 
one  thinks  c>f  the  possibilities  for  terrorists 
and  demented  persons,  this  one  reason  alone 
should  force  the  abandonment  of  the  entire 
nuclear  programme  involving  plutonium  239. 

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

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

When    the    radioactive    fission    products 
and    plutonium    are    shipped    out    of    the 


504 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


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

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

Because  the  literature  handed  out  by  the 
Canadian  Nuclear  Association  and  the  public 
relations  division  of  Ontario  Hydro  is  pre- 
pared by  persons  skilled  in  public  relations— 
which  often  means  in  deceiving  people  or  in 
brainwashing  the  public— it  is  not  surprising 
that  the  publication  handed  out  in  Pickering 
entided  "Nuclear  Power  and  Our  Environ- 
ment in  Canada"  should  give  scarcely  a  hint 
of  the  immense  dangers  involved.  Consider 
page  12  where  we  find: 

One  Canadian  scientist's  reply  to  the 
question,  "Is  it  safe  to  develop  nuclear 
power?"  was,  "Safer  than  not  developing 
it."  He  meant  that  if  we  do  not  use  nuclear 
energy  we  will  have  to  use  other  means 
to  provide  power  and  thus  compound  our 
pollution  problem. 

Perhaps  the  PR  men  are  not  really  dishonest; 
perhaps,  in  fact  probably,  they  are  just  ig- 
norant of  the  several  other  pollution-free 
methods  of  harnessing  energy  without  deplet- 
ing our  unrenewable,  polltiting,  fossil  fuel 
resources.  Because  of  their  ignoring  the  al- 
ternative forms  of  energy,  they  are  preparing 
the  public  to  support  politically  the  danger- 
ous and  irrational  pohcies  of  the  relatively 
few  people  who  have  now  become  the  nu- 
clear establishment.  The  PR  men's  job  is  to 
build  prestige  for  the  nuclear  establishment. 
Report  No.  3  of  Task  Force  Hydro  goes 
about  this  task  with  great  vigour,  especially 
in  the  name-dropping  passages  from  pages 
17  to  28.  First  of  all  it  blithely  assumes  that 
nuclear  power  is  the  only  alternative  to  fos- 
sil fuel,  and  having  killed  oflF  all  the  good 
guys— that  is  by  eliminating  from  its  terms 
of  reference  the  genuinely  clean  and  per- 
petually renewable  forms  of  energy  power, 
namely,  solar,  wind,  wood,  geothermal  sea- 
thermal,  tidal  and  organic  methane— it  berates 
the   present   obvious   air  polluting   disadvan- 


tages of  fossil  fuel  power  plants  and  touts, 
all-out,  the  nuclear  power  plant.  In  other 
words,  it  carries  out  a  mock  battle  with  the 
other  bad  guys— the  fossil  fuels— and  ignoies 
the  existence  of  the  really  good  guys  whom 
I  have  listed. 

In  its  enthusiasm,  report  No.  3  fails  to 
mention  the  huge  quantities  of  energy  needed 
to  support  the  whole  nuclear  reactor  scheme 
itself,  the  energy  needed  to  mine  uranium, 
the  energy  needed  to  refine  uranium,  the 
energy  needed  to  produce  heavy  water,  the 
energy  required  in  reprocessing  spent  fuel, 
the  energy  required  to  built  the  nuclear 
reactors  and  to  operate  the  generators,  the 
energy  required  to  transport  spent  fuel,  and 
the  energy-  required  to  entomb  forever  the 
radioactive  wastes. 

A  part  of  this  speech,  Mr.  Speaker,  was 
prepared  almost  a  year  ago,  while  we  were 
awaiting  the  appointment  of  our  Minister 
of  Energy.  The  following  sentence  should 
perhaps  be  dropped  from  my  remarks  today 
because  I  have  since  obtained  part  of  the 
answer.  However,  I'll  quote  it: 

It  would  be  interesting  to  find  out  whether  all  the 
nuclear  reactors  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  have 
yet  produced  as  much  energy  as  they  have  already 
consumed  to  date. 

As  I  pointed  out  in  the  first  part  of  my 
speech  on  Monday,  March  25,  it  was  not 
until  near  the  end  of  1971  that  the  United 
States  plants  finally  produced  as  much  elec- 
trical energy  as  had  been  used  in  the 
uranium-enrichment  plants.  Of  course,  if  all 
the  other  energy  costs  enumerated  above 
were  taken  into  consideration,  it  would  be 
many  more  years  before  nuclear  fission  pays 
off  its  energy  debt  to  society. 

Paragraph  2  of  page  33  of  the  task  force 
report  refers  to  the  extra  costs  of  reducing 
air  pollution  from  fossil  fuel  generators,  im- 
plying that  economic  advantages  thus  accrue 
to  nuclear  plants.  Yet  paragraph  4  admits 
to  the  extra  costs  that  will  be  incurred  in 
attempting  to  improve  protection  from 
radiation  hazards  in  nuclear  stations.  So  I 
ask:  Where  is  the  saving? 

Task  Force  Hydro  does  take  a  brief  look 
at    the    issue    of    radioactivity.    Paragraph    5 
reveals  the  absurdity  of  attempting  to  estab- 
lish a  so-called  "safe  level"  of  radiation.  The 
International     Commission    on    Radiological 
Protection   has   merely   reached   a  consensus 
on  a  limit  it  is  willing  to  recommend.  The 
last  sentence  of  the  paragraph  is  an  honest 
assessment— as  far  as  it  goes.  And  I  quote: 
It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  since 
there    is    in    effect    no    safe    [in    italics] 
threshold  of  radiation,  there  is  an  inherent 


MARCH  28.  1974 


505 


difficulty  in  establishing  protection  stand- 
ards. 

That's  what  it  says.  To  be  completely  honest, 
the  sentence  should  have  added  the  words, 
"and  still  remaining  in  the  nuclear  reactor 
business." 

So  I  shall  repeat  the  basic  sentence  as 
amended  to  give  the  completely  honest 
assessment.  "Since  there  is  in  effect  no  safe 
[italicsl  threshold  of  radiation,  there  is  an 
inherent  difficulty  in  es.tablishing  protection 
standards  and  still  remaining  in  the  nuclear 
reactor  business.' 

The  propaganda  sheet  continues,  "Is  it 
safe?"  and  answers: 

Nuclear  power  reactors  have  been  in 
operation  in  the  United  States  and  Britain 
since  the  1950s  and  in  Canada  since  1962. 
There  has  not  been  one  single,  fatal  acci- 
dent in  any  of  them. 

Now  actually,  an  Idaho  reactor  exploded  in 
1961,  killing  three  workers  and  discharging 
radioactivity  into  the  atmosphere.  For- 
tunately for  others,  the  reactor  was  in  an 
unpopulated  part  of  the  state. 

On  Dec.  13,  1950,  the  Chalk  River  plant 
had  an  accident  with  an  explosion,  killing 
one  and  injuring  five  others.  Only  a  small 
amount  of  material  was  involved  in  the  ex- 
plosion. According  to  reports,  and  I  quote: 
"Only  through  good  luck,  45,000  lb  of  the 
same  material  in  an  adjacent  room  did  not 
detonate." 

On  Dec.  12,  1952,  the  NRX  reactor  at 
Chalk  River  suffered  a  "power  surge"  acci- 
dent. Very  high  radiation  was  involved  for 
workers— between  20  and  100  roentgens  an 
bour.  An  engineering  magazine  said  at  the 
time: 

If  100  people  were  to  receive  a  total 
body  radiation  of  400  roentgens,  at  least 
50  would  definitely  have  received  a  lethal 
dose.  For  this  reason  the  normal  health 
tolerance  is  limited  to  300  milliroentgens 
per  week  per  employee.  However,  had  we 
attempted  to  apply  this  standard  when 
working  on  this  accident,  we  would  have 
\ery  quickly  run  out  of  manpower. 

One  wonders  about  the  health  status  of 
these  workers  now,  21  years  later. 

On  May  23,  1958,  an  NRU  reactor  at 
Chalk  River  suffered  what  was  called  a 
"pow  er  burst"  as  a  result  of  a  fuel  rod 
failure.  Very  wide  contamination  occurred 
inside  the  plant.  It  took  600  men,  including 
men  from  the  armed  forces,  over  two  months 
to  clean  it  up.  Mr.  G.  C.  Laurence,  fornier 
member  of  the  Atomic  Energy  Control  Board, 


said  it  was  very  fortunate  that  no  one  was 
hurt  or  suffered  an  overdose  of  radiation  in 
that  accident.  I  quote: 

The  material  damage,  however,  was  an 
impressive  reminder  of  the  latent  energy 
and  of  the  radioactive  substances  that 
icoul'd  be  released!  by  accident.  I  was  chair- 
man of  a  small  committee  that  inquired 
into  the  causes  of  that  accident  and  it  made 
me  very  dissatisfied!  with  the  reactor  safety 
philosophy  that  prevailed  tliem. 

On  May  3,  1973,  the  Wall  Street  Journal  re- 
ferred to  a  recent  accident  at  the  Virginia 
Electric  Power  Co.  atomic  plant  in  which  two 
men  were  killed.  This  "recent"  accident  may 
be  the  same  one  that  took  place  at  the  Surrey 
Plant  in  Virginia  ini  July,  1972.  On  that  occa- 
sion, two  workmen  were  inspecting  sets  of 
malfunctioning  valves  when  yet  another  valVe 
exploded  and  killed  them. 

So  the  statement,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there 
has  not  been  a  single  fatal  accident  at  nuclear 
power  reactors  in  the  United  States,  Britain 
or  Canada  is  simply  not  true.  This  propa- 
ganda, which  I  picked  up  at  Information 
Canada  last  week,  should  be  withdrawn.  It 
deceives  the  public,  as  of  course  it  is  intended 
to  do.  As  long  as  the  public  thinks  that 
nuclear  power  is  safe  and  cltean,  the  public 
will  accept  it.  When  the  pubhc  realizes  that 
it  has  been  deceived,  that  may  be  another 
story.  This  government  must  come  clean  with 
the  public. 

In  1970  Consolidated  Edison  of  New  York 
had  a  pipe  burst  in  its  atomic  plant.  It  took 
700  men  seven  months  to  repair  the  pipe.  In 
order  to  avoid  exceeding  radiation!  exposure 
limits.  Consolidated  Edison  called  in  every 
one  of  the  700  welders  in  its  whole  system, 
its  whole  empire.  A  comparable  repair  in  a 
conventional  plant  would  have  taken  only 
two  weeks  and  only  25  men. 

The  president  of  Consolidated  Edison  spoke 
quite  candidly  to  the  Atomic  Industrial  Forum 
conference  on  Nov.  19,  1972.  He  said: 
"Nuclear  power  has  not  fulfilledi  its  golden 
promise."  After  referring  to  the  exceptional 
number  of  delays,  defects  and  breakdowns, 
he  said:  "Repairs  have  required  inordinate 
amounts  of  time,  manpower  and  money."  And 
he  noted  that  radiation  hazards  slow  the 
work. 

After  this  conference  there  were  five  can- 
cellations of  orders  for  nuclear  plants, 
followed  by  at  least  two  more  important  re- 
versals, while  Pacffic  Gas  and  Electric  Co. 
seems  to  have  renounced  any  future  nuclear 
power  involvement. 

The  section  on  costs  in  the  task  force  re- 
port, pages  39  to  42,  contains  all  the  units'  of 


506 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


normal  accounting  practice  in  dbll'ars  and 
cents  and'  quotes  projections  for  future  per- 
formance. But  there  is  not  a  word  assessing 
the  real  costs  of  nuclear  fission,  which  I  shall 
try  to  summarize  briefly: 

1.  Costs  to  uranium  miners  in  the  threefold 
increase  in  incidence  of  lung  cancer. 

2.  Costs  to  human  health  because  of  the 
escape  of  radioactive  effluent  from  uranium 
tailings  into  the  food  chain  through  air  or 
water. 

3.  Costs  in  suffering  and  lives  in  the  event 
of  a  major  in-plant  accident. 

4.  Costs  in  sufi^ering  and  lives  resulting 
from  sabotage  of  a  nuclear  plant. 

5.  Costs  in  suffering  and  lives  in  the  event 
of  acts  of  war  or  dementia  or  even  acts  of 
God. 

6.  Costs  of  dismantling  or  perpetually  en- 
tombing and  guarding  the  30-  or  40-year-old, 
worn-out  and  abandoned  plants. 

The  list  could  be  continued.  For  example, 
we  could  add  the  cost  of  providing  poison 
gas  shelters^  near  heavy  water  plants  in  case 
of  leakage  of  deadly  hydrogen  sulphide,  as 
has  been  done  near  the  Bruce  plant  at  Inver- 
huron,  near  Kincardine. 

iTask  Force  Hydro's  report  number  3  is,  of 
course,  entitled  "Nuclear  Power  in  Ontario." 
It  is  a  propaganda  report  of  the  most  blatant 
type.  If  it  were  scientific  it  would  at  least 
acknowledge  the  existence  of  the  other 
superior  sources  of  energy— superior  simply 
because  they  are  non-polluting,  non-hazardous 
and  perpetually  renewable. 

Is  it  not  incredible  that  anyone  is  willing 
to  run  all  the  risks  and,  in  the  words  of 
worried  atomic  scientists,  "to  jeopardize  the 
human  race  just  to  boil  water"?  TTiere  are  so 
many  good,  clean,  safe  ways  of  boiling  water 
to  produce  electricity. 

What  possesses  men  to  devise  such  a 
stupidly  clever,  polluting,  dangerous  method 
called  nuclear  fission?  There  must  be  some 
reason,  but  the  only  one  of  which  I  have 
heard  is  the  oft-repeated  explanation  that  it 
results  from  the  feeling  of  guilt  on  the  part 
of  the  scientific  community  and/or  those 
scientists  who  first  split  the  atom. 

Its  first  use  was  for  war,  destroying  as  it 
did  tiiousands  of  Japanese  civilians.  To  ap- 
pease their  consciences,  the  scientists  worked 
out  the  theory  that  splitting  the  atom,  despite 
its  initial  misuse,  would  turn  out  to  be  of 
immeasurable  benefit  to  mankind.  In  view  of 
man's  well  known  propensity  for  justifying 
his  own  behaviour,  this  theory  makes  con- 
siderable sense.   It  is  thought  also  that  man 


has,  in  addition  to  his  ability  to  rationalize, 
another  characteristic,  the  abiUty  to  learn 
from  his  mistakes,  to  admit  them,  to  change 
his  mind  and  to  change  his  course  of  action. 

Task  Force  Hydro  has  issued  three  reports, 
all  reflecting  the  sell,  sell,  sell  philosophy  of 
Canadian  Tire  Corp.  I  can  find  no  suggestion 
in  any  of  them  that  Ontario  Hydro  should 
change  its  policy  of  selling  electricity  in 
favour  of  a  policy  designed  to  save  and  con- 
serve it.  It  was  more  with  amusement  than 
with  surprise  that  I  reached  the  last  two 
pages  of  report  No.  3  and  noted  that  the 
chairman  of  the  steering  committee  of  Task 
Force  Hydro  was  none  other  than  the  presi- 
dent of  Canadian  Tire  Corp.  Ltd.  whose 
philosophy  is  sell,  sell,  sell. 

It's  high  time  that  Ontario  Hydro  got  itself 
some  new  guidelines,  abandoned  its  blind 
commitment  to  nuclear  power,  cancelled  its 
membership  in  the  nuclear  club  and  returned 
to  the  straightforward  course  of  putting  the 
public  good  first. 

Ontario  Hydro  began  with  water  power,  a 
non-hazardous,  non-polluting,  perpetually  re- 
newable sotnce  of  energy.  Eventually  it  ran 
out  of  convenient  hydro  sites  and  turned  to 
the  polluting,  unrenewable,  but  only  slighdy 
hazardous,  fossil  fuel.  With  the  advantage  of 
hindsight  to  guide  us,  we  can  see  that  it  was 
at  this  point,  when  water  power  seemed  to 
require  supplementing,  that  we  should  have 
developed  such  alternatives  as  solar  power, 
and  especially  wind  power.  Unfortunately,  we 
took  the  easiest  path  and  used  coal,  thereby 
adding  to  the  pollution  of  the  air  of  many 
cities. 

We  have  again  reached  the  stage  at  which 
we  feel  it  necessary  to  find  alternative  sources 
of  energy.  Again  we  have  looked  in  the 
wrong  direction,  turning  to  nuclear  power 
with  all  its  difficulties  and  dangers  and  the 
unforgivable  risks  that  are  being  incurred. 
The  question  we  must  ask  ourselves  is 
whether  the  nuclear  establishment  is  setting 
policy  for  this  Legislatine  or  whether  the 
Legislature  is  still  strong  enough  to  reverse 
the  pohcy  that  is  being  relendessly  promoted 
by  the  nuclear  interests. 

Just  because  we  can  build  huge  supersonic 
transports  does  not  mean  that  we  should,  and 
just  because  we  can  travel  to  the  moon  does 
not  mean  that  we  should.  Just  because  we 
can  build  nuclear  power  plants  does  not  mean 
that  we  should.  The  question  of  using  nuclear 
power  is,  of  course,  partly  a  technical  one 
but  it  is  primarily  a  moral  one.  Are  we  justi- 
fied in  committing  our  descendants  to  almost 
unthiiJcable  risks  when  better,  safer  wavs  of 


MARCH  28,  1974 


507 


providing  energy  are  available?  It  is  as  simple 
as  that. 

Although  President  Richard  Nixon  is  a 
great  advocate  of  nuclear  power  despite  his 
admitted  ignorance  of  the  subject,  his  former 
science  adviser,  Dr.  S.  David  Freeman,  now 
head  of  the  Ford  Foundation's  energy  project, 
was  reported  in  Nucleonics  Week  as  telling  a 
meeting  in  Washington: 

Plants  aren't  all  that  safe  and  what  wor- 
ries me  especially  is  that  any  corporation 
can  own  and  operate  a  reactor.  I  don't 
think  there  is  that  much  specific  compe- 
tence, technical  competence.  Someone  will 
make  the  wrong  weld  and  those  plants  need 
near-perfect  engineering.  We  have  not  had 
mudh  operating  experience  and  inadequate 
allowance  for  human  weakness  is  being 
made. 

He  recommended  an  independent  nuclear 
safety  board  to  study  and  oversee  the  whole 
situation: 

If  consumers  don't  get  involved  in  the 
fight  for  a  sane  and  fair  energy  policy,  they 
will  end  up  victims  of  undesirable  power 
technologies,  high  bills  and  a  seriously  pol- 
luted environment. 

Incidentally,  Freeman  advocates  a  $1.5  biUion 
to  $2  billion  research  and  development  pro- 
gramme so  that  by  1985  the  United  States 
would  be  developing  and  operating  at  least 
seven  new,  really  clean  energy  sources. 

The  Atomic  Energy  Commission  oflBciais 
are  becoming  upset  by  public  resistance  to 
the  proliferation  of  nuclear  power  plants,  and 
at  a  December,  1972,  hearing  the  counsel  for 
the  AEC  became  quite  impatient  and  said 
if  public  health  and  safety  requirements  were 
to  be  met,  there  would  be  no  power.  That  is, 
for  the  plant  to  operate  at  a  level  insuring 
public  health  and  safety,  it  couldn't  operate 
economically.  Obviously,  economies  real  or 
imagined  are  given  authority  over  safety  of 
the  environment  and  man. 

Dr.  Edward  Teller,  usualy  known  as  the 
father  of  the  atomic  bomb  and  never  known 
as  a  timid  soul,  has  stated  that  nuclear  plants 
should  never  be  built  above  ground.  To  this 
the  nuclear  establislmient  replies:  **If  large 
nuclear  plants  had  to  be  built  underground, 
the  price  would  be  so  prohibitive  the  utilities 
wouldn't  buy  them."  And  those  are  the  words 
of  Mr.  Reg  Hayden,  spokesman  for  Atomic 
Energy  of  Canada  Ltd. 

Dr.  Teller  was  also  quoted  in  Nuclear 
Industry  in  a  1969  article  entitled:  "Fast 
Reactors:  When  Will  We  Have  Them? 
Maybe  Never."  He  said:  "I  do  not  l^e  the 


hazard  involved."  His  special  worry  is  that 
no  one  can  tell  where  "a  portion  of  the 
plutonium  will  find  itself." 

Whose  opinion  should  weigh  more  with 
us— Edward  Teller's  or  that  of  our  Minister  of 
Energy? 

Remember,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  takes  only  11 
pounds  of  plutonium  to  make  a  Nagasaki-like 
atom  bomb.  About  one  ton  of  plutonium  239 
is  contained  in  a  breeder  reactor  core.  If 
released  and  distributed  evenly  around  the 
earth,  there  would  be  no  human  survivors. 

Yet  the  proponents  "feel  sure,"  or  "are 
confident,"  or  "think"  that  the  problems  of 
containment  and  disposal  will  be  solved  at 
some  time  in  the  future.  With  so  many  safe, 
clean  and  inexhaustible  alternatives,  the  only 
conclusion  one  can  reach  is  that  some  men 
like  to  do  things  the  hard  way,  the  danger- 
ous way.  If  the  hazards  were  to  them  alone, 
we  might  say  "go  ahead."  But  when  all  man- 
kind has  to  share  the  hazard,  we  must  say 
"stop"  with  several  exclamation  marks. 

George  Weil,  a  nuclear  consultant  and 
former  Atomic  Energy  Commission  chief  of 
the  reactor  branch,  and  United  States  tech- 
nical director  of  the  First  International  Con- 
ference on  Peacetime  Nuclear  Energy,  offers 
a  warning  in  his  1972  article:  "Nuclear  En- 
ergy—Promises, Promises."  He  says  as  fol- 
lows: "Breeders  wall  present  far  greater  radio- 
active risks  than  we  now  face.  With  groviirh 
of  nuclear  fission  we  are  committing  ourselves 
to  nightmarish  possibilities." 

Nobel  prize  winner  Hannes  Alfven,  whom 
I  mentioned  before,  states  that  "any  pro- 
gramme to  develop  fast  breeders  should  be 
revised."  That's  in  the  Bulletin  of  Atomic 
Scientists,  May,  1972. 

John  Gofman,  the  distinguished  nuclear 
researcher  and  professor  of  medical  physics, 
calls  the  AEC's  plans  for  a  plutonium  econ- 
omy "insanity"  and  "the  ultimate  hazard". 

These  are  harsh  words,  Mr.  Speaker. 
"Nightmarish";  "insanity;"  the  "ultimate  haz- 
ard. But  they  are  the  words  of  men  who 
have  deep  insight  and  have  had  long  experi- 
ence in  this  field.  Is  it  not  folly  for  politi- 
cians such  as  ourselves  to  ignore  their  words 
and  meekly  swallow  the  assurances  of  the 
nuclear  establishment?  Especially  when  there 
is  absolutely  no  necessity  to  run  any  further 
risks. 

The  various  forms  of  solar  ener^  can 
supply  so  much  energy  that  we  could  have 
far  more  on  tap  than  we  would  ever  need, 
and  be  able  to  save  our  fossil  fuels,  espe- 
cially oil,  for  all  the  special  uses  that  have 


508 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


been  invented  by  the  petrochemical  indus- 
try, which  of  course  will  have  to  disappear 
when  the  oil  resources  of  the  earth  are  used 
up. 

The  choice  is  clear.  Go  nuclear  at  our 
peril.  Go  solar  with  guaranteed  safety,  guar- 
anteed cleanliness  and  guaranteed  eternal 
supplies.  Buckminster  Fuller  has  said  that 
wind  energy  is  the  most  promising  form  of 
solar  energy  by  99-to-l,  so  when  I  refer  to 
solar  energy,  I  have  in  mind  chiefly  wind 
power. 

Why  are  our  governments  ignoring  solar 
energy?  Chiefly  because  of  lack  of  knowl- 
edge. Scarcely  anyone  is  yet  aware  that  solar 
energy  could  completely  solve  our  energy 
problems.  Very  few  people  yet  realize  that 
some  day,  not  too  far  off,  solar  energy  must 
be  man's  sole  source  of  energy.  In  the  late 
Fifties  there  was  a  world-wide  attempt  to 
revive  interest  in  solar  heating,  solar  distilla- 
tion and  wind-generated  power.  But  the  rosy 
pictures  then  painted  of  cheap  nuclear  power 
left  only  a  small  group  of  hard-core  devotees 
working  in  the  solar  energy  field. 

Technology  and  industry  plunged  into  the 
nuclear  field.  As  a  society,  we  forgot  about 
research  and  development,  both  for  solar  en- 
ergy and  for  a  cleaner  method  of  using  coal. 
Nuclear  power  was  in.  All  other  forms  of 
energy  were  out.  A  quarter  of  a  century  of 
research  and  development  in  solar  energy 
processes  was  literally  lost  for  lack  of  scien- 
tific interest   and  financial   support. 

Prof.  William  E.  Heronemus,  professor  of 
civil  engineering  at  the  University  of  Massa- 
chusetts, recently  described  three  solar-driven 
processes  that  can  be  implemented  quickly  if 
the  public  demands  them.  The  fuel  establish- 
ment, of  course,  is  not  likely  to  show  any 
favourable  interest.  Only  a  government,  prod- 
ded by  public  opinion,  is  likely  to  do  that. 

First,  the  photo-thermal  method:  Briefly, 
as  I,  a  layman,  understand  it,  heat  from  the 
direct  rays  of  the  sun  is  collected  in  so-called 
flat  plate  collectors  using  air  or  water  as  the 
working  fluid.  The  warmed  working  fluid  is 
then  used  to  heat  buildings  and  water  for 
domestic  purposes.  In  areas  and  seasons  re- 
quiring cooling  rather  than  heating,  the 
warmed  working  fluid  is  used  to  drive  absorp- 
tion-type  refrigeration  machines. 

This  low  photo-thermal  process  could  be 
added  on  to  an  existing  fossil-fuel  heating 
plant.  If  required  to  do  no  more  than  75  per 
cent  of  the  heating  task  over  the  course  of 
a  year,  it  would  be  competitive  economically 
as  well  as  ecologically  superior.  This  type  of 
a  building  heating  system  on  a  rather  large 
scale  has  been  proposed  for  the  new  Massa- 


chusetts Audubon  Society  office  in  Lincoln, 
Mass.,  where  it  will  be  watched  with  con- 
siderable interest. 

The  second  method,  the  ocean  thermal  dif- 
ferences process:  This  is  of  no  immediate 
interest  to  us  in  Ontario.  I  shall  not  describe 
it. 

Third,  the  wind-power  process:  Since  the 
beginning  of  recorded  history  man  has  ex- 
ploited wind  power,  not  only  for  travelling 
by  sailboats,  but  also  for  other  jobs  the 
energy  from  windmills  can  perform.  The  ef- 
ficiency of  wind  txurbines  has  increased  from 
as  littie  as  five  per  cent  to  10  per  cent  for 
the  Dutch  type  of  windmill  to  as  high  as  55 
per  cent  for  some  modem  high-speed  pro- 
peller-type machines. 

In  the  last  three  years  an  entirely  new 
look  has  been  taken  at  wind  power.  Wind 
power  is  now  considered  within  a  total,  self- 
contained  system  able  to  deliver  electricity 
upon  demand  by  virtue  of  including  a  stor- 
age sub-system.  Several  very  large  wind- 
power  electricity  systems  of  this  kind  have 
been  devised  and  costed. 

The  most  ambitious  of  these  proposals  is 
the  offshore  wind  power  system  which  could 
take  over  the  entire  job  of  providing  elec- 
tricity for  the  six  New  England  states.  Each 
element  of  the  system  was  carried  through 
preliminary  calculations  and  is  based  on 
technology  demonstrated  at  that  size  some- 
where in  the  past.  The  storage  sub-system  is 
based  on  the  generation  of  hydrogen  by 
electrolysis  and  on  the  storage  of  that  gas  in 
pressure-balanced  tank  farms  beneath  the 
sea. 

As  first  presented,  the  offshore  wind  power 
system  was  a  100  per  cent  hydrogen  gas 
system  to  be  distributed  throughout  New 
England  in  pipelines.  This  gas  would  then 
be  converted  at  a  fuel  cell  substation  in 
which  hydrogen  and  air  are  used  at  the  local 
distribution  level  to  generate  electricity.  By 
a  later  concept,  however,  capable  of  deliver- 
ing 300  billion  kilowatt  hours  per  year,  the 
method  would  be  electricity  in  cables  rather 
than  energy  in  pipeline  gas. 

Prof.  Heronemus  has  conceptualized  wind 
power  systems  for  the  Lake  Ontario  region 
off  the  shore  of  Oswego,  NY,  for  New  York 
shoals,  for  the  state  of  Wisconsin,  for  the 
state  of  Vermont,  and  for  the  prairie  states. 
These  studies  have  all  shown  that  competitive 
electricity  on  demand  in  vast  amounts  could 
be  generated  by  wind  power  in  regions  where 
winds  are  moderate  to  strong. 

Heronemus  says,  however,  that  because 
winds  are  much  stronger  several  hundred  feet 
above  the  surface  than  they  are  within  100 


MARCH  28,  1974 


509 


feet  of  the  ground,  we  must  be  prepared  to 
put  our  wind  generators  where  the  wind  is 
best.  If  we  don't  Hke  the  sight  of  them,  then 
we  can  put  them  on  floats  out  of  sight  on 
the  Great  Lakes.  This  would  be  a  much  bet- 
ter solution  for  Goderich  than  the  building 
of  another  dangerous  "nuke". 

Heronemus  estimates  that  the  United  States 
can  harvest  at  least  two  trillion  kilowatt  hours 
of  electricity  a  year.  Wind  generator  systems 
could  be  in  action  within  four  years.  If  On- 
tario is  in  a  hurry  to  produce  more  power 
to  export  to  the  United  States,  wind  turbines 
could  be  the  quickest  and  best  answer. 

Heronemus  recognizes  that  nuclear  fusion 
may  eventually  be  perfected  and  that  it  could 
replace  other  heat-generating  processes.  But 
he  realizes  also  that  there  is  a  limit  to  the 
amount  of  global  heating  and  weather  modi- 
fication the  earth  or  man  or  the  environment 
can  tolerate.  He  says  that  that  limit  may  be 
not  much  higher  than  that  which  we  have 
already  reached.  He  warns: 

The  often  enunciated  concept  that  nu- 
clear fusion  will  bring  unlimited  energy  to 
man  is  a  very  dangerous  and  irresponsible 
concept.  Perhaps  the  major  tragedy  we 
could  sustain  from  this  current  energy  crisis 
would  be  the  long-term  disadvantages  that 
would  accrue  to  accelerated  non-regulated 
proliferation  of  fission  power  plants.  The 
real  questions  here  are  far  more  deeply 
seated  than  those  of  present  comfort,  profit 
and  loss,  or  material  well-being.  They  are 
questions  of  radical  degradation  of  national 
security.  [That  is  another  way  of  saying 
sabotage  and  hijacking.]  They  are  questions 
of  basic  morality.  For  example,  what  is  this 
generation's  obligation  to  all  future  gen- 
erations? 

Professor  Heronemus,  probably  the  best- 
known  authority  on  the  conversion  of  wind 
energy,  will  be  speaking  in  May,  a  few  weeks 
from  now,  at  the  University  of  Sherbrooke 
in  Quebec  at  a  seminar  on  the  subject.  At 
both  McGill  University  and  the  University  of 
Sherbrooke  there  are  groups  of  professors 
keenly  interested  in  wind  power  conversion. 
In  a  personal  communication  of  Feb.  11, 
Prof.  Heronemus  refers  to  Canadian  data  pre- 
pared by  T.  C.  Richards  and  D.  W.  Phillips 
of  the  Department  of  Transport,  meterologi- 
cal  branch,  Toronto,  and  says: 

Based  on  these  data  and  our  local 
method  of  assessing  the  utility  of  a  wind 
field  we  have  concluded  that  the  winds  in 
the  Canadian  portion  of  Lake  Huron  and 
farther  to  the  east  over  Georgian  Bay 
would  be  an  excellent  field  in  which  to 
place  shallow  draught,  floating  wind  plants. 


That  same  strong  westerly  persists  and 
indeed  intensifies  as  one  moves  eastward 
over  Quebec  and  Labrador.  Wind  power 
over  Labrador  may  be  one  of  your  richest 
natural  resources.  [That's  speaking  to  me 
as  a  Canadian.]  There  is  also  an  excellent 
wind  field  off-shore  of  the  whole  of  Nova 
Scotia,  of  far  greater  long-term  significance 
than  even  the  richest  of  gas  and  oil  de- 
posits in  that  shelf.  [He  concluded  his 
letter  with  these  remarks—]  Canada  is 
blessed  with  one  of  the  most  productive 
wind  power  resources  in  the  world.  You 
would  be  well  advised  to  develop  its  use 
and  save  your  petroleum  for  nothing  other 
than  a  sustained,  intelligently-operated, 
long-lived,  petro-chemical  industry. 

If  you  were  to  move  that  way,  maybe 
some  of  the  less  imaginative  members  of 
the  United  States  establishment  might  start 
moving,  too. 

In  closing,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to  state 
that,  in  view  of  the  Minister  of  Energy's  oft- 
repeated  appeal  for  citizen  input  and  ideas  as 
well  as  his  advertised  need  for  greater  depth 
and  greater  breadth  of  knowledge  in  areas 
such  as  wind  power,  he  should  attend  this 
seminar  personally,  and  take  with  him  or 
send  observers  who  have  some  expertise  in 
this  field. 

Here  is  an  opportunity  for  Ontario  to  show 
leadership  in  this  most  socially  acceptable 
of  all  energy  fields.  Let  us  seize  this  oppor- 
tunity for  the  benefit  not  only  of  Ontario 
and  Canada  but  of  the  rest  of  the  world. 

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

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  pleased  to  have  the  opportun- 
ity to  rise  in  this  Throne  Speech  debate  and, 
of  course,  very  honoured  by  the  fact  that 
you  are  in  the  chair  at  this  point.  Together 
with  everyone  else,  I  v^^as  very  shaken  by 
that  experience  last  December.  There  are 
few  people  around  this  city  or  in  this  prov- 
ince who  have  earned  more  respect  from  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  and  others  than 
you,  and  we  are  delighted  to  have  you  in 
your  position. 

I  was  quite  shaken  when  I  read  this  Throne 
Speech  to  see  that  the  government  states  that 
although  it  will  employ  all  practical  means 
at  its  disposal  to  alleviate  the  causes  and 
effects  of  inflation,  "nevertheless  it  bears 
repeating  that  the  problem  can  only  be  dealt 
with  in  a  national  context  with  all  govern- 
ments co-operating." 


510 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Surely  there  is  nothing  that  has  been  more 
inflationary,  nothing  that  has  added  more  to 
the  fires  of  inflation  than  the  housing  costs. 
Surely  anyone  will  agree  that  the  housing 
costs  in  Toronto— the  heart,  the  capital  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario— have  been  rising  faster 
than  anywhere  else  in  Canada.  What  has 
been  happening  in  Toronto,  unfortunately, 
has  also  been  happening  even  close  to  Coch- 
rane North,  Geraldton,  and  other  towns  all 
over;  even  in  Smooth  Rock  Falls.  I  hear 
about  these  costs.  We  have  a  shortage  of 
building  sites  which  makes  it  impossible  for 
the  ordinary  individual  to  buy  a  home  even 
in  those  parts  of  Ontario  where  no  one  can 
say  we  have  a  shortage  of  land.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  of  course,  no  one  can  really  say  we 
have  a  shortage  of  land  even  in  this  area. 

Land  is  the  major  culprit  in  the  housing- 
cost  rise.  I  feel  there  have  been  20  years  of 
uninterrupted  opportunities  for  profiteering  by 
speculators  which  we  provided  by  having  the 
shortage  of  building  sites  year  after  year. 
Therefore,  there  was  an  opportunity  for 
those  selling  in  a  sellers'  market  to  keep  on 
demanding  higher  prices.  That  has  backed  up 
to  afrricTiltural  land  and,  as  the  member  for 
Wellington-DufFerin  (Mr.  Root)  said,  is  caus- 
ing our  agricultural  land  to  disappear  at  an 
alarming  rate. 

It's  not  iust  the  problem  of  the  cost  of 
nroducins:  food  today  on  the  farms,  and  all 
the  expenses  related  to  it,  but  it's  the  fact 
there  is  such  a  temptation  to  say:  "To 
heck  with  it  all.  I'd  rather  get  out  and 
enjoy  the  revenues  from  clipping  the  bonds 
nther  thin  cret  in  there  and  work  day  after 
day  to  produce  food.  When  the  land  prices 
around  me  are  escalating,  why  should  I 
carry  on  slugging  it  out  day  after  day?" 

The  government  has  tried  to  solve  the 
nroblem  by  Malvern— first  of  all,  Malvern. 
Whit  success  did  that  have?  In  the  20 
years  it  took  to  get  Malvern  from  the  original 
nurchase  of  land  in  that  area  to  where  the 
first  houses  were  built,  land  prices  in  this 
^'•ea  have  risen  at  a  rate  at  which  they 
have  never  risen  before.  We  have  not 
solved  a  bit  of  it.  And  yet  we  have  gone 
ahead  with  land-banking  —  the  purchase  of 
thousands  of  acres  of  land  by  this  government 
—in  the  Cambridge  area,  in  Pickering,  in 
the  Whitby  area;  all  over  they  are  buying 
vast  acreages.  Those  who  are  selling,  of 
course,  say:  "By  gosh,  we  can  make  money 
on  land.  The  best  thing  we  can  do  is  buy 
some  other  land."  And  so  all  we  are  doing 
is  fuelling  the  fires  of  inflation  instead  of 
dealing  with  the  problem.  The  problem  is 
the  shortage  of  building  sites. 


I  was  interested  in  the  fact  that  in  many 
counties  around  the  province  they  have  said: 
"Let  us  have  the  right  to  develop  some  of 
our  building  sites.  It  would  not  cause  any 
pollution;  it  would  not  cause  any  strip 
development;  it  would  not  be  using  any 
good  agricultural  land."  In  Northumberland 
county,  for  example,  the  planning  board 
there  said,  "We  could  give  you  2,000  lots 
and  put  them  on  the  market  tomorrow  and 
not  cause  any  of  these  undesirable  planning 
results." 

But,  no,  because  of  the  policies  here  at 
Queen's  Park  of  restricting  development  to 
traditional -type  subdivisions,  such  as  the  one 
between  Cobourg  and  Port  Hope  which  is 
using  up  hundreds  of  acres  of  good  agricul- 
tural land— because  we  are  restricted  to  that 
type  of  development,  we  are  just  continuing 
to  feed  the  fires  of  inflation  as  we  are  con- 
tinuing to  destroy  hundreds  of  acres  of  our 
best  agricultural  land  a  day. 

There  are  answers  to  this  and  the  answers 
primarily  involve  servicing  the  land,  I  was 
interested  to  see  that  in  this  Throne  Speech 
there  is  a  mention  of  the  fact  that  the 
government  is  going  to  increase  its  activities 
in  servicing  of  land.  But  then  when  I  read 
that  it's  moving  from  around  $81  ;million 
of  capital  expenditures  to  $115  of  capital 
expenditures,  I  say  they've  got  to  be 
kidding.  Those  people  running  this  govern- 
ment have  got  to  be  kidding  to  think  that 
a  $30  million  increase  will  solve  the  problem. 

What  is  needed  is  a  major  programme,  a 
$350  million  to  $450  million  programme  for 
the  next  year,  or  two,  or  three,  or  whatever 
is  required  to  beat  the  shortage,  to  eliminate 
the  cause  of  the  inflationary  fires,  to  en- 
sure there  is  an  over-supply  of  buflding 
sites  available.  This  is  not  money  that  is 
wasted,  because  this  is  an  investment  in  very 
valuable,  revenue-producing  construction— 
revenue-producing  because  it  is  possible  for 
the  province  to  sell  the  services  to  the  mu- 
nicipalities where  the  development  is  going 
to  occur. 

It's  important  that  we  recognize  that  the 
way  it  has  got  to  be  done  is  that  it  has  to 
be  completely  different  from  the  traditional 
system  of  financing,  where  each  municipality 
enters  into  a  contract  so  that  the  mimici- 
pality  pays  back  the  cost  of  the  construction 
over  a  certain  period  of  time.  Imagine  how 
much  development  of  power  we  would  have 
seen  in  Ontario  had  we  had  to  have  each 
municipality  go  to  the  Ontario  Hydro  and 
say,  'We  would  like  to  have  you  develop 
and  provide  power  to  us,"  and  if  Ontario 
Hydro   had  made   them   sign   a   contract   on 


MARCH  28,  1974 


511 


a   take-or-pay   basis   over  a   30-   or  40-   or 

whatever-the-number-of-years  basis  to  fully 
repay  the  cost  of  that  development.  It  just 
never  would  have  happened. 

The  reason  it  wouldn't  have  happened  is 
because  the  municipalities  could  not  have 
stood  that  debt  burden.  And  the  reason  the 
municipalities  today  are  not  entering  into 
large  contracts  to  provide  the  service  in  the 
region  of  York,  the  region  of  Durham,  and 
all  these  other  regions,  the  reason  we  are 
not  moving  ahead  is  because  they  can't  get 
these  projects  worked  out  with  the  govern- 
ment. They  can't  afford  them. 

But  the  government  of  Ontario,  were  it  to 
undertake  a  province-wide  programme  where 
the  cost  to  each  of  these  municipalities  that 
require  services  was  similar  to  the  cost  that 
Metro  Toronto  charges  its'  boroughs;  no 
different— were  it  to  use  that  standard  of  rate 
across  the  province,  we  would  then  not  be 
making  a  differentiation  in  cost  between  easy 
areas  to  construct  services,  such  as  the 
southern  area  where  the  soil  is  deep  and  easy 
to  dig,  and  the  north. 

We  wouldn't  be  differentiating  between, 
say,  London  and  St.  Thomas.  London'  is  buy- 
ing its  water  at  18  cents  a  thousand;  and  of 
course  St.  Thomas  got  a  little  better  deal  after 
a  lot  of  haggling,  but  they  were  asked  to  pay 
54  cents  when  their  project  was  put  in. 

This  silly,  ridiculous  policy  of  having  each 
project  stand  on  its  own  feet  just  won't  work. 
The  other  thing  that  is  so  silly  and  so  wrong 
is  expecting  municipalities  to  enter  into  a 
contract  that  burdens  the  municipality  and  re- 
stricts its  ability  to  do  other  projects,  because 
it's  a  burden  on  its  borrowing  capacity,  when 
that  contract  does  absolutely  nothing  for  the 
province  in  enabling  it  to  borrow  money  from 
the  market  at  better  prices. 

The  province  is  borrowing  the  money  on  its 
own  credit,  and  Ontario  Hydro  uses  the  prov- 
ince's credit;  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
actual  revenues  that  made  Hydro— certainly 
on  the  original  basis— the  attractive  borrow- 
ing instrument  that  it  developed'  into.  It  cer- 
tainly is  possible  for  the  Ontario  government 
to  set  up  a  utihty  concept  for  water  and 
sewers  along  the  same  hne,  which  would  then 
enable  the  municipalities  to  really  have  avail- 
able to  them,  without  burdening  them,  the 
verv'  essential  services  of  water  and  sewers. 

As  for  the  actual  annual  subsidy  that  the 
taxpayers  might  have  to  carry  to  subsidize 
these  rates  I  talk  about— the  uniform  rates 
across  Ontario— calculations  we've  done,  on 
the  basis  of  estimates  of  what  the  market  de- 
mand might  be  for  120,000  lots  a  year,  show 
that  this  might  be  as  high  as  $30  million  a 


year  in  the  provincial  budget  o£  $7  billion. 
But  to  be  sure  that  this  province-wide  utility 
builds  up,  that  subsidy  of  $30  million  a  year 
could  save  $500  million  a  year  to  the  home 
buyer  and  the  tenant.  And  that  is  where  we, 
as  a  government,  can  really  help  the  economy. 

We  can  decrease  the  inflationary  pressures 
that  have  caused  housing  to  go  out  of  sight. 
We  can  enable  municipalities  in  areas  where 
the  land  and  the  soils  aren't  as  attractive  for 
buildings  as  they  are  in  southern  Ontario,  to 
get  the  services  they  need.  And  we  can  do  it 
without  putting  those  municipalities  in  a  debt 
position  that  is  absolutely  without  any  reason, 
uimecessary  and  does  no  good  for  them— and 
certainly  does  no  good  for  the  province. 

I  remember  well  when,  as  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  of  the  Markham  council  I 
negotiated  contract  No.  1  with  the  Ontario 
Water  Resources  Commission,  what  a  dis- 
appointment it  was  at  that  time  to  Dr.  Berry, 
the  first  chairman,  when  he  realized  that  he 
had  to  have  each  of  these  contracts  on  a  self- 
supporting,  self-liquidating  basis,  instead  of 
the  concept  that  was  originally  discussed  in 
1954  of  forming  the  "Ontario  Hydro"  of  water 
and  sewers. 

If  the  province  really  is  interested  in  solv- 
ing the  servicing  problem  of  the  regions— 
they  were  supposed'  to  do  it  themselves,  but 
they  can't— and  other  municipalities,  it  should 
immediately  adopt  that  programme  and  not 
with  a  little  increase  of  $30  million,  as  it  is 
proposing  in  this  budget,  but  maybe  $300 
million  or,  $350  million— that's  much  more 
like  it. 

There  is  another  way  that  the  province  can 
help  cope  with  people's  problems,  such  as 
those  described  by  the  member  for  Welling- 
ton-Duflferin,  with  regard  to  servicing  in  rural 
areas.  That  is,  in  many  of  these  areas  a  major 
problem  has  been  how  to  service  a  few  houses 
in  a  cllister  in  an  area  where  perhaps  the  land 
is  not  good  for  agricultural  purposes.  It's  idteal 
for  some  houses  but  how  do  we  provide  the 
services  but  not  have  pollution? 

The  province  decided  some  years  ago  that 
upstream  sewage  plants  weren't  good,  even 
though  modem  technology  has  proven  that 
they  actually  are  excellent  and,  by  making 
use  of  sprinkling  systems  there  is  the  poten- 
tial to  recover  the  phosphates  and  nitrates 
and  to  actually  eliminate  the  need  to  buy 
fertilizers. 

We  can  actually  recycle  the  fertilzers  that 
are  in  the  sewage  affluent  and  greatly  increase 
the  productivity  of  our  agricultural  lands  for 
com,  wheat,  and  grasses.  GoH  courses,  of 
which  we  have  90  around  the  Toronto  area, 
could  be  irrigated  by  this  means,  but  instead 


512 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  doing  anything  in  these  modem  ways,  the 
government  of  Ontario  through  its  controlling 
authorities  has  been  discouraging  or  has  been 
giving  no  leadership  in  these  matters. 

I  was  shaken  to  find  that,  although  three 
years  ago  there  was  supposed  to  be  a  new 
experiment  in  this  sprinkling  and  irrigation  in 
the  AlBston  area,  nothing  has  happened, 
nothing  has  gone  forward.  I  suppose  they'll 
blame  the  municipality  but  the  municipality 
probably  got  a  little  frustrated. 

There  is  a  new  development  in  the 
London  area,  I  was  pleased  to  hear,  with 
regard  to  septic  tanks.  In  some  areas  septic 
tanks  just  don't  work.  The  reason  they  don't 
work  is  because  tile  beds  and  certain  types 
of  soils  just  aren't  satisfactory.  But  if  one 
adopts  this  system  that  is  being  proposed— 
and  I  think  it  has  finaly  got  approval  in  the 
London  area— of  taking  the  effluent  of  septic 
tanks  and  treating  it,  you  can  then  remove  it 
not  through  big  sewers  but  through  pipes  that 
are  easy  and  inexpensive  to  install.  You  can 
treat  it  in  a  very,  very  small  building,  prac- 
tically a  hut,  so  50  or  60  houses  can  be 
handled  in  a  very,  very  small  type  of  instal- 
lation and  very  inexpensively. 

It  would  make  it  possible  for  us  to  permit 
the  development  of  clusters  of  houses  in  very, 
very  attractive,  very  desirable  rural  settings, 
giving  people  the  maximmn  flexibility  instead 
of  forcing  tfiem  to  buy  in  high-cost  traditional- 
type  subdivisions  close  to  the  urban  areas. 
They  are  right  against  each  other,  covering 
over  tlie  finest  agricultural  lands  of  the  prov- 
ince with  these  developments— easily  serviced 
but  very  costly  for  future  purposes.  The 
provincial  government  should  take  an  aggres- 
sive and  leading  role  to  solve  a  problem 
which  is  of  such  a  serious  nature  from  one 
end  of  Ontario  to  the  other,  and  not  leave  it 
up  to  the  municipalities  and  developers  to 
find  some  maimer  of  getting  their  lands  into 
production. 

There  is  a  major  element  of  interruption 
in  housing  development  that  has  been  raised 
on  many  occasions  by  housing  ministers.  The 
previous  minister  at  one  time  made  a  strong 
statement  saying  that  we  are  going  to  have 
to  do  something  to  force  municipalities  to 
accept  low-cost  housing.  Now,  if  the  Attorney 
General  had  at  that  time  had  much  experi- 
ence in  local  councils  he  would  realize  that 
the  problem  is  not  that  they  don't  want  low- 
cost  housing  in  their  municipalities,  but  they 
don't  want  the  problem  of  the  increased 
burden  of  taxes  on  other  residents  that  low- 
cost  housing  brings  with  it.  That  is  because 
of  the  dependence  of  municipalities  on  prop- 
erty taxes  to  pay  for  people  services. 


The  one  way  that  this  can  be  overcome  is 
by  the  province  providing  municipal  financial 
assistance  to  eliminate  the  financial  drain 
imposed  on  existing  taxpayers  by  low  assess- 
ment housing.  Such  a  programme  must  assure 
municipalities  that  new,  small  houses  will 
yield  as  mudh  total  revenue  on  a  per  capita 
basis  as  the  established  areas  of  the  munici- 
palities. The  programme  would  be  of  a 
temporary  nature  because  experience  shows 
that  within  10  years  of  the  establishment  of 
low-cost  housing,  industrial  and  commercial 
construction  can  be  developed  wliich  will 
bring  previous  assesment  ratios  back  into 
balance.  In  other  words,  the  per  capita 
income  in  the  established  areas  will  be  the 
same  as,  or  even  less  than,  in  the  new  areas 
where  low  cost  assessment,  low  cost  housing 
is  allowed  to  come  in. 

It's  a  real  plus  for  a  municipality  and  there 
would  be  no  resistance  if  the  province  pro- 
vided a  10-year  programme  on  every  low 
cost  house  which  would  ensure  that  the  total 
revenue  on  that  house  was  up  to  the  per 
capita  revenue  of  other  residences  in  the  area. 
Another  point  is  the  government  should 
introduce  changes  to  the  Assessment  Act  to 
provide  for  market  value  assessment  on  all 
land  on  which  development  is  permitted. 
Many  people  have  had  the  feeling  that  spec- 
ulators hold  back  land  and  don't  put  it  on 
the  market— won't  put  it  on  the  market— and 
they  in  themselves  add  to  the  inflationary 
fires.  This  can  easily  be  discouraged  if  the 
Assessment  Act  is  changed  so  that  it's  pos- 
sible to  assess  land  at  ftill  market  value  for 
development  purposes  if  approval  can  be  ob- 
tained for  immediate  development  by  the 
municipalities. 

Another  point  is  we  should  reintroduce  the 
system  of  segregating  land  from  structures 
with  regard  to  assessment.  If  we  do  so,  we 
can  introduce  a  gradually  decreasing  percent- 
age factor  on  structures  so  that  there  is  a 
reduction  in  the  current  penalty  we  now  im- 
pose on  improvements  to  property.  There  are 
many  examples  in  the  Toronto  area  when 
buildings  are  torn  down  and  parking  lots 
established  in  order  to  reduce  taxes  and  they 
can  still  get  a  very  satisfactory  revenue.  This 
is  true  in  other  areas  when  a  man  makes  an 
improvement  to  his  home  and  finds  his  assess- 
ment jumps.  He  says,  "Why  do  I  pay  more 
because  I  have  improved  my  property  and 
taken  care  of  it  when  my  neighbour,  who 
has  an  identical  structure,  doesn't  pay  atten- 
tion to  it  and  lets  it  depreciate?" 

If  we  had  segregation  in  value  for  assess- 
ment purposes  in  the  assessment  roles  be- 
tween the  land  and  the  buildings,  we  could 


MARCH  28,  1974 


513 


•apply  a  factor  of  maybe  60  per  cent  or  50 
per  cent  to  the  improvement  to  the  structure, 
and  have  the  taxpayers  paying  full  rates  on 
the  land  but  half  rates,  in  effect,  on  the 
structures. 

Another  programme  I  believe  the  govern- 
ment should  introduce  is  to  eliminate  the 
discrimination  now  imposed  on  owners  in 
greenbelt  areas  or  in  areas  where  a  minis- 
terial order  has  been  imposed,  as  it  has 
along  the  parkway  or  in  the  airport  noise 
zones.  There  is  a  procedure  which  I  think 
shoidd  be  adopted,  as  is  recommended  by  the 
blueprint  commission  on  the  future  of  New 
Jersey  agriculture.  This  provides  for  the 
segregation  of  development  rights  on  all 
lands,  and  owners  are  compensated  at  market 
value  for  the  development  rights  they  are 
deprived  of.  In  this  manner,  the  owner  will 
not  be  penalized  because  he  happens  to  be 
on  the  wrong  side  of  the  road.  The  pro- 
gramme of  compensation  has  been  funded  in 
New  Jersey  by  a  percentage  tax  on  real 
estate  transfers  which  means  that  those  who 
are  getting  the  benefit  of  the  higher  market 
values  are,  in  effect,  paying  the  cost  of  the 
assistance  or  the  compensation  being  paid 
to  those  who  are  not  in  a  position  to  benefit 
from  it. 

Another  thing  the  government  should  do 
is  introduce  legislation  requiring  house  war- 
ranties of  a  year  on  all  visible  defects  in 
a  house  and  five  years  on  other  defects.  This 
would  eliminate  a  lot  of  the  problems  which 
homeowners  have  which  add  to  the  in- 
flationary fires. 

Still  another  matter  is  a  provincial  build- 
ing code,  modifications  to  which  can  be  in- 
troduced by  municipalities  to  meet  special 
needs,  subject  to  provincial  approval.  The 
government  should  continue  its  programme, 
which  hasn't  seemed  to  have  had  much  effect 
so  far,  to  streamline  municipal  and  provincial 
planning  procedures  in  order  to  minimize 
delay  in  development  approvals.  It  is  really 
ridiculous  for  any  group  coming  up  with  a 
sound  subdivision  proposal  or  a  development 
proposal  to  have  to  wait  five  or  six  years;  it 
shouldn't  be  more  than  five  or  six  months. 
It  can  be  corrected  by  giving  assistance  to 
municipalities  to  enable  them  to  do  a  better 
job;  perhaps  by  giving  them  $50  toward 
their  planning  costs  for  every  approved 
building  site,  or  some  incentive  which  sees 
that  the  work  is  done  and  done  quickly. 

The  last  point  I  want  to  suggest  in  this 
matter  of  dousing  the  inflationary  fires  in 
housing  is  that  the  government  move  very 
quickly  into  the  type  of  programme  of 
renovation  of  old  house?  adopted  by  the  city 


of  Toronto  in  the  Niagara  St.  community. 
I  thought  that  was  one  of  the  best  examples 
I've  ever  seen  of  what  remarkable  achieve- 
ments can  be  experienced  when  a  com- 
munity itself  is  given  the  money  to  carry 
out-in  this  case  $300,000  to  deal  with  600 
homes  that  were  considered  beyond  repair. 

At  an  expenditure  of  around  $400  per 
home,  and  by  cleaning  up  the  lanes  and 
fixing  up  the  parks,  that  community  looks 
like  a  first-rate  area.  Painted  up,  fixed*  up, 
the  community  is  itself  very  proud  of  its 
achievements  because  it  wasn't  left  to  in- 
dividuals. 

It  wasn't  some  grand  scheme  imposed 
from  on  top  where  some  individuals  went 
in  to  get  a  grant  to  improve  their  houses. 
No,  the  community  itself  was  given  the 
money.  It  decided  how  to  allocate  it.  It 
worked  out  a  co-operation  scheme  for  the 
residents,  and)  as  a  result  a  remarkablfe 
amount  of  work  was  done  for  very  little 
money.  The  community  itself  has  strengthen- 
ed in  its  own  morale  and  heart,  and  for 
people  who  don't  have  large  incomes  has 
become  a  very  attractive  part  of  Toronto  in 
which  to  live. 

Those,  I  hope,  are  some  suggestions  that 
are  alternatives  to  this  crazy  approach  of 
land-banking  that  this  government  has  adopt- 
ed over  the  last  several  years-investing  the 
moneys  of  this  province  in  land  and  doing 
nothing  to  douse  the  fires  of  inflation.  Real 
estate  is  not  a  beneficial  type  of  investment. 
The  money  is  far  better  put  into  producing 
housing  or  producing  goods,  but  certainly 
not  into  buying  land  in  the  hope  that  the 
land  prices  will  continue  to  rise.  There's 
been  no  reason  to  doubt  prices  wouldn't 
rise  because  of  the  pohcies  of  this  govern- 
ment -  or  lack  of  realistic  policies  —  for  so 
many  years. 

I've  been  wondering  just  why  it  is  that 
for  year  after  year,  despite  the  fact  we've 
been  talking  about  this  different  approach, 
why  this  government  hasn't  taken  action.  Is 
it  worried  about  the  decline  in  values  of  the 
land  it  already  owns?  Surely  not.  Surely  the 
government  isn't  worried  about  that.  Or  is  it 
worried  about  the  land  investments  of  the 
government's  friends  and  where  they'll  get 
hurt? 

Let's  think  of  the  benefit  and  the  real 
interests  of  the  people  of  this  province  and 
get  to  the  root  of  the  cause  of  the  major 
inflation  in  this  province,  and  that  is  land 
speculation.  Let's  douse  those  fires  and  let's 
not  fiddle  around  with  these  little  program- 
mes that  are  suggested  in  the  Throne  Speech, 
because  there's  no  real  action  indicated. 


514 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


A  second  subject  I'd  like  to  say  something 
about,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  environment,  and 
particularly  with  regard  to  garbage.  I've  been 
in  on  several  of  these  environmental  board 
hearings— Port  Hope,  Maple,  Pickering— and 
I've  listened  to  the  arguments  put  forward  by 
citizens  who  say,  "We  really  don't  want 
Toronto's  garbage." 

I  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  three  years 
ago,  I  think,  when  some  citizens  in  the 
StoiifFville  area  became  concerned  about  the 
fact  that  some  50,000  gallons  of  liquid  waste 
a  day  were  being  dumped  in  an  area  that 
was  very  close  to  the  source  of  the  village  of 
StoufFville's  water  supply.  The  provincial  gov- 
ernment waste  disposal  people  said:  "Well, 
that  won't  cause  any  problem.  You  don't  need 
to  worry  about  those  liquid  wastes  because 
it's  sealed.  The  land  is  clay  and  it  won't 
allow  anv  of  the  liquids  to  penetrate  to  the 
source  of  the  water.  You'll  be  fine."  It's  also 
close  to  the  sources  of  the  water  for  the 
Holland  River. 

Rut  the  fact  that  the  liquid  wastes  kept  on 
disappearing,  going  somewhere,  naturally 
caused  some  concern  to  the  citizens.  Finally 
the  municipality  took  action  and  closed  it 
down,  after  the  government  failed  to  do 
something. 

I  rem'^mber  the  ministrv  of  the  dav  said 
to  me.  "It's  going;  to  cause  real  problems. 
Those  liquid  wastes  might  be  dumped  down 
the  sewers  in  Toronto  and  eo  out  into  the 
lake."  Of  course,  it's  a  question  of  whether 
the  jTovernment  is  really  worried  about  the 
nollution  threat,  or  worried  about  the  num- 
ber of  people  who  are  going  to  be  hurt  by 
the  pollution  threat. 

T^iit  thev  finallv  acted  because  the  munic- 
ipality had  the  right  to  close  down  that  opera- 
tion, and  when  they  acted  they  put  up  a  plant 
that  looks  after  these  liquid  wastes.  They  put 
UD  a  plant  in  Oakville  and  it  is  operating  and 
it  has  dealt  with  the  problem.  Why  can't 
the  same  approach  be  taken  with  regard  to 
the  disposal  of  Toronto's  garbage  wastes? 

There  are  plants  all  over  Europe  and  all 
over  North  America  which  are  working  to 
recycle  garbage.  They're  making  use  of  it  in 
a  way  that  the  benefits  of  the  garbajre  are 
not  lost  by  being  buried;  they're  being  util- 
ized. And  the  plants  making  use  of  it  are 
doina;  it  in  such  a  way  that  they're  not  pol- 
lutine  the  air  and  they're  not  causing  noise. 
Thev're  doing  it  in  a  way  that  is  very,  very 
satisfactory. 

^Vhv  are  we  trying  to  take  trainloads  of 
garbage  out  to  somebody  else  and  dump  i^ 


their 


Why 


goi 


to   pol- 


lute the  land  for  generations  to  come  to  have 
to  put  up  with?  We  can  be  developing  prob- 
lems and  that  they'll  face  that  will  be  abso- 
lutely unforgivable  on  their  part  because  we 
could  have  done  things  in  a  much  l>etter 
way. 

I  suggest  that  this  government  has  to 
stop  considering  landfill  and  must  immedi- 
ately get  busy  on  programmes  to  deal  with 
garbage  recycling.  The  technology  is  avail- 
able. Stop  toying  with  these  little  pro- 
grammes which  are  going  on  in  the  To- 
ronto area  now.  Get  into  it,  because  the 
problem  is  right  on  our  doorstep  and  has  to 
be  dealt  with. 

The  next  item  I  want  to  cover,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, is  that  of  transportation.  I  was  pleased 
to  see  that  there  was  at  least  a  token  start 
on  northern  Ontario's  highwax'  needs— im- 
provement of  the  highway  between  the  Soo 
and  Sudbury.  Rut  that's  only  a  minor  start 
on  a  major  northern  road  problem. 

It's  interesting  that  for  years  some  75  per 
cent  of  highway  traffic  between  Winnipeg 
and  Toronto  has  been  moving  through  the 
States.  Even  though  the  route  is  longer,  it 
takes  less  time  to  cover  the  distance.  When 
one  thinks  of  the  economic  benefits  that  come 
from  movement  of  traffic— the  meals,  the  ac- 
commodation, the  servicing  —  one  realizes 
northern  Ontario. 

When  you  realize  also  that  of  the  two 
major  problems  that  northern  Ontario  people 
keep  bringing  to  our  attention  are  those  of 
transportation  access  and  of  services,  at  least 
we  could  deal  with  the  first  by  a  major  pro- 
gramme for  a  new  northern  Ontario  high- 
way across  the  top  of  Lake  Nipigon,  through 
the  clay  belt,  bypassing  Timmins  and  Kap- 
uskasing  —  particularly  Timmins  and  major 
centres  such  as  Timmins— to  be  sure  that 
that  in  itself  would  be  a  great  benefit  for 
there's  good  access  between  east  and  west 
with  bypasses  around  these  major  centres. 

Its  construction,  together  with  more  north- 
south  links,  would  attract  really  effective, 
important,  year-round  economic  activity,  as 
well  as  providing  the  people  who  are  al- 
ready living  there  with  good  access  that 
they  really  need;  good  access  for  their  goods 
and  services  that  they  can  export,  as  well  as 
good  access  for  themselves  to  other  parts  of 
the  province. 

I  would  also  urge  that  the  problem  with 
regard  to  transportation  in  the  Toronto  area 
and  other  parts  of  Ontario  would  be  greatly 
alleviated  were  the  province,  along  with  the 
western  provinces,  to  press  the  federal  gov- 
ernment  to   take   over  the   railway   rights   of 


MARCH  28,  1974 


515 


way.  For  years  we've  been  having  problems 
with  the  declining  rail  service  in  areas  such 
as  Huron,  the  Bruce  Peninsula  and  the  To- 
ronto area.  Wherever  you  go  around  the 
province,  people  are  complaining  about  rail 
service.  In  northern  Ontario  there  are  few- 
er and  fewer  trains,  and  yet  the  need  seems 
to  be  increasing  all  the  time. 

The  best  way  to  be  sure  that  there  will 
be  competition  in  rail  service  as  in  road 
service  is  to  do  with  rail  what  we  did  with 
roads,  and  that  is  to  make  the  rails  common 
carriers.  We  make  those  rail  rights  of  way 
common  carriers  so  that  not  just  CP  or  CN 
have  the  right  to  use  what  are  now  CP  or 
CN  lines.  We  make  it  that  the  government 
of  Canada  owns  those  lines;  make  it  that  the 
government  of  Canada  maintains  and  im- 
proves those  lines  in  the  way  that  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  has  the  responsibility  for 
maintaining    and    improving    our    highways. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier:  (Cochrane  South)  Is  the 
member  advocating  the  nationalization  of  the 
CPR? 

Mr.  Deacon:  There  is  a  lot  of  difference 
between  nationalization  of  the  CPR  with 
its  trains  and  nationalization  of  the 
CPR  with  its  trains  and  nationalization  of 
the  rail  lines.  I  am  talking  about  having  the 
rail  lines  handled  in  the  same  way  as  our 
highways.  They  are  available  for  the  use  of 
the  CN  or  they  are  available  for  the  use 
of  Greyhound  or  they  are  available  for  the 
use  of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway  sys- 
tem. The  government  of  Canada  maintains 
the  rights  of  way  and  charges  for  their  use, 
but  operates  them  just  as  it  does  the  airline 
terminals. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  Isn't  the  mem- 
ber sorry  he  asked  that? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Give  him  a  handcart. 

Mr.  Deacon:  You  can  nationalize  the  CPR 
and  all  you  have  done  is  given  us  another 
situation  where  we  have  a  monopoly,  this 
time  a  government  monopoly,  supposedly 
providing  service.  We  wouldn't  be  any  better 
off  in  having  Air  Canada  as  our  only  airline 
carrier  in  Canada.  I  don't  think  that  is  de- 
sirable. I  would  rather  have  a  choice. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  I  think  we 
will  nationalize  their  rolling  stock  and  give 
them  their  track. 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  like  to  see  free  enterprise 
operate,  but  free  enterprise  doesn't  operate  in 
the  railways  today.  They  have  a  monopoly  on 


the  lines  that  they  now  have  and  they  don't 
allow  those  lines  to  be  useed  by  others 
who  might  want  to  provide  service  over 
these  invaluable  rights  of  way.  It  is  time  that 
we  got  that  straightened  away. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Continue  to  provoke  him. 

(Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  He  is  mov- 
ing ahead. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  York  Centre  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Renwick:  How  would  it  be  if  we 
nationalized  the  airways  too? 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Stick  aroimd  here  for  an- 
other four,  five  or  maybe  15  years  and  we 
will  all  be  together. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  right,  still  fighting 
the  Tories. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  fourth  point 
I  want  to  bring  up  is  the  question  that  I 
am  sorry  the  government  hasn't  shown  in 
the  Throne  Speech  some  realistic  approach 
to  deal  with  increasing  confrontation  between 
labour  and  management.  The  York  county 
teacher  dispute  presented  a  need  for  a  change 
in  our  whofe  basis  of  labour  negotiations  and 
legislation.  I  think  it  is  important  we  start 
to  move  toward  the  direction  of  final  offer 
selection.  Even  though  that  was  a  principle 
that  was  suggested'  by  an  NDPer,  I  think  we 
have  got  to  give  Val  Scott  credit  for  the 
fact  that  in  this  country  he  was  the  one 
who  started  to  talk  about  final  offer  selec- 
tion, though  it  was  already  proven  just  south 
of  the  border  and  other  places  to  be  one  of 
the  finest  approaches  one  can  bring  to  labour- 
management  negotiations- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  Just  because  he's  a  colleague 
of  ours  I'm  not  going  to  say  anything  against 
him. 

Mr.  Deacon:  —an  emphasis  on  reason,  and 
an  emphasis  on  justifying  positions  instead  of 
presenting  extreme  positions  in  the  hope  that 
some  mediator  will  draw  a  middle  line  be- 
tween two  impossible  extreme  claims. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  what  mediation  is. 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  don't  call  that  mediation. 
That  is  just  confrontation.  I  do  hope  that 
the  government  will  soon  move  to  improve 
the  whole  basis  of  negotiations  and  eliminate 
many  of  the  aggravations  that  are  caused  by 
delays  in  negotiations,  and  this  can  be  done 
by  good  labour  legislation. 

The  last  point  I  want  to  cover,  Mr. 
Speaker,   is   that   of  ways   to  increase   occu- 


516 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


pational  opportunities  and  improve  the  whole 
system  of  social  assistance  that  we  have  in 
this  province.  As  long  as  our  basic  govern- 
ment policy  is  one  of  work  or  welfare,  we 
will  never  cope  with  nor  will  we  ever  solve 
the  major  social  problems  of  this  province. 
We  shall  continue  to  frustrate  those  who 
would  like  to  work,  but  cannot  afford  to 
work,  and  those  who  need  workers  and  can't 
afford  them.  The  one  way  of  doing  this,  and 
I  think  the  most  feasible  way,  would  be  to 
introduce  a  guaranteed  annual  income  for 
every  individual.  It  may  vary  according  to 
the  age,  but  it  would  be  one  that  is  in 
universal  application,  and  it  should  replace 
our  present  costly  and  frustrating  maze  of 
assistance  programmes. 

It  is  time  we  eliminated  a  system  whereby 
a  parent  and  three  children  face  a  tax  rate 
of  75  per  cent  on  their  earnings  over  $4,500. 
That  is  what  the  situation  is  today  with  a 
mother  with  three  children  who  is  trying  to 
improve  her  situation.  She  faces  a  75  per 
cent  rate  of  tax  when  you  see  that  on  any- 
thing over  $4,500  she  loses  75  per  cent  of 
what  she  earns  in  the  form  of  assistance.  In 
other  words,  75  per  cent  of  what  she  earns 
over  and  above  $4,500  is  taken  away  horn 
her  assistance— so  in  effect  it  is  a  75  per  cent 
rate  of  tax.  It  is  no  wonder  workers  are  in 
short  supply  and  welfare  rolls  are  bulging, 
because  we  say  it  is  either  one  or  the  other. 

Just  this  afternoon  I  was  talking  to  a  con- 
stituent who  faces  this  problem.  Really,  the 
only  way  to  solve  it  is  to  give  up.  Stop 
struggling  to  work  and  to  cope  with  the 
problems— just  let  welfare  look  after  it.  And 
this  is  no  way  for  any  society  to  survive. 

If  we  do  this  we  can  eliminate  the  need  for 
minimum  wages,  because  minimum  wages 
were  required  to  protect  workers  against 
being  forced  to  work  in  sweat  shops  in  order 
to  provide  their  food  and  shelter.  If  we  had 
a  guaranteed  annual  income  we  wouldn't 
need  that. 

But  a  guaranteed  annual  income  would 
provide  for  their  basic  needs;  and  then  addi- 
tional earnings  can  be  received  without  an 
onerous  penalty— and  many  satisfying  and 
useful  jobs  can  be  created,  which  cannot 
economically  warrant  payment  of  the  mini- 
mum wage. 

There  are  many  types  of  work.  Just  think 
of  the  carvings  in  this  building  that  we  see 
around  us  right  now.  How  many  people 
would  love  to  do  this  fine  work,  but  can't 
do  it  because  there  is  no  way  it  could  be 
paid  for— and  yet  it  is  a  very,  very  satisfying 
form  of  work. 


There  are  lots  of  people,  including  some 
of  my  youngsters,  who  don't  care  about  a 
large  income.  They  want  to  have  enough  to 
get  by  on,  but  they  also  want  to  be  sure 
of  doing  something  that  satisfies  them  and 
gives  them  a  feeling  of  contributing  some- 
thing worthwhile  to  the  society  around  them. 
I  think  it  is  important  that  we  get  away  from 
our  present  system,  which  kills  initiative  and 
frustrates  those  who  would  like  to  contribute 
to  our  society. 

So  Mr.  Speaker,  with  those  words- 
Mr.    Lawlor:    At    what    levels   would    the 
member  guarantee  an  annual  wage? 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  those 
words  —  I  didn't  quite  get  that. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Adequate. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  What  level  would  the  member 
for  York  Centre  set? 

Mr.  Deacon:  You  see,  these  levels  are 
things  that  would  have  to  change  as  inflation 
comes  along. 

iBut  I  do  know  that  the  cost  of  living  in 
Prince  Edward  Isltod  is  a  lot  less  than  the 
cost  of  living  here.  I  think  perhaps  we  have 
got  to  set  the  cost  at  levels  which  are  ade- 
quate in  those  parts  of  the  country  and 
make  it  possible  for  people  to  find  a  place 
to  live  in  those  parts  of  the  country. 

This  area  isn't  the  be-all  and  endi-all  where 
people  are  all  piled  into  this  part  of  the 
country.  I  think  we  can  provide  much  more 
attractive  opportunities,  much  more  satisfy- 
ing ways  of  life  in  other  than  just  the 
Toronto-centred  region.  I  think  it  is  import- 
ant in  providing  a  guaranteed  armual  income 
that  we  also  at  the  same  time  ensure  that 
we  are  providing  opportunities  for  people  to 
do  satisfying  jobs  —  jobs  that  will  augment 
their  incomes  and  make  it  possible  for  them 
to  do  other  things. 

So,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  appreciate  this  op- 
portunity to  present  some  of  these  ideas  and 
I  hope  that  die  government  of  this  province 
will  start  to  take  some  action  along  these 
lines,  as  I'm  sure  it  will  result  in  an  improve- 
ment in  the  quality  of  life  in  this  province. 


ROYAL  ASSENT 

Mr.  Speaker:  Before  we  proceed  with  the 
debate  I  beg  to  inform  the  House  that,  in  the 
name  of  Her  Majesty  the  Queen,  the  Honour- 
able the  Lieutenant  Governor  has  been 
pleased  to  assent  to  a  number  of  certain  bills 
in  his  chambers. 


MARCH  28,  1974 


517 


Clerk  of  the  House:  The  following  are  the 
titles  of  the  bills  to  which  His  Honour  has 
assented: 

Bill  7,  The  Developmental  Services  Act, 
1974. 

Bill  8,  An  Act  to  amend  The  Municipal 
Act. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

(continued) 

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

IMr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  Mr,  Speaker, 
I  basically  want  to  deal  only  with  one  topic, 
but  there  are  two  other  matter  that  I  do 
want  to  briefly  refer  to  before  I  enter  upon 
a  rather  difiicult  topic  for  discussion  in'  the 
Legislature. 

There  were  two  anniversaries  in  the  last 
while  which,  in  a  sense,  have  gone  unmarked; 
and  both  of  which  are  significant  for  those 
of  us  in  this  party  and  certainly  those  of 
us  in  the  Legislature  who  have  any  concern 
for  human  freedom  and  human  liberty. 

In  place  of  the  leader  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party  (Mr.  Lewis)  I  was 
present  at  Nathan  Phillips  Square  on  March 
21,  about  5:30  in  the  evening,  to  join  with 
a  small  group  of  some  20-odd  people  who 
were  commemorating  as  members  of  the 
Canadian  Federation  of  African  Citizens  in 
Canada  the  anniversary  of  the  Sharpville  mas- 
sacre in  1960.  And  I  thought,  as  I  joined 
that  small  group  on  behalf  of  the  leadter  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party,  that  we  really 
have  extremely  short  memories.  On  March 
21,  1960,  as  a  result  of  the  protest  by  the 
Pan^African  Congress  against  the  pass  laws 
which  are  still  in  force  in  South  Africa, 
South  African  police  opened  up  on  the  crowd, 
and  as  many  of  us  will  recall,  69  people 
were  killed  and  another  170  or  so  were 
wounded  in  what  has  become  known  as  the 
Sharpville  massacre. 

I  simply  mention  it  because  I  think,  in  a 
House  such  as  this,  it  does  not  hurt  on 
occasion  for  us  to  recall  the  kinds  of  in- 
cidents which  should  have  both  a  double- 
edged  thought  that  we  are  indeed  fortunate 
to  be  free  from  that  kind  of  violence  in  our 
society,  and,  at  the  same  time,  that  we 
should  not  forget  the  very  humanitarian  need 
to  support  the  peoples  in  those  countries  who 
are  endeavouring  to  free  themselves  from 
iniquitous  laws  in  fascist  regimes,  particularly 
those  countries  which  are  based,  in'  their  gov- 


ernment   philosophy,    on    the    principle    of 
racism. 

!I  simply  want  to  sav  to  the  government 
that  I  was  very  proud  that  in  this  Legis- 
lature the  government  did  move  to  eliminate 
the  trade  missions  to  South  Africa,  even 
though  it  was  perhaps  dLfficult  for  those  who 
think  only  in  terms  of  trade  to  understand 
the  reasons.  I  was  certainly  proud  of  the 
fact  that  it  was  the  leader  of  this  party  who 
raised  the  question  in  the  Legislature  which 
led  to  the  decision  by  the  government  to 
eliminate  South  Africa  from  the  trade  mis- 
sions of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

The  other  event  which  I  wanted  to  re- 
fer to  was  the  March  25  national  celebration 
of  the  Greek  community  about  the  over- 
throw of  the  Ottoman  regime  in  1821,  which 
has  become  a  national  liberation  day  for 
those  persons  who  belong  to,  come  from, 
and  live  in  Greece.  It  was  very  strange  in 
the  Globe  and  Mail  of  that  day  while  people 
celebrate  national  celebrations  in  different 
ways,  Zena  Cherry's  column  was  devoted 
to  the  vice-consul  of  Greece  in  the  city  of 
Toronto  and  the  reception  which  he  was 
holding  on  behalf  of  the  government  to  cele- 
brate that  national  liberation  of  the  Greek 
community  from  the  Ottoman  rule  in  1821. 
Yet  at  the  same  time,  in  the  same  issue  of 
the  Globe  and  Mail,  there  was  on  page  7 
a  very  brief  excerpt  from  an  editorial  which 
had  appeared  just  about  the  same  time  in 
in  the  New  York  Times,  in  which  it  pointed 
out: 

A  US  study  mission  for  the  House  For- 
eign Affairs  Committee  believes  Greece  is 
facing  its  worst  crisis  since  the  civil  war 
of  1946-1949. 

"Indeed,  a  renewal  of  large-scale  civil 
conflict  is  one  of  the  real  possibilities 
in  Greece  today,"  says  the  mission's  re- 
port, presented  by  Rep.  Donald  Eraser 
of  Minnesota  after  an  on-the-scene  investi- 
gation. 

This  sombre  conclusion,  fraught  with 
grim  implications  not  only  for  the  long- 
suffering  Greeks  but  for  Greece's  partners 
in  western  defence,  seems  to  be  sup- 
ported by  every  new  action  of  the  ob- 
viously insecure  military  jimta  that  over- 
threw Col.  Papadopoulos  last  Novem- 
ber, The  brutal  arrest  of  George  Mavros, 
a  former  government  minister  and  leader 
of  the  Centre  Union  Party,  is  only  the 
most  recent  exhibition  of  the  junta's  in- 
stability. 

Military  police  in  civilian  clothes 
smashed  in  the  door  of  his  Athens  home 


518 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


with  a  crowbar  at  6  a.m.  and  hauled  Mr. 
Mavros  off  to  jail  after  he  defended  the 
cancellation  by  Britain's  Labour  govern- 
ment of  a  visit  to  Greece  by  two  Royal 
Navy  ships. 

Well.  I  don't  need  to  go  on  any  further, 
but  to  make  the  same  point  that  we  here 
are  indeed  fortunate  to  be  free  from  that 
kind  of  oppression  in  our  society  to  the 
extent  that  we  are  and  the  tradition  that 
we  live  by,  but  also  to  remember  that  there 
are  many  Greek  people  in  Canada  at  the 
present  time,  many  of  them  living  in  my 
riding,  who  are  supporters  of  those  organ- 
izations which  are  engaged  in  endeavouring 
to  restore  democracy  in  Greece.  I  have  a 
letter  from  one  of  the  men  in  my  area  to  say 
that  March  25  is  Greek  National  Day, 
which  commemorates  the  Greek  revolution 
of  1821,  which  overthrew  the  Ottoman  re- 
gime. 

Greeks  all  over  the  world  celebrate  this 
important  date  in  their  history  in  a  num- 
ber of  ways.  Today,  the  situation  in  Greece 
is  not  a  cause  for  celebration;  a  savage 
dictatorship  still  exists,  as  may  be  observed 
from  the  recent  wave  of  arrests  and  ter- 
rorism. 

That  is  a  letter  to  me  from  a  friend  of  mine, 
a  supporter  of  our  particular  political  party 
but  a  Canadian  of  long  standing  and  a  man 
of  immense  personal  prestige  in  the  Greek 
community,  Mr.  John  Limnidis,  the  president 
of  the  Committee  for  the  Restoration  of 
Democracy  in  Greece. 

'Having  said  those  two  things,  I  want  to 
turn  to  a  matter  of  concern  to  me  in  the 
time  which  I  have  had  an  opportunity  to 
study  it— and  it  hasn't  been  all  that  long— 
and,  as  we  now  say  fashionably,  I'd  like  to 
share  a  few  thoughts  with  the  members  of 
the  assembly  on  the  question  of  family  prop- 
erty  rights   and  family  property  law. 

The  report  of  the  Ontario  Law  Reform 
Commission,  Part  IV,  dealing  with  this  topic, 
is  a  very  interesting  report.  As  I  read  it  and 
tried  to  understand  what  the  commission  was 
saying  and  the  way  in  which  they  were  say- 
ing it,  I  found  it  became  more  and  more 
confusing.  So  I  took  a  little  bit  of  time  to 
try  to  sort  out  my  thinking  about  the  family 
property  law  report  in  the  hope  that  others 
in  the  House  might  have  occasion  to  think 
about  it  and  give  consideration  to  it  and  so 
that  it  will  not  become  the  monopoly  of 
those  members  of  the  legal  profession  who 
happen  to  sit  in  the  House  when  the  time 
comes  to  debate  any  recommendations  which 
are  set  forth  as  proposed  law  by  the  govern- 
ment of  the  province. 


It  was  quite  interesting,  and  perhaps  it 
would  be  helpful  to  members  if  I  could 
simply  point  out  that  it's  a  very  lengthy 
report,  even  in  this  mimeographed  form; 
it  runs  close  to  500  pages.  The  interesting 
part  of  it  is  that  the  last  chapter,  which  sets 
out  seriatim  all  of  the  recommendations  set 
out  elsewhere  in  the  report,  refers  to  chapter 
4  as  the  first  chapter  which  has  any  parti- 
cular recommendations  about  it.  I  dtm't  think 
it  is  necessary  for  anyone,  other  than  a  per- 
son interested  in  all  of  the  detailed  intri- 
cacies of  this  kind  of  property  law  and 
suggestions  of  recommended  reform,  to  read 
anything  more  than  about  the  first  35  pages 
of  the  report  and  then  about  10  to  15  pages 
around  page  100. 

What  concerned  me  at  the  very  beginning 
and  led  to  my  confusion  in  what  the  report 
was  trying  to  say,  is  that  the  foreword  of  the 
report  had  certain  statements  of  the  prin- 
ciples which  the  members  of  the  commission 
believed  were  guiding  their  deliberations. 
They  stated  rather  succinctly  what  they  be- 
lieved to  be  the  conclusions  they  were  going 
to  come  to  about  this  whole  question.  If  I 
may  refer  just  very  briefly,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
what  they  had  to  say: 

Few  other  ideas  have  so  fundamentally 
influenced  civfl  law  during  the  last  few 
decades  as  the  principle  of  equality  be- 
tween husband  and  wife. 

They  went  on  further  to  say: 

More  and  more,  marriage  is  being  recog- 
nized as  an  economic  partnership  in  which 
both  husband  and!  wife  have  an  equal 
stake.  How  to  give  practical  effect  in  law 
to  this  conception  was  the  main  task  of 
the  commission  in  its  work  on  reform  of 
Ontario's  matrimonial  property  law. 

They  went  on  to  say: 

Other  areas  of  western  jurisprudence 
have  also  been  endeavouring  to  seek  a 
solution  to  the  problem  of  protecting  the 
economically  weaker  spouse  by  their  matri- 
monial property  rules. 

They  referred  to  the  rather  generalized  state- 
ment that. 

The  aim  has  been  to  combine  the  best 
features  of  a  system  of  separation  of  prop- 
erty—autonomy of  the  spouses  —  with  the 
spouses  —  with  best  protective  features  of 
a  community  system  —  potential  for  mutual 
sharing  in  the  assets  of  the  marriage. 

They  then  go  on  to  refer  again  —  and  I  will 
advert  to  it  very  briefly  —  to  the  new  law 
that  came  into  force  in  the  Province  of 
Quebec  on  July  1,  1970,  and  which  for  prac- 


MARCH  28,  1974 


519 


tical    purposes,    with    certain   distinctions,    is 
what  is   recommend'ed  by  the  Law  Reform 
Commission  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
But  then  we  came  to  this  statement: 

We  have  not  only  made  proposals  for 
reform  of  Ontario's  matrimonial  property 
law  but  have  made  proposals  for  a  radical 
departure  from  existing  principles;  nothing 
less  will  suflSce. 

Further  on  in  the  report  it  is  reiterated 
that,  in  its  family  law  project  generally  and  in 
the  present  report  in  particular,  the  com- 
mission has  tried  to  adhere  to  the  constant 
tlieme  of  law  as  a  means  of  achieving  de- 
sirable ends. 

It  makes  the  further  statement: 

In  this  report  the  commission  recom- 
mends legislative  changes  in  the  property 
relations  between  married  persons  that  will, 
at  times,  involve  a  radical  departure  from 
contemporary  arrangements.  With  respect 
to  the  particular  subject  matter  of  the  re- 
port, the  commission  is  convinced  that 
sound  law  reform  requires  such  depar- 
tures. 

Scattered  throughout  those  first  34-odd  pages 
of  the  report  and  reiterated  elsewhere,  as  it 
comes  to  the  point  in  law  where  it  is  going  to 
make  its  proposals,  are  words  to  substantially 
the  same  eflFect;  that  in  some  way  or  other 
the  Law  Reform  Commission  is  recommend- 
ing something  called  radical  change  in  the 
matrimonial  property  relationships  between 
spouses  and  proposing  changes  in  the  law  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  changes  as  proposed  by  the  Law  Reform 
Commission  are  very  minor,  are  not  likely  to 
result  in  any  substantial  change  in  the  system 
and  appear  to  result  from  a  strange  kind  of 
conceptual  confusion  which  the  rhetoric  of 
the  report  appears  to  justify  as  being  a 
philosophy  which  should  be  accepted  by  the 
province,  bringing  about  some  kind  of  funda- 
mental changes  in  the  property  relations  be- 
tween spouses.  I  may  say,  one  can  make  the 
obvious  remark  that  the  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission dealing  with  the  family  law  project, 
of  course,  does  not  have  any  women  members 
of  the  commission.  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say, 
without  suggesting  for  a  moment  that  there 
is  any  conscious  bias  in  the  commission,  some 
of  its  references  with  respect  to  the  married 
relationship,  usually  of  the  female  spouse  to 
the  male  spouse— there  are  other  situations  in 
which  it  is  reversed— but  in  the  majority  of 
cases  they  refer  to  the  relationship  of  the 
female  spouse  in  language  which  is  a  little 
less  than  is  really  acceptable  as  understand- 


ing today  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  prime 
concern  of  women  who  are  interested  in 
establishing  an  economic  equality  in  their 
marriage  relationships. 

For  example,  the  report  states  that  while 
the  women  of  Ontario  are  free  to  choose 
whether  or  not  to  marry  and  thereby  accept 
the  conventional  role  of  non-earning  wife  and 
mother,  there  is  a  further  reference: 

However,  when  it  comes  to  some  of  the 
salient  legal  results  of  having  accepted  such 
a  role  within  the  institution  of  matrimony, 
the  women  of  this  province  will  find  that 
they  have  no  further  real  alternatives. 
When  a  woman  marries  she  must  accept  a 
legal  regime  respecting  property  matters 
within  the  marital  relationship  that  is 
fundamentally  the  same  scheme  as  was 
conceived  in  the  middle  of  the  Victorian 
era  as  an  acceptable  means  for  ending  the 
chattel  status  of  married  women. 

The  report  goes  on  at  some  lengths  to  deal 
again  with  the  same  conception  of  the  role  of 
the  woman  partner  in  the  marriage  relation- 
ship in  language  which  would  appear  to  in- 
dicate a  very  deep  concern  by  the  Law 
Reform  Commission  about  the  condition, 
which  is  not  carried  out  in  the  proposals 
which  the  commission  puts  forward. 

Let  me,  if  I  may  Mr.  Speaker,  deal  with 
a  couple  of  further  statements  in  the  report, 
to  give  the  conception  which  apparently  the 
Law  Reform  Commission  has  about  the  re- 
lationship in  the  Province  of  Ontario: 

The  right  to  property  and  money  amassed 
during  the  marriage,  following  traditional 
rules  of  property  law,  remains  solely  with 
the  spouse  who  originally  acquired  it. 

Of  course,  if  I  may  interpolate,  in  most  cases 
that  means  that  the  title  to  that  property 
acquired  during  the  marriage  remains  with 
the  husband— I  emphasize  "in  most  cases." 
There  are  of  course  other  situations  where 
that  is  not  true. 

Although  it  cannot  be  said  fairly  that 
the  institution  of  matrimony  exists  for  the 
economic  benefit  of  one  sex  to  the  ex- 
clusion or  detriment  of  the  other,  the  usual 
division  of  labour  within  a  majority  of 
marriages  results  in  the  husband  being  the 
breadwinner  or  primary  source  of  support. 
This  phenomenon  is  reinforced  not  only  by 
the  obligation  imposed  by  law  upon  a 
husband  to  maintain  his  wife,  but  also  by 
the  difficulties  facing  women,  wbo  notwith- 
standing that  they  are  able  and  willing  to 
work,  find  themselves  facing  the  very  real 
forms    of   prejudice   and   pecuniary   disad- 


520 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


vantages    that    exist    for    women    in    the 
modem  labour  market. 

The  acquisition  of  a  substantial  separate 
estate  and  financial  independence  during 
matrimony  are  now,  legally  speaking, 
theoretical  possibilities  for  any  married 
woman  the  same  as  for  any  married  man. 
However,  the  attitudes  and  traditions  of  a 
culture  which  for  centuries  regarded  mar- 
ried women  as  social  and  economic  satellites 
of  their  husbands,  still  make  this  in  reality 
and  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  a  prac- 
tical impossibility.  To  date,  the  Ontario  law 
respecting  matrimonial  property,  unlike  the 
corresponding  doctrines  of  many  other  legal 
systems,  has  not  been  adjusted  to  cope 
properly  with  the  harsh  realities  of  the 
economic  aspects  of  marriage  as  they  aflFect 
married  women. 

.  .  .  The  entitlement  to  and  management  of 
most  of  the  money  and  property  acquired 
during  marriage  is  vested  in  the  husband  .  .  . 
The  interest  of  the  husband  is  an  over- 
riding one— the  proprietary  interest  that  the 
law  attaches  to  formal  title.  In  the  absense 
of  title  [and  I  want  to  come  back  to  this 
point]  the  wife  has  no  standing  to  advance 
a  claim  to  existing  assets  as  she  would 
were  she  a  partner  or  an  equal,  but  rather 
can  only  present  a  suppliant's  request  for 
maintenance. 

The  fact  of  economic  dependency  of  a 
wife  upon  her  husband  during  the  cur- 
rency of  a  normal  marriage  is  perhaps  the 
surest  guarantee  that  she  will  have  need 
for  support  if  the  parties  separate. 

And  it  again  refers  to  the  English  report  of 
the  royal  commission  on  marriage  and  divorce. 
Two  distinct  lines  of  criticism  were  re- 
ported: First,  that  "the  law  still  regardis 
the  wife  as  her  husband's  dependant,  that 
is  to  say  as  a  person  of  inferior  legal  and 
economic  status .  .  ."  and  that  the  wife's 
economic  dependence  on  her  husband  was 
not  only  doing  her  grave  injustice,  it  was 
also  'one  of  the  basic  and  the  most  in- 
sidious factors  contributing  to  the  stresses 
and  strains  of  married  life.' " 

The  second  line  of  criticism  had  to  do  with 
the  questions  relating  to  the  matrimonial 
home  and  household  goods  and  I  don't  in- 
tend to  deal  with  those  recommendations  of 
the  commission's  report,  because  I  assume 
that  they  will  be  ones  which  are  accepted. 

I  want  to  deal  specifically  with  the  solu- 
tion which  the  Law  Reform  Commission 
came  up  with  when  it  said  that  it  was  going 
to  treat  the  relationship  of  a  man  and  wife 
in  a  married  state  from  an  economic  point  of 


view  as  a  partnership,  and  the  way  in  which 
they  concluded  that  this  could  be  accom- 
plished was  to  make  a  recommendation— and 
I  quote  from  the  report: 

The  commission  therefore  proposes  tliat 
under  the  matrimonial  property  regime)  the 
spouses  be  separate  as  to  property  during 
'the  currency  of  the  marriage  and  be  en- 
titled to  an  appropriate  equal  sharing  in 
family  assets  upon  the  termination  of  the 
marriage  by  death,  or  divorce,  or  upon 
termination  of  the  matrimonial  property 
regime  in  certain  circumstances  other  than 
upon  death  or  divorce.  Subject  to  the 
commission's  subsequent  recommendations 
respecting  restrictions  on  dealing  with  the 
matrimonial  home  and  on  the  making  of 
gifts  that  are  other  than  reasonable  or 
customary,  the  property  position  of  the 
spouses  during  marriage  will  be  the  same 
as  under  the  present  law  of  Ontario.  Each 
will  be  free  to  hold  and  dispose  of  his  or 
{her  own  property. 

In  other  words,  each  will  be  separate  as  to 
property. 

Mr.  Speaker,  without  going  into  the  long 
history  of  the  position  which  had  de\eloped 
with  the  introduction  into  Ontario  of  the 
Married  Women's  Property  Acts  in  the  last 
century,  what  the  report  is  saying  that  during 
the  currency  of  the  marriage  there  will  be 
no  changes  in  the  rule  of  the  separation  of 
property  of  the  spouses  and  that  the  only 
change  will  take  place  on  the  dissolution  of 
the  marriage,  by  death  or  through  divorce  or 
by  application  to  the  court  in  a  certain  num- 
ber of  ways  which  are  set  out. 

It  seems  to  me  that  that  is  where  the 
Law  Reform  Commission  is  flawed  in  its  con- 
ception of  the  problem.  If  the  basic  problem 
is  the  economic  dependence  during  the  mar- 
riage of  the  one  spouse,  usually  the  wife  on 
the  husband,  then  it  doesn't  seem  to  me  that 
it  strengthens  marriage  as  an  institution  in 
the  province  to  say  that  the  only  soltition 
to  the  economic  relations  between  the  two 
will  take  place  upon  the  dissolution  of  the 
marriage. 

It's  very  interesting  that  the  onl>'  aspect 
of  partnership  which  they  talk  about,  relat- 
ing it  to  our  conceptions  of  partnership  in  the 
traditional  business  partnership  sense,  is  on 
the  dissolution  of  the  marriage.  Then  there's 
to  be  an  accounting  for  the  married  assets 
and  there's  to  be  an  equalizing  claim  granted 
to  the  spouse  who  had  less  of  the  assets, 
and  that  is  to  be  not  a  claim  to  title  to 
property,  but  simply  a  debt  claim.  So  the 
spouse  who  is  economically  dependent,  hav- 
ing come  to  the  dissolution  of  the  marriage. 


MARCH  28,  1974 


521 


finds  herself  not  in  entitlement  to  any  assets, 
but  has  only  a  claim  for  a  debt  against  the 
economically  superior  partner,  as  I've  said  on 
more  than  one  occasion  in  the  last  few 
minutes,  usually  the  husband. 

You  cannot  really  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  Law  Reform  Commission,  speaking  as  it 
does  about  giving  vitality  to  the  principle  of 
ec-onomic  partnership,  has  done  anything 
about  the  fundamental  question  of  the 
economic  partnership  during  the  marriage. 
What  they  propose  at  the  end  of  the  mar- 
riage is  to  say  that  property  acquired  during 
the  marriage,  other  than  property  which  comes 
to  either  of  the  spouses  by  inheritance  or 
bec|uest,  and  income  from  property  that  each 
of  them  may  have  as  they  enter  upon  the 
marriage  —  the  income  of  that  during  the 
marriage  will  be  part  of  the  family  prop- 
erty, leaving  aside  the  special  considerations 
related  to  the  matrimonial  home.  They  pro- 
pose that  there'll  be  an  accounting,  an 
equalizing  claim,  to  be  asserted  only  in  debt 
—  no  transfer  of  title  to  property;  no  formal 
questions  of  a  clear  division  of  the  property 
on  an  equal  basis  at  the  end  of  the  mar- 
riage—only the  debt  obligation  again,  which 
presumably  a  wife  would  have  to  take  to  a 
court  to  enforce. 

I  want  to  leave  the  question  of  the  dis- 
solution of  marriage  and  simply  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  you  cannot  now  talk  about 
an  economic  partnership  in  the  way  in  which 
the  Law  Reform  Commission  pretends  to  talk 
about  it,  unless  one  thinks  about  the  con- 
ception of  the  relationships  between  the 
spouses  during  the  whole  course  of  the  mar- 
riage. It  would  appear  to  be  perfectly  clear 
that  the  way  in  which  that  is  accomplished 
is  to  insist  that  the  assets  of  the  marriage 
and  the  decisions  with  respect  to  their  use 
will  be  by  mutual  agreement.  The  disposi- 
tion, investment  or  other  use  of  capital  as- 
sets or  the  disposition  or  use  of  the  in- 
come, that  is,  whether  income  coming  into 
the  family  partnership  will  be  used  to  be 
turned  into  capital  for  investment,  will  be 
used  for  a  holiday  vacation,  will  be  used 
for  some  frivolous  expenditure  or  whatever 
it's  going  to  be  used  for  have  to  be  done 
on  a  mutually  agreed  basis.  Failing  a  mu- 
tually agreed  basis,  each  of  the  parties  could 
at  that  particular  point  in  time  with  re- 
spect to  the  number  of  dollars  that  they're 
concerned  about  and  unable  to  reach  agree- 
ment about  say  "We'll  each  take  ours.  We'll 
each  take  ours  during  the  course  of  our 
marriage  and  we'll  do  with  it  as  each  of  us 
sees  fit." 

Marriage,  as  everyone  knows,  is  a  series, 
I    suppose,    of   mutual    reconciHations.    That 


kind  of  decision,  the  possibility,  the  conno- 
tation that  a  man  and  a  wife  in  a  true 
partnership  could  discuss  and  have  decision- 
making authority  mutually  about  the  use  of 
the  income  from  the  marriage,  about  the 
use  of  the  assets  of  the  marriage  and  about 
the  use  of  the  income  from  property  which 
had  been  brought  into  the  marriage,  but 
what  was  not  necessarily  part  of  the  ma- 
trimonial property,  and  that  aspect  of  mu- 
tuality seem  to  me  to  be  the  very  key  that 
the  Law  Reform  Commission  should  have 
insisted  upon  as  being  an  integral  part  of  any 
change  in  the  law  which  might  take  place 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  It  can  only  be 
in  that  way  that  we  can  deal  with  this  basic 
question  of  economic  dependency  which, 
in  my  judgement  and,  I  think,  in  the 
judgement  of  the  philosophy  or  thesis  put 
forward  by  the  Law  Reform  Commission, 
has  had  a  very  destructive  effect  upon  the 
relationships  between  man  and  wife  under 
the  present  regime  of  married  property  law 
in  Ontario. 

I  want  to  make  the  point  that  the  Law 
Reform  Commission  is  under  no  illusions 
that  the  very  nature  of  the  institution  of 
marriage  is  affected  in  a  fundamental  way 
by  the  property  relations  which  are  estab- 
blished  in  law.  If  we're  not  going  to  change 
the  property  relationships  as  they  now  ex- 
ist during  marriage,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
institution  of  marriage  is  going  to  be  subject 
to  the  same  flaws  whch  it  is  presently  sub- 
ject to,  so  far  as  that  economically  depend- 
ent relationship  is  concerned,  rather  than 
the  kind  of  equal  partnership  which  it  is 
fashionable,  in  the  language  of  the  day, 
to  speak  of  when  one  speaks  of  a  marriage. 

What  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  am 
endeavouring  to  put  it  before  the  assem- 
bly, is  that  when  you  read  the  report  and 
read  the  first  35  pages  of  the  report  and 
then,  perhaps,  pages  90  to  125— which  only 
take  a  very  few  minutes  —do  not  be  taken 
in  by  the  rhetoric  and  the  language  which 
is  used  by  the  Law  Reform  Commission  to 
justify  what  it  is  speaking  about.  They  are 
not  changing  titles  of  property.  They  are 
using,  in  a  specious  sense,  the  conception 
of  a  partnership  but  only  in  terms  of  what 
happens  on  the  dissolution  of  the  partner- 
ship, and  in  no  sense  has  any  connotation 
appeared  in  the  report  with  respect  to  the 
conception  of  a  partnership,  economically, 
during  the  course  of  the  marriage 

The  net  result,  even  on  disposition,  is 
nothing  but  the  creation  of  a  debt  claim 
which  is  certainly  not  an  adequate  way  to 
provide   for   a  partitioning   of  assets   at  the 


522 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


time  when  a  marriage  is  terminated.  Through- 
out the  whole  of  the  report,  it  seems  to  con- 
note that  somehow  or  other  the  separate 
property  regime,  during  the  currency  of  an 
existing  marriage,  is  a  good  system.  It  throws 
out  the  community  of  property  regime  and 
it  throws  it  out  for  the  very  reason  which 
I  have  endeavoured  to  express.  That  is  that 
the  community  of  property  regime,  which 
is  the  community  of  property  regime  in  the 
Province  of  Province  of  Quebec  imtil  July 
1,  1970,  was  subject  to  the  flaw  that  while 
both  spouses  have  rights  in  the  community, 
the  husband  normally,  either  in  law  or  in 
fact,  will  have  the  administration  and  con- 
trol of  it. 

Therefore,  what  they're  saying  is  wrong 
\\'ith  the  community  of  property  regime  in  its 
traditional  sense  is  that  one  of  the  partners 
in  the  so-called  partnership  has  the  adminis- 
tration and  control  of  it.  Instead  of  discard- 
ing the  conception  of  community  of  property, 
instead  of  trying  to  correct  the  community 
of  nrooerty  conception,  to  establish  that  there 
will  be  real  community  of  property  with 
respect  to  decision-making  control,  in  a 
mutual  relationship,  over  assets  and  income 
of  rniTTiaorp  —  instead  of  Duttine  that  for- 
ward as  the  solution  to  the  problem,  they 
have  opted  for  this  rather  hybrid  version 
that  the  separate  propertv  will  continue  dur- 
in<r  marriage  and  that  there  will  be  some 
accounting  procedure  at  the  end  which  will 
result  in  the  wife  having  something  called 
an  equalizing  claim  in  debt  in  order  to 
enualize  her  claim  when  the  marriage  is 
over. 

"What  it  would  appear  to  me  that  the  com- 
mittee's report  should  have  recommended  is 
that  if  there  was  to  be  a  radical  change,  they 
should  have  pursued  the  conception  of  the 
economic  partnership  of  the  marriage  re- 
lationship fully  and  completely  during  the 
currency  of  the  marriage  in  order  to  analo- 
gize it  to  a  business  partnership  with  what- 
ever necessary  ameliorations  had  to  be  made, 
because  such  anal'ogies  never  fit  completely, 
and  also  to  provide  in  addition,  but  not  as 
the  primarv  concern,  for  what  happens  on 
the  dissolution  of  the  marriage. 

Then  they  should  have  set  up,  in  my 
judgement,  that  kind  of  matrimonial  property 
regime  we  are  recommending  as  the  kind  of 
matrimonial  regime  which  we  believe  the 
public  interest  requires  —  in  the  interests  of 
the  stability  of  marriage,  in  the  interests  of 
the  improvement  of  the  marriage  relation- 
ship, in  the  interests  of  the  equality  and 
mutuality  of  the  relationship. 


iThen  they  should  have  said  that  if  in  any 
particular  case  a  man  and  a  wife  want  to  go 
before  a  judge  and  opt  for  separation  as  to 
property,  or  some  other  contractual  relation- 
ship, they  would'  go  and  make  their  presenta- 
tion to  the  judge.  In  certain  circumstances 
it  might  be  very  necessary  that  there  be 
separation  as  to  property,  or  that  there  be 
some  kind  of  a  regime  with  respect  to  the 
property  relationships. 

iBut  to  have  made  it  possible  to  have  said 
that  this  hybrid  will  be  the  keystone  of  our 
married  property  law  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario,  subject  to  the  parties  contracting 
out  on  their  own  at  any  time,  without  any 
reference  to  a  court  or  anyone!  else,  seems  to 
me  to  defeat  the  very  purpose  that  the  family 
law  project  in  this  particular  area  of  law 
was  designed  to  come  to  grips  with. 

I  am  simply  saying,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I 
would  hope  that  these  conmients  —  and  per- 
haps there  will  be  another  occasion  to 
elaborate  on  them  a  little  bit  more  —  are  to 
be,  as  I  say,  something  of  a  caution  and  a 
warning  to  the  other  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature that  it  is  possible  for  us  in  this  prov- 
ince to  design  a  marriedi  property  relation- 
ship with  respect  to  family  property,  family 
assets,  matrimonial  home,  bearing  in  mind 
the  true  principle  of  the  economic  partner- 
ship which  the  report  itself  says  was  the 
object  of  their  exercise. 

Until  we  look  at  it  that  way,  then  it  seems 
to  me  that  we  are  not  really  making  any 
significant  or  substantial  change  with  respect 
to  those  relationships. 

I  make  the  last  comment,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  I  somehow  have  the  feeling  that  some- 
where in  the  way  in  which  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  express  a  conceptionally  diffi- 
cult problem  is  the  core  of  what  in  fact 
is  causing  a  great  deal  of  concern  among 
women  in  the  community— whether  they  stay 
at  home  and  perform  a  traditional  role  or 
whether  they  are  part  and  parcel  of  the 
work  force— that  somehow  or  other  during  the 
currency  of  the  marriage  and  conception  of 
an  economic  partnership  is  one  which  is 
both  in  the  private  interests  of  the  parties 
and  reflects  the  public  interest  of  the  prov- 
ince in  the  stability  of  marriage  and  in  the 
enhancement  of  the  particular  relationship. 

I  would  suggest  that  I  would  hope  that 
perhaps  on  another  occasion  when  the  At- 
torney General's  estimates  are  before  the 
House,  we  may  have  an  opportimit\-  to  pur- 
sue this  kind  of  conceptual  problem.  Thank 
>ou,  Mr.  Speaker. 


MARCH  28,  1974 


523 


iMr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  have 
further  comments  in  this  debate? 

Hon,  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment   Board    of    Cabinet):    Mr.    Speaker,    I 


would  just  like  to  say  that  tomorrow  we  wall 
continue  wdth  this  debate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  ad'joumment 
of  the  House. 

'Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjotumed  at  6  o'clock,  p.m. 


524  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  March  28,  1974 

Oil  prices,  statement  by  Mr.  Davis  477 

Budget  date,  statement  by  Mr.  White  478 

Oil  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Foulds,  Mr.  Singer  478 

Denture  therapists,  question  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  480 

Cost-sharing  programme  re  mentally  retarded,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  481 

Incorporation  appUcations  by  US  book  publishers,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Deans, 

Mr.  Foulds  481 

Uranium    and    associated   nuclear   fuels   policy,   questions   of  Mr.   Davis:    Mr.   Deans, 

Mr.  Reid,  Mr.  Bullbrook,  Mr.  Burr 482 

Cost  of  dental  care,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Deans  484 

Preventive  medicine,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Shulman  484 

Maple    Mountain    development,  questions  of   Mr.   Welch:    Mr.    Lewis,   Mr.    Renwick, 

Mr.  Singer  485 

Housing  programmes,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Cassidy 485 

Kingston  township  services,  questions  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Cassidy 486 

Summer  employment  at  hospitals,  question  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Ferrier  487 

Operation   of  travel   agencies,   questions  of  Mr.   Clement:   Mr.   Singer,   Mr.  Shulman, 

Mr.  Kennedy 487 

Refusal  for  cardiovascular  unit  in  Windsor,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  B.  Newman, 

Mr.  Bounsall  488 

Quetico  Park,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Foulds  489 

Kingston  township  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Davfe:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  490 

Presenting  reports,  Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission,  Mr.  Welch  491 

Presenting  report,  Ministry  of  Labour  annual  report,  Mr.  Guindon  492 

Farm  Products  Grades  and  Sales  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Stewart,  first  reading  492 

Agricultural  Societies  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Stewart,  first  reading  492 

Third  reading,  Bill  7  493 

Resumption   of   the    debate   on   the   Speech   from   the   Throne,   Mr.    Root,    Mr.    Burr, 

Mr.  Deacon 493 

Royal  assent  to  certain  bills,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  516 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Renwick  517 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr,  Winkler,  agreed  to  523 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  523 


No.  14 


Ontario 


Hcgt^Iature  of  Ontario 


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


Friday,  March  29,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS.  TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


527 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  o'clock,  a.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  would  like  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  hon.  members  a  class  of  students  from 
central  Algoma.  I  would  like  to  take  this 
opportunity  to  introduce  them  to  the  House. 
They  are  in  the  west  gallery. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  Mr.  Speaker, 
my  students  have  not  yet  arrived,  but  they 
are  on  their  way  in  and  will  form,  I'm  sure; 
a  vociferous  claque  in  favour  of  the  member 
who  happens  to  be  standing  here.  They  are 
from  Franklin  Horner  Public  School  in 
Etobicoke.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  should  like  to  introduce  20  third- 
year  students  from  the  St.  Clair  College  of 
Applied  Arts  and  Technology  with  their 
instructors,  Mr.  Victor  Burgess  and  Mr. 
Graham  Jones,  who  happens  to  be  a  member 
of  the  Tecumseh  town  council  and  a  former 
pupil  of  mine.  I  should  like  the  members  to 
welcome  these  students. 


ESTIMATES 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  here  a  message  from  the  Honourable 
the  Lieutenant  Governor  signed  by  his  own 
hand.  Rise,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Speaker:  By  his  own  hand  W.  R. 
Macdonald,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant 
Governor,  transmits  estimates  of  certain  sums 
required  for  the  services  of  the  province 
for  the  year  ending  March  31,  1975,  and 
recommends  them  to  the  legislative  assembly, 
Toronto,  March  29,  1974. 

Statements  by  the  ministry. 


OPP  AGREEMENT 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  this  morning  to  announce  that  a 
one-year  memorandmn  of  understanding  has 
been  negotiated  between  the  government  and 


Friday,  March  29,  1974 

the  Ontario  Provincial  Police  Association. 
The  agreement  covers  the  period  from  April 
1,  1974  to  March  31,  1975,  and  provides 
improvements  in  salaries,  employee  benefits 
and  other  terms  of  employment  for  approxi- 
mately 3,700  uniformed  staff  in  this  bar- 
gaining unit.  The  maximum  salary  for  a 
constable  under  the  new  agreement  will  be 
$13,536  per  year. 

It  is  a  particular  pleasure  to  note  that 
the  parties  in  these  negotiations  have  main- 
tained their  enviable  record  of  having 
always  reached  agreement  in  direct  negotia- 
tions since  collective  bargaining  for  mem- 
bers of  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police  was 
initiated  more  than  10  years  ago. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  One  could 
say  the  same  for  the  community  college 
teachers  now  that  the  government  has  done 
something. 


TRAILWIND  PRODUCTS 

Hon.  F.  Cuindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  Mr. 
Speaker,  earlier  in  the  week  after  meeting 
with  the  Steelworkers  and  the  employees  of 
Trailwind  Products  in  Weston,  I  undertook 
to  speak  to  the  management  of  the  company 
and  look  into  the  lay-off  of  the  41  employees. 

I  am  pleased  to  inform  the  House,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  there  are  openings  for  all  those 
who  were  laid  off  and  that  Indal  has  under- 
taken that  these  vacancies  will  be  kept  open 
until  Wednesday.  I  should  also  add  that  these 
positions  have  been  offered  by  the  company 
at  no  loss  in  pay  or  benefits  to  those  em- 
ployees laid  off.  In  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
company  is  offering  a  $7-per-week  extra 
travel  allowance  for  those  employees  who 
accept  jobs  in  Brampton. 

I  must  stress,  however,  that  the  employees 
interested  must  seek  those  jobs  very  soon 
and  I  would  think  by  next  Wednesday  that 
the  company  will  be  forced  to  seek  em- 
ployees elsewhere. 

There  are  presently  10  jobs  still  open  in 
Brampton,  where  five  employees  have  already 
accepted  positions.  In  the  Toronto  operations 
there  are  six  jobs  open  at  the  Alumiprime 
division  in  Downsview;   10  positions  offered 


528 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


and  six  still  vacant  in  the  Marine  division 
in  Weston;  there  are  four  jobs  open  in  the 
Indalex  division  in  Weston;  and  one  person 
has  filled  the  position  at  the  Rebmec  division 
in  Weston. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  amounts  to  36  positions 
ofiFered,  with  only  10  filled  by  the  41  persons 
laid  off.  The  remaining  five  laid-off  employ- 
ees will  also  receive  jobs  if  they  wish  to  apply 
to  the  company. 

The  company  has  undertaken  to  hire  all  41 
of  the  affected  employees  if  they  apply  be- 
fore Wednesday.  After  that  date  the  em- 
ployees may  still  be  hired,  but  the  under- 
taking by  the  company  lapses  on  that  day. 

The  company  has  been  extremely  co-oper- 
ative, Mr.  Speaker,  and  has  fully  explained 
its  reasons  for  the  lay-off.  I  hope  that  those 
employees  seeking  jobs  will  avail  themselves 
of  these  openings. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  It  re- 
quired a  picket  line  and  the  ministry's  inter- 
vention to  make  them  co-operative.  Don't  be 
so  generous  to  the  company. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  They  sure 
weren't  co-operative  when  they  set  those 
guys  down. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions.  The  Hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): I'd  like  to  ask  a  question  of  the  Pre- 


InterjectioiLS  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  All  right,  but  look  at  what  it 
required. 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Oh,  I'm  sorry  to  interrupt 
the  member  for  Scarborough  West. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  Would  the  mem- 
ber like  to  give  us  a  few  more  minutes? 


GLOBAL  TELEVISION  NETWORK 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'd  like  to  ask  the  Pre- 
mier if  he  has  been  approached  by  the  man- 
agement of  Global  Television  for  any  assist- 
ance in  their  present  financial  difficulties 
through  any  ODC  programme  or  any  other 
programme  that  might  be  available  through 
the  province. 


Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Well,  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  have  been  some  communica- 
tions with  the  government,  including  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism. 

The  difficulty  with  the  situation  as  far  as 
the  government  is  concerned,  of  course,  is 
the  concept  of  government  assistance  for  the 
type  of  institution,  such  as  Global  which  is 
really  part  of  the  news  system.  I  remember 
discussions  in  this  House  with  respect  to  the 
Toronto  Telegram,  for  instance,  as  to  whether 
government  should  become  involved  in  finan- 
cial assistance  where  the  institution  or  the 
company  is  involved  in  the  news  field. 

At  the  same  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
very  interested  in  seeing  that  Global  remains 
in  business.  And  while  I  can't  report  any- 
thing specific  to  the  House,  I  do  know  there 
have  been  a  number  of  discussions,  some  of 
them  reported  in  the  press  this  morning. 

It  is  our  hope,  of  course,  that  Global  can 
find  the  financing  to  remain  in  business,  but 
it  is  something  of  a  complex  problem  for 
government  because  of  the  nature  of  the 
industry.  While  we  would  like  to  be  help- 
ful, and  certainly  we  will  be  to  the  extent 
possible,  I  certainly  don't  want  to  hold  out 
hope  that  funding  through  ODC  would  per- 
haps be  an  appropriate  way. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Would 
it  be  possible  for  the  Premier  to  indicate  at 
this  time  the  urgency  of  the  situation?  Is 
there  any  possibility,  for  example,  that  the 
organization  will  not  be  able  to  meet  its 
payroll  and  therefore  be  under  those  types  of 
pressures?  And  about  how  much  money  is 
needed  to  keep  them  operating? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm 
really  only  going  by  second-hand  information. 
I  sense  that  the  situation  is  relatively  urgent. 
I  can't  tell  the  hon.  member  the  extent  of  the 
financial  problem  or  the  lack  of  financing, 
although  quite  obviously  it  is  significant  as 
well. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  They  gave 
me  a  bum  cheque  this  morning. 

Mr.  Lewis:  This  is  now  a  scandalous  emer- 
gency. This  is  the  crunch! 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Is  the  Premier  aware  that 
Global  has  issued  a  number  of  bum  cheques 
that  bounced  in  the  last  24  hours,  one  of 
which  was  to  me,  to  which  I  object  strenu- 
ously? 


MARCH  29,  1974 


529 


Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Which 
one? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Reply  to 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  didn't  get  their 
value. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  hadn't 
heard  of  the  misfortune  that  has  befallen  the 
member  for  High  Park.  I  can  only  assume 
that  of  all  the  members  in  the  House,  he 
perhaps  can  withstand  that  kind  of  misfor- 
tune more  than  the  rest  of  us.  I  would  say 
further  that  if  they  are  looking  for  further 
financing,  knowing  his  great  capacity  and 
perhaps  his  own  resource,  the  Global  direc- 
tors might  approach  him  for  some  form  of 
participation  in  the  organization  to  keep  it 
alive. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He's  looking  for  a  new 
career— there  it  is. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Considering  the  size  of  the 
government's  deficit,  has  the  Premier  con- 
sidered approaching  the  member  for  High 
Park? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  approach  him  and  the  hon.  leader  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party  as  well.  I  mean, 
any  contribution  they  might  want  to  make 
would  be  gratefully  received. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  This 
government  always  has  to  get  bailed  out  by 
the  private  sector. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition. 


TTC  SUBSIDY 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions if  he  is  now  prepared  to  make  a  state- 
ment on  the  level  of  the  subsidies  that  the 
government  is  prepared  to  pay  to  the  Toronto 
Transit  Commission  to  assist  them  in  their 
deficits  for  this  year? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Can  the 
minister  indicate  why,  when  he  said  that  in- 


formation would  be  available  this  week,  it  has 
been  postponed  again? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  com- 
ment to  the  press  at  that  time  was  that  hope- 
fully we  might  have  something  to  say  tnis 
week.  That  is  not  possible.  I  think  the  hon. 
member  knows,  as  it  has  been  in  the  press, 
that  there  is  to  be  a  meeting  of  representa- 
tives of  Metro  and  the  Premier.  I  am  sure  that 
no  statement  prior  to  that  meeting  would  be 
proper. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker.  Has  the  minister  con- 
sidered making  assistance  to  these  municipah- 
ties  for  their  public  transit  purposes  in  such 
a  form  that  it  actually  doesn't  penalize  the 
improvement  in  business  that  has  been  en- 
joyed by  the  Toronto  Transit  Commission;  in 
other  words  getting  away  from  subsidizing 
losses  to  giving  an  incentive  to  get  more 
traffic? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  incen- 
tive is  already  there  in  the  form  of  a  subsidy 
per  ticket  in  the  existing  formula.  I  am  assum- 
ing that  it  is  a  subsidy  there. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Oh  no;  it  is  a  subsidy  on 
losses. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  No,  Mr.  Speaker;  there 
is  a  subsidy  that  is  paid  to  the  TTC,  based 
upon  the  number  of  tickets  that  are  sold. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  should  print 
that  on  the  ticket. 

Mr.  Lewis:  With  a  picture  of  Allan  Gross- 
man for  senior  citizens. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Have  we  decided  whose 
picture  is  to  go  on  the  blooming  ticket? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  It  isn't  going  to  be  mine. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  couldn't  be  the  min- 
ister's. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Why? 


MINISTER'S  PERSONAL  POSITION  RE 
KINGSTON  TOWNSHIP  COUNCIL 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Because  then  nobody 
would  buy  them. 

I  want  to  ask  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  if  he  attended  at  any  time  in  his 
capacity  as  a  member  of  the  administration, 


530 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


a  meeting  where  the  council  of  the  township 
of  Kingston  came  to  Toronto  in  order  to  see 
why  certain  aspects  of  their  business  had  been 
delayed  by  government  decision. 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry 
and  Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not  attend 
any  meeting  with  the  reeve  of  the  township 
of  Kingston  or  any  member  of  the  township 
of  Kingston  while  a  minister  of  the  govern- 
ment. I  had  the  opportunity  of  meeting  with 
the  reeve  when  I  was  then  parliamentary  as- 
sistant to  Hon.  Charles  MacNaughton.  We 
were  discussing  some  of  the  problems  relating 
to  zoning  and  so  on  in  that  township,  but  not 
relating  to  the  subjects  that  are  currently  in 
the  press. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Can  the 
minister  give  his  assurance  to  the  House  that 
his  personal  relationship  with  at  least  one 
citizen  in  the  area,  who  is  very  much  con- 
cerned with  the  policies  of  the  reeve  and 
council  of  Kingston  township,  in  no  way  in- 
terfered with  his  judgement,  nor  let's  say 
allowed  him  to  recommend  to  his  cabinet 
colleagues,  that  certain  actions  be  taken  with 
regard  to  that  council? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, any  decision  I  shall  make  as  a  minister 
of  this  government  would  be  in  the  best  in- 
terest of  the  taxpayers  of  the  Province  of 
Ontario,  regardless  of  what  overriding  influ- 
ence there  might  be.  This  private  citizen  in 
the  township  of  Kingston,  whom  I  happen  to 
be  related  to  and  pleased  to  be  so,  is  one  who 
has  an  interest  in  the  contracting  rights  of 
that  municipality  relating  to  services  to  be 
extended  to  those  taxpayers. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  doesn't  have  to 
be  pleased, 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
participated  in  discussions  relating  to  any  of 
the  problems  that  relate  to  Kingston  township 
in  the  current  issue. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  knows  it  and  I 
know  it,  only  they  don't  know  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  At  a  meeting  of  cabinet 
which  I  attended  at  the  time  the  item  was 
brought  forward,  I  openly  and  clearly  indi- 
cated to  the  members  present  at  that  time 
that  the  individual  who  was  leading  the  at- 
tack or  approach  on  the  township  of  King- 
ston council  was  related  to  me  and  was  my 
brother.  I  see  no  reason  to  go  any  further 
than  to  say  that  I  withdrew  from  any  discus- 
sions that  would  take  place  relating  to  that 
item. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  not  safe  to  have  relations 
in  politics. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


GASOLINE  TRAVEL  ADS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
same  minister  if  he  can  explain  further  to 
the  House  the  situation  that  led  him  to  in- 
struct his  advertising  agency,  that  is  his  minis- 
terial advertising  agency,  to  change  any 
references  in  our  travel'  advertisements  to  be 
used  in  the  United  States  to  the  ready  avail- 
ability of  gasoline  here?  Was  that  on  instruc- 
tion of  the  external  affairs  people  in  Ottawa? 
How  did  his  own  advertising  agency  make 
the  serious  error  in  judgement  to  include  that 
matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Of  course,  Mr.  Speaker, 
it's  entirely  up  to  the  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  as  to  whether  it  is  an  error  in  judge- 
ment. We  thought  it  was  an  announcement 
advising  the  people  of  this  country  and  the 
United  States  of  the  availability  of  gas  and 
the  type  of  holiday  they  could  have  here  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario. 

As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  Mr.  Speaker, 
when  government  at  the  federal  level  sug- 
gests to  the  province  it  might  reconsider  its 
position  because  of  some  political  overtones 
the  ad  might  have  for  our  friends  in  the 
United  States,  we  accept  that  as  good  judge- 
ment and  good  advice.  We  decided,  after 
talking  to  some  of  the  other  provinces  in  Can- 
ada, that  it  would  be  as  well  for  us  to  recog- 
nize the  request  of  the  federal  government 
and  not  to  cause  it  any  difficulties  in  the 
United  States.  It  already  has  enough  in 
Ottawa. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Was 
the  advertising  agency  informed  by  Ottawa  or 
by  the  ministry  here  in  Ontario  that  the 
change  should  be  made?  Was  there  no  con- 
sultation before  all  the  television  trailers  and 
the  ads  had  been  established?  What  was  the 
reason  for  the  delay  in  that  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  am  not  sure,  Mr. 
Speaker,  whether  or  not  the  Liberal  leader 
is  trying  to  be  facetious.  As  far  as  any  com- 
munications go  between  the  government  of 
Canada  and  the  government  of  this  province, 
I  do  not  think  the  advertising  agency  repre- 
senting the  federal  Liberal  Party  in  Ottawa 
really  contacts  the  advertising  agency  related 
to  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  for 


MARCH  29,  1974 


531 


the  Province  of  Ontario.  They  likely  work 
at  the  same  commission  rate  and  likely  get 
their  contracts  in  the  same  manner,  both 
federally  and  provincially. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That's  been  traditional. 
They  operate  the  same  way.  No  information 
in  thai. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  As  far  as  the  advertis- 
ing is  concerned,  Mr.  Speaker,  withdrawing 
the  portion  related  to  the  availability  of 
petroleum  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  did  not 
cause  any  real  difficulty  in  reworking  our  ads. 
It  was  put  in  last  year  and  retained  in  the 
ad  this  year  and  there  was  very  little  diflB- 
culty  in  removing  it.  It  was  a  decision  made 
within  the  ministry  and  not  by  any  outside 
organization. 

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


RENT  SUBSIDIES  FOR  SOCIAL 
ALLOWANCES  RECIPIENTS 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services. 
In  light  of  the  report  to  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto's social  planning  council  describing  the 
consequences  of  rent  increases  as  possibly 
catastrophic  for  those  in  receipt  of  social  al- 
lowances from  the  government,  will  he  as 
minister  make  available  the  several  millions 
of  dollars  required  to  provide  a  form  of  rent 
subsidy  for  everyone  in  this  province  in  re- 
ceipt of  a  social  allowance  to  compensate  for 
the  extraordinary  rise  in  shelter  costs  over  the 
last  year,  both  extraordinary  and  unexpected 
in  some  ways? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly 
in  our  ministry  we  recognize  the  grave  prob- 
lem of  the  rising  cost  of  rent  and  I  think  all 
members  agree  that  housing  is  probably  one 
of  the  most  important  components  of  social 
assistance.  As  hon.  members  know,  on  Jan.  1 
this  year,  we  did  increase  our  food  and  our 
rental  assistance;  nevertheless,  costs  have  been 
rising  continually  since.  We  are  at  present, 
with  the  Ministry  of  Housing,  looking  into 
this  very  aspect.  We  have  amended  our  regu- 
lations, as  the  hon.  members  know,  so  that 
under  existing  regulations  for  supplementary 
and  special  assistance,  we  pay  80  per  cent 
for  recipients  of  the  Family  Benefits  Act  and 
elderly  people  to  municipalities  which,  at 
their  discretion,  wish  to  give  increased  as- 
sistance for  rents. 

Also  I  have  asked  my  people,  and  we 
should  have  this  information  soon,  to  let  me 


know  how  many  recipients  are  presently  pay- 
ing more  than  their  increased  allowances. 
Again,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  responded  in 
the  past  and  we  will  respond  in  future  to 
this  very  pressing  problem  of  increasing  costs. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  What  are 
they  jabbering  about? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Even  with  the  Jan.  1  increase, 
the  minister  will  know  that  fully  84  per  cent 
of  the  recipients  surveyed  were  paying  in  ex- 
cess of  25  per  cent  of  income  on  rent  and 
a  quarter  of  them  surveyed  were  paying  more 
than  50  per  cent  of  their  social  allowances 
on  rent,  which  destroys  the  food  component 
of  the  social  allowances  entirely.  Has  he, 
therefore,  made  a  survey  of  the  kinds  of  per- 
centages being  paid?  Is  the  government  pre- 
pared to  assume,  for  those  on  social  allow- 
ances, the  full  cost  of  rental  payments  by 
supplements  at  this  time  when  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  alternative  accommodation  any- 
where else? 

H<Mi.  Mr.  Brunelle:  As  I  indicated,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  getting  this  information.  At  the 
same  time,  the  hon.  member  will  appreciate 
this  is  a  complex  factor.  Often,  when  we  raise 
our  maximum  shelter  allowance,  what  happens 
is  that  the  landlords  raise  their  rents. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh  I  see. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  So  it  is  a  very  difficult 
area. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  free  enterprise. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Now  rent  control  is 
something  that  has  been  advocated.  I  don't 
know  the  member's  views  on  that,  but  it  is  a 
very  difficult  area. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  We  have  been  advocating 
it  for  years. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Our  views  on  it  are  weU 
known. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  But  again,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I'd  like  to  reiterate  what  I  said  before:  We 
have  responded  in  the  past  and:  we  will  re- 
spond to  this  increasing  cost. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  penalize  this  group  so 
severely? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary  question,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary. 


532 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  supplementary. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Would  the  minister  not  agree 
that  in  view  of  the  fact  so  much  of  the  in^ 
crease  is  taken  advantage  of  by  landlords,  this 
show^s  the  need  for  a  rental  review  board? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Before  which  the  province  can 
bring  those  who,  wdthout  justification,  do  in- 
crease the  rents  and— 

Mr.  Martel:  If  it's  anything  like  the  prices 
review  board  in  Ottawa  scrap  it! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deacon:  —and  alleviate  by  increased 
grants  those  situations  where  the  recipients 
are  being  deprived  of  any  opportunity  to  pay 
for  increased  costs  other  than  just  shelter? 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Is  this  Liberal  policy  this 
morning? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  may 
be  merit  in  the  hon.  member's  suggestion,  but 
there  are  other  provinces  that  have  review 
boards  and  I'm  not  too  sure  whether  their 
results  have  been  that  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Well  maybe  this  province  can 
do  better! 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 

Centre. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  just  want  to  ask  the  minis- 
ter, Mr.  Speaker,  why  is  it  that  the  ministry 
is  only  now  investigating  the  degree  to  which 
recipients  pay  more  than  the  shelter  allow- 
ances in  rent,  when  figures  have  been  avail- 
able to  the  ministry  as  long  as  three  years- 
and  I'm  sure  five  and  ten  years,  but  certainly 
in  the  last  three  or  four  years— from  Ottawa 
and  other  mimicipalities,  that  show  equally 
that  70,  80  or  90  per  cent  of  recipients  pay 
well  in  excess  of  the  shelter  allowances  for 
their  rent?  Why  didn't  the  government  act 
then  when  those  figures  were  available? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  again,  we 
have  responded.  We  did  increase  our  allow- 
ances on  Jan.  1. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  is  falling 
further  and  further  behind! 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  We  did  amend  our 
regulations  and  we  are  prepared  to  do  more. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  let  the  landlord  take  the 


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


COST  OF  LIVING  CLAUSES 
IN  LABOUR  CONTRACTS 

Mr.  Lewis:  Question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
Minister  of  Labour:  Is  he  aware  of  the  factors 
surrounding  the  dispute  in  Hamilton  between 
the  United  Rubber  Workers  and  the  Firestone 
company? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  No,  Mr.  Speaker.  At 
this  time  it  really  hasn't  come  up  to  my  Itevel. 
Perhaps  some  of  my  officials  are.  I  could  find 
out. 

Mr.  Lewis:  At  what  point  is  a  strike,  that 
has  gone  on  for  a  month  now,  at  what  point 
are  strikes  and  the  issues  in  strikes  reported 
to  the  minister?  Is  there  no  apparatus  for  a 
report  to  the  minister  after  a  week  or  two 
weeks  or  three  weeks  of  a  prolonged  dispute? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  It  all  depends,  Mr. 
Speaker.  There  are  so  many  different  cases. 
It  all  depends  on  the  timing.  It  depends  on 
the  parties  and  it  depends  on  their  reading 
of  the  whole  thing.  So  I  cannot  give  the 
member  a  definite  answer.  Nobody  can. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  there  aren't  that  many 
strikes  in  the  province  at  any  given  moment. 
I  mean,  does  the  ministry  not  report  to  the 
minister  on  a  strike  that's  gone  on  for  a 
month  over  a  matter  of  a  cost  of  living  index? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  They  report  to  me,  and 
as  a  matter  of  fact  not  only  do  they  report 
I  ask  for  a  report.  The  member  claims  there 
are  not  so  many  strikes,  well  we  have  perhaps 
seven  or  eight  going  on  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Seven  or  eight?  Well,  you  know 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  minister  can  manage  that. 
Seven  or  eight  strikes  at  one  time  are  not 
beyond  human  capacity.  But  can  I  ask  the 
minister,  would  he  consider— 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I've  got  three  in  my  riding 
alone. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Would  the  minister  consider 
amending  the  Employment  Standards  Act  in 
Ontario  to  provide  the  requirement  that 
every  negotiated  contract  have  a  clause  which 
provides  for  an  escalated  cost  of  hving  in^ 
crease  as  a  part  of  that  contract? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  always 
accept  suggestions.  We  are  always  glad  to 
look  at  it.  But  I  make  no  commitment  right 
now. 


p 


MARCH  29,  1974 


533 


SPENDING  CEILINGS  IN  EDUCATION 

Mr.  Lewis:  Question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development, 
if  I  could.  When  are  the  regulations  govern- 
ing the  ceilings  and  the  weighting  factors 
for  education  in  the  Metropolitan  Toronto 
area  to  be  issued'  by  the  Minisfay  of  Educa- 
tion? 

Hon.  M.  Birch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  (Mr.  Wells)  is  out  of  the 
city  at  the  present  moment.  I  would  imagine 
there  will  be  some  information  when  he 
returns. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  has 
it  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  pro- 
vincial secretary's  poHcy  development  com- 
mittee that  a  large  number  of  jobs  associated 
with  the  Metro  Toronto  boards-several 
hundred,  in  the  caretaker  and  support  staff 
area— may  be  lost  unless  the  regulations  re- 
lated to  the  ceilings  appear  immediately? 
Why  the  delay?  Has  she  any  idea  of  the 
reason  for  the  delay?  Is  she  about  to  increase 
the  ceilings  significantly?  Is  that  the  reason? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  ques- 
tion is  one  that  is  under  consideration  in  the 
policy  field  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  since  my  question  was 
so  convoluted,  perhaps  I  can  ask  the  pro- 
vincial secretary  which  part  of  it  is  under 
consideration— the  loss  of  jobs  or  the  increase 
in  the  ceilings? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  The  whole  question  of 
the  impact  of  inflation  on  the  ceilings. 


FOOD  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  Could  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  whether 
he  has  discussed  with  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  the  possibility 
of  the  four-  or  five-cent  increase  in  milk 
prices  which  has  been  prophesied!  being  re- 
ferred entirely  to  the  producer,  being  em- 
braced entirely  by  the  farmer,  and  this  time 
eliminating  many  of  the  middle  men  and 
those  who  retail  milk? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  No,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  not  discussed  that  particular  matter 
with  my  colleague. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Has  he  yet  noticed  the  most 
recent  increase  in  profits  reported  by  the 
Becker  company? 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  I  have,  Mr. 
Speaker;  and  I  think  the  House  will  be 
pleased  to  learn  that  some  time  next  week 
I  will  be  filing  a  study  prepared  by  my 
ministry  which  I  referred  to  in  a  discussion 
between  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  and  myself  about  two  weeks  ago. 
Not  only  does  it  deal  with  that  particular 
industry  but  with  several  other  retail  stores 
—major  chains,  and  I'm  thinking  of  Maple 
Leaf  Mills,  which  is  included  there  too.  I 
think  the  member  vdll  find  it  of  great  in- 
terest. I'll  have  that  available  some  time  next 
week  for  the  hon,  member. 

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

AUTOMOBILE  INSURANCE  RATES 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  want  to  ask  one  last  question 
of  the  same  minister  and  that's  all.  May  I 
ask  him,  has  he  considered  calling  in  the 
various  insurance  companies— the  automobile 
insurance  companies  in  particular— to  take  a 
look  at  their  premium  rates  as  a  way  of 
effecting  reductions  which  would  eliminate 
the  inflationary  costs  for  all  of  those  who 
drive;  to  bring  the  rates  in  Ontario,  let  us 
say,  in  line  with  the  rates  of  a  province  lik^ 
Manitoba? 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  They've 
just  raised  their  rates  at  least  20  per  cent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
just  two  comments  there.  The  oflBce  of  the 
superintendent  is  always  concerned  vwth 
rates  and  discusses  rate  structures  and  re- 
quested increases  with  the  industry  each 
and  every  year. 

With  reference  to  the  other  province  men- 
tioned, I  had  the  opportunity  of  being  in 
British  Columbia  some  three  weeks  ago 
and  the  government  system  there  provides  for 
$14  per  hour  for  labour  bestowed  on  an 
automobile  in  repairing  it.  The  programme 
started,  I  believe,  three  or  four  weeks  ago 
today.  When  I  read  an  article  in  the  paper 
two  or  three  days  later  the  complaints  of 
the  public  out  there  were  that  the  repair 
industry  would  not  accept  $14  per  hour, 
but  in  fact  added  to  that  somewhere  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  $1.50  to  $3  per  hour  in 
addition  to  the  provincial  plan. 

I  bring  that  to  the  attention  of  the  House, 
not  as  a  criticism  of  that  particular  plan,  but 
to  show  some  of  the  realities  of  the  cost 
increases  that  in  fact  the  consumers  are 
facing.  I  can  only  assure  the  House  that  the 
superintendent's  oflBce  will  continue  to  be 
vigilant  insofar  as  rate  increases  requested  by 
the  industry  are  concerned. 


534 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.    Levds:    Has    the   minister   done    any 
rate  comparisons  of  the  three  provinces? 

Hon.   Mr.  Clement:   Yes,  the  superintend- 
ent has. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  we  will  provide  them  to 
the  minister  next  week. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Add  in  the  $9  a  year 
driving-licence  charges  to  that,  too. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
land  South. 


RAPID  DATA  CORP. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  like  to  direct  a 
question  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.  Has  the  minister  taken 
any  steps  to  ensure  that  the  $6.5  milhon  in 
Eaton's  employees'  pension  fund  that  was  in- 
vested in  Rapid  Data  Corp.  is  protected  now 
that  the  company  has  gone  into  receivership? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I'm  sorry,  I  didn't  hear 
the  entire  question,  Mr,  Speaker. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Has  the  minister  taken  any 
steps  to  ensure  that  the  $6.5  million  in  Ea- 
ton's employees'  pension  fund  that  was  in- 
vested in  Rapid  Data  Corp.  is  protected  now 
that  the  company  has  gone  into  receivership? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be 
meeting  with  the  director  and  two  members 
of  the  pension  commission  at  11  o'clock  this 
morning. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


ALLEGED  MAFIA  ACTIVITIES 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Solicitor  General,  Mr.  Speaker.  Has  his  de- 
partment been  asked  by  the  American  police 
to  co-operate  in  the  investigation  of  the 
murder  of  one  Harvey  Leach?  In  the  course 
of  its  investigation,  has  it  looked  into  the 
activity  of  the  Toronto  lawyer  who  financed 
Mr.  Leach  through  a  Queen  St.  investment 
corporation?  What  is  he  doing  about  that  par- 
ticular problem  of  laundering  money  which 
is  being  used  in  Detroit,  through  Toronto? 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  haven't  any  direct  information  at 
this  time  involving  one  Mr.  Leach.  It  is  quite 
possible,  of  course,  that  the  Ontario  Pro- 
vincial Police  have  some  information,  as  well 
as   the  Police  Commission,  the  Metropolitan 


Toronto  Police,  and  our  police  information 
agency.  I  personally  haven't  any  information 
at  this  time. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  minister  inquire 
and  inform  me? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  What  does  the  member 
particularly  want  to  know? 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  am  interested  in  what  the 
Solicitor  General  is  doing  about  the  launder- 
ing in  this  city  of  Mafia  money,  which  is 
then  being  sent  back  to  the  United  States 
for  criminal  activities. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  I'll  inquire  if  that  is  a 
problem. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Huron. 


RAYFIELD  LAND  DISPUTE 

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  have  a  question  of  the^  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources. 

Considering  there  has  been  an  ongoing 
dispute  over  the  legal  ownership  of  land  on 
the  river  flats  in  Bayfield,  which  is  in  Huron 
county,  and  considering  that  the  town  of  Bay- 
field has  served  an  injunction  on  the  alleged 
owners  for  the  dredging  and  removal  of  sand 
on  the  land  in  question,  w'hy  did  his  ministry 
oflBcials  do  a  complete  about-face  within  a 
matter  of  one  week  and  allow  the  alleged 
owners  of  the  land  to  cut  a  channel  into  the 
river,  which  is  contrary  to  sections  3  and  4 
of  the  Beach  Protection  Act? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources ) :  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  have  a  complete 
report  prepared  on  this  particular  matter  and 
report  to  tlie  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for— 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Lakeshore. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  sorry— Lakeshore. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  We  will  have  to  get  acquaint- 
ed one  of  these  days,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


CONDOMINIUM  SPECULATION 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I  want  to  ask  a  question  of 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  and  other  forms  of  alienation. 

Is  the  hon.  minister  aware  that  certain 
lawyers  in  particular,  but  others  as  well,  are 
ripping  off  his  condominium  legislation  in  the 


MARCH  29,  1974 


535 


way  of  pure  speculation  by  buying  up  units 
which  they  have  no  intention  of  moving  into 
and  selling  them  off  at  gross  profits? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Lawyers  are  doing  that? 

Mr.  Singer:  Just  lawyers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  any  such  practice  pertaining  to  any 
particular  group. 

Insofar  as  the  speculation  in  condominiums 
is  concerned,  I  suppose  it  is  like  any  other 
asset  and  people  will  continue  to  speculate 
in  it  in  the  hope  of  making  fast  profits.  But 
I  am  not  aware  of  any  practice  that  is  con- 
tinuing. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  plug 
it  in  his  new  legislation? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  not  any  assets,  just  hous- 
ing. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Has  the  minister  heard  that,  as  a  matter  of 
budget,  his  government  intends  to  introduce 
a  75  per  cent  capital  gains  tax  on  such  forms 
of  speculation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Have  I  heard  that? 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Yes,  has  he  heard  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Oh. 

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


INSPECTION   OF   LICENSED   PREMISES 

Mr.  T.  P.  Held  (Rainy  River):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  also  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations. 

Does  the  minister  not  feel  that  his  oflBcials 
in  the  Liquor  Licence  Board  of  Ontario  made 
a  booboo,  if  I  may  use  that  word— 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Watch  your  languagel 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  That  was  the  wrong 
word. 

Mr.  Held:  —in  their  instructions  this  week 
to  the  liquor  inspectors  to  investigate  the 
shows  or  entertainment,  whatever  words  one 
wants  to  use,  in  licensed  lounges?  Does  the 
minister  not  feel  that  perhaps  the  tactics  of 
the  LLBO,  the  way  they  go  about  almost 
blackmailing  the  people  holding  liquor  li- 
cences in  this  province,  should  be  something 


that  should   be   looked   into— that   and   their 
arbitrary  methods? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must 
object  to  the  tenor  of  the  question  put  by 
the  member  of  the  Liberal-Labour  Party  for 
Rainy  River  insofar  as  his  reference  to  black- 
mail is  concerned.  I  am  also  grateful  for  his 
question  on  this  matter  of  great  public  ur- 
gency with  reference  to  the  Liquor  Licence 
Board  of  Ontario  directive,  which  went  for- 
ward this  week. 

The  directive  was  issued  this  week,  arising 
out  of  a  series  of  complaints.  I  can  assure 
the  House  that  the  basis  of  one  of  the  com- 
plaints was  extremely  valid;  that  particular 
matter  has  not  been  completely  resolved  by 
the  courts,  and  I  can  make  no  further  com- 
ment on  that  particular  thing. 

I  asked  the  board  to  review  its  directive, 
which  was  objective,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  there  were  entertainers  appearing,  ac- 
cording to  my  information— and  not  in  loung- 
es; I'm  not  referring  to  the  straight  lounges, 
I'm  talking  about  dining  lounges  only— there 
were  entertainers  appearing  in  dining  loung- 
es, described  as  go-go  dancers,  who  in  fact 
did  not  remove  any  particle  of  their  clothing; 
and  the  directive  as  it  went  forward  would 
preclude  that  type  of  entertainment  where 
children  were  present. 

As  far  as  the  other  type  of  entertainment 
is  concerned,  there  is  a  valid  point  to  be 
made  that  this  sort  of  entertainment  should 
not  be  available  where  children  under  the 
age  of  18,  accompanied  by  their  parents,  are 
having  a  meal. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  They  would  do  better  to 
watch  it  on  Global. 

Mr.  Reid:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  the  minister  not  feel  that  the  LLBO  is 
one  of  the  most  arbitrary  emanations  of 
government  in  the  Province  of  Ontario? 

Is  he  aware  for  instance  of  a  directive  that 
went  out  some  time  ago  to  private  clubs  in 
the  province  saying  that  they  could  no  longer 
hold  a  happy  hour  and  give  their  members 
reduced  prices  on  drinks  between  the  hours 
of  five  and  seven;  and  that  they  were  not 
allowed  to  serve  hot  hors  d'oeuvres  to  their 
members.  Now,  it  is  things  like  that  that  are 
completely  arbitrary  and  asinine. 

Does  the  minister  not  think  it's  time  that 
he  looked  into  the  whole  matter  and  set 
down  some  guidelines  for  the  LLBO,  instead 
of  letting  them  think  these  things  up  over 
coffee  or  from  wherever  they  come? 


536 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  The  hon.  member  has 
asked  three  questions— and  my  answer  to  the 
first  two  is  "no";  and  the  third  one  is  "y^s." 
We  are  in  fact  reviewing  in  depth  the  policies 
and  legislation  affecting  the  LLBO  and  the 
LCBO. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Supplementary  question. 

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

Mr.  MacDonald:  In  this  critical  area  of 
consumer  protection  that  the  minister  is  ob- 
viously so  preoccupied  with  at  the  moment, 
does  the  minister  not  feel  that  if  you  want 
to  enforce  the  law  it  should  be  enforced  by 
the  front  door  rather  than  using  liquor  regu- 
lations to  enforce  it  by  the  back  door? 

If  there  is  a  violation  of  the  Criminal 
Code,  whatever  the  minister's  interpretation 
or  the  government's  interpretation  of  the 
moral  implications  of  it  are,  shouldn't  it  be 
enforced  through  the  Criminal  Code  rather 
than  through  the  back  door  on  hquor  regu- 
lations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  feel 
that  the  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code  are 
most  predominant  and  that  charges  dealing 
with  indecency  or  morality  should,  of  course, 
flow  from  the  Criminal  Code  and  be  a  matter 
of  jurisdiction  for  enforcement  by  the  local 
police.  There  is  no  question  that  my  feeling 


Mr.  MacDonald:  Why  is  the  government 
operating  through  the  back  door? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  —that  is  number  one. 
In  the  criminal  courts  the  test,  of  course,  is 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  The  standards, 
insofar  as  they  are  imposed  by  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  of  Ontario,  are  not  quite  as 
stringent;  there  is  a  question  of  public  taste. 
When  we  receive  complaints,  through  that 
board,  from  bona  fide  members  of  the  public 
objecting  to  certain  performances- 
Mr.  Reid:  What  is  a  bona  fide  member  of 
the  public? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  —in  a  dining  lounge 
where  children  are  present,  I  take  the  posi- 
tion the  board  has  every  right  to  demonstrate 
through  its  directives  and  instructions  the 
standard  that  it  expects  from  a  person  holding 
a  licence  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Reid:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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


Mr.  Reid:  Can  the  minister  explain  what 
a  bona  fide  member  of  the  public  is;  and 
alternately  what  a  non-bona  fide  member  of 
the  public  is? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  president  of  the  local 
Tory  riding  association. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  will  demonstrate  that 
by  saying  a  complaint  which  is  not  originated 
or  encouraged  by,  perhaps  a  competitor;  that's 
what  I  mean  by  a  bona  fide  member  of  the 
public.  Sometimes  complaints  come  in  and 
we  check  them  out  and  find  that  in  fact  they 
have  emanated  from  someone  who  has  a  vest- 
ed interest  in  a  similar  tj'pe  of  organization. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Like  the  police. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Therefore  I  don't,  as  an 
individual,  place  as  much  credibility  on  that 
type  of  complaint  as  I  would  on  one  originat- 
ing from  a  member  of  the  general  public. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Can  the  minister  explain  how 
the  Liquor  Licence  Board  of  Ontario  has  as- 
sumed authority,  without  anything  in  the  Act 
giving  it  that  authority,  not  only  on  censor- 
ship but  also  on  building  standards  and  on 
advertising? 

Does  the  minister  know  that  Chief  Mackey 
—"Boss"  Mackey— has  issued  instructions  that 
people  who  have  licences  under  the  Liquor 
Licence  Act  may  no  longer  advertise  that  they 
sell  liquor?  Is  he  aware  of  that?  And  that 
the  owners  of  Maxwell's  Plum  were  called 
down  because  they  used  the  word  "drink"  in 
their  advertisement.  What  authority  do  they 
have  to  assume  these:  "I  am  the  law;  I  am 
the  law,"  tactics  of  "Boss"  Mackey? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  any  com- 
mission board  or  ministry  operates  on  the 
basis  of  statutory  legislation,  regulations  made 
under  the  statute  and  by  policy  directives. 

Mr.  Shulman:  There  are  no  regulations  for 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  There  is  nothing  unique 
about  this;  and  if  a  policy  is  codified  and  is 
inflexible  then  it  has  to  apply  to  all.  Very 
often  some  of  these  things  must  be  slightly 
inflexible  because  of  particular  problems  in 
a  particular  area. 

Therefore  the  policy  matters  are  within  the 
scope  of  the  board,  and  if  policy  directives 
go  forward  and  work  very  well  and  the  pub- 
lic is  aware  of  the  policy— and  I  think  this 


MARCH  29,  1974 


537 


is  the  root  of  the  problem;  that  often  policy 
goes  forward  from  boards  and  commissions 
and  the  public  are  not  aware.  I  am  sympa- 
thetic to  the  public.  I  would  like  to  see  most 
policies  resolved  into  regulations  if  at  all  pos- 
sible. Sometimes  it  is  impossible  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Shulman:  These  policies  come  out  of 
Mackey's  wet  dreams. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kent. 


APPROVAL  OF  OFFICIAL  PLANS 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  a  question  of  the  provincial  Treasurer. 

Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  large  number 
of  municipalities  that  have  sent  in  official 
plans— some  of  them  as  far  back  as  October, 
1973— and  have  not  had  approval  as  yet?  As 
this  is  causinor  delay  in  work  in  towns,  when 
will  these  official  plans  be  approved  by  the 
Treasurer's  department? 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer,  Minister  of  Eco- 
nomics and  Intergovernmental  A.ffairs):  Well, 
sir,  as  of  Jan.  8  this  responsibility  went  to 
the  Ministry  of  Housing,  so  I  guess  the  pre- 
cise answer  to  the  member's  question  is 
never,  insofar  as  I  am  concerned. 

Mr.  Reid:  That's  the  Treasurer's  answer  to 
everything. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  member  might  re- 
direct the  question  to  the  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing (Mr.  Handleman)  and  get  a  better  answer 
than  that  though. 

Mr.  Spence:  Well,  I  refer  my  question  to 
the  Minister  of  Housing. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  not  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  member 
might  put  his  question  at  another  time  when 
the  minister  is  here. 

The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury  East. 


AIR  MANAGEMENT  BRANCH 
INSPECTOR 

Mr.  Martel:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment.  Has  he  found  a  replacement 
yet  for  Mr.  Ross  MacKenzie  in  the  Sudbury 
area? 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment): No,  we  haven't  replaced  him  as 
yet. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  think  they  are  getting  some- 
body from  Algoma. 


Mr.   Speaker:    The  hon.   member  for  Kit- 
chener is  next. 


REDISTRIBUTION  OF  ELECTORAL 
BOUNDARIES 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Premier:  Can  the  Premier  give  us  any 
preliminary  information  or  a  progress  report 
on  the  operation  of  the  commission  dealing 
with  redistribution  within  the  Legislature? 
And  can  he  advise  us  if  there  is  any  con- 
sideratiou'  being  given  for  the  holding  of 
public  hearings,  at  least  on  a  regional  basis, 
and  the  amending  of  the  terms  of  reference 
for  the  commission  in  that  regard? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  hope  Hansard  got  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
report  to  the  members  of  the  House  that  the 
commission  is  obviously  making  progress.  I 
think  the  general  pattern  that  will  be  followed 
will  be  for  their  preliminary  report  to  be 
made  available  to  the  House,  after  which 
time  there  will  be  opportunities  for  discus- 
sion, by  some  members  I  am  sure  and  mem- 
bers of  the  public,  before  it  is  then  returned 
here  for  final  passage.  I  can't  tell  the  hon. 
member  the  exact  date,  but  I  think  it  is  per- 
haps only  three  or  four  weeks  away. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIQUOR 
REGULATIONS  ON  TRAIN 

Mr.  Burr:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations.  Has  the  minister  any  plans  for 
maintaining  law  and  order  on  tonight's  train 
from  Windsor— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Did  the  member  for 
Scarborough  West  hear  what  he  said?  Law 
and  ordfer! 

Mr.  Lewis:  What?  Yes. 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside caused  the  problem. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  From  Windsor  or  to 
Windsor? 

Mr.  Burr:  —from  Windsor  to  Toronto- 
Mr.    Breithaupt:    What   are   the   minister's 
plans  there? 

Mr.    Burr:    -by    enforcing    the   province's 

liquor  regulations? 


538 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  hon.  member:  Oh! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  astounded  to  learn 
from  the  tenor  of  the  hon.  member's  ques- 
tion that  law  and  order  is  not  being  applied. 
I  just  received  a  complaint,  as  I  take  it  from 
the  member  for  High  Park,  regarding  the 
application  of  law  and  order.  I  am  not  aware 
of  any  breaches  of  the  Liquor  Control  Act. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.    Mr.    Clement:    If   the   member   will 

draw  them  to  my  attention- 
Mr.   Shulman:    No,  no;   the  misapplication 

of  law  and  order— the  misapplication. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  —I  will  certainly  under- 
take to  see  that  they  are  looked  into.  Could 
the  member  let  me  know  what  the  matters 
are  of  which  he  complains  on  that  particular 
train?  I  have  never  been  on  the  train;  I  may 
want  to  go  on  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  That  will  only  compound  the 
diflBculty. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Must  have  been  streakers 
through  the  bar. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Burr:  As  a  supplementary  question,  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Burr:  —does  the  minister  forget  the 
correspondence  we  have  had  on  this  matter? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  forget  a 
lot  of  things  and  if  I  have  overlooked  it  I 
apologize  to  the  member.  I  don't  recollect  it 
at  this  particular  moment  and  I  will  look  into 
it.  I  am  sorry  but,  no,  I  don't  recollect  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  minister  had  only  12 
letters.  One  of  the  minister's  parliamentary 
assistants  has  taken  over. 

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


NORTH  PICKERING  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  question  of  the  Premier: 
Since  the  imposition  of  the  ministerial  order 
on  the  noise  lands  in  the  proposed'  Pickering 


airport  was  a  provincial  action,  does  the 
Premier  intend  to  require  the  federal  govern^ 
ment  to  pay  owners  aflFected  for  the  rights 
that  have  been  denied  them  for  the  last  two 
years  or  to  lift  the  order  now  that  this  form 
of  discrimination  is  becoming  such  a  burden 
on  the  people  affected? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  only 
pass  an  uninformed  legal  opinion.  I  would 
suggest  the  hon.  member  might  ask  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Welch),  who 
I  think  would  take  it  as  notice.  I  question 
whether  this  province  can  order  the  federal 
government  to  pay  compensation  to  anybody. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary:  Since  the 
action  is  a  provincial  action  that  was  taken 
only  by  the  province  and  is  its  own  decision; 
and  since  that  is  a  form  of  discrimination  and 
the  province  has  the  right  to  lift  that  order 
any  time  it  wishes,  will  the  province  lift  the 
order  since  the  federal  government  has  not 
provided  for  compensation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  contrary,  I'm 
sure,  to  the  view  of  some  on  occasion,  this 
government  does  try  to  co-operate  with  our 
federal  government. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  Premier  is  talking  out  of 
both  sides  of  his  mouth, 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  federal  government 
has  asked  that  these  orders  be  placed  on,  if, 
by  some  chance,  that  area  does  become  an 
international  airport.  I  think  there  is  wisdom, 
not  for  a  prolonged  period  of  time  but  for  a 
period  of  time,  in  having  this  form  of  order 
there. 

It's  very  diflBcidt.  We  would  prefer  not  to 
do  it.  We  would  prefer  that  the  federal  gov- 
ernment, quite  frankly,  assume  the  respon- 
sibility, but  it  doesn't  have,  I  assmne,  the 
legal  right  to  do  so.  If  the  hon.  member  is 
saying  to  us  lift  the  order  and  let  the  federal 
government  then  solve  its  own  problems,  I 
find  that  an  interesting  suggestion. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary:  Does  the 
Premier  not  realize  that,  in  view  of  his  power 
to  impose  this  order,  he  has  the  right  to  de- 
mand of  the  federal  government  compensa- 
tion for  those  affected?  Why  doesn't  he  talk 
through  just  one  side  of  his  mouth  instead  of 
two  sides  at  one  time? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon,  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  only 
say  to  the  hon.  member  opposite  that  if  there 
is  anybody  who  knows  how  to  talk  in  a  hypo- 
critical sense  on  certain  very  important  issues 
it  is  that  particular  member.  He  can  talk  to 


MARCH  29,  1974 


539 


us  about  this  diflRcult  issue  where  we  are  try- 
ing to  co-operate  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment, but  he  shouldn't  come  into  this  House 
and  say  that  I  am  talking  out  of  both  sides 
of  my  mouth  after  what  he  did  in  relation  to 
the  York  county  school  situation^ 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —seize  the  board  one  day 
and  local  autonomy  the  next  day. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  shouldn't  be  allowed'. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Premier  pays  him.  I  know 
he  pays  him. 


SHINING  TREE  PHONE  SERVICE 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications,  although  under  standing 
order  27(j),  he  might  wish  to  refer  the  ques- 
tion to  the  member  for  Fort  Wilham  (Mr. 
Jessiman),  the  chairman  of  the  Ontario  North- 
land Transportation  Commission. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  government's 
intentions  in  the  Throne  Speech  indicated  an 
end  to  the  commimications  problems  in  the 
remote  communities  in  northern  Ontario;  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  minister  made  a 
statement  very  recently  in  which  he  said: 
"Once  and  for  all,  a  communications  remote- 
ness of  the  communities  of  northern'  Ontario 
will  be  ended";  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
Northern  Telephone  Co.,  a  private  enter- 
prise— 

An  hon.  member:  Owned  by  the  Bell. 

Mr.  Laughren:  —has  agreed  to  establish  an 
exchange  in  the  community  of  Shining  Tree 
in  the  riding  of  Nickel  Belt;  and  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  Ontario  Hydro  have  agreed  to 
let  the  Ontario  Northland  use  their  lines  if 
they  wished;  how  is  it  then,  that  the  Ontario 
Northland  has  refused  to  establish  the  toll 
lines  into  the  community  of  Shining  Tree  so 
that  people  in  the  community  could  have 
communication,  not  only  among  themselves, 
but  with  the  outside  world  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  is  like  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Throne  Speech. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  It  is  like 
communicating  with  smoke  signals. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  could  the 
hon.  member  repeat  the  question? 


Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  only  30  seconds 
remaining. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  obviously 
the  answer  to  that  would  take  more  than  30 
seconds  and  I  would  like  to  take  time  to  get 
the  information.  I'm  not  famihar  with  the 
problem  he  is  talking  about. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view,  25  seconds. 


SAVINGS  FROM  ONE  MINISTER 
HOLDING  TWO  PORTFOLIOS 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Attorney  General.  Could  the  Attorney 
General  tell  us  what  savings  he  has  been  able 
to  effect  since  he  became  at  the  same  time 
the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  and  the 
Attorney  General,  since  now  there  is  only  one 
minister  instead  of  two,  and  since  now  there 
is  only  one  deputy  minister  instead  of  two? 
How  much  of  the  $358,000  set  aside  for  the 
oflSce  of  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice 
has  been  saved  since  this  great  event  took 
place? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  10  seconds  re- 
maining. 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  woiJd  be  very  glad  to  share  that  informa- 
tion with  the  hon.  member  when  we  go 
through  our  estimates. 

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

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  yesterday 
I  gave  an  answer  to  a  question  asked  earlier 
by  the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West 
dealing  with  a  caution  filed  with  respect  to 
certain  lands  in  some  110  townships  in  the 
district  of  Nipissing  by  the  Bear  Island  Foun- 
dation. The  hon.  member  for  Riverdale  (Mr. 
Renwick)  asked  if  I  would  table  a  copy  of 
that  caution,  which  I  am  very  pleased  to  do 
this  morning. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  White  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Winkler,  that  the  Treasurer  of  Ontario  be 
authorized  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the  civil 
service  and  other  necessary  payments  pend- 
ing the  voting  of  supply  for  the  fiscal  year 
commencing  April  1,  1974,  such  payments  to 


540 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


be  charged  to  the  proper  appropriations  fol- 
lowing the  voting  of  supply. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  briefly  on 
the  motion,  I  would  like  to  point  out  to  you, 
sir,  as  I  have  in  the  past,  that  I  am  not 
aware  that  all  other  democratic  jurisdictions 
use  this  procedure.  In  fact,  it  simply  means 
that  our  discussions  of  the  estimates  for  the 
next  many  months  tend  to  be  somewhat  aca- 
demic since  the  approval  of  the  estimates  and 
the  right  to  pay  the  moneys  out  of  them  are 
granted  by  way  of  this  fairly  routine  motion 
—or  it  has  been  routine  in  the  past— to  the 
Treasurer. 

In  other  jurisdictions,  as  I  understand  it, 
there  is  approval  given  but  not  for  the  full 
year's  expenditure.  It  is  on  a  monthly  basis, 
I  believe,  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  it  is 
therefore  necessary  for  the  Treasurer  or  a 
representative  of  the  government  to  come 
before  the  House  at  regular  intervals  to  get 
an  extension  of  the  authority  to  pay  if  the 
estimates  have  not,  at  that  time,  been  ap- 
proved. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  off^er  any  substantial 
objection  other  than  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
other  than  that  perhaps  the  Treasurer  might 
do  a  survey  of  the  procedures  in  other  legis- 
latures and  parliaments,  because  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  rights  of  the  House  are  somewhat 
seriously  infringed  when  we  pass  a  blanket 
motion  of  a  routine  nature,  such  as  this, 
which  gives  the  right  to  spend  the  whole 
blooming  $7  billion  to  $8  billion  without  any 
power  to  hold  back  by  the  House  in  the 
long  run. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Sir,  I  am  interested  in 
these  comments.  I  thought  this  was  the  prac- 
tice in  the  British  parliamentary  system 
throughout  the  world.  I  do  not  see  any  ob- 
vious advantage  to  bringing  in  a  motion  like 
this  once  a  quarter  or  once  a  month.  I  do 
point  out  that  the  estimates,  while  they  won't 
be  concluded  until  perhaps  next  October  or 
November,  will  be  approved  progressively 
and  to  that  extent  the  dependence  upon  this 
motion  is  thereby  diminished.  However,  I 
will  accept  the  suggestion  made  by  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  to  see  what  the 
practice  is  elsewhere  and  see  if  this  can, 
indeed,  be  improved  upon. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills. 

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.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Al- 
goma. 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  Mr.  Speaker, 
it  is  a  privilege  for  me  this  morning  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  Throne  debate.  I  must  say  I 
wasn't  really  anticipating  coming  on  so  soon. 
But  Friday  mornings  sometimes  are  a  little 
bit  difiicult— some  of  the  speakers  are  not 
ready— so  I  thought  I  would  get  up  and  make 
a  few  comments. 

First,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very  pleased  that 
you  are  back  in  the  Speaker's  chair.  I  knew 
you  had  a  difficult  time;  you  had  a  period 
of  illness  but  I  know  I  express  the  views  of 
this  House  when  I  say  how  pleased  we  are 
to  see  you  back  in  the  chair  and  performing 
your  function  in  a  very  eflBcient  way,  as  usual. 
Then,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  we  all  realize,  there 
has  been  quite  a  shufiling  in  the  cabinet- 
Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Yes,  of 
course. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —and  I  want  to  congratu- 
late everyone  who  has  been  promoted  to 
cabinet  posts. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  Congratulate 
those  who  have  been  demoted. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  And  also  I  want  to  con- 
gratulate those  who  didn't  get  promotions  who 
have  taken  it  so  well,  I  don't  see  anybody 
disgruntled  around  here  at  all. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I  have  never  seen  so  many 
unhappy  faces.  They  wept  for  two  days. 

An  hon.  member:  There  is  more  than  the 
one  who  is  disappointed. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  They  are  not  even  here  this 
morning. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  been 
very  interested  and  quite  enthused  about 
some  of  the  rumblings  that  I  have  been  hear- 
ing about  nuclear  plants  being  established 
through  the  various  parts  of  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  I  have  invited  one  of  these  nuclear 
plants  to  be  established  somewhere  along  the 
north  shore  in  the  riding  of  Algoma. 

Mr.  E.  P.  Momingstar  (Welland):  Great 
stuff. 


MARCH  29,  1974 


541 


Mr.  Gilbertson:  It  is  something  that  we 
know  would  be  quite  a  boon  to  the  economy. 
And  it  is  something  that  we  need,  because 
certain  parts  along  the  north  shore  are  rather 
depressed  areas  where  we  need  some  more 
labour  incentives  and  so  on.  I  am  sure  that 
the  minister  will  look  favourably  on  establish- 
ing a  nuclear  pl'ant  in  the  Thessalon-Blind 
River  area.  They  can  even  come  up  to  Bruce 
Mines,  Desbarats,  or  right  over  to  St.  Joseph 
island. 

Now  that  we  have  such  an  extensive  maple 
syrup  industry  there,  we  could  use  a  sec- 
ondary industry  such  as  a  nuclear  plant. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Parrott  (Oxford):  Where  are  the 
samples? 

Mr.  Momingstar:  No  samples? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  And  I  am  pleased  with  vari- 
ous things  that  are  happening  in  the  riding 
of  Algoma.  Not  very  long  ago  I  had  the 
privilege  of  announcing  a  sawmill  operation 
that's  going  into  White  River.  It  is  a  $9  mil- 
lion enterprise  and  is  needed  up  in  that  part 
of  the  riding.  I  am  very  pleased  that  this  is 
going  to  become  a  reality. 

Mr.  Morningstar:  Good  government. 

Mr.   Gilbertson:   And  there  are  rumblings 

from  other  industries- 
Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  There  are 

rumblings  in  the  PC  Tory  organization. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Well,  I  think  the  rumblings 
in  the  PC  organization  are  not  too  bad.  They 
are  favourable  rumblings. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  are  just  hoping  they  are 
not  too  bad.  We  don't  want  any  palace  revo- 
lution in  Algoma,  thank  you  very  much.  We 
are  supporting  the  member.  We  have  signed 
a  lot  of  people  into  the  Tory  party  to  make 
sure  he  gets  the  nomination. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Well,  I  am  going  to  tell  the 
members    something.    I    appreciate   any   sup- 
port, whether  it  comes  from  the  NDP  or  the 
Liberals- 
Mr.  Lewis:  I  can  understand  that. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —or  whoever  it  comes  from. 
I  am  sure— 

An  hon.  member:  And  the  member  for  Al- 
goma gets  it  all,  too,  doesn't  he? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  When  you  get  a  plurality 
like  I  got  in  Algoma,  there  have  got  to  be 
some  NDP  and  some  Liberals  who  vote  for 
me. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  You  know  there's  the  old 
saying  that  the  brass  is  getting  too  far  away 
from  the  grass.  Well,  you  can't  say  that  in 
the  Algoma  riding,  because  I  am  right  with 
the  grass  roots  of  the  people. 


Mr.  Momingstar:  Great. 


"Where  is  he?  What 


Mr.  Lewis:  They  ask: 
has  he  been  doing?" 


Mr.  Gilbertson:  Oh,  yes,  well,  of  course 
this  is  a  good  opportunity  for  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  to  throw  in  a  little  flak  because  he 
knows  that  the  interjections  go  into  Hansard 
and  he  is  trying  to  discredit  me. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  no.  Shame,  shame.  I  love 
the  member  for  Algoma. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Yes,  I  know  he  does.  He 
loves  me  but  he  would  hate  like  everything 
for  me  to  get  re-elected  again. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  exactly  right.  I  would 
like  that  in  Hansard.  I  think  there  should  be 
a  change  in  Algoma. 


Mr.  Gilbertson: 

Scarborough- 


Does  the  hon.  member  for 


Mr.  Lewis:  West. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —West— realize  how  close 
he  was  to  not  being  in  here  at  all? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  won  by  170  votes. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  That's  right.  But  in  the 
previous  election  I  think  the  member  got 
a  plurality  of  about  6,000  or  7,000. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Just  about.  Well,  I  like  the 
rhythm  of  fluctuation. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  He  wants  to  live  dangerously. 
The  member  for  Algoma  is  too  safe. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Imagine  talking  about  a  nuclear 
plant  for  Blind  River  when  the  Minister  of 
Energy  (Mr.  McKeough)  said  a  couple  of 
months  ago  that  it  was  Hydro's  decision.  It 
was  10  years  away.  What  about  the— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  member 
from  Algoma  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  about  a  serious  thing  for 
the  people  of  the  members'  community?  Come 
on,  now.  Let's  talk  about  real  things. 


542 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Gilbertson:  The  leader  of  the  NDP  is 
always  so  pessimistic. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Talk  about  reality. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:   He  is  too  pessimistic. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  member  for  Al- 
goma  speak  to  the  chair,  please? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Call  him  into  line. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  Wilham):  The 
member  for  Scarborough  West  will  be  leav- 
ing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  hope  so. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
that  one  of  the  cabinet  ministers  who  was 
appointed  just  recently  was  the  hon.  member 
for  Sault  Ste.  Marie  (Mr.  Rhodes).  It  couldn't 
be  more  appropriate  than  to  have  "Rhodes 
for  roads." 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  another  desperate  efiFort 
to  hold  a  seat. 

An  hon.  member:  He  will,  though. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Well  look,  one  has  to  be 
poHtical  and  astute.  The  member  knows  that 
himself.   Does  he  think  we're  stupid? 

Mr.  Lewis:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think 
the  member  is  a  smart  executive  director.  I 
mean  it  in  a  generic  sense. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  thinks  that  way  because  I'm  a 
backbencher  from  up  in  the  north,  the  place 
where  he's  going  to  try  to  get  votes.  The  way 
he  treats  me  will  be  the  way  he  treats  the 
people  up  in  Algoma. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  way  I  treat  the  member? 
Mr.  Gilbertson:  I'm  their  representative. 
Mr.  Lewis:  I  treat  you  aU  right,  my  friendl 
Mr.  Gilbertson:  I'm  the  representative- 
Mr.  Lewis:  He  certainly  isl 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —for  the  riding  of  Al- 
goma, and  I'm  representing  the  people. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  And  a 
good  one. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  think  I'm  doing  a  fair 
job  and  the  people  know  it. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I  think  my  leader  treats  the 
member  for  Algoma  with  a  commendable 
courtesy,  considering  everything. 


Mr.  Gilbertson:  Now,  we  have  quite  a  lot 
of  things  that  we  want  to  get  accomplished 
up  there  in  the  north.  Weve  got  a  lot  of 
things  done,  but  the  north  is  just  now  start- 
ing to  really  get  into  its  own. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Oh,  it's  really  moving  ahead. 
Let's  hear  it! 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  We've  got  some  good  cabi- 
net men  up  there.  We  have  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Kenora  (Mr.  Bemier)  in  Natural  Re- 
sources. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  And  the  people  over  there 
have  always  been  saying  that  we  should  have 
people  from  the  north  representing  the  north. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  He  is  pretty  much  of  a  dis- 
aster, too. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Now,  I  couldn't  think  of 
a  better  setup  than  to  have  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Kenora  there  as  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I  could,  without  any  imagi- 
nation at  all. 

Mr.   Gilbertson:   Because  we  have  all  the 

lumbering- 
Mr.  Lewis:  If  the  member  takes  our  views 

he  will  be  all  right. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  He's  in  the  pocket  of  the  big 
guys  up  there. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —and  logging  operations 
and  the  minerals  and  all  that  up  there. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  He's  a  big  guy  himself. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  And  then  I  couldn't  think 
of  a  better  person  than  the  hon.  member  for 
Cochrane  North  (Mr.  Brunelle)  to  represent 
Community  and  Social  Services. 

Mr.   Momingstar:   Doing  a  good  job! 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  The  north  is  getting  on  the 
map. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  this  the  epitaph  for  the 
Tories  in  northern  Ontario?  Is  this  the  last 
word? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  And  then  I  think  of  the 
hon.  member  for  Fort  William,  chairman  of 
Ontario  Northland,  another  northerner. 

Mr.  Laughren:  He  has  done  enough  for 
their  image. 


MARCH  29,  1974 


543 


Mr.  Momingstar:  Good  job!  A  great  mem- 
ber! 

Mr.  Lawlor:  A  sinecure  if  I  ever  heard 
of  one. 

Mr.  Laughren:  He  even  put  a  telephone 
in  Shining  Tree. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  And  then  I  also  think  of 
the- 

Mr.  Lawlor:  They  even  have  a  special  box- 
car he  rides  in! 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Mr.  Speaker,  another 
prominent  member,  too,  is  the  hon.  member 
for  Algoma-Manitoulin  (Mr,  Lane). 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  What  is  this  fellow  doing? 
He's  getting  a  great  big  new  ferry  to  service 
the  Bruce  Peninsula  from  South  Baymouth 
to  Tobermory— 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  The 
member  for  Grey-Bruce  (Mr.  Sargent)  ar- 
ranged that.  Don't  be  so  stupid. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —just  to  bring  more 
tourist  dollars  up  into  that  area  there,  and 
it's  a  great  thing. 

Mr.  Good:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  arranged  that. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Hey,  did  the  member  ever 
get  a  bridge  to  get  the  people  off  Manitoulin 
Island?  He  got  one  to  get  them  on. 

Mr.  Momingstar:  Oh,  yes.  He  got  it. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  No,  no.  The  member  is 
talking  about  St.  Joseph  Island. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Oh,  yes. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
speak  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  Algoma, 
and  especially  of  St.  Joseph  Island.  And  a 
big  thank-you  to  this  government  for  that 
bridge  across  to  St.  Joseph  Island. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Well and  South):  What 
did  they  do  with  the  ferry? 

Mr.   Gilbertson:   I  must  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that   that   was  a  political   football.   It  didn't 
matter    what    politician    came    over    to    St. 
Joseph  Island- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Indeed  it  was. 


Mr.  Gilbertson:  —to  solicit  votes.  It  started 
back  in  1890  when  we  first  had  our  bridge 
committee  there.  And  after  that,  when  an 
election  came  up,  every  politician  said  St. 
Joseph  Island  was  going  to  get  a  bridge.  It 
never  materialized  until  we  finally  got  a 
member  from  St.  Joseph  Island  in  the  Legis- 
lature of  Ontario.  The  bridge  is  there.  We're 
using  it.  And  we  all  appreciate  it  very  much. 

Mr.  Momingstar:  "Bernt  Gilbertson," 
"Bemt  Gilbertson." 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  By  the  way— 

An  hon.  member:  It's  called  the  "Bemt 
Gilbertson"  span. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Does  my  friend  know  he  left 
one  of  his  northern  members  out? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I'm  going  to  get  back  to 
him  too. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  member  is  going  to  get 
back  to  him? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  think  my  friend  is 
thinking  of  the  member  for  Thunder  Bay 
(Mr.  Stokes). 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I'm  not.  The  member  left 
one  of  his  Tory  members  out.  It's  kind  of  an 
interesting  oversight.  Tuck  it  away  and  think 
about  whom  he  missed. 

Mr.    Gilbertson:    Let's   see   now— I   started 
at  Kenora,  and  I  kept  coming  down  to  Fort 
William- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Right.  He's  stuck  up  there  on 
Maple  Mountain  somewhere.  Remember  that. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  know  who  the  member 
means. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  He's  sort  of  from  north- 
eastern Ontario. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  see.  So  is  the  Minister  of 
Community  and  Social  Services. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  All  right.  I'd  say  that  the 

hon.  member  for  Timiskaming  (Mr.  Havrot) 
is  doing  a  terrific  job. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh  good,  good. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  He's  doing  a  terrific  job 
—and  I'm  sure  hon.  members  will  agree  with 
me. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Now  the  member  loses  credi- 
bility. He  had  been  doing  pretty  good  until 
now,  but  he  has  lost  contact  with  the  grass 
roots  again. 


544 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  hon.  member:  No,  he's  got  contacts 
with  the  grass  roots. 

Mr.  GUbertson:  I  might  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  in  my  seven  years  in  the  Legislature 
I've  seen  a  lot  of  things  accomplished.  There 
have  been  a  lot  of  changes  in  northwestern 
Ontario  and  in  northern  Ontario. 

I  think,  for  instance,  of  the  various  high- 
ways that  we  have  established  there;  there  is 
one  in  particular  that  helps  me  out  and  I 
use  considerably,  Highway  631  from  White 
River  to  Homepayne.  It  runs  from  High- 
way 17  right  through  to  Highway  11.  Home- 
payne is  located  right  in  the  middle  between 
those  two  highways.  Before  that  highway 
was  established,  I  would  either  have  had  to 
fly  in  or  drive  265  miles  around  from  White 
River.  Now  it's  only  61  miles  across.  In  an 
hour  and  a  quarter  or  so  I  can  make  it 
over  into  Homepayne. 

I  think  also  of  the  various  hamlets  in  my 
riding.  I  don't  have  any  big  towns.  I'm  very 
concerned  about  the  economies  of  places  like 
Homepayne.  They  have  to  depend  mainly 
upon  the  CN  railway,  but  they  have  a  very 
prominent  lumbering  oneration  there  and,  to 
a  certain  extent,  it's  the  lifeline  of  Home- 
payne. I  would  appreciate  very  much  seeing 
that  this  lumbering  operation  continues  for 
years  to  come.  This  company  is  working  on 
a  sustained  yield.  They're  working  on  the 
basis  of  perpetuation.  One  can  go  over 
some  of  their  cut-over  limits  and  see  the 
second  growth  coming  up.  This  is  the  way 
we  should  operate— 

Mr.  Laughren:  Who  planted  them? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —and  I'm  sure  the  min- 
ister agrees  with  me,  that  this  sustained  yield 
and  the  perpetuation  of  our  forests  are  things 
of  which  we  should  be  more  aware.  I  think 
we  should  be  more  aware  of  the  perpetuation 
of  our  forests,  not  just  in  the  type  of  opera- 
tion we  have  in  northwestern  Ontario,  where 
they  depend  mainly  on  jackpine,  spmce  and 
other  softwood  species  but  also,  I  think,  in 
our  hardwoods  operation. 

I  think  we  should  operate  with  the  per- 
petuation of  the  forests  in  mind.  We  should 
take  care  that  we  don't  go  in  and  just  ruin 
the  forest  without  being  concerned  about  the 
upcoming  younger  growth,  because  in  that 
area  it  would  probably  take  50  years  I  would 
say,  for  a  tree  to  grow  to  6  in.  in  diameter.  We 
need  to  be  careful  that  we  don't  set  back  50 
years  of  growth  when  we're  harvesting  the 
forests.  I  think  this  is  something  of  which 
lumber  operators  should  be  very  much 
aware,  and  we  should  be  sensible  about  the 


way  we  take  out  our  timber  and  look  after 
our  resources. 

I  might  say  that  another  thing  which  I 
think  is  very  good  is  that,  as  members  know, 
a  few  years  ago  a  lot  of  the  gold  mines 
closed  down  because  they  couldn't  operate. 
They  were  just  marginal,  they  weren't  making 
any  profit  and  many  of  the  mines  had  to 
phase  out.  But  now,  with  the  price  of  gold, 
several  of  these  gold  mines  are  being  re- 
vived and  this  is  a  good  thing  because  in  a 
riding  such  as  mine  we  depend  on  the 
natural  resources. 

There  is  an  awful  lot  of  good  potential 
in  the  copper  ore  deposits  up  there.  There 
may  not  be  anyone  big  enough  to  set  up 
a  large  operation  but  if  we  had  some  type 
of  a  smelter  located  where  we  could  take 
these  small  deposits  it  would  help  out  the 
little  fellow.  I  can't  help  thinking  about  the 
member  for  Welland;  he  often  brings  it  up 
when  he  gets  up  to  speak.  He  says  we  have 
got  to  look  after  the  little  fellow  and  this  is 
what  we  need  to  do  in  a  riding  such  as 
mine.  We  may  not  have  very  many  big 
fellows  but  we  have  a  lot  of  little  ones. 

Mr.  J.  P.  MacBeth  (York  West):  The  mem- 
ber is  a  big  fellow. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  These  are  the  kind  of 
people  I  like  to  take  care  of  and  like  to 
assist. 

Mr.  Momingstar:  You  bet. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:   I  don't  know  how  long  I 
have  been  speaking,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Momingstar:  More,  more;  he  is  doing 
well. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —but  I  don't  mind  it  a  bit 
because  I  think  my  people  in  my  area  want 
their  member  to  get  up  and  represent  them. 
It  is  one  thing  to  do  a  lot  of  constituency 
work  but  one  has  to  be  heard  from  time  to 
time  in  the  Legislature  and  make  it  known 
to  the  members  and  the  whole  of  Ontario 
what  our  government  is  doing,  and  to  present 
our  needs  as  well. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  And  what  it  is  not  doing. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  believe  in  the  saying, 
"Ask  and  ye  shall  receive;  seek  and  ye  shall 
find.  Knock  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you." 
I  do  knocking  on  doors  and  I  do  seeking  and 
I  must  say  that  I  do  some  finding. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  Premier  (Mr.  Daxis)  is 
not  the  member's  heavenly  father. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Would  he  repeat  that? 


MARCH  29,  1974 


545 


Mr.  Lawlor:  No,  I  won't. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  believe  in  a  heavenly 
father. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I  said  the  Premier  is  not  his 
heavenly  father. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  No,  but  he  comes  next. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  That's  pretty  good. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  That  is  something  I  was 
almost  omitting.  One  of  the  most  important 
things  is  to  compliment  our  Premier  for  the 
great  job  he  has  been  doing.  It  is  a  very 
diflBcult  job  and  it  is  very  hard  in  this  day 
and  age  when  people  are  so  unsettled  and 
it  seems  as  though  we  are  all  getting  greedier 
all  the  time.  We  want,  we  want,  we  want. 
Let  us  not  forget  that  the  tax  money  we 
are  working  with  comes  out  of  the  people's 
pockets  and  whatever  we  want  has  to  be 
paid  for  somewhere  along  the  line.  I  think 
we  have  a  Premier  who,  I  feel,  is  running 
this  province  in  a  very  efficient  way. 

I    want    to    congratulate    our    Minister    of 
Education  (Mr.  Wells)  for  the  wonderful  job 
he    did    through    the    difficult    situation    that 
arose  with  the  teachers- 
Mr.  Haggerty:  Which  he  created. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —especially  in  North  York. 
I  am  pleased  that  so  many  teachers  and  school 
boards  got  their  grievances  settled. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  He  needs  a  little  congratula- 
tion. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  felt  that  the  minister  con- 
ducted himself  very  well  through  a  difficult 
job. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  member  must  be  look- 
ing for  a  cabinet  post. 

Mr.   Gilbertson:   Now   I   am   only  a  back- 
bencher- 
Mr.    MacBeth:    He   is   in   the   front  bench 
now. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —but  I  have  been  impressed 
—there  are  certain  things  that  a  cabinet  min- 
ister does  which  will  impress  one,  either  fa- 
vourably or  unfavourablj'- and  I  say  in  this 
particular  case,  the  minister  went  away  up 
in  my  estimation  with  the  way  he  handled 
the  situation. 

Our  government,  from  time  to  time,  will 
have  to  take  stands  and  make  decisions  which 
may  not  be  the  popular  things  to  do  but  are 
the  right  things  to  do.  I  am  pleased  when  a 
member    will    stand    up    and    say,    regardless 


of  what  the  consequences  are,  "I  feel  that  this 
is  the  right  thing  to  do.  Whether  it  is  going 
to  affect  us  adversely  politically  or  not,  we 
are  going  to  do  it  because  it  is  right." 

That  is  the  kind  of  government  that  the 
Conservative  government  has  been. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  They  won't  do  it  again  before 
the  next  election. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  This  is  the  way  we  have 
performed  for  over  30  years.  I  believe  that 
the  people  of  Ontario  are  convinced  that  we 
are  doing  a  good  job.  How  do  we  prove  it? 
Because  we  have  been  re-elected. 

An  hon.  member:  Year  after  year. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  government  is  beginning 
to  wind  down  a  bit  now. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  going  to  go  the  other 
way. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I'm  sure  there  are  enough 
sensible  people  in  Ontario  who  know  when 
the  government  is  doing  a  good  job  and  when 
it  is  not. 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  is  right. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  government  just  spends 
more  money  than  anybody  else;  that's  all. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  just  happened  to  notice 
across  the  way  the  member  for  Armourdale 
(Mr.  Carton),  who  has  decided  that  he  is  not 
going  to  continue  in  politics  too  much  longer. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Neither  will 
the  member  for  Algoma. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  must  say  that  I  must  con- 
gratulate the  former  Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications  for  the  fine  job  that 
he  was  doing  in  his  department. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  If  only  the  government  had 
recognized  it. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  There  is  one  thing  that  I 
am  pleased  about  and  I'll  never  forget  it.  On 
that  bridge  going  across  to  St.  Joseph  Island 
there  is  a  beautiful  bronze  plaque  and  it 
has  on  it  "the  Hon.  Gordon  Carton  and  MPP 
Bemt  Gilbertson." 

Mr.  Good:  Which  is  more  important? 

Mr.  Lawlor:  We'll  put  a  wreath  up  under 


Mr.  Gilbertson:  And  that  is  a  monument 
for  years  to  come.  I  thank  the  minister  for 
finding  the  time  to  come  up  and  help  us  to 
celebrate  the  official  opening  of  that  bridge. 


546 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Haggerty:  But  did  the  member  for 
Armourdale  get  the  oil  painting  in  his  ofiRce? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  There  will  be  projects  that 
are  similar  to  that  and  we'll  continue  to  do 
these  kinds  of  things  for  the  people  of  the 
north. 

So,  Mr.  Speaker,  without  any  further  ado, 
I  think  I'll  just  take  my  seat  and  thank  you— 

An  hon.  member:  Tell  us  about  the  Algoma 
Central  Railway. 

Mr.  Good:  That's  a  good  idea. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —for  this  opportunity  to 
speak  this  morning. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Waterloo 
North. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  seems  I  always  get  the 
tough  acts  to  follow.  When  I  made  my  maiden 
speech  I  had  to  follow  the  member  for  High 
Park  (Mr.  Shulman)  back  about  seven  years 
ago.  Today  it  is  the  member  for  Algoma  (Mr. 
Gilbertson).  I  don't  know  which  is  the  worse. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Parrott  (Oxford):  Does  the  mem- 
ber ever  think  of  himself  as  a  loser? 

Mr.  Good:  There  are  just  three  things,  Mr. 
Speaker,  about  which  I  would  hke  to  speak. 
First  of  all,  I  would  like  to  say  something 
regarding  one  aspect  of  the  second  report  of 
the  Ontario  conmiission  on  the  Legislature. 

There  is  only  one  section  of  this  second 
report  about  which  I  would  hke  to  say  a  few 
words,  and  that  deals  with  services  for  the 
caucuses.  The  commission  says  it  recognizes: 
The  reahty  that  there  could  be  no  prac- 
tical way  of  equalizing  the  resources  avail- 
able to  a  government  caucus  with  that  of 
an  opposition  caucus.  [It  goes  on  to  say]  In 
the  determining  of  allocations  of  resources 
between  government  and  opposition,  this 
allocation  should  not  preclude  however, 
steps  being  taken  which  at  least  create  a 
greater  equity  in  the  matter  of  resoiu-ces. 
It  is  the  commission's  conclusion,  based 
upon  an  analysis  of  the  present  caucus 
grants,  that  they  are  deficient  in  providing 
opposition  parties  with  adequate  funds  re- 
lating to  their  functional  requirements.  It 
could  be  said  that  the  present  grants  allow 
the  opposition  parties  to  employ  secretarial 
help  for  members,  that  they  allow  some 
administrative  staff  but  do  not  provide  a 
suflBcient  range  of  services. 

The  funds  allow  the  caucuses  to  estabhsh 
some  research  facilities  but  not  of  suflBcient 
depth  and  professional  competence  and  that 


the  grants  enable  the  opposition  parties  to 
offer  some  communications  facilities  to  their 
members  but  of  a  primitive  and  restrictive 
nature  and  inferior  to  that  enjoyed  by  gov- 
ernment members. 

Presently,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  you  know,  Mr. 
Speaker  allows  $11,000  per  member  for  each 
of  the  opposition  parties  for  all  members' 
services,  plus  a  fixed'  fee  to  run  a  Iteader's 
oflfice.  And  I  might  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
fixed  fee  to  run  the  leader's  oflBce  is  about 
comparable  to  one  public  relations  oflBcer's 
salary  in  the  Premier's  department. 

The  commission  believes,  however,  that  the 
opposition  parties  in  the  Legislature  should 
have  a  research  capability  considerably 
greater  than  that  which  they  presently  man- 
age to  achieve  out  of  their  caucus  allotment. 
The  commission  states: 

We  reach  this  conclusion  not  simply  be- 
cause the  parties  themselves  have  earnestly 
argued  it,  but  because  we  believe  it  is  in 
the  interests  of  the  legislative  process  and 
the  general  pubhc  interest  that  the  research 
capacity  of  opposition  members  be  im- 
proved. 

It  is  unfortimate,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  mem- 
bers' allowances  must  be  reduced  suflBciently 
to  run  other  services— that  is  research  facil- 
ities, as  well  as  other  administrative  personnel. 

Present  research  budgets  for  the  opposition 
parties  run  between  $40,000  and  $50,000.  I 
am  sure  it  is  obvious  to  all  that,  of  necessity, 
opposition  parties'  research  budgets  must  be 
considerably  higher  than  that  of  the  govern- 
ment members'  caucus  because,  as  the  com- 
mission states,  the  government  caucus  has 
available  to  it  the  research  resources  of  the 
ministry  wherever  reasonably  required,  just  as 
it  enjoys  the  value  of  ministerial  briefings 
supported  by  the  experts  or  consultants  who 
have  been  employed  in  the  process.  This, 
then,  results  in  the  amovmt  of  information 
available  to  government  members  being  more 
or  less  equal  to  their  need  for  it.  It  is  imder- 
standable  that  opposition  members  lack  such 
access,  and,  indeed,  it  would  be  questionable 
if  they  would  wish  it,  even  if  it  were  avail- 
able. 

"It  is  surely  basic  to  their  function,"  the 
commission  states,  "that  they  have  indepen- 
dent resources  which,  if  unequal  in  number, 
need  not  lack  in  quality." 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  commission  pro- 
posed that  each  of  the  opposition  cauciises  be 
provided  with  funds  specifically  designated 
for  the  purpose  of  improving  their  research 
capability: 


MARCH  29,  1974 


547 


We  would  recommend  that  the  caucus  of 
the  official  opposition  be  given,  for  research 
purposes,  an  annual  budget  of  $125,000, 
and  the  NDP  caucus  be  given  an  annual 
budget  of  $90,000  for  comparable  piuposes 
in  the  research  field. 

While  I  am  not  here  to  justify  or  argue  the 
specific  amounts  recommended  by  the  com- 
mission, I  think  it  must  be  obvious  to  the 
cabinet  and  to  government  that  if  the  opposi- 
tion parties  to  the  provincial  Legislature  are 
to  fulfill  the  purposes  for  which  they  have 
been  elected,  increases  in  the  research  grants 
must  be  made  as  soon  as  possible. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  unacceptable  to  us,  as 
members  of  an  opposition  caucus,  and  I  am 
sure  it  would  be  unacceptable  to  the  electors 
of  the  Province  of  Ontario,  that  in  order  to 
provide  proper  research  facilities  we  must 
reduce  our  secretarial  allowance  by  a  sub- 
stantial amount.  I  make  this  plea  as  the 
caucus  member  of  the  Liberal  Party  respon- 
sible for  the  organization  and  operation  of 
our  research  department.  While  there  are 
other  equally  important  and  valuable  recom- 
mendations in  the  second  report  of  the  On- 
tario commission  on  the  Legislature,  I  feel 
that  the  expansion  of  research  facilities  by 
opposition  caucuses  must  rank  high  in  priority 
for  government  action. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  make  short 
reference  in  my  speech  as  well  to  the  matter 
of  hydro  transmission  lines  across  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario. 

As  most  of  us  now  know,  Ontario  Hydro 
is  in  the  midst  of  planning  a  new  transmis- 
sion system  across  southern  Ontario  which 
will  eventually  connect  to  northern  Ontario. 
This  system  will  be  completed  by  1978  and 
will  have  a  tremendous  environmental  impact 
on  the  areas  through  which  it  passes.  It  will 
include  a  transmission  corridor  running  from 
Lennox,  near  Kingston,  on  the  east  to  the 
Hamilton  area  on  the  west.  From  this  cor- 
ridor lines  connect  to  generating  stations  at 
Nanticoke  and  Bruce,  to  consumption  areas  in 
the  vicinity  of  London  and  Kitchener,  and 
to  northern  Ontario.  This  power  transmission 
system  will  interconnect  with  the  major  gen- 
erating stations  and  centres  of  consumption 
and  also  with  power  systems  of  Quebec, 
Manitoba,  New  York  and  Michigan. 

One  can  scarcely  resdize  the  seriousness 
of  this  tremendous  project.  One  needs  only 
to  look  at  a  map  of  the  existing  power  cor- 
ridors to  realize  that  Ontario  Hydro's  trans- 
mission lines  always  went  the  shortest  route 
between  two  points  that  were  to  be  con- 
nected. 


This  method  of  construction,  of  course,  is 
no  longer  good  enough.  It  is  only  about  six 
years  ago  that  Ontario  Hydro  first  realized 
that  transmission  lines  could  be  bent  and  be- 
cause of  their  environmental  impact,  Mr. 
Speaker,  they  must  be  bent  and  made  to  go 
through  areas  where  they  will  do  the  least 
amount  of  damage— visual,  ecological  and 
physical— to  agricultural  areas. 

The  main  emphasis  regarding  finding  a 
suitable  route  has  been  that  from  Nanticoke 
to  Pickering.  The  environmental  assessment 
impact  of  this  route  has  been  under  study 
for  some  time  by  Dr.  O.  M.  Solandt  who 
headed  a  royal  commission  to  inquire  into  the 
best  possible  route  for  this  transmission  line. 
His  report  was  tabled  just  a  few  weeks  ago 
in  the  Legislature  and  he  does  in  fact  recom- 
mend a  considerably  different  route  from  that 
which  was  the  choice  of  Hydro.  He  has,  as 
we  ail  had  hoped,  recommended  the  passage 
of  the  line  through  a  great  deal  of  the  park- 
way belt  area. 

Other  routes,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  particularly 
the  Bradley  junction  to  Georgetown  route, 
have  not  been  so  favourably  designated  and 
the  environmental  studies  have  been  of  an 
in-house  nature  done  by  Hydro  itself.  The 
impact  and  effect  of  this  route  in  Hydro's 
procedures  thus  far  were  well  documented  the 
other  day  by  the  member  for  Huron-Bruce 
(Mr.  Gaunt). 

The  inadequacies  of  existing  procedures  is 
alarming.  One  finds  many  discrepancies  in 
their  maps  which  show  potential  routes  for 
transmission  lines. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  need  for  a  permanent  en- 
vironmental impact  assessment  body  is  most 
apparent,  especially  when  one  considers  these 
huge  hydro  corridors  of  500,  600  and  700  ft 
wide,  cutting  across  our  province  from  one 
end  to  the  other,  connected  by  interconnect- 
ing Unks. 

In  1971,  that's  over  three  years  ago,  the 
Environmental  Protection  Act  was  passed  and 
provision  was  made  for  a  similar  agency 
called  an  environmental  council.  Again,  in 
1973  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  the  gov- 
ernment said  that  it  would  place  before  us 
"legislation  to  establish  a  permanent  agency 
for  environmental  protection,  having  the  re- 
sponsibility for  a  comprehensive  system  of 
assessment  and  evaluation  of  the  environ- 
mental significance  of  activities  of  ministries 
of  the  government,  utilities,  projects  funded 
in  part  by  the  government  and  related  activi- 
ties in  the  private  sector  which  have  compar- 
able environmental  implications." 


548 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


This,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  a  fine-sounding 
phrase,  but  once  again  the  government  only 
talks  about  protecting  the  environment  and 
has  done  notliing  with  public  involvement  up 
to  this  present  time. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  very  true. 

Mr.  Cood:  To  add  insxilt  to  injury,  Mr. 
Speaker,  again  this  year  the  Throne  Speech 
said  we  will  be  asked  to  approve  legislation 
which  will  require  an  environmental  assess- 
ment of  major  new  development  projects. 
How  this  government  can  come  before  the 
people  three  times  in  four  years  with 
promises  of  this  nature  still  to  be  fulfilled 
is  beyond  belief.  The  Premier  (Mr.  Davis), 
indicated  in  the  Legislature  a  few  weeks  ago 
that  the  Bradley-Georgetown  transmission  line 
would  not  come  under  study  by  any  outside 
environmental  body;  that  the  Amprior  dam 
project  would  be  excluded  from  independent 
environmental  impact  assessment.  So  only  the 
Solandt  commission  has  had  any  independent 
influence  on  Hydro's  actions  thus  far  in  this 
great,  important  corridor  grid  that  it  is 
planning,  for   completion   by    1978. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  just  not  good  enough. 
The  least  that  the  people  of  Ontario  should 
expect  and  should  receive  is  that  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  would  take  a  look  at 
the  environmental  studies  done  by  Hydro  on 
the  Georgetown-Bradley  route.  The  farmers 
and  conservationists  alike  are  convinced  that 
the  proposed  routes  are  not  being  designed 
in  the  best  possible  maimer  to  conserve  our 
good  farmland. 

As  an  example  the  proposal  for  a  connect- 
ing link  between  the  transformer  station 
marked  as  No.  60  and  the  Detweiler  trans- 
former station  cuts  in  a  straight  line  through 
the  best  farming  land  in  Wellesley  township. 
While  this  is  just  one  proposal  it  is  incon- 
ceivable to  me  that  Hydro  should  ever  even 
consider  such  a  route.  As  I  said  before,  Mr. 
Speaker,  Ontario  Hydro  is  a  novice  at  de- 
signing transmission  lines  which  will  least 
affect  our  environment.  It  was  not  until  six 
years  ago  at  the  Six  Nations  Indian  Reserve 
that  it  first  met  a  group  of  people  who  said, 
"You  cannot  put  your  line  across  our  prop- 
erty." That  line  was  the  first  one  that  had 
to  be  bent. 

I  would  most  sincerely  request,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  Ministry  of  the  Environ- 
ment take  immediate  steps  to  review  and, 
where  necessary,  amend  the  work  that  has 
already  been  done  in  the  proposal  through 
the   study  area,   Bradley  to  Georgetown. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  third  area  about  which 
I  would  like  to  speak  is  that  of  the  housing 


crisis    in    the    Province    of    Ontario    at    the 
present  time. 

Not  many  years  ago  about  85  per  cent  of 
the  people  in  the  cities  of  Waterloo  and 
Kitchener  owned  their  own  homes.  Now, 
of  course,  this  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  These 
municipalities  had,  perhaps,  the  highest  per- 
centage of  home  ownerships  of  anywhere  in 
the  province.  Ownership  of  a  home  is  a 
social  benefit  which  should  be  available  to 
any  working  person  who  so  desires  and,  of 
course,  we  know  there  are  many  reasons 
why  this  is  no  longer  possible. 

Mr.   F.   Laughren   (Nickel   Belt):   Yes.   like 
the    federal    government    refusing    to    make 
available- 
Mr.  Good:  Cost  is  now  prohibitive  except 
for  persons  with  above-average  incomes. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Good:  A  single-family  home  is  for 
many,  I  think,  the  most  desirable  type  of 
accommodation.  A  rec*ent  survey  of  the 
social  planning  council  of  Metro  Toronto 
said- 
Mr.  Laughren:  Talk  about  hypocrisy— the 
Liberal  Party  talking  about  housing  problems. 
How  ridiculous!  Let  them  freeze  the  mort- 
gage rate  at  six  per  cent  if  they  are  so  con- 
cerned. 

Mr.  Good:  —that  67  per  cent  of  persons 
living  in  highrise— 

Interjections   by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Good:  Do  the  members  want  to  listen 
for  a  while? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  The  NDP 
voted  for  it  this  week  in  the  House  of 
Commons. 

Mr.  Good:  A  single-family  home,  Mr. 
Speaker,  for  many  is  the  most  desirable 
type  of  accommodation.  Recent  surveys  of 
the  social  planning  council  of  Metro  Toronto 
said  that  67  per  cent  of  persons  living  in 
highrises  at  present  had  grown  up  in  the 
homes  owned  by  their  families. 

Mr.  Laughren:  None  of  them  is  going  to 
vote  Liberal. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  They 
won't  vote  for  characters  like  the  member 
anyway. 

Mr.  Good:  People  have  been  forced  into 
highrises  because  other  types  of  suitable  hous- 
ing are  simply  not  available.  In  the  survey 
57.5  per  cent  of  persons  wanted  to  move  out 
of  highrise  accommodation  within  two  >ears, 


MARCH  29,  1974 


549 


they  hoped.  The  most  frequent  reason  given 
for  having  to  stay  in  highrise  was  because 
it  was  the  best  type  of  accommodation  they 
could  afford. 

In  this  same  survey  75  per  cent  of  the 
famihes  agreed  that  the  family  is  under  more 
stress  and  there  are  more  problems  concern- 
ing children,  they  felt,  while  living  in  high- 
rise  accommodation  and  apartment  accommo- 
dation than  there  would  be  if  they  were  liv- 
ing in  their  own  single,  detached,  family 
home.  Of  those  people  wishing  to  vacate  high- 
rise— or  hoping  to— within  the  next  two  years, 
82.5  per  cent  said  they  would  prefer  a  single- 
family  detached  house  and  this  is  especially 
true  among  families  where  there  were  chil- 
dren. 

The  report  reads  as  follows  regarding  the 
highrise  environment  for  children:  One  of  the 
most  persistent  criticisms  of  the  highrise  en- 
vironment is  its  alleged  unsuitability  for  chil- 
dren. This  aspect  of  the  common  stereotype 
of  apartment  living  was  confirmed  to  some 
extent  by  the  respondents.  A  majority  of 
respondents  indicated  that  their  aoility  to 
supervise  their  children  was  not  affected  by 
living  in  an  apartment  particularly,  and  half 
said  that  the  building  created  no  difficulties 
for  their  children  in  their  present  life-style. 
However,  the  restrictions  on  children's  noisy 
activity;  the  feeling  that  children  would  be 
freer  and  less  restricted  in  a  single  family 
home;  the  worry  about  their  children's  safe- 
ty; the  negative  attitudes  towards  raising 
children  in  apartments;  the  suggestion  that 
children's  facilities  and  programmes  would 
improve  the  building  for  family  living— all 
point  to  a  dissatisfaction  with  the  highrise 
apartment  as  a  setting  for  raising  children. 

The  report,  in  another  section,  indicated 
that  two-thirds  of  pre-school  children  living  in 
highrise  aparments  had  to  play  in  their  own 
unit.  Of  the  children  in  an  older  age  group, 
the  percentage  was  somewhat  less,  about  50 
per  cent. 

There  are  many  social  benefits,  I  feel,  for 
living  in  a  single-family  home.  Community  in- 
terest is  much  greater.  It  has  been  shown  that 
people  living  in  highrise  apartments  live  more 
to  themselves.  There's  no  fraternization  among 
people  living  in  highrise  apartments  such  as 
exists  with  people  living  in  single-family 
homes. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  The  mem- 
ber obviously  has  never  been  to  St.  James 
Town. 

Mr.  Good:  It  has  been  shown  by  many 
surve>s  that  many  people  living  in  highrise 
apartments  want  to  retain  their  own  privacy. 


a  desire  which  does  not  exist  among  those  liv- 
ing in  neighbourhoods. 

Open  space  is  something  which  is  very 
important  when  we  talk  about  children.  The 
report  states  as  follows: 

Supplementary  interviews  reflected  the 
opinions  generally  current  in  the  commu- 
nity that  living  in  highrise  apartments  can 
be  harmful  to  social  and  family  life.  The 
image  of  the  isolated  and  alienated  apart- 
ment dweller,  with  children  physically  and 
emotionally  affected  by  an  unnatural  life- 
style, is  commonly  held  by  both  profes- 
sional and  lay  people  and  voiced  in  journals 
and  the  daily  press. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  that  everyone  cannot  and 
does  not  want  to  live  in  a  single-family  home. 
As  the  situation  now  is,  those  who  wish  to 
live  in  a  single-family  home  can't  afford  it. 

Apart  from  the  social  benefits,  which  I  per- 
sonally and  many  other  agree  do  accrue  to  a 
person  living  in  other  than  highrise  apart- 
ments, there  are  other  benefits  which  are  of 
an  economic  nature.  While  it  is  true  that  one 
can  scarcely  afford  to  buy  a  home,  I  believe 
it  is  equally  true  that  one  can  scarcely  afford 
not  to  be  buying  a  home.  For  many  people, 
the  only  heldge  they  can  have  against  infla- 
tion is  the  ownership  of  a  home. 

Home  ownership  represents  a  combination 
of  rent  and  savings  plus  an  increase  in  the 
equity  position  that  that  owner  will  enjoy  as 
values  rise.  Employees  moving  from  one  city 
to  another  can  hardly  afford  not  to  have  a 
house  to  sell  if  they  wish  to  buy  one  in  a 
new  location.  The  unfortunate  condition 
which  exists  here,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  wide 
disparity  in  housing  costs  from  one  part  of 
the  country  to  another. 

A  report  recently  released  showed  that  it 
was  almost  impossible  for  a  person  who  was 
transferred  to  Metropolitan  Toronto,  say,  from 
Saskatoon  or  some  other  smaller  community, 
to  begin  to  buy  a  house  when  he  arrived  in 
Toronto  with  the  equity  position  he  had  in 
his  house   in  the  smaller  commimity. 

We  have  all  seen  the  ads  of  a  few  years 
ago,  reading:  "Own  a  piece  of  Canada."  Well, 
it's  a  very  appealing  slogan;  I  think  it's  some- 
thing everyone  would  like  to  do  but  very 
few  people  can  afford  to  do.  It  warms  the 
heart  of  any  person  who  has  never  enjoyed 
that  position.  I  think  it  should  be  our  right, 
here  in  Ontario,  for  more  people  to  own  a 
piece  of  Ontario. 

I  think  a  personal  residence  is  the  one 
piece  of  property  that  is  the  most  desirable 
and  it  is  the  one  asset  that  a  person 
can  have  legitimately.  It  provides  a  roof  over 


550 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


his  head.  It  provides  him  with  a  hedge 
against  the  inflation  that  is  going  to  take 
place.  It's  just  very  unfortunate,  in  my  view, 
that  this  should  be  the  preserve  of  the 
wealthy.  I  feel  that  more,  if  not  all  people 
should  reap  the  benefits  of  prosperity  and 
have  at  least  one  buffer  against  inflation 
which  is  going  on. 

I  would  like  to  refer,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  an 
article  of  March  28,  1974  in  the  Kitchener- 
Waterloo  Record.  It  says: 

Pity  the  family  with  three  or  four  chil- 
dren in  the  market  for  a  two-  or  three- 
bedroom  single  family  dwelling.  Their  hor- 
ror reading  these  days  consists  of  scanning 
the  properties  for  sale  in  the  Record  want 
ads.  In  70  per  cent  of  the  cases  new 
houses  are  beyond  their  financial  reach. 
Those  who  waited  for  prices  to  drop  or 
wanted  to  save  a  little  more  before  plunk- 
ing their  nest  eggs  as  a  down  payment 
for  a  house  were  horrified  to  learn  that 
housing  in  this  area  [this  is  the  Kitchener- 
Waterloo  area]  went  up  28  per  cent  in  12 
months. 

In  some  local  cases,  single-family  dwell- 
ings rose  50  per  cent.  And  there's  more 
to  come.  Real  estate  people  and  house 
builders  say  single-family  dwellings  and 
semi-detached  houses  will  likely  rise  be- 
tween 10  and  15  per  cent  again  this  year. 

There  are  a  number  of  reasons  why 
house  prices  have  been  skyrocketing  in  only 
one  year.  They  include  the  lack  of  ser- 
viced land,  lengthy  delays  and  miles  of 
red  tape  required  in  subdivision  approval, 
rising  costs  of  lots,  material  and  labour. 

Among  the  greatest  contributing  factors, 
according  to  Joseph  Silaschi,  president  of 
Reliable  Construction,  a  house  building 
company,  are  the  shortage  of  serviced  land 
and  the  time  required  to  register  a  sub- 
division plan.  The  developer  has  to  pay 
additional  interest  and  pay  his  staffs.  This 
all  adds  to  final  cost  of  lots  and  buildings. 
Mr.  Silaschi's  company  is  now  building 
homes  in  Guelph,  and  since  last  September 
he  says  the  price  of  a  lot  has  risen  $4,200 
to  $18,800  now  for  a  50  by  100  ft  lot. 

He  said  Kitchener- Waterloo's  scheme  to 
slow  down  residential  growth  by  failing  to 
expand  sewage  treatment  facilities  and 
holding  up  subdivision  is  hurting  a  lot  of 
small  people.  Surely  the  people  in  au- 
thority knew  five  years  ago  that  Kitchener- 
Waterloo  would  grow  and  need  additional 
sewage  facilities.  Why  weren't  plans  made 
at  that  time? 


Well,  this  is  something  I'd  like  to  get  to  a 

little  later. 

John  F.  Halsworth,  president  of  the  KW 
Housing  and  Urban  Development  Associa- 
tion, describes  the  red  tape  and  delays  in 
registering  plans  of  subdivisions  today  as 
"phenomenal."  Dutchman  Homes,  he  said, 
applied  for  registration  of  its  125-acre  Lau- 
rentian  Hills  single-family,  three-  and  four- 
bedroom  home  subdivision  on  Ottawa  St., 
south  of  Westmount  Rd.,  four  years  ago. 
The  stamp  of  approval  finally  came,  and 
the  company  wfll  be  starting  to  put  up 
$35,000  to  $50,000  homes  this  year.  The 
longer  the  delays  the  more  the  homes  will 
cost. 

Mr.  Halsworth  and  others  in  the  house 
building  and  real  estate  business  say  the 
fastest  way  to  make  a  dollar  these  days  is 
to  buy  any  kind  of  single-family  home  and 
turn  around  and  sell  it  the  next  day. 

And  he  gives  a  few  examples,  and  this  is 
something  I'd  hke  to  make  some  reference  to 
here;  the  matter  of  speculating  on  residential 
property,  both  before  and  after  the  houses 
are  built. 

A  three-bedroom  home  with  fireplace  and 
garage  in  Cambridge  was  recently  sold  by 
the  builder  for  $34,000.  The  buyer  didn't 
even  bother  moving  in.  He  listed  it,  and  five 
days  later  sold  it  for  $46,900. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Where's 
the  capital  gains  tax? 

Mr.  Good:  He  said  there  are  dozens  of 
examples  of  this  happening  all  over  the 
Kitchener-Waterloo  and  Guelph-Cambridge 
area.  People  themselves  are  inflating  house 
prices.  It's  not  caused  by  the  builder.  The 
average  Joe  is  a  speculator  today. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  something  that  has 
been  going  on  in  our  area,  and  you  being  a 
resident  of  the  Waterloo  region  are  as  well 
aware  of  it  as  I  am. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Don't  bring  liim  into  the 
politics  of  it,  he's  the  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): No  slum  landlord. 

Mr.  Good:  There  is  much  frustration  among 
the  municipalities  who  tried  to  provide  low- 
cost  housing  in  the  private  sector  b\  special 
agreements  with  developers.  These  are  called 
special  development  homes. 

Kitchener  and  Elmira  have  both  l)een 
quite  successful  in  building  these  de\elop- 
ment  homes.  They  will  draw  up  an   agree- 


MARCH  29,  1974 


551 


ment  with  the  developer  and  say  that  in  his 
plan  of  subdivision  they  want  him  to  provide 

I  a  certain  number  of  40-ft  lots  with  somewhat 
1%  fewer  services  and  build  houses— and  with 
f^  the  maximum  sale  price  of  the  houses  to  be 
established  before  the  agreement  was  reached. 
'This  operated  quite  satisfactorily  up  imtil 
the  past  year,  but  since  there  is  such  an 
extreme  housing  crunch  at  the  present  time 
we  find  that  people  are  buying  these  houses 
on  speculation,  never  moving  in  and  reselling 
them  within  a  matter  of  daysi  and  making 
profits  of  $5,000  to  $10,000. 

One  home  on  Strathcona  Cres.  in  Kitchener 
—a  special  development  home  built  on  a 
smaller  lot  and  at  a  fixed  maximum  price- 
was  sold  for  $24,480  by  the  builder.  It  was 
immediately  resold  for  $35,000.  Two  other 
units  in  Forest  Heights  which  were  special 
development  homes  were  sold  by  the  builder 
for  $22,100  and  resold  shortly  after,  one  at 
$27,700  and  the  other  one  for  $27,900. 

I  understand  the  city  of  Kitchener  is  bring- 
ing in  a  private  bill  which,  hopefully,  can  stop 
this  practice  and  make  some  claim  on  that 
property  so  that  the  person  buying  it  is  buy- 
ing it  as  a  bona  fide  resident  of  that  home. 

Ontario  Housing  Corp.,  I  understand,  is  the 
only  agency  at  the  present  time  which  can 
have  this  particular  guarantee  when  they  sell 
a  house.  I  understand  that  some  loophole  has 
even  been  found  around  their  hold  on  that 
property.  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  it's  just  un- 
acceptable that  there  shoidd  be  ways  by 
which  people  can  speculate  on  private  resi- 
dences when  we  are  in  such  an  emergency 
situation,  especially  in  our  low-cost  housing. 

It  was  about  a  little  more  than  a  year  ago 
when  the  housing  prices  in  Toronto  were  first 
brought  to  my  attention.  A  young  lawyer, 
who   happens  to   work  in   government,   told 


Mr.  Cassidy:  Where  has  thei  member  been 
since  1967?  It  has  been  a  problem  all  that 
time. 

Mr.  Good:  He  told  me  how  bad  the  situa- 
tion was  in  Toronto.  When  a  house  was 
advertised  for  $49,900,  he  and  his  wife  went 
out  to  look  at  it.  They  took  a  look  at  it  and 
said  that  they  would  like  to  make  an  offer. 
The  realtor  suggested  to  them  that  he  thought 
their  bid  should  be  about  $52,000  or  $52,500, 
then  they  might  have  a  chance  to  get  it. 

He  related  to  me  that  he  could  scarcely 
believe  that  this  is  what  was  going  on.  If  you 
want  to  bid  on  a  house  you  don't  bid  on  it 
at  the  advertised'  price,  or  below  the  adver- 
tised price— which  was  normal  for  many  years. 


Now  you  have  to  bid  somewhat  above  the 
advertised'  price  to  even  have  a  hope  of 
getting  it. 

He  put  in  a  bid,  I  think,  for  $52,500,  but 
the  house  was  sold  for  $54,500  and,  un- 
fortunately, he  didn't  get  it. 

The  cause  of  this  type  of  situation  which 
now  exists  in  the  "twin  city"  is  very  apparent. 
It's  simply  a  lack  of  housing.  Instead  of  the 
situation  which  existed  a  few  years  ago  in  my 
own  area  where  you  had  two  or  three  houses 
for  every  buyer,  you  now  have  three  or  four 
buyers  for  every  house  that's  available  on  the 
market.  People  are  desperate.  And,  of  course, 
they  are  most  desperate  in  the  city  of  Toronto. 
But  this  spill-over  has  now  come  into  the 
Kitchener- Waterloo  area. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  Peel  Village  develop- 
ment in  the  city  of  Cambridge,  I  understand 
that  70  per  cent  of  the  sales  in  that  area  are 
to  persons  who  are  working  in  Metropolitan 
Toronto.  The  crunch  is  coming  in  the 
Kitchener- Waterloo  area  for  several  reasons. 
First  of  all,  it  is  estimated  presently  that 
homes  in  the  Kitchener-Waterloo  region  are 
at  least  $10,000  below  a  comparable  home  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto.  Many  people  say  that 
the  difference  is  closer  to  $15,000. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Toronto-centred^  region 
plan,  in  my  view,  was  a  farce.  It  has  done 
nothing  for  the  decentralization  of  popula- 
tion from  Metro.  It  has  only  been  talk,  cheap 
government  talk,  and  hasn't  done  one  thing  to 
take  the  housing  squeeze  off  Metropolitan 
Toronto.  And  those  of  us  in  the  outlying 
areas  are  now  feeling  the  results  of  the  Metro 
housing  squeeze,  which  has  been  on  for  some 
years. 

The  Kitchener-Waterloo  area  was  desig- 
nated in  the  Toronto-centred  region  plan  as  a 
normal  slow  growth  area;  nothing  would  be 
done  to  stimulate  the  growth  in  the  Kitchener- 
Waterloo  area  because  it  presently  was  big 
enough.  We  were  told  the  K-W  area  was  not 
going  to  be  a  dormitory  community  for  Metro- 
politan Toronto.  However,  there  has  been  no 
effective  government  action  to  do  anything 
about  relieving  the  pressures  here,  so  con- 
sequently we  in  the  Waterloo  region  are  now 
very  quickly  becoming  a  dormitory  community 
for  Metropolitan  Toronto,  and  with  that  situa- 
tion a  whole  new  set  of  problems  has  de- 
veloped. 

The  Cedarwood'  development  in  North 
Pickering  is  certainly  not  an  answer  to  taking 
the  expansion  off  Metropohtan  Toronto.  It 
will  just  expand  Metropolitan  Toronto,  be- 
cause it  is  simply  an  attachment  to  one  side 
of  it. 


552 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  idea  was  good,  but  the  OHC  land 
assemblage  generally  has  not  been  doing  the 
job  of  providing  housing.  We  look  at  the 
3,000  acres  of  farm  land  that  was  assembled 
in  Waterloo  region.  The  land,  has  been 
assembled:  for  over  five  years.  There  hasn't 
been  one  house  built.  There  has  been  three- 
quarters  of  a  million  dollars  spent  on  a  study 
which  would  decide  what  was  to  be  done 
with  the  land,  but  as  yet  all  that  has  been 
accomplished  is  that  the  assembly  of  that  land 
has  driven  up  the  price  of  adjacent  land. 

I  believe  the  government  has  its  priorities 
in  the  wrong  place.  There  is  a  crying  and 
desperate  need  for  serviced  land.  Serviced 
land  in  Ontario  is  more  important  than  proj- 
ects like  Maple  Mountain.  It  is  more  im- 
portant than  Ontario  Place  and  more  im- 
portant than  large  new  government  oflBces.  If 
we  are  going  to  adequately  provide  housing 
for  the  people  in  Ontario,  if  we  are  going 
to  give  the  average  working  person  in  On- 
tario the  opportunity  to  own  a  piece  of 
Ontario,  to  have  a  little  equity  in  the  prov- 
ince, to  have  a  little  hedge  against  inflation, 
we  have  got  to  give  an  opportunity  to  the 
average  working  person  to  be  able  to  buy 
his  own  house.  If  the  $9  million  that  was 
spent  on  the  OHC's  land  assembly  in  Water- 
loo region  five  years  ago  had  been  used  to 
provide  services  we  would  not  be  in  our 
present  position. 

This,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  an  emergency  situ- 
ation. Any  price  can  be  asked  for  a  com- 
modity that  is  in  short  supply.  Speculation 
on  residential  houses  is  unacceptable.  Specu- 
lation on  residential  land  is  unacceptable  in 
our  present  emergency  situation.  I  feel  that 
those  who  develop  land  and  provide  services 
need  to  hold  land.  They  certainly  can't  oper- 
ate without  an  inventory  of  land. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Why  doesn't  the  member  get 
his  buddies  to  get  a  tax  on  in  Ottawa? 

Mr.  Good:  My  quarrel  is  with  the  turn- 
over of  land,  the  shuffling  of  paper,  and  the 
passage  of  money  before  development  takes 
place.  This  must  be  controlled,  either  by  the 
employment  of  a  windfall  tax  or  through  a 
special  classification  regarding  property  taxes, 
to  discourage  sales  except  by  bona  fide  farm- 
ers to  people  who  will  develop  and  provide 
houses.  There  are  areas,  Mr.  Speaker,  _in 
southern  Ontario  wTiich  I  think  could  and 
should  be  used  for  residential  development. 
There  are  still  areas  that  have  never  been 
touched  by  a  plough. 

I  don't  think  we  have  to  continue  to  de- 
velop our  cities,  which  are  generally  situated 


in  the  best  farming  land  witliin  the  province. 
The  government  must  take  immediate  action 
to  preserve  our  farm  land  and  promote  de- 
velopment areas  in  other  than  class  1  and 
class  2  agricultural  land.  The  present  method 
of  providing  services  is  unacceptable.  The 
credit  of  the  province  must  be  what  is  at  stake 
to  provide  service,  and  services  can  only  be 
provided  if  the  province  is  ready  to  infuse 
large  sums  of  provincial  money  into  the  pro- 
vision of  services.  There  has  to  be  control  on 
the  low-price  residential  housing  so  that 
speculation  in  low-price  residential  housing 
will  cease  and  so  that  the  people  of  Ontario 
can  have  their  rightful  position— that  is,  of 
owning  their  own  home  or  owning  a  piece  of 
Ontario. 

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

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  want  to  talk  about  hous- 
ing as  well  and  I  will  wind  up  this  portion 
of  my  speech  by  talking  a  bit  about  some  of 
the  things  that  we  consider  should  be  done. 
I  would  say  to  the  member  who  has  just 
spoken  that  it  surprises  and  alarms  me  that 
he  has  only  recently  become  aware  of  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  housing  problem  in  Metro 
Toronto  and  other  parts  of  the  province. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Where 
was  the  member  in  1968? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  In  1968?  In  1968  I  was  in 
Ottawa  trying  to  get  a  New  Democrat  elected. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  He  didn't  say  that. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Well,  he  says  he  just  learned 
about  it.  Secondly,  his  party  in  Ottawa  has 
got  taxing  powers  which  would  allow  the  kind 
of  taxes  that  he  has  just  begun  to  talk  about. 

The  kind  of  dramatic  conversion  that  we 
heard  today  from  the  Liberal  Party,  which  is 
for  the  first  time  advocating  rent  review  or 
rent  control  and  in  the  second  place  is  be- 
girming  now  to  talk  a  much  tougher  line  on 
speculation,  is  welcome  but  is  very  belated, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

May  I  just  start  out  by  congratulating  you 
in  the  regular  way  for  the  manner  in  which 
you  carry  out  your  office,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  think 
we'll  look  forward  with  interest,  not  only  to 
your  work  in  the  House  but  also  to  the  way 
in  which  you  carry  on  your  new  responsi- 
bilities under  the  Camp  commission  report. 
Now  that  you  have  full  control  or  will  be 
gaining,  I  understand,  ful  control  over  the 
legislative  precincts,  I  would  hope  on  behalf 
of  all  members  of  all  parties  in  the  House 


MARCH  29,  1974 


553 


that  that  control  will  shortly  extend  to  the 
restaurant  as  well  as  the  other  facilities  of  this 
particular  building. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Throne  Speech  was  a 
grave  disappointment,  particularly  because  of 
the  degree  of  pre-selling  that  had  been  done 
in  the  area  of  housing.  The  government  in  the 
Throne  Speech,  as  it  wound  up,  had  nothing 
to  offer  and  nothing  to  say.  They  indicated 
that  they  were  complacent  and  that  they  ac- 
cepted the  fact  that  since  housing  was  going 
ahead  at  a  rate  of  over  100,000  per  year  in 
the  province  that  that  was  fine  and  there 
wasn't  any  real  particular  problem.  The  gov- 
ernment reiterated  its  view  that  it  will  trust 
the  private  sector  to  handle  Ontario's  housing 
problems  such  as  they  exist. 

The  private  sector,  the  Throne  Speech 
said,  would  be  encouraged  to  increase  the 
supply  of  serviced  lots  and  to  work  towards 
stabilization  of  land  and  housing  prices.  The 
government  looks  to  the  private  sector  for 
even  greater  co-operation  than  in  the  past 
in  the  construction  of  public  housing  and 
in  involvement  with  rent  supplement  and  in 
greater  community  housing  programmes,  and 
so  on  and  so  forth. 

But  the  gist  of  the  whole  thing  was  that 
this  goverimient  doesn't  believe  there  is  a 
real  housing  problem.  It  doesn't  believe  in 
the  near  crisis  that  was  referred  to  by  the 
Comay  task  force.  It  doesn't  believe  in  the 
reports,  such  as  the  recent  one  that  has  come 
in  from  the  social  planning  council  on  the 
rent  race  and  the  effects  it  is  having  on 
low-income  families,  both  those  on  public 
assistance  and  those  who  are  simply  earning 
a  low  income  because  of  inadequate  incomes 
in  this  city  and  in  this  province.  It  doesn't 
believe  there  is  any  problem. 

The  members  of  the  government  are 
clearly  insulated  from  the  problem.  They 
live  very  comfortably,  I  suppose,  in  houses 
that  they  bought  some  years  ago.  They  en- 
joy handsome  incomes  and  they  are  above 
the  whole  situation.  The  government,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  locked  in,  I  would  maintain, 
with  the  private  development  industry.  It  is 
displaying  an  iniquitous  degree  of  over- 
gratitu-^le  for  the  contributions  that  have 
been  made  to  the  Conservative  Party  in  the 
past  by  the  development  industry  and  it  is 
simnly  incapable  of  taking  any  effective 
action  as  far  as  housing. 

This  came  after  promise  after  promise  that 
indicated  something  bold,  brave  and  new 
would  be  coming  forward  in  the  field  of 
housing.  The  Ottawa  Citizen's  response  to 
that  after  the  Throne  Speech  was,  "Well, 
where  is  it?"  We  are  at  a  loss  to  know  where 


it  is.  We  know  where  the  problems  are  in 
every  major  city  in  the  province,  Mr. 
Speaker,  but  we  simply  don't  know  where 
the  solutions  are  from  this  government. 

It  is  unusual  and  rather  intriguing  that 
iust  shortly  after  the  Throne  Speech  when  the 
new  minister  gave  his  first  address  as  Min- 
ister of  Housing  (Mr.  Handleman)  that  one  of 
his  fellow  speakers  was  the  president  of  a  real 
estate  company  and  the  president  of  a  de- 
velopment company,  Mr.  Brian  Magee,  who  is 
also  president  of  the  Canadian  Real  Estate 
Association.  And  that  fellow  who  is  locked 
right  inside  the  whole  system  is  now  telling 
the  government  that  there  is  a  crisis  and  that 
somebody  had  better  get  his  finger  out  and 
do  something  about  it.  But  the  last  person 
to  act,  the  last  person  to  believe  that  action 
is  necessary,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  new  Minis- 
ter of  Housing. 

It  is  a  housing  price  crisis,  he  says,  in 
the  first  interview  he  gave  to  the  Globe  and 
Mail,  that  organ  of  the  government,  the 
kind  of  Pravda  of  Ontario  society.  It  is  a 
housing  price  crisis  and  it  stems  from 
psychology  and  not  shortages,  says  the  new 
minister.  It  isn't  like  1948,  he  says;  1948 
being,  I  presume,  the  year  that  he  first 
established  with  his  family  and  began  to  look 
for  a  house. 

The  government  isn't  going  to  take  over 
Meridian,  it  isn't  going  to  move  into  the 
development  industry,  but  it's  going  to  do 
something  about  land  speculation.  And  if  one 
wants  to  sum  up  what  the  new  Minister  of 
Housing  intends  to  do  about  speculation  it  goes 
like  this:  He  is  going  to  go  up  and  down  the 
province,  and  every  time  he  can  get  two  or 
three  land  speculators  together,  he  is  going 
to  pull  them  into  a  comer  and  say,  "Boo!" 
He  is  going  to  hope  that  somehow  that  will 
have  an  effect  on  land  speculation. 

That,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  limit  and  the 
end  of  the  programme  that  seems  to  be 
advanced  by  the  minister.  He  says  that  he 
hopes  he  can  scare  people  into  getting  out 
of  land  and  getting  stocks  and  bonds  and 
other  kinds  of  investment  instead  of  into 
land. 

I  think  that  there  are  a  couple  of  funda- 
mental problems  with  that.  One  is  the 
tenaciousness  of  the  land  speculator,  which 
seems  to  me  to  have  been  proven  over  the 
last  25  years  in  Ontario.  We  have  had  these 
creatures  with  us  for  a  long  time,  and  they 
have  been  becoming  particularly  objection- 
able and  particularly  active  over  the  last  two 
or  three  years. 

In  the  second  place,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  hap- 
pen to  be,  as  I  know  some  of  the  members 


554 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


on  that  side  are  aware  and  as  I  am  sure 
the  member  for  High  Park  (Mr.  Shulman)  is 
aware,  in  a  period  of  rampant,  two-figure  in- 
flation—9,  9^,  10  per  cent  a  year.  It's  a  period 
when  people  from  Vancouver  are  writing  best- 
sellers telling  the  public  to  put  their  money 
into  Swiss  francs  and  other  currencies  that  are 
heavily  backed  by  gold  because  currencies 
like  the  Canadian  dollar,  they  claim,  are 
not  backed  by  gold  and  therefore  are  weak 
and  subject  to  even  greater  inflation. 

It's  a  period,  classically,  when  people  with 
assets,  with  money,  are  looking  for  an  infla- 
tion hedge.  The  three  classic  hedges  against 
inflation,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  gold,  works  of  art 
and  real  estate.  Since  gold  and  works  of  art 
are  items  or  artefacts  that  are  basically  not 
available  to  the  average  investor  in  Ontario, 
he  turns  to  real  estate.  And  so  long  as  there 
is  not  just  a  speculative  philosophy  or  psy- 
chology in  the  housing  market  but  an  infla- 
tion psychology  in  the  country,  which  is 
backed  by  rampant  inflation,  people  wfll  be 
going  into  real  estate  at  a  tremendous  kind 
of  pace. 

It  takes  far  more  than  a  minister  to  say 
"Boo!"  and  to  hope  that  somehow  these  nasty 
boys  will  go  away  and  we  will  return  to  pre- 
crisis  or  pre-inflation  conditions.  It  just  isn't 
going  to  happen.  In  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
need  for  tough  action  is  doubled  and  re- 
doubled at  the  present  time  because  there 
are  so  many  people,  be  they  doctors,  law- 
yers, Conservatives,  former  transportation 
ministers  or  whatever,  who  have  some  spare 
dollars  and  are  looking  for  safe  havens  for 
them  and  see  the  real  estate  market  as  a 
place  to  put  them. 

The  minister,  in  his  psychology  as  well, 
has  repeatedly  indicated  several  things.  He  is 
very  surprised  to  have  the  job.  He  didn't 
want  it.  He  has  no  knowledge  about  it.  He's 
not  even  aware,  I  noticed,  of  the  housing 
market  in  his  own  municipality.  He  said 
the  other  day,  in  one  of  the  early  interviews, 
that  as  far  as  he  was  concerned,  he  wasn't 
familiar  with  tenant  problems,  because  he 
didn't  have  that  many  apartments  in  his  own 
riding. 

The  minister  has  something  over  10,000 
people  living  in  apartments  in  his  own  rid- 
ing, in  areas  such  as  along  Meadowlands  Dr. 
and  in  Bayshore,  and  as  I  understand  it, 
apartments  are  increasingly  a  part  of  his  rid- 
ing. He  also  has  a  large  number  of  townhouse 
developments  which  are  rental  projects,  which 
are  also  within  his  riding.  But  he  obviously 
doesn't  mix  with  that  group  in  society. 

He  says  that  as  far  as  he  is  concerned  one 
of  the  fundamental  areas  of  concern  to  On- 


tario citizens  in  housing— that  is,  their  situa- 
tion as  tenants  and  their  protection  from 
rapacious  landlords— is  not  a  housing  problem 
but  is  a  consumer  problem  and  he  s  going 
to  shuffle  it  off  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Cltement).  I 
really  don't  accept  the  fact,  says  the  minister, 
that  the  people  who  live  in  apartment  units 
should  control  them.  They  shouldn't  call  the 
shots.  But  when  you  look  at  it  in  detail,  what 
the  minister  is  saying  is  not  just  that  they 
shouldn't  call  the  shots  but  thev  should  have 
no  protection  at  all',  and  that  for  a  consumer 
to  buy  housing  it  is  in  no  different  a  light, 
as  far  as  he  is  concerned,  as  the  same  chap 
going  down  the  road  to  buy  a  bunch  of 
bananas  or  to  decide  which  bicycle  to  buy 
for  his  teenage  son  or  perhaps  to  buy  a  new 
automobile. 

The  market  is  everything.  The  market  will 
deliver.  He  puts  his  trust  in  the  free  market 
and  that's  it,  baby.  That's  as  far  as  we  are 
going   to   get   with   this  particular  minister. 

One  would  hope  that  somewhere  within  the 
goverrmient,  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  in  the  mind 
of  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White),  perhaps  in 
the  mind  of  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  him- 
self, there  is  a  recognition  that  whatever 
the  basic  ideology  of  the  government 
is  —  and  we  all  know  that  the  ideology 
is  to  leave  things  up  to  the  private  sector— 
the  housing  crisis  has  gotten  too  far  and  that 
what  is  now  needed  is  very,  very  massive, 
substantial  public  intervention  in  order  to  en- 
sure to  every  Ontario  citizen  the  right  to 
housing  at  a  price  that  he  can  afford. 

Look  what  the  minister  himself  admits  in 
the  speech  he  gave  to  the  real  estate  board. 
Five  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  Ontario  citi- 
zens, he  says,  are  earning  less  than  $8,000 
a  year  and  are  paying  more  than  half  of  that 
income  for  housing.  That  means  that  one 
family  in  12  —  possibly  more,  depending  on 
how  those  figures  are  put  together— in  the 
province  pays  more  than  one-half  of  its  in- 
come in  housing. 

It  makes  the  figures  that  the  social  plan- 
ning council  came  up  with  today  pale  by  com- 
parison. These  are  Housing  ministry  figures. 
The  minister  admits  that  their  own  figures  in 
the  government  indicate  that  land  costs  have 
gone  up  by  200  per  cent  in  the  12  major 
cities  of  Ontario  between  1961  and  1971.  And 
anybody  who  follows  these  things  knows  that 
the  big  escalation  of  land  costs  has  occurred 
since  the  re-election  of  the  Davis  government 
in  October  of  1971. 

That's  the  basic  position.  What's  the  gov- 
ernment doing  about  it?  Well,  says  the  min- 
ister,   we   are    going   to   widen   die   housing 


MARCH  29,  1974 


555 


advisory  committee.  It  will  still  predominantly 
represent  developers  but  we're  going  to  put 
a  few  architects  and  people  like  that  on  it. 
Well,  he  says  in  conjunction  with  the 
Treasurer,  when  we  get  all  the  p's  and 
q's  ready  and  the  t's  crossed  and  the  i's 
dotted,  we  may  permit  some  municipalities 
land  banking  powers.  That  comes,  what?— a 
year  and  a  half,  two  years  after  those  powers 
began  to  be  sought  by  various  municipalities 
around  ths  province.  In  fact,  it's  much  longer 
that  the  idea  has  been  broached  by  various 
municipal  leaders.  They  haven't  been  able  to 
get  very  far  because  they  knew  the  ideology 
of  this  particular  government. 

Ironically,  land  banking  has  been  permitted 
and  encouraged  by  the  government  for  many 
years  when  it  was  municipal  land  banking  to 
create  industrial  estates  or  industrial  parks.  A 
subsidy  to  get  a  new  industry  was  okay  as 
far  as  the  government  was  concerned,  but  a 
move  to  control  land  costs  for  the  housing 
consumer  wasn't  okay  because  it  interfered 
with  the  sacred  property  rights  of  the  de- 
velopers w'ho  were  the  government's  friends. 

Now,  the  third  thing  is  the  housing  ac- 
tion programme.  This  is  where  the  govern- 
ment intends  that  the  private  sector  will  be 
enlisted  in  order  to  solve  the  housing  prob- 
lem. Well,  we've  been  waiting,  Mr.  Speaker, 
since  September  for  something  on  that  hous- 
ing action  programme.  And  the  delays  go  on 
and  on  and  on,  and  as  yet  we  have  nothing 
at  all.  During  that  period  from  September 
until  March,  a  period  of  seven  months— as 
my  leader  was  reminding  the  Legislature  the 
other  day— the  cost  of  housing  in  Toronto  has 
gone  up  from  about  $43,000  on  resales  to 
about  $47,000;  that's  $500  to  $1,000  a  month. 
I'm  not  sure  what  the  rate  is  now.  It  has  been 
zooming  up  at  an  incredible  rate;  and  that 
has  been  happening  elsewhere  across  the 
province. 

When  the  minister  spoke  to  the  real  estate 
boys  he  said,  "Don't  worry,  guys.  We  are  not 
going  to  be  nasty  to  you."  He  said: 

I  am  quickly  perceiving  that  our  goals 
within  the  ministry  and  the  goals  within 
the  private  sector  are  to  a  great  degree  the 
same.  We  are  confident  that  enough  serv- 
iced land  can  be  brought  into  readiness 
for  production  this  year,  1974,  through 
1976,  to  remove  land  supply  as  a  price  in- 
flation factor. 

It  would  need  a  Kremlinologist  to  understand 
just  what  that  means.  The  gist  I  get  from  it  is 
that  the  minister  intends  that  the  housing  ac- 
tion programme  currently  under  way  within 
the  bowels  of  his  ministry  will  stabilize  lot 


and  land  prices  at  the  present  levels  of  be- 
tween $12,000  and  $20,000  a  lot,  depending 
upon  which  large  city  of  the  province  one 
happens  to  be  in;  let's  say  $15,000  to  make 
it  easy. 

Now  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  simply  not  a 
price  which  is  within  reach  of  the  average 
Ontario  family.  It  means  we  are  going  to  have 
houses  on  the  market  on  this  stabilized  land 
produced  by  the  ministry  which  will  be  cost- 
ing about  $40,000— let's  say  at  about  the  cur- 
rent level  in  most  Ontario  cities— which  will 
cost  about  $400  a  month  to  own  and  ob- 
viously will  be  out  of  reach  of  the  average 
Ontario  family. 

There  was  a  leak  in  the  Toronto  Star  a 
while  ago  which  purported  to  give  some 
other  indications  of  what  is  happening  with 
the  housing  action  programme.  I  regret  hav- 
ing to  use  it,  but  we  haven't  had  anything 
else  but  leaks,  hints,  whispers  and  that  kind 
of  thing.  In  this  particular  case  it  was  leaked 
or  suggested  that  the  province  would  lean 
on  developers  to  ensure  that  serviced  lots 
were  brought  onto  the  market  at  15  per  cent 
below  the  prices  which  prevailed  in  the  fall 
of  last  year.  That  means,  Mr.  Speaker,  at,  let's 
say  between  $12,000  and  $15,000-an  ac- 
complishment if  it  is  achieved,  but  a  minimal 
accomplishment  because  it  still  means  we 
don't  have  housing  people  can  afford. 

A  freeze  on  the  price  of  such  lots?  Well, 
the  price  of  those  lots  has  been  sky-rocketing 
during  the  very  months  when  the  housing 
action  programme  has  been  going  ahead. 

A  system  of  preventing  speculation  and  re- 
sale of  such  houses  and  lots?  Well,  which 
houses  and  lots? 

When  the  minister  spoke  he  suggested  one 
of  the  things  which  would  be  done  would 
be  to  ensure  that,  as  part  of  the  whole  pro- 
gramme, developers  whose  land  was  being 
accelerated  into  the  market  would  be  asked 
to  undertake  to  the  ministry  that  a  percent- 
age of  units  in  the  subdivision  would  be 
directly  related  to  the  needs  of  moderate  in- 
come families.  Moderate  income  is  undefined, 
but  the  former  minister  was  speaking  the 
other  month  of  the  needs  of  families  in  the 
$12,000  to  $18,000  a  year  category. 

The  moderate  income  families  have  been 
getting  the  short  end  of  the  stick  for  God 
knows  how  many  years,  Mr.  Speaker.  Their 
needs  are  overwhelming,  but  what  the  minis- 
ter is  talking  about  is  apparently  10  per  cent, 
15  per  cent,  25  per  cent  or  30  per  cent  of 
the  lots  to  be  made  available  for  the  group 
which  makes  up  65  per  cent  of  the  popula- 
tion of  the  province.  On  those  particular  lots 


556 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


there  may  be  some  effort  to  prevent  specula- 
tion on  the  resale  over  a  Hmitedi  period  of 
time,  such  as  we  have  with  the  Ontario  Home 
Ownership  Made  Easy  plan,  but  that  doesn't 
get  to  the  root  of  the  problem.  In  all  of  this 
effort  there  is  a  relaxation  of  environmental 
standards,  and  God  knows  what  eke  the  min- 
isters can  come  up  with.  All  this  effort  is 
nibbling  away  at  the  fringes,  eating  away  at 
the  corners,  trying  to  give  the  illusion  that 
something  wall  happen.  Yet  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Justice  (Mr.  Welch),  just  a 
month  before  the  present  incumbent  became 
Minister  of  Housing,  was  specifically  attacking 
the  private  sector  for  its  refusal  to  co-operate 
and  its  refusal  to  get  involved  in  the  pro- 
grammes that  had  been  announced  by  the 
present  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  De- 
velopment (Mr.  Grossman)  the  previous  year 
that  were  designed  to  ensure  greater  integra- 
tion and  that  were  designed  to  give  the 
private  sector  its  opportunity  to  be  involved 
in  the  provision  of  housing. 

•The  integrated  community  housing  pro- 
gramme, Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  course  of  about 
eight  months  or  nine  months,  attracted  two 
proposals  for  Toronto,  totalling  206  units;  one 
for  Ottawa  with  less  than  100  units;  and 
nothing  at  all  for  Thunder  Bay,  Hamilton  or 
Burlington— despite  a  continuing  call  for  pro- 
posals. 

The  rent  supplement  programme,  which 
was  also  announced  by  the  same  minister  a 
year  or  so  ago,  had  attracted  only  2,630  units 
from  the  private  sector.  In  fact,  this  was  only 
part  of  the  way  to  the  target  of  3,300  and 
represented  an  increase  of  only  approximately 
700  units  from  the  time  that  the  OHC  began 
to  peddle  the  pragromme  actively  in  the 
spring  of  1973. 

In  other  words,  that  wasn't  working  either; 
and  yet  these  were  the  means  by  which  the 
private  sector  was  being  asked  to  show  that  it 
could  do  the  job.  And  as  far  as  the  former 
Housing  minister  was  concerned— I  don't  see 
him  in  the  House  here— but  so  far  as  the 
member  for  Lincoln  (Mr.  Welch)  was  con- 
cerned, the  private  sector  wasn't  doing  a  job 
and  he  was  sufiRciently  up  tight  about  it  that 
he  was  willing  to  talk  about  it  publicly  and 
castigate  that  sector— but  the  new  minister 
simply  goes  ahead. 

We  have  had  a  lot  of  talk  in  housing.  We 
have  had  the  member  for  Lincoln,  and  then 
we  had  the  member  for  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick 
(Mr.  Grossman)— and  we  shouldn't  forget 
Stanley  Randall  and  Robert  Macauley  and  the 
Premier  himself.  And  yet  despite  all  of  these 
statements,  the  housing  crisis  keeps  on  getting 
worse  and  worse.  What  we  are  simply  being 


asked  to  put  up  with  is  a  series  of  trade-offs 
with  developers  in  order  to  make  their  busi- 
ness a  bit  more  profitable  and  maybe  bring 
a  few  more  units  onto  the  market. 

Well  I  want  to  take  issue  with  the  minister 
specifically,  Mr.  Speaker,  when  he  says, 
"There  is  no  housing  supply  crisis,"  because 
there  very  clearly  and  very  definitely  is  a 
housing  supply  crisis  and  it  exists  in  Ottawa 
and  Toronto.  It  exists  in  Hamilton  and  St. 
Catharines.  It  exists  in  London  and  it  exists 
in  Windsor,  Thunder  Bay,  Sudbury,  Sault  Ste. 
Marie— almost  every  major  municipality  you 
care  to  mention,  Mr.  Speaker. 

The  government  prided  itself  on  the  fact 
that  the  housing  starts  in  1973  looked  fairly 
good  compared  to  1972.  The  total  starts  in 
1973  for  Ontario  were  110,536  units,  a  seven 
per  cent  increase  over  1972.  And  that's  what 
the  Minister  of  Housing  has  been  referring  to 
and  saying:  "Look,  we  are  building  enough 
housing.  Something  else  is  the  problem;  we 
are  not  sure  what  it  is,  but  our  housing  action 
programme  is  going  to  solve  it." 

But  if  you  look  more  closely,  Mr.  Speaker, 
those  housing  starts  in  urban  areas  which 
have  got  a  population  of  over  10,000  rose  by 
only  one  per  cent  in  1973,  from  91,114  to 
92,211.  In  other  words,  the  increase  in  hous- 
ing starts  was  all  there  in  small  towns  and 
villages— away  from  the  census  metropolitan 
areas;  away  from  the  Toronto  commuting 
zone;  away  from  the  Hamilton  or  Ottawa 
commuting  zones. 

In  addition,  the  starts  in  areas  of  over 
50,000  population  actually  fell  from  84,740 
to  82,730,  a  drop  of  2.4  per  cent.  In  other 
words,  while  the  small  towns  between  10,000 
and  50,000— Comiwall  is  an  example  and 
Brockville— had  some  increase  in  housing 
starts,  there  was  a  drop  in  those  communities 
of  over  50,000. 

When  you  look  at  the  communities  of  over 
100,000,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  was  a  drop  in 
housing  starts  of  3.9  per  cent,  from  80,475  to 
77,361.  And  when  you  look  at  the  figures 
city  by  city,  you  find  that  the  pattern'  of  de- 
cline goes  on  for  the  relatively  smaller  urban 
centres  right  up  to  Metro  Toronto. 

In  Toronto,  housing  starts  were  down  2% 
per  cent  last  year.  I  beg  yom-  pardon,  that's 
in  the  Toronto  census  metropolitan  area.  That 
includes  Pickering,  it  includes  Markham,  it 
includes  much  of  the  borough  of  York,  it 
includes  Mississauga  and  the  rest  of  Peel 
County  which  is  being  developed.  Housing 
starts  in  the  Toronto  area  weren't  up  seven 
per  cent— that  was  the  provincial  average— 
they  were  down  2%  per  cent  in  the  area  that 
we    know    is    the    area    of    greatest    housing 


MARCH  29,  1974 


557 


demand.    In    Metro    Toronto,    housing    starts 
were  down  10  per  cent. 

In  the  city  of  Hamilton,  housing  starts 
were  down  15  per  cent,  although  they  were 
up  slightly  in  the  Hamilton  census  metro- 
politan area.  In  Kitchener,  down  5%  per  cent; 
in  the  London  census  metropolitan  area— and 
take  that,  John  Robarts— housing  starts  were 
down  by  28  per  cent  for  the  region  and  by 
30  per  cent  for  the  city  proper;  in  St.  Cath- 
arines and  Niagara,  the  whole  Niagara  Penin- 
sula, housing  starts  were  down  by  6.7  per 
cent;  and  in  the  Windsor  census  metropolitan 
area  they  were  down  by  32  per  cent. 

The  only  area  of  the  province,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, where  there  was  any  substantial  increase 
in  housing  starts  was,  in  fact,  the  Ottawa 
area,  where  starts  were  up  by  10%  per  cent. 
And  if  I  could  find  the  figures  quickly  enough 
—which  I  can't— I  was  having  another  look  at 
them,  and  as  it  happened  housing  starts  were 
down  in  Hull  last  year.  So  the  overall  in- 
crease for  the  Ottawa-Hull  housing  area, 
which  is  one  housing  market,  was  negligible. 

That  is  the  real  position,  Mr.  Speaker, 
about  the  housing  supply  crisis.  Not  enough 
housing  is  being  lauilt  in  the  major  cities  of 
the  province,  and  that's  one  of  the  reasons 
why  we've  had  such  extraordinary  increases 
in  housing  costs. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West 
(Mr.  Lewis)  has  already  read  into  the  record 
some  of  the  figures  for  housing  price  increases 
across  the  province:  23  per  cent  in  Ottawa, 
25  per  cent  in  Toronto,  etc.,  over  the  past 
year. 

I  want  to  give  some  other  figures,  though, 
to  indicate  that  this  isn't  just  a  Metro  Toronto 
problem  and  that  it  isn't  something  that  has 
only  cropped  up  in  the  past  year.  If  I  can 
take  the  figures  for  my  own  city  of  Ottawa, 
we  find  there  that  single-family  residential 
prices,  as  calculated  by  the  Ottawa  Real 
Estate  Board  average  $24,700  in  the  first  half 
of  1972  and  rose  about  10  per  cent  to  $27,000 
in,  the  first  six  months  of  1973. 

But  in  the  first  nine  months  of  1973  they 
were  up  to  $37,000,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  for  1973 
as  a  whole  they  were  up  to  $38,000.  The 
annual  average  for  1973  was  40  per  cent 
higher  than  the  average  for  the  first  six 
months.  What  that  means,  if  you  do  the 
arithmetic,  is  that  the  average  price  of  ho^'s 
ing  being  sold  in  Ottawa  today  is  something 
well  over  $40,000-probably  $41,000  or  $42,- 
000— whereas  15  months  ago  it  was  around 
$26,000.  That's  the  degree  of  escalation  or 
inflation  that  we've  had  in  Ottawa. 


Just  the  other  day  the  city  of  Ottawa  put 
on  the  market  a  number  of  lots  that  it  hap- 
pened to  own  in  a  good  residential  area.  The 
lots  were  nothing  sensational.  They  were  60 
by  100  ft  lots.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bids  that 
were  received  by  the  city  on  those  lots 
ranged  between  $19,200  and  $35,000.  That 
was  what  people  were  willing  to  pay  for 
lots  because  of  the  shortage,  and  because  of 
the  grip  that  the  developers  have  got  on  land 
costs  in  the  Ottawa  area. 

And  yet,  faced  with  that  kind  of  escala- 
tion the  minister  and  the  government  talk 
airly  about  a  phased  delegation  of  municipal 
land  banking  powers  when  they're  satisfied 
that  the  regional  municipalities  are  prepared 
to  take  it.  And  they  are  going  to  delay  and 
delay  and  delay  because  they  don't  want  that 
kind  of  interference  with  the  private  land 
market. 

In  October,  1971,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  house  at 
489  Sunnyside  changed  hands  for  $9,200;  a 
very  modest  house.  In  March  of  1973,  that 
same  house  was  sold  for  $19,000. 

These  are  figures  from  Teela,  which  is 
the  standard  reference  for  property  sales 
in  all  major  portions  of  the  province.  The 
estimated  value  now,  or  rather  at  the  end 
of  1973,  is  $23,000.  That  is  probably  low 
because  of  the  increase  in  values  that  is  now 
taking  place. 

On  the  same  street,  187  Surmyside  sold  for 
$12,000  in  September,  1968,  and  was  resold 
for  $45,000  in  March,  1973-a  275  per  cent 
increase. 

No.  360  Sunnyside  sold  for  $16,000  in 
August,  1968;  in  March,  1973,  that  same 
house  had  gone  up  to  $29,500.  Its  estimated 
value  now  is  $35,000— a  120  per  cent  in- 
crease over  the  course  of  five  years. 

No.  2476  Alta  Vista  Dr.-I  don't  know 
the  house  personally-it  sold  for  $14,750  in 
November,  1972,  resold  in  the  same  month 
for  $15,250,  sold  in  March,  1973,  for  $34,500 
and  is  now  worth  $41,000. 

No.  2090  Alta  Vista  Dr.  sold  for  $35,000 
in  AuOTist.  1972;  and  11  months  later,  in 
June,  1973,  sold  for  $42,000-an  increase  in 
less  than  a  year  of  20  per  cent. 

In  my  riding,  91  Rochester  St.  sold  at 
$19,000  in  February,  1968,  at  $29,500  in 
March,  1973,  and  probably  is  worth  $35,000 
today. 

No.  137  Balsam,  a  working-class  house 
that  ought  to  be  kept  for  low-income 
families,  was  worth  $18,000  in  June,  1970, 
had  gone  up  to  $25,000  in  June,  1973,  and  is 
still  climbing. 


558 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


No.  488  Gilmour  sold  for  $25,000  in 
September,  1972,  and  $35,000  seven  months 
later  in  March,  1973,  and  is  probably  worth 
$42,000  today. 

No.  284  Flora  St.— again,  an  area  in  the 
working-class  part  of  my  riding,  Mr.  Speaker 
-changed  hands  for  $24,000  in  May,  1971, 
for  $33,000  in  Decem'-er,  1971  and  for 
$42,000  in  January,  1973.  In  less  than  two 
years,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  an  increase  of 
$18,000,  or  of  about  75  per  cent.  The  esti- 
mated value  of  th,t  house  now  is  double 
what  it  was  worth  in  May,  1971. 

No.  151  Goulboum  St.,  in  the  area  of 
Sandy  Hill,  experienced  a  similar  kind  of 
escalation-$24,000  in  March,  1971,  and 
worth  $35,000  in  December,  1973.  And  those 
current  estimates  are  probably  veiy  con- 
servative and  very  cautious,  according  to  the 
people  who  did  the  figures  for  me  in  our 
research  department. 

That's  Ottawa,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  Ottawa 
is  known  to  have  had  a  very  intiatJonary 
housing  market,  thanks  to  the  policies  of 
this  government. 

But  take  London,  good  Tory  countn-.  I've 
got  a  number  of  figures  from  there.  They 
show  the  same  kind  of  thing.  Let  me  select 
some  of  them: 

No.  492  Wellington  St.  was  worth  $24,000 
in  1966,  $29,000  in  1968,  $33,000  in  1971; 
it's  currently  on  the  market  for  $68,000  and 
presumablv  will  sell  for  double  what  it  sold 
for  in  1971. 

No.  559  Waterloo-$25,000  in  1970  and 
$33,000  in  1971,  an  increase  of  a  third  in 
one  year. 

No.  27  Yale  St.-$15,000  in  1968,  $19,000 
in  1972,  $25,000  when  it  changed  hands 
again  in   1972,  and  $33,000  in  1973. 

No.  492  Talbot  St.-$1 1,000  in  1972, 
$30,000  in  1973. 

Here  are  houses  that  sold  a  couple  of 
times  during  1973  alone:  No.  8  Christie 
St.  in  London  sold  in  March,  1973,  for 
$23,000  and  resold  for  $31,000  four  months 
later.  No.  10  Elmwood  sold  in  May,  1973, 
for  $22,000  and  in  June  for  $29,000.  No. 
32  Emery  St.-$  15,000  in  June,  1973,  and 
$18,000  later  in  the  same  month.  No.  89 
Hillsmount  sold  for  $21,000  in  June,  1973, 
and  was  resold  in  the  same  month  for 
$48,000.  That  is  what  is  happening  under 
the  Conservatives.  It  is  clear  that  people  who 
can  afford  to  protect  themselves  against  that 
kind  of  inflation  are  doing  so  with  a  ven- 
geance. They  are  leaving  up  to  the  forces  of 
a  market  which  has  absolutely  no  mercy, 
that    enormous    group    of    Ontario    residents 


who  cannot  afford  and  can't  get  into  that 
kind  of  protection.  Half  of  the  population  oi 
our  urban  areas,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  tenants, 
and  more  and  more  of  those  tenants  are 
tenants  because  they  have  no  choice;  they 
can't  break  out. 

Ted  Harvey's  study  for  the  social  planning 
council  indicates  that  there  is  increasing 
competition  for  lower  and  lower  standard 
accommodation  among  people  on  low  in-- 
comes.  I  can  vouch  for  that.  I  have  watched 
it  in  my  own  riding  of  Ottawa  Centre,  and 
I  am  sure  that  it  takes  place  in  this  area 
as  well.  Six  to  seven  years  ago  when  1 
first  lived  in  Ottawa  it  was  possible  for  a 
low-income  family  to  rent  a  large  home  for 
maybe  $80  or  $100  a  month,  and  that  was 
big  enough  to  raise  a  substantial  kind  of 
family.  Nowadays  those  same  families  are 
jammed  into  two-  or  maybe  three-bedroom 
apartments  if  they  are  lucky,  and  pay  far 
more  than  what  the  shelter  allowance  from 
the  welfare  department,  if  they  are  on  social 
assistance,  happens  to  be.  There  has  been 
an  increase  in  the  number  of  people  who  are 
forced  to  live  in  single  rooms  and  have  been 
forced  out  of  small  apartments  and  other 
kinds  of  accommodation,  if  they  are  single. 
The  same  thing  is  happening  with  families. 
And  the  pressure  goes  on  and  on. 

The  social  planning  council  here  in  To- 
ronto says  specifically  that  it  believes  that 
very  shortly  we  will  see  an  outbreak  of 
homelessness,  that  is,  we  will  have  people 
on  the  streets  because  they  have  no  place 
to  go  in  the  housing  market  which  has  been 
created  by  the  Conservative  government  of 
this  Premier. 

Is  it  only  happening  in  Toronto  and  Ot- 
tawa and  London?  The  answer,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  no.  In  Orillia,  two  years  ago  in  a  subdivi- 
sion, there  were  fots  selling  for  $3,000  apiece. 
They  have  now  sold  at  $6,000,  $7,000,  $8,000 
and  $12,500,  and  are  currently  on  the  market 
for  $15,000.  Both  in  Barrie  and  in  Orillia, 
where  the  wage  level  in  industry  tends  to 
be  as  much  below  $3  an  hour  as  above  it, 
new  houses  are  currently  selling  for  around 
$40,000  apiece.  In  Guelph,  the  paper  the 
other  day  indicated  the  prices  for  homes  in 
Guelph  were  $25,000  to  $30,000-that  was 
one  to  two  years  ago— and  now  they  have 
gone  up  by  $10,000  to  $35,000  or  $40,000. 

If  you  listen  to  your  radio,  Mr.  Speaker, 
here  in  Metro  you  will  find  an  increasing 
number  of  advertisements  by  developers  say- 
ing, "come  to  the  quiet  tranquillity  of  Guelph, 
only  50  short  miles  from  Metro."  In  other 
words,  Metro  residents  are  being  forced  to 
Guelph   in   order  to   get  housing  at  a  price 


MARCH  29,  1974 


559 


that  they  think  they  can  afford.  Before  long 
they  are  going  to  be  crowding  out  the  mem- 
ber for  Brant  (Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon)  on  his  farm 
in  order  to  find  accommodation  within  com- 
muting distance  of  Metro. 

Lots  in  Guelph  right  now  are  around 
$18,000,  Mr.  Speaker.  There  are  300  serviced 
HOME  lots  in  Kingston  township,  I  learned 
from  the  reeve  and  members  of  his  council 
yesterday.  That  is  equal  to  about  half  a  year's 
production  of  housing  in  the  Kingston  town- 
ship area,  and  that  has  been  the  major  site 
for  new  housing  in  that  region.  There  are 
300  lots  with  paved  roads,  sidewalks  one  side, 
underground  wiring,  water,  sewer  and  all 
other  services.  They  are  ready  to  go,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

The  government  is  simply  sitting  on  these 
lots.  It  called  a  tender,  the  tenders  were  un- 
acceptable, and  it  is  now  saying  it  will  call 
a  new  tender,  but  there  has  been  no  action 
by  the  government  yet  to  call  a  new  tender. 
In  addition,  the  people  in  Kingston  township 
who  ought  to  know  are  aware  that  those  lots 
were  brought  on  to  the  market  by  the  pro- 
vincial government  at  a  price  of  around 
$4,000  or  $5,000.  In  the  last  year  and  a  half 
in  Kingston  township,  for  a  number  of  rea- 
sons, including  those  that  we  traded  in  the 
House  yesterday,  the  price  of  a  lot  has  gone 
up  from  about  $7,000  or  $8,000  to  about 
$15,000. 

Apparently,  from  the  best  information  that 
the  local  people  can  get,  the  province  is  go- 
ing to  charge  $15,000  or  $12,000-that  range 
of  price— to  people  on  these  HOME  lots  if, 
as  and  when  it  gets  them.  In  the  meantime 
it  is  holding  them  back  from  the  market  and 
is  itself  contributing  to  the  housing  price 
problem  in  the  Kingston  area. 

Brantford:  The  Expositor  says  prices  are 
up  by  20  per  cent  during  1973.  The  council 
out  there  is  going  ahead  with  a  very  inno- 
vative and  I  believe  successful  programme  of 
public  land  development,  but  with  not  a 
penny  of  assistance  from  this  particular  gov- 
ernment. 

Fergus:  The  range  of  new  house  prices  is 
$30,000  to  $40,000.  It  was  $20,000  or  $25,000 
two  years  ago. 

Kitchener:  The  price  of  a  50-ft  lot  has  gone 
from  $3,500  in  1965  to  $11,000  today. 

Windsor:  The  average  price  of  houses  is 
up  from  $20,000  four  years  asro  to  $28,000, 
and  in  1973  the  increase  was  27  pe-  cent. 

What  kind  of  lunacy  is  this  taking  place 
around  the  province,  Mr.  Speaker?  What  kind 
of  lunacy?  It  is  just  plain  iisane,  and  it  is 
insane  not  only  in  what  is  happening  but  it 


is  insane  in  the  fact  that  the  government 
believes  that  the  private  sector  is  going  to 
solve  the  problems. 

I  want  to  point  out  to  the  House,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  one  of  the  problems  we  have 
is  the  increasing  concentration  within  the 
development  industry.  One  day,  it  may  have 
been  that  when  you  went  out  to  Ajax  or 
went  out  to  North  York  and;  wanted  to  buy 
a  house,  there  were  any  number  of  devel- 
opers who  were  competing  for  your  business. 
They  were  basically  house  buildfers.  Many  of 
them  built  a  dozen,  two  dozen  or  five  dozen 
homes  a  year.  They  owned  a  bit  of  land 
and.  they  were  hungry  like  wolves,  but  when 
you  have  that  kind  of  situation  in  the  free 
market  sometimes  it  works  not  badly.  In 
other  words,  if  you  had  a  classical  free 
market  situation  and  you  had  something 
like  that,  it  started  to  work. 

But  that  situation  has  disappeared  now,  be- 
cause the  big  ones  have  been  eating  up  the 
little  ones  and  the  process  has  become  in- 
exorable to  the  point  where  even  the  giants 
are  being  eaten  up  by  firms  even  larger  than 
they. 

Take  Markborough  Properties,  which  I  be- 
lieve Mr.  Magee  in  fact  has  an  interest  in. 
Its  profits  have  risen  from  $984,000  in  1972 
to  $6  million  in  1973,  and  its  revenues  from 
land  operations  had  risen  from  $7  million 
the  previous  year  to  $29  million  in  the  cur- 
rent year.  It  is  one  of  the  companies  which 
has  got  a  major  stake  or  a  major  land  bank 
in  the  Toronto  area,  and  lo  and  behold,  last 
fall  some  bigger  fish  descended  upon  Mark- 
borough  in  order  to  try  to  gobble  it  up. 

Campeau  Corp.  of  Ottawa  came  along  and 
sought  to  take  over  Markborough  and  then 
there  was  a  corporate  fight,  a  boardroom 
fight,  and  idtimately  Hudson's  Bay  Co.  was 
successful  in  taking  over  Markborough.  The 
takeover  by  Campeau  was  thwarted.  Perhaps 
that  means  that  temporarily  a  certain  con- 
centration between  those  particular  industries 
was  thwarted,  but  other  people  came  in 
again  instead. 

Currently,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a  merger 
going  on  in  Ontario  among  Cadillac,  Cana- 
dian Equity  and  Fairview  Corp.  I  want  to 
read  a  couple  of  figures  about  these  com- 
panies into  the  record. 

To  take  Cadillac  first,  their  assets  are  worth 
$332  million,  Canadian  Equity's  assets  are 
worth  $72  million  and  Fairview  Corp.  assets 
are  worth  $125  million— and  that  does  not  in- 
clude the  fact  that  it  has  a  controlling  stake 
in  a  number  of  very  large  developments,  in- 
cluding the  Toronto  -  Dominion  Centre,  the 
Galerie    d'Anjou    in    Montreal    and    the    big 


560 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Eaton's  Fairview  development  here  in  down- 
town Toronto. 

Not  only  that,  but  these  companies  have 
an  engaging  habit  of  not  valuing  their 
assets  at  market.  Canadian  Equity,  for 
example,  which  hsts  $73  million  of  assets  in 
fact  has  got  a  heck  of  a  lot  more,  because 
of  the  fact  that  they  have  the  Erin  Mills 
property  and  that  is  a  very  large  investment 
whose  value  is  going  up  literally  week  by 
week  and  month  by  month,  because  there 
is  no  control  on  land  costs  in  the  Toronto 
area. 

Cadillac's  operating  revenue  went  from  $35 
million  in  1971  to  $60  million  in  1972  and 
for  the  first  nine  months  of  1973  it  earned 
more  than  it  had  in  all  of  1972. 

Canadian  Equity's  operating  revenue  was 
up  by  half  from  $8  mfllion  to  $12.5  million 
in  1972. 

Fairview  —  I  don't  seem  to  have  exactly 
how  it  has  done.  It  earned  $13.5  million  in 
1971  and  its  revenues  have  also  been  going 
up  very  rapidly. 

'What  is  it  in  the  housing  and  develop- 
ment market  that  companies  of  this  size 
would  need  to  get  together?  Where  is  the 
free  competition  of  the  private  sector  of 
which  the  Tory  ministers  are  so  fond  of 
prating?  It  surely  doesn't  exist  when  three 
companies  of  that  size  and  with  such  tremen- 
dous land  holdings  and  such  tremendous  in- 
fluence in  the  land  market  —  let's  talk  par- 
ticularly about  Metro  Toronto  —  need  to 
join. 

Here  we  have  Cadillac,  a  big  apartment 
owner,  a  big  landowner  in  the  Toronto  area; 
Canadian  Equity,  which  owns  Don  Mills  and 
Erin  Mills;  Fairview,  with  the  Toronto- 
Dominion  Centre  and  the  Eaton's  centre— an 
enormous  chunk  of  downtovsoi  land— all  sorts 
of  shopping  centres  all  over  the  place  and 
probably  some  residential  properties,  already 
linked  very  closely  by  controlling  sharehold- 
ings but  not  by  majority  or  complete  share- 
holdings and  now  deciding  to  combine. 

I  called  somebody  in  the  stockmarket  and 
he  told  me  I  should  ignore  the  fact  that 
Eddie  Goodman  is  a  director  of  Cadillac  and 
that  there  are  all  sorts  of  other  links  between 
the  Conservative  Party  of  this  Premier  and 
the  development  industry  as  represented  in 
this  particular  merger.  Then  he  said,  "The 
institutional  investors  are  nasty  to  the  real 
estate  industry."  There  are  economies  of  scale 
of  some  sort  involved  when  firms  of  this  size 
get  together  and  when  they  concentrate. 

The  smaller  developers  simply  carmot  carry 
the  extended  development  times  now  required 


for  approvals.  It  is  very  useful  for  a  big 
development  company  to  balance  its  risks  by 
having  office  and  commercial  development, 
land  development,  apartment  development, 
you  name  it,  and  this  new  corporate  giant  is 
going  to  have  it. 

The  stocks  are  undervalued  in  relation  to 
their  value  and  part  of  the  reason  for  that  is 
because  the  income  stream  from  these  big 
property  companies  is  not  as  great  as  their 
ultimate  gains  from  the  capital  gains  they  will 
make  on  their  property  holdings  and  on  their 
landholdings.  Finally,  the  true  values  of  the 
companies  aren't  reflected  in  their  income 
statements  where  there  are  partially  owTied 
subsidiaries  whose  revenues  don't  get  grossed 
in  the  consolidated  statement  of  the  parent 
company. 

I  hope  everybody  understands  that;  I  find 
it  a  bit  difficult  to  usderstand.  Basically,  what 
he  was  telling  me— this  is  an  expert  in  the 
market  and  a  guy  who  knows  real  estate— is 
that  the  aim  of  that  merger  is  not  to  make 
any  more  houses,  it  is  to  make  a  lot  more 
money.  The  Bronfmans  who  control  Cemp 
who  control  Fairview,  the  Ephraim  Diamonds 
and  other  people  who  have  a  stake  in  Cadillac 
and  all  the  other  people— including,  I  am 
sure,  people  on  that  side  of  the  House— who 
have  a  substantial  stake  in  these  companies 
simply  want  to  see  their  shares  valued  at 
much  higher  values  in  the  market.  They  want 
access  to  that  kind  of  super-money  and,  by 
God,  they  are  going  to  get  it. 

The  member  for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick) 
made  a  very  interesting  comment  the  other 
day  about  this  question  of  concentration 
whether  it  be  in  the  property  industry  or 
in  other  industries.  We  have  a  curious 
situation  in  Ontario  law,  Mr.  Speaker— 
or  in  Canadian  law— by  which,  federally, 
combines  legislation  can  only  be  carried 
out  under  the  Criminal  Code.  It  is  not 
a  civil  matter  at  the  federal  level.  Provincial 
jurisdiction  covers  property  and  civil  rights 
and  therefore  the  Province  of  Ontario  very 
clearly  has  jurisdiction  in  a  merger  such  as 
the  merger  of  Cadillac,  Fairview  and  Cana- 
dian Equity,  and  has  the  right  and  the  power 
to  step  in  when  such  a  merger  is  contrary  to 
the  public  interest.  I  would  suggest,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  this  particular  merger  is  very 
definitely  contrary  to  the  public  interest. 

Any  further  consoHdation,  any  further 
creation  of  monopolies  and  oligarchies  in  the 
housing  and  development  industry  is  clearly 
against  the  interests  of  every  tenant,  of  every 
citizen  of  the  province  who  wants  to  have  a 
place  of  his  own  or  wants  to  be  assured  about 


MARCH  29,  1974 


561 


having  housing  at  reasonable  cost.  I  would 
suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  one  of  the  things 
that  should  be  announced  as  part  of  a  really 
vigorous  housing  policy,  if  this  government 
means  business,  is  that  there  will  be  legisla- 
tion shortly  in  order  to  prevent  further  con- 
solidations within  the  Province  of  Ontario 
and  that  the  goverimient  will  step  in  now  in 
order  to  stop  mergers  such  as  the  Cadillac- 
Fairview-Canadian  Equity  merger. 

That  merger  should  be  stopped  because 
that  merger  will  hurt  people  who  want  hous- 
ing in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  The  govern- 
ment should  take  every  measure  necessary, 
whatever  it  does  to  the  private  sector,  in 
order  to  ensure  that  housing  becomes  avail- 
able at  reasonable  costs.  And  it  is  not  doing 
it. 

I  want  to  point  out  further,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  current  estimates  that  we  have  had 
from  the  province  indicate  that  maybe  35,000 
or  40,000  new  lots  or  space  for  new  housing 
units  are  to  be  created  in  Toronto,  Ottawa 
and  one  or  two  northern  centres  over  the 
next  couple  of  years  under  the  housing  action 
programme.  It's  very  hard  and  very  amor- 
phous. Ori^nally  it  was  a  50  per  cent  increase 
in  lots  and  then  it  became  25  per  cent  be- 
cause it  was  spread  over  two  years.  But  at 
any  rate  there  is  meant  to  be  a  substantial 
increase  of  lots.  When  you  look  at  that 
though,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  find  that  that  in- 
crease in  lots  is  to  be  achieved  by  simply 
speeding  up  the  flow  of  subdivisions  that  are 
currently  locked  in  the  approval  process. 

Obviously,  if  it  takes  a  year  and  a  half  to 
get  approvals  through  and  you  can  cut  that 
time  to  six  months,  then  you  can  find  30,000 
or  40,000  lots  that  are  sitting  in  the  pipeline 
right  now  and  you  can  bring  them  forward 
and  you  can  have  some  effect  on  the  current 
housing  situation.  The  problem  with  that  is, 
though,  that  that  is  a  one-shot  eff^ort.  It's 
obviously  going  to  take,  say,  six  months  to 
get  approvals  through,  no  matter  what  gov- 
ernment we  have  and  no  matter  what  bill 
it  has  to  bring  land  for  housing  on  to  the 
market.  It's  going  to  take  at  least  six  months. 
So  the  government's  35,000  or  40,000  lots 
are  a  one-shot  eflFort. 

But  when  it  does  that,  it  takes  away  from 
the  development  industry,  who  are  the  people 
who  carry  these  things  through,  their  reserve 
of  land  that  they  had  intended  to  bring  on 
the  market  in  1976  and  1977.  That  means 
that  we  will  go  through  the  election  of  1975 
—  let's  say,  that's  in  October  —  with  possibly 
some  marginal  benefits  from  the  extra  lots 
that  the  government  intends  to  bring  in. 


However,  there  is  no  action  currently  being 
taken  by  the  government  in  order  to  ensure 
that  after  that,  in  1976  and  1977,  a  con- 
tinued high  rate  of  housing  construction  can 
proceed.  Nothing  like  that  is  being  done  at 
all.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  phase  2  to 
the  housing  programme  that  the  government 
has  talked  about  in  general  terms,  and  we 
aren't  convinced  there  is  a  phase  1  either. 
If  phase  1  comes  through,  we  don't  know 
what's  going  to  happen  on  phase  2.  The 
government  needs  to  start  acting  now  be- 
cause it  does  take  time  to  get  all  of  these 
things  done.  If  the  government  doesn't  start 
to  act,  there  will  be  no  housing  built,  and 
the  escalation  in  prices  of  1975,  1976  and 
1977  will  make  even  the  last  year's  record 
look  like  child's  play. 

What  we're  being  guaranteed,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  $50,000  homes  and  $280-a-month  family 
apartments  for  the  next  two  years  and  noth- 
ing more.  I  would  like  to  suggest  that  there 
is  something  deeper  involved.  I  would  like 
to  suggest  as  well  that  the  province  is  mis- 
understanding the  situation  if  it  says  that 
there  isn't  a  supply  problem  as  well  as  every- 
thing else. 

We've  looked  at  the  demographics  and  the 
demographics  indicate  that  if  the  government 
were  building  about  95,000  houses  a  year 
it  ought  to  keep  up  with  the  increase  in 
demand  over  the  next  two  or  three  years. 
Therefore,  one  can'  argue  that  if  we  are 
building  105,000  or  110,000  houses  a  year, 
we  ought  to  be  catching  up  a  bit  with  the 
backlog  and  helping  to  ease  off  the  situation. 
Clearly  though,  the  demand  for  the  new 
housing  is  in  the  major  urban  areas  and 
that's  precisely  where  the  starts  are  drop- 
ping. It  is  not  in  the  rural  areas.  That's 
where  the  number  of  new  houses  built  is 
actually  increasing. 

It  seems  to  us  that  that  increased  flow  of 
housing  that  we  need  has  got  to  start  now 
and  it  has  to  be  continued.  And  if  the  private 
sector  won't  or  can't  do  it,  then  the  public 
sector  has  to  do  it. 

I  also  think  that  if  the  new  minister  is 
to  display  any  credibility  about  housing  he 
has  got  to  take  urgent  action  about  land. 
We  have  talked  already,  Mr.  Speaker,  about 
the  NDP  programme  for  land.  Very  briefly, 
we  believe  that  land  should  be  in  the  public 
sector  in  and  around  development  areas  like 
Toronto;  that  the  bulk  of  development  land 
should  be  publicly-owned  or  publicly-control- 
led, because  that  is  the  only  way  that  you 
can  stop  the  kind  of  ripoffs  that  are  taking 
place  right  now. 


562 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


But  we  admit  that  it  takes  a  certain  amount 
of  time  to  bring  that  land  into  the  public 
sector.  In  the  meantime  you  have  to  ensure 
that  the  ripofFs  of  the  private  sector  are  stop- 
ped. Not  just  slowed  down,  not  just  tinkered 
with,  but  stopped  and  stopped  dead.  And  if 
you  can  stop  it  so  dead  that  the  public  has 
to  come  in  and  start  buying  the  land,  be- 
cause that  is  the  only  way  that  you  can  get 
land  going,  that  is  just  fine;  because  that 
means  that  you  will  get  to  the  situation  of 
public  control  of  the  land  market  that  much 
sooner  —  and  that  is  the  only  fimdamental 
answer  to  getting  the  housing. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Can  we  get 
to  the  Tory  cabinet  on  this  one? 

Mr,  Cassidy:  Well,  it  is  a  pity  that  the 
Tory  cabinet  lost  some  of  its  expertise  on 
these  matters  during  the  last  shuffle. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  it  has. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  However,  I  am  sure  that  we 
will  find  that  it  has  returned.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  I  have  heard  of  a  certain  northern 
member  who  is  developing  some  first-hand 
expertise  in  these  matters,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
understand  that  he  has  bought  a  new  house 
in  Metro  Toronto  and  intends  to  sell  it  in 
a  few  months  when  there  is  a  handsome 
profit  to  be  made.  He  does  not  intend,  I 
understand,  to  live  in  that  particular  house. 

Mr.  Laughren:  He  didn't  make  it  into  the 
cabinet,  though. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  didn't  make  it  into  the 
cabinet,  though;  that  is  right. 

We  \\'0uld  like  to  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  right  now  not  only  do  we  need  a  tax 
of  75  per  cent  in  speculative  gains  in  devel- 
opment lands,  but  we  need  to  go  beyond 
that  to  talk  about  speculative  gains  about 
anybody  who  was  clearly  buying  and  selling 
houses  for  a  profit  rather  than  for  their  o^ti 
particular  use. 

If  you  want  to  play  psychological  games, 
you  have  got  to  play  hardball,  and  this  gov- 
ernment isn't  even  playing  softball.  They 
are  just  playing  patsies. 

We  would  recommend  that  probably  start- 
ing back  in  October  of  1971  —  that  is  a  good 
psychological  moment  to  start  with  —  the 
increase  in  value  of  any  development  land 
that  is  sold  be  taxed  at  the  rate  of  75  per 
cent.  Now  that  means  that  if  the  land  has 
been  in  one  hand  over  that  period  of  time 
and  is  sold,  the  owner  would  pay  a  specula- 
tive gains  tax  of  75  per  cent.  If  the  owner 
happened  to  have  so  bought  the  land  re- 
cently   at    a    very    inflated    price,    he   would 


find  that  in  fact  he  couldn't  afford  to  do  it. 
Well,  that  is  fine.  People  who  play  that  sort 
of  game  deserve  to  get  caught. 

We  would  say  that  on  development  land 
where  that  prevails,  then  the  only  way  out 
of  paying  that  75  per  cent  tax  for  the  owner 
would  be  for  him  to  sell  to  the  Ontario 
government  at  something  around  the  price 
which  he  actually  paid  for  the  land— whether 
it  was  two  months  or  10  months  or  two  or 
three  years  ago.  If  the  ovnier  chooses  not 
to  do  that,  and  to  wait  for  some  favourable 
change  of  government,  as  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned there  should  be  no  allowance  in  that 
gains  tax,  Mr.  Speaker,  for  any  cost  of  hold- 
ing that  land  after  the  date  that  the  an- 
nouncement of  intention  is  made  by  the  pro- 
vincial government. 

Mr.  Laughren:  How  will  the  Tories  make 
any  kind  of  nest  egg  for  their  old  age? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Well,  that  is  right.  That  is  a 
problem,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  for  the  mem- 
ber for  Bellwoods.  That  would  hurt  him 
rather  badly,  because  I  think  that  he  had 
some  other  different  intentions. 

Mr.  J.  Yaremko  (Bellwoods):  That  is  very 
unfair. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  No,  it  is  not  unfair. 

Mr.  Yaremko:  That  is  not  fair. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  member  was  making  a 
nest  egg  for  his  old  age,  correct? 

Mr.  Yaremko:  What  is  the  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre  doing  with  his  savings?  Drink- 
ing it  up? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  No,  I  am  devoting  some  of 
my  savings  to  my  riding  office  in  my  riding 
in  order  to  ensure  that  people  have  good 
representation.  I'll  do  my  best  to  change  this 
government,  because  that  is  the  biggest  con- 
tribution that  anybody  could  make. 

Mr.  Yaremko:  I  have  served  in  office  for 
23  years. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes. 

Mr.  Yaremko:  Just  ask  the  man  beside  the 
member— former  leader  of  the  NDP,  who  is 
smiling— where  he  put  his  savings.  Specula- 
tive stock!  I  have  never  owned  a  single  share 
of  speculative  stock  since. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Oh, 
nonsense— speculative  stock. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Nonsense,  nonsense.  The 
member  for  Bellwoods  has  been  speculating 
in  land  for  the  last  20  years,   Mr.   Speaker. 


MARCH  29,  1974 


563 


That  is  one  of  the  reasons  he  is  out  of 
cabinet.    It  should  have  happened  far  sooner. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  just  want  to  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  where  speculative  housing  is 
involved,  and  where  the  housing  is  not 
owner-occupied  and  has  a  value  of  more  than 
$100,000,  we  would  apply  the  same  tax.  If 
it  is  a  fellow  who  lives  in  the  bottom  of  a 
duplex  and  he  happens  to  sell  it,  obviously 
that  woiJd  be  exempted.  But  anybody  who 
is  playing  the  kind  of  big  money  games  that 
have  been  encouraged  by  the  Conservatives 
ought  to  pay  the  same  kind  of  taxes,  and 
that  means  75  per  cent  of  the  gain  since 
1971  or  something  along  that  line.  If  we 
want  to  make  it  the  beginning  of  1972  for 
convenience,  that's  okay.  But  we  needi  that 
kind  of  step,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  this  government 
is  going  to  show  any  credibility  in  the  minis- 
ter s  determination  to  get  the  speculators  out 
of  the  market. 

Very  simply,  Mr.  Speaker,  right  now  the 
upside  bonus  or  benefits  that  a  speculator  can 
expect  from  land  are  very  high.  The  down- 
side risk  is  very  low  because  after  all,  among 
other  things,  half  of  it  is  paid  for  by  govern- 
ment because  of  the  tax  system. 
1^  We  would  suggest  that  any  losses  on  land 

speculation  not  be  permitted  deductions  as 
far  as  the  Ontario  tax  system  is  concerned, 
and  that  the  provincial  government  recom- 
mend that  the  same  step  be  made  by  the 
federal  government.  In  view  of  the  com- 
ments by  the  member  for  Waterloo  North 
(Mr.  Good),  I  suggest  that  perhaps  the  op- 
position party  might  suggest  that  to  their 
friends  in  Ottawa  as  well. 


If  the  housing  programme  announced  over 
the  next  month  doesn't  include  steps  at  least 
that  tough,  if  it  doesn't  include  steps  to 
acquire  a  very  substantial  portion  of  land  for 
public  control,  public  development  and  pub- 
lic leasing,  if  it  doesn't  include  an  adequate 
programme  of  rent  regulation  or  rent  control 
in  order  to  protect  those  millions  of  tenants 
across  the  province  who  are  now  subject  to 
insecurity,  to  rent  ripoffs  and  to  the  kind  of 
situation  that  was  documented  in'  the  report 
tabled  in  Ontario  this  week,  then  there  will 
be  no  credibility  in  that  housing  programme 
whatsoever. 

My  great  concern  is  that  the  new  minister 
is  simply  ideologically  incapable  of  taking 
those  kinds  of  measures,  which  are  the  kinds 
of  measures  that  are  needed  for  housing. 

I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  reached'  a  con- 
venient break  in  my  remarks.  I  would  like 
to  resume  next  week  to  make  a  few  com- 
ments about  the  Amprior  dam. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member 
would  move  the  adjournment  of  the  debate. 

Mr.  Cassidy  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabuiet):  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
Monday  we  will  proceed  to  item  No.  2,  BiU 
1,  and  then  we  will  return  to  this  debate. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1  o'clock,  p.m. 


564  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  March  29,  1974 

OPP  agreement,  statement  by  Mr.  Winkler  527 

TraUwind  Products,  statement  by  Mr.  Guindon  527 

Global  Television  network,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  528 

TTC  subsidy,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Deacon  529 

Minister's  personal  position  re  Kingston  township  council,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett: 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  529 

Gasoline  travel  ads,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  530 

Rent  subsidies  for  social  allowances  recipients,  questions  of  Mr.  Bnmelle:  Mr.  Lewis, 

Mr.  Deacon,  Mr.  Cassidy  531 

Cost  of  living  clauses  in  labour  contracts,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Lewis  532 

Spending  ceilings  in  education,  questions  of  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Lewis  533 

Food  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Lewis  533 

Automobile  insurance  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Lewis  533 

Rapid  Data  Corp.,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Haggerty  534 

Alleged  Mafia  activities,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Shidman  534 

Bayfield  land  dispute,  question  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Riddel]  534 

Condominium  specidation,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Lawlor  534 

Inspection  of  licensed  premises,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Reid,  Mr.  MacDonald, 

Mr.   Shulman   535 

Approval  of  official  plans,  question  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Spence  537 

Air  management  branch  inspector,  question  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Martel  537 

Redistribution  of  electoral  boundaries,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Breithaupt  537 

Enforcement  of  liquor  regvdations,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Burr  537 

North  Pickering  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Deacon  538 

Shining  Tree  phone  service,  question  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Laughren  539 

Savings  from  one  minister  holding  two  portfolios:  question  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Singer  539 

Tabling  copy  of  caution  re  Maple  Mountain  development,  Mr.  Welch  539 

Motion  re  interim  payments  pending  voting  of  supply,  Mr.  White,  agreed  to  539 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Gilbertson,  Mr.  Good 

Mr.   Cassidy   540 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Cassidy,  agreed  to  563 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  563 


No.  15 


Ontario 


Hegtglature  of  d^ntario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Monday,  April  1,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


567 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


[ 


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

Prayers 

Mr.  D.   A.   Evans    (Simcoe   Centre): 


A.   Evans 

to    you,    and 


Mr. 
Speaker,  to  you,  and  through  you  to  the 
members  of  the  Legislature,  I'd  like  to  intro- 
duce, in  the  west  gallery,  25  first-year  law 
students  from  Georgian  College  of  Applied 
Arts  and  Technology  along  with  Mr.  W^anan. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  announce  to  the 
assembly  that  we  have  two  groups  of  students 
from  the  riding  of  Thunder  Bay.  The  first  one 
is  57  students  from  Marathon  Public  School 
under  the  sponsorship  of  Mr.  William 
Springer,  and  along  with  them  we  have  17 
students  from  Nakina  Public  School  under  the 
direction  of  Mrs.  Swanson.  I  hope  that  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  will  join  me  in 
welcoming  them  here  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 


REFUSE-FIRED  STEAM  PLANT 
PROPOSED  FOR  TORONTO 

Hod.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment): Mr.  Speaker,  I'd  like  to  make  a 
statement  on  the  refuse-fired  steam  plant 
proi)osed  for  Toronto. 

Earlier  today,  Toronto  Mayor  David 
Crombie  annoxmced  a  proposed  phase-out  of 
Toronto  Hydro-Electric's  Pearl  St.  steam  gen- 
erating plant,  replacing  it  with  one  fuelled 
primarily  by  garbage. 

This  new  plant  is  part  of  a  plan  connecting 
five  existing  heating  systems  in  the  central 
area  of  the  city.  This  plant  would  bum  1,200 
tons  of  garbage  each  day  and  supply  a  steady 
source  of  steam  for  heating  in  the  area.  Peak 
demands  would  be  handled  by  existing  heat- 
ing systems:  the  Toronto  Hydro-Electric 
system  c>f  Terauley  St.,  the  Toronto  Hospitals 
plant,  the  University  of  Toronto  system,  plus 
the  Queen's  Park  facility  operated  by  the 
Ministry  of  Government  Services. 

The  province  played  a  role  in  the  prepar- 
ation of  this  plan.  The  method  used  to  cal- 
culate resulting  changes  in  air  pollution  was 
developed  by  the   Ministry  of  the  Environ- 


MoNDAY,  April  1,  1974 

ment.  An  interministry  committee  is  being 
established  to  evaluate  these  proposals.  The 
committee  will  be  composed  of  the  Ministries 
of  the  Environment,  Energy,  Government 
Services,  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations, 
Housing,  Health,  and  Treasury,  Economics 
and  Intergovernmental  Affairs,  plus  repre- 
sentatives from  Ontario  Hydro. 

Under  the  chairmansliip  of  Wesley  William- 
son of  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment,  the 
committee  will  co-ordinate  the  preparation  of 
a  provincial  response  to  this  proposal  and 
eventual  reply  to  the  city.  The  city's  report 
suggests  that  six  months  be  set  aside  for 
submission  of  briefs  from  all  interested  parties, 
since  the  report,  based  on  five  volumes  of 
technical  data,  would  entail  extensive  policy 
decisions  and  changes  in  existing  legislation. 

I  would  Hke  to  emphasize  that  this  is  a 
detailed  analysis  of  the  situation  and  I  would 
like  to  commend  the  city  of  Toronto  for  its 
initiative  in  bringing  forward  this  exciting 
approach.  The  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
and  the  government  of  Ontario  as  a  whole 
have  tried  to  encourage  this  type  of  solution 
to  waste  management  problems.  It  is  hearten- 
ing to  note  the  development  of  proposals  such 
as  this  by  the  city  of  Toronto  that  help 
accomplish  resource  recovery  and  refuse. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions,  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


REFUSE-FIRED  STEAM  PLANT 
PROPOSED  FOR  TORONTO 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  if  this  announce- 
ment, together  with  the  consideration  that  he 
must  have  been  giving  other  factors  associated 
with  the  circumstances,  would  now  lead  htm 
to  make  an  announcement  here  in  the  House 
that  he  is  not  going  to  approve  the  applica- 
tion from  CPR  to  dump  Toronto  garbage  in 
Hope  township? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  As  I  said  before,  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  are  stiU  waiting  for  a  lot  of 
technical  data  to  come  in  on  that  site  at  this 
time.  We  are  still  studying  it. 


568 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Sup- 
plementary: Was  not  1976  the  time  schedule 
for  this  steam  plant  operation  on  a  crash 
course  erection  programme;  or  what  is  the 
proposed  time  schedule?  Will  the  six  months 
study  delay  the  construction  of  it  until  people 
forget  about  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  a 
new  report  which  has  just  been  handed  to 
the  city  of  Toronto.  They  have  just  released 
it  this  morning.  We  have  set  up  an  inter- 
ministeri^  committee  to  study  it  to  make 
recommendations  back  to  the  city. 

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

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  I  am 
sorry,  I  may  have  missed  it  in  his  ministerial 
statement.  Did  the  minister  mention  the 
quantity  of  garbage  which  would  be  used  for 
the  plant? 

Mr.  Good:  Under  75  per  cent. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  about 
1,200  tons  a  day. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Twelve . hundred  tons  a  day. 
What  happens  to  the  other  7,500  tons? 

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


WORLD  FOOTBALL  LEAGUE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Premier,  who  is  a  noted  and  an  accepted 
expert  in  sports,  particularly  football,  if  the 
siGrmnc;  of  those  three  well-known  Dolphins 
bv  the  Northmen  is  ?oingj  to  prompt  him  to 
chancre  his  public  stand  on  this  matter?  Does 
the  Premier  feel  that  he  has  a  responsibility 
as  the  Premier  to  indicate  a  further  review  of 
this  situation,  or  is  he  going  to  come  down, 
as  he  has  said  previously,  on  the  nationalism 
side? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transoorta- 
tion  and  Communications):  Ask  Lalonde. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Sneaker, 
I  sensed  that  when  the  hon.  member  for 
Sarnia  (Mr.  Bullbrook)  asked  me  about  this 
the  other  day  he  was  really  speaking  in 
opposition  to  what  the  federal  grovemment 
was  doin^.  At  least  that  was  the  impression 
that  I  got  from  his  question.  My  public 
posture,  I  think,  has  been,  however,  fairly 
clearly  understood,  and  that  is  that  I  am 
a  great  supporter  and  have  been  for  many 


years  of  the  Canadian  Football  League.  I 
think  I  have  also  said  that,  if  the  federal 
minister  wishes  to  become  involved  in  this 
matter  and  to  restrict  the  franchise  opera- 
tion of  the  Northmen  here  in  Metropolitan 
Toronto,  that  is  a  decision  that  he  apparently 
has  made  and  one  for  which  he  will  ha\e  to 
assume  the  responsibility.  It  is  not  my  intent 
to  become  involved  as  head  of  this  govern- 
ment in  that  particular  debate. 

Interjections    by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Does  the  Premier  think  John 
Bassett  Jr.  will  find  something  else  to  play 
with? 


MINERAL  EXPLORATION 
CROWN  CORPORATION 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
also  like  to  ask  the  Premier  if  he  can  add 
anything  further  to  the  statement  made  by 
the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Mr. 
Bemier)  when  he  announced  over  the  week- 
end there  was  going  to  be  a  policy  announced 
in  the  budget  on  April  9  which  would  estab- 
lish a  mineral  exploration  Crown  corpora- 
tion. Is  there  any  further  detail  which 
could  be  provided  in  that  regard  and  would 
it,  in  fact,  mean  that  some  of  the  tax  re- 
ductions, which  our  natural-resource  indus- 
tries have  been  enjoying  on  the  basis  they 
would  be  used  to  increase  their  own  resource 
explorations,  would  no  longer  be  necessary? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  really  there 
is  only  one  gentleman  who  is  privileged  to 
know  what  is  going  to  be  in  the  budget 
statement  next  week.  In  that  the  Treasurer 
(Mr.  White)  is  not  here  this  afternoon  but 
will  be  tomorrow,  perhaps  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  might  put  that  question  to  him. 
I  could  only  say  this  to  him:  I  doubt  that 
the  Treasurer  will  answer  the  question  in 
advance  of  the  budget. 

I  can  only  say  that  the  government  has 
been  considering  various  ways  and  means  to 
develop  further  the  northern  part  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario,  particularly  the  mining 
industry.  Whether  the  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources  actually  said  that  it  would,  in 
fact,  be  in  the  budget,  I  haven't  discussed 
with  him.  I  can  only  say  that  the  Treasurer 
really  is  the  only  one  who  at  this  moment 
knows  what  will  be  in  there  for  next  week. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  In 
that  the  report  said  the  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources  said  that  the  Crown  corporation 
was  approved  and  will  be  announced  in  the 
budget,   does  the  Premier  not  feel  it  is  in- 


APRIL  1,  1974 


569 


cumbent  upon  him  to  bring  to  his  colleague's 
attention  the  fact  that  the  matters  in  the 
budget  are,  in  fact,  privileged  until  such 
time  as  the  Treasurer  sees  fit  to  release 
them? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  he  is  just  flying  a  kite. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  think,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  this  is  a  matter  which  is  necessarily 
privileged.  I  think,  quite  frankly  there  is 
some  merit  in  consideration  of  this  proposal. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  We 
have  been  pushing  it  for  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  be  very  surprised 
if  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  weren't 
somewhat  enthused.  I  think  it  is  premature 
though,  to  say  it  has  been  approved  and  will 
necessarily  find  itself  in  the  budget  next 
week  although  that  possibility,  I  am  sure, 
does   exist. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  The 
minister  was  either  misquoted  or  was  in- 
correct in  making  the  statement? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  might  have  been 
either. 


COMMUNITY  COLLEGE  COURSES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Sir,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities.  Is  he  aware  that  at  Loyalist 
College  in  Belleville  the  scarce  assignments 
for  certain  special  courses  are  being  approved 
by  a  lottery  rather  than  approval  being  given 
to  those  student  applicants  with  the  best 
qualifications?  Has  he  been  informed  of  those 
circumstances  and  is  he  concerned  about  them 
in  any  way? 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities):  No,  I  haven't,  Mr.  Speaker. 
It  sounds  like  an  unusual  method  to  me. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  thought  so  myself.  A 
supplementary  with  further  details;  it  has 
to  do  with  the  selection  of  nursing  students 
and  if  the  minister  could  inquire  into  that 
it  would  be  of  great  usefulness  as  far  as  we 
are   concerned. 

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


KINGSTON  TOWNSHIP  SERVICES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  further  question  of  the 
Premier  having  to  do  with  the  Kingston 
township  situation:   How  can  he  square  his 


statement  on  Thursday  last,  that  he  was  un- 
aware of  the  association  of  the  present  Minis- 
ter of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Bennett) 
with  the  dissident  group  and  the  I'eader  of 
the  dissident  group  in  the  Kingston  area,  with 
the  minister's  statement  on  Friday  that  he  had 
informed  cabinet  of  his  relationship  and  had 
not  participated  in  the  discussion  in  cabinet 
while  it  was  before  that  body? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer 
to  that  question  is  very  simple.  I  wasn't  at 
cabinet  when  that  was  determined. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Okay.  That's  all. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  I  checked. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Touche. 

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


OIL  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  if  I  may,  of  the 
Premier,  Mr.  Speaker:  How  does  the  Premier 
explain  the  discrepancy  in  the  intended  fuel 
and  gasoline  price  increases  to  the  consumers 
of  Ontario,  between'  the  7.14  cents  per 
gallon  which  the  increase  he  agreed  upon 
actually  represents,  and  the  10  cents  per 
gallon  figure  which  the  oil  companies  are 
now  talking  about? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't 
reconcile  them  at  all  nor  do  I  intend  to.  I 
can  only  say  to  the  House  that  the  estimates 
prepared  by  the  Ministry  of  Energy  related 
to  the  increase  incurred  at  the  wellhead  price 
and  oiu-  estimates  were  three  cents  per  dollar 
—I  think  it  was— which  would  mean  7^2  cents 
going  to  $6.50.  I  would  assume— and  I  can 
only  assume— the  rationalization  being  put  for- 
ward by  the  oil  companies,  that  this  might 
meani  something  more  than  6%  or  seven  cents, 
would  relate  to  any  other  costs  they  were 
bearing  related'  to  the  production  or  the  manu- 
facture of  the  fuel.  I  can'  only  assume  that; 
we  have  no  way  of  knowing.  I  want  to  make 
it  clear  that  from  our  standpoint  the  well- 
head price  increase  should  be  reflected,  we 
say,  by  approximately  6%  to  seven  cents. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  fine.  That's  interesting. 
Thert  since  Energy,  Mines  and  Resources  in 
Ottawa  has  indicated  that  the  oil  companies 
would  be  entitled  to  perhaps  an  a-Triitional 
one-half  cent  per  gallon  to  cover  the  non- 
crude  related  price  increase,  why  are  the  oil 
companies  talking  of  a  jump  to  10  cents, 
which  is  up  to  2%  cents  more  per  gallon  than 
they  are  entitled  to?  And  why  has  the  govern- 


570 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ment  of  Ontario  not  yet  called  the  oil  com- 
panies to  an  accounting  for  what  is  clearly 
going  to  be  an  additional  ripoff  of  the  Ontario 
consumer?  That's  explicit  in  their  figures. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  de- 
bated this  here  before,  and  I  know  the  next 
supplementary  question  will  be,  why  doesn't 
this  government  employ  the  device  of  price 
controls  on  the  oil  companies- 
Mr.  Lewis:  No.  Certainly  rollbacks  on  the 
oil  companies. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  can  only  say  this  to  the 
hon.  member,  that  if  the  Ottawa  figures  now 
represent  another  half  cent- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Right! 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —for  the  non'-crudie  in- 
creased cost  as  part  of  the  oil  companies' 
additional  cost,  that's  fine,  that's  their  deter- 
mination. Our  determination  was  seven  cents, 
and  it  still  remains  that.  I  can  only  assume, 
and  I  am  only  assuming  this,  that  if  there  is 
something  more,  by  one  or  two  cents,  it  re- 
lates to  the  oil  companies'  own  increase  in 
cost  for  other  reasons- 
Mr.  Lewis:  But  I've  allowed  for  the  half 
cent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —besides  the  question  of 
the  increase  in  crude. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
hon.  member  is  saying  the  oil  companies  are 
overcharging  or  adding  two  cents  per  gallon— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  I  am.  I  am. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —that's  fine.  I  am  sure 
that  he  will  be  prepared  to  document  this, 
and  I'll  be  very  interested  to  see  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Has  the  Premier  looked  at 
their  profit  statements? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  don't  have  any  of 
this  documentation  as  of  this  moment. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Supple- 
mentary question,  Mr.  Speaker— double- 
barrelled,  really:  The  Premier  will  recall  that 
his  parliamentary  assistant  last  June  recom- 
mended that  the  Energy  secretariat  should 
examine  the  question  of  whether  or  not  the 
powers  of  the  Ontario  Energy  Board  should 
be  extended  to  involve  price  review.  Pre- 
sumably that  is  now  being  studied  in  the 
ministry.  Has  the  Premier  or  the  government 
received  any  recommendation  as  to  an  exten- 
sion of  those  powers?  And  if  not,  why  won't 


Ontario  now— like,  for  example,  Nova  Scotia- 
give  price  review  powers  to  a  provincial  body, 
to  get  into  precisely  this  kind  of  clarification 
of  alleged  ripoff  in  prices? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Especially 
since  they  are  doing  it  for  Hydro. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  the 
minister  made  some  observation  about  this, 
and  this  was  a  matter  of  internal  considera- 
tion by  the  ministry.  I  don't  beUeve  any  policy 
determination  has  been  made.  If  there  is, 
of  course,  it  will  be  announced  here  to  the 
House.  But  at  this  moment  there  hasn't  been 
that  decision. 

Mr.  Reid:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker,  if 
I  may:  Does  the  Premier  not  feel  it  would 
be  consistent,  in  view  of  what  the  govern- 
ment has  done  and  is  doing  with  the  price 
review  and  justification  of  Hydro  rates- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  And  review  of  natural 
gas  prices  for  a  long  time. 

Mr.  Reid:  —and  natural  gas,  that  it's  surely 
only  an  extension  of  a  rational  policy  to 
extend  it  to  the  review  of  gas  and  oil  rates? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  a 
very  complex  subject,  and  while  on  the  sur- 
face it  might  appear  to  some  that  it  was, 
shall  we  say,  a  logical  extension,  or  the 
same- 
Mr.  Reid:  How  can  the  Premier  stand 
there  and  presume  things? 

Mr.   Speaker:   Order.  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Does  the  member  want 
an  answer,  or  does  he  not? 

Mr.  Reid:  I  want  an  answer,  but  I  won't 
get  one  from  the  Premier. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  All  right  then.  If  he'll 
sit  back  patiently,  I  will  try  to  give  the  hon. 
member  an  answer.  I  think  there  is  some 
degree  of  distinction.  We  are  dealing  with 
Ontario  Hydro,  with  a  public  utility  in  the 
total  sense  of  the  word,  whose  activities  are 
confined  to  the  Province  of  Ontario- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  What  about  natural  gas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —whose  task  is  to  produce 
hydro  at  cost.  We're  dealing,  with  respect  to 
gas,  with  public  utilities  that  are  licensed 
here  by  the  Province  of  Ontario  where  we 
do  regulate  rates.  With  the  "gas"  that  is 
used  in  automobiles,  etc.,  we're  dealing  with 
oil  companies  which  are  part  of  the  private 
sector,  which  have  not  traditionally  had  their 


APRIL  1,  1974 


571 


increases  reviewed,  and  which  are  operating 
on  a  national  level.  It's  not  confined  just  to 
the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  time  to  change  tradition. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  I  think  that  while 
there  may  be  some  merit— and  obviously  the 
ministry  feels  this,  because  it  is  looking  at 
it— to  say  that  they're  on  all  fours  with  On- 
tario Hydro  is  not  totally  logical. 

Mr.  Beid:  May  I- 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Thun- 
der Bay. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Can  the  Premier  give  an  as- 
surance that  any  increase  as  a  result  of  the 
recent  announcement  in  Ottawa  will  be  no 
greater  in  northern  Ontario  than  it  is  else- 
where in  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
certainly  like  to  give  the  hon.  member  that 
assurance.  And,  certainly  from  our  stand- 
point, to  the  extent  that  all  that  was  agreed 
upon  in  Ottawa  was  the  increase  in  the  cost 
of  crude  at  the  wellhead,  I  can  see  that  de- 
cision not  affecting  the  price  on  any,  shall 
we  say,  percentage  basis  in  northern  or 
southern  Ontario.  I  can't  see  where  the  price 
of  wellhead  crude  afiFects  that  differential. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  if  I  may,  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  that  we  should  alter- 
nate the  supplementaries. 

Mr.  Reid:  Is  the  Premier  saying  in  effect, 
in  answer  to  my  original  question,  that  he 
feels  that  Ontario  Hydro,  which  is  a  public 
corporation,  should  have  its  rates  reviewed 
when  supposedly  it  is  operating  purely  in 
the  public  interest,  and  the  corporations 
dealing  with  oil  and  gas  which  are  not  op- 
erating in  the  public  interest  but  in  the 
private  sector  and  to  maximize  their  profits, 
should  not  have  their  rates  and  prices  re- 
viewed? And  does  he  not  feel  that  it's  really 
time,  in  this  period  of  inflation,  that  the  On- 
tario government  got  off  its  seat  and  did 
something  about  these  matters— break  with 
the  tradition? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
making  a  far  greater  effort  to  get  off  our 
seats  with  respect  to  inflation  than  the  mem- 
bers opposite  and  their  federal  colleagues. 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Reid:  What  has  this  government  done? 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  want  to  get  into 
a  debate  here  on  inflation,  but  I  think  there 
is  no  question  about  it. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Yet 
it's  a  much  tougher  job. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  This  gov- 
ernment couldn't  deal  with  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  those  people  across  the 
House  really  want  to  come  to  grips  with  in- 
flation why  don't  they  talk  to  their  friends 
and  relatives  in  the  federal  government  and 
show  the  world  they  can  do  something  about 
it? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  As  a  last  resort. 

Mr  Lewis:  That's  a  good  phrase— I  like 
that.  It's  all-encompassing. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Now,  what  did  the  mem- 
ber really  ask  me? 

The  answer,  I  think,  is  very  simple:  No, 
I  did  not  say  that.  All  I  said  was  the  base 
for  such  a  consideration  or  review  as  it  re- 
lates to  Hydro  would  in  logic  be  different 
from  gas. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  last  supple- 
mentary: Given  the  year's  profit  increases  of 
Shell  Canada  of  42  per  cent,  Texaco  30  per 
cent.  Imperial  Oil  45  per  cent,  BP  45  per 
cent,  Gulf  39  per  cent,  Home  Oil  115  per 
cent— given  those  increases  in  profit  struc- 
ture and  the  announced  intention  of  the  oil 
companies  to  raise  the  prices  by  10  cents  in 
the  middle  of  May— 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  He  shouldn't  support 
them.  Right  on. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): He  shouldn't  support  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —why  is  the  Premier  not  pre- 
pared to  ask  them  to  justify  those  increases, 
in  the  name  of  the  Ontario- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  is  the  Premier  not  pre- 
pared to  ask  them  to  justify  those  increases 
in  the  name  of  the  Ontario  consumer,  since 
there  is  a  discrepancy  on  the  basis  of  the 
government's  own  figures? 


572 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  for  High 
Park  (Mr.  Shulman)  hangs  his  head  in  shame. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  The  Pre- 
mier knows  the  member  has  got  him. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Speaker:  Order,  please.  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  NDP 
strikes  such  fear  in  the  hearts  of  the  govern- 
ment I  can  understand. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  I  offered  to  calm  them. 
The  election  is  18  months  off,  let  them  be 
calm. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  the  Premier  answer  why 
he  will  not  call  them  to  justify  their  in- 
creases? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Of  course,  Mr.  Speaker, 
fir  tly  I  didn't  say  that  we  wouldn't.  Second- 
ly, I  would  only  make  this  observation— and 
I  would  hope  the  member  would  be  suffi- 
ciently knowledgeable  to  recognize  that  he's 
dealing  with  national  and  international  oil 
companies,  but  they're  dealing  on  a  national 
basis.  It's  fine  to  call  them  for  review  here 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario- 
Mr.  Renwick:  But  they're  selling  their  gas 
in  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Certainly  they're  selling 
here— 

Mr.  Lewis:  They're  selling  it  here  in  On- 
tario. 

Hon.    Mr.   Davis:    —but  they're   selling   in 
our  sister  provinces  and  I  say  with  respect- 
Mr.    Lewis:    The    Premier    is    supporting 
them. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —such  a  review  has  to 
he  done  on  a  national  basis. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order,  please.  Order. 
I'm  sure  that  further  questions  will  only 
constitute  a  debate  on  this  matter.  I  think 
we've  had  quite  suflBcient. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 


ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question  that  comes 
to  mind  as  a  result  of  the  Premier's  declara- 
tion of  support  for  Hydro.  If  he  feels  that 
Hydro  is  such  a  public- 
Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  He  doesn't. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —corporation,  publicly  account- 
able, subject  to  review,  then  why  will  he  not 
have  tabled  the  engineering  feasibility  study 
done  to  justify  the  Amprior  dam?  That's  also 
part  of  Hydro. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister 
of  Energy  (Mr.  McKeough)  has  already  dealt 
with  this  matter  on  a  previous  day. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No,  he  hasn't. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  a  supplementary: 
The  Minister  of  Energy  has  thumbed  his 
nose  at  the  House  and  said  that  Hydro  is  not 
accountable.  I'm  asking  the  Premier,  in  view 
of  his  declaration  about  Hydro  as  a  public 
corporation,  will  he  have  the  report  of  the 
engineering  feasibility  study  on  the  Amprior 
dam  tabled  in  the  Legislature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  ques- 
tion should  very  properly  be  directed  to  the 
Minister  of  Energy  who  answered  this  ques- 
tion for  the  hon.  member  for  Ottawa— what- 
ever it  is  and  the  islands— some  few  days 
ago. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What's  the  point?  There's  no 
point  to  asking,  he  has  indicated  the  position 
he  takes. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Hydro  is  just  as  arrogant  as 
the  Minister  of  Energy. 


Mr.  Renwick:   The  Premier  is  free  to  do         MAPLE  MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPMENT 


Mr.  Lewis:  He  let's  them  walk  all  over 
him. 

Mr.  Stokes:  The  Premier  intervenes  when 
Bell  Canada  makes  application  for  a  rate 
hike. 


Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  if  I  may  Mr. 
Speaker,  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment: 
Has  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  looked 
over  his  internal  memoranda  and  correspond- 
ence within  his  ministry  relating  to  the  Maple 
Mountain  project;  and  if  he  has,  can  he  indi- 
cate why  a  memorandum  dated  Oct.  12,  1973, 


APRIL  1,  1974 


573 


obviously  worked  on  the  premise  that  protec- 
tion in  the  field  of  the  environment  would 
have  to  proceed  during  the  construction  phase 
of  Maple  Mountain;  that  is  worked  on  the 
premise  that  Maple  Mountain  would  proceed? 
Has  the  minister  been  informed  already  that 
it  will  proceed;  and  if  so  what  does  he  know 
of  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
been  informed  that  it  will  proceed.  The  mem- 
ber talks  about  a  memo  of  Oct.  12;  the  memo 
I  have  is  dated  Oct.  16.  I  hope  we  are  talking 
about  the  same  memo. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  guess  not. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  He  got  an  earlier  draft. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  think  we  are;  but  ii 
the  member  would  like  to  check  it  out,  check 
the  memo  he  has  in  mind. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  the  date  in  front  of  me 
for  what  it  is  worth. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  The  memo  I  have  is 
of  a  different  date. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Okay,  all  right. 

Mr.  Renwick:  How  about  the  minister 
tabling  his? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  This  is  strictly  an 
internal  memo  which  recommends  things  that 
should  be  done.  Members  will  recall  we  put 
out  a  green  paper  last  year  in  which  we 
indicated  we  will  be  bringing  forward  legisla- 
tion to  deal  with  matters  such  as  this  if  they 
do  orocecd.  This  is  just  an  internal  memo  With 
a  lot  of  recommendations  of  things  that 
should  be  done. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Okay. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That  is  a  non-answer. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  It  doesn't  indicate  any- 
thing at  all.  I  am  surprised,  really,  the  hon. 
member  opposite  would  make  statements  like 
he  made  in  the  paper,  in  the  Globe  and  Mail 
or  whatever  paper  it  was  in.  If  he  has  the 
same  memo  that  I  have  I  am  surprised  he 
would  make  statements  like  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fine,  We'll  sit  and  wait  for  the 
ever-present  announcement  on  Maple  Moun- 
tain. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  He  predicted  the  election 

as  well. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  made  statements  refer- 
ring to  it  as  being  dishonest.  It  is  not  dis- 
honest. 


Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  this  question:  In  the  memo 
within  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  it 
says  that  Lady  Evelyn  Lake  is  "a  relatively 
large  and  scenic  lake  presently  used  for 
wilderness  canoeing,  hiking  and  hunting."  It 
then  says:  "At  the  same  time.  Lady  Evelyn 
is  considered  to  be  the  major  fishing  resource 
for  the  Maple  Mountain  development." 
Nothing  equivocal  about  that.  "A  marina  with 
docking  and  fuelling  facilities  for  power  boats 
and  for  float  planes  is  proposed.  The  potential 
of  petrochemical  and  noise  pollution  is  a 
concern"— and  so  on. 

Can  I  ask  the  minister  what  has  his  min- 
istry to  say  about  this  intrusion  on  Lady 
Evelyn,  given  the  policies  the  ministry  is 
adopting  in  Algonquin  Park  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  lakes,  precisely  opposed  to  this? 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  ( Timiskaming ) :  The 
member  better  get  his  facts  straight.  Get  the 
facts. 

'An  hon.  member:  The  minister  better  pro- 
tect the  lady. 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Mr,  Speaker,  I  would  tell  the  hon. 
member  that  we  are  asked  to  comment  on  a 
number  of  proposals  that  come  forward  and 
this  is  just  a  comment  that  we  give  as  we  do 
in  a  normal  case. 


TRANSLATION  SERVICE  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  last  question, 
then,  of  the  Minister  of  Government  Services: 
Does  the  minister  realize  that  he  has  sent  out 
a  price  hst,  eff^ective  April  1,  1974,  for  trans- 
lation services  from  his  ministry  which  will 
provide  a  cost  per  word,  in  the  translation  of 
English  to  French,  of  nine  cents  a  word  for 
general  translation,  12  cents  a  word  for  spe- 
cialized translation,  15  cents  a  word  for  rush 
translation?  Is  this  the  government's  contribu- 
tion to  policies  of  bHingualism  and  bicultural- 
ism  in  Ontario?  Is  this  part  of  his  commit- 
ment? 

Mr.  Havrot:  In  Ottawa  it  is  $1  a  word. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  ( Minister  of  Government 
Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  famihar 
with  the  exact  per-word  rates  that  are  being 
quoted  by  the  hon.  member,  but  I  would 
just  say  this  is  carrying  out  the  policy  of  the 
government  and  the  policy  of  my  ministry  of 
providing  these  services  on  a  charge-back 
basis,  or  a  zero  budget  basis,  for  that  service. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  does  all  that  mean, 
zero  budgeting? 


574 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  What  does  that  mean? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  If  we  do  translation  work 
for  other  ministries  of  the  government,  or 
other  bodies,  we  charge  at  a  rate  that  will 
cover  the  cost  of  operating  that  branch  of 
my  ministry. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Would  the  minister  not  agree  that  charg- 
ing for  translation  service  is  in  effect  a 
deterrent,  surely,  to  both  ministries  and  mem- 
bers of  this  Legislature  using  this  service? 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development ) :  It's  bookkeeping 
within  the  ministry. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  bookkeeping? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
wouldn't  agree  with  that  at  all.  It  is  part  of 
the  policy  of  carrying  out  that  type  of  service 
on  a  charge-back  basis  and  having  each  min- 
istry responsible  for  the  cost  involved  for  their 
translation. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  about  membears? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Can't  members  opposite  pay 
for  something? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  received'  that 
notice  from  the  Ministry  of  Government  Ser- 
vices this  morning.  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
as  the  result  of  a  letter  I  sent  to  the  trans- 
lation branch- 
Mr.  Lewis:  To  have  translated. 

Mr.  Stokes:  —to  have  translated  from 
French  into  English— a  letter  that  I  received 
from  a  constituent— I  got  back  a  reply  say- 
ing they  are  going  to  charge  me  a  minimum 
of  nine  cents  per  word  for  that  translation? 
Am  I  going  to  pay  that  out  of  my  own  allow- 
ance in  order  to  be  able  to  communicate  with 
one  of  my  constituents? 

Mr.  Havrot:  It's  cheap. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  pressures  are  coming 
from  the  back  row. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  submitting  to 
the  pressures  from  his  back  row;  that's  why 
he  is  doing  it. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  We  can  take  care  of  it  for 
them,  if  they  like. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  again,  as 
I  have  stated,  is  the  policy  of  the  charge  back 
within  the  ministry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Zero  budget  charge-back. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  A  zero  budget  charge-back 
for  services  within  my  ministry.  These  poli- 
cies are  set  down  by  Management  Board.  We 
administer  those  policies.  There  are  are  some 
instances  of  services  that  are  provided  to  the 
member  where  there's  no  charge  for  the 
service. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  quite  a  phrase. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Let  the  member's  party 
get  a  Frenchman  elected.  The  Liberals  have 
Roy. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  He  is  not  even  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  It  has  not  been  brought  to 
my  attention  that  this  was  going  out  to 
members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  the  minister  is  setting  a 
charge  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  It  certainly  should  have 
gone  out  to  all  government  boards,  commis- 
sions and  ministries. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  about  members? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  will  inquire  into  how  it 
came  about  that  this  went  to  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  anybody?  Why  put  a 
charge  on? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Doesn't  the  member's 
party  have  someone  who  can  translate  French 
into  English? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  A  supplementary  over 
there? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Does  the  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  West  have  further 
questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Housing 
has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 


APRIL  1,  1974 


575 


FIRE  HAZARDS  IN  SENIOR  CITIZEN 
HIGHRISE  BUILDINGS 

Hoa.  Mr.  Handleman:  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  have  the  answer  to  a  question 
asked  by  the  hon.  member  for  Sudbury  (Mr. 
Genua) '  concerning  the  installation  of  com- 
munication systems  in  senior  citizen  buildings. 
Systems  of  this  nature  are  not  required  imder 
the  National  Building  Code.  However,  the 
National  Research  Council  is  considering  the 
possibility  and  is  now  looking  into  the  pos- 
sibility of  installing  them. 

iln  OHC  senior  citizen  buildings  there  is  a 
communication  system  between  the  lobby, 
the  apartments  and  the  resident  caretaker's 
unit.  However,  if  we  installed  a  public  address 
system  which  was  accessible,  there  could  be 
some  problem  because  there  could  be  misuse 
and  disruption  and  confusion.  If  it  is  not 
accessible,  of  course,  it  couldn't  be  used  under 
certain  circumstances. 

Our  senior  citizen  housing  is  designed  for 
persons  who  are  able  to  care  for  themselves. 
However,  we  always  try  to  consider  the 
special  needs  of  this  segment  of  the!  popula- 
tion, and  the  safety  of  the  tenants  is  of  the 
utmost  importance.  I  have  instructed  the 
board  of  directors  of  OHC  to  review  the 
matter  and  to  advise  me  as  quickly  as'  possible 
and  also  to  look  into  the  practice  of  other 
jurisdictions  where  these  systems  are  manda- 
tory, such  as  in  the  publicly  supported  senior 
citizen  housing  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities. 


COMMUNITY  COLLEGE  COURSES 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:   Mr.  Speaker,  subsequent 
to  the  question  from  the  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Great  to  have  him  backl 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  —I  was  going  through  my 
mail  and  I  came  across  the  copy  of  the  press 
clipping  of  the  Globe  of  March  28  and  the 
memorandum  of  Feb.  1,  1974,  of  the  ministry 
to  all  colleges  of  apphed  arts  and  technology 
requiring  admission  requirements. 

Apparently— and  I'll  get  further  detail  on 
this— since  1966  the  legislation  governing  re- 
quirements for  nursing  has  specified  only 
grade  12  plus  two  credits  in  science.  Pre- 
viously some  hospitals  apparently  had  a 
grade  13  requirement  and  some  went  with 
grade  12,  which  is  that  which  the  profession 
recommends  and  which  the  colleges  have 
now  adopted. 


Selection  is  the  responsibility  of  the  col- 
leges, and  I  gather  that  there  has  been  a 
large  number  of  applications  at  Belleville. 
I  think  the  lottery  that  the  hon.  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  referred  to  has  to  do  vvdth 
what  the  press  referred  to  as  a  computer 
lottery.  In  the  ministry's  memorandum,  we 
set  out  assessment  of  the  suitability,  19  years 
of  age,  likelihood  of  successful  completion, 
and  background,  as  well  as  the  academic 
record.  What  I  assume  from  this  memoran- 
dum and  the  material  in  the  press  story  is 
that  there  was  a  large  number  of  applica- 
tions, that  they  are  being  put  through  a 
computer  to  pick  out  all  those  who  would 
qualify  under  the  directive,  then  there  would 
be  the  personal  assessments  and  so  on. 

I  think  that  what  is  referred  to  as  a  lot- 
tery is  really  a  preliminary  screening,  and 
the  basis  of  part  of  the  problem  is  that  the 
teachers  of  a  number  of  people  with  grade 
13  thought  those  students  should  have  pref- 
erence over  those  with  grade  12,  and  the 
college  and  the  ministry  have  said  that  if 
they  have  grade  12  and  two  science  credits, 
which  are  the  requirements  that  students 
would  know  about,  then  they  should  have 
the  same  opportunity  as  students  with  grade 
13. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It's  great  to  have  him 
back. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Supplementary  question, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  minister  advising  us  that 
his  ministry  is  unable  to  attend  to  prelimi- 
nary screening  with  a  personal  interest,  and 
are  these  things  to  be  done  by  computer  in 
future? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Well,  I  am  delighted  to 
respond  to  that.  It  seems  to  me  that  com- 
puter selection  of  specific  written  require- 
ments is  a  faster  way  of  doing  it  than  hav- 
ing a  person  go  through  a  pile  of  papers. 
I  would  say  that  the  personal  assessment  is 
still  important,  though,  but  the  ministry,  as 
I  say,  is  not  responsible  for  the  selection 
other  than  the  broad  guidelines. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  member  for 
St.  George  was  up  first. 


WARRANTY  ON  NEW  HOMES 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Mr. 
Speaker,  my  question  is  of  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  Could 
he  advise  whether  he  proposes  to  have  any 
of  his  staff  present  at  the  meeting  on  April 
8  to  discuss  the  matter  of  house  warranties, 


576 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


as   requested,   I   understand,   by   the   federal 
government? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Yes,  I  do  intend 
to  have  staff  present,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the 
person  of  my  head  legal  officer,  Mr.  Cie- 
miega,  in  the  person  of  Mr.  Graham  Adams, 
the  man  who  has  been  involved  in  the  build- 
ing code,  which  has  been  a  subject  of  dis- 
cussion between  the  hon.  member  and 
myself  for  some  time,  and  one  additional 
member  who  has  not  yet  been  selected. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 


ADMISSION  STANDARDS  FOR 
GRADUATE  STUDIES 

Mr.  Bounsall:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Colleges  and  Universities,  Mr.   Speaker: 

In  light  of  the  Canadian-American  psy- 
chology graduate  student  admission  situation 
at  the  University  of  Windsor,  does  he  not 
think  that  there  should  be  some  overall, 
province-wide  criterion  of  admission  for 
graduate  students,  perhaps  discipline  by  dis- 
cipline, to  determine  whether  the  GREs 
apply  or  do  not  apply,  or  in  what  percen- 
tage? If  the  answer  is  yes  to  that,  would 
he  ensure  that  the  various  disciplines  are 
brought  together  for  the  purpose  of  devising 
and  deciding  upon  common  admission  stand- 
ards to  the  various  graduate  departments? 

Hon.  Mr.  AuH:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  have 
a  comment  on  that  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Oh  yes?  The  minister 
planted  the  question,  did  he? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  No,  but  I  was  aware  of 
it. 

Basically,  as  the  hon.  member  is  aware, 
this  is  an  internal  matter  that  the  university 
would  handle.  However,  I  am  informed  by 
the  university  that  the  process  of  selecting 
applicants  for  the  clinical  psychology  pro- 
gramme, which  is  the  one  to  which  the  hon. 
member  refers— and  I  understand  that  he 
was  at  a  meeting  on  Saturday  afternoon  with 
some  of  the  students— the  process  of  selecting 
applicants  for  that  course  has  not  yet  been 
completed. 

A  subcommittee  of  the  psychology  depart- 
ment has  forwarded  its  recommendations  to 
the  department's  admissions  committee.  I  am 
informed  that  when  they  have  been  reviewed 
by  the  admissions  committee,  they  will  be 
forwarded  for  final  approval  to  the  dean  of 
graduate  studies. 


There  are  16  places  in  this  clinical  psy- 
chology programme,  not  11  or  some  of  the 
other  things  that  one  of  the  students  indi- 
cated in  the  press.  The  subcommittee  has 
recommended  acceptance  of  seven  students 
for  the  master's  programme  and  nine  for  the 
PhD  programme,  a  total  of  16. 

The  seven  students  recommended  for  the 
MA,  the  undergraduate  programme,  are  all 
Canadians.  Of  the  nine  students  recommend- 
ed for  the  PhD  programme,  five  are  Cana- 
dian, three  US  and  one  British.  Five  recom- 
mended PhD  candidates  are  graduates  of  the 
University  of  Windsor. 

In  addition,  six  students,  including  five 
Americans,  were  accepted  for  a  makeup  year 
to  bring  their  qualifications  to  the  level  re- 
quired for  entry  to  either  the  MA  or  the 
PhD  programme.  However,  successful  com- 
pletion of  the  makeup  year  provides  no  guar- 
antee of  subsequent  acceptance  into  post- 
graduate programmes. 

The  subcommittee  itself— this  is  the  one 
that  I  referred  to  about  recommending  in  the 
first  instance  the  successful  candidates  —  is 
composed  of  four  faculty  and  four  graduate 
students  in  psychology  from  the  university. 
Of  the  four  faculty  members,  three  are  land- 
ed immigrants  and  one  is  a  US  citizen.  The 
four  student  members  include  one  Canadian, 
one  landed  immigrant  and  two  Americans. 

Applicants  for  admission  to  the  programme 
are  judged  on  the  basis  of  a  graduate  record 
examination  set  in  the  United  States  and 
marked  there,  I  understand,  and  their  marks 
as  undergraduates.  Their  graduate  record  ex- 
amination is  given  a  weight  of  one  and  their 
undergraduate  marks  are  given  a  weight  of 
two. 

In  addition,  applicants  are  required  to  pro- 
vide two  letters  of  recommendation  from 
professors  in  their  undergraduate  program- 
mes. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  almost  dare  not  ask  it 
after  such  a  detailed  reply,  but  I  was  asking 
in  a  general  way  because  of  the  furore  that 
happened  to  arise  here  in  this  particular 
situation,  most  of  the  facts  of  which  the 
minister  has  related  to  the  House  in  his 
answer,  but  not  all. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Question? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  My  question  is,  would  the 
minister  not  ensure  that  in  every  discipline 
within  the  universities  across  Ontario— as  has 
been  done  in  several  of  them— those  disci- 
plines   meet    and    determine    among    them- 


APRIL  1,  1974 


577 


selves  what  would  be  a  final  criterion  for 
admissions  of  students  to  each  and  every 
discipline,  which  has  not  been  done  in  the 
discipline  of  psychology? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will- 

An  hon.  member:  Take  it  under  advise- 
ment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Let's  say  that  I'll  con- 
sider that,  because  I'm  not  really  conversant 
with  exactly  what  it  is  the  hon.  member  is 
getting  at. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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


INTERMEDIATE  CAPACITY 
TRANSIT  SYSTEM 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-  Forest  Hill):  Would 
the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Commu- 
nications please  tell  us  what  the  reasons  were 
for  the  rejection  by  the  Province  of  Quebec 
of  the  Krauss-Maffei  rapid  transit  system  and 
for  the  rejection  by  the  city  of  Edmonton 
of  the  Krauss-Maffei  system  in  that  city  from 
the  downtown  area  to  the  suburbs?  And  how 
does  he  feel  his  posture  as  a  salesman  to  the 
world  of  rapid  transit  hardware  is  affected 
by  these  two  rejections  by  two  major  juris- 
dictions in  Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all 
I  think  the  word  "rejection"  is  probably  a 
little  strong— it's  just  the  fact  that  they've 
chosen  some  other  system  for  some  other 
purpose. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  minister  will  go  far. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  truth  of  the  matter 
is  that  in  the  case  of  Quebec  we've  looked 
at  their  programme.  We  knew  that  they  were 
looking  at  the  particular  system  that  they 
have  recommended.  I  point  out  that  it  has 
not  been  accepted.  It  is  a  recommendation 
to  the  government.  They've  looked  at  it.  It's 
still  in  the  concept  form.  It's  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent service  that  they  want  to  provide.  It's 
actually  an  intercity  commuter  service  that 
they  are  talking  about  and  not  an  inner-city 
service. 

There  are  all  kinds  of  reasons,  I  suppose, 
we  could  lay  out  here,  but  as  far  as  we  are 
concerned  we  are  going  to  continue  on  with 
the  project  that  this  government  has  brought 
forward- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Blindly,  expensively,  absurdly. 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —and  Montreal  and  Ed- 
monton can  certainly  continue  on  as  they 
are  presently   doing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Imagine  being  brought  down 
under  the  wheels  of  the  train. 

Mr.  Givens:  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  the  mag- 
netic levitation  system,  if  it  is  to  work, 
will  work  better  in  an  intercity  system  from 
Montreal  to  Ste.  Scholastique  with  very  few 
stops,  than  it  would  work  in  Edmonton 
where  there  are  many  stops  and  which  is 
more  or  less  comparable  to  what  Toronto  is? 
And  we've  had  these  two  rejections.  How 
does  the  minister  explain  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
for  a  moment  going  to  attempt  to  explain 
the  theory  of  magnetic  levitation  to  the 
hon.  member  or  anyone  in  this  House.  I 
don't  believe  I'm  competent  to  do  so.  Nor 
do  I  think  the  hon.  member  is. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Thun- 
der Bay. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  about  ordinary  levitation? 
What    about    non-magnetic    levitation? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  with 
respect  to  ordinary  levitation,  t!he  expert  on 
that  is  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  in  the  federal  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Thun- 
der Bay.  .' 


GREAT  WEST  TIMBER  CLOSURE 

Mr.  Stokes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources.  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  Great  West  Timber,  one 
of  the  largest  users  of  saw  logs  in  north- 
western Ontario  and  a  company  that  just 
completed  a  major  expansion,  is  going  to 
have  to  close  down  in  May  because  of  a 
lack  of  saw  logs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
very  much  aware  of  that  particular  company. 
I  can  say  to  the  hon.  member  that  we  have 
a  third  party  agreement  with  a  number  of  the 
major  licensees  in  the  Thunder  Bay  area 
and  we  have  outlined  to  them  that  they 
must  supply  to  Great  West  Timber  100,000 
cunits  on  an  annual  basis.  It  is  my  under- 
standing   that    this    has    not    been    fulfilled 


578 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


and  I  am  meeting  with  the  principals  of  the 
company  on  Wednesday  next  to  discuss  it 
further. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Supplementary:  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  there  are  well  over  200  jobs  and 
several  million  dollars  of  capital  expenditure, 
will  the  minister  take  steps  to  assure  all  of 
the  people  involved  that  the  company  won't 
close  down  for  the  lack  of  saw  logs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  I  realize  there  may  be 
certain  problems  related  to  that  particular 
part  of  the  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  because 
of  half-load  regulations  that  may  be  imposed 
in  that  particular  area,  but  I  can  assure  the 
hon.  member  that  we  will  use  all  the  pressure 
we  can  muster  to  keep  those  jobs  going  and 
that  operation  going  full  tilt. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 
River,  I  believe. 


GUIDELINES  ON  UNIVERSITY  CAMPUS 
ACTIVITIES 

Mr.  Reid:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have 
a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Colleges  and 
Universities.  Acknowledging  the  minister's 
concern  about  local  autonomy  in  the  uni- 
versities, does  he  still  not  feel  concerned 
about  the  actions  that  have  taken  place  at 
the  University  of  Toronto  in  the  last  week? 
I  am  referring  to  the  actions  of  the  SDS. 
Does  he  not  feel  concerned  that  the  civil 
rights  of  the  people  on  that  campus  have 
been  abrogated  by  the  actions  of  that  group 
and  that  perhaps  his  ministry  should  set 
some  guidelines  in  that  regard? 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  wonder  what  the  Liberals 
would  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr,  Speaker,  the  only 
thing  I  can  say  is  that  I  believe  in  the 
rule  of  law,  as  I  assume  most  students  and 
most  people  do. 

The  activities  on  the  campus  are  apparent- 
ly being  looked  at  pretty  carefully  and,  I 
gather,  controlled  as  they  are  supposed  to 
be  by  the  governing  body  of  that  university. 
Again,  as  has  been  traditional  from  the  first 
university,  the  matters  that  the  universiy 
has  as  its  responsibility  are  dealt  with  by  it. 
As  I  understand  it,  if  universities  in  the  past 
have  required  outside  assistance  in  some 
form  or  another,  they  have  initiated  re- 
quests for  it.  This  has  happened  in  the  past 
generally  on  an  administrative  basis  or  an 
administrative  problem,  but  it  would  appear 
to  me  that  the  board  of  governors,  the  senate, 
the  governing  people  at  the  U  of  T  seem  to 
be  taking  appropriate  action. 


Mr.   Reid:    Does   the  minister  think  what 
they  are  doing  is  appropriate? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon,  member  for  High 
Park. 


ALLEGED  MAFIA  ACTIVITIES 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  ( High  Park ) :  A  question 
of  the  Solicitor  General,  Mr.  Speaker:  In 
view  of  the  OPP  having  completed  its  in- 
vestigation, is  the  minister  now  able  to  con- 
firm or  deny  the  story  in  yesterday's  Detroit 
News  that  one  Joseph  Burnett  of  Toronto  has 
been  supplying  financing  for  niunerous 
activities  of  organized  crime  in  the  northern 
USA? 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  is  nothing  in  the  story  that 
I  recall  or  any  information  that  I  have  that 
Mr,  Burnett  was  involved  with  organized 
crime  in  washing  or  laundering  money— and 
this  is  what  our  investigation  has  shown  at 
this  time.  We  are  not  aware  of  any  illegal 
activity  conducted  by  Mr,  Burnett  in  his 
activities  as  an  investment  broker  or  as  a 
lawyer.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  has  also  been 
investigated  by  the  Law  Society  of  Upper 
Canada— of  which  he  is  a  member— and  they 
have  no  reason  to  disbar  him  for  any  of  his 
activities. 

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

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right,  we  will  permit  a 
very  short  supplementary. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Is  the  minister  aware  of  the 
story  in  yesterday's  Detroit  News  whic'h  says 
he  is  currently  being  investigated  by  the  FBI 
for  the  very  activities  which  the  minister  says 
he  is  not  involved  in? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  He  is  being  investigated. 
There  is  a  difference  between  investigation 
and  conviction  or  guilt.  The  member  doesn't 
seem  to  know  that.  The  member  doesn't  know 
the  rules  of  evidence. 

Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

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


U.S,  BEEF  SHIPMENTS 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Agriculture  and  Food,  Is  the  minister  con- 


APRIL  1,  1974 


.579 


templating  seizing  all  beef  containing  DES 
coming  into  the  province  from  the  United 
States,  as  Alberta  has  threatened  to  do?  Inci- 
dentally, when  will  he  answer  my  question  of 
March  14? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  That  is 
just  a  supplementary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  will  have  to  look  that 
question  up,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Answer  the  last  one  first. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  No,  we  haven't  any 
notion  of  seizing  beef  coming  in  from  the 
United  States  containing  DES,  because  neither 
we  nor,  in  my  himible  opinion,  the  Province 
of  Alberta  has  any  right  to  seize  that  beef. 
All  matters  of  crossing  of  provincial  or  inter- 
national borders  is  a  responsibility  of  the 
federal  government.  The  health  of  animals 
branch,  in  this  case,  would  be  fully  cognizant 
of  it.  We  have  assurance  from  discussions  we 
have  had  with  Ottawa  that  there  is  no  beef 
carrying  DES  coming  into  Canada.  Frankly, 
I  took  the  position  that  the  federal  govern- 
ment should  either  close  the  border  to  beef 
which  contained  DES  or  allow  our  cattlemen 
to  use  it  in  Canada. 

We  are  advised  that  the  American  cattle- 
men are  not  using  DES  because  it  was  found 
to  be— it  was  banned  illegally  on  a  technical- 
ity but  that  technicality  does  not  upset  the 
law  under  which  it  was  banned  originally. 
The  legal  position,  as  we  understand  it,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  the  United  States  government 
will  likely  continue  the  ban  on  DES,  having 
taken  care  of  the  rather  minor  technicality  on 
which  the  Supreme  Court  found  that  it  was 
illegally  banned  in  the  United  States;  it  is  a 
very  complex  legal  matter. 

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

Mr.  Gaunt:  What  about  my  question  on 
March  14? 

Mr.  Speaker:  In  fact,  the  time  has  been 
exceeded. 

Hon.   Mr.   Stewart:   I  will  get  it  for  the 

member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Petitions. 
Presenting  reports. 
Motions. 

Introduction  of  biUs. 
Orders  of  the  day. 


UNIVERSITY  EXPROPRIATION 
POWERS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch  moves  second  reading  of 
Bill  1,  An  Act  to  amend  the  University  Ex- 
propriation Powers  Act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  ( Kitchener ) :  I  believe 
this  bill  is  worthy  of  two  brief  comments,  the 
first  particularly  because  of  the  historic  ap- 
proach this  House  has  always  taken  to  the 
introduction  of  a  bill  before  the  House  deals 
with  the  reply  to  the  Speech  from  the  Throne; 
more  particularly  I  think  it's  worthy  of  com- 
ment because  this  is  likely  to  be  the  last  bill 
to  which  His  Honour  will  give  royal  assent. 

'Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  There  seems 
to  be  a  large  number  of  private  conversations 
taking  place.  It  is  diflBcult  to  hear  the  speaker. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  is  particularly  of  interest 
that  His  Honour  will  be  called  upon  to  give 
royal  assent  to  this  bill  because  of  His  Honour's 
particular  interest  in  this  university.  As  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  will  recall.  His  Honour 
served  some  eight  years  as  chancellor  of 
Waterloo  Lutheran  University,  the  name  of 
which  was  changed  as  a  result  of  an  Act  in 
this  last  session  to  Wilfrid  Laurier  University. 
This  is  one  of  the  further  bills  which  will 
complete  that  changeover  and  I  think  it  is 
perhaps  of  interest  to  the  members  that  as 
His  Honour's  last  formal  act,  he  will  give 
assent  to  this  bill,  something  with  which  he 
has  been  personally  familiar,  for  the  university 
he  served  as  chancellor  and,  I  might  add,  as 
chancellor  with  great  distinction. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  any  other  members  wish 
to  participate  in  this  debate?  If  not,  the  hon. 
minister. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
biU. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  bill  be  ordered  for 
third  reading? 

Agreed. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resmn- 
ing  the  adjourned  debate  on  the  amendment 
to  the  amendment  to  the  motion  for  an  ad- 
dress in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the  Honour- 
able the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the  opening 
of  the  session. 

THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Thank 
you  very  much,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  thank  the 
members  of  my  own  party  as  well. 


580 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  today  I  want  to  put  on  the 
record  a  number  of  comments  about  the  Am- 
prior  dam  project  of  Ontario  Hydro.  It's  some- 
thing which  has  been  in  the  news  off  and  on 
since  last  fall  when  it  first  became  an  issue 
and  it's  a  project  which  cries  out  for  public 
inquiry  in  order  to  satisfy  the  doubte  and 
confusions  which  have  been  raised  by  Hydro 
and  by  the  actions  of  Hydro  and  the  actions 
of  the  ministers  of  the  Crown  in  relation  to 
that  project  over  the  past  few  months. 

This  is  a  diflBcult  speech  to  make  because 
of  the  volume  of  material  which  has  come  in 
and  because  of  the  fact  that,  despite  all  of 
the  material  which  has  come  in  and  the 
material  which  has  been  denied  by  the  gov- 
ernment, there  are  still  no  clear  answers. 

What  appears  to  be  the  case,  however,  is 
very  simply  this.  A  political  decision  was  made 
in  1971  to  build  a  dam  in  order  to  re-elect 
the  member  for  Renfrew  South  (Mr.  Yaka- 
buski);  that  Ontario  Hydro  was  made  the 
political  arm  of  the  government;  that  this  de- 
cision was  made  despite  the  great  uneasiness 
of  many  people  both  in  the  senior  bureau- 
cratic level  of  the  government  and  in  the 
planning  and  administration  of  Ontario  Hydro. 

But  the  decision  having  been  made  and 
the  project  having  commenced,  everybody  on 
the  government  side— including  the  member 
for  the  area,  the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr. 
McKeough),  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  himself, 
today,  in  refusing  to  table  documents,  and  the 
staff  of  Ontario  Hydro— all  of  them  have  be- 
come engaged  in  a  mass  coverup  because  they 
do  not  want  to  recognize  or  admit  that  poli- 
tical considerations  prevailed  in  building  a 
dam  which  is  othenvise  imjustified.  And  I 
would  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  political 
considerations  that  may  have  motivated'  the 
dam  are  not  Justified  either,  that  the  member 
for  the  area  does  not  make  a  significant  con- 
tribution wortliy  of  $78  million  in  investment 
for  one  re-election. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  also  like  to  call  your 
attention  and  the  attention  of  the  House  to 
the  fact  that  the  investment  we  are  discuss- 
ing today,  on  the  Amprior  dam,  is  very  sig- 
nificant in  size.  It  began  somewhere  around 
the  $40-million  mark— I'm  sorry  to  see  the 
Minister  of  Energy  leaving;  I  hope  he  will 
return  for  the  rest  of  this  speech— and  it  is 
now  estimated  to  be  $78  million  for  the  Am- 
prior dam.  That  happens  to  be  equal  to  $10 
for  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario.  Or,  at  current  interest  rates, 
it's  equal  to  something  approaching  $1  every 


year,  in  interest  alone,  for  every  man,  woman 
and  child.  Or  $4  or  $5  a  year  in  Hydro  rates 
for  every  family  in  the  province. 

We're  not  talking  about  a  small  investment. 
We're  not  talking  about  a  few  miles  of  black- 
top in  order  to  get  a  member  re-elected  and 
that  kind  of  patronage.  We're  talking  about  a 
lot  of  money,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  it's  a  lot  of 
money  that's  being  wasted. 

I  want  to  make  it  clear  too  that  from  the 
very  beginning  Ontario  Hydro's  determination 
to  go  ahead  with  this  dam  has  been  closely 
linked  with  the  government.  And  the  govern- 
ment has  consistendy  been  involved  in  the 
decision-making  about  the  Amprior  dam  from 
the  day  it  was  originally  announced  to  the 
time  that  it  was  confirmed  by  the  then  Pro- 
vincial Secretary  for  Resources  Development 
(Mr.  Lawrence)  and  on  until  today. 

Back  on  June  6,  1972,  the  provincial  secre- 
tary announced  that  an  analysis  had  been 
done  by  Hydro,  that  the  information  had  gone 
forward  to  the  govemment,  that  one  of  the 
conditions  for  Hydro  going  ahead  was  that  it 
had  to  have  the  blessing  of  the  province  and, 
in  effect,  that  the  province  was  giving  its 
blessing.  He  implied  at  that  time  that  people 
in  govemment,  including  the  environment, 
water  resources  management,  recreation  and 
agriculture  people  in  the  provincial  govem- 
ment, had  been  involved  in  assessing  the 
project.  He  promised  that  chronic  problems  of 
erosion  on  the  Madawaska  River,  upstream 
of  the  Amprior  dam,  would  be  eliminated'  and 
that  the  lake  behind  the  dam,  about  10  miles 
long,  would  provide  a  valualDle  new  recrea- 
tional resource  for  the  Amprior  area. 

The  themes,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  consistent 
through  the  piece,  that  is  that  the  dam  would 
provide  power,  it  would  correct  an  erosion 
problem  on  the  Madawaska  River  and  it 
would  create  an  important  new  recreational 
resource  in  that  particular  part  of  the  area. 

Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  during  the  election 
campaign  itself,  I  can  recall  raising  my  eye- 
brows at  the  announcement  of  an  $80-mil- 
lion  dam  in  one  particular  area,  particularly 
since  it  was  known  that  Hydro  had  admitted 
on  a  number  of  occasions  that  that  particu- 
lar dam  was  marginal  in  economics  and 
therefore  not  justified.  However,  there  were 
other  things  that  pressed,  particularly  the 
affairs  of  my  own  ridine:  and  mv  own  city, 
and  it  was  not  until  the  fall  of  this  year 
that  I  became  closely  connected  again  with 
the  questions  of  the  Amprior  dam. 

I  may  say  that  although  people  in  the 
area  were  expressing  concern,  in  letters  and 
by  other  means,  to  the  Minister  of  Energy 
and  to  other  ministers,  generally  the  member 


APRIL  1,  1974 


581 


from  the  area  was  not  particularly  bothered, 
and  he  was  keeping  everybody  else  in  line. 
I  guess  it's  fair  to  say  that  up  until  recently 
the  people  of  Renfrew  county  have  not  felt 
that  they  really  could  get  action  through 
the  political  system  and  therefore  they 
weren't  anxious  to  tr>'. 

It's  probably  fair  to  say,  as  well,  that  of 
the  people  of  the  area  directly  affected  two 
groups  stood  to  benefit  from  the  proposal 
for  the  dam  regardless  of  whether  it  was 
justified  or  not.  One  group  were  the  cottage 
owners  along  the  river,  some  of  whom  were 
upset  by  the  proposals.  They  were  quickly 
bought  out  by  Hydro  at  fairly  generous 
prices  and  presumably  went  to  establish 
themselves  in  cottages  elsewhere  where 
there  was  not  a  regular  fluctuation  of  water 
levels  over  the  summer. 

Another  group  were  the  municipal  offi- 
cials, the  businessmen,  the  merchants  and 
people  like  that— the  governing  group,  if 
you  will— of  the  town  of  Arnprior,  a  town 
of  8,000  within  whose  limits  the  dam  is 
being  located. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  whether  you  establish 
a  new  factory,  whether  you  start  a  major 
new  economic  development  that  will  create 
jobs  forever  and  ever,  or  whether  you  build 
a  dam,  anv  expenditure  of  $40  million,  $50 
million  or  $60  million  within  the  town  limits 
of  Arnprior  obviously  has  short-run  benefits. 
This  is  what  the  people  of  the  area  could 
see. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  sav  they  didn't  feel  it 
was  for  them  to  assess  whether  or  not  Hydro 
really  needed  this  particular  project.  After 
all,  didn't  Hydro  have  a  very  good  reputa- 
tion for  being  pre-eminent  among  electrical 
utilities  around  the  country?  Hadn't  it  been 
in  business  for  a  long  time?  Didn't  it  really 
know  what  it  was  doing?  Wasn't  it  the  cus- 
tom that  one  simply  accepted  what  Hydro 
said  as  gospel? 

I  think  that's  a  fair  kind  of  summary  of 
the  opinion  that  many  people  in  the  area 
had  of  Hydro.  And,  as  far  as  the  merchants 
and  businessmen  in  the  area  were  concerned, 
if  it  meant  extra  business  for  a  few  years 
that  was  great.  That  was  fine.  I'm  afraid 
that  as  far  as  the  rest  of  us  in  eastern  On- 
tario were  concerned,  the  fact  that  $80  mil- 
lion was  going  to  go  into  this  particular 
project  when  the  provincial  government 
wasn't  willing  to  spend  a  nickel  on  economic 
development  throughout  most  of  the  region, 
we  were  rather  slow  to  cotton  on  to  that 
particular  insult  to  eastern  Ontario  on  the 
part  of  this  particular  government. 


At  any  rate,  one  dark,  rainy,  late  evening 
in  November  I  was  asked  on  a  very  urgent 
basis  to  meet  with  some  representatives  of 
fanners  from  the  Arnprior  area  and  we  did 
meet  in  a  cafe  in  Perth.  It  all  sounds  rather 
clandestine  but  at  any  rate  their  concerns 
were  so  urgent  that  they  decided  that  they 
would  come  down  and  see  me  directly 
rather  than  wait  for  a  few  days  until  they 
could  find  me  in  Arnprior,  or  in  Ottawa. 

You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  number  of 
charges  about  misrepresentation  have  been 
made  against  myself,  in  particular  by  Hydro 
and  by  the  government,  over  the  course  of 
the  debate  over  the  Arnprior  dam  since  No- 
vember. I  want  to  say  that  of  all  the  infor- 
mation that  has  come  in  about  the  Arnprior 
dam  the  very  best  and  most  accurate  infor- 
mation was  that  which  came  from  the  local 
field  man  for  the  Federation  of  Agriculture 
and  from  the  one  or  two  farmers  that  he 
had  with  him  about  what  they  had  gleaned 
informally  about  the  Arnprior  dam  and  what 
was  then  raising  their  concern  and  the  con- 
cern of  farmers  in  that  area.  They  gave  me 
about  six  or  seven  pieces  of  information  on 
the  dam  all  of  which  were  fit  subjects  for 
concern  and  all  of  which  proved  to  be  dead- 
ly accurate.  Not  only  that,  but  the  informa- 
tion they  had  was  consistently  much  more 
accurate  than  much  of  what  has  come  since 
from  Ontario  Hydro. 

They  told  me  that  the  estimated  capacity 
of  the  dam  had  been  reduced  by  10  per 
cent  from  87,000  kw  to  78,000  kw.  They  told 
me  that  the  power  output  from  the  dam 
would  be  available  for  only  two  to  four 
hours  a  day  because  of  limited  reservoir 
capacity.  Now  Hydro  had  never  said  any- 
thing else,  but  certainly  the  implication 
when  the  project  was  announced  in  this 
House  was  that  it  would  be  available  day 
and  night. 

They  told  me  that  similar  dams  in  other 
parts  of  the  province  had  cost  considerably 
less.  And,  in  fact,  when  we  checked  we 
found  that  the  Lower  Notch  dam  in  the 
riding  of  the  member  for  Timiskaming  (Mr. 
Havrot)  which  was  completed  only  three 
years  ago,  had  cost  about  $75  million,  was 
producing  power  for  many  more  hours  per 
day  than  the  proposed  Arnprior  dam  and  had 
approximately  three  times  the  capacity  of  the 
Arnprior  dam  for  something  less  than  the 
same  amount  of  money. 

They  told  me  that  about  2,000  acres  of 
agricultural  land  would  be  flooded  by  the 
dam  and  that  hundreds  of  additional  acres 
would  be  taken  from  production  because  of 
creek  diversions,  railway  locations  and  other 


582 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


projects  connected  with  the  dam.  That  was 
accurate  and  in  the  context  of  1974,  now  that 
people  have  become  much  more  concerned 
and  much  more  aware  of  the  dangers  and 
loss  of  agricultural  land  everywhere  within 
the  province,  obviously  it  is  a  matter  for 
concern  such  as  it  may  not  have  been  three 
or  four  years  ago. 

They  told  me  there  was  no  action  planned 
by  Hydro  to  prevent  erosion  of  the  banks 
of  the  proposed  new  lake  which  would  be 
made  behind  the  dam  but  that  the  banks  of 
this  lake  would  be  made  of  Leda  clay,  the 
same  material  which  is  currently  being  eroded 
to  a  certain  degree  by  the  Madawaska  River 
because  of  the  changes  in  its  levels.  As  they 
pointed  out,  the  safest  way  to  protect  that 
clay  from  erosion  is  by  ensuring  that  the 
banks  are  heavily  wooded.  The  banks  of  the 
new  reservoir  would  be  bare  and  Hydro 
crews  were  then  already  engaged  in  taking 
the  timber  from  the  banks  of  the  existing 
river  where  they  would  be  flooded. 

They  told  me  the  construction  contracts  on 
the  work  to  date  had  been  let  to  C.A.  Pitts 
Ltd.  without  any  open  tendering.  That  hap- 
pened to  be  correct  and  they  were  aware  of 
a  certain  amount  of  hankypanky  between 
the  consulting  engineer  and  the  contractor; 
that  has  turned  out  also  to  be  deadly  ac- 
curate in  view  of  the  conflict  of  interests 
involved  in  having  the  president  of  Pitts 
sit  on  the  controlling  company  in  the  Acres 
group  which  controls  the  engineering  com- 
pany which,  in  turn,  has  been  recommending 
that  contracts  be  let  to  C.A.  Pitts.  It  is  a 
full  circle  situation  and  one  that  would  not 
be  tolerated  to  any  extent  under  the  conflict 
of  interest  rules  which  now  apply  both  in 
cabinet  and  to  senior  bureaucrats  within 
the  government. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  try  to  put  down  in 
the  records  some  of  the  chronology  behind 
the  project.  I  am  glad  to  see  that  the  mem- 
ber for  Renfrew  South  is  here  to  listen  to 
this.  May  I  say  I  would  be  happy  to  provide 
copies  of  anything  I  quote  from  in  this 
Legislature  to  any  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature who  seek  it.  We  do  not  believe  in  the 
kind  of  policy  of  exclusion  and  of  suppression 
of  documents  which  is  practised  by  the 
government. 

The  dam  was  annoimced  in  1971,  about 
two  weeks  before  the  election,  by  Mr, 
George  Gathercole  who  was  then  and  still  is 
the  chairman  of  Ontario  Hydro.  It  was  stated 
at  the  time  that  the  dam  was  being  announc- 
ed in  response  to  complaints  from  cottagers 
and  farmers  about  erosion  along  the  10-mile 


stretch  of  the  river  between  the  Hydro  dam 
at  Stewartville  and  the  town  of  Arnprior. 

If  one  wants  to  go  back  into  history  a 
bit,  sometime  in  the  early  1960s  Hydro  de- 
cided to  redevelop  the  Madawaska  River,  a 
river  with  a  fairly  substantial  vertical  drop 
but  not  too  substantial  cubic  footage  or 
volume  of  water,  into  a  river  which  would 
be  used  for  peaking  power.  In  other  words, 
it  would  be  used  for  power  at  the  times  of 
peak  demand  such  as  between  4  o'clock 
and  6  o'clock  when  everybody  is  turning 
on  the  lights  in  winter,  cooking  on  the 
stoves,  the  factories  are  still  running  and  flie 
streetcars  and  subways  are  drawing  a  lot 
of  power.  That  was  Hydro's  intention  and, 
in  fact,  over  the  course  of  the  1960s  it  re- 
developed or  developed  three  sites,  I  think  it 
was,  upstream  on  the  Madawaska  River  in 
order  to  create  a  very  sizable  amount  of 
power.  I  believe  the  programme  in  those 
three  dams  amounted  to  something  like 
330,000  kilowatts,  or  330  megawatts  to  use 
the  language  of  the  trade. 

When  that  redevelopment  of  the  river  was 
proposed  two  other  dams  were  suggested  to 
be  part  of  it.  One  was  Highland  Mountain,  I 
think  it  is,  which  is  somewhere  up  in  the  bush 
country  along  the  Madawaska  River  and  has 
not,  to  this  date,  been  developed  for  eco- 
nomic reasons;  and  the  other  was  at  Arnprior 
itself,  a  mile  or  two  from  the  place  where  the 
Madawaska  River  joins  the  Ottawa  River. 
That  particular  site,  which  would  develop 
about  80  megawatts  or  an  additional  20  per 
cent  or  25  per  cent  of  the  peaking  capacity 
of  the  river,  was  examined  on  a  number  of 
occasions  bv  Hydro,  but  on  each  occasion  was 
judged  to  De  uneconomic  and  therefore  not 
justified.  In  fact,  to  this  day.  Hydro  says  that 
"considered  alone,  the  Arnprior  dam  is  un*- 
economic  and  should  not  be  proceeded  with." 

Now  Mr.  Gathercole  went  up  there  and  in 
response  to  the  complaints  and  so  on,  he 
said:  'We  are  going  to  build  a  dam  and  it  is 
going  to  cost  $50  million.  But  we  have  to  be 
sure  that  there  are  adequate  footings,  we 
have  to  be  sure  that  there  is  municipal  con- 
sent and  we  have  to  have  the  approval  of  the 
government," 

I  guess  in  the  chronology  I  had  better  con- 
tinue on  this  line  first  and  then  come  back  to 
those  particular  points  that  were  raised  by 
Mr.  Gathercole. 

The  issues  raised  by  the  dam  were,  I  would 
say,  not  clear  at  that  time.  I  have  mentioned 
the  kind  of  frame  of  mind  of  people  in  Ren- 
frew county.  I  believe  it  is  fair  to  say  that 
at  that  time  the  farmers  were  not  aware  they 
could  get  anywhere  in  fighting  with  Hydro 


APRIL  1,  1974 


583 


and  that  they  had  consented  to  being  trampled 
and  having  their  rights  trampled  by  Hydro  in 
ever>-  comer  of  the  province,  for  year  after 
year  after  year,  and  there  wasn't  the  same 
concern  as  now  with  agricultural  land.  I 
suspect  that  there  may  have  been  an  assump- 
tion, too,  that  Hydro,  as  a  kind  of  big  brother, 
a  big  daddy  in  Ontario,  would  be  reasonable 
in  its  compensation  to  the  farmers.  I  think  it 
is  fair  to  say,  too,  that  had  Hydro  come  in 
within'  six  months  after  the  initial  announce- 
ment and  made  generous  and  reasonable  offers 
to  the  farmers,  including  offers  for  all  of  their 
land  where  they  would  have  farms  split  up 
and  that  kind  of  thing,  probably  most  or  all 
of  the  farmers  would  have  consented  and 
they  would  have  sold  out  to  Hydro  and  there, 
quite  likely,  the  matter  would  have  rested. 
The  power  of  the  purse  would  have  led  us  to 
a  situation  where  Hydro  was  going  ahead 
with  a  fait  accompli. 

In  fact,  though,  Hydro  played  the  most 
incredible  games,  games  that  the  member  for 
Scarborough  West  (Mr.  Lewis),  the  member 
for  Huron-Bruce  (Mr.  Gaunt),  and  other  mem- 
bers have  described,  in  offering  ridiculous 
amounts  of  compensation. 

It  came  in,  it  had  sent  its  appraisers  in,  it 
told  the  farmers  to  make  an  offer,  it  wouldn't 
make  it  clear  what  on  earth  it  was  doing  and 
to  this  day,  Mr.  Speaker,  almost  none  of  the 
farmers  involved  have  settled.  I  believe  about 
three  or  four  of  the  farmers  with  any  appre- 
ciable amount  of  land  which  is  to  be  taken 
over  by  Hydro  have,  in  fact,  settled. 

Hvdro  settled  very  quickly  with  the  cot- 
tagers, offering  them  sums  of  up  to  $4,000  or 
$5,000  for  their  acre  or  so  of  land.  But  the 
farmers  then  found  that  Hydro  was  offering 
them  $100  or  $200  an  acre  for  land  that  had 
equal  cottage  potential  as  the  developed  land 
on  the  other  side  of  the  river  had  they 
decided  to  go  ahead  and  allow  cottages  on 
their  land. 

One  of  the  issues,  which  is  a  very  specific 
issue  whidh  needs  to  be  raised,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  that  the  protections  of  the  Expropriations 
Act  that  were  meant  to  apply  to  farmers  and 
everybody  else  don't  appear  to  be  applying  in 
this  particular  case. 

Hydro  is  going  ahead  by  force  majeure, 
has  now  had  built  or  has  contracted  for 
$15  million  worth  of  construction  work  on 
site,  and  the  intent  and  I  think  the  effect  of 
that  work  will  be  to  flood  land  owned  by 
farmers  which  it  does  not  currently  own,  nor 
to  which  it  has  currently  applied  expropri- 
ation orders. 

Hydro  has  been  very  delinquent  in  apply- 
ing those  expropriation  orders  in  order  to  even 


indicate  its  intent.  The  farmers  in  the  area, 
who  were  guaranteed  under  the  Expropria- 
tions Act  a  hearing  of  necessity  into  the 
desirability  of  having  that  particular  project, 
haven't  yet  had  their  day  in  court.  And  at 
the  time  they  have  their  day  in  court— be- 
cause it  is  clear  they  are  going  to  go  ahead 
to  a  hearing  of  necessity— they  will  be  con- 
fronted with  a  fait  accompli  in  the  form  of 
$6  million,  $8  milHon,  $10  million  or  maybe 
$15  million  worth  of  work  carried  out  by 
Hydro  on  the  dam  with  the  clear  intent  of 
taking  over  their  land. 

Now  it's  my  understanding  that  when  the 
Expropriations  Act  was  amended  several 
years  ago,  the  protection  of  the  hearing  of 
necessity  was  not  meant  to  be  after  the  fact 
but  before  the  fact.  It  was  not  permitted,  for 
example,  for  a  municipality  to  build  a  road  on 
land  for  which  a  hearing  of  necessity  had  not 
been  held  when  that  hearing  of  necessity  was 
applied  for.  And  clearly,  if  the  municipality 
brought  its  bulldozers  on  to  somebody's  land 
to  build  a  highway  without  ownership  of  that 
land,  then  the  OMOier  could  go  ahead  and 
seek  an  injunction  for  trespassing  and  kick 
them  out. 

In  this  particular  case,  it's  a  bit  more  com- 
plicated. Hydro  is  not  physically  trespassing 
on  the  land  which  is  threatened  by  flooding 
from  the  dam  that  is  currently  being  built.  It 
is  doing  it  morally,  if  you  will,  but  it  is  not 
doing  it  physically.  And  when  the  farmers  got 
together  with  their  federation  in  order  to 
decide  to  take  legal  action- 
Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Hydro 
had  the  support  of  the  cabinet,  though. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Oh,  of  course.  It's  clear  that 
Hydro  intends  to  flood  that  land.  It's  clear 
that  Hydro  intends  to  take  that  land. 

But  when  the  farmers  consulted  legal  coun- 
sel, they  were  told  that  if  they  went  to  seek 
an  injunction  from  the  courts  to  stop  Hydro 
building  the  dam  on  a  temporary  basis,  to 
get  the  project  stopped  now,  and  if  they  were 
then  subsequently  found  to  be  in  t!he  wrong 
by  a  higher  court  or  at  the  time  that  a 
permanent  injunction  was  being  sought,  then 
Hydro  could  claim  not  just  damages  but 
double  damages  against  the  farmers  for  hat- 
ing a  project  where  the  expenditure  was  of 
the  order  of,  say,  $25,000  or  $30,000  a  day. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South): 
Sounds  like  blackmail. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  blackmail.  It  means  that 
for  every  day  that  the  farmers  successfully 
stopped  the  project  by  a  temporary  injunction, 


584 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


they  were  at  risk  for  maybe  $50,000  or 
$60,000  in  double  damages.  And  no  matter 
that  the  courts  might  be  unhkely  to  do  that, 
that  risk  was  obviously  too  great  for  farmers 
to  take  when  in  fact  the  u^hole  net  worth  of 
the  farmers  affected  might  be,  let's  say,  only 
$1  million,  and  the  net  worth  of  the  one  or 
two  farmers  who  might  actually  bring  this 
suit  might  be  no  more  than  a  day  or  two 
days'  double  damages  that  Hydro  would  pur- 
sue. 

It  was  very  clear  from  the  actions  of  Hydro 
up  until  that  point  that  Hydro  was  going  to 
stop  at  nothing  in  order  to  get  those  farmers. 
If  it  requires  the  ruining  of  a  farmer,  if  it 
required  bankrupting  him  and  taking  every 
penny  he  had  in  order  to  teach  the  farmers  in 
the  area  a  lesson,  it  was  clear  that  Hydro 
was  quite  willing  to  spend  $50,000  or 
$100,000  in  legal  fees  and  go  right  up  to 
whatever  court  was  necessary  in  order  to  seek 
those  kinds  of  damages  in  order  to  punish 
farmers  who  chose  to  try  to  take  out  an 
injunction. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Therefore,  when  it  comes  to 
the  procedure  that  allows,  say,  an  industrialist 
to  go  running  into  court  for  an  ex  parte 
injunction  to  stop  picketing  in  a  legal  strike 
situation— the  procedure  that  is  so  often  on  the 
side  of  people  with  power  in  this  society— it 
turned  out  that  when  people  who  were 
affected  by  the  actions  of  a  powerful  body 
like  Hydro  wanted  to  use  the  same  procedure, 
they  were  penalized  to  the  point  where  they 
simply  couldn't  do  it.  There  was  no  legal 
recourse  that  the  farmers  could  safely  take, 
Mr.  Speaker,  until  the  time  that  Hydro  finally 
deigns  to  take  out  expropriation  orders. 

I  have  checked  into  the  Act,  and  the  Act 
says  specifically  that  the  Minister  of  Energy 
has  got  to  give  his  approval  before  those 
expropriation  orders  can  be  issued.  I  have 
been  unable  to  find  out  whether  in  fact  even 
that  approval  has  now  been  given.  And  it 
may  be  that  Hydro  is  planning  to  flood  the 
land  without  even  having  sought  general 
approval  from  the  minister,  although  it  is 
clear  and  obvious  that  the  minister  when 
asked  \s  willing  to  give  it. 

If  one  wants  to  sum  up  the  attitude  that 
is  represented  by  this  on  the  part  of  Hydro 
and  of  the  minister  himself,  it  is  to  say  that 
this  is  simply  a  matter  of  money  as  far  as 
the  corporation  and  the  government  are 
concerned.  As  far  as  they  can  see,  any  prob- 
lem in  the  province,  where  people  object 
to  the  actions  of  government,  can  be  reduced 
to  money  and  nothing  more.   Therefore,   all 


it  needs,  according  to  the  thinking  of  the 
minister  and  his  people  and  the  corporation 
and  their  people,  is  to  find  enough  money 
to  pay  off  the  farmers  so  that  they'll  stop 
riding  on  Hydro's  back.  And,  of  course,  if 
the  farmers  do  settle,  then  the  local  opposi- 
tion effectively  ends  and  presumably  Hydro 
can  go  ahead. 

My  experience  with  the  farmers,  though, 
is  somewhat  different.  They  are  saying,  "It 
doesn't  matter  what  we  are  compensated, 
we  don't  want  to  move.  We  want  to  see 
compelling  evidence  that  Hydro  has  no  other 
course  but  to  do  this  particular  project, 
which  involves  resolving  an  erosion  problem 
by  simply  flooding  out  every  last  fanner 
and  cottager  whose  land  was  being  eroded 
or   stood    in    danger   of   being   eroded." 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  next  thing  to  look  at  in 
the  chronology  is  to  ask  what  did  Hydro  do 
in  order  to  get  people  in  the  area  involved, 
in  order  to  sound  out  their  feelings  and 
in  order  to  let  them  participate  in  consider- 
ing the  alternatives?  After  all,  even  at  $50 
million,  this  was  considered  to  be  a  mar- 
ginal project,  and  the  price  has  been  escalat- 
ing every  time  the  cash  register  rings.  If  it 
was  marginal  at  $50  million— I  don't  care 
what  has  been  happening  with  the  cost  of 
fuel  and  other  things  like  that— it  can't  be 
anything  more  than  marginal  at  $80  million, 
and  I  would  suggest  that  it  is  grossly  un- 
economic. 

Until  the  Minister  of  Energy  went  up  into 
the  area  in  January  of  this  year,  at  which 
time  in  his  mind  the  project  was  a  fait  ac- 
compli, there  had  been  no  public  meeting 
with  people  of  the  area  to  acquaint  them 
with  the  facts  of  the  project  and  to  seek  to 
explain  what  it  was  all  about;  how  Hydro 
was  going  to  proceed;  what  the  benefits  to 
the  area  would  be;  and,  for  that  matter  quite 
honestly,  what  the  disadvantages  to  the  area 
were  going  to  be. 

Mr,  D.  J.  Wiseman  (Lanark):  What  about 
the  Kaison  committee? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  We'll  talk  about  the  liaison 
committee  as  well.  The  member  for  Lanark 
points  out  that  there  is  a  liaison  committee. 
I  happen  to  have  a  letter  from  the  chairman 
of  the  liaison  committee  that  I  intended  to 
read  a  bit  later  during  this  speech.  A  liaison 
committee  has  been  established  since  the 
summer  of  1972,  and  that  liaison  committee 
includes  the  reeves  of  the  three  townships 
involved,  plus  the  mayor  of  Arnprior.  As  I 
understand  it,  that  body  has  met  in  camera. 

The  editors  of  both  the  newspapers  in- 
volved   in    Arnprior   have    sought   again   and 


APRIL  1,  1974 


585 


i 


again  to  be  present  at  meetings  of  the  liai- 
son committee  and  on  almost  every  occasion 
they  have  been  rebuffed.  It  is  only  in  the 
last  few  weeks,  as  the  Arnprior  question 
became  more  of  an  issue  and  as  Hydro 
realized  just  how  badly  it  was  alienating 
people  in  the  area  and  in  the  province,  that 
on  one  or  two  occasions  journalists  have 
been  able  to  attend  the  liaison  committee 
meetings.  Yes,  there  has  been  a  liaison  com- 
mittee, Mr.  Speaker. 

However,  Hydro  has  never  sought  or  re- 
ceived approval  from  the  councils  of  the 
three  rural  municipalities  affected,  that  is, 
the  townships  of  Pakenham,  McNab  and 
Fitzroy.  It  has  not,  nor  has  it  soueht,  ap- 
proval from  the  regional  municipality  of 
Ottawa-Carl eton,  which  has  territory  affect- 
ed; from  the  county  of  Lanark,  which  has 
territory  affected;  or  from  the  county  of 
Renfrew,  which  has  the  largest  portion  of 
the  territory  affected. 

The  liaison  committee  tended  to  be  muz- 
zled because  its  members  were  told  that  in- 
formation they  were  receiving  was  confi- 
dential', or  that  some  of  it  was  confidential, 
and  they  were  enjoined  not  to  go  and  talk 
aroimd  in  the  area.  I'm  afraid,  as  a  fact  of 
life  in  the  area,  if  people  are  told  that  there 
isn't  a  tradition  of  rocking  the  political  boat, 
therefore  people  would  be  very  wary  of  dis- 
regarding the  instructions  that  Hydro  had 
given. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  go  on  now  and  talk 
about  some  of  the  facts  that  I  have  received 
from  Hydro.  I  want  to  say— the  member  for 
Simcoe  Centre  (Mr.  Evans)  was  here  a  few 
minutes  ago,  but  I  don't  see  him  now— that 
at  the  initial  few  contacts  between  myself,  as 
a  sort  of  spokesman  for  people  in  the  area 
and  as  a  concerned  member  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  the  hydiro  commission  were  maybe 
not  always  completely  as— what's  the  word  I 
want?— as  satisfying  on  both  sides  as  one 
would  have  liked  but  at  any  rate  they  were 
cordial.  The  member  for  Simcoe  Centre 
sought  to  be  helpful  in  providing  information 
and  the  same  is  true  of  Mr.  Tyndale,  one  of 
the  project  engineers,  and  other  people  who 
were  involved.  This,  in  fact,  was  the  case  up 
until  approximately  the  end  of  January.  Over 
that  period  of  time  as  well  I  want  to  say  that, 
with  some  diflBcuIty  and  gradually,  there  was 
nevertheless,  a  flow  of  material  about  the 
project  which  has  come  forward  and  which 
has  provided  much  of  the  underpinning  for 
this  particular  speech. 

One  of  those  documents  which  came  in 
attached  to  the  letter  from  the  member  for 
Simcoe  Centre  related'  specifically  to  the  costs. 


It  gives  you  very  graphically,  Mr.  Speaker,  a 
picture  of  what  has  happened  to  the  costs  of 
this  particular  project. 

In  September  of  1971  when  the  hydro  com- 
mission first  gave  its  general  approval  for  the 
project,  the  estimated  cost  was  $51.5  million. 
In  March  of  1972,  after  some  preliminary  in- 
vestigations had  been  carried  out,  it  was  $60.3 
million.  In  late  1973,  it  was  $78  million. 

Then  there  is  the  introduction  of  the 
possibility  of  a  plus  or  minus  five  per  cent 
margin  for  error.  And  cJearly,  in  view  of  the 
escalation  of  costs,  that  would  be  plus  five 
per  cent,  at  the  very  least.  This  particular 
undated  memo  says  that  the  estimated  total 
cost  of  the  project  is  now  $82,742,000,  as 
compared  to  the  work  order  estimate  of  $60.3 
million. 

What  is  illuminating  about  this  document 
as  well,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  in  addition  to 
documenting  an  increase  of  $22  million  or  37 
per  cent,  it  ako  states  that  the  engineering 
costs  were  going  to  be  more  than  previously 
estimated  because  of  the  soil  problems  en- 
countered, but  that  they  would  remain  at 
approximately  the  same  percentage  of  total 
cost.  The  estimated  increase  in  engineering 
costs  is  $4  million  out  of  a  total  increase  of 
$22  million.  Now,  that  happens  to  be  20  per 
cent,  approximately,  of  the  increase  in  cost. 

If  what  is  stated  here  is  to  be  believed, 
that  means  that  the  engineering  costs  overall 
are  of  the  order  of  about  $16  or  $17  million. 
That  is  pretty  high,  and  I  asked  Hydro  about 
that  and  their  people  say  no,  that  is  too  high, 
and  talk  in  other  figures.  I  am  afraid  I  can't 
recall  whether  it  was  $8  million,  $10  million 
or  $12  million  that  Acres  Consulting  Services 
stands  to  receive  in  engineering  costs  for  the 
work  that  it  will  carry  out  for  Hydro  on  this 
particiJar  project. 

I  think  it  is  interesting,  though,  that  the 
sum  is  that  high,  because  Acres  has  been  con^ 
sultant  to  Hydro  on  this  project  from  the  very 
beginning.  One  of  the  things  that  I  have  been 
most  critical  about  is  that  nowhere  does  it 
appear  that  an  adequate  study  of  the  alter- 
natives was  ever  carried  out. 

lOne  wonders  whether  there  was  not  some 
kind  of  a  conflict  vidthin  Acres  there  because 
of  the  fact  that  they  stood  to  make  $8  million 
or  $10  million  or  $12  million  if  they  went  this 
route  and  built  a  dam— whether  or  not  people 
needed  it— that  therefore  it  was  in  their  in- 
terests to  go  along  with  a  political  decision 
made  by  the  government  to  protect  the  hon. 
member  for  Renfrew  South;  whereas  the  alter- 
native meant  $500,000  or  $1  milHon  in  fees 
whiclx.  would  allow  them  to  advise  the  gov- 
ernment that  there  was  just  no  way  that  it 


586 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


should  go  ahead  with  this  gross  misuse  of 
money  and  that  there  were  other  and  there 
were  cheaper  alternatives. 

Now,  the  second  document  that  came  to  me 
from  the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre  is  en- 
titled "Madawaska  River  Development."  It  is 
also  apparently  a  background  document  pre- 
pared for  senior  officials  of  Hydro,  possibly  for 
the  commission;  I  am  afraid  I  can't  say  ex- 
actly which.  This  report  gets  to  the  core  of 
the  whole  question,  which  is:  Was  the  Ami- 
prior  dam  needed  in  order  to  protect  the  up- 
stream capacity  of  the  Stewartville  peaking 
dam,  which  was  completed  in  1969? 

You  see,  up  until  1969,  Mr,  Speaker,  the 
river  was  nm  for  about  10  hours  a  day— if 
I  can  use  some  technical  words  here— at  a 
flow  of  about  6,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 
And  that  was  enough  to  give  60  megawatts 
of  power  10  hours  a  day  during  the  daytime 
hours  when  demand  was  greatest,  from  the 
Stewartville  dam.  When  it  was  rebuilt,  the 
capacity  of  the  dam  was  increased  from  60 
mw  to  approximately  150  mw.  Subsequently, 
instead  of  being  run  for  10  hours  a  day,  it 
was  run  for  approximately  four  hours  a  day. 
And  when  it  was  running,  the  water  went 
gushing  through  there  at  a  rate  of  15,000 
cfs-instead  of  6,000  cfs. 

Prior  to  1969  and  for  a  period  since  the 
war,  I  think,  the  river's  level  downstream 
of  Stewartville  used  to  fluctuate  by  around 
two  or  2\^  feet  a  day  because  of  the  fact 
that  the  river  was  miming  at  above  its 
normal  24-hour  pace  during  the  daylight 
hours  and  then  it  was  simply  shut  off— they 
turned  off  the  tap— for  the  14  hours  from, 
say,  6  p.m.  until  sometime  in  the  morning. 

Once  they  began  to  run  it  for  only  two 
hours  at  a  time  and  at  a  much  greater 
flow  of  water,  then  the  increase  and  decrease 
in  water  levels  tended  to  get  greater— to 
what  extent  I  am  afraid  I  have  been  imable 
to  establish  and  apparently  Hydro  has  never 
made  a  hydrological  survey  of  the  lower 
river  in  order  to  find  out  itself.  The  scare 
stories  that  they  have  spread  indicate  that 
the  river  now  fluctuates  in  level  by  eight  feet 
or  so  a  day.  My  calculations  indicate  that 
that  may  be  as  low  as  3%— more  likely  per- 
haps four  or  five.  The  fact  is  though  that 
there  is  no  clear  information  which  Hydro 
has  yet  provided  to  me  in  response  to  in- 
quiries about  just  what  was  happening  with 
the  river  after  they  started  to  use  this 
Stewartville  dam  for  peaking  power. 

At  any  rate,  it  was  after  that  that  Hydro 
began  to  get  worried  about  possible  en- 
vironmental consequences— consequences— and 
public   complaints   from   the    10-mile   stretch 


of  the  river  below  the  Stewartville  dam.  Not 
only  were  they  worried,  they  showed  the 
most  tremendous  kind  of  reaction  that  you 
have  ever  seen,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  only  citi- 
zen's group  that's  had  equal  impact  on  the 
government  has  been  the  Kingston  Township 
Ratepayers'  Association  when  it  was  led  by 
the  brother  of  the  current  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  (Mr.  Bennett)  and  came 
down  to  look  for  OMB  information. 

I  am  told  that  when  Mr.  Gathercole  went 
up  to  Amprior  in  1971  he  was  presented 
vdth  a  petition  with  about  25  names  on  it 
and  that  this  struck  such  terror  into  his 
boots  that  he  went  around  for  two  hours 
mulling  over  the  dam  and  the  dam  site  and 
everything  else.  He  came  back  and  an- 
nounced, much  to  the  surprise  of  his  officials, 
that  a  $50  million  dam  would  be  built.  If 
the  story  is  true,  that  means  that  each 
signature  was  worth  about  $2  million,  if  you 
will. 

However,  the  record  by  Hydro  itself  would 
indicate  that  there  wasn't  exactly  an  over- 
whelming kind  of  outcry  at  the  way  the  river 
had  been  run.  After  all,  it  had  had  this  2 
ft  fluctuation  every  day  for  15  or  20  years 
—for  25  years  I  guess— and  that  appeared  to 
be  reasonably  acceptable  in  the  area.  They 
were  used  to  something  happening  in  the 
river. 

Well,  the  official  record  said  that  Hydro 
had  bought  all  the  land  from  Stewartville 
to  Clay  Bank,  about  four  miles  of  the  total 
10-mile  stretch,  because  it  anticipated  that 
there  might  be  complaints  in  that  area.  They 
didn't  get  complaints  in  that  area.  Then  it 
says: 

A  number  of  complaints  have  been  re- 
ceived since  Stewartville  began  operating 
in  the  peaking  mode  [that  is  since  1969]. 
Four  or  five  complaints  have  been  received 
from  the  34  cottage  owners  between  Clay 
Bank  and  Amprior  regarding  water  level 
fluctuations,  erosion  and  very  low  water 
levels  on  weekends. 

If  I  can  say  this  again,  Mr.  Speaker— "four 
or  five  complaints  from  cottage  owners.** 
Minor  improvements  were  made  where 
possible,  but  generally  the  complainant  re- 
ceived only  an  explanation  of  why  the 
variations  were  necessary  and  was  told 
that  we  were  studying  the  situation. 

That  is,  that  Hydro  was  studying  the  situa- 
tion, which  is  fair  enough. 

There  is  no  mention  of  complaints  from 
fanners  whose  land  adjoined  this  particular 
section,  just  from  four  or  five  cottage  owners 


APRIL  1,  1974 


587 


in  the  area,  all  of  whom  have  since  been 
bought  out.  Then  it  goes  on  and  I  quote: 

A  petition  signed  by  36  names  of  resi- 
dents was  received  from  the  reeve  of 
McNab  township  complaining  about  water 
level  variations  and  low  water  levels  above 
Stewartville  where  Hydro  has  rights  to  the 
river  frontage.  An  explanation  of  the  rea- 
sons for  these  flow  variations  was  sent  to 
the  reeve.  A  complaint  was  received  from 
owners  of  the  Amprior  marina  regarding 
variations  in  water  level,  flooding  and  gen- 
eral diflBculties  in  operating  this  marina 
with  this  marina  with  the  daily  changing 
flows.  The  commission  authorized  improve- 
ments to  this  marina  property  in  July, 
1970,  at  the  approximate  cost  of  $50,000 
and  this  work  has  been  undertaken. 

There  was  a  complaint  in  the  spring  of 
1971  from  Amprior  regarding  wear  of  their 
pumps  because  of  a  certain  amount  of  par- 
ticulate matter.  This  would  be  eroded  soil  in 
the  river  and  it  was  wearing  out  the  pmnps 
on  the  water  intake  for  the  pumping  station 
of  Amprior.  This  complaint  was  still  under 
investigation  at  the  time  this  memo  was 
prepared. 

Then,  in  the  summer  of  1971,  Amprior  told 
Hydro  that  the  sewage  main  across  the  lower 
Madawaska  had  failed  twice  since  the  new 
river  control  plan  was  initiated,  and  sug- 
gested that  Hydro  was  partially  responsible. 
At  the  time  of  writing,  that  complaint  had 
not  been  settled. 

In  June,  1971,  a  law  firm  representing  four 
people  who  had  land  on  the  east  bank  of 
the  Madawaska,  just  near  the  Amprior  ma- 
rina, filed  a  complaint  with  Hydro.  Concerns 
have  also  been  expressed  regarding  erosion 
at  other  areas  in  this  vicinity— in  this  vicinity 
means  downstream  from  the  dam  currently 
under  construction  which  I'm  discussing  to- 
day. 

If  I  could  review  those  complaints,  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  were  three  or  four  cottagers 
in  the  10-mile  stretch  between  Stewartville 
and  the  new  Amprior  dam  who  complained. 
They  have  all  been  bought  out.  The  other 
complaints  filed  in  Hydro's  own  compendium 
of  who  was  concerned  came  from  residents 
of  an  area  along  the  reservoir,  upstream  from 
the  Stewartville  dam,  who  were  obviously 
not  affected  by  the  Amprior  dam  or  by  any 
erosion  problems  on  the  Madawaska  River 
in  that  area;  from  people  at  the  marina  which 
is  downstream  from  the  new  dam  and  where 
Hydro  has  already  spent  $50,000  to  give 
them  a  floating  dock.  In  fact,  Mr.  Gathercole 
personally  went  to  Amprior  that  sunny  day 


in  October— it  was  a  sunny  day  for  the  mem- 
ber—in order  to  launch  or  open  the  new 
docks  on  the  marina  and  that  was  the  occa- 
sion at  which  he  armounced  the  dam. 

As  for  the  city  of  Amprior's  pumps,  it  was 
simply  a  matter  of  getting  slightly  better 
quality  equipment  for  a  few  thousand  dollars; 
I'm  not  sure  how  that  one  has  been  resolved. 
I  know  that  Amprior  itself  has  fixed  its  sew- 
age pipes.  I  don't  think  it's  had  compensatioii 
from  Hydro  for  them  but  the  cost  of  fixing 
those  sewage  pipes  across  the  area  which 
will  be  the  tail  race  for  the  new  dam  was 
in  the  order  of  $10,000  or  $11,000  and  cer- 
tainly not  an  expenditure  which  was  worth 
$78  mfllion  to  avoid. 

Likewise,  the  other  downstream  problems 
near  Amprior  are  basically  not  particularly 
affected  by  the  dam  because  the  rationale 
for  the  dam  has  always  been  power  genera- 
tion, erosion  problems  upstream  from  the 
site  of  the  dam  and  the  recreation  possibili- 
ties. 

But  then  Hydro  goes  ahead  and  there  are 
some  dirty  photographs  here,  some  dirty  pic- 
tures. They  show  dirt  falling  into  the  Mada- 
waska River.  There  are  three  pictures  which 
have  been  taken  and  which  have  appeared, 
I  think,  three  or  four  times  in  the  documents 
I  have  been  shown  concerning  this  particular 
dam. 

One  is  of  a  particular  property,  which 
definitely  shows  a  shde  of  maybe  several  hun- 
dred square  feet,  maybe  a  couple  of  thousand 
square  feet,  between  April,  1970,  and  May, 
1971.  A  second  picture  is  of  bank  erosion, 
again  maybe  several  hundred  square  feet  on 
a  bank  about  25  ft  high,  about  a  mile  up- 
stream from  the  Amprior  site.  I  guess  that's 
it.  That's  the  documentary  evidence,  in  terms 
of  visible  evidence,  which  was  being  passed 
around  to  the  senior  people  from  Hydro.  At 
no  place  have  they  indicated  where  these 
massive  slides,  which  apparently  have  been 
taking  place,  actually  took  place.  In  fact,  the 
doumentary  evidence,  to  the  contrary,  indi- 
ates  that  about  80  per  cent  of  the  river 
frontage  in  the  area  affected  is  not  prone  to 
serious  erosion.  There  is  substantial  erosion 
in  other  parts  but  the  degree,  the  extent,  the 
timing,  the  way  in  which  it  has  accelerated 
and  so  on  has  never  been  studied,  to  my 
knowledge,  in  any  scientific  way  by  Hydro,  as 
one  would  expect,  before  it  committed  a 
$78  million  investment. 

The  report  from  Hydro,  "People  to  Hydro," 
goes  on: 

It  is   the   general   opinion   of  those   in- 
volved  in    dealing   with    those   complaints 


588 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  there  will  be  continuing  and  probably 
increasing  complaints  from  residents  in  the 
lower  Madawaska  River  area  which  will 
lead  to  restrictions  on  the  operation  of 
Stewartville  if  measures  are  not  taken  to 
relieve  the  situation. 

That,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  nub  of  the  argu- 
ment for  expending  $78  million.  Although 
the  complaints  until  the  time  the  dam  was 
committed  weren't  particularly  great,  never- 
theless the  complaints  were  bound  to  get 
greater  and  therefore  Hydro  had  to  build  a 
$78  million  dam. 

If  I  can  find  the  document  here— I  have  to 
quote  as  a  counterpoint  to  that  particular 
judgement  of  the  Hydro  people  a  comment 
which,  I  must  say,  shocked  me  but  which 
came  from  the  environmental  assessment  re- 
port which  was  prepared  for  Hydro  as  one  of 
the  major  documents  connected  with  the 
dam. 

On  page  10  of  that  document  the  con- 
sultants state— it  may  have  been  Acres  or  it 
may  have  been  Hydro.  Tm  not  sure  who 
carried  out  this  environmental  assessment: 

Shortly  after  the  commission  announced 
its  intention  to  investigate  this  project 
[meaning  the  Amprior  dam]  the  town  of 
Arnprior  offered  their  endorsement  of  the 
project,  followed  by  a  similar  endorsement 
by  the  county  of  Renfrew. 

I  might  state,  incidentally,  that  there  has  been 
no  such  endorsement  by  the  county  of  Ren- 
frew,  according  to  a  letter  to  me  from  the 
clerk-treasurer  of  the  county.  To  continue: 
This    indicates    that    the    environmental 
ethic  prevalent  elsewhere  in  North  America 
which  abhors  any  river  development  is  not 
prevalent    among   residents    of  the    Mada- 
waska Valley. 

On  the  one  hand,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  have 
Hydro  people  advising  their  superiors  that 
they  had  to  build  this  dam,  because  otherwise 
the  environmentalist  complaints  would  be 
such  that  the  operation  (rf  the  Stewartville 
dam  would  have  to  be  curtailed  or  cease. 
Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  environmental  con- 
sultants to  Hydro  were  telling  senior  people 
in  Hydro  that  there  was  no  kind  of  environ- 
mentalist ethic  in  Renfrew  county  such  as 
you  find  elsewhere  on  the  continent  and, 
therefore,  they  could  "go  ahead  and  damn 
the  torpedoes"  and  build  any  kind  of  dam 
they  wanted. 

If  that's  the  case,  Mr.  Speaker— in  other 
words,  if  Hydro's  judgement  was  that  the 
people  in  the  area  didn't  give  ^a  damn  about 
the   enviroimient— then  one  could  argue— I'm 


not  going  to  raise  this  one  particularly 
strongly— that  Hydro  could  have  saved  about 
$60  million,  $70  million  or  $80  million  by  not 
building  the  dam,  seeing  that  in  its  judge- 
ment the  people  in  the  area  didn't  give  a 
damn  either  way  about  the  environment. 
Obviously,  I  don't  accept  that  and  I  think  that 
envirormientalist  concerns  are  important  in 
this  whole  ajffair. 

Nevertheless,  the  cost  being  incurred  by 
Hydro,  apparently  with  the  intention  of  curing 
an  erosion  problem,  is  gross.  The  alternatives 
have  not  been  adequately  explored.  They  have 
not  been  explored,  partictdarly  with  people 
who  own  shorefront  property  and  who,  there- 
fore, would  have  been  the  most  likely  to 
launch  any  complaints. 

In  other  words,  alternatives  that  might  have 
been  acceptable  to  people  in  the  area  in 
reasonable  environmental  terms,  plus  being 
much  more  reasonable  in  cost,  were  never 
adequately  explored.  Hydro's  alternative  was 
simply  to  buy  out  the  cottagers  who  had,  in 
fact,  complamed,  and  to  abuse  the  farmers  to 
the  extent  that  they  have  now  protested  and 
are  fighting  hard  in  return.  In  other  words, 
it's  no  different  than  some  dictatorial  govern- 
ment in  some  country  that  I  care  not  to 
mention  which  takes  its  critics  and  puts  them 
into  a  jail  or  shoots  them.  You  simply  remove 
the  source  of  the  problem  rather  than  seeking 
to  sit  down  with  people  in  an  adult,  re- 
sponsible, democratic  fashion  in  order  to 
work  out  any  kind  of  a  reasonable  solution. 

The  environmental  assessment  also  states 
that  the  present  river  downstream  from 
Stewartville  offered  virtually  nothing  to  the 
economy  or  recreational  opportunities  with- 
in the  area.  On  the  other  hand,  it  said  that 
the  project  for  the  head  pond  and  tail  pond 
improvement  offered  a  great  deal  of  social 
value  to  the  area  within  easy  commuting 
distance. 

The  area  within  the  most  easy  commut- 
ing distance  contains  the  15,000  or  20,000 
people  who  live  within  a  small  radius  of 
Arnprior.  They  already  have  White  Lake, 
they  already  have  the  Ottawa  River  and  they 
have  tremendous  recreational  facihties  with- 
in a  very  short  distance.  I  hope  that  the 
member  for  Renfrew  South  doesn't  go  along 
with  the  judgement  of  the  Hydro  consultants 
that  the  present  river  valley  offers  virtually 
nothing  either  to  the  economy  or  the  recrea- 
tional opportunities  within  the  area.  I  hap- 
pen to  consider  that  that  10-mile  stretch  of 
the  Madawaska  Valley  is  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  pieces  of  landscape  within  the  rid- 
ing of   the   member,   and   the  riding  of  the 


APRIL  1,  1974 


589 


member  is   one  of  the  most  beautiful  parts 
of  the  province. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  My 
friend  hasn't  travelled  very  much  in  my 
riding.  It  is  beautiful,  but  there  are  many 
areas  in  that  riding- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  I  agree,  I  agree.  But  I  am 
saying  that  this  is  one- 
Mr.  Yakabuski:  He  is  referring  to  a  certain 
section  of  that  riding— the  lower  Madawaska 
—and  he  knows  that. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Okay,  but  I  am  saying  that 
this  particular  stretch  of  valley  is  particu- 
larly beautiful  and  particularly  in  relevance 
to  the  fact  that  the  rest  of  the  Ottawa  Valley 
plain  around  there  is  flat.  There  is  very 
little  topography,  apart  from  that  particular 
valley,  for  maybe  15  or  20  miles  to  the  south 
and  15  or  20  miles  to  the  north.  So  we 
should  think  twice  before  replacing  it  with 
a  large  lake  with  flat  banks  and  no  trees— 
pro\iding  what?  Incidentally,  it  now  is  clear 
that  the  area  has  very  little  recreational  po- 
tential because  the  shoreline  is  unusable  for 
any  kind  of  intensive  recreational  use  for 
most  of  its  length.  This  has  been  established 
pretty  conclusively  in  the  studies  that  have 
been  prepared. 

At  any  rate,  that  is  a  very  funny  contra- 
diction. On  the  one  hand,  Hydro  was  so 
paranoid  about  environmentalists'  com- 
plaints that  it  decided  that  it  had  to  move 
now  and,  on  the  other  hand,  its  environ- 
mental consultant  could  find  that  the  people 
of  Renfrew  county  didn't  give  a  damn  about 
the  environment  and  therefore  would  toler- 
ate anything  that  Hydro  cared  to  bestow 
on  them. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  trying  to  go  through  the 
chronology  of  this  thing,  I  guess  the  first 
thing  to  deal  with  is  the  comments  from 
people  in  the  area  in  terms  of  what  they 
thought  about  it.  As  the  member  for  Lanark 
has  pointed  out,  the  four  municipalities  di- 
rectly affected  with  frontage  along  the  10- 
mile  stretch  of  river  did  get  together  at 
Hydro's  request  to  form  a  liaison  committee. 
And  Mr.  H.  T.  Cranston,  the  mayor  of  Am- 
prior,  who  was  the  one  of  the  four  who 
was  still  completely,  adamantly,  four-square 
in  favour  of  the  dam,  wrote  on  Aug.  31  to 
the  hydro  commission  to  state  that  the  mu- 
nicipalities welcomed  most  sincerely  the  de- 
cision of  Ontario  Hydro  to  construct  a 
generating  station  on  the  Madawaska  River. 
It  goes  on  to  say: 

The    four    municipalities    recognize    the 

benefits  accruing  from  the  project,  namely 


the  formation  of  a  new  lake  with  all  its 
recreational  possibilities,  the  levelling  of 
the  fluctuations  of  the  Madawaska  River, 
the  increase  in  employment  in  the  entire 
area,  the  added  eff^ects  of  the  necessary 
increase  in  the  service  industry,  the  assess- 
ment arising  from  the  further  development 
of  the  area. 

And  then  he  goes  on  to  say: 

The  municipalities  recognize  their  own 
responsibility  to  the  citizens  of  the  area 
in  that  the  elected  officials  of  the  munici- 
palities cannot  abdicate  their  responsibili- 
ties to  their  citizens  but  can  make  certain 
that  the  problems  that  will  arise  will  be 
settled  in  a  sound  businesslike  manner. 

Frankly,  what  that  means  to  me,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, is  that  the  people  in  Renfrew  South  were 
conned  by  the  sharpies  from  University  Ave. 
who  came  up  from  Hydro.  Let's  look  at  this 
in  detail— and  I  will  be  talking  later  about 
the  recreational  benefits  of  keeping  the  valley 
and  developing  it  as  opposed  to  what  will  be 
created  by  the  dam. 

"The  levelling  of  the  fluctuations  of  the 
Madawaska  River"— well  that's  open  to  some 
dispute  too,  because  it  is  clear  that  the  level 
of  the  new  reservoir  may  also  vary  by  as 
much  as  2  ft  a  day. 

"The  increase  in  employment  in  the  entire 
area"— you  know,  one  of  the  almost  curious 
things  about  this  is  that  since  it  is  peaking 
power  that  is  to  be  created  for  the  grid, 
there  will  be  no  particular  advantage  to 
Arnprior  and  surrounding  communities  in 
terms  of  cheaper  power  to  provide  to  in- 
dustry. And  since  the  plant  will  be  run  by 
remote  control  from  the  generating  station 
on  the  Ottawa  River,  I  think,  there  will  not 
be  a  single  fulltime  permanent  job  created 
as  a  result  of  this  project  once  the  dam  is 
actually  built. 

The  people  in  the  area  have  been  told 
repeatedly  that  a  great  amount  of  the  em- 
ployment will  be  done  locally,  that  75  per 
cent  of  the  jobs  will  come  locally  and  so  on. 
However,  if  that  is  the  case,  they  have  not 
seen  the  results  so  far. 

I  spoke  the  other  week  with  the  manager 
of  the  Canada  Manpower  Centre  in  Arnprior, 
and  I  said,  "Are  you  getting  the  jobs  for  the 
project?"  He  said,  "No,  they  are  being  han- 
dled by  the  unions.  The  unions  are  giving 
priority  to  their  unemployed  members  from 
other  parts  of  the  province.  We  are  having 
to  tell  people  locally  who  want  jobs  that  they 
are  going  to  train  up  on  particular  skills  and 
that  may  take  some  time  and  because  of  the 


590 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


risks  of  not  even  then  getting  a  job  we  really 
are  not  encouraging  them  wildly  to  do  it." 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Pay  exorbitant  union  dues. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Wait  a  minute.  Hydro  says 
that  75  per  cent  of  the  jobs  will  be  provided 
locally,  but  when  you  get  down  to  it  you 
find  that  no  arrangements  have  been  made 
by  Hydro,  either  through  discussions  with 
the  unions,  through  discussions  with  the  local 
Manpower  centre  or  through  discussions  with 
the  government  in  order  to  ensure  that  that 
particular  promise  is  carried  out.  It  is  simply 
a  dream.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of  a  wish 
which  is  never  fulfilled,  because  Hydro  knows 
the  government  has  never  done  anything  to 
actually  carry  it  out.  So  therefore  the  bulk  of 
the  jobs  are  being  filled  by  people  from 
other  areas  than  Renfrew  county. 

There  is,  in  fact,  as  anybody  who  knows 
the  way  in  which  these  things  work,  a  travel- 
ling force  of  skilled,  competent  men  who 
msJce  their  hving  on  heavy  construction  proj- 
ects sue  h  as  this  one.  Some  of  them  may  be 
at  work  in  the  Bruce  right  now,  and  when 
work  tails  off  there  a  bit  and  work  picks  up 
in  the  Madawaska,  they  will  look  for  work 
up  there. 

A  number  of  them  worked  up  at  Lower 
Notch,  on  the  generating  station  on  the 
Montreal  River.  Some  of  them  I  believe 
worked  out  at  Nanticoke  and  so  on.  They 
are  skilled,  they  are  known  to  the  contrac- 
tors, they  are  competent,  able  men.  I  don't 
even  particularly  object  to  their  being  hired. 
What  I  do  object  to  though,  is  Hydro  giving 
promises  to  local  people  in  order  to  try  and 
get  their  consent  and  support,  and  then  in 
fact  not  fulfilling  them. 

In  fact,  if  you  will,  it  was  a  misrepresen- 
tation by  Hydro  that  75  per  cent  of  the  jobs 
would  be  filled  locally.  It  is  one  of  a  num- 
ber that  have  been  carried  out  by  Hydro 
over  the  course  of  this  whole  affair,  which 
is  one  of  the  reasons  as  I  stated  before,  why 
I  feel  rather  resentful  to  having  Hydro  charge 
me  with  misrepresentation  when  I  have  done 
my  best  to  stick  to  the  information  and  facts 
that  have  been  provided  and  when  Hydro 
has  consistently  misrepresented  information 
in  order  to  try  and  bull  ahead  with  this 
particular  project. 

The  other  point  to  be  raised  about  the 
liaison  committee,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  it  is 
fair  to  say  that  they  went  along  when  Hydro 
said,  "Look,  let's  just  keep  it  very  chummy, 
please.  We  don't  want  the  information  to 
get  out.  After  all  we  want  to  bounce  ideas  oflF 
you,  knowing  that  it  is  going  to  be  secure 


and  confidential.  You  wouldn't  like  the  hoi 
polloi  to  know  what  all  this  is  about,  would 
you?"  I'm  afraid  that  the  reeves  and  mayor 
said,  "Yes,  we  agree"  and  they  went  along 
with  that. 

They  did,  to  their  credit,  propose  that 
Hydro  provide  funds  for  the  municipalities 
affected  to  hire  engineering  help  so  that  they 
could  independently  assess  the  proposals  be- 
ing made  by  Hydro.  Hydro,  true  to  its  big 
brother  image,  said,  "No.  Despite  the  fact  that 
we  are  spending  $60  million  to  $80  million 
on  this  project  we  can't  find  $20,000  in  order 
to  give  you  the  services  of  a  consultant  for 
50  or  100  days  a  year,  or  we  can't  find  what- 
ever it  would  cost  to  let  you  hire  somebody 
and  leave  them  work  full-time  on  vour  behalf 
in  order  that  you  are  adequately  prepared  to 
come  and  discuss  the  problems  with  Hydro"— 
with  all  of  the  resources  that  it  had  at  its 
command. 

It  simply  said,  "Look,  if  you  have  a  prob- 
lem and  you  don't  have  the  answer,  come  to 
us."  A  statement  which  is  equivaltent  to  the 
boss,  who  when  challenged  by  his  workers, 
says,  "Look,  my  door  is  always  open"  and  it 
is  with  equal  amount  of  benefit. 

They  were  refused  in  that  and  they  didn't 
go  on.  Mr.  Speaker,  Mayor  Cranston  has  been 
a  supporter  of  the  project  from  the  beginning. 
He  wrote  this  letter  on  behalf  of  Hydro. 
Hydro  then  assumed  apparently  that  if  the 
mayor  approved  then  everybody  in  the  area 
approved.  In  fact,  when  I  went  to  check  I 
found  out  that  the  township  of  Pakenham 
has  never  received  any  formal  kind  of  com- 
munication from  Hydro  asking  for  the  town- 
ship's consent.  The  council  has  never  dis- 
cussed or  accepted  any  motion  or  bylaw  in 
regard  to  the  dam  project. 

The  township  of  McNab  has  no  record  of 
formal  approval  ever  being  requested  by  On- 
tario Hydro  or  given  for  the  project.  Lanark 
county  council  has  taken  no  part  in  dis- 
cussions and  decisions  concerning  the  dam. 

The  regional  municipality  of  Ottawa- 
Carleton— well,  in  fact,  they  requested  of  the 
province  that  representatives  of  the  original 
mimicipality  take  part  in  some  of  the  dis- 
cussions, specifically  the  task  force  on  recrea- 
tional possibilities.  And  had  that  taken  place, 
Mr.  Speaker,  it  may  be  that  the  regional 
municipality  of  Ottawa-Carleton  might  have 
woken  up  to  the  fact  that  a  prime  recrea- 
tional resource,  45  minutes'  drive  from  down- 
town Ottawa,  was  being  squandered  by 
Hydro,  and  that  there  was  no  reason  for  it. 

But,  at  any  rate,  there  was  some  discussion 
with  the  task  force  and  nothing  more;  at  no 


APRIL  1,  1974 


591 


time  was  the  regional  municipality  asked'  for 
nor  did  it  give  its  approval. 

iThe  county  of  Renfrew  dredged  up  one 
reference  to  the  dam,  which  says  that  in 
June  of  1972  the  committee  of  ARDA  in- 
tended to  discuss  the  Hydro  development  at 
Amprior  at  its  subsequent  meeting,  but  there 
is  no  further  discussion  recorded  in  the 
minutes. 

Around  about  the  same  time,  in  fact,  there 
was  an  expression  of  concern  from  Warden 
George  Matheson  of  the  comity  of  Renfrew, 
who  was  saying  to  Mayor  Cranston  that, 
"Look,  the  priorities  right  now  are  the  dam 
first,  the  Highway  417  bypass  around  Am- 
prior second— but  delayed  until  1977— and  the 
new  Highway  17  bridge  into  downtown  Am- 
prior third."  And  he  was  saying  to  the  mayor, 
"Look,  don't  you  think  those  priorities  ought 
to  be  changed  about?"  That  may  have  had 
some  response  because,  in  fact,  the  priorities 
were  subsequently  changed  about. 

That's  the  amount  of  local  involvement, 
Mr.  Speaker.  One  meeting  to  annoimce  the 
project;  one  committee  meeting  in  private; 
one  meeting  with  the  Minister  of  Energy  in 
January  of  this  year-and  I'll  talk  about  that 
a  bit  later. 

I  want  to  go  back  a  bit  though  to  this 
document  that  the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre 
had  sent  me  about  the  alternatives,  because 
this  is  the  fullest  explanation  of  the  alter- 
natives that  were  considered  before  Hydro 
undertook  to  build  this  particidar  dam.  And 
the  importance  of  this  is  that  at  no  time  have 
I  been  able  to  establish  that  any  further  or 
deieper  study  of  the  alternatives  was  actually 
carried  out. 

The  report  to  the  senior  Hydro  people 
states  that  the  following  measures  were  in'- 
vestigated  to  reduce  the  efFective  flow  varia- 
tion in  the  lower  Madawaska  River  from  Clay 
Bank  to  the  Ottawa  River.  One  was  to  pur- 
chase or  obtain  easements  on  river  frontages; 
that  is,  that  Hydro  would  buy  the  river  front- 
age that  was  affected  on  both  sides  of  the 
river.  The  cost  was  estimated  at  $1.2  million 
if  they  had  bought  some  land  and  bought  the 
rest  as  easements;  or  $2  million  for  buying 
all  of  the  land.  Hydro  states: 

Neither   of   these  altematives   was   con- 
sidered a  satisfactory  solution  to  the  prob- 
lem  if,   in   fact,   it   was   even   possible   to 
obtain   all   the   river  frontage.    We   would 
expect  to   continue  to   receive   complaints 
about  a  disregard  for  the  environment. 
And  that's  that  point  again— that  Hydro  re- 
acted to  some  kind  of  anticipated  complaints, 
when  elsewhere  in  the  province  it  won  t  even 
hsten  in  situations  of  gross  disregard  for  the 


environment.  And  it  says  that  it  might  not  be 
possible  to  obtain  all  the  river  frontage,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Now,  clearly  Hydro  has  always  en- 
joyed expropriation  powers  and  if  it  needed 
to  use  expropriation  to  get  the  river  frontage, 
that  was  not  any  substantive  kind  of  objection. 

The  next  proposal  was  to  oonstmct  a  weir 
upstream  of  Waba  Creek.  That,  they  say, 
would  reduce  the  maximum  fluctuations  in 
level  from  7  ft  to  4  ft  and  raise  the  minimum 
water  level  at  a  cost  of  about  $900,000. 
They  state  that  it  would  be  a  partial  solution 
to  the  river  level  variation  problems.  And 
then  they  go  on  to  elaborate: 

Although  it  would  reduce  level  changes, 
it  would  prevent  access  up  the  river  by 
boat  and  might  increase  downstream  flow 
variation  difficulties.  It  may  also  cause 
difficulties  with  ice,  or  be  eroded  by 
spring  breakup.  Further  study  of  resulting 
river  conditions  would  be  required  before 
this  alternative  could  be  considered  as  a 
partial   solution   to  the   existing  problems. 

I  would  point  out  first,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
that  weir  could  be  reconstmcted  every  year 
for  far  less  money  than  it  would  cost  in 
interest  to  maintain  the  dam  that  is  currently 
being  built.  Secondly,  that  the  objections 
raised  to  it  are  objections  which  are  worth 
balancing  against  the  costs  of  the  $78  million 
project  now  under  way. 

Is  it  worth  $78  million  less  $900,000  in 
order  to  ensure  that  boats  can  go  along  a 
10-m  ile  stretch  of  the  river  rather  than  being 
confined  to  a  four-mile  stretch  of  the  river 
before  they  have  to  portage  around  a  weir? 
Is  that  particular  difficulty  for  boats  so  over- 
whelming that  the  government  has  to  spend 
$78  million?  I  don't  think  so,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Downstream,  in  the  two-mile  stretch  be- 
tween the  dam  and  the  Ottawa  River,  Hydro 
originally  intended  to  let  boats  go  right  up  to 
the  foot  of  the  dam.  That  was  one  of  the 
advantages  played  to  the  town  of  Amprior 
as  one  of  the  reasons  it  should  support  the 
project;  apparentiy  that  isn't  possible  right 
now  because  there  is  a  weir  there.  In  fact, 
a  new  weir  will  be  constmcted  because  Hydro 
found  that  its  original  intention  of  lowering 
the  tail  race  to  the  level  of  the  Ottawa  River 
just  wasn't  feasible.  Without  even  talking 
about  it  Hydro  has  interfered  with  boat 
access  to  the  foot  of  the  dam  and  made 
about  three  or  four  miles  of  river  front  be- 
tween the  weir  and  the  dam  inaccessible  to 
boats  from  the  Ottawa  River. 

Fair  enough;  it  was  a  decision  which  was 
obviously  economically  inevitable  but  it  didn't 
seem  to  matter  to  Hydro  that  boats  were  be- 


592 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ing  cut  ofF  from  a  section  of  river  front 
there.  If  that  is  the  case,  surely  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  boats  had  the  full  run 
of  a  10-mile  stretch  of  the  river  upstream  in 
an  area  which  has  good  boating  access,  par- 
ticularly on  the  Ottawa  River,  could  not  or 
should   not   have   been   overwhelming. 

There  has  been  no  further  study,  to  my 
knowledge,  of  the  resulting  river  conditions 
which  would  ensue  if  the  weir  were  to  be 
built  instead  of  a  dam.  They  talk  about  the 
possibility  of  reducing  the  peak  operation 
at  Stewartville  in  order  to  reduce  the  de- 
gree of  fluctuation  in  water  levels  and  to 
raise  the  minimum  water  level  in  the  area 
of  cottages  downstream  of  Clay  Bank. 

The  need  to  raise  the  water  level  for  the 
cottages  would  be  obviated  if  the  cottages 
were  not  there.  In  other  words,  if  one  buys 
up  the  cottages  as  Hydro  has  done  one 
doesn't  need  to  worry  about  their  needs  for 
recreational  swimming  and  access.  As  far  as 
the  farmers,  hikers,  day-trippers  and  so  on 
are  concerned  they  are  a  rather  different 
problem  from  the  cottagers.  At  any  rate, 
they  state  that  as  far  as  the  possibility  of 
reducing  the  peaking  of  the  Stewartville  plant 
is  concerned  none  of  the  alternatives  there 
would  solve  the  problem  completely  and  all 
the  arrangements,  of  course,  would  reduce 
the  peaking  potential  of  the  Madawaska 
system.  They  talk  about  the  ability  to  bring 
all  the  capacity  of  the  Madawaska  River  into 
full  operation  in  a  short  period  of  time,  as 
something  which  can  be  used  to  displace  the 
need  for  gas  or  steam  turbines  in  the  Ontario 
or  other  systems. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  The 
member  for  Renfrew  South  is  going  to  sup- 
port them,  isn't  he? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  don't  know.  I  think  the 
member  for  Renfrew  South  has  been 
notoriously  quiet  on  this  particular  subject. 
I  don't  think  he  has  really  involved  himself 
udth  the  people  there.  Possibly  it  will  be  not 
forgotten  at  the  next  election  that  when  there 
was  a  local  issue  which  affected  the  people 
of  Renfrew  county,  particularly  the  farmers 
with  whom  the  member  has  been  so  close— 
they  are  very  disillusioned  with  the  member 
for  Renfrew  South,  Mr.  Speaker.  Not  only 
has  the  member  not  been  around  very  often, 
he  has  not  said  a  word— he  has  not  even  had 
the  guts  to  come  out  and  say  publicly,  if  he 
believes  it,  that  he  thinks  Hydro  is  doing  the 
right  thing  and  he  agrees  with  Hydro  com- 
pletely and  to  say  that  he  thinks  the  far- 
mers in  the  area  are  full  of  manure  or  some 
other  substance. 


If  he  really  believes  that,  he  ought  to  say 
it  but  the  people  in  the  area  of  Amprior,  for 
example- 
Mr.    Yakabuski:    I    have   made   my   views 
known. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  has? 

Mr.  Yakabuski:    I  think  I  have  made  my 
views  known. 

Mr.   Cassidy:    I   haven't  heard  them   very 
loudly   and  neither  have   the   people   in  the 


An  hon.  member:  It  is  amazing  how  the 
member  worries  about  him  getting  re-elected. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  can  tell  the  members  that 
the  membership  of  the  NDP  in  Amprior  in- 
creased by  800  per  cent  in  the  last  two  weeks 
and  it  was  directly  as  a  result  of  the  member 
for  Renfrew  South. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
Eight  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  We  are  going  up  from  there, 
too. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  called  progress.  We 
used  to  have  only  two  seats  in  this  Legisla- 
ture. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

An  hon.  member:  That  sounds  like  those  10 
seats  the  member  for  Scarborough  West- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  If  I  can  comment  on  that, 
Mr.  Speaker.  There  is  a  lot  of  eastern  Ontario 
where  we  haven't  had  many  members  until 
now  and  it  is  actions  by  the  govenmient  and 
actions  by  members  like  the  member  for 
Renfrew  South  Avhich  are  alerting  people  to 
the  fact  that  they  simply  cannot  get  political 
change  or  political  action  with  their  present 
representation.  They  very  definitely  need  a 
change- 
Mr.  Yakabuski:  The  member's  mouth  will 
not  get  anyone  elected. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  is  that? 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  The  member  has  a  big 
mouth.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Martel:  Don't  get  personal. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Don't  get 
personal. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  The  member's  big  mouth! 

Mr.  Laughren:   Don't  get  personal. 


APRIL  1.  1974 


593 


Mr.  Yakabuski:  Just  keep  it  up  and  we  are 

all  safe. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Okay. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  what  Gaston  used  to 
sa)-. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  I  never 
heard  him  say  anything. 

Mr.  Martel:  Gaston  used  to  say  that,  too. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  The  member  is  in  real 
trouble  right  now  where  he  is. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  that  right?  Well  if  the 
member  thinks  so. 

Mr.  Martel:   The  Tories  have  had  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Tories  have  had  the 
course. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Most  members  live  in  their 
riding.  But  not  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre,  he  lives  on  Toronto  Island. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes? 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Yes;  it  is  true. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Sure,  I  know.  I  live  in  my 
riding;,  too.  I  just  spend  a  lot  of  time  around 
here. 

I  would  point  out,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
Tories  have  had  three  search  committees 
working  to  find  a  candidate  to  oppose  me  in 
1975.  The\  haven't  found  any  up  until  now 
and  they  will  be  very  happy  to  consider  the 
application  of  the  present  member  for  Ren- 
frew South. 

Mr.  Martel:  Stay  there;  the  member  better 
stay  where  he  is. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  The  way  the  member 
marches  all  around  the  province,  he  won't 
even  hold  his  seat. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  just  let 
me  go  on  with  this  document,  which  is  ob- 
viously a  key  document  in  the  whole  plan  of 
Hydro,  at  least  in  so  far  as  information  which 
is  available  to  senior  Hydro  people  and  the 
government  for  making  a  decision  and  for 
justifying  a  decision  once  it  has  been  made 
is  concerned.  It  says  toward  the  end  that  the 
Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions is  planning  a  new  limited-access  high- 
way right  over  the  proposed  site  of  the  Am- 
prior  dam  and  may  pre-empt  Hydro  use  of 
the  site  unless  this  project  is  committed  now. 

Well  you  have  to  picture  to  yourself,  Mr. 
Speaker,   a  bunch   of  Hydro   engineers  who 


came  out  of  university  after  the  war,  had 
never  worked  for  anybody  else  but  Hydro  and 
for  25  years  their  job  has  been  to  build  dams. 
They  are  nearing  retirement  right  now,  and 
as  well  Hydro  has  told  them:  "Look,  we 
have  given  up  building  dams,  we  are  going 
to  be  going  nuclear." 

This  was  in  the  late  Sixties,  early  Seven- 
ties. The  hydrauhc  programme  had  come  to 
an  end;  I  think  that  is  being  reconsidered 
now  in  view  of  changes  in  the  energy  econ- 
omy, but  nevertheless  at  the  time  that  the 
project  was  being  considered  it  was  felt  that 
hydraulic  projects  had  come  to  an  end.  The 
engineering  team  in  Hydro  that  had  built  so 
many  dams  was  being  disbanded.  That  was 
one  of  the  reasons  why  Acres  was  involved 
in  the  engineering  up  at  Lower  Notch,  and  I 
guess  that  was  why  they  were  called  in  to 
engineer  the  project  at  Arnprior  as  well. 

So  here  are  these  guys  who  want  to  build 
another  dam.  It  is  in  their  life-blood  and 
they  find  out  that  the  site  may  be  pre- 
empted, by  highway  engineers  of  all  people, 
and  that  they  may  not  get  to  build  their 
dam  because  there  is  not  another  site  on 
which  to  build  a  generating  dam  around 
there.  So  because  the  transportation  people 
are  proposing  a  $1  million  bridge  they  rush 
in  and  say:  "Come  on  now,  we  had  better 
move  quickly;  and  they  commit  themselves 
to  a  $78  million  dam  in  order  to  keep  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  from  building 
a  $1  million  bridge;  not  thinking  that  maybe 
Transportation  and  Communications  could 
be  induced  to  spend  ^VA  million  to  slightly 
relocate  their  bridge  so  that  Hydro  would 
still  have  the  option  of  the  dam  at  some 
future  date. 

Then  they  say:  "If  we  don't  proceed  now 
with  the  Arnprior  generating  station  and 
subsequently  want  to  develop  the  Arnprior 
project,  then  the  CPR  line  will  have  to  be 
rerouted  and  a  new  highway  cloverleaf  will 
be  required;  and  there  may  be  diflBculties 
in  building  the  dam  under  or  adjacent  to 
the  new  highway  bridge." 

Well,  for  the  sake  of  a  cloverleaf,  for 
the  sake  of  having  to  fit  the  dam  under  the 
bridge,  and  for  the  sake  of  relocating  the 
CPR,  they  decided  they  had  better  rush 
ahead.  It  so  happens,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  they 
found  that  they  have  to  relocate  the  CPR 
anyway;  in  fact  their  financial  estimate  in- 
cludes about  an  extra  $1  million  or  $2  mil- 
lion for  further  relocation  of  the  CPR,  be- 
cause they  found  that  they  had  to  move  it 
further  than  they  had  initially— 

Mr.  Martel:  They  are  moving  it  to  Barry's 
Bay. 


594 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Cassidy:  That  is  right;  well  that  is 
not  a  bad  idea. 

Then  they  stated  that  Transportation  and 
Communications  was  also  planning  to  re- 
place the  bridge  over  the  lower  Madawaska 
where  Highway  17  now  goes  into  the  town 
of  Arnprior.  "If  Hydro  wanted",  and  I  quote, 
"to  subsequently  widen  the  discharge  chan- 
nel from  the  Arnprior  dam,  this  bridge  would 
have  to  be  replaced  again  at  an  estimated 
cost  of  $250,000." 

In  other  words,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  Hydro 
delayed  making  a  decision  about  the  dam 
and  MTC  rebuilt  the  bridge,  then  it  would 
cost  an  extra  quarter  of  a  million  dollars  to 
lengthen  the  bridge  to  get  it  over  the  new 
tail  race  that  would  have  to  be  built  below 
the  dam.  Those  are  hardly  compelling  rea- 
sons for  going  ahead. 

Well,  let's  go  on.  In  their  conclusion  they 
say  that: 

The  construction  of  the  generating  sta- 
tion would  eliminate  a  number  of  prob- 
lems and  complaints  mostly  anticipated 
due  to  water  level  variations  of  the  lower 
Madawaska.  It  would  provide  additional 
peaking  energy.  [Yes  it  would  —  but  at 
grossly  uneconomic  cost.l  It  has  been  con- 
cluded [by  Hydro  people]  that  if  Arnprior 
is  not  constructed  then  restrictions  in 
peaking  operation  of  Stewartville  will  be 
required.  [And  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the 
statement  that  nowhere  is  proved]. 

In  addition,  the  project  would  provide 
10  to  15  miles  of  shoreline  on  a  man-made 
lake  which  would  be  suitable  for  cottages, 
sailing,  boating  and  fishing.  This  facility 
should  be  of  significant  val^e  to  local  resi- 
dents and  to  the  city  of  Arnprior. 

The  shoreline  is  actually  about  48  miles. 
The  estimate  is  that  something  like  90  or  95 
per  cent  of  it  is  unsuitable  for  cottages  and 
that  the  recreational  demands  to  be  foreseen 
in  the  area  up  until  the  turn  of  the  century 
are  not  large  enough  to  justify  more  than 
one  campsite  there.  There  are  many  areas 
along  the  Ottawa  River  nearby  which  are 
equally  pleasant  and  where  a  new  campsite 
of  that  size,  or  greater,  could  easily  be  built. 
Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  try  and  get  up  to  date 
now  on  some  of  the  chronology.  This  be- 
came an  issue  in  the  Legislature  I  think 
about  last  November  and  from  the  very  be- 
ginning the  attitude  of  the  government  on 
this  whole  question  of  the  Arnprior  dam 
has  been  to  seek  to  deny  information,  or 
to  seek  to  cover  up,  or  to  seek  to  simply 
refuse  to  recognize  the  statements  that  are 
being   made    from    this   side   of   the   House, 


both  from  the  New  Democratic  Party  and 
also  on  occasion  from  the  Liberal  Party. 
In  fact,  the  Minister  of  Energy  has,  from 
the  very  beginning,  taken  the  attitude  of 
stonewalling.  He  will  never  see  anything 
wrong  with  the  project.  And  may  I  say  that 
while  the  member  from— Simcoe  North  is 
it?- 

Mr.  Taylor:  Centre  (Mr.  Evans). 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Centre,  I  am  sorry— was  up 
until  the  end  of  January  very  co-operative  in 
providing  information,  he,  too,  at  no  time  was 
willing  to  recognize  that  there  might  be  any- 
thing wrong  with  the  particular  project.  If 
anything,  one  might  say  that  they,  too,  have 
been  conned  by  the  sharpies  from  University 
Ave.,  the  same  sharpies  that  gave  us  the 
Gerhard  Moog  Canada  Centre. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  why  George  Gather- 
cole  is  singing  his  swan  song. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  it's  a  very  long  swan 
song,  may  I  say.  One  would  wish,  after  what 
I  have  learned  from  this,  that  Mr.  Gather- 
cole  would  take  his  flight  a  bit  sooner.  It's 
the  only  argument  I  can  think  of  whv  we 
should  have  a  second  chamber  in  this  par- 
ticular province;  it  would  be  to  find  a  safe 
resting  place  for  people  the  likes  of  Mr. 
Gathercole  who  have  outlived  their  useful- 
ness. 

Mr.  Martel:  Hear,  hear.  I  support  that. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  first  ques- 
tions about  the  dam  that  I  can  find  here  are 
some  questions  that  were  filed  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Downsview  (Mr.  Singer),  in  fact,  that 
specifically  requested  details  of  the  first  con- 
tract and  the  value  of  the  first  contract,  which 
was  not  at  that  point  even  available  from 
Hydro.  Recause  Hydro,  believe  it  or  not,  in 
1973  and  1974  had  a  tendering  procedure 
which  came  from  the  dark  ages,  in  \\'hich 
they  would  not  even  reveal  the  value  of 
winning  contracts  let  alone  do  what  every 
other  government  agency  in  this  province 
does— reveal  the  value  of  ever>'  tender  sub- 
mitted and  the  names  of  all  the  bidders. 
That's  how  bad  the  tendering  procedure  of 
Ontario  Hydro  was.  It  was  quite  autocratic 
in  fact. 

At  any  rate,  on  request,  that  information 
was  given,  justified  I  think  by  the  fact  that 
there  had  been  a  negotiated  contract  with 
Pitts,  given  on  the  advice  of  Pitts'  corporate 
relative  Acres,  who  were  the  engineering 
consultants  to  Hydro.  The  question  was  also 
asked,  though,  whether  the  Minister  of  En- 


APRIL  1,  1974 


595 


ergy  or  Hydro  would  release  the  unit  prices 
in  that  first  contract.  It  seemed  like  a  reason- 
able kind  of  thing  to  do,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  Pitts  would  obviously  be  bidding  on  the 
second  contract  and  that  it  would  know  both 
its  ovNTi  costs  in  carrying  out  the  first  contract 
and  also  the  unit  prices  in  its  successful  bid, 
and  that  information  was  denied  to  every 
other  bidder,  but  Hydro  didn't  see  anything 
wrong  with  that  and  neither  did  the  min- 
ister. 

I  asked  whether  the  minister  could  explain 
why  Ontario  Hydro  was  continuing  to  favour 
Pitts  by  making  it  the  only  contractor  on  the 
subsequent  contract  privy  to  the  detailed  in- 
formation gained  on  the  first  contract. 

The  Minister  of  Energy  said  that  those 
allegations  of  mine  were  simply  not  correct. 
Well,  I  am  afraid  that  the  statement  by  the 
minister  was  simply  not  correct. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  ministers  nose  is  out  to 
here. 

Mr.  Taylor:  He  is  the  most  correct  person 
in  the  House. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  suspect  that  my  statement 
is  as  unparliamentary  as  the  statement  made 
by  the  minister— only  I  happen  to  be  right 
and  he  happens  to  be  wrong. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It's  clear  that  Hydro  was  very 
embarrassed  about  this  from  the  beginning, 
and  in  early  January  there  suddenly  came 
the  revelation  from  Hydro  of  not  only  the 
names  of  the  people  who  had  been  invited 
to  bid  on  the  second  contract  of  the  dam, 
which  was  for  about  $9  million  or  $10  mil- 
lion, but  also,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  Hydro,  the  amounts  of  the  bids  were 
revealed.  Believe  it  or  not,  Pitts  had  the 
inside  track,  as  we  had  predicted,  and  its 
bid  \\as  substantially  below  the  bids  of  the 
other  firms  that  had  been  invited  to  bid. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
read  out  those  bids?  Read  out  the  figures  on 
those  bids.  Tell  the  whole  story.  The  member 
says  "substantially,"  but  it  was  $7  million 
lower  than  the  high  bidder. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What? 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Approximately  $7  million 
lower  than  the  high  bidder. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  what  he  said.  That's 
substantial. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  That's  a  lot  of  know-how— 
$7  million  worth.  That's  a  lot  of  inside  track. 


Mr.  Cassidy:  If  I  may  read  the  bids- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I'm  glad  to  know,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  hon.  member  for  Renfrew 
South  is  finally  getting  engaged  in  the  Am- 
prior  dam  issue  for  the  first  time  in  his  life. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Just  tell  the  whole  story; 
don't  twist  the  facts. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  lowest  bid  received,  was 
tendered  by  C.  A.  Pitts  of  Toronto  at  $9.4 
million.  You  will  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
Pitts  had  knowledge  of  the  unit  prices  of  the 
first  contract- 
Mr.  Yakabuski:  What  was  the  highest? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —and  had  knowledge  of  its 
actual  cost,  because  it  had  been  given  what 
amounted  to  a  cost-plus  tender  on  the  first 
job,  in  which  it  was  able  to  settle  the  price 
with  Hydro,  some  six  or  eight  months  I  think 
it  was,  after  it  moved  its  equipment  onto  the 
site. 

The  second  lowest  bid  was  from  Armbro 
Materials  and  Construction  Ltd.  of  Brampton, 
$11.9  million;  McAlpine  of  Rexdale,  $12.7 
million;  then  they  go  up  to  Peter  Kiewit  of 
Weston,  $16.7  million.  Pitts'  bid  was  $2.5 
million  below  that  of  the  next  lowest  bidder. 

'The  hon.  member  for  Renfrew  South  would 
probably  say  that  it  made  eminent  sense  for 
Pitts  to  be  chosen  in  view  of  that  bid.  What 
I'm  suggesting  is  that  in  government  and)  in 
tenderiag,  where  there  are  conflict-of-interest 
situations,  these  must  be  shown  to  be  non- 
existent. It's  a  matter  of  being  seen  to  be  free 
from  conflict  of  interest,  as  well  as  being  free 
of  conflict  of  interest. 

I've  had  some  very  angry  reactions  from 
people  who  work  for  the  Acres  consulting 
firm,  saying:  "Look,  I've  been  involved  in  this 
job.  I  wasn't  influenced  by  the  fact  that 
people  on  the  board  of  my  parent  company 
sit  on  a  board  with  Mr.  Cooper  of  Pitts. 
What  do  you  mean  that  my  integrity  is  being 
involved?  I  am  free  from  it." 

(The  answer  though,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  very  / 
simply  that  they're  not  free  from  the  appear- 
ance of  it  so  long  as  there  is  a  corporate  link. 
And  you  certainly,  Mr.  Speaker,  or  the  hon. 
member  for  Simcoe  Centre  or  the  hon. 
member  for  Renfrew  South,  would  not 
tolerate  learning  that  the  Deputy  Minister  of 
Government  Services,  for  example,  was  in- 
volved in  the  tendering  of  contracts  to  a  firm 
with  which  he  had  a  corporate  link— where 
he  or  his  wife  was  a  director  or  there  was 
some  other  kind  of  direct  link  between  him 
andi  that  firm. 


596 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  sensible,  logical,  established  thing  to 
have  done  in  this  particular  case  would  have 
been  for  Acres  to  say  to  Hydro:  "Look,  we 
cannot  assess  these  bids  because  of  a  conflict 
of  interest.  Therefore,  we  ask  you  to  either 
get  your  own  staff  or  another  consultant  to 
come  in  to  decide  which  bid  should  be 
accepted."  That  would  have  cost  $5,000  or 
$10,000,  and  it  would  have  eliminated  the 
appearance  of  conflict  of  interest,  which  is 
just  one  of  the  problems  that  has  been  in- 
volved. Hydro  was  very  embarrassed,  though, 
because  of  the  fact  that  it  did— and  it  showed 
it  by  revealing  these  figures  for  the  first  time. 

Hydro  obviously  also  went  along  -with  the 
conflict-of-interest  situation— they  didn't  see 
anything  wrong,  and  the  minister  apparently 
has  not  seen  anything  particularly  wrong. 

The  next  round  in  this,  Mr,  Speaker,  was 
the  Minister  of  Energy's  visit  to  Amprior; 
the  hon.  member  for  Renfrew  South  and  the 
hon.  member  for  Lanark,  I  think  were  both 
present.  As  it  happened,  I  was  ablfe  to  get  up; 
and,  as  it  happened  too,  it  was  faithfully  re- 
corded in  the  Globe  and  Mail.  I  must  say  that 
the  reaction  of  the  people  in  the  area  was,  to 
put  it  mildly,  very  negative. 

Here  they  had  been  trying  since  June  of 
the  previous  year,  when  Reeve  Stewart  of 
Pakenham  township  first  wrote  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Energy,  to  get  somebody  senior  in 
government  up  to  Amprior  to  look  at  the 
project,  to  look  at  the  very  serious  objections, 
to  reconsider  it  and  to  decide  whether  or  not 
it  should  be  pulled  back.  That's  what  the 
people  in  the  area  wanted.  They  were  con- 
cerned. About  80  or  90  of  them  gathered 
in  the  hall  and  the  Minister  of  Energy  said: 
The  dam  will  go  ahead  no  matter  what.  He 
didn't  just  say  it,  Mr.  Speaker;  I  mean  to 
say  the  reaction  of  the  local  press  was  that 
the  minister  had  struck  out  on  that  par- 
ticular occasion. 

My  own  respect  for  the  minister  went 
down  very  substantially  on  that  particular 
occasion,  because  the  rather  endearing 
arrogance  that  I  had  known  of  him,  when 
he  was  the  Treasurer  and  when  he  was  the 
Pooh-Bah  of  the  government,  striding  over 
an  enormous  area  of  government,  seemed  to 
have  changed  to  a  petty  autocracy  in  which 
he  would  brook  no  criticism  and  brook  no 
conflicting   opinions. 

He  went  up  to  Amprior,  got  on  a  heli- 
copter, wandered  around  the  site  by  air  to 
have  a  quick  look  at  it  and  arrived  in  the 
local  hall  at  10  o'clock,  not  to  meet  with  the 
farmers  but  to  hold  a  press  conference.  Dur- 
ing the  course  of  the  press  conference,  Mr. 
Speaker,  he  let  it  be  known  that  Hydro  had 


let  the  contract  for  the  dam  to  Pitts;  and 
during  the  course  of  the  press  conference 
as  well  he  made  it  clear  that  he  was  not 
there  to  reconsider  the  project,  he  was 
simply  there  to  have  a  look  around  and 
nothing  else. 

In  fact,  the  CP  wires  carried  the  report 
of  Hydro's  award  of  that  contract,  Mr, 
Speaker,  It  reached  me  and  other  people 
in  the  area  by  telephone  midway  through 
the  subsequent  meeting  between  the  minister 
and  80  or  90  or  100  angry  farmers,  towns- 
people and  others  from  that  particular  area. 
By  the  end  of  the  day,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
heavy  equipment,  which  Pitts  had  put  just  off 
the  site  in  the  hope  of  getting  the  new 
contract,  was  rolling  back  in  to  recommence 
work  on  the  $9,4  million  award  that  it  had 
that  day. 

Mr.  Martel:  Just  as  though  they  had  never 
left, 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Tliat,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  the 
way  in  which  this  particular  govemment  was 
willing  to  listen  to  the  people  of  Renfrew 
on  that  particular  occasion  in  connection 
with  the  Amprior  dam  project.  That  is  a 
height  of  arrogance  such  as  I've  never  seen, 
to  go  in  to  tell  the  press  rather  than  listen- 
ing to  the  people  first,  to  have  the  announce- 
ment made  midway  through  the  meeting  and 
then  to  have  the  trucks  and  the  bulldozers 
rolling  back  on  the  site  as  the  people  are 
leaving,  unhappily,  to  go  to  their  homes. 

He  wouldn't  even  stay  for  lunch;  and  it 
was  a  very  good  lunch,  Mr,  Speaker.  At  any 
rate,  it  was  very  clear  that  the  whole  thing 
was  a  cut-and-dried  affair, 

I  had  a  very  curious  docmnent  that  came 
to  me  from  a  broker  down  on  Bay  St.  It  was 
one  of  these  investment  reports  on  C.A, 
Pitts, 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing):  He  sent  one  to  the  member? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  think  I  asked  for  it.  He 
wouldn't  have  sent  it  to  me,  naturally. 

But  what  it  said  was:  "C.A.  Pitts;  good 
company;  lots  of  profits  ahead;  doing  very 
well;  increase  in  workload;"  and  so  forth. 
Then  when  you  got  into  the  details,  there 
they  had  $30  million  of  work  listed  for  C.A. 
Pitts  on  the  Amprior  dam  project.  This  was 
months  before  the  tenders  had  even  been 
called  for  the  second  phase  of  that  par- 
ticular contract. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  A  prett\-  good  fore- 
caster. 


APRIL  1,  1974 


597 


Mr.  Cassidy:  A  pretty  good  forecaster, 
that's  right. 

Mr.  Martel:  Especially  if  the  contract  had 
already  been  signed. 

Mr.    Cassidy:    Mr.    Speaker,   that   was   the 
last  attempt  that  I  know  for  Hydro  to  come 
clean- 
Mr.  Martel:  Is  Pitts  in  the  Tory  party? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Or  for  the  Minister  of  Energy 
to  come  clean  with  people  in  the  area.  At 
that  meeting,  the  minister,  Mr.  Jackson  and 
the  other  people  from  Hydro  kept  insisting 
it  was  a  matter  of  compensation  and  noth- 
ing else.  Yet,  in  fact,  a  number  of  the  farm- 
ers got  up  and  made  it  clear  they  wanted 
to  keep  their  farms  first.  If  they  couldn't 
keep  their  farms,  then  they  would  argue 
for  good  compensation,  but  they  wanted  to 
keep  their  farms.  The  member  for  Renfrew 
South,  I  think,  knows  that. 

I  was  concerned,  Mr.  Speaker.  By  this 
time  I  had  collected  a  fair  amount  of  in- 
formation which  indicated  to  me  that  at  no 
time  had  Hydro  done  adequate  studies  to 
assess  the  alternatives  to  building  the  $78- 
million  dam;  and  in  view  of  the  concern  of 
the  farmers  in  the  area  over  the  loss  of 
their  farmland,  in  view  of  the  loss  of  recrea- 
tional potenti^  of  the  valley,  and  in  view  of 
the  excess  expenditures  which  would  have 
the  effect  of  driving  up  uimecessarily  oiu: 
Hydro  rates  across  the  province,  that  the 
whole  project  ought  to  be  reconsidered. 

In  the  Legislature  and  through  other 
means  I  was  asking  the  government  to  stop 
construction  and  to  hold  a  full  public  in- 
quiry to  see  what  the  alternatives  were,  and 
we  were  also  seeking  as  much  information 
as  possible  to  see  what  the  alternatives  were. 

Around  this  time,  I  wrote  a  detailed  letter 
about  the  project  to  the  Minister  of  Energy. 
I  sent  a  copy  to  Hydro  and  I  sent  copies  to 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Mr. 
Stewart)  because  farmers  were  concerned;  to 
the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Guindon)  be- 
cause workers  in  eastern  Ontario  weren't  get- 
ting the  jobs;  and  to  the  Minister  of  Industry 
and  Tourism  because  he  is  also  the  minister 
responsible  for  eastern  Ontario.  I  could  see 
there  would  be  more  advantage  in  spending 
$50  million  in  economic  development  than  in 
building  a  dam  that  wouldn't  create  any  jobs 
after  it  was  built.  In  other  words,  the  letter 
had  fairly  wide  currency. 

I  also  sought  a  meeting  with  senior  people 
from  Hydro  in  order  to  discuss  statements  I 
had  made  in  the  letter.  By  this  time  it  began 
to    appear   to   me,    and   in   fact   I   had   had 


information  from  Hydro,  that  the  power  com- 
ing out  of  this  project  was  going  to  cost 
something  hke  50  mills  a  kilowatt  hour.  A 
mill  is  one-thousandth  of  a  dollar  or  a  tenth 
of  a  cent.  For  the  sake  of  comparison,  the 
revenue  that  Hydro  gets  from  its  industrial 
and  municipal  consumers— municipal  utilities— 
for  the  power  it  sells  to  them  is  between 
seven  and  about  nine  or  9.5  mills.  In  other 
words,  the  power  coming  out  of  this  project 
was  going  to  cost  anyone  from  five  to  seven 
times  the  price  at  which  Hydro  actually  sells 
its  power  to  retailers  and  to  industrial  con- 
sumers. 

On  the  face  of  it,  something  might  be 
wrong.  At  the  very  least,  in  view  of  the 
marginal  prospects  of  the  project,  one  de- 
served better  than  to  be  fobbed  off  with 
bland  assurances  such  as  we  had  from  the 
Premier  today  that  Hydro  really  knew  what  it 
was  doing.  All  of  the  evidence  indicated  that 
Hydro  didn't  know  what  it  was  doing,  that 
it  was  hell-bent  on  building  the  dam  and  not 
hell-bent  on  looking  at  all  the  alternatives  to 
see  whether  something  couldn't  be  done  much 
more  cheaply  in  order  to  resolve  erosion  prob- 
lems on  the  river  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
people  concerned,  while  still  preserving  the 
peaking  use  of  the  dam  upstream. 

Then  there  was  a  very  furmy  kind  of  suc- 
cession of  things  where  the  chairman,  Mr. 
Gathercole,  said:  "Yes,  of  course,  you  can 
meet  and  we  will  have  our  technical  people 
there.  All  of  your  difficulties  can  be  explained 
and  sorted  out."  I  was  to  get  it  sorted  out 
from  the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre's  oflSce  at 
such  and  such  time  on  such  and  such  a 
date,  early  in  February;  around  Feb.  3,  4  or  5, 
I  can't  remember.  That  meeting  was  set,  was 
confirmed  by  letter  and  then  was  cancelled 
at  the  last  minute.  Not  only  was  it  cancelled, 
but  a  week  or  so  later  when  my  secretary 
phoned  the  member's  office  to  find  out 
whether  they  had  managed  to  get  their  people 
together  for  the  subsequent  meeting  that  had 
been  agreed  upon,  she  learned  directly  from 
the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre  that  he  hadn't 
been  aware  of  it,  or  wanted  to  continue  the 
idea  of  the  meeting. 

Finally,  once  that  one  was  resolved,  and 
there  was  certainly  an  implication  that  Hydro 
was  doing  its  best  not  to  meet,  on  Feb.  25  I 
think  it  was— no,  it  was  a  bit  earlier  than  that, 
around  Feb.  24  or  23—1  was  invited  down  to 
the  member's  oflBce  to  meet,  not  with  Mr. 
Gathercole  because  he  didn't  want  to  get 
involved— he  only  started  the  thing  off  and  he 
left  it  to  other  people  to  pick  up  the  pieces- 
but,  with  the  now  president  of  Hydro,  Mr. 
Gordon;  with  the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre; 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


with  a  Mr.  Morrison,  director  of  generation 
projects;  and  with  the  man  who  has  been  most 
intimately  involved  with  this  particular 
project,  Mr,  Jackson,  Mr.  Morrison's  boss;  and 
with  two  or  three  other  people  who  were 
concerned  with  property  and  public  relations. 

I  don't  want  to  go  into  that  meeting  in 
any  detail.  In  fact  I  would  wish  that  every- 
body involved  could  just  forget  that  meeting, 
because  frankly  it  was  a  fiasco.  It  was  a 
disaster. 

I  had  sent  material  to  Hydro  and  said,  in 
effect:  "Can  you  comment  on  this,  please?" 
We  arrived  and  I  said:  "Wbat  are  your  com- 
ments?" And  they  said:  "Oh,  we  didn't  bring 
your  letter  to  the  meeting.  We  will  go  and  get 
it." 

Then  when  we  had  the  five  or  six-page 
letter,  Mr.  Morrison  said:  "You  have  been 
misrepresenting  what  we  are  doing.  You  say 
you  don't  know  whether  it  is  for  erosion  con- 
trol or  for  generation  of  electricity.  In  fact  it 
is  for  both."  So  I  said:  "I  don't  know  which  it 
is  for.  Is  it  for  erosion  control  or  is  it  for 
electricity;"  because  I  hadn't  been  very  clear 
about  that? 

At  no  point  was  it  possible  to  get  any  sub- 
stantive answer  from  Hydro.  At  no  point  was 
there  any  effort  by  Hydro  to  explain  this 
craziness  that  power  was  going  to  cost  50 
mills  per  kilowatt  hour  from  this  particular 
project,  according  to  figures  that  had  been  sent 
to  me  by  Mr.  Gathercole.  At  one  point  tfiey 
said:  "Look  those  figures  are  irrelevant,  here 
are  our  fiejures"— and  proffered  figures  in  a 
form  which  I'm  afraid  is  not  possible  for  a 
hyman  to  understand  imless  the  working 
papers  are  provided. 

I  was  told  that  they  didn't  want  to  give 
information  because  it  wasn't  possible  for  a 
layman  to  understand.  Yet  we  live  in  a  system 
of  government  which  says  that  lay  people  in 
the  Legislature  and  in  the  cabinet  will  make 
the  decisions  on  the  advice  of  the  experts;  and 
I  would  have  thought  that  applies  to  Hydro 
as  much  as  it  applies  to  other  subjects.  Cer- 
tainly one  notices  that  a  number  of  lay 
people  have  been  appointed  to  the  board  of 
directors  of  the  Hydro  corporation,  because 
that  tradition  applies  within  business  and 
within  public  corporations  as  well  as  within 
politics  and  within  private  business. 

Having  been  told  I  was  misrepresenting 
things,  I  was  then  told  by  Mr.  Morrison  that 
he  should  take  legal  action  against  me;  he 
was  really  very  up  tight.  At  the  very  end  of 
the  meeting,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  president,  Mr. 
Gordon,  indicated  that  he  supported  the  com- 


ments that  had  been  made  by  this  particular 
rather  foolish  senior  executive  of  Hydro. 

Over  an  hoiu"-and-three-quarters  all  I  could 
gather  was  that  Hydro  didn  t  have  any  studies 
of  any  depth  on  the  present  or  the  future 
course  of  erosion  along  this  stretch  of  the 
Madawaska.  There  are  the  erosion  problems 
of  the  dam  reservoir— and  that's  pretty  im- 
portant. If  you  are  going  to  build  a  dam  to 
solve  one  erosion  problem  by  drowning  it,  you 
ought  to  know  whether  the  sensitive  marine 
or  Leda  clay  which  surrounds  the  reservoir 
will  still  be  subject  to  erosion,  and  if  so  by 
how  much. 

Now  the  reports  that  have  come  in  indicate 
generally  that  there  will  still  be  stability 
problems.  There  will  be  an  improvement 
from  the  present  erosion  problems,  okay;  but 
by  how  much  nobody  knows,  because  the 
studies  haven't  been  done.  They  just  say: 
"Don't  worry,  boys,  it  is  going  to  be  better; 
and  if  it  isn't  better  we  can  spend  a  bit  more 
money  to  stabilize  the  banks  of  the  new 
reservoir." 

^At  one  point  Hydro  referred  to  this  as 
being  a  final  solution  to  the  erosion  problems. 
But  more  recently  they  indicated  that  it  is 
only  a  partial  solution,  that  the  lake  level  will 
fluctuate  by  up  to  two  ft  a  day.  Some  of  the 
people  admit  that  there  may  be  wave  action, 
which  will  add  to  erosion. 

There  will  still  be  some  erosion  problems, 
but  there  is  no  detailed-  study  about  what 
those  erosion  problems  might  be.  There  is  no 
model  of  what  would  have  happened  in'  the 
the  way  of  erosion  if  you  leave  the  riveJr  as  it 
stands,  or  with  some  minor  improvements. 
There  is  no  model  of  what  that  would  be, 
and  there  is  nothing  about  the  costs  and 
benefits  of  alternative  schemes  of  river  man- 
agement. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  the  reason 
Hydro  was  covering  up  right  now  and  refus- 
ing to  present  any  further  documents  is  simply 
because  they  haven't  got  them— they  don't 
exist.  Because  it  is  a  political  dam.  It  was 
brought  in  to  re-elect  the  member  for  Ren- 
frew South.  They  didn't  do- 
Mr.  Yakabuski:  That's  a  lot  of  "you  know 
what." 

An  hon.  member:  What! 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  didn't  do  their  home- 
work. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  called  "oompah." 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That  is  right. 


APRIL  1,  1974 


599 


Mr.  Yakabuski:  That  is  just  stupid.  The 
member  for  Ottawa  Centre  just  doesn't  know 
the  facts. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  hope  the  member  for  Ren- 
frew South  then,  who  appears  to  know  the 
facts,  will  try  and  elucidate  to  the  Legislature 
during  the  course  of  this  Throne  Speech  de- 
date. 

Hon.    Mr.    Handleman:    How   can   he   be 

elected  if  nobody  is  in  favour  of  it? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Well,  I  call  on  Hydro  and 
the  government  and  the  member  for  Renfrew 
South  to  get  up  in  this  Legislature  and  pro- 
vide evidence  mat  this  is  not  a  political  dam. 
Because  all  of  the  evidence  that  we've  had  so 
far  indicates— 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  It  is  not  a  political  dam. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —that  since  it  is  not  good  for 
anything  else,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  must  be  for 
political  reasons. 

An  Hon.  member:  The  vote  got  him  elected. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Another  thing  is,  though— 
look,  I'm  a  noisy  kind  of  individual  as  a 
politician. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  better  than  some  of  the 
deadweight  over  there. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  occasion  I  get  a  bit  nasty 
with  the  members  opposite,  the  ministers  and 
people  like  that.  If  somebody  gets  angry  with 
me,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  this  Legislature  for 
example,  that's  fair  enough.  If  somebody  gets 
angry  with  me  as  a  private  citizen,  that's  fair 
enough.  But  it  raises  certain  questions  in  my 
mind  when  in  the  presence  and  with  the 
support  of  the  now  president  of  a  large 
public  corporation,  a  senior  executive  threat- 
ens a  member  of  this  Legislature  with  legal 
action  if  he  continues  to  voice  criticism  of  a 
rather  controversial  decision  or  set  of  deci- 
sions by  Hydro.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  a 
deliberate  attempt  to  muzzle  this  Legislature. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  A  member  is  privi- 
leged inside  the  House.  Privilege  ends  when 
a  member  walks  out  the  door. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It's  a  matter  of  concern  for 
the  member  for  Carleton,  the  member  for 
Renfrew  South,  the  new  parliamentary  assist- 
ant to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
and  everybody  else  on  the  government  side 
of  the  Legislature  as  well  as  people  in  the 
Liberal  Party  and  in  my  party.  When  people 
in  a  government  agency  seek  to  threaten  legal 


action  against  one  member  of  the  Legislature, 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  all  members  of 
the  Legislature  are  affected. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  was  Ross  Shouldice,  the 
Tory  bagman. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It's  an  aspect,  though,  Mr. 
Speaker,  of  the  very  defensive  way  in  which 
Hydro  has  reacted  to  the  criticism  of  all  this. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Maybe  if  we  had  the  other 
side  of  the  story,  the  member  would  be 
defensive. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  doesn't  that  member  give 
the  other  side  of  the  story? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  asked  Mr.  Morrison- 
Mr.    Yakabuski:    The    other    side    of    the 
story  is  that  perhaps  legal  action  should  have 
been  taken  against  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre. 

Mr.  Martel:  Then  stand  up  and  give  it  to 


Mr.  Cassidy:  All  right;  I  would  suggest  the 
member  for  Renfrew  South  join  in  this  de- 
bate. I  have  asked  the  people  from  Hydro; 
okay,  the  member  says  I  am  misrepresenting. 
Give  me  chapter  and  verse;  I  hare  not  had 
chapter  and  verse. 

They  could' ve  written  me  a  letter  if  they 
felt  like  it;  they  could' ve  told  me  in  my 
presence  at  that  particular  meeting.  I  have 
not  had  it.  I  have  done  my  best  to  try  to 
stick  to  the  facts  that  are  available  on  the 
public  record;  or  where  I  have  had  to  work 
out  facts  and  figures  on  my  own,  to  indicate 
and  to  provide  to  those  who  are  interested 
the  means  by  which  it  was  arrived  at. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  this  affair  not  only  has 
Hydro  reacted  very  defensively  but  also  the 
government  has.  It  was  during  the  course  of 
that  meeting  that  I  asked  for  an  engineering 
feasibility  study  on  the  Amprior  dam  which 
had  been  prepared  in  July,  1970,  for  Hydro. 
I  have  a  letter  from  Mr.  Evans  in  response 
to  a  letter  of  mine  concerning  that  feasibility 
study.  I  said:  "Could  I  please  have  any  over- 
all feasibility  studies?"  Through  some  mis- 
take that  came  through  to  him  as,  "Could  I 
have  a  regional  feasibility  study?"  He  was 
puzzled  by  that;  I  am  puzzled  by  it.  Any- 
way he  said,  "We  haven't  got  that,  but  we 
do  have  the  following  studies:  Two  technical; 
"Community  Impact;"  "Environmental  Im- 
pact"; and  "Development  Engineering."  He 
said:  "You  can  have  any  one  of  them  if  you 
ask." 


600 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  subsequently  asked.  I  thought  that  b) 
act'ident  the  engineering  study  didn't  cxjme 
to  me  and  I  say  that  quite  honestly  to  the 
member  for  SimciK*  Centre.  I  thought  it  was 
purely  by  accident  that  the  engineering  study 
did  not  come  to  me  at  the  time  of  the  initial 
request.  At  any  rate,  I  phonetl  un  in  early 
Febniar)'  to  say:  "I  forgot  to  get  tnLs  or  \ou 
forgot  to  send  it  to  me.  Can  I  please  have 
it.  I  was  told  I  wouUI  get  it  when  I  would 
go  over  to  the  meeting  with  Mr.  Evans. 

I  asked  for  it  at  that  time.  I  was  tcild  by 
Mr.  Gordon  himself  that  I  had  had  all  the 
infonnation  I  was  going  to  have  and  he  was 
damned  if  I  wus  going  to  get  any  more. 
That,  of  ct)urse,  was  the  at! vice  he  gave  to 
the  Nfinlster  of  Energy  as  well,  that  no 
further    information    should    l)e    tjiven. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  That's 
not  ver>-  ci\il. 

.Mr.  Cassidy:  I'hat's  not  ver>  ci\il:  and  it 
su;jgest«'(!  that  the  emrineeriiiij  study  is  ;i 
much  more  important  dcKument  than,  in 
fad.  I  thoMsiht.  The  other  (ioctune'iits  I  ha\e 
h..|-- 


Int' 


tion  I) 


hot). 


niemixT. 


Mr.  Cavsidy:  — inchcat*'  inadefpi.itc  stiii!>- 
and  jiurnile  or  puerile  thinkinii  ;»s  i"  the 
quote  from  the  en\  iroiunental  study  I  icad 
a  frw  rTiintitrs  aijo.  The  only  thint:  thry  in- 
ditatr  really  is  that  Hydro  didn't  do  an\ 
.uh-quate  homework. 

Mavlx'  thf  en£rinf»erintf  study  is  l.einij 
suppp-ssrd  by  thf  gf^vernment  because  it 
expiises  the  fact  that  there  werr  altcrn.ttives 
whi(  h  \**ere  rejet  ted  by  Hydro  because  tliey 
wotdfl  have  cfjst  onlv  $1  million  or  S2  mil- 
lion anrl  wotilfln't  ha\e  le  I  to  the  re-eh'ction 
of   the    meml>er    for    Henfrew   .South. 

Nfr.  L.  Macck  (Parry  Sound):  As  s(K)n  as 
the  NDP  wins  the  next  election,  the  memlx-r 
will   lie  able  to  gft  that  stopped. 

Mr.  Ca.*sidy:  That's  right  I  see,  the  mem- 
ber doesn't  think  it  should  happen  now?  Let 
him  think  about  it. 

Interjection  by   an   hon.    member. 

Mr.  Cas«i'dy:  I  wrnt  and  .ittnally  had  an 
Interview  with  the  then  Provincial  Secretary 
for   Resources   Development. 

Interjection   by   .^u   hon.   mrmln'r. 

Mr.  Cawidy:  -in  order  to  talk  about  this 
particular  project.  This  was  as  a  follow-up 
to  the  h'ttrr.  I  thoucht  tliat  since  he  had 
annoimced  the  project  in  1972.  he  still  miaht 
be   involved   in   it;   but  as   we   lnf)w  thr   then 


Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  Develop- 
ment hasn't  been  involved  in  ver>'  much.  I 
had  an  hour's  interview  with  him  in  his  ver>' 
pleasant  office  here  in  this  building,  at  the 
end  of  which  he  said  he  wiis  sorr>'  but  he 
could  not  get  inxolved  in  the  questions  IxMng 
raised  by  the  farmers  about  the  Ainprior 
dam  Ix'cause  they  o\\iu*tl  land  that  would  l>e 
flotnled  by  Hydn)  and  therefore,  said  he,  they 
had  a  conflict  of  interest. 

He  would  not  get  involved  because  the 
farmers  who  were  objecting  had  a  conflict  of 
interest.  This  is  like  sunResting  that  the  gov- 
ernment will  never  listen  to  the  lalxiur  mo\'e- 
ment  al)out  labour  legislation  Ijecause 
obviously  workers  have  got  a  conflict  of 
interest  in  talking  about  lalxiur  legislation. 
I  suppose  the  government  won't  listen  to 
tenants  in  talking  about  landlord  and  tenant 
law  because  tenants  have  a  cimflict  of  in- 
terest. 

Nfr.  Mnrtcl:  The\   listen  to  doctors,  though. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The\  listen  to  doctors,  that's 
right.  Of  coinse  it  doesn't  make  sense;  it's 
totally   inane. 

Then  lie  went  on  to  say:  "Rut  of  course, 
if  you  had  a  broker  who  was  concerncKl 
about  the  bond  ratings  for  Hydro  or  .some 
fellow  from  the  University  of  Toronto  whf) 
knows  what  our  experts  know,  then  we'll 
listen  to  him."  Rut  he  woiddn't  listen  to 
people   who   were   directly   involved. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  response  from  the  other 
members  was  most  illuminating.  The  Minis- 
ter of  ,\griculture  and  I'ood  didn't  u'ant  to 
go  to  the  defence  of  his  own  jx'ople  and  he 
simply  said  he  had  forwarded  copies  of  my 
correspondence  to  the  meml>er  for  Simcoe 
Centre.  The  Minister  of  Libour  .said  he  had 
referred  it  to  the  member  for  SimcxK*  Centre, 
and  his  letter  was  dated  a  day  later  than  the 
letter  from  the  Minister  of  Agricnilture  and 
FockI.  The  Minister  of  Energ>'  has  sent  my 
correspondence  to  him  about  this  affair  to 
the  memlx'r  for  Simcx>e  Centre.  The  Min- 
ister of  Industrv'  and  Touri.sm  .said  the  facts 
would  be  thoroughly  re\newed.  He  advised 
that  as  recently  as  Feb.  12  a  meeting  had 
l>een  held  on  the  subject  and  the  contents 
of  my  letter  were  taken  Into  consideration. 

Clearly  there  was  a  joint  decision  by 
people  in  the  cabinet  who  might  have  been 
in\olved  tliat  they  were  simply  going  to  join 
in  the  covcT-up  by  not  replying  and  by  not 
l(K)king  into  the  facts,  but  by  taking  the 
words  and  opinions  of  the  meml>er  for  Sim- 
ccH-  Qntre  and  of  the  people  from  Hydro 
as  gospel.  So  as  a  con.sequcnce,  among  other 


APRIL  1.  1974 


601 


things  there  has  lieen  no  examination  by 
those  people,  those  ministers,  in  view  of  the 
valid  questions  raised  about  the  Amprior 
project.  Further  information  has  been  sup- 
pressed by  the  government  as  far  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  are  concerned.  That 
was  confirmed  today  after  a  paean  of  praise 
to  Hydro  by  the  Premier  himself.  It  appears 
that  the  government  has  simply  taken  the 
view  that  we  shouldn't  have  the  facts. 

Wen  now  what's  curious  about  that,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  the  fact  that  the  flow  of  infor- 
mation has  not  been  cut  oflF  completely.  In 
fact,  on  one  hand  we  had  the  Minister  of 
Energy  speaking  to  the  municipal  electrical 
association  a  while  ago  about  the  Amprior 
dam  and  saying  that  he  had  reviewed  the 
facts  and  found  that  Hydro  has  not  failed 
to  1^  guided  by  public  policy  and  therefore 
he  had  concluded  it  would  be  inappropriate 
to  interfere.  If  any  damage  existed  to  the 
local  farmers,  said  the  minister,  then  the 
correct  procedure  was  an  appeal  to  the  courts 
rather  than  to  the  ministry.  That  was  the 
Minister  of  Energy  on   March  5. 

It  was  only  days  later,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  Minister  of  Energy,  the  new  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development  (Mr. 
Grossman)  and  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  were  holding  a  meeting  with  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Federa'ion  of  Agriculture. 
In  other  words,  the  minister  was  not  saying 
privately  what  he  was  saying  publicly. 

During  the  course  of  that  meeting,  I  un- 
derstand, Hydro  changed  its  tune  as  regards 
compensation  and  now  the  sky  is  the  limit. 
It  has  decided  under  prodding  from  the 
Minister  of  Energy— who  apparently  is  still 
interfering,  or  is  involved— that  Hydro  will 
tr>-  to  buy  the  farmers  out  because  it 
simply  can't  afford  to  keep  on  with  the 
kin  1  of  flak  it  has  been  receiving  on  this 
particular  subject. 

Not  only  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  understand 
that  certain  documents  from  Acres  and  from 
Hydro  have  been  given  to  the  Federation 
of  .\gri culture  concerning  the  Amprior  dam. 
1  would  suggest  that  is  also  a  matter  of 
concern  for  members  of  this  Legislature— 
if  we  don't  get  the  documents,  such  as  this 
feasibility  study,  and  yet  other  people  get 
them.  I  have  no  objection;  I  think  it's  prob- 
abl\  a  good  thing  that  that  document  goes 
forward  to  the  Federation  of  Agriculture. 
What  I  resent,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  fact  that 
that  same  information  is  not  being  given  to 
the  Legislature;  that  Hydro  and  that  the 
Minister  of  Energy  and  that  the  whole 
gON-emment,  are  playing  games  with  this 
Legislature    when    they    are    meant    to    be 


accountable  to  the  parliament  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  talk  very  briefly.  I 
don't  know  if  I  can  finish  thii  by  5  o'dock 
or  not;  HI  do  my  best,  though. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  give  it  to  them. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  said  that 
Hydro  has  misrepresented  the  situation.  Let 
me  give  you  a  few  examples,  Mr.  Speaker. 
One  example  is  simply  the  statement  that 
Hydro  has  had  the  approval  of  the  local 
communities,  and  the  fact  is  that  apart  from 
the  council  of  the  town  of  Amprior  that  Is 
not  the  case.  It  has  had  a  letter  from  the 
mayor  of  Amprior  saying  that  the  other 
three  municipal  heads  agree,  but  it  has  never 
even  asked  the  other  municipalities  to  be 
involved. 

In  an  article  in  Hydro  News,  Mr.  Speaker, 
Hydro  summed  up  the  opposition  to  the 
dam  by  referring  to  one  86-year-old  farmer 
who  didn't  welcome  Hydro's  property  asses- 
sors—implying that  only  old  fogies,  people  in 
their  80s  and  90s  who  were  sort  of  tradition 
bound,  could  oppose  themselves  to  progress. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Haliburton) 
Oh,  come  on. 

Interjections    by    hon.    members. 

Mr.   Gassidy:   Mr.    Speaker,   in  this   docu- 
ment on  the  Amprior  power  project,  which 
is  sent  out  to  every  schoolboy  or  anybody  else 
who   inquires   about   the   i>articular  project- 
Mr.  Yakabuski:  Tell  the  truth  now. 
Mr.  Gassidy:  —Hydro  refers— 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  What  about  the  munidpal 
councils?  Did  they  pass  resolutions  object- 
ing to  the  project? 

Mr.  Gassidy:  No,  they  did  not  pass  resolu- 
tions, but  they— 

Interjections   by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  So  they  did  not  object. 
Evidently  they  approved  of  the  project. 

Mr.  Gassidy:  They  have  never  been  asked 
by  Hydro  for  their  opinion  and  Hydro  itself 
simply  said:  "Look  we  want  these  guys  on 
the  committee;  and  that  is  it,  baby,  that  is 
it." 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Gassidy:  The  whole  public  participa- 
tion in  that  area  by  Hydro  has  been  a  total 


602 


ONT.\RIO  LEGISLATURE 


tiisastcr.  The  whole  pul)iic  participation  has 
\K-ti\  a  total  disiister. 

Nfr.  Yakabuski:  Finally,  the  fmstrateil 
Liinark  Lihtrals  saw  an  opportunity  to  raise 
hell,    it's    that   simple.    Straight   politic-s. 

Mr.   Speaker:   Order. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  a  hunch  of  farmers  who 
are  fnistratctl  because  they  can't  get  justice 
fn)m  this  government;  and  their  problems 
in  getting  justice- 
Mr.  Yakabuski:  How  many  of  them  haven't 
reached  an  agreement? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  C'assidy:  Tlieir  pn>l)lems  in  pettinp 
justice  fn)m  thi<;  pjvenmient  are  parallelf<l 
by  fanners  in  oth<T  parts  of  the  pnnint^,  are 
paralleltxl  bv  welfare  nvipients.  are  parallehxl 
by  tenants,  are  parallehxi  by  any  miml>er  of 
fH'ople.  Tlie  entire  population  of  the  north 
has  been  trying  to  tjet  justicx*  from  this  gov- 
ernment for  30  vears  and  hasn't  been  able  to 
get  it. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Well  we  have  got  a  comedian 
in  the  House. 

An  hon.  member:  Tlie  member  is  u-asting 
his  time. 

Mr.    Cassidy:    Boy,    the    hon.    member    for 
Timiskaminij  shouM  wait  until  we  get  going 
on    Maple    Mountiiin.    becaus<'    the    mistakes 
thcN'  made- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Nfr.  Speaker:  Order;  order  please. 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  memlxr  is  the  biggest  mis- 
take one  cotild  make-. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  You  know,  some  of  his  own 
meml)ers  f«"ar  for  his  re-election. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  that  right?  Okay;  occasion- 
ally I  frar  for  it  myself. 

IntcTJeiiions  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  \nll  grant  to  the  hon.  mem- 
ber there  is  still  n  strong  Liberal  contingent 
in  my  ri<ling.  but  we  hope  to  <li.spose  of  them 
in  the  next  fetleral  election. 

Mr.  Speaker,  since  tl>e  hon.  m»'mber  for 
Renfrew    Smith    wants    to    talk    about    public 

{larticipation.  I  want  to  say  that  totlay  I  was 
>efore  the  Flnerj^'  Board  .s««eking  thrir  per- 
mission to— 

Mr.  Martel:  He  is  not  a  fij^htrr  though, 
like  some  people. 


Mr.  Havrot:  Pardon? 

.Mr.  Martel:  He  is  not  a  fighter  like  some 
|x*ople. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  onk*r. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  M  the  Energ)'  Boanl  this 
morning,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  pres^mtetl  a  motion 
to  submit  to  the  F,nerg\'  Board  a  dossier  on 
the  Amprior  dam  and  on  the  implications  of 
the  (Umi  for  Hydro's  management  procedures 
and  financial  policies. 

One  of  the  things  that  came  »ip  there  u-as 
a  discussion  that  was  held  in  the  last  couple 
of  days  of  the  Hydro  hearings,  phase  one, 
before  the  P3nerg\  Boanl,  at  which  time  the 
general  manager  of  Hydn>  was  being  ques- 
tioned by  coimsel  from  Pollution  Prol>e.  The 
questioning  from  counsel  for  Polhition  Probe 
was  on  public  participation. 

And  what  was  said  at  that  time.  Mr. 
Speaker,  by  the  Hydro  people,  was:  "But  of 
course  we  ha\e  a  commihnent  to  public  par- 
ticipation. W'e  have  leametl  our  lesson  and 
for  tho  last  t\\-o  or  three  years  we  have  been 
doing  it.  Look  at  the  Solandt  inquiry  into 
the  transmissifm  lines.  I^ook  at  what  we  are 
doing  un  at  Nanticoke  or  other  pla«*s."  Then 
the  Pollution  Probe  counsel  said:  "If  that  is, 
the  case,  why  has  there  been  no  participation 
with  the  Amprior  project?"  Right  a>\'ay,  Mr. 
S|x»iiker,  coimsel  for  Hulro  was  on  his  feet 
ami  ho  said,  "I  object"— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Nlr.  Cassidy:  He  didn't  u'ant  it  discu-ssed, 
because  Hydro  is  paranoid  about  this  par- 
tictilar  project  and  it  knoN\'s  of  the  way  in 
which  it  has  fuiUxl  with  any  kind  of  mean- 
ingful public  participation. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  Its  nrejsenta- 
tion  to  the  Ontario  Energy  Board,  HyAno 
statetl: 

In  keeping  with  its  jwlicy  of  informing 
or  a>mm»micaling  with  the  public.  Ontario 
Hytlro  is  engage*]  in  holding  public  meet- 
ings to  ascertain  the  vies\-s  and  feelinqs  of 
local  citizens'  groups  arwl  municipal  officials 
Nvith  regard  to  the  impact  which  nrojecte<l 
facilities  might  have  on  partictdar  localities. 
Tliere  is  increasing  interaciion  between 
Hydro  and  the  government  and  between 
Hy<lro  and  the  community  in  the  planning 
prf)cess. 

They  talk,  in  other  u-onh,  a  fairK'  good  game 
about  the  way  in  which  they  want  to  encoiir- 
age  public  participation. 


APRIL  1,  1974 


003 


The  chainnan  of  Hydro,  on  Jan.  18,  sent 
around  an  outline  of  its  programme  for  the 
participation  of  citizens  in  tlie  expansion  of 
electric  power  facilities.  He  said  that  Ontario 
Hydro  has  pioneered  the  programme,  imply- 
ing that  this  has  already  bt*en  umler  way  for 
some  time.  The  letter  states  specifically  that 
the  procedures  were  intended  to  be  flexible 
in  their  application,  that  greater  participation 
of  the  public  in  planning  would  occur  with 
respect  to  those  projects  in  which  there  was 
a  strong  public  interest  indicated  and  this 
would  be  modified  for  projects  less  contro- 
versial. 

Well  I  have  to  ask  you  first,  Mr.  Speaker, 
what  project  is  there  in  the  province  right 
now  that  could  be  more  controversial  among 
Hydro  generating  stations  than  the  Amprior 
project?  Second,  where  else,  on  the  face  of 
the  evidence  available  so  far,  is  Hydro  going 
to  speiKl  so  much— $70  million  still  to  spend 
—to  get  so  little  in  actual  return? 

If  Mr.  Gathercole  is  sincere  in  stating  that 
the  participation  by  the  public  will  increase 
in  areas  where  there  is  great  public  interest 
indicated,  then  clearly  Hydro,  without  pres- 
sure from  the  government,  should  agree  now 
to  suspend  the  work  on  the  Amprior  dam,  to 
look  at  the  alternatives,  to  hold  an  inquiry 
and  to  get  the  local  community  participating 
in  looking  at  the  alternatives. 

Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  when  one  looks  at  the 
brochure  they  have  sent  around  about  pro- 
cedures for  public  participation— and  one  has 
to  assume  this  is  current  Hydro  policy— one 
finds  that  after  public  announcement  of  the 
route  or  the  site— this  would  be  in  1971  in 
this  particular  case— there  then  should  have 
been  meetings  with  the  public  and  with 
special  interest  groups.  But  they  haven't  been 
held. 

There  should  have  been  internal  study  to 
identify  alternatives;  that  study  does  not 
appear  to  have  taken  place.  There  should 
have  been  continued  meetings  with  the 
public  and  special  interest  groups  to  talk 
about  the  alternative  generating  sites  and  to 
provide  details  of  environmental  factor  ratings 
and  to  provide  economic  comparison  of  the 
alternatives.  As  far  as  I  can  see.  that  economic 
comparison  has  not  been  validly  done,  even 
for  internal  use  within  Hydro. 

They  also  should  have  determined  public 
opinion  on  the  evaluation  of  the  alternatives; 
again  this  has  not  been  done. 

After  the  submission  to  the  Minister  of 
Energy,  there  should  then  have  been  a  de- 
cision on  a  public  hearing  by  the  Minister 
of  Energy   in  conjunction  with  other  minis- 


tries. Yet  the  ministry  and  the  government  are 
rejecting  any  kind  of  a  public  hearing  before 
the  Environmental  Hearing  Board  or  before 
any  other  Ixxly. 

That's  the  amount  of  public  participation 
tliat  is  actually  taking  place,  Mr.  Speaker. 
And  it's  a  concern  because  the  people  who 
got  to  know  Hydro  l)est  from  the  outside 
were  the  people  who  did  the  Task  Force 
Hydro  study;  among  them,  unfortunately,  the 
present  president,  Mr.  Gordon.  They  make  a 
number  of  criticisms  about  the  way  in  which 
Hydro  has  worked  in  the  past,  but  then  they 
say:  "We  urge  that  the  efforts  now  under  way 
increasingly  to  involve  the  public  in  Hydro 
affairs  be  continued."  Fair  enough.  I  con- 
tinue to  quote: 

We  urge  this  while  recognizing  that  the 
procedures  used  will  produce  little  in  the 
way  of  positive  results,  in  the  absence  of  a 
widespread  commitment  to  the  principles 
involved  and  a  response  to  the  changing 
social  enviroimient  by  a  majority  of  those 
responsible  for  Hydro's  operations." 

The  acid  test  of  Hydro's  commitment  to  pub- 
lic involvement  over  recent  months  has  been 
the  Amprior  dam.  If  you  look  at  it,  Mr. 
Speaker,  you  get  the  president  of  Hydro  re- 
fusing information.  You  get  senior  executives 
threatening  legal  action.  You  get  the  Minister 
of  Energy  backing  up  the  suppression  of 
information.  You  get  the  minister  flying  in  and 
refusing  to  listen  to  local  requests  that  the 
project  be  reviewed  or  halted,  and  sending 
the  bulldozers  in  on  the  day  that  he  is  there. 
There  is  clearly  no  commitment  there,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  expect  that  Hydro  is 
going  to  change  its  stripes  or  suddenly  turn 
over  a  new  leaf,  if  that's  the  way  it  has  been 
behaving  as  recently  as  not  just  six  months 
ago,  but  as  recently  as  today  when  the 
Premier  backed  up  his  ministers  on  this 
particular  subject. 

Those  comments  about  Hvdro  were  made 
on  Aug.  15,  1972,  when  the  first  report  of  the 
task  force  was  presented  to  the  ministry.  At 
that  point,  there  were  recommendations 
specifically  about  improving  the  liaison  be- 
tween Hydro  and  the  citizen,  including  estab- 
lishing a  channel  where  representation  from 
citizens  could  go  forward  to  senior  bodies  in 
Hydro,  that  there  be  talk,  and  that  Hydro 
consider  establishing  citizens'  task  forces  so 
as  to  provide  for  citizen  participation  in  the 
location  of  generation  and  transmission 
facilities. 

If  there  was  any  commitment,  Mr.  Speaker, 
we   should   surely   have   seen   some   response 


604 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


bv  now.  But  I  am  afraid  that  we  ha\'en't  seen 

that  up  until  this  time. 

Nfr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  go  l>ack  to  the  point 
I  was  making  when  I  was  interrupted  hv  the 
rn#*tnl>er  for  Renfrew  S<njth  antl  that  was  on 
thf  question  of  misrepresentation.  Ilvdro  goes 
ah'*ad  savinij  it  has  coinmunitv  appro\-al.  That 
is  a  matter  in  dispute.  H\(lro  sa\s  th«*re  are 
problems  of  bank  erosion  and  turbiditv  in  the 
reser\'oir,  ami  it  savs  that  to  provide  a  final 
solution  it  has  decided  to  build  a  dam  on 
the  lakr.  It  is  cU'ar  from  siibsequf'nt  e\"idence 
that  that  will  not  be  a  final  solution. 

Hvdro  states  that  there  wi'l  ho  \H  miles 
of  sh  »r'lin»*  for  (-ano<'inc,  sailing  and  other 
'••♦creafional  »is<»s  Tliis  u-as  in  April  of  last 
year.  Mast  of  that  shore  land  will  not  be  of 
use  for  thf>se  piirnoses.  Power  boats  wnlT 
have  to  bf  kept  off  the  lake:  and  it  is  simplv 
not  suitable,  much  of  it.  for  septic  tanks,  and 
therefore  for  an\-  kind  of  residential  \%'ork. 
Hvdro  savs  the  peak  work  force  of  1.600  or 
1.700  will  be  mostlv  drawn  from  the  local 
area— atjain  a  misrepresentation.  Mr.  Speaker. 

Then  we  get  into  material  which  was  sent 
to  me  bv  the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre  and 
material  which  has  been  sent  to  me  and 
made  available  localh*.  Nfaybe  the  member 
for  Renfre^^'  5>outh  was  on  hand  the  other 
week  when  a  meeting  was  held  —  a  piiblic 
meeting  this  time— bv  Hvdro  in  Amprior  to 
unveil  plans  for  development  of  the  river 
front  area  dowTistream  from  the  dam.  Hvdro 
put  up  a  prettv  terrific  shmv.  There  are  a 
swimming  pool  and  senior  citizen  accom- 
modation predicted.  Thev  are  going  to  have 
-let's  see  now  —  plavgrounds.  park  benches, 
all  sorts  of  facilities  there. 

Mr.  Takabuski:  Is  the  member  opposed  to 
parks  there? 

Mr.  Casjridy:  Of  course  I  am  not  opposed. 
I  wotiW  have  thought  that  that  kind  of 
fle\elapment  micht  have  been  one  of  the 
kinds  of  things  that  Hvdro  might  have  con- 
sidered.   Even  steam  batKs.  who  IcnoviTs. 

But  when  n-ou  looked  at  the  plan  in  detail 
though,  Mr.  Speaker,  vou  fotmd  nut  the  fol- 
lo\^'ing:  What  Hydro  had  given  to  the  to\%n 
of  Amprior  —  a  town  which  recently,  about 
a  vear  or  two  earlier,  had  reiectcfl  in  ref- 
erendum a  proposal  for  a  debenture  for  a 
ne\v  sAvimming  pool  complex  —  was  a  bhie- 
print  for  a  recreation  area  for  which  Amprior 
wmild  pay  most  of  the  cost.  Hvdro  said 
specifically  that  it  would  pro\*ide  green  gntss. 
the  contours,  a  handful  of  park  benches,  a 
harnlfid  of  picnic  tables,  and  a  children's 
playgronml  which  cost  S4.000  or  $5,000. 


The  contribution  of  Amprior  would  be  to 
find  funding  for  the  senior  citi/en  housing 
and  the  other  housing,  would  he  to  find  fimd- 
ing  for  the  sAvimniing  pool,  antl  —  get  tliis, 
Mr.  Speakt*r  —  would  l>e  to  nwne  its  sewage 
treatment  plant  to  the  other  side  of  towii  at 
an  expenditure  frf  at  lea.st  $1  million.  mayl)e 
more,  but  something  in  that  particnilar  onler. 
The  swinnning  p<M>l,  in  fact,  would  Im'  locatetl 
in  plac;'  of  the  present  sewage  treatment 
plant.  Clearly,  the  plan  was  completely  un- 
feasible so  long  as  there  was  a  sewage  treat- 
ment phuit  in  the  middle  of  it. 

Tliat's  nusrepr<*sentation,  when  IlNtlro  does 
a  great  PR  effort,  Mr,  Speaker,  to  tn-  to 
convince  Amj>rior  it  Is  going  to  have  thi.s 
magnificient  park  —  and  conceals  in  the  fine 
print  the  fact  that  it's  only  willing  to  put  a 
few  thousand  dollars  into  anything  except  the 
gra.ss  and  trees. 

I  have  a  few  more  comments,  Mr.  Sj^eaker, 
but  I  wantetl  to  get  this  matter  on  the  rec- 
ord; and  perhaps  now  is  a  convenient  time 
to  adjourn  the  clebate;  I  so  move. 

Mr.  Cassidy  moves  the  adjotimment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agree<l  to. 


PRIVATE  MEMBERS'  HOUR 
HOUSE  Bl^YERS*  PROTECTION  ACT 

Nfr.  Givens  moves  second  reading  of  Bill 
11,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Prc)ti*ction  of 
Hou.se  Buyers. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  This 
bill  establishes  a  commi.ssioner  of  housing  and 
provides   for  the  licensing  of  builders. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  motion  is  now  l)efore 
the  House.    The  hon.  member  may  proccetl. 

Mr.  Givem:  Mr.  Speaker.  I  %%rmld  like  the 
hon.  members  to  appreciate  the  fact  that,  in 
dis^^l.ssing  this  bill,  I  really  want  to  discuss 
the  principles  of  the  bill  rather  than  the 
terms  of  the  bill  .section  by  section. 

This  has  been  a  C»ordian  knot,  a  very 
difficult  problem  that  people  have  1x»en  wres- 
tling with  at  all  levels  of  government.  I 
unnerstand  that  there  has  been  a  federal 
govemment  invitation  extended  to  the  pro- 
vincial Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  ( Nfr.  Clement )  to  a  meeting  in 
Ottawa  on  April  8  on  the  question  of  con- 
sumer protection  s\-stems  and  to  discuss 
warranties  for  housing  in  Canada.  I  don't 
know  if  the  minister  has  replied  to  this 
in\'itation,  but  that  is  what  they  are  going  to 
be  discussing  in  Ottawa. 


APRIL  1.  1974 


605 


I  do  think  that  under  the  property  and 
civil  rights  section  of  the  British  North 
America  Act,  this  is  really  a  matter  that 
comes  within  the  purview  of  the  province. 
So  I  want  to  discuss  these  principles  involved 
in  the  bill,  rather  than  section  by  section,  be- 
cause maybe  the  "i's"  weren't  dotted  properly 
or  the  "t's"  crosse<l  properly;  but  it  is  the 
essence,  the  pith  and  substance  that  I  wLsh  to 
accomplish  and  I  want  to  place  before  the 
members  of  this  House. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  all  know  that  the  purchase 
of  a  house  by  any  citizen  in  most  cases  is 
probably  the  biggest  investment  that  that 
person  will  make  in  his  lifetime-and  par- 
ticularly todav.  We've  heard  evidence  given 
in  this  chamber  that  the  average  hotise  in 
the  citv  of  Toronto  is  worth  something  in 
the  nature  of  $50,000,  and  that  within  the 
next  15  or  20  years  the  average  house  in 
Metrr>i)olitan  Toronto  will  probably  be  worth 
$100,000— and  new  houses  will  be  worth 
considerably  more  than  that. 

Under  the  terms  of  our  law,  common  law, 
when  a  person  buys  a  house— particularly  an 
old  house-the  doctrine  of  caveat  emptor 
prevails,  which  means  "Let  the  buyer  be- 
ware." And  when  you  buy  a  house  you're 
supposed  to  see  all  the  defects— all  the  patent 
defects  and  all  the  latent  defects.  You  are 
responsible.  The  purchaser  is  responsible  for 
what  he  buys.  It  is  up  to  him  to  satisfy  him- 
self that  the  property  is  in  good  condition. 

When  a  person  buys  a  new  property,  tihe 
law  that  substantiallv  applies  is  that  the  work 
should  be  completed  in  a  good,  workmanlike 
manner.  He  sometimes  buys  the  house  as 
plans.  He  sometimes  doesn't  see  the  house 
before  it's  completed:  or  he  probablv  closes 
the  de^  before  the  house  is  completed. 

If  the  deal  is  closed  and  the  purchaser 
assumes  the  ownership  of  the  house,  all  he 
has  left  is  perhaps  an  undertaking  which  is 
given  to  his  solicitor  on  closing  which  en- 
ables him  to  have  a  cause  of  action  in  the 
law  courts. 

What  generally  happens  is  that  the  day  for 
closing  comes  to  pass.  The  person's  made 
an  investment;  he's  paid  a  deposit  to  the 
agent.  The  deposit  money  is  impounded  in 
a  tnist  account  which  the  agent  is  supposed 
to  hold  until  the  deal  is  closed,  and  generally 
his  commission  of  about  five  per  cent  comes 
out  of  that  deposit. 

The  man  goes  to  a  lawyer  who  searches  the 
title.  All  the  lawyer  is  responsible  for  are 
the  legal  aspects  of  searching  the  title  and 
satisfying  him  that  he  has  a  clear  title.  The 
lawyer  invariably  will  not  go  out  to  visit  the 


house.  In  09  per  c«nt  of  the  cases,  I  don't 
think  a  lawyer  acting  for  a  purchaser  ever 
goes  out  to  visit  the  house. 

The  purchaser  may  kid  himself  that  because 
he's  assuming  a  large  mortgage  or  because 
he's  been  approved  by  a  large  mortgage- 
lending  company  this  means  that  <wmehow 
the  mortgage  company  or  the  insurance  com- 
pany or  the  tnist  company  or  whoever  the 
lender  happens  to  l>e  bears  some  responsi- 
bility or  is  conscientiously  concerned  with 
whether  or  not  the  house  is  in  good  condition. 
Nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth. 

The  date  for  closing  comes;  the  house  isn't 
really  finished.  The  purchaser  takes  a  look 
at  it  and  he's  just  about  ready  to  have  a  fit 
because  certain  things  have  not  taken  place. 
I  don't  know  whether  any  members  have 
ever  attended  a  registry  office  on  a  day 
when  a  deal  is  closed.  Generally,  deals  are 
closed  on  the  first  of  the  month,  the  middle 
of  the  month  and  the  end  of  the  month  and 
when  one  goes  down  to  the  registry  ofiice,  it's 
just  like  going  to  the  Calgary  Stampede. 
There  are  probablv  as  many  people  in  the 
registry  office  on  those  usual  closing  da\s  as 
at  the  Stampede.  This  does  not  mean  one 
can't  close  a  deal  on  any  other  day  but  usually 
these  are  the  days  when  the  deals  are  closed 
and  when  one  goes  down,  it's  a  madhouse. 

Usually  the  lawyer  to  whom  one  is  paying 
the  fee  is  not  there  to  close  the  deal.  He 
either  sends  a  law  student,  which  is  like  hav- 
ing a  medical  student  take  out  your  appen- 
dix, or  one  of  these  new  title  searchers  that 
most  law  offices  have  —  some  of  the  bigger 
oflRces  may  have  several  of  them  —  who  close 
the  deal.  Of  course  they  are  under  the 
direction  or  supervision  of  the  la%^'yer  but 
90  per  cent  of  the  time  the  lawyer  doesn't 
know  what's  going  on  whai  the  deal  is 
being  ck)sed.  He  gives  his  student  or  his 
clerk  instructions  as  to  how  to  close  it  and 
he  says,  "If  you  can't  close  it,  if  there  are 
things  that  are  unfinished,  get  an  under- 
taking." The  undertaking  is  generally  worth 
the  paper  it's  written  on;  and  sometimes  it 
isn't  even  worth  that. 

Of  course,  the  purchaser  has  this  option: 
or  the  solicitor's  clerk  has  this  option;  or  the 
solicitor  himself.  He  can  say  to  the  vendor- 
builder,  "Go  jump  in  the  lake.  You  haven't 
finished  these  things  and  I'm  not  going  to 
close  the  deal."  In  which  case  the  purchaser, 
his  client,  feels  verv  bad  because  he's  told 
the  whole  world  hes  buying  a  house  -  his 
family,  his  mother,  his  wife  and  his  children 
—and  he's  ready  to  move  in.  He's  borrowe<l 
a  first  mortgage;  he's  borrowed  a  second 
mortgage  from  a  finance  company  and  a  third 


606 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


niort^a^e  fn>!n  Uncle  Joe  to  pay  for  the 
furniture  and  he  wants  to  move  in.  He's 
always  afraid  that  if  he  ckn-sn't  close  the  deal 
he's  going  to  lose  the  house,  esjx'tially  nowa- 
days when  we've  all  heard  there's  a  terrific 
sellers'  market  going  on.  No  purchaser  wtints 
to  be  put  in  that  terrible  posiliim. 

He  says  to  the  lawyer,  "You're  my  legal 
adviser;  tell  me  what  to  do."  Tlie  lawyer 
invariably  says,  "All  right,  well  take  an 
undertaking  fnxn  J<x^  Blow  Construction  Co. 
that  he'll  fix  the  drainboard  and  cement  up 
the  crack  in  the  joists  arKl  fix  the  plaster 
tliat's  coming  aj>art  in  the  bedroom  and  so<l 
your  lawn  and  grade  your  driveway  and  all 
that  sort  of  thing,  ami  we  will  hope  for  the 
l>cst.  If  he  doesn't  finish  this  work,  God 
dam  it,  we'll  sue  him!  We'll  take  him  to 
court;  we'll  drag  him  right  through  the 
anirts." 

Usually,  the  law\-er  who  handles  a  real 
estate  deal  is  a  person  who's  not  involved  in 
litigation  practice.  He  generally  doesn't  know 
how  to  i.ssue  a  writ  or  a  statement  of  claim 
and  he  wants  to  avoid  a  legal  action  like 
the  plague.  He  takes  the  undertaking  and 
he  figures  he'll  hopo  for  the  best.  What 
he's  got  for  himself  with  a  signed  under- 
taking, even  from  the  best  of  legal  firms, 
i;  the  right  of  action. 

There  are  still  those  people,  Mr.  Speaker, 
who  think  that  a  trial  in  court  is  an  im- 
partial investigation  into  the  tnith,  into  the 
facts.  Nothing  could  l>e  further  from  the 
tnith.  We  hope  that  it's  an  impartial  inves- 
tigation ami  that  justice  will  be  done  but 
this  isn't  necessarily  what  happens  in  a  court 
of  law.  As  we  all  know,  we  have  the  ad- 
vetKarv'  system  ami  sometimes  it's  a  matter 
of  how  one  adduces  evidence,  what  one 
draws  mit  of  witnesses  and  what  happens  in 
c<7urt;  who  falls  down  on  the  job;  wno  tells 
the  tnith  and  who  appears  to  tell  the  truth; 
ami  who  tells  the  truth  l)etter  than  somebody 
else  tells  the  truth.  All  these  things  come 
into  play.  Sometimes  one  will  institiite  an 
action  and  it  may  conceivably  take  two  years 
or  more  Iwfore  the  case  comes  to  cotirt  l>e- 
caii.sr   the  courts  are  so  crowded   today. 

Tins  man  and  his  family  have  move<l  in 
ami  the  house  hasn't  been  finishetl  properly 
and  ho  has  rm  protection  at  all.  Kvrn  nmler 
the  Law  Society's  errors  and  omissions  in- 
surance, for  which  all  we  lawyers  who  l>elf)ng 
to  the  l^w  Society  have  born  circulari/.od. 
where  we  have  to  pay  so  mtuh  mone>-  into 
an  in.suranco  fimd  to  see  that  clients  are  prr>- 
tectetl  from  errors  and  omissions  that  we  may 
make,  the  only  thing  that  they  are  pro- 
tectetl  from,  by  our  taking  out  this  insurance 


is  for  damages  because  of  the  lawyer's  pro- 
fessional negligence  or  l>ecause  of  the  negli- 
gence of  any  other  person  for  wliose  act  he 
is  legally  responsible,  committed  in  the  p«r- 
fonnance  of  professional  ser\ices  for  otners 
in  the  instirea's  capacity  as  a  lawA-er. 

The  lawyer  is  not  responsible  nor  is  the 
purchaser,  his  cHent,  protecte<l  from  any 
error  or  omission  which  a  lawyer  might  make 
with  respect  to  the  actual  c^ompletion  of  the 
physical  work  that  is  done  on  the  house. 
Tliis  Is  something  aside  and  apart  from  a 
lawyer's  respon.sibilit\'.  So  he  nas  no  pro- 
tection. Yet  when  he  gix-s  out  and  bu)'s  a 
household  appliance,  whether  it  is  a  vacuum 
cleaner  or  wnether  it  is  a  television  set,  in- 
variably ho  gets  a  piece  of  paper,  a  warranty, 
which  says  that  the  X  company  will  protect 
him  for  malfunctions  in  this  particular  piece 
of  ecjuipment.  But  for  the  house  in  which 
he  is  sinking  $50,000  over  the  course  of  a 
hfetime— or  what  is  probabK'  more  close  to 
the  tnith,  $80,000  or  $90,000  or  $100,000 
nowadays— he   has   no  protection   at   all. 

Generally,  the  builder  is  a  company  man 
who  has  incorporattxl  himself  and  builds  10 
or  15  hoiLses  in  a  subdivision.  He  has  a  way 
of  disappearing  after  he  has  built  the  hou.sc 
Tliere  is  no  firm  that  I  know  of  in  the  house 
building  business  that  can  be  considered  to 
be  in  the  nature  of  General  Motors  or  Ford 
or  Chrvsler.  No  matter  what  one  wants  to  say 
about  these  tximpanies,  these  companies  can 
sometimes  be  embarrassed,  if  on©  nas  a  case 
again.st  them,  into  .solving  the  problem  for 
one.  Tliere  are  no  home  builders  that  I  know 
of  that  are  in  that  position. 

Of  course,  some  of  them  are  good  buildcn, 
and  reputable  builders.  But  I'm  talking  about 
a  lot  of  builders  who  are  in  the  l)iLsiness 
who  afford  no  protection  to  a  purchaser  at 
all.  He  is  in  the  driver's  seat,  particularly 
in  a  seller's  market.  He  sa>-s.  "If  vou  don't 
want  the  house,  Nfr.  Jones,  don't  taVe  it.  HI 
give  >'nu  back  votir  money.  I  can  sell  it  next 
we«-k'  for  another  $2,000  or  $.1,000  or  $5,000. 
The  purchaser  is  in  an  awful  position  under 
these  circumstances. 

Then  there  is  the  expense  that  is  involved 
in  tr)ing  to  get  the  house  finished,  in  dun- 
ning the  vendor-builder  to  complete  the 
house  properly,  to  build  the  thing  in  a 
proper  and  workmanlike  manner.  Tlien  even 
after  one  has  gmie  to  court,  and  maybe  got 
a  judgement  after  two,  or  two  and  a  half  or 
three  years,  it  could  very  well  be  a  worth- 
less judgement,  becau.se  by  this  time  the 
builder  may  be  out  of  business  and  may  be 
nowhere  to  be  found  ami  one  has  got  one- 


APRIL  1.  1974 


607 


self  a  piece  of  paper  that  really  doesn't  mean 
anything. 

Under  its  terms,  this  bill  would  provide 
protection  for  purchasers  of  ncNv  homes.  I 
don't  want  to  talk  about  old  homes  for  the 
moment,  because  that  has  to  do  iwth  other 
prinoples  of  law,  although  the  parameters  of 
this  bill  c"ould  also  serve  the  purpose  of 
protecting  people  when  they  ouy  (rfder 
homes. 

This  bill  will  appoint  a  commissioner  of 
housing,  who  will  administer  the  Act.  It  will 
provide  that  new  homes  built  in  Ontario 
should  be  built  to  the  minimum  standards 
of  an  Ontario  building  code,  which  we 
haven't  seen  any  signs  of  yet,  but  which  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  ami  Commercial  Re- 
lations has  promised  will  be  forthcoming. 
There  is  no  piece  of  legislation  which  is  as 
vital  and  as  important  and  which  is  as  emer- 
gent and  necessary  to  be  passed  by  this 
Legislature  as  the  new  Ontario  building  code. 

Under  this  bill  these  houses  are  to  be 
inspected  at  least  four  times  during  the  con- 
struction period.  They  are  to  be  warranted 
by  the  builder  against  all  hidden  defects 
which  are  described  in  law  as  latent  defects 
for  a  period  of  five  years  after  completion  of 
construction.  How  is  a  person  to  find  hid- 
den defects  when  he  doesn't  know  about 
looking  into  the  footings  or  looking  into  the 
joists  or  looking  into  the  foundations  of  the 
building,  when  people  today  aren't  used  to 
this  sort  of  thing  and  are  not  equipped  to 
be  able  to  make  these  inspections  on  their 
own? 

So  it  will  protect  against  all  hidden  de- 
fects for  a  period  of  five  years  after  com- 
pletion of  construction,  and  against  all  ob- 
vious defects  for  a  period  of  one  year  after 
completion  of  constniction.  By  obvious  de- 
fects I  mean  what  are  called  patent  defects. 
When  you  walk  in  and  see  a  crack  in  the 
plaster  that  is  pretty  serious,  you  can  demand 
that  it  be  fixed,  and  it  should  be  fixed  over 
a  period  of  one  year. 

Further,  the  vendor,  the  builder  of  a  new 
house,  must  point  out  all  obvious  defects  to 
the  prospective  purchaser  which  will  be  noted 
on  a  form,  agreement  of  purchase  or  sale  of 
the  house,  prescribed  by  the  commissioner. 
After  all,  he  is  building  the  house,  he  has 
known  what  he  has  done  wrong,  unless  he 
has  done  it  accidentally,  and  he  should  be 
required  to  list  in  the  offer  to  purchase— 
which  is  the  offer  both  the  purchaser  and  the 
vendor  sign,  which  forms  the  contract  of  the 
purchase  or  sale— what  the  obvious  defects 
are  for  the  prospective  purchaser. 


Any  grievances  that  the  purchaser  has  for 
the  njonev  that  he  is  putting  into  this  house— 
of  $50,00().  $60.CXX),  $70,000  or  $80.000-m«y 
l)e  brought  forward  and  heard  by  the  com- 
mUsioner,  who  will  thereby  render  a  decision 
which,  if  not  agreeable  to  the  parties  con- 
cerned, mav  be  handed  over  to  a  court  of 
law  as  a  fast  resort  if  this  is  necessary,  if 
something  has  to  be  adjudicated  between  the 
parties. 

And  lasdy— and  what  to  me  is  of  vital  im- 
portance—the commissioner  shall  provide  for 
an  insurance  fund  into  which  all  builders 
must  contribute  in  the  event  that  a  builder 
may  not  be  able  to  compensate  the  house 
owner,  such  as  in  the  case  of  bankruptcy. 
This  isn't  so  unusual.  It  isn't  so  outrageous. 
Those  of  us  who  are  lawyers  pay  into  what 
I  call  the  thieves'  fimd  of  the  Law  Society 
of  Upper  Canada,  for  defalcations  and  for 
things  that  lawyers  do  wrong,  deliberatelv  or 
not  so  deliberately,  to  hurt  their  clients,  where 
the  clients  suffer  damage  on  a  client-solicitor 
relationship.  So  it  is  no  different  than  it  is 
in  that  case. 

I  think  it  is  highly  necessary  that  at  long 
last  the  doctrine  of  caveat  emptor,  and  the 
common  law  applying  to  fixing  a  house  in  a 
good  workmanlike  manner,  should  be  tossed 
into  the  ashcan.  The  law  should  be  revised 
and  reformed  to  bring  it  into  what  is  required 
in  the  present  day,  protection  to  the  con- 
sumer when  he  buys  a  house  and  makes  the 
biggest  investment  of  his  life.  He  should  be 
protected  by  this  Legislature.  We  owe  it  to 
him. 

The  people  who  will  object  will  say  this 
will  increase  the  bureaucracy.  I  suppose  in  a 
way  it  will,  but  it  won't  increase  it  anv  more 
than  the  amount  of  litigation  that  you  find  in 
the  courts  today  on  the  part  of  purchasers 
who  find  themselves  in  court  because  of 
builders  who  have  ripped  them  off.  Reputable 
builders  have  nothing  to  fear  about  harass- 
ment. They  will  continue  to  be  reputable 
builders.  But  protection  must  be  afforded  to 
people  who  suffer  from  those  who  are  ille- 
gitimate in  the  business  and  who  try  to  get 
away  with  things. 

People  will  say,  as  another  objection,  that 
costs  will  increase,  that  the  cost  of  this  in- 
spection and  the  cost  of  this  adjudication  and 
the  cost  of  nmning  the  insurance  fund  will 
increase.  I  suppose  it  will,  and  it  will  prob- 
ably be  passed  on  to  the  buyer  in  certain 
cases,  Mr.  Speaker.  But  I  suggest  this:  If  you 
are  walking  along  the  street  and  voii  are 
assaulted  and  somebody  steals  your  wallet  or 
your  purse  and  you  happen  to  have  $500  or 
$1,000  in  it,  the  law  goes  to  a  great  deal  of— 


608 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  F.  Young  (  Yorkview ) :  That  much  in 
\oiir  purse? 

Mr.  Given*:  Well,  thus  Ls  after  payday, 
when  \oii  have  cashed  vour  chetjiie  and  you 
are  walking  home.  The  law  is  Roing  to  spend 
an  awful  lot  of  money  to  get  the  iK»lice  force 
out  to  find  this  crook,  or  this  burglar  when 
\our  house  is  ransacked  and  thev  take  your 
cash  or  vour  jewels  or  whate\er  you  happen 
to  have  there.  You  e\j><'ct  the  law  to  stretch 
out  its  dragnet  and  then  catch  the  burglar 
who  has  robbed  >ou. 

I  don't  see  any  <lifFerence  betwtM'u  that 
situation,  to  tell  you  the  truth.  Mr.  Speaker, 
anil  the  builder  who  sells  a  house  to  an  un- 
suspet  ling  buyer  and  tries  to  get  awav  with 
tit  is  same  kind  of  ripofT  or  this  same  kind 
of  burglarv.  So  I  think,  whatever  increase 
in  bureaucracv  there  mav  1m*.  or  whatever 
increase  in  costs  there  would  l>e,  that  it  is 
verv  essential  that  this  kind  of  protection  be 
affordet!  to  the  people  who  are  sp<'nding 
thousands  and  thousands  of  dollars  on  the 
purchase  of  a  home  and  are  taken  advantage 
of  from  day  to  day. 

It  is  almost  a  daily  occurrence.  It  has 
b«  come  so  prevalent  and  the  outcrv  for  this 
kind  of  legislation  is  so  universal  at  every 
level  of  go\emment.  that  I  think  if  we  don't 
take  cognizance  of  this  problem  and  come  in 
uith  some  intelligent  form  of  legislation  — 
such  as  the  bill  that  I  presented  here  —  the 
House  Buyers'  Protection  .Act,  1973— we  will 
be  doing  a  very  serious  and  grave  injustice  to 
the  people  of  this  province  who  biiv  homes. 

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

Mr.  R.  n.  Kennedy  (Peel  Sor.th):  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  am  pleasetl  to  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  join  in  this  d<*bate  and  to  commend 
the  memlxT  for  York-Forest  Hill  for  bringing 
his  bill  forward. 

I'm  n(»t  so  sure  we  agree  on  the  details, 
.mfl  he  made  reference  to  that  point  btit  the 
fact  is  that  it  is  an  issiie  —  and  an  important 
issue.  To  those  who  have  experierwfHl  con- 
fusif>n  and  concern  alx>ut  what  is  probably 
the  major  purchase  in  their  whole  lives.  I 
Hunk  such  action  in  bringing  this  forward  is 
\»rv  timely,  if  not  a  bit  late. 

Hrg,»rrhng  the  bill  itsi'lf.  the  hon.  meml)er 
<li'l  mention  the  risk  r»f  btireaucracv.  and  I 
would  have  to  a^ree,  on  reading  this  most 
( ompr»  hcnsixe  bill,  that  inclee<l  there  w(Mild 
have  to  l>e  quite  an  empire  built  to  ad- 
Tuinister  it. 

I  uoiijfl  like  to  touch  on  a  couple  c>f  sec- 
tions,   then    I    want   to   make   «>me   reference 


to  some  exjHTiences  I  have  liad.  I  notice  by 
the  roster  of  sjH'akers,  .Mr.  Speaker,  that  tliis 
is  more  or  less  a  lawyers*  hour— 

.Mr.  P.  D.  Lawior  (Lakeshore):  Not  really 
-it's  half  and  half. 

.Mr.  Young:  He  will  bring  some  common 
seiise  into  the  situation. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  -and  I  feel  as  if  I'm  intrud- 
ing into  the  adjudication  of  thLs  item. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellingtcm  South):  It's 
nice  to  have  some  conuncm  sense. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Yes,  we'll  bring  in  some- 
thing from  the  consumer's  point  of  view 
rather  than  the  ethereal  heights  of  the  legal 
profession. 

Mr.   Lawlor:  The  word  is  not  "ethereal." 

Mr.  Kennedy:  In  section  4(a),  I  can  see  a 
problem  there  in  as.sessing  what  is  reason- 
able. I  can  see  somecMie  getting  hit  on  fairly 
weak  grounds. 

On  the  matter  of  integrity  and  honesty  in 
section  4(b),  I  think  the  licensee,  the  buifdcr, 
has  to  demoivstratc  integrity  and  honesty.  He 
should  need  to  do  this  whether  we  have  a  bill 
or  not.  If  he  has  been  in  tnnible  and  is 
reformed,  well,  let  him  prove  it.  V\'c  don't 
want  to  deter  a  person  from  earning  a  legi- 
timate living. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  government  does  it  with 
respect  to  the  rest  of  its  lic^ensing  legislation. 
That's  a  nonnal  clause. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Oh  no.  No.  No.  Tlicre  is  op- 
portunity- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  We  nassixl  15  bills  last  spring 
with  that  clause  in  tncin. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  The  hon.  member  for  I^ke- 
shore  is  ven.-  hot  on  this  matter  of  appeal- 
he  and  McRuer— and  I  go  along  with  that. 
But  in  the  first  part  of  the  bill,  the  thrust 
is  tfnvar<l  financial  stabihty  and  capacity,  and 
mrhaps  there's  an  excessive  demand  in  this 
bill  for  demonstrating  that.  A  |K«rson  can  l>e 
p<M)r  but  honest.  Would  the  member  for 
Likc^shore  agree? 

Mr,  (.ivcns:   He  is  both. 

Mr.  lawlor:  Mv  friend  doesn't  care 
whether  he  ran  build  or  not.  as  long  as  he 
has  lots  of  mfinry? 

Mr.  Kennedy:  \r%,  he  can  have  both. 

But  settion  10  makr^  reference  to  the  in- 
spector going  in  to  seize  the  bcxiks  and  ac- 
counts   and    so   on.     l"nless   the   member   has 


APRIL  1.  1974 


608 


some  other  qualifications  in  mind,  and  widi 
all  respect  to  the  abilities  of  the  building 
inspectors  I  know,  it  is  a  pretty  professional 
person  who  will  be  needed  to  go  in  and 
make  a  meaningful  assessment 

The  five-\-ear  period  mentioned  in  section 
21,  the  warranty  section,  is  really  the  key 
to  the  purchaser  having  that  protection.  Five 
years  Is  a  fairly  long  time,  and  often  we 
can't  catch  the  builder  or  the  sub  within  five 
days  after  he  has  done  his  work;  I  don't  know 
how  we'd  get  him  after  five  years. 

My  few  comments  in  stimmary  are  that  I 
think  that  this  bill  goes  too  far,  it's  pretty 
harsh  and  it  would  require  a  bureaucracy 
to  administer.  And  I  would  like  to  think  that 
we  can  get  a  more  simplified  method  of 
ensuring  quality  workmanship. 

The  city  of  Mississauga  has  been  involved 
with  this  and  I  have  had  correspondence 
from  disappointed,  disgusted  purchasers.  The 
rit\-  of  Mississauga  came  up  with  some- 
thing through  its  building  inspector,  based  on 
the  two  problems  we  seem  to  have. 

I  am  not  aware  that  there  have  been  a 
great  many  bankruptcies.  I  think  this  tvpe  of 
builder  is  gone,  as  the  small  builder  is,  and 
anyway  if  there  have  been  bankruptcies  I 
haven't  heard  of  them.  The  complaints  thev 
f'o  get  are  about  shoddy  workmanship  and 
that  the  builder  will  not  deliver  the  home 
on  the  promised  completion  date. 

This  is  reflected  in  a  report  by  the  com- 
missioner that  suggests  we  establish  a  f'Vm 
completion  date  and  failure  to  fulfil  that 
contract  would  bring  a  levy  of  $30  a  dav 
against  the  contractor.  The  other  provision, 
to  make  sure  there  is  quality  workmanship, 
so  when  he  does  come  back  to  get  it  done, 
is  a  $1,500  hold-back.  Maybe  the  sum 
i.sn't  important,  but  it  seems  to  me  some  pro- 
vision such  as  this  would  avoid  all  the 
draePing  thronch  the  courts  which  the  hon. 
member  mentions. 

We  had  a  court  case  a  couple  of  weeks 
ago  based  on  violation  of  the  local  buildin«T 
bylaw.  It  went  before  a  court  and  I  don't 
believe  the  builder  offered  a  defence,  at 
least  not  a  lenal  defence.  He  appeared  him- 
self and  the  JP,  a  sitting  justice,  slapped  a 
$500  fine  on  him.  He  now  has  that  under 
appeal  and  it  will  go  to  the  countv  court,  as 
I  understand  it.  So  you  may  get  the  fine  in, 
as  the  hon.  member  may  very  well  say, 
btit  this  doesn't  do  anything  for  the  poor 
purchaser  who  is  still  left  with  defective 
workmanship. 

I  have  a  couple  of  letters  here  explain- 
ing some  of  the  problems.  They  are  minor  in 


that  they  don't  come  within  the  terms  of  the 
building  bylaw-for  instuncc,  the  porch 
railings  are  not  properly  insUllcd.  or  the 
cnipboards  are  crooked,  or  the  paint  is  the 
wrong  colour  or  there  is  no  paint  at  all, 
things  as  those,  which  aren't  covered  under 
the  bylaw.  This  ii  what  bothers  people. 
They  go  in  on  the  expectation  tliat  tney 
will  have  certain  things.  But  they  aren't  there. 
I  wrote  to  these  builders  Oct.  29  and  I  still 
await  a  reply.  I  am  not  going  to  get  one. 
Whether  there  has  been  remedial  action 
taken  I  am  not  sure.  So  those  are  some  of 
points  that  are  raised. 

When  this  resolution  came  forward  it  in- 
terested the  Toronto  Builders'  Association.  I 
will  say  that  they  were  rather  receptive  to 
it;  they  weren't  hostile.  They  did  think  that 
this  practice  of  optimistic  estimates  of  com- 
pletion dates  could  be  misleading  and  they 
didn't  object  that  provincial  legislation 
might  be  brought  do%vn.  They  squealed  a 
bit  on  the  suggestion  that  they  would  have 
to  provide  a  hold-back  or  a  licence  or  some 
such  fee  as  that. 

There  was  a  suggestion  there  would  be  a 
$50  fee  to  cover  inspection  costs,  and  they 
pointed  out  that  if  there  are  7,000  homes 
built,  this  multiplied  by  $50  is  $.350,000, 
which  is  going  to  cause  great  escalation 
of  house  prices.  Do  the  members  know  what 
those  7,000  homes  might  sell  for?  If  my 
zeroes  are  right,  something  like  $280  mil- 
lion, and  they  are  talking  about  one-tenth 
or  one-fifteenth  of  one  E>er  cent.  They  can 
change  a  levy  even  for  the  permit  or  for  the 
installation  of  one  of  the  services,  water  or 
sewers.  They  can  change  those  levies.  There 
is  no  validity  to  that  argument  at  all. 

It  seems  my  time  has  run  out,  Mr.  Speak- 
er. I  had  some  other  notes  here  but  I  think 
the  remedy  could  be  in  the  areas  I  have  dis- 
cussed—a possible  hold-back  fee,  or  maybe 
the  insurance  fund  would  be  the  answer.  I 
can  see  a  little  bit  of  difficulty  with  the 
fund— just  that  it  takes  time  and  a  certain 
amount  of  work  to  make  it  effective  and  final- 
ly resolve  the  problem.  A  person  has  to  put  a 
claim  in  and  get  it  inspected  and  all  of  this. 
I  think  money  seems  to  have  a  ver\',  very 
effective  effect,  if  I  can  use  that  term,  in 
bringing  this  into  line.  Maybe  this,  along  with 
the  fact  that  the  loser  would  pay  the  costs, 
would  ensure  there  would  be  no  frivolous 
claims  and  there  could  be  a  reasonable 
meeting  of  the  minds,.  Certainly  Mr.  Speak- 
er, the  situation  isn't  satisfactor)'  now  and  I 
think  action  should  be  taken. 


610 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon  member  for  Lake- 
shore. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  if  the  hon. 
member  who  introduced  this  legislation  were 
ever  initiated  into  an  Indian  band,  I  would 
give  him  the  high  recommendation  to  desig- 
nate himself  Chingachgook.  He  is  truly  the 
last  of  the  Mohicans. 

The  tenor  of  his  remarks,  the  general  slant 
in  the  House  by  and  large,  is  that  he  like 
Chingachgook,  wishes  to  live  in  some  kind 
of  remote  and  primeval  forest  and  espouse, 
as  the  archpatriarch,  all  things  connected  with 
the  free-enterprise  system.  But  when  the  shoe 
pinches— even  if  you  wear  Dacks— then  sud- 
denly they  come  forward  with  some  monstros- 
ity whereby  to  rectify  a  very  great  evil  in- 
deed. No  one  questions  the  impact  of  the 
chicanery  of  house  builders  and  the  very 
machinations  they  send  both  their  clientele 
through  and  in  which  they  involve  them- 
selves. We  are  up  against  them  all  the  time. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Aided 
and  abetted  by  the  legal  profession. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  It  is  the  legal  profession  that 
seeks  to  rectify  and  straighten  these  things 
out,  except  for  that  portion  which  represents 
these  beggars.  But  I  wonder  if  this  is  the 
way  to  do  it.  I  would  like  to  scout  the  legis- 
lation and  spend  a  few  moments  on  it. 

I  am  sure  that  if  the  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill  saw  legislation  which  was  as 
onerous  and  intricate  and  bureaucratic  as  this 
introduced  in  the  House,  he  would  be  the 
first  on  his  feet  to  find  it  obnoxious  and 
basically  repellant.  I  can  only  point  out  in 
bemusement  and  irony  that  these  curious 
twists  occur  in  this  House.  Consider  the 
clause  that  the  hon.  member  mentioned  a 
few  moments  ago,  clause  4,  with  its  very 
great  emphasis  upon  the  financial  integrity- 
the  position  and  capability  from  a  financial 
point  of  view— of  people  in  the  building  game 
and  the  inquisition  that  would  go  on  in  that 
particular  respect. 

But  that's  not  what  bothers  me.  He  sets 
up  a  commission  of  housing  under  govern- 
mental auspices  which  is  to  inspect  every  new 
house  in  this  province.  That  would,  I  sup- 
pose, include  condominium  units,  co-opera- 
tive apartments,  apartment  buildings  them- 
selves, and  not  just  residences  as  far  as  I 
can  see.  There  are  literally  thousands  and 
I  would  hope  there  would  be  a  dam  sight 
more— and  there  would  be  were  this  govern- 
ment not  in  power.  But  the  figure  of  7,000 
was    mentioned    here,    and    I    am    sure    that 


doesn't  cover  all  the  condominium  units  in 
the  Metropolitan  area  of  Toronto  alone  and 
that's  28,000  inspections. 

In   other  words,   you  are  going  to  get  a 
little  contingent- 
Mr.  Kennedy:  That  is  just  one  municipality. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  —a  little  contingent!  A  very 
massive  contingent  indeed— of  inspectors,  a 
bureaucratic  paraphemaha  of  such  girth, 
depth  and  height  that  it  would  be  quite  ap- 
palling. It  may  be  necessary  at  some  time 
to  call'  it  into  being,  but  other  nostrums  have 
been  put  forward  and  not  mentioned  in  the 
course  of  this  debate.  The  Conservative 
member  for  Peel  South  sees  it  very  fit  to 
ignore  the  negligence  and  total  irrespon- 
sibility of  his  own  government. 

In  1968,  as  one  of  the  first  steps  in  the 
work  of  the  Law  Reform  Commission  of  this 
province,  they  moved  and  brought  forward  to 
this  House  and  to  the  consideration  of  the 
government  a  report  called  "Trade-sale  of 
New  Houses;  the  Doctrine  of  Caveat 
Emptor."  Where  are  the  proposals?  They 
were  far  more  modest  proposals  that  are 
made  here.  They  didn't  involve  a  monstrous 
spawning  of  the  bureaucratic  structure  as  tlie 
present  proposals  do. 

I  give  the  member  great  credit  for  having 
the  social  conscience  and  the  sense  that  this 
is  a  great  affliction  in  our  midst.  It  is,  but 
we  don't  want  on  the  whole  to  cure  the  dis- 
ease by  a  form  of  diarrhoea.  It  just  doesn't 
help  in  that  way. 

If  you  look  at  the  nostrums  contained'  in 
the  report— I  have  fundamental  disagreements 
with  this  document  too,  but  it  concerns 
special  kinds  of  trades  which  are  defined 
very  acutely  in  the  legislation  in  new  houses 
too.  The  hon.  member's  legislation,  while  it 
fails  in  terms  of  scope  to  provide  in  a  delib- 
erate way,  except  in  certain  of  its  para- 
graphs, a  coverage  for  and  a  protection  for 
the  older  houses— leaving  that  aside— the  same 
fallacy  exists  within  the  dimensions  of  these 
particular  recommendations.  In  the  course  of 
these  recommendations,  six  different  ap- 
proaches were  outlined  and  most  of  them 
discounted. 

The  first  discount  was  precisely  the  over- 
tures being  made  by  the  hon.  member  for 
York-Forest  Hill  today.  The  first  was  regis- 
tration of  builders.  The  second  was  inspec- 
tion during  construction.  The  third  was 
insurance.  Let  me  pause  there  because  I 
think  there  is  validity  in  the  insurance  con- 
cept and  in  a  fund  being  set  up. 


APRIL  1,  1974 


611 


As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  amount  of 
money  is  not  really  inflationary  in  terms  of 
the  overall  market.  That  would  give  some 
repository,  some  defence  and  some  place  to 
which  people  could  advert,  instead  erf  neces- 
sarily going  to  the  courts,  in  order  to  get 
some  relief  from  what  builders  pull  on 
peoplte.  The  fourth  is  quality  control  by 
mortgagees  or  guarantors.  The  fifth  is  war- 
ranties implied  by  law  and  the  sixth  is  ob- 
ligations imposed  by  statute.  Tliis  commis- 
sion comes  down  squarely  on  the  last,  the 
sixth,  that  is  obligations  imposed  by  statute, 
dismissing  all  the  rest. 

If  I  may  just  advert  to  what  was  said  in 
1968  by  the  commission,  which  gave  it  some 
thought,  and  which,  I  think,  are  very  sage 
proposals.  They  run  through  a  preamble  in 
which  they  say  that  the  free  enterprise  system 
would  be  placed  in  jeopardy.  I  would  have 
thought  that  the  Law  Reform  Commission 
was  above  these  particular  policy  considera- 
tions but  it  does  go  to  the  trouble  of  quoting 
some  benighted  judge  who  is  in  favour  of 
that  particular  system. 

Then  the  members  got  down  to  practical 
matters  and  said  this  was  not  enough;  a 
registration  scheme  would  have  a  number  of 
practical  drawbacks  affecting  its  advisabiHty. 
For  instance,  as  a  result  of  the  number  of 
builders,  the  amount  of  new  house  con- 
struction and  the  sheer  size  of  our  prov- 
ince, the  inspectorate  which  would  be 
required  to  make  a  registration  scheme 
work  would  have  to  be  very  large.  The 
registrar  or  the  body  charged  with  the 
duty  to  register  builders,  discipline  them  and, 
in  proper  cases,  suspend  or  revoke  their  regis- 
tration would  be  fixed  with  an  enormous  and 
highly  contentious  task.  The  programme  that 
would  probably  have  to  be  undertaken  would 
involve  first  the  registration  of  any  and  all 
applicants  and  then  a  systematic  weeding  out 
of  those  builders  who  did  not  keep  up  what- 
ever standards  were  required.  The  result  of 
this  would  probably  be  a  good  many  appeals 
from  the  registrar's  decision  with  consequent 
additional  expenditure  of  public  and  private 
money.  The  commission  said,  "At  this  stage 
such  a  drastic  solution  does  not  recommend 
itself."  What  recommended  itself  in  their 
case  was  a  retention  of  the  court  apparatus 
but  strengthening  the  position  of  the  in- 
dividual if  he  is  forced  into  the  court. 

I  would  think,  in  my  rather  narrow  prac- 
tice of  law,  that  we  ran  into  this  situation 
with  new  houses  once  every  50  houses, 
maybe.  There  are  all  kinds  of  contentions 
with  the  others,  I  admit,  but  I  mean  really 
a  crux  case;  a  case  where  one  wants  to  take 


it  to  court.  Maybe  it  is  even  less  than  one 
in  50;  one  can  usually  bring  them  to  heel 
by  talking. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  It  is  one  in  10  builders. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  If  one  can't  one  has  to  resort 
to  the  courts.  The  trouble  at  the  moment, 
and  it  is  not  very  much  rectified  in  the  pro- 
posed legislation,  is  the  warranty  involved. 
There  ought  not  be  a  warranty  concept  at 
all  first  of  all  because  that  involves  damages 
only.  It  ought  to  be  a  conditional  concept 
that  the  house  is  such  and  such  so  that  the 
contract  can  be  rescinded.  If  one  doesn't 
want  to  rescind  it  one  can  go  on  suing  for 
damages  and  get  it.  Their  recommendations 
contained  precisely  the  kind  of  conditions 
which  would  be  imposed.  A  new  house  built 
should  be  fit  for  habitation— that  would  be 
one  of  the  terms,  not  an  implied  warranty 
term  but  a  statutory  obligation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  60  seconds  remain- 
ing. 

'Mr.  Lawlor:  Members  would  be  pleased  to 
know  that  the  other  three  major  proposals 
would  very  much  strengthen  the  hand  of  a 
plaintiff  and  would  keep  most  cases  out  of 
court  as  it  exists  at  the  present  time.  Please, 
I  say  to  the  government,  let  it  bring  in  its 
own  legislation  and  it  won't  have  to  adopt 
some  monstrosity  in  order  to  rectify  a  great 
ill. 

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

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Mr. 
Speaker,  following  the  member  for  Lakeshore 
and  his  passionate  and  impassioned  speech 
on  this  matter  is  very  difficult.  There  is  no 
question  that  legislation  of  this  kind  is  not 
an  ideal.  Certainly,  on  a  clause  by  clause 
provision,  I  think  the  proposer  himself  made 
it  clear  that  he  was  speaking  to  a  principle. 

At  this  point  in  this  province  we  are  head^ 
ing  into  a  situation  of  homelessness.  Cer- 
tainly in  some  areas  this  is  very  clear.  When 
we're  facing  that  situation,  to  talk  about  other 
forms  of  legislation,  to  talk  about  the  long 
road  to  legislation  which  will  protect  the 
individual  without  setting  up  any  kind  of 
bureaucracy  and  to  talk  about  all  of  the 
things  that  could  be  done,  which  after  30- 
odd  years  of  this  government  haven't  been 
done,  seem  to  me  to  be  speaking  of  an  ideal 
rather  than,  with  respect,  facing  the  situa- 
tion as  it  is  today. 

Much  has  been  said  by  all  of  the  speakers 
up  until  now  about  the  matter  of  new  houses. 
I  would  like,   if  I  may  for  a  moment,  just 


612 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


look  at  the  situation  as  it  exists  in  some  of 
our  major  urban  areas,  and  particularly  this 
one,  where  we  have  a  new  type  of  entre- 
preneur who  is  buying  up  old  and  existing 
stock  and  renovating  it. 

I  am  concerned  deeply  about  the  standards 
of  renovation.  I'm  not  suggesting  these 
people  are  not  doing  a  good  job  for  the  most 
part.  But  when  one  knows  what  the  con- 
struction was  in  a  city  such  as  this  where 
we  had  row  housing  with  open  third  floors; 
when  one  tries  to  find  out  what  provision 
is  being  made  for  firewalls  between  those 
third  floors  on  renovations;  when  it  isn't  too 
clear  that  this  is  a  requirement;  and  when 
we're  faced  with  the  fires  we've  been  faced 
with,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  to  take 
some  steps— not  ideal  perhaps^to  indicate 
that  we  are  concerned  about  the  person  who 
is  purchasing  property,  not  at  an  inflated 
value  but  at  an  inflated  price  in  our  market 
today  and  who  has  literally  no  protection. 

Many  of  them  have  no  alternatives,  be- 
cause there  isn't  a  sufficient  stock  of  hous- 
ing they  can  afford  available  in  an  area 
where  they  feel,  for  one  reason  or  another, 
they  must  live.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, as  time  goes  on,  if  we  get  an  enlightened 
government  in  this  province  that  is  con- 
cerned about  the  scarcity  of  housing  and 
prepared  to  service  land  so  that  people  can 
get  building  lots  at  prices  they  can  afford  to 
pay  and  can  curb  the  inflationary  effect  of 
the  policies  of  this  government,  this  will  no 
longer  be  such  an  urgent  requirement  be- 
cause people  will  have  choices. 

When  we  come  to  the  five-year  war- 
ranty section,  it  takes  some  time  as  a  rule 
to  find  the  hidden  defects  in  a  building,  par- 
ticularly if  one  is  not  very  expert  in  the 
building  of  houses  or  in  any  of  the  trades 
that  go  into  the  building  of  houses.  I  am 
reminded  of  a  time  some  years  ago  when 
my  mother  who  was  one  of  the  first  women 
builders  in  Toronto  was  completing  18  houses 
in  the  north  end  of  the  city  of  Toronto  and 
was  having  a  great  deal  of  trouble  with  in- 
spectors. Across  the  street,  a  gentleman  was 
building  a  pair  of  houses.  While  he  had  taps 
in  and  he  had  other  equipment  in  his  house, 
he  had  nothing  connecting  either  sewers  or 
water  in  his  house  nor  did  he  insulate  the 
roof. 

This  is  the  kind  of  thing  that,  of  course, 
nucrht  not  to  happen  with  the  usual  inspec- 
tions of  a  municipality.  But  in  those  days 
there  were  elements  oJF  choice.  Today  there 
are  not. 

I  too  am  concerned  that  our  buildin<T  code 
has  not  been  brought  forward  other  than  in 


a  draft  form,  because  I  don't  know  what 
provisions  there  will  be  in  this  whole  new 
area  of  rehabilitation  of  existing  housing.  But 
I  would  have  to  assume,  at  this  point  in 
time,  that  this  code  will  have  sufficient 
enlighteiunent  that  these  various  matters 
would  be  covered,  and  that  people  would  not 
have  to  rely  on  the  fact  that  they'll  take 
it  at  any  price  and  in  any  circumstances,  be- 
cause they  have  nothing  else  they  can  do 
to  provide  housing  for  their  families. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  true  that  those  of  us  in 
this  caucus  have  been  opposed  to  the  es- 
calation of  bureaucracy,  and  it  may  seem 
somewhat  illogical  for  us  to  support  this. 
But  in  a  time  when  this  is  probably  the  one 
investment  that  a  person  makes,  it  is  desper- 
erately  important  that  there  be  some  pro- 
tection. 

I  was  interested  the  other  day  in  looking 
at  an  area  in  Toronto  which  used  to  be  a 
pocket  of  blight.  It  was  called  Trefann  Court. 
I  think  most  of  the  members  have  heard 
about  it.  There  are  properties  selling  tliere  to- 
day at  $70,000.  For  the  poor?  No,  of  course 
not.  The  poor  are  gone  because  of  our  policies, 
but  the  people  who  are  there,  who  are  going 
in,  nevertheless  need  housing,  too.  And  they 
simply  have  to  have  some  protection  while 
we  await  the  philosophical  direction  of  a  gov- 
ernment which,  up  until  now,  has  not  been 
concerned  with  curing  the  disease  of  a  lack 
of  housing,  but  rather  has  been  concerned 
with  looking  at  the  symptoms  of  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  support  this  bill  in  principle. 
Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Fort 
William. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William^:  Mr. 
Speaker,  it's  a  privilege  for  me  to  rise  and  make 
some  comments  on  this  bill.  To  start  out, 
I  think  the  hon.  member  for  York-Forest 
Hill  has  got  a  damn  good  bfll  here.  It  needs 
possibly  some  modifications,  very  few  amend- 
ments. 

One  amendment  I'd  like  to  suggest  to  him 
is  that  a  short  form  of  specifications  be  at- 
tached to  an  offer  of  purchase  so  that  the 
purchaser  will  know  about  the  basic  items 
involved.  This  would  also  be  evidence  at  anv 
subsequent  hearing  before  a  referee  or  re- 
view board. 

It's  a  fact  that  most  people  buy  a  liasic 
house  but  actually  expect  a  custom  built 
house.  I  agree  with  the  hon.  member  in  his 
preamble  that  the  suggested  short  form 
could  be  part  of  the  deal.  In  this  way  pur- 
chasers  would   be    assured   that   they  would 


APRIL  1,  1974 


613 


receive    in    good    faith    exactly    what    they 
paid  for. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm  not  going  to  at- 
tempt to  go  item  by  item,  or  clause  by  clause, 
through  the  bill.  It's  been  veiy  well  handled 
by  the  hon.  member  for  Latceshore,  in  his 
jolly  criticism,  and  also  the  hon.  member  for 
Peel  South.  I  think  his  bill  is  very  timely, 
Mr.  Speaker,  because  in  the  Thunder  Bay 
Times-News  of  March  28  there  is  an  item 
out  of  city  hall  that  says: 

The  city  HVDA  president  John  Budick 
touched  on  a  proposed  nation-wide  home 
warranty  setup  presently  being  studied  by 
the  federal  government, 

Ottawa  planners  have  been  looking  into 
putting  a  fonn  of  warranty  on  new  homes 
for  over  a  year.  Now  Mr.  Budick  says  it 
will  be  at  least  another  year  or  a  year  and 
a  half  before  such  a  plan  would  be  avail- 
able to  prospective  home  buyers  at  the 
municipal  level. 

It  goes  on  to  say: 

The  city  building  inspector,  Mr.  Bert 
Lambert,  was  also  present  at  the  meeting 
and  he  said  Urban  Affairs  Minister  Ron 
Basford  has  already  proposed  legislation 
on  warranties  or,  as  Lambert  put  it,  certi- 
fication. 

It's  very  timely  having  this  bill  brought  be- 
fore us  today.  But  I  must  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  before  we  guarantee  a  house  we  have 
to  build  one— and  we  in  Thunder  Bay  cer- 
tainly don't  have  a  hell  of  a  choice  in  houses. 
I'm  going  to  refer  to  statistics  that  have  been 
produced  for  me  over  the  last  year  and 
records  of  land  acquired  by  Ontario  Housing 
Corp.  in  Thunder  Bay  (Fort  William  and 
Port  Arthur),  the  location  of  the  land,  the 
size  of  the  land  and  the  year  it  was  bought. 
We  bought  6.67  acres  in  1967,  in  1968 
2.90  acres— this  goes  on— 1.83  acres  in  1970, 
1.85,  1.60  and  3.50  acres  in  1971  and  in 
1972  we  hit  the  jackpot;  we  bought  158 
acres  for  Ontario's  proposed  HOME  develop- 
ment programme— and  37  lots  in  1973,  with 
an  additional  0.85  acres  pending  develbp- 
ment. 

Over  the  same  period  of  time,  Mr.  Speaker, 
we  built  46  units  of  senior  citizen  housing  in 
1969,  48  units  in  1970,  none  in  1971,  none 
in  1972,  and  181  units  in  1973. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Not  a  very  good  track  record. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  I'm  not  verv  happy  with  it, 
really.  It  starts  at  the  local  level,  I  might 
say  to  you,  sir. 


The  same  article  reported  on  March  28 
that  we  are  planning  600  housing  units  for 
Thunder  Bay.  The  corporation  presently 
hopes  to  build  200  to  273  senior  citizen 
residences.  Seven  hundred  new  imits  in  40 
northern  Ontario  localities  also  are  expected, 
and  we  are  looking  to  start  up  to  600  new 
housing  units  in  the  city  over  the  next  18 
months. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  we  would  be  luck\' 
if  we  could  build  houses  the  way  we  are 
building  reports.  Here  are  some  from  the 
Advisory  Task  Force  on  Housing  Policy; 
Working  Papers,  volume  1;  "Land  for  Hous- 
ing and  Housing  Assistance,"  "Government 
and  Housing;  Public  Participation  Program- 
mes," "Background  Report,  The  Housing;  Pro- 
duction Process  in  Ontario." 

Might  I  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
about  five  years  ago  in  the  city  of  Thunder 
Bay  we  extended  the  city  water  line  at  a 
price  of  $158,000  or  $168,000.  The  Ontario 
government  assisted  the  city  of  Thunder  Ba\ 
to  extend  this  water  line  to  the  then  munic- 
ipality of  Neebing  to  the  indiistrial  farm, 
which  housed  some  100  detainees,  a  herd  of 
cattle  and  many  acres  of  potatoes  and  what 
not.  But  since  that  time,  1,200  acres  of  this 
1,800-acre  plot  have  been  declared  surplus. 
I  would  suggest  to  you,  sir,  that  we've  got 
lots  of  land  to  build  on;  it  is  owned  by  the 
govermnent  and  it  is  damn  well  time  we 
started   building   houses   on    it.     Thank   >ou. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  I 
would  start  out,  Mr.  Speaker,  by  assuring 
the  member  for  Peel  South  that  I  too  am  not 
a  lawyer  and  will  be  giving  a  consumer's 
view.  Maybe  that  was  why,  not  being  a 
lawyer,  I  was  so  surprised  when  I  received 
my  first  constituent  case  with  respect  to 
house  building,  one  which  I  could  hardl\ 
believe. 

This  constituent  phoned  me  up  and  said 
his  roof  wasn't  tacked  dovm  to  the  rest  of 
his  house.  I  thought  I  wasn't  hearing  him 
right.  I  went  out  and,  sure  enough  that  was 
the  cose.  This  was  a  house  at  6170  \\'ales, 
in  Windsor. 

Both  the  man  and  his  wife  were  in  a  situa- 
tion where  both  of  them  were  working  dur- 
ing the  day  at  places  from  which  the\-  could 
not  phone.  They  could  not  phone  the  build- 
ing inspector  in  order  to  get  a  hand  in  seeing 
that  some  of  the  things  were  rectified. 


614 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  don't  have  the  time  now  to  detail  the 
many  and  various  rotten  occurrences  with 
respect  to  this  house.  But  let's  just  say  there 
was  water  everywhere.  The  eavestroughs 
didn't  slope  to  the  downspouts;  they  all 
sloped  to  the  middle.  The  roof  wasn't  tacked 
down  at  any  point.  The  wind  would  blow  it 
up  and  the  wind  and  rain  had  soaked  the  ply- 
wood. In  fact,  the  plywood  was  warping.  It 
was  warped  as  much  as  3  in.  or  4  in.  Ho 
took  me  up  to  the  roof  of  one  portion  of 
this  tri-level,  and  you  could  bounce  up  and 
down  4  in.  or  5  in.  on  various  parts  of  the 
roof— so  on  and  so  forth. 

So  there  is  a  very  great  need  in  this  area, 
which  the  bill  speaks  to  and  where  action 
drastically  needs  to  be  taken. 

The  question  is  how  best  to  rectify  it. 

Just  in  the  few  minutes  left,  let  me  say, 
speaking  in  detail  to  the  bill  I  am  a  little  bit 
worried  about  the  large  bureaucracy  which 
this  bill  would  engender.  It  would  require 
four  inspections  per  house  and  a  gigantic 
team  of  inspectors  would  be  required  under 
this  Act. 

I  am  convinced  the  cost  of  these  inspectors 
and  the  cost  of  this  bureaucracy,  should  we 
set  up  a  thing  like  this,  should  not  be  paid 
from  public  funds.  However,  the  insur- 
ance scheme  that's  set  up  in  order  to  rectify 
the  programme  should,  in  fact,  be  a  suffi- 
cient collection  and  assessment  scheme  on 
all  builders  in  the  province  to  pay  for  the  en- 
tire bureaucracy. 

In  this  way  we  could  get  the  builders  who 
know  how  to  build  and  are  in  the  field 
building,  to  exert  influence  and  pressure  on 
other  builders  who  they  see  are  doing  shod- 
dy work  because  it  will  come  out  of  their 
pocket  if  it  is  allowed  to  continue. 

I  would  suggest  this  is  one  way,  if  we  are 
going  to  have  this  bureaucracy  or  some- 
thing like  it,  to  pay  for  it  and  deal  with  it. 

In  fact,  I  would  suggest  a  somewhat  dif- 
ferent system  as  well  to  reduce  the  bur- 
eaucracy. You  would  only  deal  with  com- 
plaints, not  those  nine  out  of  10  completed 
houses  which  the  buyers  find  satisfactory. 

The  other  point  that  I  had  on  the  bill 
when    I    first    read    it    was    the    preoccupa- 


tion that  the  bill  seemed  to  have  with  the 
financial  structure  and  the  financial  capabilities 
of  the  builders  or  the  developing  company 
rather  than  the  product— the  house  or  the  apart- 
ment or  the  condominium  or  the  co-opera- 
tive. In  the  bill  there  is  the  power  to  go  in 
and  seize  and  search  the  financial  documents 
and  books  in  the  middle  of  the  night. 
There  is  undue  stress  placed  on  this  rather 
than  the  product,  when  it  comes  to  the 
clause-by-clause  reading  of  the  bill. 

And  finally,  the  caveat  emptor  principle  of 
"let  the  buyer  beware."  In  this  bill  it  ap- 
plies only  to  new  housing  and  on  first  sale. 
The  let-the-buyer-beware  principle  was  not 
going  to  be  applied  to  all  of  the  older  hous- 
ing without  any  rectification  or  assessment 
on  the  sales  of  those  homes— and,  in  fact, 
applies  after  the  point  in  this  bill.  So  a  guy 
doesn't  get  licensed  because  he  built  a  poor 
house;  so  he  is  fined  $2,000  if  he  builds  an- 
other. His  profit  is  more  than  that.  He  keeps 
on  going  till  they  finally  jail  him— if  they  fi- 
nally jail  him. 

Well,  the  need  is  great,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
don't  think  this  bill  meets  the  need  but  it 
certainly  is  valuable  to  have  thoughts  of  this 
sort  put  before  us  so  that  we  can  discuss 
them,  and  yet  again  make  clear  to  the  pub- 
lic that  the  need  is  there  and  some  good 
way  must  be  found  to  fill  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  completes  the  private 
members'  hour. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
fore I  move  the  adjournment  of  the  House, 
I  would  like  to  say  that  tomorrow  we  will  be 
dealing  first  with  Item  No.  5,  Bill  13.  And 
then  we  return  to  the  Throne  Speech  de- 
bate. I  have  also  reasonable  agreement  that 
we  will  sit  tomorrow  evening  to  accommo- 
date those  who  wish  to  participate  in  the 
Throne  Speech  debate  prior  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  budget, 

Hon  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6  o'clock,  p.m. 


APRIL  1,  1974  615 


ERRATUM 

No.  Page  Col.  Line  Should  read: 

13  501  2  26  power,  wind  power,  the  use  of  wood  to 
13  501  2  31  power.  All  are  100  per  cent  safe,  all  are  non- 
13  514  2  31  that  in  itself  would  be  a  great  benefit  for 
13  515  1  28  rail    lines.    I    am   talking   about   having   the 


616  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  April  1,  1974 

Refuse-fired  steam  plant  proposed  for  Toronto,  statement  by  Mr.  W.  Newman  567 

Refuse-fired    steam    plant    proposed    for    Toronto,    questions    of    Mr.    W.    Newman: 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Good,  Mr.  Lewis  567 

World  Football  League,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F,  Nixon  568 

Mineral  exploration  Crown  corporation,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  568 

Community  college  courses,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  569 

Kingston  township  services,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  569 

Oil  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  MacDonald,  Mr.  Raid,  Mr.  Stokes  569 

Environmental  impact  of  public  works,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis  572 

Maple  Mountain  development,  questioivs  of  Mr.  W.  Newman  and  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Lewis  572 

Translation  service  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Laiighren,  Mr.  Stokes  573 

Fire  hazards  in  senior  citizen  highrise  buildings,  question  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr,  Germa  575 

Community  college  courses,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr,  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Breithaupt  575 

Warranty  on  new  homes,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mrs.  Campbell  575 

Admission  standards  for  graduate  studies,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Bounsall  576 

Intermediate  capacity  transit  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Givens  577 

Great  West  Timber  closure,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:   Mr.  Stokes  577 

Guidelines  on  university  campus  activities,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Reid  578 

Alleged  Mafia   activities,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:   Mr.   Shulman   578 

U.S.  beef  shipments,  question  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Gaunt  578 

University  Expropriation  Powers  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Welch,  second  reading  579 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Cassidy  579 

Motion  to   adjourn  debate,   Mr.   Cassidy,  agreed  to  604 

Private   members'   hour  604 

House   Buyers'   Protection   Act,   bill   to   provide   for,   on   second   reading,    Mr.   Givens, 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Mr.  Lawlor,  Mrs.  Campbell,  Mr.  Jessiman,  Mr.  Bounsall  604 

Motion  to  adjourn,   Mr,   Winkler,   agreed   to   614 

Errata    615 


No.  16 


Ontario 


Hcgisflature  of  Ontario 


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


Tuesday,  April  2, 1974 

Afternoon  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARUAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


619 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

LINEAR  INDUCTION  MOTORS 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications ) :  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  wish  to  make  a  statement  concerning  the 
article  which  appeared  in  last  week's  Sunday 
Sun  regarding  the  development  of  linear  in- 
duction motors  being  researched  in  Britain. 

We  have  been  watching  the  British  work 
by  Dr.  Eric  Laithwaite  on  his  "magnetic 
river"  concept  since  he  announced  it  last 
August  in  a  British  electronics  journal.  We 
will  continue  to  examine  this  concept  and  see 
what  applications  of  it  may  be  made  to  urban 
transit.  To  date,  Dr.  Laithwaite  has  not  pub- 
lished technical  details  or  the  basic  principles 
of  how  it  will  work. 

The  staff  of  the  Ontario  Transportation  De- 
velopment Corp.  has  been  in  direct  contact 
with  Dr.  Laithwaite  as  recently  as  yesterday 
and,  by  his  own  admission,  he  has  not  studied 
the  applicability  of  his  concept  to  low-speed 
urban  transit.  He  is,  however,  quite  inter- 
ested in  interacting  with  our  OTDC  on  ways 
in  which  his  concept  might  be  fitted  into  the 
GO-Urban  technology  as  a  future  develop- 
ment. We  are,  of  course,  interested  in  en- 
couraging such  co-operation  with  his  team 
and  we  are  following  it  up. 

We  do  not  intend  to  stop  any  of  our 
present  work  because  there  is  no  basic  con- 
flict between  his  work  and  ours  at  this  time, 
but  we  are  even  more  encouraged  that  our 
efforts  in  research  and  development  will  pro- 
vide meaningful  solutions  in  our  urban  mobil- 
ity requirements  of  the  future.  Canada  has 
begun  a  development  process  in  transit,  and 
far  from  abandoning  it  when  other  promising 
breakthroughs  may  appear,  we  are  dedicated 
to  continuing  development. 

We  are  quite  prepared  to  recognize  and 
adopt  future  developments  from  others 
throughout  the  world,  but  it  should  be  recog- 
nized that  Dr.  Laithwaite's  concept  exists  only 
as  a  scale  model  version  for  exhibit  purposes. 


Tuesday,  April  2,  1974 

On  the  basis  of  our  existing  knowledge  of 
his  system  and  the  committed  development 
for  it,  it  is  not  responsible  to  suggest  that  we 
stop  our  present  development  programme 
which  has  progressed  past  the  full-scale  vehi- 
cle stage. 

Prof.  Eric  Laithwaite  is  a  distinguished  and 
dedicated  scientist  and  should  be  recognized 
as  such.  We  are  very  interested  in  the  British 
development  and  will  keep  as  close  to  it  as 
possible.  We  know  that  his  variations  on  the 
linear  induction  motor  have  in  some  respects 
been  incorporated  in  the  low-speed  intercity 
technology  being  developed  in  the  US  by 
Rohr  Corp. 

Indeed  our  own  linear  induction  motor  pro- 
gramme has  been  advanced  by  the  recent 
federal  government  contribution  to  the  SPAR 
Corp.'s  dynamic  test  track.  This  programme 
includes  looking  into  various  propulsion  imits 
including  some  adaptation  on  the  motors  de- 
signed for  the  current  transit  demonstration. 

The  Ontario  government  has  committed  it- 
self to  being  in  the  forefront  of  transit  tech- 
nology and  the  Ontario  Transportation  Devel- 
opment Corp.  congratulates  Dr.  Laithwaite  on 
his  work  to  date.  We  recognize  change  as  a 
continued  part  of  the  research  and  develop- 
ment process,  and  if  we  are  to  stay  at  the 
front  of  development,  we  will  continue  our 
development,  constantly  assessing  the  work  of 
others  around  us,  and  that  includes  discussions 
with  Dr.  Laithwaite  to  consider  how  the 
corporation  may  participate  in  his  work  as 
well.  It  is  an  irresponsible  to  suggest  develop- 
ment work  be  stopped  as  it  is  to  ignore  the 
work  of  others  in  the  field. 

To  characterize  the  development  presently 
under  way  at  the  CNE  and  in  Germany  as  a 
"$1  billion  lemon",  is  both  unfounded  and 
gross  misrepresentation.  The  work  to  date  has 
provided  a  valuable  fund  of  development  that 
shows  substantial  promise  of  providing 
efficient,  attractive  and  environmentally  sensi- 
tive transit  to  many  urban  areas,  and  is 
capable  of  substantial  further  development 
and  innovation.  To  characterize  the  develop- 
ment programme  to  be  a  $1  billion  pro- 
gramme is  to  misrepresent  the  present  com- 
mitment and  to  confuse  both  the  development 
programme  and  an  on-going  implementation 


620 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


programme.  The  $1  billion  is  the  govern- 
ment's commitment  to  finance  innovative 
transit  in  Ontario  cities  in  all  of  its  forms. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Not  all 
cities. 

■Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Anyone  who  suggests  we 
should  abandon  our  present  work,  and  con- 
fuses a  "Disneyland  project"  with  the  serious, 
committed  research  that  is  going  on  in 
Canada,  in  Germany  and  in  the  UK,  is  only 
denying  the  very  development  effort  that 
creates  technical  breakthroughs  and  progress. 

If  we  are  serious  about  the  mobility  needs 
of  our  urban  areas  in  the  future,  we  will  not 
only  not  discontinue  our  present  development 
efforts,  but  we  will  expand  them.  If  we  have 
any  insight  and  commitment  to  the  future  of 
Canada,  its  cities,  our  engineers  and  our 
science  community,  we  will  reject  the  narrow, 
short-sighted  approach  of  our  opposition 
sceptics.  Investment  of  the  kind  that  the  UK, 
Germany  and  the  Ontario  government  have 
undertaken  provides  a  meaningful  programme 
for  continued  advancement. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  minister  would  have 
no  goodies  at  all,  would  he? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  At  the  present  time, 
Dr.  Laithwaite  is  proceeding:  to  build  a  dem- 
onstration  model   of   his   research   work. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Sarnia):  We  know 
whom  the  $1  billion  limit  is  for. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  We,  like  the  rest  of  the 
world,  will  be  anxious  to  review  the  demon- 
stration as  he  attempts  to  make  all  existing 
forms  of  high  speed  technology  obsolete.  It 
would  appear  there  is  a  substantial  distance 
between  the  current  state  of  development 
and  an  operating  capability.  It  would  also 
appear  that  Dr.  Laithwaite's  research  work 
would  find  its  greatest  application  in  high 
speed  intercity  services  where  constant  ac- 
celeration and  deceleration  as  a  result  of  fre- 
quent station  spacings,  the  requirement  for 
frequent  switching  and  a  complex  control 
system  for  close  headway  maintenance  will 
not  be  as  important  as  in  low  speed  urban 
applications. 

We  have  consistently  stated  that  one  of 
our  principal  motivations  is  to  initiate  and 
continue  a  hiffh  technology  development 
process  in  Canada.  This  will  involve  a  con- 
stant review  of  all  developing  technologies. 
It  should  surprise  no  one  that  there  will  be 
a  constant  adaptation  and  improvement  in 
the  technology. 

Development  in  such  an  important  area  is 
a    responsibility    of    government    and    not    a 


waste  of  money.  The  Ontario  government  is 
the  one  agency  in  Canada  that  has  led  in 
this  field  with  its  dedication  to  development 
programmes  to  solve  domestic  problems. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Except  in 
the  north. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  The  minister 
doesn't  understand  a  word  he  is  reading. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  It  will  continue  to  do  so 
by  pursuing  its  present  development  program- 
me, continuing  the  programme  of  the  OTDC, 
co-operating  with  other  developers  and  juris- 
dictions in  solving  the  urban  mobility  prob- 
lems and  expanding  its  monetary  and  research 
commitment  to  this  important  area. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  The 
minister  said  he  didn't  know  anything  about 
electromagnetics  just  yesterday,  now  he  is 
an  expert. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Great 
commercial. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Health. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): This  will  be  another  great  one. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  jokes  does  the 
minister  have  for  us  today? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  I 
don't  need  any  jokes  as  long  as  the  member 
is  here. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  He  should 
be  on  stage  instead  of  representing  the  min- 
istry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  Caught 
the  member  right  between  the  eyes,  didn't 
it? 


HEALTH  DISCIPLINES  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  today  I  am 
introducing  the  first  six  parts  of  the  Health 
Disciplines  Act  dealing  with  five  major 
health  disciplines— dentistry,  medicine,  nurs- 
ing, optometry  and  pharmacy.  Legislation 
covering  other  health  disciplines  will  l>e  in- 
troduced later. 

Mr.  Stokes:  That  is  in  alphabetical  order, 
isn't  it? 


APRIL  2,  1974 


621 


Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  minister  going  to  put  in 
a  denturists'  bill? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  period  will  fol- 
low. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  As  the  hon.  members 
know,  this  bill  has  resulted  from  a  number 
of  years  of  intensive  work  by  many  groups 
and  has  benefited  by  considerable  public  in- 
volvement. In  April,  1970,  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Healing  Arts  was  tabled 
in  the  Legislature.  At  the  request  of  the 
Health  Minister  of  the  day,  the  Ontario 
Council  of  Health  reviewed  this  report  and 
made  certain  recommendations  in  November, 
197C. 

As  a  result  of  these  two  reports,  "The 
Guiding  Principles  for  the  Regulation  and 
Education  of  the  Health  Disciplines"  were 
made  public  in  January,  1971.  Based  on 
these  guiding  principles,  discussions  were 
undertaken  between  the  Ministry  of  Health, 
health  disciplines  and  other  interested  bodies, 
which  resulted  in  draft  legislation  in  June, 
1972.  These  legislative  proposals  were  tabled 
in  this  House  as  a  discussion  document  en- 
titled, "Legislative  Proposals  for  a  Health 
Disciplines  Act."  Since  then,  many  months 
of  discussions  with  the  health  disciplines 
involved  and  other  interested  groups,  includ- 
ing the  public,  led  to  the  legislation  being 
introduced  today. 

This  Act,  Mr.  Speaker,  ensures  that  the 
activities  of  health  disciplines  are  effectively 
regulated  and  co-ordinated  in  the  public  in- 
terest. It  also  ensures  that  appropriate  stan- 
dards of  practice  are  developed  and  main- 
tained and  that  rights  of  individuals  to  ser- 
vices provided  by  health  disciplines  of  their 
choice  are  safeguarded.  The  legislation  now 
before  us  embodies  some  changes  from  the 
earlier  proposals.  All  of  these  changes  have 
resulted  from  information  and  advice  gained 
through  public  discussion. 

Essentially,  the  bill  proposes  that  each 
health  discipline  covered  by  this  Act  will  be 
regulated  by  a  college.  The  membership  of 
the  college's  governing  council  will  comprise 
both  professional  members  of  the  discipline 
and  lay  representatives. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  member  is  learning  well. 
He  is  coming  along. 

Hon.  Mr.  MiUer:  Depending  on  the  numer- 
ical strength  of  the  council  of  an  individual 
college,  the  mandatory  number  of  lay  mem- 
bers has  been  increased  and  varies  from  a 
minimum  of  two  to  a  maximum  of  eight. 
The  legislation  also  provides  that  lay  repre- 
sentatives will  be  included  on  the   registra- 


tion, complaints  and  discipline  committees  of 
the  respective  colleges. 

The  government  believes  that  as  much  as 
possible,  each  health  discipline  should  be 
responsible  through  its  governing  council  for 
the  conduct  of  its  members  and  should  be 
permitted  to  carry  out  that  responsibility 
independent  of  government  interference.  This 
determination  was  based  on  the  principle 
that  the  public  interest  is  best  served  when 
the  government  does  not  interfere  in  the 
activities  of  well-run  and  responsible  private 
institutions. 

The  government  does  have  an  interest, 
however,  in  seeing  that  a  high  standard  is 
maintained  by  each  health  discipline  with 
regard  to  its  relationships  with  the  public, 
its  membership  and  with  other  health  disd- 
plines. 

Based  on  the  principle  that  an  appeal  from 
the  rulings  made  by  a  health  discipline's 
governing  council  should  be  made  to  a  sep- 
arate and  appropriate  body,  an  independent 
health  discipline  board  will  be  set  up,  com- 
posed entirely  of  representatives  of  the  pub- 
lic who  are  not  members  of  any  of  the 
health  disciplines  under  this  Act.  This  board 
would  conduct  hearings  and  reviews  with 
respect  to  complaints,  from  either  the  public 
or  from  members  of  the  health  disciplines, 
which  in  the  opinion  of  the  complainant,  have 
not  been  satisfactorily  dealt  with  by  the  regu- 
latory bodies. 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  minister  going  to  thank 
them  for  this  advice?  Is  he  going  to  thank 
them  for  telling  him  this  over  the  years?  Say 
thank  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  In  addition,  persons  ap- 
plying to  the  colleges  for  registration,  who 
have  had  their  applications  refused  by  the 
regulatory  bodies  or  have  had  limitations 
placed  on  how  they  may  practice,  may  re- 
quest a  hearing  by  the  health  disciplines 
board. 

Under  this  bill,  the  Minister  of  Health 
has  the  responsibility  for  overall  policy  de- 
velopment and  for  the  co-ordination  and 
development  of  health  disciplines  with  the 
rest  of  the  health  care  system.  The  legislation 
also  provides  for  advisory  committees  to  the 
minister  for  necessary  and  desirable  involve- 
ment of  various  health  disciplines  and  the 
public  in  the  co-ordination  and  development 
functions. 

The  bill  also  provides  that  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  in  Coimcil  may  make  regulations 
when   the   minister  has   requested   a   college 


622 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


to  make,  amend  or  revoke  regulations  and 
has  not  done  so. 

In  essence,  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  sets 
out  the  scope  of  practice  for  four  health 
disciplines.  It  also  defines  "registered  nurse" 
and  "registered  nursing  assistant." 

It  provides  for  self-regulation  by  each 
health  discipline,  subject  to  the  views  of 
mandatory  lay  representatives  on  their  gov- 
erning council  and  for  an  independent,  lay 
health  disciplines  board  to  which  appeals  can 
be  made.  The  Act  provides  for  the  licensing 
of  some  practitioners  and  the  certification  of 
others. 

Licensing  involves  the  conferring  on  a 
particular  person,  the  exclusive  provincially 
granted  right  to  practise.  Practice  by  any 
person  to  whom  such  a  right  has  not  been 
granted  is  prohibited  and  made  a  punishable 
oflFence. 

Certification  involves  the  provincial  en- 
dorsement of  competence,  but  not  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  practise.  By  applying  a  provin- 
cial standard,  a  stamp  of  approval  is  con- 
ferred on  persons  as  competent  to  practise  a 
specified  occupation.  Practice  by  an  uncerti- 
fied person  is  not  prohibited  and,  of  course, 
is  not  a  punishable  offence. 

Mr.   Roy:   That  should  be  interesting. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  The  parts  relating  to 
medicine  and  dentistry  continue  a  broad 
scope  of  practice  for  these  disciplines 
which  is  commensurate  with  their  educa- 
tion and  clinical  training,  and  which  pro- 
vides for  their  licencing. 

The  part  on  pharmacy  identifies  the  role 
and  responsibilities  of  pharmacists,  and  also 
provides  for  licensing. 

The  part  on  nursing  recognizes  the  dif- 
ferent roles  of  registered  nurses  and  regis- 
tered nursing  assistants  in  their  particular 
fields  of  practice,  which  call  for  certification 
as    contrasted    to    licensing. 

The  part  on  optometry  recognizes  that 
optometrists  provide  services  that  are  also 
within  the  broad  scope  of  medicine.  In 
this  bill,  therefore,  their  scope  of  practice 
requires   definition,   which   is   included. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That  will  take  a  couple 
of  hours. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  In  bringing  in  this  bill, 
then,  Mr.  Speaker,  members  will  appreciate 
that  a  significant  amount  of  effort  has  been 
directed  over  the  past  few  years  toward 
rationalizing  the  roles  of  various  disciplines. 
This    Act    will    form    the    basis    of    defining 


those   areas   in   which  the   health  disciplines 
will  provide  their  services  to  the  public. 

Mr.  Roy:  This  had  better  be  good,  or 
the  minister  is  going  to  be  on  his  way  out. 
He  will  join  the  previous  minister. 

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


HEALTH  DISCIPLINES  ACT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of  Health, 
in  relation  to  the  statement  he  just  made, 
if  the  bill  that  he  introduces  this  afternoon 
will  in  anv  way  change  the  status  of  the 
practice  of  the  denturists— presently  illegal 
—and,  if  not,  does  he  contemplate  additional 
legislation    in    that    connection? 

Hon.   Mr.   Miller:   No,   Mr.   Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  I'd 
like  to  ask  the  minister  if  that  then  is  a 
statement  that  the  present  policy,  which  has 
prevailed  since  the  passage  of  the  statute 
and  the  proclamation  of  the  present  law, 
will  remain  unchanged  and  that  is  then 
established   by  his  backbench  colleagues? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  do  not  think,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
should  jump  to  that  conclusion.  The  present 
Act  was  drafted  progressively  over  a  num- 
ber of  months.  It  allows  for  the  present 
status  of  the  practice  of  dentistry  and  den- 
ture therapists.  As  such,  it  wiU  have  a 
section  in  it  similar  to  the  present  Dentistry 
Act  defining  that  role. 

Mr.   Roy:   A  supplementary,   Mr.   Speaker: 
Why     doesn't     the     minister     stop     playing 
games   with  the   public   and   with  these  two 
professions   and  let  the  public  know  exactly 
where    they    stand    in    relation    to    the   den- 
turists   and   the   dental   situation?   He's   been 
going  around  saying- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order. 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  Very  simply,  why  doesn't  the 
minister  shape  up  and  let  us  know  where 
he's  going  with  that? 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  has  not  answered 
the  question. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


623 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Downsview. 

Mr.  Singer:  Is  the  minister  through  with 
my  friend  from  Ottawa  East?  I  don't  think 
he  got  an  answer. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  was  not  a  proper  ques- 
tion.  It  was  a  statement  for  the  most  part. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  minister  was  up  to 
answer. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  would  have  been  im- 
proper for  him  to  answer  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  yield  to  my  friend,  who 
wants  to  rephrase  his  improper  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  He  may  ask  a  proper  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Roy:  Does  he  not  feel,  as  Minister 
of  Health,  that  it  is  time  he  let  the  public 
know  exactly  where  the  government,  of 
which  he  is  a  member,  stands  on  this  ques- 
tion, and  that  the  denturists  and  the  dentists 
are  entitled  to  know  exactly  where  they're 
going  with  this  plan,  especially  in  light  of 
the  statement  that  he  has  made  here  today? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  that  is  a  fair 
question,  iMr,  Speaker.  I  fully  intend,  if  any 
change  is  made  in  the  present  legislation, 
to  let  members  know  that. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  has  been  saying 
that  for  weeks. 

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

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Supple- 
mentary: I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of 
Health,  would  it  not  be  necessary  within  the 
ambit  of  the  health  disciplines  legislation  to 
bring  in  the  denture  therapists  bill  again  for 
either  amendment  or  confirmation  by  the 
Legislature  in  light  of  the  other  revisions  of 
medical  career  lines?  Does  he  not  think  it  is, 
therefore,  somewhat  provocative  to  bring  in 
the  dentistry  legislation  without  at  the  same 
time  saying  anything  about  his  intentions  as 
regards  denture  therapists? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  gave  that 
a  great  deal  of  thought.  If,  in  fact,  the  policy 
was  firm  and  formulated  at  this  point  in  time, 
I  think  the  member's  reaction  may  be  per- 
fectly right  and  this  bill  should  contain  those 
parts.  The  denture  therapist  part  of  the  health 
disciplines  bill  will  came  up  in  due  course,  as 


will  a  number  of  other  parts.  When  it  comes 
up,  of  course,  the  scope  of  practice  for  that 

S articular  part  of  the  health  field  will  be  fully 
efined  and  open  to  discussion.  But  this  bill 
has  been  a  long  time  coming.  We  had  a  lot 
of  public  discussion. 

Mr.  Roy:  Which  one? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  it  is  only  proper 
that  we  should  have  it  here,  regardless  of 
future  changes  in  the  roles  of  the  health  dis- 
ciplines which  may  aflFect  many  groups,  not 
just  one. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  the  minister  is  going  to  be 
consistent. 

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

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  .supple- 
mentary, will  the  minister's  bill  include  this 
independent  health  disciplines  board  or  will 
that  be  the  subject  of  a  separate  bill?  And  if 
it  does  include  it,  will  it  extend  limitation 
periods  and  will  it  give  the  board  the  power 
either  to  order  rectification  or  award  damages? 

Hod.  Mr.  Miller:  First  of  all,  it  wili  estab- 
lish the  board.  To  answer  the  member's  ques- 
tion, yes  it  will. 

Mr.  Singer:  This  bill  will? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes.  There  are  time  limita- 
tions for  actions  specified  in  the  first  part  of 
the  bill,  the  omnibus  section,  for  action  to  be 
taken.  As  to  the  punitive  e£Fects,  I  would  like 
to  check  them,  but  I  know  that  there  are  some 
measures  in  the  bill  for  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  In  the  min- 
ister's statement  he  said  that  persons  applving 
for  registration  who  have  had  their  applica- 
tions refused'  may  apply  to  the  health  dis- 
ciplines board  for  a  hearing,  but  he  doesn't 
say  whether  the  health  disciplines  board  has 
the  power  to  overrule. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes,  it  would. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions further  to  his  statement. 

Mr.  Roy:  May  I  first  ask  a  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  perhaps  one  more 
would  be  reasonable. 


624 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:  Pursuant  to  the  minister's  state- 
ment, what  is  the  reason  for  introducing  the 
bin,  the  Healtib  Disciplines  Act,  with  only  four 
or  five  professions?  In  his  statement,  on  page 
4,  he  mentions  that  he  wants  to  regulate  and 
co-ordinate  all  these  in  the  public  interest. 
Why  did  he  not  include  all  the  professions, 
physiotherapists  and  people  like  this? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  We  are  intending  to  do 
so.  It  is  an  open-ended  bill.  At  this  point  in 
time  there  is  no  final  determination  of  what 
is  not  a  health  discipline  and  what  is.  When 
the  members  realize  the  amount  of  time  it 
took  to  get  these  five  very  important  health 
disciplines  to  this  point,  I  am  quite  sure  they 
would  not  want  us  to  wait  for  the  next  21 
discipHnes  that  are  already  known  before  we 
had  any  legislation  afi^ecting  any  part  of  the 
health  field. 

Mr.  Shulman:  When  are  the  chiropractors 
coming  in? 


LINEAR  INDUCTION  MOTORS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions. Can  he  assure  the  House,  in  as 
vehement  a  term  as  he  used  in  his  statement, 
that  his  ministry  is  prepared  to  consider 
technology  that  is  already  proved,  like  the 
light  rail  transit  technology-as  an  alternative 
to  magnetic  levitation? 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  Its  the  horse  and  buggy. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  the  minister  is  back  in  voice 
again. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Has  he  dismissed  the 
present  modes  of  technology? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  The  horse  and  buggy. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Nobody  will  ask  the  Minister 
of  Energy  questions  about  energy,  so  he  is 
hollering  about  transportation. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Why  doesn't  he  levitate? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
is  very  fair  to  say  that  the  government  is  pre- 
pared to  look  at  all  types  of  technology.  De- 
spite the  comments  that  have  been  made  by 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  it  has  always 
been  the  intention  that  we  would  use  all 
forms  of  rapid  transit  tied  together  in  one  of 
the  most  integrated  systems  m  all  of  North 
America. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  but  it  is  horse  and  buggy, 
he  savs. 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  We  may  not  go  back  to 
the  horse  and  buggy  that  the  member  is  used' 
to,  but  I  think  we  will  stay  with  what  we 
have. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  would  be  faster 
than  the  minister  is  prepared  to  travel.  I  have 
a  supplementary  for  clarification  and  certain- 
ly for  the  edification  of  those  people  involved 
with  the  surveys  that  are  not  under  the  min- 
ister's control.  Can  the  minister  assure  the 
House  that  the  funds  that  are  predicted  to  be 
available  for  urban  transportation— $1.5  bil- 
lion—could, in  fact,  be  spent  for  light  rail 
transportation  if  the  municipalities  concerned 
opted  for  that  alternative? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  was 
said  in  the  statement,  the  amount  of  money 
that  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  been 
referring  to  is  the  amount  of  money  that  we 
have  said  would  be  committed  to  developing 
a  proper  and  complete  urban  transit  system 
available  to  the  municipalities  of  this  prov- 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Would  it  be  spent  for 
light  rail  transportation?  Did  the  minister 
answer  that? 

Mr.  Givens:  No. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  minister  have 
any  further  answer  to  the  supplementary,  I 
presume  by  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition? 

Mr.  Roy:  Poor  show. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  not,  the  hon.  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  view  of  the  minister's  comments  on  this: 
What  discussions  have  been  held  between 
the  ministry  and  the  regions  of  Ottawa  or 
the  new  municipality  in  Hamilton-Wentworth 
about  alternative  kinds  of  rapid  transit  as 
opposed  to  the  Krauss-Maffei  system? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  really 
can't  answer  that.  Those  discussions  would  be 
going  on  at  the  official  level  through  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Ontario  Transportation  De- 
velopment Corp.  and  I  cannot  answer  as  to 
what  discussions  are  being  held  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  he  the  minister  or  not? 


APRIL  2.  1974 


825 


MAPLE  MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question,  Mr. 
Speaker,  of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism.  Can  he  justify  to  the  House  his 
approach  to  the  business  community  of  the 
province,  on  a  confidential  basis,  for  advice 
on  the  pending  decision  on  Maple  Mountain, 
without  at  least  first  having  tabled  in  this 
House  some  of  the  feasibility  studies  which 
have  now  cost  the  taxpayers  a  quarter  of  a 
million  dollars,  so  that  the  people  concerned 
in  the  Maple  Mountain  area  arnl  the  people 
concerned  in  the  province  who  are  going  to 
pay  for  this— if  in  fact  we  go  forward  with  it 
—can  have  something  to  say  about  the  deci- 
sion? 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well  do  it  then. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Do  so. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well  then  do  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  minister  and  those  in  the 
government,  we  wanted  some  outside  input 
to  the  situations  that  were  being  brought  for- 
ward by  our  consultants- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  an  elected  trans- 
port- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  fine 
for  them  to  sit  on  the  other  side  and  con- 
tinue to  yak.  Let's  look  at  the  situation  very 
frankly  and  honestly— 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Does  the  minister  mean 
they  have  no  rights  at  all? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  about  the  people  in  the 
area  who  have  a  right  to  know? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  looked  to  outside 
organizations  to  give  us  some  indication  as 
to  whether  they  felt  there  was  any  reason  the 
government  should  continue  to  advance  other 
studies  on  the  Maple  Mountain  project,  and 
if  we  came  into  this  House  and  tabled  the 
reports  without  some  background,  the  very 
members  who  are  now  voicing  their  opinions 
on  the  direction  we've  taken  would  have 
expressed  exactly  the  opposite  point  of  view. 
I  do  justify  on  behalf  of  the  government  that 
we  had— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  Mr.  Speaker,  that's  not  so. 
That's  what  we've  asked  the  minister  to  do. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —outside  opinions  ex- 
pressed to  us,  yes. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Would 
not  the  minister  agree  that  every  member  of 
this  House  has  a  responsibility  to  have  an 
opinion  on  this  matter?  Opinions  have  been 
expressed  by  the  member  for  Timiskaming 
urging  that  it  be  accepted  and  in  his  opinion 
that  is  fine.  Why  should  we  either  damn  it 
or  support  it,  when  there  is  no  information 
available  of  the  type  that  is  presently  in  the 
hands  of  the  minister,  a  quarter  of  a  million 
dollars'  worth?  That's  what  we  are  here  for, 
to  assist  in  making  these  decisions. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm  not 
asking  the  opposition  at  this  point  to  either 
support  or  reject  the  plan.  It  is  our  position 
as  government  to  recommend— 

Mr.  Roy:  Try  us  some  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —to  this  House  the 
procedure  or  direction  we  are  going  to  take, 
and  if  this  is  the  way  we  see  best  to  do  it 
those  reports,  as  I  said  to  the  leader  of  the 
NDP  on  one  or  two  occasions,  will  be  tabled 
in  this  House. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  As  a  supplementary,  apart  from 
the  total  contempt  the  minister  shows  for  the 
whole   legislative   process,    for   everybody   in 
this  House- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  shows  contempt  for  the 
whole  process,  because  that's  the  way  he 
operates.  But  leaving  that  aside  for  a  moment, 
how  does  he  justify  the  complete  repudiation 
of  any  public  participation  at  all  in  the 
formulation  of  plans  which  are  intended  to 
aflFect  the  economic  livelihood  and  future  de- 
velopment of  an  entire  region  of  the  province, 
which  he  has  presented  as  an  accomplished 
fact,  and  instead  go  to  his  friends  in  the 
private  business  community?  How  does  he 
justify  that  kind  of  repudiation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker, 
we  value  their  opinion  a  great  deal  more  than 
we  do  the  NDP  in  this   House,  and  if  the 
leader- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Obviously,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  leader  of  the  NDP- 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  used  to  be  the 
same  way  at  city  council  in  Ottawa. 


626 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  That's  very  true,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  always  had  the  encouragement 
of  the  member  for  Wellington  ward,  who 
wasn't  much  better  there  than  he  is  here.  A 
great  deal  worse,  likely. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  get  back  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  NDP  leader— because  obviously  he 
has  a  short  memory;  he  has  asked:  the  ques- 
tion several  times— he  has  placed  the  position 
before  this  House  that  we  are  not  going  to 
allow  for  public  participation. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  He  got  no 
response. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  No 
answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  have  said  very  clearly 
to  him— and  I  will  repeat— the  reports  we  have 
are  preliminary  reports  to  give  us  some  indi- 
cation of  whether  Maple  Mountain  is— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Audio- visual  demonstrations  to 
the  business  community. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  If  the  member  would  sit 
and  hsten  for  a  minute— but  he  yahoos  all  the 
time.  The  NDP  leader  is  not  much  better 
herei  than  he  is  outside  in  Timmins,  so 
he  couldn't  even  read  the  memo. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  You  don't  learn  any- 
thing, Stephen. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  the  minister  going  to  let  the 
same  thing  happen  at  Maplte  Mountain  as 
happened  with  the  Minaki  problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Wait  till  daddy  finds 
out. 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): He  will  wish  Minaki  was  in  his 
riding. 

'Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  So,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  said— and  I  repeat— that  it  is  the  opinion 
of  the  government  that  we  should  proceed 
with  the  project- 
Mr.  Stokes:  Minaki  is  just  a  white  elephant 
and  the  minister  knows  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Jasper  Park  all  over 
again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  have  made  our  posi- 
tion clear  to  the  members  of  this  House  that 
we  will  have  full  pubhc  participation. 


Mr.  Lewis:  After  the  event. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  that's  fine.  You 
see,  the  leader  of  the  NDP  still  misreads  the 
memo,  because  this  government  has  never 
said  that  they  were  advancing.  They  said 
they  had  preliminary  reviews  of  the  situation; 
but  if  the  member  wishes  to— 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  heard  what  the*  minister  said. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —make  his  own  inter- 
pretation he  is  welcome  to  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  yes  I  am. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  That's  right,  because  this 
government  has  not  made  a  positive  position 
in  regard  to  Maple  Mountain  as  to  whether  it 
will  advance  or  not. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  that's  what  we'd  like  to 
know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  That's  correct,  and  the 
member  will  know  in  doie  course— all  in  the 
fullness  of  time. 

Mr.  Stokes:  After  the  fact. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members'. 

An  hon.  member:  Has  he  ever  seen  the 
mountain  at  night? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  will  then,  at  that 
point,  sir,  if  it's  the  decision  the  government 
go  further,  to  make  all  of  the  reports- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —that  we  have  had 
made  available  to  government  made  available 
to  the  public,  and  we  wall  look  for  those 
organizations  across  this  province  that  wish 
to  express  an  opinion  on  a  merger  develop- 
ment. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  this  government  is  too 
arbitrary.  Much  too  arbitrary. 

iHon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  of  course,  practi- 
cally everything  is  arbitrary  when  it's  coming 
from  the  member's  direction- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order. 
The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  intend  to  be  the 
government  and  provide  leadership. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Can  the  minister  then  assure  the 
House,  which  is,  I  suppose,  inherent  in  what 
he  has  said,  that  no  decision  will  be  made 


APRIL  2,  1974 


627 


until  the  facts  are  available  publicly  to  the 
members  of  the  House  and  otherwise;  and 
also  until  public  hearings  have  been  held,  so 
that  the  people  directly  concerned  can  express 
their  views? 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  won't  give  that  assurance. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  give  us  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  said 
in  the  past,  and  I  repeat,  that  the  position  of 
the  government  will  be  made  very  clear  to 
this  House  and  at  that  time  the  reports  that 
we  have  will  be  tabled. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  by  way  of  supple- 
mentary, what  the  minister  is  saying  then,  if 
I  understand  him,  is  that  he  may  well  an- 
nounce a  decision  to  go  ahead— that  is  one  of 
his  options— which  means  game  over.  Then 
he'll  set  up  an  apparatus  for  the  public  to  talk 
about  those  things  that  are  already  accom- 
plished. Does  the  minister  think  that's  an 
appropriate  public  route? 

Mr.  Havrot:  What  is  the  leader  of  the  NDP 
afraid  of? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  like  the  airport. 

Mr.  Roy:  That's  participation,  yes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  that  called  participation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will 
take  the  direction  that  we  think  is  in  the  best 
interest  of  the  province.  I  have  clearly— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  have  clearly  indicated 
there  are  three  options. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Obviously,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  leader  of  the  NDP  wishes  to  accept  only 
one  of  the  three  options.  But  if  he  read  the 
Globe  and  Mail  article  of  this  morning,  he'd 
see  there  are  three  very  clear  options  avail- 
able to  him. 

Interjection   by   an   hon.    member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  understand  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  One  of  those  likely  will 
be  decided  on  this  week  and  this  House  will 
be  informed  of  the  direction  we  are  going  to 
take. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Why  do  we  have  to  read  it 
in  the  Globe?  Why  doesn't  the  minister  tell 
us? 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position? 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarljorough  West, 
a  new  question? 

Interjections   by   hon.   members, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please, 

OIL  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Premier,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Is  the  Premier  aware  that  the  total 
amount  represented  by  a  one-cent-per-gallon 
increase  in  Ontario  for  gasoline,  diesel  and 
heating  fuels  works  out  to  $46.4  millions, 
and  if  the  additional  2Vz  cents  is  placed  by 
the  oil  companies  in  their  price  increases 
within  the  next  month  to  six  weeks,  that 
means  an  additional  $116  million  for  those 
companies;  roughly  $14.50  for  every  man, 
woman  and  child  in  the  province?  And  how, 
in  the  light  of  that,  does  he  refuse  to  inter- 
vene and  say:  "No,  we  will  abide  by  the 
agreement—" 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  He  just 
is  not  concerned. 

Mr.  Lewis:  "—that  I  entered  into  at  the 
premier's  conference,  but  we  will  not  allow 
the  oil  companies  to  increase  it  beyond  that"? 
Why  can  he  not  give  that  commitment? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
we  get  back  to  the  same  discussion,  which 
is  not  just  confined  to  the  question  of  gaso- 
line price,  oil  price  or  any  other  price,  or 
wage  escalation.  The  position  of  the  govern- 
ment is,  I  think,  relatively  clearly  understood, 
and  I  don't  want  to  get  into  any  sort  of 
provocative  statement  here  today. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Laissez-faire. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  it's  fine  for  the  leader 
of  the  New  Democratic  Party  to  come  in 
here  and  talk  about  gasoline  —  we  are  con- 
cerned about  gasoline  price.  Whether  the 
figures  are  accurate  or  inaccurate  is  not  rele- 
vant. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Obviously,  if  the  price 
goes  up  another  penny  per  gallon,  it  means 
one  cent  per  gallon  to  the  consumer  —  no 
question   about   that;    no   argimient. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  At  least,  at 
least. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  As  I  said  yesterday,  our 
calculations  were  on  the   basis   of  the  price 


628 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  a  crude  oil  increase;  it  would  be  roughly 
seven  cents. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Whether  the  gas  com- 
panies will  impose  a  further  price  increase 
related  to  other  costs  time  alone  will  tell. 
I  say  this,  and  I  don't  want  to  be  provoca- 
tive, but  while  we  are  very  interested— far 
more  interested  than  I  sometimes  think  the 
opposition  people  are- 
Interjections    by   hon.    members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —in  curbing  inflation  in 
this  province,  no  provincial  jurisdiction  can 
do  it  in  isolation.  If  the  NDP  is  really  serious 
about  it,  why,  for  Heaven's  sake,  doesn't  the 
party  do  something  about  it  on  a  national 
level?  Because  that's  where  the  problem  has 
to  be  solved— has  to  be. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  We  want  the  same  price  all 
across  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  quite  right. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  But  the  government  doesn't. 

Interjections   by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  I  am  being— some  of  the 
rump  group  is  asking  me  to  be  non-provoca- 
tive which  is  my  nature  anyway  so  I  will 
put  it  as  placidly  as  I  can— what  is  he  say- 
ing as  Premier  of  Ontario?  As  I  hear  him, 
he  is  saying  that  if  the  oil  companies— as 
already  announced  even  by  Donald  Mc- 
Donald in  Ottawa— indicate  that  the  total 
increase  to  the  consumer  will  be  10  cents 
and  the  amount  the  Premier  and  his  Minister 
of  Energy  agreed  to  enter  into  was  seven 
cents  and,  let  us  say,  a  half  cent  more  for 
non-related  costs,  he  is  going  to  allow  them 
that  extra  2%  cents  per  gal,  $116  million 
to  the  consumers  of  Ontario,  without  ever 
once  intervening  to  protect  the  public  in- 
terest because  of  this  peculiar  fetish  he  has 
for  the  free  enterprise  rights  of  big  cor- 
porations. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South): 
Nonsense.  Absolute  nonsense. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr,  Speaker,  once  again 
I  will  try  to  be  very  placid,  as  is  my  nature 
as  well- 
Mr.    MacDonald:    I    vdsh    he    would    be 
active. 


Mr.  Roy:  Let  him  try  for  modesty  for  a 
change. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  is  his  nature,  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  very  modest. 

Mr.    Bullbrook:    He    has    reason   to    be. 

Interjections     by     hon.     members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  agree  with  the  mem- 
ber for  Samia.  I  have  reason  to  be  modest 
but  at  least  I  acknowledge  it.  If  some  of 
the  members  opposite  would  do  the  same 
thing  we'd   be  a  lot  better  off. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  know  the  member  for 
Samia  is  about  ready  to  paraphrase 
Churchill— I  think  he  is  the  wrong  one  to 
start  doing  so;  he  doesn't  quite  have  the 
knack.  However,  getting  back  to  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  don't  steal  anvbody's 
spiel. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:   No,  he  doesn't. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Except  the  Premier's  once 
in  a  while. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  he  has  borrowed 
some  of  mine  on  occasion. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Don't  let  him  get  side- 
tracked. That  means  he  has  no  answer  to 
this  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  I  don't  say  we  have 
no  answer  to  the  problem. 

Mr.   MacDonald:   He  has  no  action. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Except  to  make  the 
general  observation  that  when  one  talks 
about  the  gasoline  price— and  we  are  as 
concerned  as  anyone  about  the  price  of 
gasoline— we  are  also  concerned  about  the 
prices  of  a  lot  of  other  consumer  products. 
If  we  are  going  to  get  into  this— and  per- 
haps we  should  in  the  budget  debate  have 
a  discussion  of— 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  should. 

Hon.     Mr.     Davis:     —what    jurisdiction    a 

province  has  in  the  area- 
Mr.   MacDonald:   No,  the  Premier  doesn't 

need  to  confuse  the  issue. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —of  wage  and  price 
control.  One  can't  divorce  the  one  from 
the  other. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


Interjections  by  Hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  one  can't. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  One  can't  divorce  one 
from  the  other. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Don't  muddy  the  waters.  We 
are   dealing   with   corporate  profits. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  can  be  very  frank.  We  are  not  prepared 
at  this  moment  at  the  provincial  level  to 
get  into  a  programme  of  general  wage  and 
price   controls.    It's   as   simple   as   that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right.  So  he  welcomes  the 
oil  companies.  He  has— 

Mr.  MacDonald:  This  is  calculated  ob- 
fuscation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  What  has  their  national 
leader  been   doing   for   two  months? 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Would  the  Premier 
consider  adjusting  the  gasoline  tax  on  a 
regional  basis  so  that  those  people  who 
would  otherwise  be  hardest  hit,  particu- 
larly in  the  north  and  certain  other  areas, 
would  not  have  to  carry  such  an  unfair 
share  of  the  burden  of  these  increased 
costs  about  which  the  Premier  said  he  can 
do  nothing? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  He  can't  say  he  has  no  juris- 
diction for  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  There  are  two  issues 
here.  One  is  the  overall  cost  of  gasoline, 
diesel  or  heating  fuel  related  to  whatever 
the  wellhead  prices  are  and  whatever  the 
cost  is  of  refining  the  product.  What  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  is  referring  to  is 
the  possibility  of  a  programme  for  equaliza- 
tion of  whatever  that  price  may  be  aroimd 
the  Province  of  Ontario  which  we  have 
discussed  here. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  is  right.  What 
about  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  This  government  is  not 
unsympathetic  but  one  has  to  have  a  de- 
gree of  equity  and  the  problem  of  equaliz- 
ing prices  between  the  various  regions  of 
the  province  is  not  a  simple  issue  to  re- 
solve. 


Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  are  not  opposed 
to  the  concept.  We  have  done  it  in  some 
areas. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  But  he  is  opposed  to 
doing  anything  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  At  the  same  time,  Mr. 
Speaker,  one  can't  artificially  say  the  price 
will  be  less  than  it  is  now  in  northern 
Ontario  without  accepting  the  fact  that 
people  in  southern  Ontario  in  one  way  or 
another,  are  going  to  pay  a  portion  of  that 
equalization. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  the  government  just  con- 
trols the  oil  companies.  That's  not  true. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  What  I  said  is  true.  It's 
the  only  way  one  can  do  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That's  right— and  so  there 


Mr.   Lewis:   If  it  was  not  for  the  NDP—      ^^■ 


Mr.  MacDonald:  The  government  has  done 
it  on  liquor.  Eaton's  and  Simpson's  do  it  all 
the  time,  but  the  government  can't. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  have  been  about  three 
or  four  supplementaries.  I  will  permit  one 
more  supplementary,  and  I  think  it  should 
be  the  turn  of  the  Liberal  Party. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  do  I  gather  from 
the  Premier's  remarks  that  inflation  is  uni- 
versal, that  there  is  nothing  that  can  be  done 
about  it  except  wage  and  price  controls  and 
that  Ontario  will  not  enter  into  w^ge  and 
price  controls  and  that  is  the  end?  Is  nothing 
going  to  be  done  by  the  Province  of  Ontario 
to  help  those  people  on  fixed  incomes  or 
pensions,  other  dian  saying  it  is  universal  and 
we  don't  want  wage  and  price  controls? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  There  wiH  be  a  tax  credit  in 
the  budget. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  think 
I  said  that  at  all.  In  fact,  if  anything,  I  think 
I  may  have  created  the  impression  to  the  con- 
trary. There  are  two  aspects  to  the  problem— 
and  I  don't  want  to  become  an  economist 
again— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  He  never  has  been  one! 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  I  tried  the  other 
day.    One    is    the    question    of   inflation;    the 


630 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


other  is  what  we  can  do  to  ease  the  problem 
of  inflation  as  it  affects  certain  groups  of 
people. 

An  hon.  member:  Right, 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
that  we  have  to  differentiate  between  the  two. 
The  hon.  member  for  Downsview  asked  me 
what  we  can  do  as  a  government  with  respect 
to  the  overall  problem  of  inflation.  I  am 
telling  him  that  we  have  been  doing  some- 
thing, which  the  members  opposite  are  not 
supporting- 
Mr.  Singer:  That's  right.  Throw  your  hands 
up. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:   Order,  please.  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  quote  the  hon. 
member  for  High  Park:  "There  is  no  ques- 
tion that  the  level  of  government  expenditure 
has  an  impact  on  inflation."  But  I  will  say,  as 
I  said  here  the  other  day- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  And  this  goverrmient's  ex- 
penditures have  gone  up  more  than  any  other 
in  the  country. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —that  this  government, 
with  its  programme  of  constraints,  including 
ceilings  on  educational  expenditures,  has  an 
anti-inflationary  approach.  If  the  members 
opposite  weren't  so  hypocritical,  they  would 
support  it. 

An  hon.  member:  And  they  know  it's  true! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  a  good  thing  the  gov- 
ernment members  waken  up  between  3  and 
4  o'clock. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  In  the  choice  between  protec- 
ting the  oil  companies  and  protecting  the 
public,  the  government  chooses  the  oil  com- 
panies. They  have  made  that  choice. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  not  true. 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Stephen,  you  know  it  is 
not  true. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  do  know  it  is  true.  And  don't 
call  me  Stephen,  William. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  You're  lucky  I  don't  call 
you  something  else. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Never  mind.  You  won't  seduce 
me  on  a  first-name  basis,  I'll  tell  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Don't  you  make  comments  on 
David's  bed  partners  when  you  think  of  those 
with  whom  you  consort. 

Mr.    Speaker,   may   I   ask   the   Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  you  may. 


FUEL  COSTS  OF  GREENHOUSE 
GROWERS 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you.  What  is  the  Min- 
ister of  Agriculture  and  Food  going  to  do 
about  protecting  the  greenhouse  growers  in 
southwestern  Ontario  in  particular,  against  the 
increase  in  fuel  prices  that  is  now  imminent 
because  of  the  Texaco  announcement  that  the 
price  of  fuel  for  the  greenhouse  operators 
would  go  to  26  cents  per  gallon,  which  is 
double  what  it  was  in  1972?  Is  there  anything 
that  tha  province  can  do  to  prevent  the 
greenhouse  growers  of  southwestern  Ontario 
spending  up  to  half  their  total  income  on  fuel 
costs? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Well,  in  the  first  place,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  greenhouse  growers  of  western 
Ontario,  as  I  understand  it,  have  been  assured 
there  will  be  no  increase  in  those  fuel  prices 
for  about  a  month. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  they  haven't  been  assured. 
They  hav^en't  been  assured! 


Hon.    Mr.    Stewart: 

assured. 


Well,    we    have   been 


Mr.  Lewis:   Oh,  a  month.  Excuse  me. 
Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  For  a  month. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.  Lewis:  Everybody  is  assured  of  that. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


631 


Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  So  that  means,  as  I'm 
sure  my  hon.  friend  is  well  aware,  that  there 
will  be  very  little  requirement  for  the  use 
of  fuels  for  heating  greenhouses  after  May  1. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Didn't  the  member 
know  that?  Didn't  he  know  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  would  think  he  would 
be  aware  of  it.  Some  behind  him  might  not 
be  aware  of  it,  but  1  am  sure  the  hon. 
member  would  be  aware  of  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  am.  What  about  next  year? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
also  suggest  that  because  of  the  type  and 
variety  of  cucumbers  that  our  greenhouse 
growers  are  growing— and  that  is  really  the 
problem  of  concern  at  this  time— they  are  of 
such  a  type  that  they  command  a  premium 
in  the  market  today  and  are  selling,  not  at 
what  I  would  say  are  exorbitant  prices  at  all 
but  at  prices  I  think  reflect  more  accurately 
the  cost  of  production  and  a  more  reasonable 
return  than  has  ever  been  the  case  before. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  The  NDP 
wants  to  stop  all  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Now  I  don't  think  that 
our  friends  would  want  to  see  them  take 
less  for  their  product.  I  believe  that  it  is 
sufiBciently  rewarding  to  help  oflFset  some  of 
the  admittedly  increased  costs  we  have  to- 
day. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Not  if 
the  minister  lets  the  imports  in. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  yes  and  no. 

An  hon.  member:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  one. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  should  inform  the  hon. 
members  that  I  have  just  received  an  anony- 
mous letter. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  says:  "Mr.  Speaker,  you 
have  lost  control." 

Mr.  Roy:  I  didn't  send  that. 

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

Mr.  Roy:  If  I  might,  Mr.  Speaker— 

An  hon.  member:  Who  introduced  that 
obscene  literature  into  the  House? 


GASOLINE  TRAVEL  ADS 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  ask  a 
question  of  the  Ministry  of  IndvLstry  and 
Tourism:  Some  time  ago  the  mini.stry  had 
an  advertisement  in  the  US,  which  he  had 
to  withdraw  because  of  bad  taste  since  it 
was  taking  advantage  of  their  gas  shortage— 

An  hon.  member:  Question. 

Mr.  Roy:  Would  the  minister  advise  us  if 
he  reprimanded  this  firm  for  giving  the  min- 
istry bad  advice— that  is  the  advertising  firm? 
Secondly,  seeing  the  ministry  had  no  contract 
with  them  in  any  event,  did  he  get  rid  of 
their  services? 

An  hon.  member:  What  is  the  minister 
doing  about  this  matter? 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  minister  not  going  to 
answer  that?  Is  he  going  to  sit  there  and 
suck  his  thumb? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can 
assure  you,  if  I  answered  by  sucking  my 
thumb,  sir,  the  member  who  asked  the  ques- 
tion would  be  right  at  home  because  the 
question  is  just  alDout  that  intelligent.  His 
leader  asked  just  about  the  same  question  on 
Friday  and  if  the  member  for  Ottawa  East 
had  been  present  he  might  have  heard  the 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  No;  it  was  a  different 
thing  and  the  minister  reprimanded  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  said  very  clearly  on 
Friday  that  on  the  advice  of  the  federal 
government  to  us  we  withdrew  the  part  of 
the  ad  that  seemed  to  be  offensive  to  them. 
The  firm  that  gave  us  the  advice,  sir,  was 
oiu-selves,  because  we  believe  that  it  was  in 
the  interest  of  the  province  to  put  this  in- 
formation before  our  friends  coming  to  the 
Province  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  You  could  give  them  both  a 
pacifier,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  have  an  advertising 
agency  that  does  an  excellent  job  for  us. 
They  gave  us  advice  and  we  accepted  it.  We 
sat  down  and  reviewed  it,  and  we  are  still 
of  the  belief  that  it  could  do  some  good  for 
the  Province  of  Ontario.  Now  that  the  petro- 
leum situation  seems  to  have  rectified  itself 
to  some  degree  in  the  United  States,  the  ad 
seems  to  be  well  withdrawn. 

May  I  also  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  as  a 
result  of  the  CBC  and  a  few  others  objecting 


632 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


to  the  advertising,  we  have  now  secured  more 
free  publicity  right  across  this  continent  as  a 
result  of  the  withdrawal;  so  the  advertising 
message  that  we  were  paying  to  put  forward, 
sir,  is  now  being  publicized  as  a  courtesy  of 
the  shareholders  of  the  various  news  medias. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  can  I  ask  just  one 
quick  supplementary? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Has  the  minister  applauded  his 
advertising  agency? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  Could  the  minister  advise  how 
much  money  was  wasted  because  of  this  mis- 
take? 

Hon.  Mr.   Bennett:   None,   Mr.   Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary? 

An  hon.  member:  No,  it  was  a  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  new  question  should  go  to 
the  hon.  member  for  Sandwich-Riverside. 


WIND  ENERGY  SEMINAR 

Mr.  F.  A.  Buri-  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Energy 
about  the  Very  iniportant  serhinar  6n  wind 
energy  which  is  to  be  held  next  month  in 
Quebec:  Has  the  minister  yet  been  able  to 
secure  permission  from  the  Management 
Board  to  leave  the  province  for  a  day,  or 
to  send  some  advisers  or  engineers  to  attend 
this  convention? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  rriinister  is  afraid  he 
may  have  too  much  wind. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  The  matter  has  not 
yet  been  decided. 


MEETING  WITH  PRESS 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Premier:  Could  the  Premier  advise  us 
whether  or  not  the  meeting  planned  on  April 
5  next  with  certain  selected  members  of  the 
press,  which  will  be  a  private  meeting  and 
which  is  described  by  one  McPhee  as  being 
a  frank  and  two-way  discussion  of  problems 
concerning  coverage  of  provincial  government 
activities,  is  really  another  way  of  saying 
that  the  Premier  is  trying  to  manage  the 
news  because  the  papers  haven't  been  too 
kind  to  him  and  his  government. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  is  another  version  of 
"Laugh  In." 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
hon.  member  for  Kitchener  would  know  far 
more  about  that  than  I  would. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  watch  it  every  day. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  sure  he  does  and  if 
he  spent  more  time,  perhaps,  studying  what 
he  should  be  saying  on  the  budget,  he  might 
perhaps  make  a  better  contribution  there 
later  on.  It  will  be  an  interesting  one  for  the 
member  to  tackle. 

Mr.  Singer:  In  the  meantime,  back  to  the 
news. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I  am 
the  last  one  who  can  be  accused  of  ever  at- 
tempting to  manage   the   news. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  think  that  is  right,  if  he  does 
try  he  does  very  badly  at  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  make  the  effort, 
unlike  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party.  I  make  no  effort  in  that  at  all. 

I  would  say  that  I  am  looking  forward  to 
discussion  with  the  managing  editors  of  a 
number  of  newspapers.  It  has  been  suggested 
by  two  or  three  of  them  that  it  would  make 
sense,  and  I  expect  that  I  will  learn'  some- 
thing from   that  particular  meeting. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  This  is  an  effort  to  repair 
the  image  of  the  government,  and  it  desper- 
ately needs  it. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary,  does 
the  Premier  not  think  that  he  should  have  a 
little  chat  with  James  McPhee  and  tell  him 
that  if  he  is  giving  interviews  they  should 
appear  a  little  less  damaging  and  not  give 
the  appearance  that  the  government  is  trying 
to  manage  the  news? 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrell  (Minister  Without 
Portfolio):  The  member's  question  is  quite 
irrelevant. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  in 
a  position  to  comment  on  any  interviews 
given  by  Mr.  McPhee.  In  my  humble  opinion 
he  has  given  no  interview  that  is  at  all  dam- 
aging to  anyone. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  certainly  damaging  over 
there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  not  at  all. 

Mr  Speaker:  The  hon  member  for  York- 
view. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  he  on  the  Premier's  personal 
staff? 


APRIL  2,  1974 


633 


Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  really  don't  know 
what  the  relevance  is  of  the  question. 

Mr.  Singer:  That's  what  the  Premier  hired 
him  for. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  great  new  wave! 

Mr  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  What  did  the  member's 
party  hire  Phil  Ross  for? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please! 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

OIL  PRICES 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Speaker,  if 
I  could  direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of 
Energ)',  I'm  sure  he  and  I  could  discuss  in  a 
quiet,  reasonable  way  one  phase  of  this  energy 
problem. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister,  in  view  of 
certain  rumours  that  oil  companies  have  very 
large  stocks  of  heating  oil  now  in  inventory 
which  might  take  them  through  the  next  six 
months  or  so,  is  he  planning  to  acquire  from 
the  oil  companies  a  list  of  their  inventories, 
which  \\ill  be  used  in  the  Province  of  Ontario, 
so  that  he  might  think  in  terms  of  how  the 
increasing  value  of  those  inventories  might  be 
applied  to  the  benefit  of  the  people  rather 
than  of  the  corporations? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
stocks  of  heating  oil  are  high  because  they 
were  not  used  this  winter  because  we  had 
such  a  mild  winter.  But  I  doubt  very  much- 
Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston  (St.  Catharines):  The 
sun  shines  on  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —if  there's  anything 
like  six  months'  stock.  There  simply  isn't.  I 
think  that's  one  of  the  problems  with  the 
industry  and  I  don't  know  the  solution  to  the 
problem.  There  aren't  storage  facilities.  The 
time  from  wellhead  to  either  the  automobile 
tank  or  to  the  consumer's  heating  oil  tank  is 
something  in  the  neighbourhood  of  45  to  60 
days— 45  on  the  average.  If  somebody  did  go 
out  to  buy  heating  oil  today,  Lord  knows 
where  they  would  store  it,  there  simply  isn't 
that  kind  of  storage. 

Storage  is  very  expensive,  very  diflScult  to 
build  and  is  normally  considered,  I  think,  to 
be  poor  economics  and  counterproductive. 
Ideall)-,  you  get  it  from  the  wellhead  through 
the   refinery   to   the   consumer   as   quickly   as 


you  can.  There  simply  isn't  that  kind  of  stor- 
age available.  This  may  well  manifest  itself 
in  some  marginal  shortages,  although  we're 
hopeful  there  won't  be  gasoline  snortages. 
They  will  be  marginal  shortages,  if  any,  and 
perhaps  there  will  be  none  this  spring,  be- 
cause heating  oil  was  carried  on  for  a  longer 
period  and  is  in  storage  and  wasn't  used. 

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

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  have  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  if  the  hon.  members 
would  say  supplementary  so  that  I  could  hear 
it,  then  we  would  recognize  them. 

Mr.  Singer:  Let  the  member  for  York  South 
speak  up.  He  hasn't  had  enough  experience 
around  here! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Is  the  minister  in  a  posi- 
tion to  give  us  an  independent  assessment  of 
reserves  in  this  instance  and  othervdse,  instead 
of  accepting  the  self-serving  provision  of 
statistics  which  has  characterized  the  petro- 
leum industry  down  through  the  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  no,  I 
am  not.  I  am  prepared  to  accept— not  the  self- 
serving  interest-but  the  views  put  forward 
from  time  to  time  and  the  statistics  gathered 
and  evaluated  by  some  300  or  400  people  at 
the  National  Energy  Board  who  are  in  that 
business  and  who  interpret  the  statistics. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Don't  they  get  them  from 

the  oil  companies? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  We  have  no  inten- 
tion of  duplicating  that  kind  of  information 
gathering  or  statistics  analysis  in  this  province 
or  in  my  ministry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well- 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  recognize  that  the 
hon.  member  would  like  to  expand  the 
bureaucracy  and  have  information  directors 
everywhere. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Supplementary  question: 
Does  the  Energy  Board  in  Ottawa,  whose  ser- 
vices the  minister  is  willing  to  accept,  get 
their  statistics  by  their  own  analysis  and  their 
own  investigation,  or  do  they  accept  those  of 
the  industry? 


634 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Laughren:  Never  mind  the  red  her- 
rings. 

Hon.    Mr.    McKeough:    The   hon.    member 
would  employ,  I  suppose,  the  RCMP  and  go 
out  and  search  everybody  and  collect  statis- 
tics- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  Answer  my  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —because  he  doesn't 
believe  anything  except  what  he  wants  to 
believe.  Well,  we're  not  built  that  way  over 
here. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  won't  answer  my  ques- 
tion because  the  minister  knows  they  get 
them  from  the  industry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  since  the  minister  is  the 
Minister  of  Energy  and  has  all  of  these 
figures,  how  would  he  like  to  tell  the  House 
what  the  current  inventory  of  home  heating 
fuel  is  in  the  Province  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  don't  have  those 
figures  with  me,  Mr.  Speaker.  They  are  avails 
able. 

Mt.  Lewis:  Where? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  They're  available 
from  the  National  Energy  Board  and  we  are 
led  to  believe  that  the  country  presently  is 
in  good  shape. 

Mr.  Lewis:  This  is  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Perhaps  the  hon. 
member  would  be  perceptive  enough  to  real- 
ize that  we've  had  a  mild  winter. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Let  the  minister  get  the 
figures. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon,  member  for  York- 
view. 

Mr.  Young:  A  final  supplementary:  Could 
I  ask  the  minister  if  he  will  table  those 
figures  in  this  House  within  the  next  couple 
of  days? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  inventory  figures. 

Mr.  Young:   The  inventory  figures. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  We'll  try  and  get 
them  for  the  member,  yes, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Now,  the  hon,  member  for 
York  Centre. 


COMMUTER  TICKET 
INTERCHANGEABILITY 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Transportation  and  Communications. 
In  order  to  make  better  use  of  an  already 
proven  mode  of  public  transportation  by  in- 
creasing its  flexibility,  will  the  minister  in- 
struct GO  Transit  to  arrange  for  the 
interchangeability  of  commuter  tickets  on 
common  routes  with  CN  and  CP  so  that  com- 
muters can  either  use  the  trains  or  the  GO 
buses  with  their  monthly  commuter  passes? 

An  hon.  member:  Good  point. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  we'll  have 
to  look  into  that  proposal.  I'll  be  glad  to 
receive  it  from  him. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  doesn't  understand 
the  question. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  supplementary:  Will  the 
minister  arrange  to  confer  with  the  chairman 
of  the  railway  transport  committee,  who  is 
very  anxious  that  this  type  of  interchange- 
ability  be  brought  about? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes :  The  oflBce  is  always  open 
to  meet  with  anybody  who  would  like  to  meet 
with  us.  My  door  is  open. 

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


INFORMATION  SERVICES  FUNDING 

'Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services.  Is  the  minister  aware  that  the  fund- 
ing for  information  services  expired  at  the 
end  of  March?  Notwithstanding  the  state- 
ment of  his  colleague  the  provincial  secretary, 
is  the  minister  prepared  to  say  categorically 
that  he  will,  or  will  not,  continue  to  fund 
information  services  groups  across  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario?  If  he's  not  going  to,  how 
does  he  propose  that  this  very  valuable  service 
be  continued  in  areas  like  Hamilton? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr,  Speaker,  we  have 
been  funding  somewhere  around  15  informa- 
tion services  on  an  interim  basis.  If  the  hon. 
member  will  give  me  the  names  of  those  that 
he's  inquiring  about  we  will  be  pleased  to 
look  into  it, 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  the 
interim  financing  ended  at  the  end  of  March? 
That  was  the  day  before  yesterday. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


635 


Is  the  minister  aware  that  in  spite  of  the 
best  e£Forts  of  the  group  involved  in  the 
Hamilton  area  to  get  information  with  regard 
to  either  further  interim  or  permanent  finan- 
cing, they  have  come  against  a  brick  wall? 
And  is  ths  minister  aware  that  their  service 
will  be  discontinued  as  of  the  end  of  this 
month  unless  there  is  a  clear  indication  from 
the  government  of  its  intention? 

Lastly,  is  the  minister  aware  that  he  has 
been  procrastinating  on  financing  in  this  field 
for  the  last  three  years  and  it's  time  to  make 
it  clear  where  he  stands  with  regard  to  in- 
formation services  across  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  our  policy 
will  be  announced  in  due  course. 

Mr.  Deans:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Deans:  —what  is  the  purpose  of  due 
course?  How  do  they  carry  on  beyond  the 
end  of  April? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  There  are  just 
a  very  few  moments  left.  Two  or  three  of  the 
other  members  would  like  to  get  a  question 
in.  Perhaps  we  could  restrain  the  supplemen- 
taries. 

Mr.  Deans:  How  does  that  help? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lanark. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  money  has  run  out. 

CROP  INSURANCE 

Mr.  D.  J.  Wiseman  ( Lanark ) :  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food.  Is  it  true,  as  I  have  heard, 
that  the  crop  insurance  people  are  considering 
dropping  the  planting  date  in  eastern  Ontario 
or  across  the  province  and,  if  so,  when  will 
our  farmers  know  about  it  and  by  what 
media? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  will  have  to  take  the 
question  as  notice,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  haven't 
heard  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  the  Solicitor  Gen- 
eral has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously. 


ALLEGED  MAFIA  ACTIVITIES 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  on  Friday,  March  29  last,  the  mem- 
ber for  High  Park  asked  a  two-part  question 


concerning  the  Ministry  of  the  Solicitor  Gen- 
eral's co-operation  witn  American  police  au- 
thorities in  the  investigation  of  the  death  of 
one  Harvey  Leach  in  Michigan  and  the  steps 
being  taken  concerning  any  problem  of  the 
washing,  or  laundering  of  criminal  funds  in 
Toronto. 

The  Ontario  Provincial  Police  were  asked 
by  the  Southfield,  Mich.,  police  department 
for  assistance  in  investigating  the  death  of 
Harvey  Leach  in  Southfield.  Investigation 
continues  and  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police 
will  continue  to  co-operate  as  they  always  do 
in  such  cases. 

The  washing,  or  laundering  of  funds  does 
occur  in  Toronto.  What  this  expression  means, 
simply  put,  is  that  money  is  transferred  from 
one  point  to  another  in  order  to  hide  the 
identity  of  its  source.  This  could  be  from 
one  province  to  another  or  from  one  country 
to  another.  It  is  sometimes  simply  from  one 
business  or  account  to  another.  The  term 
laundering  is  used  when  the  transfers  are 
made  to  hide  a  criminal  source  of  the  funds. 
However,  such  transfers  are  sometimes  made 
for  the  purpose  of  evading  taxes  on  funds 
earned  from  quite  legitimate  businesses  or,  on 
occasion,  such  transfers  are  made  to  conceal 
business  information  for  competitive  reasons. 

Toronto  is  a  sophisticated  financial  market 
of  international  scale.  For  this  reason  it  is  an 
attractive  place  for  persons  wishing  to  make 
such  financial  transfers.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  laundering  transaction  itself 
is  not  illegal.  Generally  speaking,  it  is  im- 
possible to  identify  organized  crime  money 
which  may  be  washed  or  laundered  in  Can- 
ada and  then  returned  to  the  United  States 
as  clean  money  or  invested  in  legitimate  Ca- 
nadian or  foreign  enterprises. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  cash  or 
bank  funds  are,  by  their  nature,  anonymous  in 
themselves.  To  trace  a  laundering  operation 
we  must  first  identify  the  source  of  the  funds 
and  then  prove  that  this  money  represented 
the  proceeds  of  criminal  activity.  We  may 
well  be  suspicious  of  a  particular  financial 
transaction  but  to  prove  that  the  funds  in- 
volved were  the  proceeds  of  an  illegal  activity 
is  extremely  difficult,  indeed  almost  impossible. 

Mr.  Singer:  Who  wrote  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Presumably  if  the  crim- 
inal activity  which  yielded  the  revenue  were 
clearly  identifiable  the  appropriate  authori- 
ties in  the  jurisdiction  involved  would  have 
ended  the  operation,  making  the  subsequent 
laundering  and  financial  transaction  impos- 
sible. 


636 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:  Are  they  still  washing  by  hand? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  As  members  know  the 
OPP  and  other  law  enforcement  agencies 
continuously  investigate  suspicious  activities 
of  this  kind  where  an  illegal  activity  can  be 
positively  identified  as  such. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  the  trouble. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  appropriate  charges 
are  laid  and  the  matter  is  dealt  with  in  the 
courts. 

Mr.  Shulman:  One  brief  supplementary, 
Mr,  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  about  30  seconds 
remaining. 

Mr.  Shulman:  If  it  is  true,  as  the  minister 
says,  that  laundering  of  illegal  money  is  not 
illegal  in  this  province  would  he  consider 
bringing  in  legislation  to  make  it  illegal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  If  the  hon.  member  would 
consider  drafting  legislation  of  that  kind  I 
would  be  happy  to  consider  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  was  a  short  30  seconds. 
I'll  permit  the  hon.  member  for  Waterloo 
North. 


HOUSING  COSTS 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Premier.  Would 
the  Premier  comment  on  the  statement  by  Mr. 
Shabera  on  W5  Sunday  night,  who  stated  that 
if  there  were  10,000  serviced  building  lots 
available  in  Metro  Toronto  it  would  bring 
the  price  of  lots  down  by  $10,000  to  $25,000? 
What  is  he  going  to  do?  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  this  opinion  is  held  by  many  people 
across  the  Province  of  Ontario  what  is  he 
going  to  do  to  provide  more  serviced  building 
lots  in  the  areas  of  the  province  where  there 
is  an  emergency  situation?  In  case  I  don't  get 
my  supplementary  in,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  it: 
Mr.  Shabera  stated  that  friends  of  the  gov- 
ernment- 
Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  not  a  question. 

Mr.  Good:  —and  supporters  of  the  govern- 
ment would  not  allow  this  to  happen.  Does 
the  Premier  agree  that  friends  and  supporters 
of  the  government  would  not  allow  this  to 
happen  because  the  values  of  buildings  would 
go  down  below  the  mortgages  presently  on 
them? 

Mr,  Speaker:  This  will  have  to  be  a 
short  answer. 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  that  I 
didn't  have  the  pleasure  of  seeing  Mr. 
Shabera  and  really  am  only  familiar  with 
what  the  hon.  member  has  said  here,  I  will 
read  very  carefully  what  he  has  said.  I 
don't  want  to  presume  to  extend  the  ques- 
tion period  and  I  or  the  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing (Mr.  Handleman)  perhaps  will  have  a 
fairly  lengthy  answer  for  him  on  Thursday. 

Mr.  Roy:  Does  the  government  have  any 
friends  left? 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  completes  the  question 
period. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  find  out  how  many. 

Mr.   Roy:   I  look  forward  to  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Mr.  Morrow  from  the  standing  procedural 
affairs  committee,  presented  the  committee's 
report  which  was  read  as  follows  and 
adopted: 

Your  committee  has  carefully  examined 
the  following  applications  for  private  Acts 
and  finds  the  notices,  as  published  in  each 
case,  sufficient. 

Waterloo- Wellington  Airport; 

City  of  Chatham; 

Savings  and  Investment  Trust; 

Lake  of  the  Woods  District  Hospital; 

Town  of  Oakville; 

Presbyterian    Church    Building    Corp.; 

City  of  Windsor; 

City  of  Toronto  (No.  2); 

City  of  London. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 
Introduction  of  bills. 

TOWN  OF  STRATHROY  ACT 

Mr.  Eaton  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  the  Town  of 
Strathroy. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the 
bill. 

HEALTH  DISCIPLINES  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled,  the  Health  Disciplines  Act, 
1974. 


Motion    agreed    to;    first    reading    of    the 


bill. 


APRIL  2.  1974 


637 


BOROUGH  OF  NORTH  YORK  ACT 

Mr.  Bales  moves  first  reading  of  bUl 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  the  Borough 
of  North  York. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the 
bill. 


VICTORIA  HOSPITAL  CORP.  AND 

THE  WAR  MEMORIAL  CHILDREN'S 

HOSPITAL  OF  WESTERN 

ONTARIO  ACT 

Mr.  Walker  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  respecting  Victoria  Hos- 
pital Corp.  and  the  War  Memorial  Chil- 
dren's   Hospital    of    Western    Ontario. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the 
bill. 


DOMINION  CARTAGE  LTD.  AND 

DOWNTOWN  STORAGE  CO.  LTD. 

ACT 

Mr.  MacBeth  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  respecting  Dominion  Cart- 
age Ltd.  and  Downtown  Storage  Co.  Ltd. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the 
bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 


REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

In  the  absence  of  Hon.  Mr.  White  Hon. 
Mr.  Irvine,  moves  second  reading  of  Bill 
13,  the  Regional  Municipalities  Amendment 
Act,  1974. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  bill  deals  with  many  of  the 
regional  governments  and  it  is  legislation  that 
should  have  been  put  into  the  regional  gov- 
ernment bills,  which  I  presume  was  over- 
looked and  forgotten,  and  consequentiy  I  will 
just  deal  with  it  generally,  taking  tJhem  aU 
together  rather  than  individually. 

As  you  are  aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  when'  a 
municipality  passes  certain  bylaws,  approval 
of  those  bylaws  is  required  from  some  external 
body,  a  minister  of  the  Crown  or  a  provincial 
ministry,  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board,  or  a 
provincial  body  or  agency.  In  some  instances, 
during  the  process   of  waiting  for  approval 


from  the  external  body  these  municipalities 
have  ceased  to  exist  and  have  become  part  of 
a  regional  government. 

I  suppose,  then,  that  when  the  regional 
government  has  been  formed,  provision  to 
allow  these  procedures  to  continue  had  not 
been  made  previously  and  the  amendments  to 
these  various  regional  governments  will  permit 
this  to  happen.  So  we  would  find  that  if  a 
municipality  had  passed  a  zoning  bylaw 
which  required  approval  of  the  ministry,  and 
during  that  approval  stage  that  municipality 
went  into  a  regional  government  and  ceased 
to  exist  in  its  present  form  or  continued  to 
exist  in  an  alternate  area  government  form 
within  the  regional  government,  the  bylaw 
would  not  legally  apply  to  the  new  govern- 
ment, because  it  probably  would  have  been 
made  out  in  a  different  municipahty's  name 
and  would  not  become  legal  when  it  was 
given  approval  by  the  external  body. 

This  amendment,  Mr.  Speaker,  will  allow 
the  same  bylaws  that  were  awaiting  approval 
by  the  external  body  to  become  law  in  the 
new  jurisdiction  in  which  that  municipality 
finds  itself  after  the  coming  in  of  regional 
government.  There  is  one  interesting  case  in 
existence  which  this  legislation  pertains  to 
very  vividly.  If  you  will  remember,  Mr. 
Speaker,  Metropolitan  Toronto  had  purchased 
a  considerable  amount  of  land  in  Pickering 
township— 600  acres  originally,  and  eventual^ 
about  1,300  acres— and  had  applied  for  zoning 
changes  on  the  land  and  had  also  applied  to 
the  Ministry  of  the  Enviroimient  for  a  licence 
to  establish  a  landfill  site  in  this  particular 
area. 

The  OMB  hearing  on  the  zoning  change 
started  and  stopped  because  of  the  fact  that 
the  OMB  realized  that  what  was  their  use  of 
allowing  the  zone  change  when  at  that  point 
in  time  there  had  not  been  an  Enviroimiental 
Hearing  Board  decision  on  the  establishment 
of  the  landfill  site;  neither  had  there  been,  of 
course,  a  licence  issued  by  the  Ministry  of 
the  Enviroimient.  So  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Board  proceeding  stopped  some  time  last  year 
and  as  yet  has  not  been  proceeded  with,  be- 
cause of  die  fact  that  the  minister's  decision 
for  licensing  tfiat  particular  area  has  not  been 
made. 

The  Environmental  Hearing  Board  in  that 
particular  case  did  recommend  to  the  minister 
that  certain  portions  of  the  1,300  acres,  that 
is,  the  southerly  portion  known  as  the— I  am 
sorry,  I  have  forgotten  the  name-the  southern 
part  of  the  part  that  was  asked  for,  has  been 
recommended  to  get  a  licence.  So  in  the 
meantime,  if  the  minister  does  decide  to 
license  that  area,  there  vill  still  have  to  be 


638 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  OMB  hearing  to  decide  whether  the  land 
should  be  rezoned  for  landfill  sites.  So  I  can 
see  that  this  legislation  is  of  utmost  import- 
ance to  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  area  in 
order  to  get  their  landfill  sites  completed. 

We  in  this  party  have  very  definite  views 
on  this.  And  while  we  support  the  passage 
of  this  legislation,  which  wall  allow  these  by- 
laws to  continue  through  their  normal  pro- 
cess for  approval  by  an  external  body,  we 
want  to  go  on  record  once  again  as  support- 
ing the  position  that  only  enough  land  should 
be  permitted  to  be  developed  for  landfill  sites 
that  will  tide  Metropolitan  Toronto  over  until 
there  is  a  more  satisfactory  solution  to  the 
subject,  which  of  course  is  reclamation  and 
recycling  and  the  use  of  garbage  for  steam. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  will  support  the  amend- 
ments on  that  basis,  hoping  that  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  will  act  prudently  when 
he  is  permitted  by  this  legislation  to  issue  a 
licence  and  that  the  OMB  will  also  act 
prudently  when  they  decide  whether  or  not 
to  allow  the  rezoning  bylaws  to  proceed  in 
Pickering  tovwiship. 

Mr.    Speaker:    The    member    for    Ottawa 

Centre. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  I  just  have 
a  couple  of  comments  about  the  bill,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

We  are  going  to  support  the  bill  as  well.  I 
think  that  when  the  various  regional  mimic- 
ipalities  were  legislated  into  existence,  what- 
ever our  feelings  about  those  particular  bills 
in  general,  we  had  always  assumed  that  any 
bylaws  from  the  preceding  municipalities  that 
were  dissolved  or  whose  boundaries  were 
changed  by  legislation  would  automaticdly 
continue  and  that  the  same  would  be  true 
for  any  proceedings  that  were  currently  imder 
way  before  various  boards,  commissions, 
agencies  or  ministries  of  the  government. 

Effectively,  as  the  member  for  Waterloo 
North  has  indicated,  the  purpose  of  this  bill 
is  simply  to  permit  Pickering's  application 
before  the  OMB  for  the  garbage  site,  which 
Metro  Toronto  wants  to  go  forward,  after 
the  restructuring  of  Pickering  in  the  new  re- 
gional municipality  of  Durham.  If  you  will 
permit  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want  to  make 
one  or  two  comments  about  that,  because 
while  we  support  this  and  we  feel  that  what- 
ever the  merits  of  Pickering  township's  deci- 
sion, they  have  made  their  decision,  it  has 
been  approved  now  by  the  Environmental 
Hearing  Board  and  should  go  forward. 

I  think  that  the  incentives  that  are  still 
available  to  large  municipalities  like  Metro 
Toronto    and,    for    that    matter,    the    regional 


municipality  of  Ottawa-Carleton,  to  go  dash- 
ing across  the  countryside  looking  for  land- 
fill sites  out  in  the  surrounding  rural  areas, 
are   still  tremendously  high. 

A  few  years  ago  it  was  simply  a  matter  of 
going  and  finding  a  site,  talking  to  a  local 
reeve  or  two  and  then  going  ahead  with  the 
plan.  More  recently  it  has  also  been  a  matter 
of  persuading  the  Environmental  Hearing 
Board  and  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
that  it  was  all  right.  But  that  is  all. 

For  example,  when  the  CPR  went  dashing 
around  looking  for  another  site  for  Metro 
Toronto,  we  saw  that  there  was  no  real  gain 
for  the  local  township  involved,  apart  from 
very  small  amounts  of  taxes  and  so  on.  In 
fact,  therefore,  the  economic  system  is  not 
working  effectively  to  encourage  municipali- 
ties like  Toronto  to  do  what  they  should, 
which  is  to  process  their  landfill  themselves, 
as  the  city  of  Toronto  has  recently  proposed. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  am  saying,  in  other 
words,  is  that  for  a  party  and  a  government 
that  believe  in  using  the  market,  there  may 
be  an  instance  here  where,  they  could  use- 
fully—and vidth  the  agreement  of  this  party- 
find  some  application  of  the  market  system. 

If  Metro  Toronto  had  to  pay  Pickering,  in 
addition  to  the  costs  of  the  applications  to 
the  OMB  and  the  Environmental  Hearing 
Board— if  it  had  to  pay  Pickering  not  just  the 
cost  of  the  land  plus  some  local  taxes  at  a 
very  low  rate,  but  if  there  was  in  effect  a 
royalty  on  garbage  that  was  taken  out  of 
Metro  Toronto's  boundaries,  one  can  imagine 
that  there  would  be  a  tremendously  increased 
incentive  to  Metro  Toronto  to  accelerate  its 
experiments  and  projects  in  order  to  process 
and  deal  with  and  dispose  of  and  recycle  its 
garbage  within  Metro  Toronto's  boundaries 
rather  than  taking  it  ouside.  There  would 
be  a  greater  incentive  to  find  landfill  sites 
which  could  be  used  within  the  boundaries 
of  Metro  Toronto  rather  than  taking  the 
garbage  outside. 

However,  Mr.  Speaker,  right  now  there  is 
not  that  incentive.  Therefore,  since  nobody 
particularly  wants  the  garbage,  what  happens 
is  that  these  municipalities  simply  continue 
to  look  wherever  there  is  the  least  resistance 
—in  a  local  neighbouring  municipality,  some 
township,  or  some  sparsely  populated  area. 
I  think  there  even  was  the  suggestion  once 
that  the  garbage  be  put  on  a  train  and  be 
sent  up  to  northern  Ontario,  and  since  north- 
ern Ontario  had  been  getting  the  garbage 
from  Toronto  for  many,  many  years  why  that 
was  nothing  new  to  them. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it  would  be  useful 
if    the    ministry    would    indicate    what   other 


APRIL  2,  1974 


639 


applications  there  are  for  this  particular  bill 
besides  the  application  that  has  been  men- 
tioned already,  which  is  these  garbage  appli- 
cations in  Pickering  township.  That  would 
be  useful  when  we  get  to  that  part  of  the 
debate. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  memlx^r  for  Ottawa 
East. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Just  one  brief 
question  to  the  minister,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  no- 
ticed in  a  cursory  review  of  the  bill  that  the 
region  of  Niagara  is  not  included  in  this  bill. 
Could  the  minister  give  some  explanation  as 
to  why  that  is  the  case? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Any  further  members  wish 
to  speak  to  this  bill? 

Mr.  J.  R.  fireithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  just  like  to  inquire  of  the 
minister  who  is  bringing  the  bill  forward 
if  he  is  able  to  give  us  some  additional 
examples  of  other  particular  areas  of  legis- 
lation that  are  involved  beyond  those  of  the 
landfill  sites,  which  I  think  are  the  most 
particular  items  that  are  being  stressed  un- 
der this  legislation.  I  presume  there  were 
other  areas— and  they  could  be,  indeed,  very 
broad  and  general— in  which  certain  munici- 
palities may  have  had  bylaws  under  way 
but  which  were  cut  off  at  the  time  of  the 
amalgamation  into  regional  municipalities. 
I  realize,  of  course,  that  the  landfill  sites 
are  the  greatest  particular  area,  but  I  am 
just  asking  the  minister,  really,  since  there 
is  no  real  principle  otherwise  to  be  debated, 
if  he  can  advise  us  of  any  other  particular 
concerns  that  this  bill  is  intending  to 
remedy? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Any  other  hon.  members 
wish  to  speak  to  this  bill? 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Ob- 
viously the  principle  of  this  bill  will  receive 
support  from  around  the  Legislature.  It  was 
prompted,  I  think— spawoied,  I  think— by 
the  confusion  in  a  number  of  regional  mu- 
nicipalities, but  particularly  triggered  by 
the  landfill  reference  that  has  already  been 
made. 

What  is  implicit  in  this  is  the  irony  that 
the  passage  of  this  bill  to  give  effect  to 
the  bylaws  that  existed  prior  to  regional 
government  may  well  result  in  the  Ontario 
Municipal  Board  hearing  the  application 
for  the  Pickering  site  and  then  approving 
that  application,  since  the  Environmental 
Hearing  Board  has  already  approved  it 
and  since  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
has   given   it  its   certificate  of  approval.   So, 


Mr.  Speaker,  in  coming  before  the  Legis- 
lature this  bill  should  have  some  kind  of 
ministerial  guarantee  that  the  immediate 
use  of  the  bill  will  not  be  to  turn  more  of 
Pickering  into  a  major  sanitary  landfill 
operation. 

That  is  the  paradox  of  this  legislation. 
Inherently  it  makes  sense.  Paradoxically  its 
initial  use  will  be  to  take  1,300  acres  of 
land  in  Pickering  township  and  try  to  turn 
them  into  a  sanitary  landfill  area. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  hon.  members  know, 
the  so-called  Liverpool  site  has  been  aflfirm- 
ed  without  qualification  by  the  Environ- 
mental Hearing  Board.  The  Brock  south 
and  Brock  north  sites  have  been  approved 
with  certain  technical  qualifications,  and 
Brock  north  is  partly  contingent  on  the 
question  of  the  airport  and  the  efiFect  that 
birds  around  the  Brock  north  site  may  have. 
But  the  Liverpool  site  itself  will  provide 
enough  sanitary  landfill  disposal  for  the 
Metropolitan  Toronto  area  for  the  next  three 
to  five  years. 

So  it  would  really  come  back  as  a  piece 
of  irony  were  this  bill  to  be  passed  in  the 
House,  given  royal  assent,  and  then  rushed 
into  use  to  provide  OMB  approval  for 
Brock  south  and  Brock  north  and  do  exactly 
what  every  member  of  the  government 
alleges  he  doesn't  want  to  do,  which  is 
to  deter  the  development  of  recycling  and 
reclamation  by  encouraging  sanitary  land- 
fill in  Pickering  township. 

I  say  to  the  minister  responsible— and  he 
will  say  to  me  it  is  not  his  authority,  I  sup- 
pose—in his  reply,  since  we  talk  enough 
about  generalities  in  this  House,  he  might 
talk  about  the  specific  reality  of  how  this 
bill  will  be  used  immediately,  and  give 
some  kind  of  understanding  to  the  Legis- 
lature that  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment (Mr.  W.  Newman)  or  the  cabinet  will 
step  in  to  prevent  Pickering  township  from 
becoming  a  sophisticated  garbage  landfill 
area  and  to  prevent  it  from  being  turned 
over  to  that  kind  of  usage  and  to  allow  no 
more  than  the  Liverpool  site  to  be  thus  ex- 
ploited. It  is  a  small  matter  perhaps  but 
absolutely  central  to  the  question  of  social 
priorities  in  Ontario  about  recycling, 
reclamation,  recovery  of  energy-producing 
goods  and  services.  I  think  that's  probably 
a  legitimate  fact  to  introduce  on  second 
reading  in  principle.  I  do  so  in  the  hc^>e 
that  the  minister  may  carry  it  back  to  some 
of  his  colleagues  and  perhaps  make  com- 
ment on  it  himself. 


640 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  any  further 
speakers  to  this  bill?  If  not,  the  hon.  min- 
ister. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  the  intent  of  the  bill, 
as  was  stated  previously,  is  to  proceed  with 
any  bylaws  which  haven't  obtained  approval. 
We  didn't  specifically  leave  out  Niagara.  We 
felt  Niagara  was  covered  by  the  Act  we 
have  now  in  force;  we  also  felt  that  the 
regional  bills  covered  the  intent  of  this 
particular  amendment  at  the  present  time. 

However,  some  of  the  regions  we  have 
recently  created  have  been  in  the  process  of 
some  discussions  with  solicitors  as  to  the  legal 
intent  of  the  regional  Acts.  What  we  are 
doing  by  way  of  this  legislation  is  supplemen- 
ting the  regional  Acts  and  not  in  any  way 
whatsoever  applying  it  only  to  the  regional 
municipality  of  Durham  or  to  Pickering  town- 
ship, as  has  been  mentioned  by  a  couple  of 
the  hon.  members.  This  is  to  apply  to  all  by- 
laws which  had  been  processed  up  to  a 
certain  point  but  hadn't  received  final  ap- 
proval, as  the  member  for  Waterloo  North 
said.  I  think  he  has  interpreted  it  quite 
correctly;  we  feel  that  the  area  municipalities 
must  have  this  authority.  We  felt  they  did 
have  it. 

However,  we  are  bringing  this  forth  so  as 
not  to  have  the  cost  of  having  the  bills  de- 
bated in  court.  We  feel  it  is  in  the  best 
interests  not  only  of  the  people  in  the  area 
but  also  of  all  solicitors  to  make  sure  there 
isn't  any  doubt  as  to  why  and  how  the 
regions  may  proceed  with  bylaws. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  this  bill  be  ordered  for 
third  reading? 

Agreed. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  second  order,  re- 
suming the  adjourned  debate  on  the  amend- 
ment to  the  amendment  to  be  motion  for  an 
address  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the 
Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the 
opening  of  the  session. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Thank 
you  very  much,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  wanted  to 
thank  the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre  (Mr. 
Evans)    for  his   letter,   which   arrived  on  my 


desk  today  in  response  to  a  lengthy  letter  I 
had  sent  to  Hydro,  to  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture and  Food  (Mr.  Stewart),  and  a 
number  of  members  of  cabinet.  As  I  men- 
tioned yesterday,  the  members  of  cabinet  to  a 
man  sent  the  letter  to  the  member  for  Simcoe 
Centre  and  told  him  to  bail  them  out.  He  has 
given  me  a  letter  which  is  helpful  in  a  num- 
ber of  respects.  I  thank  him  for  that. 

Perhaps  it  is  predictable  that  it  doesn't 
answer  all  the  questions  which  I  had  raised, 
and  I  am  going  to  take  issue  with  two  points 
in  the  letter.  Before  doing  so,  though,  I 
want  to  make  it  clear  that  as  far  as  the  mem- 
ber's intervention  in  this  is  concerned,  I  am 
doing  this  in  a  good  spirit  and  not  in  an 
attempt  to  nit-pick,  point  by  point. 

The  first  major  area  in  the  letter  relates  to 
the  questions  of  alternative  means  of  con- 
trolling or  living  with  erosion  on  the  10-mile 
stretch  of  the  Madawaska  River  above  the 
Arnprior  dam.  I  had  stated  in  my  letter  that, 
according  to  infomiation  I  had  seen  from 
Hydro  reports,  there  were  a  number  of  alter- 
natives, costing  between  $1  million  and  $8 
million,  to  buy  up  easements,  to  buy  up  the 
shoreline,  to  build  control  weirs,  to  build  a 
control  dam  and  so  on.  The  member  states 
he  was  informed  that  these  measures  had 
been  considered  by  Hydro  engineering  and 
geologists  during  their  study  of  means  of  con- 
trolling the  bank  erosion  and  stability  prob- 
lems, and  later  by  the  consultant,  and  that 
each  was  rejected  as  unacceptable  or  in- 
effective. He  goes  on  to  state,  for  example, 
that  the  acquisition  of  easements  or  buying 
of  the  river  banks  was  diflBcult  and  was 
rejected  on  the  grounds  of  safety  and  en- 
vironmental consequences.  I  quote: 

It  is  very  difficult  to  predict  the  extent 
of  consequences  of  future  instabilities  in 
steep  marine  clay  banks  which  are  subject 
to  unbalanced  forces,  but  there  are  hazards 
both  locally  and  downstream  of  a  land- 
slide. 

Mr.  Speaker,  by  themselves  those  may  be 
valid  points,  but  one  of  the  fundamental  ques- 
tions about  this  whole  Arnprior  dam  is  that, 
faced  with  a  project  that  was  on  the  face  of 
it  grossly  uneconomic,  there  were  never  any 
adequate  studies  that  I  have  yet  seen  or  had 
drawn  to  my  attention,  to  indicate  that  Hydro 
really  did  look  into  the  alternatives  with  the 
kind  of  depth  that  one  would  wish. 

These  studies  should  have  included  hydro- 
logical  studies;  a  log  of  the  level  of  the  river 
water  during  the  various  times  that  it  was  in 
use;  a  log  of  the  rate  of  erosion  prior  to 
1969;  a  record  of  the  remedial  measures  that 


APRIL  2.  1974 


Ml 


were  experimented  with  by  Hydro  subsequent 
to  1969,  when  the  river  began  this  peaking 
action,  in  order  to  curb  erosion;  a  comparison 
of  the  rate  of  natural  erosion  and  any  addi- 
tional erosion  that  may  have  been  created  by 
the  fluctuations  in  river  levels  caused  by 
Hydro;  a  study  of  the  erosion  on  the  river 
that  was  apparently  created  over  the  previous 
20  years,  when  the  level  of  the  river  varied 
by  two  feet  a  day  because  of  Hydro's  oper- 
ation of  the  plant  for  10  hours  a  day;  and 
an  exaluation  of  the  public's  aesthetic  re- 
sponse to  leaving  the  river  valley  as  it  stood 
with  some  erosion  as  opposed  to  obliterating 
a  very  beautiful  river  valley  and  creating  a 
flat  lake  surrounded  by  flat  terrain  without 
trees,  without  features  and  virtually  unusable 
for  cottages. 

Those  are  all  questions  that,  in  fact,  I 
raised  at  a  meeting  with  Hydro  some  time 
ago,  and  1  have  been  unable  to  get  any  an- 
swers to  those  questions.  It  appears  that 
those  kinds  of  studies  were  not  male.  1 
wanted  to  know  and  I  haven't  found  out 
whether  Hydro  had  ever  built  a  major  dam 
to  control  erosion  before;  and  if  not  then 
why  this  particular  time?  I  wanted  to  know 
the  log  of  the  complaints,  because  the  only 
record  that  1  could  find  from  Hydro  itself 
indicated  that  only  three  or  four  complainants 
had  contacted  Hydro  from  the  area  to  be 
flooded,  from  the  area  to  be  protected  from 
erosion,  and  that  they  were  cottagers  who 
were  quickly  and  expeditiously  bought  out. 
I  wanted  to  see  some  more  documentary  evi- 
dence about  the  erosion. 

This  is  a  very  curious  thing.  The  member 
for  Simcoe  Centre  quite  rightly  raises  the 
point  that  Hydro  had  rejected  alternatives, 
such  as  those  that  I've  been  discussing,  as 
unacceptable  or  ineffective.  But  he  and  the 
Hydro  people  who  work  for  the  commission 
ha\e  not  provided  the  kind  of  satisfying  evi- 
dence that  one  would  look  for  as  a  normal 
kind  of  operation  in  a  corporation  as  big  and 
presumably  as  competent  as  one  expects 
Hydro  to  be. 

W'e  have  a  project  on  which  the  engineer- 
ing fees  are  running  anywhere  between  $10 
million  and  $20  million— 1  apologize  that  I 
can't  remember  what  the  figure  was,  I  believe 
it  was  $12  million— and  yet  there's  no  evi- 
dence that  maybe  half  a  million  dollars,  if 
that  was  what  was  required,  was  spent  in 
order  to  make  a  detailed  study  of  all  of  the 
alternatives.  The  study  of  alternatives  that 
I've  seen,  Mr.  Speaker,  seems  to  indicate  that 
it  was  done  in-house  by  people  dovMi  here, 
and  that  they  were  simply  playing  around 
with  figures  on  the  back  of  envelbpes  rather 


than  getting  up  there  looking  at  the  ."site  in 
detail.  The  on-site  investigations  have  been 
admitted  in  a  number  of  reports  by  Hydro 
to  have  been  very  limited  and  to  have  been 
mainly  confined  to  whether  the  banks  of  the 
reservoir  would  in  fact  contain  the  water, 
and  whether  there  were  adequate  founda- 
tions for  the  dam. 

That's  fundamental  to  the  whole  question, 
because  if  Hydro  had  done  an  exhaustive 
and  definitive  study  to  show  there  was  noth- 
ing else  that  could  be  done  than  build  the 
dam,  then  clearly  the  Legislature  wouldn't 
be  listening  to  me  for  two  or  three  hours. 
Hydro  would  have  had  the  evidence.  They 
would  have  brought  it  out  when  the  farmers 
started  to  object.  They  would  have  .sat  down, 
months  if  not  years  ago,  to  discuss  adequate 
compensation  with  the  farmers;  and  every- 
body would  have  quickly  agreed  that  there 
was  no  other  course  than  to  build  this 
wretched  dam.  But  Hydro  has  yet  to  provide 
that  convincing  evidence  and  I  would  con- 
tend, Mr.  Speaker,  that's  because  that  con- 
vincing evidence   simply  isn't  there. 

The  second  point  on  which  I  want  to  take 
issue  with  the  people  who  presumably  pre- 
pared this  letter  in  conjunction  with  the  mem- 
ber for  Simcoe  Centre,  that  is  with  Hydro 
direction,  is  on  economics.  In  this  letter  of 
March  29,  the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre 
states,  and  this  is  the  first  time  that  it's 
stated: 

Look,  if  we  looked  at  fuel  costs  today 
with  the  rising  escalation  since  last  fall, 
in  fact  the  Amprior  project  considered  on 
its  own  would  be  an  economic  source  of 
peaking  power;  and  in  fact  it  would  be 
about  30  per  cent  more  economic  than 
any  alternative,  which  would  be  an  addition 
to  a  large  thermal   or  coal-fired  pfent. 

That's  the  first  time  that  allegation  has  been 
made.  It  is  not  supported  by  any  kind  of 
working  papers  or  other  studies.  I  would 
suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  here  too  Hydro 
has  yet  to  provide  any  convincing  evidence 
that  the  peaking  power  at  the  Amprior  plant 
was:  (a)  required;  and  (b)  that  it  is  really 
economic. 

In  fact  taking  from  this  particular  docu- 
ment, I  would  note  that,  for  example,  the 
member  for  Simcoe  Centre  bases  the  com- 
parison with  coal-fired  generation  on  the 
basis  of  $1  per  100,000  btu's,  which  is  50  per 
cent  higher  than  the  price  that  Hydro  has 
been  using  as  the  cost  of  US  coal  delivered 
into  Ontario  as  recently  as  Decc^mber,  1973. 
That  is  after  those  major  escalations  and  at 
the  time  Hydro  was  committing,  for  30  years. 


642 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  production  of  that  new  and  large  plant. 
This  is  Alberta  coal,  but  obviously  if  Ameri- 
can coal  is  available  more  cheaply  you  would 
compare  it  against  that. 

The  questions  that  need  to  be  asked  as  far 
as  this  is  concerned,  Mr.  Speaker,  are:  First, 
during  the  decade  of  the  1960s  Hydro  had, 
on  average,  no  more  than  about  10  per  cent 
excess  capacity  and  it  got  through  that  period 
of  time  quite  well,  except  for  the  period'  of 
about  1966  or  1967;  maybe  it  was  1965,  at 
that  point  it  was  very  low  in  excess  capacity. 
It  was  down  to  a  negative  position  at  one 
point,  and  that  may  have  been  around  the 
time  of  the  great  blackout  which  affected  all 
of  the  northeastemi  United  States  as  well  as 
Ontario. 

The  average  level  of  excess  capacity  during 
that  period  was  10  per  cent.  Yet  during  the 
1970s  it's  going  to  be  between  25  and  30  per 
cent,  which  is  something  quite  different,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Moreover,  not  only  is  the  margin  of 
spare  capacity,  which  is  now  being  questioned 
by  the  Ontario  Energy  Board,  something  like 
three  times  the  margin  of  the  1960s,  but  dur- 
ing most  of  the  year  that  margin  of  excess 
capacity  is  much  higher  than  the  25  or  30 
per  cent  one  finds  at  the  peak  in  December 
when  demand  on  Ontario  Hydro  is  the 
greatest.  In  fact  it  goes  as  high  as  50  or  55 
per  cent  margin  of  spare  capacity  in  the 
summer  months. 

In  other  words,  if  pealdng  power  was  abso- 
lutely essential,  from  the  Stewartville  plant 
for  example,  but  if  the  rush  of  water  in  the 
spring  and  the  summer  was  causing  problems, 
well  there  is  a  tremendous  amount  of  excess 
capacity  in  the  Hydro  system  that  would 
permit  the  Stewartville  plant  to  be  used  for 
peaking  power  at  the  times  of  year  when 
most  needed,  which  would  be  during  the 
three  or  four  winter  months. 

Moreover,  if  hydraulic  capacity  had  sud- 
denly become  so  attractive,  why  is  it  that 
there  was  no  other  new  hydraulic  capacity 
coming  on  stream  within  Hydro  as  far  ahead 
as  its  planning  extends,  that  is  up  until  the 
early  1980s?  On  the  other  hand,  if  hydraulic 
capacity  has  now  become  so  attractive,  there 
are  approximately  35  sites  around  Ontario  of 
base  load  or  of  peaking  hydraulic  capacity. 

When  the  Lower  Notch  plant  was  com- 
pleted in  1971  Hydro  said:  "That's  it.  That's 
the  last  hydraulic  plant  we're  going  to  build." 
And  then  as  a  sort  of  a  stutter,  as  an  after- 
thought, it  was  decided  to  commit  this  plant 
at  Amprior.  Now,  suddenly.  Hydro  was  put- 
ting forward  timetabled  in  its  presentation  to 
the  Ontario  Energy  Board  that  indicate  that 
during  the  1980s  it  may  be  possible,  it  may 


be  desirable,  to  install  a  lot  more  hydraulic 
capacity.  Given  the  exceptionally  high  costs 
of  the  peaking  power  coming  from  the  Am- 
prior plant,  and  given  the  fact  that  the  power 
from  the  Amprior  plant  is  clearly  not  needed 
when  you  have  a  25  to  30  per  cent  excess  of 
capacity,  then  the  question  has  to  be  asked: 
Surely  somewhere  around  the  s\stem,  some- 
where around  the  province,  there  is  deliver- 
able peak  power  available  from  hydraulic  re- 
sources that  are  not  yet  developed,  which 
can  come  in  and  be  useful  at  far  less  than 
the  price  of  the  Amprior  power? 

Among  other  things,  there  are  about  500 
megawatts  of  power  which  can  be  cranked 
out  of  the  Niagara  generating  station  for  peak- 
ing purposes  with  the  necessary  investment; 
and  when  you  are  talking  in  chunks  of  power 
that  great,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  would  suggest  to 
me  that  that  is  going  to  come  in  a  lot  cheaper 
than  the  power  from  Amprior. 

The  next  point  is  that  to  say  that  Amprior 
power  is  cheaper  than  coal  now  clearh-  begs 
the  question  of  whether  it  was  economic 
initially,  and  I  am  afraid  that  the  information 
that  I  have  had  from  Hydro  indicates  that 
the  figures  have  been  consistently  stacked  in 
order  to  favour  the  Amprior  project.  I  have 
given  information  about  that  to  Hydro  and  to 
Mr.  Evans,  I  don't  want  to  read  a  lot  of  it 
into  the  record— I  have  spoken  a  lot  about 
this— but  the  figures  have  been  stacked  and 
I  can  provide  evidence  to  prove  it.  In  other 
words,  the  alternatives  have  been  down- 
graded in  order  to  make  Amprior  look  more 
attractive. 

In  his  letter— which  presumably  had  the 
approval  of  the  engineering  people  at  Am- 
prior, Mr.  Evans  talked  about  the  use  of  Am- 
prior pealdng  power  four  hours  a  day.  five 
days  a  week,  that  is  1,040  hours  per  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  I  might  suggest 
that  it  is  customary  to  refer  to  the  hon. 
member  by  his  riding  rather  than  his  name. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  apologize  to  the  hon.  mem- 
ber and  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

The  member  for  Simco©  Centre,  in  his 
letter,  refers  to  this  1,040  hours  of  operation 
for  this  plant,  which  we  know  is  going  to 
cost  $78  million  if  it  doesn't  go  up  from  that. 

Now  the  minimum  cost  at  eight  per  cent 
interest  rate  of  running  that  plant,  even  if 
you  don't  pay  a  nickel  back  in  capital,  is 
about  $6.3  million  a  year.  And  if  you  only 
mn  it  for  a  thousand  and  a  few  hours  at  a 
capacity  of  78  megawatts  you  get  about  81 
or  82  gigawatt  hours— I  am  leaming  about 
my  technical  terms— and  if  you  want  to  cost 
that  out,  Mr.  Speaker,  then  the  cost  of  that 


APRIL  2.  1974 


643 


pealdng  power  is  77  mills  per  kilowatt  hour, 
7.7  cents  per  kilowatt  hour— just  about  nine 
or  10  times  the  cost  of  Hydro's  bulk  salfes  to 
industrial  consumers  and  to  the  municipal 
utilities. 

Obviously,  if  we  are  going  to  be  putting 
up  a  project  which  is  being  justified  because 
it  is  cheaper  than  coal,  and  yet  is  going  to 
cost  10  times  as  much  as  the  average  price  of 
power— I  admit  that  is  the  average— and  if  we 
are  going  to  do  it  on  a  system  that  basically 
doesn't  have  the  really  high  peaks  and  valleys 
of  demand  that  other  power  systems  are  con- 
cerned with,  then  we  are  in  a  pretty  desper- 
ate crisis. 

It  does  suggest,  however,  that  one  looks 
at  alternatives  pretty  closely.  What  the  mem- 
ber's letter  on  behalf  of  Hydro  was  saying 
was  that  coal-fired  power  is  going  to  cost 
something  over  a  dime  per  kilowatt  hour,  if  it 
is  30  per  cent  more  expensive  than  this  par- 
ticular power;  and  frankly  that  just  doesn't 
square  with  the  information  which  has  been 
made  available  by  Hydro  in  the  submissions 
to  the  Ontario  Energy  Board. 

If  you  want  to  take  one  example  take 
nuclear  power,  which  you  can  generate  for 
nine  or  10  mills  per  kilowatt  hour.  Run  a 
nuclear  plant  for  a  day  and  you  get  240  mills 
per  24  kilowatt  hours  over  the  course  of  a 
day,  and  that  means  you  get  power  all  the 
day  long  for  less  than  the  cost  of  generating 
power  from  the  Amprior  plant  for  only  four 
hours.  In  other  words,  you  get  free  power  for 
20  hours  a  day,  and  I  am  sure  there  is  some 
kind  of  market  that  could  be  found  for  it. 

These  kinds  of  economics,  Mr.  Speaker, 
are  not  absolutely  compelling.  I  admit  that, 
because  I  am  not  an  engineer.  I  am  simply 
a  layman  with  some  knowledge  of  figures 
and  some  understanding  of  this  particular 
question  and  maybe  the  ability  to  put  a  few 
probing  questions.  It  certainly  does  beg  the 
question  about  system  alternatives,  though, 
and  as  to  whether  they  have  been  looked  at. 

Hydro  has  something  like  5,000  megawatts 
of  capacity  of  hydraulic  power  scattered 
around  the  province.  It  doesn't  take  too  much 
thinking  to  imagine  that  perhaps  some  of  that 
existing  hydraulic  capacity  could  be  changed 
to  peaking  capacity  if  there  was  such  a  des- 
perate need.  Then  the  base  level  that  would 
be  lost  would  be  replaced  by  bringing  in  a 
new  nuclear  plant,  by  accelerating  the  nu- 
clear programme,  by  accelerating  the  thermal 
programme,  or  perhaps  by  trying  to  find 
somebody  to  buy  it  from  elsewhere,  although 
I  accept  that's  pretty  diflBcult. 

If  pealdng  power  is  going  to  be  so  ex- 
pensive  to   Hydro,   then   one   can   also   ask: 


What  would  be  the  cost  of  an  advertising 
campaign  to  get  people  to  turn  off  their 
lights  between  4  and  6  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon in  order  to  shave  the  peak  by  the  extent 
that's  needed  in  order  to  prevent  the  need 
for  the  Amprior  plant  and  other  similar  plants 
that  would  be  as  expensive? 

Or  what  about  the  possibiilty  of  finding 
industries  that  are  willing  to  run  their  plants 
for  20  hours  a  day  but  not  to  run  them 
between  9  and  11  and  between  4  and  6— 
that  is  the  four  peak  hours— in  order  that  the 
power  diverted  from  industry  could  be  turned 
into  the  general  system  to  meet  the  peaks; 
and  therefore  again  prevent  the  need  for 
building  this  very  expensive  peaking  power 
plant. 

Or  for  that  matter,  Mr.  Speaker,  what 
about  gas  turbines,  which  run  on  oil— dare  I 
say  the  word?  They  are  not  a  particularly 
attractive  solution  right  now  in  view  of  what 
has  been  happening  with  oil  prices,  but  the 
governments  of  this  country,  provincial  and 
federal,  have  just  made  a  decision  about 
future  oil  prices  that  says  we  will  have  rela- 
tively moderate  escalation  from  $6  a  barrel. 
And  Hydro  itself  estimates  that  by  the  time 
the  price  gets  up  to  the  equivalent  of  $1  per 
million  Btu,  synthetic  oils  can  be  produced 
to  be  competitive  with  natural  oil.  In  other 
words,  there  is  a  point  at  which  the  tre- 
mendous reserves  of  the  oil  sands  will  be- 
come available  for  firing,  among  other  things, 
gas  turbines  in  this  particular  province. 

People  in  the  industry  have  announced 
contracts  which  indicate  that  gas  turbines  are 
available  for  about  $100  per  Idlowatt-hour 
capacity,  about  one-tenth  of  the  cost  of  the 
Amprior  plant,  and  that  the  cost  of  operating 
them  at  current  oil  prices  is  of  the  order  of 
25  mills  per  kilowatt-hour  on  a  peaking  basis. 
It  is  not  very  attractive,  but  when  we  are 
looking  at  power  that  costs  three  times  as 
much,  as  in  the  Amprior  project,  then  it  does 
look  pretty  attractive. 

Less  than  a  year  ago,  in  April,  1973,  Task 
Force  Hydro  estimated  that  the  old-fashioned 
steam  turbines  had  a  marginal  cost  for  pro- 
ducing electricity  of  four  to  seven  mills,  and 
that  the  costs  of  emergency  supplies,  such  as 
power  produced  by  turbines,  which  accounted 
for  only  one  or  two  per  cent  of  Hydro's 
needs,  were  up  to  30  mills.  Again,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  is  a  long  shot  short  of  the  cost 
of  power  from  this  Amprior  dam. 

As  I  say,  I'm  not  in  a  position  to  con- 
clusively prove  anything  about  the  dam.  I 
am  in  a  position  to  raise  these  questions 
because    they    have    not    been    satisfactorily 


644 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


answered,  and  the  questions  are  sufficiently 
compelling  that  I  think  Hydro  has  a  responsi- 
bilit\-  to  indicate  to  the  public,  to  this 
Legislature  and  to  the  Energy  Board  that 
the  people  who  made  its  decision  and  the 
people  who  recommend  projects  to  its  senior 
management  are  not  a  bunch  of  nincom- 
poops and  fools,  because  frankly  there  is 
a  grave  suspicion  that  they've  been  acting 
just  in  that  manner, 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  suggest  a  couple 
of  alternatives  as  far  as  the  Amprior  pro- 
ject is  concerned.  In  the  first  place  I  want 
to  point  out  to  the  House  that  there  has 
not  l^een  any  major  investment  by  the  pro- 
vincial government  in  infrastructure  in 
eastern  Ontario  in  order  to  help  its  develop- 
ment during  the  last  two  or  three  years. 
The  most  that  we've  seen  is  some  continued 
work  on  Highways  417  and  416— and  that's 
it;  nothing  else.  As  usual,  Metro  Toronto 
and  the  Toronto-centred  region  gets  most 
of   the    government's    attention. 

Now  if  $50  million  or  $60  million  had 
been  made  available  for  the  creation  of  in- 
dustrial parks,  for  the  improvement  of  rail 
and  road  transportation  facilities,  for  invest- 
ment for  year-round  tourism,  say  in  Ren- 
frew county  and  so  on,  it  would  have  been 
a  terrific  shot  in  the  arm  to  a  region  of 
the  province  second  only  to  northern  On- 
tario in  its  degree  of  underdevelopment 
and  which,  apart  from  the  Ottawa  area,  is 
in  some  pretty  serious  economic  straits  from 
time  to  time.  That  is  an  alternative  use  of 
the  money  which,  instead,  is  going  into  an 
Amprior  dam  and  will  not  create  one 
single  continuing  job. 

I  am  sorry  the  government  hasn't  thought 
in  those  terms.  I  am  sorry  that  when  it 
was  contemplating  through  Hydro  the  in- 
vestment of  such  a  large  sum  in  the  region, 
that  it  didn't  go  to  the  people  in  the  area 
and  say:  "Look,  given  the  alternatives  of 
this  for  the  Madawaska  River,  or  this  for  the 
economic  development  in  the  region,  which 
would  you  prefer"— and  get  some  kind  of 
indication  of  public  feeling.  Because  I  don't 
think  the  public  feeling,  if  the  question  had 
been  posed  that  way,  would  have  been  all 
that    positive    for   the   Amprior   dam. 

The  only  reason  it  was  positive  for  the 
dam  when  it  was  first  broached  in  the  area 
was:  First,  that  people  were  given  no 
alternative;  second,  only  a  very  limited 
number  of  people  were  consulted,  and  they 
were  mainly  people  in  a  position  to  benefit 
directly  to  the  temporary  creation  of  jobs; 
third,  there  was  no  information  made  avail- 


able to  them  about  the  deleterious  or  harm- 
ful   consequences    of   the   particular   project. 

I  would  like  to  suggest  that  in  a  pro- 
gramme of  public  participation,  that  Hydro 
could  have  been  quite  frank  with  the  people 
of  Renfrew  county  and  the  other  areas 
affected  in  the  lower  stretch  of  the  Mada- 
waska River  about  the  problems  that  it  knew 
existed  with  erosion  on  that  part  of  the 
Madawaska  River. 

Officials  could  have  said:  "Look,  we  think 
that  we  may  have  made  a  mistake  when 
we  built  that  dam  at  Stewartville  and  de- 
cided to  use  it  for  only  four  hours  a  day.  We 
want  to  explore  with  you  the  means  by 
which  we  can  get  maximum  benefit  out  of 
the  dam  while  causing  the  minimum  dis- 
ruption and  damage  in  the  area  down- 
stream. We  are  prepared  to  act  as  good 
public,  corporate  citizens  in  this  area  and 
we  are  prepared  to  try  to  find  some  satis- 
factory solution  which  will  enhance  the 
area  and  will  compensate  for  any  erosion 
damage  that  the  Hydro  dam  may  have 
been  causing"— an  open  and  frank  kind  of 
admission  that  something  needed  to  be 
done. 

I  would  suggest,  for  example,  what  Hydro 
might  well  have  done  would  have  been  the 
following: 

In  the  first  place,  it  made  a  lot  of  sense 
that  it  should  acquire  the  cottages— because 
obviously  for  cottage  owners  along  that 
portion  of  the  river  it  was  not  tenable  to 
have  water  levels  which  might  vary  by  as 
much  as  4  ft  or  5  ft  during  the  course  of 
a  day  or  a  weekend;  and  they  were  the 
ones  who  were  generating  the  complaint. 

Second,  as  far  as  the  farmers  in  the  area 
are  concerned,  they  should  have  been 
offered  the  alternative  of  either  selling  their 
riverfront  land  to  Hydro  or  else  selling  ease- 
ments to  Hydro.  This,  in  effect,  would  allow 
Hydro  use  of  the  shore  frontage  and  would 
also  protect  Hydro  from  claims  for  damages 
in  the  case  of  any  slumping  of  the  banks. 

Third,  it's  clear  that  the  cost  of  a  weir 
across  the  river  is  something  less  than 
$900,000.  You  may  be  able  to  build  them 
for  maybe  $400,000  or  $500,000;  the  figures 
from  Hydro  aren't  very  clear.  It  would  there- 
fore have  been  possible  to  go  forward  with 
the  proposal  for  a  campsite  near  Waba 
Creek— just  near  the  site  of  the  dam  which 
is  now  being  built— for  a  small  amount  of 
money. 

It  would  have  been  possible  to  put  in 
maybe  two  or  three  weirs  in  order  to  pro- 
vide   a    measure    of    control    of    the    river, 


APRIL  2,  1974 


645 


to  slow  down  its  velocity  and  to  create 
better  recreational  facilities  for  boating  and 
so  on  and  in  order  to  slow  down  the  way 
in  which  any  of  the  water  was  attacking 
the  riverside.  Now  those  weirs  might  have 
cost,  say,  $2  million  together  with  the 
campground  investment  and  other  recrea- 
tional facilities. 

Again,  I  don't  know;  I  throw  out  the 
ideas.  But  I  do  know  that  the  cost  of  the 
weirs  themselves  was  very  modest,  was  less 
than  $1  million  dollars  for  each  one,  because 
those  are  figures  that  were  estimated  by  the 
Hydro  people. 

And  thirdly,  in  the  area  below  where  the 
dam  is  being  built,  there  were  complaints 
from  the  town  of  Arnprior  about  its  water 
intake  on  a  sewer  line,  and  from  the  marina 
operator;  things  like  that.  I  suggest  that  Hy- 
dro could  have  come  forward  and  been  very 
generous  with  the  town  of  Arnprior  in  offer- 
ing, let's  say  up  to  a  couple  of  million  dollars 
for  major  recreational  development  of  the 
waterfront  along  that  two-mile  stretch  for  a 
transfer  of  the  pollution  control  plant  and 
the  sewage  plant  to  the  other  end  of  town, 
along  with  the  related  costs  that  would  be 
involved  in  order  that  there  could  be  a  major 
river-front  park  that  would  be  a  tourist  at- 
traction and  be  of  service,  not  just  to  people 
of  the  area  but  also  to  people  from  Ottawa- 
Carleton  only  a  40  or  50-minute  drive  away. 
Those  three  items,  Mr.  Speaker,  would  have 
cost  about  $6  million. 

I  suggest,  in  addition,  that  Hydro  could 
have  made  a  commitment  to  people  in  the 
area  that  it  was  prepared  to  spend  on  sum- 
mer employees  up  to  maybe  $200,000  to 
$250,000  a  year  in  order  that  they  would 
develop,  maintain  and  repair  from  erosion 
the  banks  of  this  10-mile  stretch  of  river.  1 
think  that  the  whole  valley  could  then  have 
been  developed  for  recreational  purposes,  or 
what  is  known  as  linear  recreation  now. 
There  is  a  tremendous  movement  concerned 
>vith  trails  in  the  province  right  now.  Wheth- 
er snowmobile  trails  that  snake  sometimes  for 
dozens  of  miles  between  various  points  in 
the  north,  cross-country  skiing  trails  or  hiking 
trails,  like  the  Bruce  and  Rideau  trails; 
there  s  a  tremendous  attraction  in  trails  now- 
adays. This  particular  valley,  which  is  par- 
ticularly beautiful  and  very  accessible  to 
Ottawa,  would  have  been  a  good  place  to 
have  experimented  with  that. 

There  would  still  have  been  some  erosion 
in  the  valley.  The  valley  has  been  naturally 
subject  to  erosion  since  God  created  it,  and 
if  you  will,  Hydro  might  have  had  even  an 
interpretative  programme  which  would  have 


talked  among  other  things  about  the  way  in 
which  erosion  takes  place. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  peak  demands 
for  Hydro  are  in  the  wintertime,  Hydro  could 
have  cut  back  or  even  shut  down  its  gen- 
erating plant  at  Stewartville  and  kept  the 
level  of  the  river  relatively  constant  during 
the  months  of  high  recreational  use  without, 
really,  any  particular  loss,  because  there  are 
ample  other  economic  sources  of  peaking 
power  available  to  Hydro  during  the  months 
of  the  spring,  summer  and  the  early  fall. 

In  other  words,  for  maybe  $6  million  or 
$7  million  Hydro  could  have  created  a  tre- 
mendously attractive  recreation  area.  It 
would  have  involved  local  people  in  a  de- 
termination of  what  they  wanted  to  do  with 
their  valley.  It  would  possibly  have  had  their 
understanding  and  acquiescence  in  measures 
which  would  have  mitigated  the  erosion,  par- 
ticularly when  it  became  clear  that  the  $78 
million  alternative  is  also  an  alternative  to 
mitigate  erosion  and  not  to  end  it  entirely. 
As  I  know  the  former  \'ice-chairman  is  aware, 
Hydro  has  been  saying  again  and  again  that 
this  is  not  a  final  solution  to  erosion,  but 
that  the  proposed  lake  behind  the  dam  will 
greatly  improve  slope  stability  and  greatiy 
reduce  erosion. 

The  measures  I'm  suggesting  could  also 
have  greatly  improved  the  stability  and 
greatly  reduced  erosion,  not  perhaps  to  the 
same  extent  but  to  an  extent  that  might  have 
been  acceptable  to  the  people  in  the  area, 
given  the  fact  that  for  20  years  they've  had 
the  river  going  up  and  down  and  apparently 
there  haven't  been  any  particular  complaints 
about  it.  If  there  had  been,  they  weren't 
noted  in  the  documents  that  Hydro  has  been 
preparing.  It  may  be  that  people  in  the  area 
would  have  rejected  this  whole  idea  out  of 
hand. 

It  seems  to  me,  though,  that  it  would  have 
been  a  prudent  thing  for  Hydro  to  do,  to 
have  studied  in  detail  the  hydrology  and  the 
geology  of  the  erosion  and  to  have  full  de- 
tails available  for  local  people  to  imderstand 
and  to  have  helped  Hydro  to  assess  the  risks 
of  any  major  slumping  or  major  landfalls  such 
as  was  referred  to  in  the  member  for  Simcoe 
Centre's  fetter.  Then  it  would  have  been 
prudent  for  them  to  consider  an  alternative 
that  would  develop  a  valley  which,  in  fact, 
has  tremendous  recreational  potential  into  a 
recreational  resource;  and  which  would  have 
at  the  same  time  allowed  the  farmers  in  the 
area  to  have  retained  their  farmland,  to  have 
retained  their  pasture,  and  their  timber  land, 
and  to  have  kept  their  farms,  which  in  some 


646 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cases  have  been  in  the  same  families  for  more 
than  a  century. 

If  you  wanted  to  cost  that  kind  of  pro- 
gramme, Mr.  Speaker,  very  simply  the  cost 
of  protecting  all  or  part  of  the  peaking  ca- 
pacity of  the  Stewartville  plant  upstream 
would  have  been  minimal  compared  with  the 
costs  projected  for  this  full  dam  now  being 
built.  Since  one  of  the  justifications  or  ration^ 
ales  for  the  Amprior  dam  has  been  that  it 
protected  the  Stewartville  dam,  it  seems  to 
me  it  would  have  been  prudent  that  other  and 
cheaper  measures  to  protect  the  Stewartville 
dam  might  also  have  been  explored. 

Unfortunately,  they  were  rejected  out  of 
hand  by  a  bunch  of  damn  builders  who  could 
see  nothing  else  in  sight  but  to  build  a  big 
dam  and  who  didn't  understand  there  were 
other  and  more  sensible  alternatives  which 
ought  to  have  been  thoroughly  and  com- 
pletely explored.  They  are  throwing  away  $60 
milhon  or  $70  million.  If  the  alternative  I  am 
talking  about  would  have  been  acceptable  to 
people  in  the  area— I  would  suggest  that  if 
the  people  in  the  area  were  taken  into  Hydro's 
confidence,  as  they  haven't  been,  they  would 
have  been  prepared  to  accept  a  reasonable 
kind  of  alternative  like  that.  If  Hydro  said  to 
them  at  the  outset:  "We  have  a  problem.  We 
think  we  blew  it  but  we  really  can't  justify 
spending  $80  million  or  $90  million  on  only 
10  miles  of  river,"  a  lot  of  people  would  say: 
"Okay,  that  is  a  reasonable  position." 

Didn't  Hydro  itself  make  some  rather 
pejorative  comment  about  the  environmental 
ethics  of  the  people  in  the  area?  Let  us  leave 
that  by  the  by.  There  were  alternatives  and 
they  have  never  been  adequately  explored'. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  go  back  briefly  over 
the  main  points  here  which  would  back  my 
contention  that  even  though  $7  million  or  $8 
million  have  been  spent  on  this  particular 
project,  it  is  time  to  stop  it  now.  It  is  time  to 
stop  it;  to  suspend  the  existing  contract  to 
Pitts;  and  to  run  the  risk  of  having  to  pay  them 
a  million  or  so  for  cancellation  because  the 
major  part  of  this  investment,  some  $70 
milhon,  has  yet  to  be  spent.  That  $70  million 
is  not  an  economic  or  desirable  investment 
for  the  province  or  for  Hydro  by  any  of  the 
evidence  which  we  have  before  us. 

I  would  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  have 
been  so  many  unusual  or  irregular  things 
about  this  particular  project  that  there  is  a 
compelling  case  for  Hydro  to  cany  out  its 
commitment  to  public  participation  now,  and 
for  either  Hydro  or  the  government  to  hold  a 
full  public  inquiry  at  which  all  of  the  alter- 
natives can  be  explored. 


If  we  look  at  the  record  we  start  out  with 
untendered  contracts  to  Acres;  an  un tendered 
contract  to  Pitts;  the  conflict  of  interest  be- 
tween the  consulting  firm  and  the  contractor 
who  has  the  two  major  contracts;  the  political 
ramifications  of  the  timing  of  this  particular 
project  announced  two  weeks  before  the  re- 
election of  the  member  for  Renfrew  South 
(Mr.  Yakabuski);  the  loss  of  farmland  at  a 
time  when  people  across  the  province  are  con- 
cerned with  the  loss  of  farmland;  the  cavalier 
attitude  of  this  government,  and  of  Hydro  in 
particular,  to  agricultural  land;  the  unneces- 
sary loss  of  farmland  in  view  of  alternatives 
which  have  not  been  adequately  explored;  the 
incompetent  handling  of  land  acquisition  on 
the  part  of  Hydro;  the  compelling  and  over- 
whelming evidence  of  inadequate  study  of 
erosion,  of  the  hydrology  of  the  alternatives 
to  the  scheme;  the  suppression  of  information 
by  the  president  of  Hydro,  by  the  former  vice- 
chairman  of  Hydro,  now  by  the  member  for 
Simcoe  Centre,  and  by  the  Minister  of  Energy 
(Mr.  McKeough),  which  has  been  subse- 
quently in  fact  endorsed  by  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  himself;  and  the  fact  that  on  the 
figures  now  available  the  power  is  going  to 
cost  something  like  nine  to  10  times  more 
than  what  power  is  being  sold  for  by  Hydro. 

Surely,  somewhere,  in  the  people's  sensi- 
tive antenna,  the  alarm  bells  will  start  to 
ring  when  that  kind  of  thing  is  happening, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  they  will  say:  "We've  got 
to  stop."  I  urge  the  government  to  stop  the 
project,  to  hold  an  inquiry,  to  table  all  the 
facts,  to  make  them  available  to  the  Legis- 
lature and  to  other  people  who  have  a  con- 
cern with  this  matter  and  to  come  clean  on 
this  particular  project  because  otherwise  the 
charge  that  this  is  a  political  dam  brought 
into  being  purely  for  the  re-election  of  the 
member  for  Renfrew  South  will  stand  as 
proved   throughout   his   political    record. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  That's 
a  lot  of  nonsense.  On  a  point  of  order,  we 
listened  to  that  nonsense  all  yesterday  after- 
noon and  again  today;  and  he  knows  as  well 
as  I  know  that  not  one  voter  in  Renfrew 
South  would  believe  one  word  of  it.  It  is 
absolute  garbage. 

Mr.  Roy:  That  is  not  a  point  of  order. 
Sit  down. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ren- 
frew South  will  have  every  opportunity  to 
speak  later. 


APRIL  2.  1974 


647 


Mr.  Yakabuski:  It  is  absolute  earbage.  He 
knows  that.  The  member  either  knows  it  or 
he  is  very  far  away  from  the  pulse  of  the 
people. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  It's  utter  garbage.  That  is 
what  it  is. 

An  hon.  member:  He  should  get  his  own 
hall. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  would  suggest  that  possibly 
the  member  for  Renfrew  South  himself  might 
be  the  best  person  to  provide  the  evidence 
which  has  been  suppressed  and  denied  to 
the  House,  to  provide  the  proof  that  Hydro 
did  do  the  studies  beforehand,  to  get  a  public 
inquiry  into  this  matter- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  has  the  floor.  The 
member  for  Renfrew  South  may  reply  later 
if  he  wishes,  in  his  turn  in  the  debate. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  just  simply  suggest,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  unless  there  is  an  inquiry  to 
get  all  the  facts  on  the  table,  and  unless  all 
the  information  is  tabled  to  prove  otherwise, 
we  can  only  assume  that  this  is  a  political 
dam  built  for  the  member  for  Renfrew  South. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  it  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre  or  the  member  for  Prince 
Edward-Lennox  next? 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  The 
what?  No,  I  was  next,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  was  my  understanding 
that  the  member  for  Prince  Edward-Lennox 
was  to  be  allowed  to  continue  his  remarks, 
which  were  interrupted  at  an  earlier  date. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  for  permitting  me 
to  continue  with  my  remarks.  I  was  inter- 
rupted at  an  earlier  date,  as  you  stated,  and 
I  was  thinking  for  a  moment  that  interruption 
might  become  permanent. 

Mr.  Roy:  By  whom? 

Mr.  Taylor:  If  you  had  sat  here  for  the 
last  Neveral  days,  Mr.   Speaker,  I  think  you 


would    understand    the    significance    of    my 
remarks. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  It  em- 
barrassed him,  that's  all. 

Mr.  Taylor:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  now  that 
the  member  raises  this,  and  before  I  get  on 
with  some  of  the  points  I  would  like  to 
make,  there  is  an  old  Arab  proverb  and  it 
might  be  worthwhile  just  reciting  it.  "He 
who  knows  and  knows  that  he  knows  is  wise; 
follow  him.  He  who  knows  and  knows  not 
that  he  knows  is  asleep;  wake  him.  He  who 
knows  not  and  knows  not  that  he  knows  not 
is  a  fool;  shun  him." 

Mr.  Roy:  That  is  good  stuflF. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Yes.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there 
is  just  one  little  bit  left  that  members  might 
want  to  use  some  time,  and  it  says:  "He 
who  knows  not  and  knows  that  he  knows 
not  is  a  child;  teach  him." 

Mr.  Martel:  This  is  just  like  my  Sunday 
school  class. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Is  that  too  subtle  for  the 
member? 

The  Speech  from  the  Throne  stated  in  part 
that  tourist  operations,  small  businesses  and 
service  industries  will  benefit  from  improved 
loan  programmes  and  financial  assistance 
from  the  three  provincial  development  corpo- 
rations. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  been  said  for  the  last 
five  years. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Operators  of  small  business 
establishments  will  receive  more  help  and 
advice  in  solving  management  problems.  I 
must  say  that  I  am  sure  the  intent  of  that  is 
to  further  amplify  the  existing  government 
programmes,  because  we  have  had  govern- 
ment sponsored  programmes  to  assist  the 
tourist  industry  in  the  past.  As  you  know, 
Mr.  Speaker,  tne  maximum  amount  of  a  loan 
for  a  tourist  operator  was  $75,000  and  it  is 
my  understanding  that  the  ceiling  has  been 
raised  so  that  as  of  now  loans  up  to  half  a 
million  dollars  can  be  made  by  the  province- 
Mr.  Martel:  With  a  million  dollars  in 
funds! 

Mr.  Taylor:  —at  a  very  attractive  interest 
rate  of  six  per  cent  and  rejxayable  over  a 
term  of  15  years.  I  think  that  is  certainly  an 
incentive  to  the  development  of  our  tourist 
industry.  And  when  I  say  development  I  am 
not  only  speaking  in  terms  of  new  capital 
works    but    also    the    upgrading    of    existing 


648 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


establishments,  such  as  the  hotels,  inotels  and 
marinas  and  that  type  of  thing.  I  also  say  that 
this  includes  special  attractions  such  as  minia- 
ture golf  courses,  restaurants  in  conjunction 
with  these  tourist  establishments  and  so  forth. 

Members  may  realize  it  wasn't  long  ago 
that  tourist  operators  had  a  very  very  difficult 
time  in  raising  any  conventional  money  at  all, 
and  if  they  could  it  was  in  the  realm  of  at 
least  14  per  cent  interest  per  annum. 

It  certainly  is  a  programme  that  should  be 
accelerated,  if  anything,  and  additional  assist- 
ance given  to  the  tourist  industry. 

In  speaking  about  the  tourist  industry,  I 
would  like  to  say  that  for  some  time  a  num- 
ber of  the  members  from  the  eastern  parts  of 
Ontario  have  been  trying  to  get  a  tourist 
information  centre  established  somewhere  on 
Highway  401,  east  of  Toronto.  If  such  a 
centre  were  established— and  I'm  talking  in 
terms  of  a  centre  much  like  the  centre  just 
south  of  Barrie— then  that  centre  would  pro- 
vide information  and  a  stimulus  to  the  travel- 
ling public  to  further  explore  the  various  facil- 
ities and  attractions  that  we  have  in  eastern 
Ontario,  and  it  would  be  a  boon  to  at  least 
30  ridings. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Did  the 
member  speak  to  the  minister  about  it?  Did 
the  minister  travel  there  last  summer? 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  must  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  in 
response  to  my  friend  from  the  Lakehead 
area,  that  I  have  spoken  to  the  minister  on  a 
number  of  occasions- 
Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Thunder 
Bay. 

Mr.  Taylor:  —as  he  may  also  have  done.  I 
have  spoken  to  him  in  conjunction  with  a 
number  of  the  members  from  the  eastern 
ridings. 

Mr.  Stokes:  I'd  be  happy  to  put  in  a  good 
word  for  the  member. 

Mr.  Taylor:  We've  had  many  good  words, 
and  we  hope  that  the  opposition  will  further 
assist— 

Mr.  Martel:  By  all  means. 

Mr.  Taylor:  —the  representations  we  have 
made  in  this  direction,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  it  would  be  a  great  boon,  as  I  say,  to  the 
eastern  part  of  the  province,  and  I  think  it 
should  be  carried  out  as  soon  as  possible. 

Mr.  Martel:  When  does  he  want  it? 


Mr.  Taylor:  Well,  that's  one  item,  Mr. 
Speaker,  for  which  we  have  the  wholehearted 
endorsement  of  the  NDP.  I'm  sure  that  will— 

An  hon.  member:  Carry  a  lot  of  weight. 

Mr.  Martel:  When  does  he  want  the  fund- 
ing? 

Mr.  Taylor:  —add  some  credibility  to  that 
party's  stance  in  my  particular  area, 

Mr.  Martel:  There'll  be  money  next  week. 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  Throne  Speech  also  men- 
tioned the  operators  of  small  business  estab- 
lishments receiving  advice  in  solving  manage- 
ment problems,  as  I  said  a  few  moments  ago. 

I  might  say  that  the  Ministr>-  of  Industry 
and  Tourism,  in  conjunction  with  the  Ministry 
of  Colleges  and  Universities,  now  has  a  pro- 
gramme which  is  underwriting  a  university 
advisory  group  to  the  extent  of  some  $400,000 
and  utilizes  the  expertise  and  training  of  uni- 
versity students  in  senior  years.  These  stu- 
dents—who would  be  from  administration, 
finance  and  similar  disciplines-could  go  into 
the  countryside  and  assist  small  business  oper- 
ators to  analyze  their  particular  operations 
and  to  determine  where  changes  might  best 
be  made  in  order  to  further  facilitate  their 
business  operations  and  make  it  more  profit- 
able for  them  to  carry  on. 

I  think  the  programme  has  worked  out  very 
well,  and  I  might  say  that  Imperial  Oil  put  up 
some  $80,000  this  past  year  to  assist  with  that 
programme,  and  should  be  commended  for 
doing  this.  The  programme,  in  my  view, 
should  be  further  encouraged  and  ex-panded. 

I  might  also  say  that  the  appointment  of 
James  Joyce  as  the  first  fulltime  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Development  Corp.  is  an 
excellent  move  and  an  excellent  choice.  I 
think  he  will  lend  a  great  deal  of  back- 
ground and  business  experience  to  that  par- 
ticular post,  and  I  think  it  will  certainly 
assist  the  corporation  in  its  objectives. 

Before  moving  on,  I  would  like  to  com- 
ment on  the  food  establishments  in  the 
service  centres  on  Highway  401.  It  is  my 
understanding  they  are  establishments  that 
are  rented  out,  or  tendered  out,  by  the 
province  through  the  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications.  I  think 
greater  attention  should  be  paid  to  the 
particular  facilities  that  they  have,  and  more 
specifically  to  their  food  operations  and  the 
service  they  render  to  the  public.  After  all, 
they  are  really  on  the  frontier  of  our  tourist 
industry.  The  travelling  public  first  comes 
into    contact    with    many   parts    of    our    area 


APRIL  2,  1974 


649 


through  dropping  in  for  gasoline  and  for  a 
bite  to  eat. 

In  some  cases,  I  think,  these  facilities 
could  be  improved  a  great  deal.  It  may  be 
that  the  amount  being  extracted  in  terms 
of  payment  for  these  facilities  is  too  great 
because  it  is  bound  to  be  reflected,  and  I'm 
sure  it  is  reflected,  in  the  food  and  the 
service  that  one  experiences  at  these  places. 

Mr.  Speaker,  mention  was  made  in  the 
Throne  Speech  of  proposed  legislation  with 
regard  to  consumer  product  warranties  and 
guarantees  to  order  to  provide  better  pro- 
tection for  consumers,  new  redress  pro- 
cedures and  more  flexible  means  of  ad- 
ministration. Legislation,  it  was  stated,  will 
also  be  introduced  to  protect  the  consumer 
from  unfair  and  unacceptable  trade  and 
business  practices.  It  is  my  view  this  move 
is  long  overdue. 

I  think  the  dollar  is  fast  losing  its  in- 
tegrity, and  I  think  the  consumer's  pur- 
chasing power  is  shrinking,  and  it's  shrinking 
for  a  number  of  reasons.  First  of  all,  we  have 
the  erosion  of  the  dollar  itself  through  in- 
flation. Secondly,  we  have  the  production  of 
inferior  products  and  the  passing  off^  of  these 
products  without  a  reduction  in  the  price. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Proctor-Silex. 

Mr.  Taylor:  In  other  words,  we  have 
shoddy  workmanship  and  we  have  poor 
materials. 

If  one,  for  example,  looks  at  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  garbage  bag  in  this  province- 
it  may  be  a  rather  simple  example— but  the 
members  may  recollect  that  the  industry 
did  quite  a  selling  job  in  order  to  intro- 
duce plastic  garbage  bags  in  lieu  of  the 
normal  garbage  container  or  the  garbage 
can.  Most  municipalities  had  municipal  by- 
laws that  specified  the  type  of  garbage  con- 
tainer—normally a  metal  container  with  a 
tight-fitting  lid.  These  bylaws  provided  for 
this  particular  facility. 

Of  course,  the  industry  had  to  convince 
the  municipalities  the  garbage  bag  would 
be  a  suitable  alternative,  and  as  a  matter  of 
fact  would  have  many  advantages.  It  under- 
took a  programme  of  distributing  plastic 
garbage  bags.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were 
delivered  to  many  households  free  of  charge 
in  order  to  induce  the  householder  to  use 
these  containers. 

At  that  time,  the  thickness  of  the  bag  was 
such  that  it  would  actually  hold  what  one 
was  putting  into  it.  If  you  look  at  the 
evolution  of  that  bag,  it's  like  the  evolution 
of   the   automobile   in   terms    of   the   amount 


of  metal  that's  being  put  into  a  car  these 
days.  It's  deteriorated  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  thing  is  worn  out  l>efore  you  can 
get  it  on  the  street. 

That's  a  deterioration  in  the  dollar,  really, 
])ecause  while  the  price  is  going  up  the 
quality  is  going  down.  That's  just  one  ex- 
ample. 

You  have  a  cutting  back— whidi  is  a  third 
way  in  which  we  experience  the  dollar  shrink- 
ing—a cutting  back  of  the  contents  in  the 
package  or  in  the  container.  The  candy  bar 
is  an  example  of  this. 

Again,  one  can  see  what  has  happened  to 
the  ordinary  chocolate  bar.  There  is  a  big 
wrapper  and  a  piece  of  cardboard  to  give  it 
some  form,  ancl  of  course  the  contents  are 
very  small.  One  can  maintain  the  qualit\',  but 
at  the  same  time,  they  are  shipping  air. 

Cereal  boxes  are  another  exampfe.  They 
may  be  only  two-thirds  filled.  Opaque  con- 
tainers are  another  example,  insofar  as  they 
are  used  for  products  that  people  purchase; 
whether  they  be  single-wallea  or  double- 
walled  containers. 

We  have  seen  these  products  advertised  on 
television,  but  it  applies  to  any  type  of 
opaque  container  where  one  really  cannot  see 
the  contents.  The  weight  may  be  put  on  as 
the  number  of  fluid  ounces  contained,  but  that 
becomes  even  more  complicated  for  the  con- 
sumer with  conversion  to  the  metric  s\-stem. 

Instead  of  the  public  experiencing  an 
economy  with  rising  expectations,  I  think  they 
are  experiencing  the  biggest  ripoff,  since 
probably  Gypsy  Rose  Lee  first  disrobed  on  a 
public  platform. 

This  whole  question  can  be  extended  into 
housing.  Yesterday  we  discussed  a  private 
member's  bill  dealing  with  warranties  on 
houses;  and  I  think  there  is  merit  in  the  con- 
cept. But  in  my  estimation  the  problem  goes 
deeper. 

The  member  for  York-Forest  Hill  (Mr. 
Givens)  gave  as  an  example  the  motor  indus- 
try projecting  an  image  of  stability,  with  pur- 
chasers having  some  satisfaction  in  that  they 
were  dealing  with  a  corporation  that  was  large 
enough  and  sensitive  enough  of  its  image  to 
produce  a  proper  product  or  a  product  that 
was  not  shoddy. 

I  question  whether  that  premise  can  reall\ 
be  accepted.  I  think  if  one  looks  back  on  the 
evolution  of  the  automobile,  not  only  in 
styling  but  contents,  one  can  see  how  the 
material  has  really  evolved— the  thickness  of 
the  metals;  the  workmanship;  the  way  cars 
are  put  together  in  terms  of  fittings,  trim  and 


650 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


It  is  a  very  diflBcuIt  area,  because  we  are 
really  dealing  with  attitudes.  We  are  dealing 
with  workers;  we  are  dealing  with  the  people 
who  put  these  things  together;  we  are  deahng 
with  some  manufacturers  who  are  not  keen 
to  produce  a  quality  product. 

The  green  paper  on  Ontario  consumer 
product  warranties  says  on  page  26,  paragraph 
13,  that  the  Consumer  Protection  Bureau  Act 
should  provide  the  establishment  and  execu- 
tion of  a  programme  of  consumer  product 
testing,  and  performance  evaluation  should  be 
a  function  of  the  bureau. 

I  think  this  is  really  vital  to  any  legislation 
that  is  introduced.  If  one  is  talking  about 
consumer  product  warranties,  it  is  not  just 
a  question  of  amending  the  existing  Sale  of 
Goods  Act  and  making  more  conditions  or 
warranties  mandatory  or  part  of  the  contract 
and  doing  away  with  disclaimers.  I  think  it 
goes  further  than  that. 

It  is  really  a  matter  of  testing  the  products 
—seeing  what  is  made,  seeing  what  is 
marketed,  seeing  how  the  products  are  ser- 
viced; probably  going  around  and  making 
independent  investigations  of  how  these 
products  stand  up  and  what  type  of  product 
servicing  is  available. 

We  are  confronted  today  with  the  idea  that 
you  don't  fix  anything;  you  throw  it  out  and 
replace  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member's  corporate  friends 
are  doing  that. 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  planned  obsolescence  con- 
cept has  taken  over  to  such  an  extent  that 
there  is  very  little  that  is  being  repaired. 

It's  so  complicated  a  consumer  doesn't 
know.  If  he  is  going  to  get  his  automobile 
fixed,  for  example,  even  if  he  stood  over  the 
mechanic  while  he  did  it,  the  owner  would 
wonder  what  he  was  doing.  He'd  probably 
see  a  sign  before  he  got  as  far  as  the 
mechanic  saying:  "The  public  is  not  permitted 
past  this  particular  point."  So  the  member 
of  the  public  is  discouraged  from  seeing  what 
is  being  done  on  his  automobilte. 

He  is  further  kept  in  the  dark  as  to  what 
in  fact  has  been  done,  or  whether  in  fact  it 
was  done.  The  automobile  owner  may  have 
a  representation  in  some  cases  that  certain 
repairs  are  being  performed  when  in  fact  they 
are  not  being  performed. 

Again  we  have  this  type  of  activity  or  con- 
sumer ripoff  that  I  think  must  be  looked 
into.  It  must  be  investigated.  It's  implicit  in 
the  marketing  of  any  product  that  the  repair 
service  follow  that  particular  product.  I  think 
we  have  to  start  with  these  bigger  products. 


Mr.  Martel:  Not  too  many  from  the  cabinet 
listening  to  that. 

Mr.  Taylor:  My  friend  from  York-Forest 
Hill  mentioned  that  the  biggest  purchase  a 
person  may  make  in  his  lifetime  is  a  home. 
The  biggest  single  purchase  probably  is  a 
home,  but  when  one  figures  the  turnover  of 
cars  because,  as  I  say,  of  the  inferior  quality 
of  materials  and  workmanship  that  goes  into 
those  cars  with  their  planned  or  built-in  ob- 
solescence, then  over  a  lifetime  I  dare  say 
a  person  would  spend  more  on  automobiles 
than  he  would  on  a  home. 

The  same  principle  applies  in  cases  such 
as  this.  I  think  that  one  has  to  look  to  the 
merchandiser  and  have  someone  whom  one 
can  put  the  finger  on  and  say:  "I  bought  this 
product  from  you.  You  have  represented  that 
it  is  a  good  product  or  that  it  will  perform 
in  this  way.  Now  I'm  holding  you  responsible 
to  see  that  it  is." 

If  one  has  to  bring  in  the  manufacturer 
or  we  have  to  legislate  that  the  manufac- 
turer is  brought  in  and  is  jointly  and  severally 
liable  or  primarily  liable  for  the  production 
of  the  product  and  the  accountabiliy  to  the 
consumer,  then  that  legislation  should  be 
brought  in  so  that  the  people  are  not  con- 
tinually harassed  and  frustrated  in  tr>ing  to 
get  satisfaction  after  they  first  buy  the  par- 
ticular product. 

We  are  seeing  more  and  more  of  that  kind 
of  thing,  and  people  are  more  and  more  be- 
coming victims  of  the  slick  ads  and  the  fast 
merchandising  that  is  taking  place.  As  I  say, 
we  have  the  combination  here  of  an  attitude, 
along  with  merchandising  that  says:  "Well, 
it  doesn't  matter."  It  is  an  attitude  of  not 
being  too  concerned  with  making  anything 
that  is  too  perfect. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  the  private  enterprise 
system  that  does  that,  isn't  it? 

An  hon.  member:  What's  wrong  with  pri- 
vate enterprise? 

Mr.  Taylor:  May  I  just  say  to  my  friend 
from  Ottawa  Gentre,  he  tempts  me  to  re- 
spond because  not  too  many  years  ago  I  was 
in  Russia  and  I've  seen  some  of  the  workman- 
ship that  is  done  in  that  particular  country, 
which  can  hardly  be  termed  a  capitalistic 
system  or  a  free  market  system.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  they  had  just  completed  the  new  air- 
port and  some  of  the  workmanship  there  I'm 
sure  could  have  been  done  by  a  child  of  six 
years  of  age.  Not  that  they  are  not  capable 
of  doing  fine  workmanship,  but  it  is  just  in- 
credible the  type  of  workmanship  that's  turn- 
ed out. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


651 


Furthermore  I  was  looking  at  some  hous- 
ing projects.  At  least  in  this  system  we  can 
go  and  look  at  ou-  housing  projects;  we  can 
see  what  s  being  clone,  we  can  go  through  an 
apartment  building.  In  Moscow  I  was  taken 
into  an  exhibit  of  building  achievements 
where  one  could  see  the  plaque  to  Comrade 
Somebody-or-other  who  had  invented  the 
waffle  system  for  mass-producing  sides  of 
modular  units. 

Again,  if  the  member  went  through  one 
of  those  model  apartment  units  where  prob- 
ably two  families  would  be  sharing,  he  would 
realize  there  would  be  a  revolution  if  that 
was  introduced  in  this  country  and  given 
to  our  populace  rent-free  or  at  a  very  minimal 
rent. 

So  don't  talk  to  me  about  the  free  enter- 
prise system  and  the  capitalistic  system, 
where  the  means  of  production  are  owned 
by  the  individuals  and  not  by  the  state. 

Mr.  Martel:  What  individuals? 

Mr.  Taylor:  And  if  he  would  go  and  see 
some  of  that  type  of  workmanship,  I  think 
he  would  probably  have  second  thoughts 
about  making  a  remark  such  as  he  made  be- 
fore. 

Mr.  Cassidy.  The  means  of  production 
aren't  owned  by  the  other  people.  They  are 
owned  by  five  per  cent  of  the  population- 
Mr.  Taylor:  Oh,  well,  they  say  that  figures 
don't  lie,  but  liars  figure.  I'm  not  suggesting 
any  impropriety;  I  am  just  saying  that  if  the 
hon.  member  looked  into  his  facts  before  he 
spoke,  I  think  he  would  become  more  learned 
and  a  more  credible  person. 

Mr.  Martel:  All  the  widows  and  orphans 
own  the  shares.  Is  that  what  the  member  is 
saying?  The  widows  and  orphans  have  all 
the  shares? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  For  purposes  of  necessity. 
Imperial  Oil  and— 

Mr.  Martel:  It's  all  very  well  for  them  to 
rip  us  off. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Well  it's  all  very  well  for 
my  friend  to  consume  the  benefits  of  our 
system  and,  being  a  fat-cat,  to  criticize  it. 
But  if  he  had  to  get  along  in  some  of  these 
other  systems  where  the  state  controls  so 
much,  I  think  he'd  be  very  glad  to  come 
here,  where  he  has  the  opportunity. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  But  the  hon.  member  was  just 
criticizing  our  system  and  the  quality  of  the 
workmanship  and  saying  there  is  a  need  for 
protection  from  the  government  in  order  to 


protect    people    from    these    marvellous    free 
enterprisers. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  can't  have  it  both 
ways. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Again,  I  hate  to  credit  my 
friend  with  anything,  but  being  a  master  of 
distortion— and  I  am  tempted  to  give  him 
that  badge  of  questionable  distinc-tion— but 
what  I  have  been  trying  to  point  out,  and 
what  he  fails  to  understand,  is  that  no  matter 
how  many  regulations  we  have,  we  can't 
produce  a  quality  product  unless  the  people 
who  are  actually  producing  that  product  have 
the  will  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  not  the  workers'  fault. 

Mr.  Taylor:  It's  the  same  concept  as  work- 
ing to  rule  and  so  on.  We  can  have  all  the 
rules  we  like,  and  think  we  have  legislated 
perfection,  but  what  we're  doing  is  legis- 
lating a  slowdown  if  people  follow  those 
rules  to  that  degree.  It's  the  pride  of  work- 
manship, the  attitude  of  the  worker,  that 
matter;  and  I  think  the  attitude  has  shifted 
in  our  particular  society  today  to  the  point 
that  there  isn't  the  same  pride  that  there  used 
to  be— and  that  comes  from  within  the  pro- 
ducer himself. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  getting  back  to  the 
Throne  Speech— and  I  would  like  to  confine 
my  remarks  to  the  Throne  Speech,  unlike 
those  who  wander  so  far  afield— 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  is  so  personal. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  right  on. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon  (Dovercourt):  Carry  on, 
Jim. 

Mr.  Taylor:  I  would  comment  that  when 
we  are  dealing  with  consumer  product  war- 
ranties, we  might  consider  not  only  the 
aspect  of  chattels,  which  is  really  the  subject 
matter  of  the  green  paper,  but  also  the 
question  of  housing- 
Mr.  Martel:  Who  plans  built-in  obsoles- 
cence, by  the  way? 

Mr.  Taylor:  —which  was  debated  yesterday 
under  a  private  bill,  because  it  might  very 
well  be  that  legislation  could  also  deal  with 
that  particular  area. 

What  I  am  concerned  about,  of  course,  is 
that  when  we  get  into  housing,  as  was  men- 
tioned yesterday,  we  have  to  be  careful  that 
we  don't  get  into  a  whole  new  bureaucratic 
regime  where  people  start  inspecting  for  the 
sake  of  inspection. 


652 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


As  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  housing  has 
been  built  and  is  being  built  under  the 
National  Housing  Act,  where  there  are  direct 
loans  to  the  people  who  will  be  occupying 
their  homes;  in  those  cases  there  are  prob- 
ably a  dozen  inspections  by  government  in- 
spectors. In  the  bill  yesterday  it  was  sug- 
gested that  there  be  four  inspections.  I  don't 
think  a  dozen  inspections  will  ensure  a  fault- 
free  home,  nor  do  I  think  that  four  inspec- 
tions will  ensure  that.  I  think  we  are  into  an 
area  that  is  going  to  be  very  difficult  to 
legislate. 

When  we  talk  of  homes,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
are  also  talking  of  people  moving  into  those 
homes.  If  we  look  at  some  of  the  contracts 
used  by  commercial  carriers  who  move  furni- 
ture, we  see  that  there  are  disclaimers  in 
those  contracts.  At  one  time  we  thought  that 
a  commercial  carrier  was  virtually  an  insurer, 
so  that  if  he  damaged  a  person's  goods  then 
he  would  be  made  responsible.  But  today 
there  are  many  exclusions  as  to  his  responsi- 
bilitv,  and  for  those  items  that  aren't  ex- 
cluded there  is  often  a  provision  that  com- 
pensation is  confined  to  something  like  30 
cents  per  pound. 

I  think  that  if  the  vendors  of  furniture  can 
move  that  furniture  from  their  store  or 
warehouse  to  your  home,  surely  a  person  in 
the  moving  business  should  be  able  to  move 
that  furniture  from  one  home  to  another 
without  damaging  it.  I  think  it's  that  area  as 
well  that  may  very  well  be  investigated  and 
included  in  the  legislation  that  would  be 
drafted  to  protect  consumers. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Speech  from  the  Throne 
also  made  mention  that  there  would  be  meas- 
ures for  the  control  and  reduction  of  litter 
and  solid  waste.  This  is  really  an  area  of 
the  environment  and  today  the  thrust  seems 
to  be  more  to  matters  of  the  environment. 
I  think  the  provincial  thrust  has  been  away 
from  the  simple  creation  of  an  appropriate 
climate  for  private  investment  and  now  the 
philosophy  seems  to  be  of  using  govern- 
ment as  a  deliberate  instrument  of  social  and 
economic  guidance. 

So  we  are  really  getting  into  this  area  of 
ecology  and  environment  and  lifestyles,  call 
it  what  you  will.  Our  concerns  are  directed 
to  traffic  and  transportation,  water  and  sewer 
facilities,  the  parks  systems,  the  problems 
of  solid  waste  disposal.  I  think  it's  time  we 
started  showing  something  more  on  the 
ground  in  terms  of  solid  waste  disposal. 

I  know  that  a  tremendous  advance  has 
been  made  in  the  financing  and  construction 
of  waste  purification  plants  and  sewage  dis- 
posal  plants,    trunk    sewer   mains   and   trunk 


water  mains  and  the  laterals  and  so  on. 
This  is  a  big  area  and  it's  an  on-going  pro- 
cess. It's  vital.  It's  probably  more  essential 
than  anything. 

As  I  say,  there  are  hundreds  of  millions 
of  dollars  being  spent  in  this  direction,  but 
we  haven't  really  solved  or  hardly  begun 
to  solve  the  problem  of  garbage  disposal. 
There  have  been  many  papers  and  many 
suggestions  for  creating  a  plant  that  would 
use  modern  techniques  in  the  disposal  of 
garbage. 

We've  heard  for  some  years  about  a  pro- 
posal by  two  professors  at  Queen's  Uni- 
versity, Messrs.  Brown  and  Clark,  to  con- 
struct a  plant  which  would  utilize  garbage 
and  also  sewage  sludge  and  produce  certain 
byproducts  and  a  compost.  We  haven't  seen 
much  progress  in  connection  with  the  physical 
establishment  of  that  particular  plant.  There 
have  been  many  representations,  I  am  sure, 
to  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  in  the 
past  in  order  to  obtain  its  assistance,  finan- 
cial and  otherwise,  in  the  establishment  of 
pilot  plants  to  see  just  what  we  can  do 
along  this  line. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  made  representa- 
tions myself  on  a  number  of  occasions  in 
connection  with  Prince  Edward  county. 
Here  we  have  a  geographical  area  which 
lends  itself  to  a  small  plant  which  could  be 
so  situated  that  it  could  service  the  city  of 
Belleville  as  well. 

We  have  the  technology,  but  there  seems 
to  be  a  philosophy  that  you  have  to  make 
money  from  your  byproducts.  It  is  my  view 
that  we  have  to  dispose  of  garbage  and  not 
make  money  from  our  byproducts.  So  let  us 
not  be  too  concerned  right  now  about  what 
we  are  going  to  do  with  the  compost,  be- 
cause I  can  tell  some  people  what  to  do 
with  it.  I  know  what  I  would  do  with  it  in 
Prince  Edward  county- 
Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Don't  be 
obscene  now. 

Mr.  Taylor:  —would  be  to  use  it  on  some 
of  the  shallow-soil  areas.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  might  assist  in  those  areas  where  tree 
plantings  have  taken  place  in  an  efi^ort  to 
stabliize  some  of  the  dunes,  because  as 
members  know  there  has  been  a  tree-plant- 
ing programme  for  many  years  there  in  an 
effort  to  stabilize  that  particular  area.  I 
am  sure  we  have  many  sites  where  we  could 
utilize  the  compost,  which  is  really  a  soil 
material  and  which  would  benefit  the 
countryside. 

It  is  not  essential,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  make 
a   profit   on   something  like   this.    I   think    it 


APRIL  2,  1974 


653 


is    essential    to    solve    our   problem.    That   is 
number  one. 

This  type  of  plant  has  been  functioning 
quite  well  for  years  in  some  European 
countries,  in  Switzerland  for  example,  and 
it  may  be  that  it  would  function  equally  well 
here  and  in  smaller  communities.  We  know 
we  do  have  a  pilot  plant  in  the  city  of 
Toronto,  which  really  isn't  going  to  con- 
tribute very  much  to  the  solution  of  its 
gigantic  waste  disposal  problem.  But  if  a 
plant  such  as  this  were  put  in  an  area 
where  it  could  adequately  dispose  of  the 
problem,  then  it  would  really  be  function- 
ing in  some  worthwhile  and  constructive 
fashion. 

We  may  have  to  make  a  few  mistakes, 
but  that  is  all  right.  We  must  make  mistakes 
to  learrj.  I  think  the  sooner  we  get  a  series 
of  these  pilot  plants  under  way  the  better. 
I  think  it  is  going  to  be  essential  that  the 
go\emment  bankroll  the  capital  construc- 
tion of  these  plants,  because  that  is  the  only 
wa>-  we  are  really  going  to  get  it  off  the 
ground. 

I  know  the  municipalities  will  argue  that 
the  ideas  are  great  if  they  can  get  someone 
else  to  finance  them,  but  they  may  be 
willing  to  finance  a  part.  Then  the  problem 
conies,  of  course,  in  the  on-going  expense 
of  operating  these  plants.  Who  is  going  to 
guarantee  that  the  plant  will  function  in 
perpetuity  and  who  is  going  to  finance  the 
cost? 

These  are  some  of  the  problems  that  have 
slowed  down  the  establishment  of  this  type 
of  plant.  But  I  think  we  have  to  take  some 
bold  steps.  If  that  means  making  some 
mistakes  then  we  will  make  some  mistakes, 
but  let's  get  the  plants  off  the  paper  and 
on  to  the  ground  and  see  how  they  function. 
Let's  either  see  if  they  work  or  if  they 
don't  work  here.  If  they  work,  fine;  if  they 
don't  work,  we  will  wTite  it  off  and  get  on 
with  something  else.  I  think  that  it  is 
essential  that  something  be  done  in  this 
direction. 

An  hon.  member:  Right  away. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Mr.  Speaker,  those  are  some 
of  the  remarks  I  wanted  to  complete.  I 
wish  to  thank  you  for  the  wise  manner  in 
which  you  have  ensured  order  in  the  House 
and  the  very  fair  rules.  I  see  that  you  always 
seem  to  have  the  facility  for  assisting  the 
sneakers,  keeping  order  and  ensuring  that 
the  House  is  very  attentive,  and  I  want  to 
thank  you  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Before  the  next  hon.  member 
proceeds,  I  might  take  a  moment  to  inform 


the  House  that,  in  accordance  with  standing 
orders  27  and  28,  I  have  received  notice 
from  two  hon.  meml)ers  that  they  were  dis- 
satisfied with  the  answers  given  to  questions 
during  the  oral  question  period  today.  In 
accordance  with  those  standing  orders,  the 
hon.  member  for  Wentworth  (Mr.  Deans) 
shall  have,  at  the  adjournment  of  the  Hou-se 
this  evening,  five  minutes  to  present  his  views 
regarding  the  partiailar  question  and  the 
minister  will  have  five  minutes  to  reply  if  he 
so  wishes.  The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough 
West  (Mr.  Lewis)  shall  also  have  the  same 
opportunity  to  present  his  case  in  connection 
with  the  question  he  had  asked. 

These  questions  will  take  place  at  the  ad- 
journment hour  and  at  10:30  this  evening  a 
motion  to  adjourn  shall  be  deemed  to  have 
been  made. 

Now,  the  hon.  member  for  Ottawa  East. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  How  did  he 
manage  not  to  get  in  on  that  debate? 

Mr.  Roy:  I  want  to  make  the  point  very- 
clear,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  you  advise  the 
people  involved  in  Hansard  and  all  the  staff 
and  people  who  are  working  around  the 
House  that  I  am  not  the  one  who  is  keeping 
them  late  this  evening.  I  hope  you  make  that 
very  clear. 

I  am  not  going  to  accuse  my  colleagues 
of  plagiarizing,  because  I  think  it's  a  rule 
which  is  open  to  all  members  of  the  House. 
I  think  it  quite  proper,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  if 
ministers  of  the  Crown  see  fit  not  to  answer 
our  questions,  we  use  that  rule  with  probably 
more  regularity. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  He  answered, 
but  I  was  not  happy. 

Mr  Roy:  The  member  wasn't  happy  with 
his  answer? 

Mr.  Martel:  It  was  a  non-answer. 

Mr.  Roy:  Then  he  is  abusing  the  rule,  ob- 
viously. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  am  not. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  may 
I  make  some  comments  in  line  with  my  col- 
league who  preceded  me,  the  member  for 
Prince  Edward-Lennox,  and  say  how  pleased 
we  are  to  see  you  back  in  the  chair.  We  were 
somewhat  concerned  for  a  while  following 
the  Christmas  recess  but  we  are  extremely 
pleased  to  see  that  you  are  in  good  health. 


654 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  your  sense   of  humour  and  your  objec- 
tivity continue  to  rule  from  the  chair. 

There  are  times  I  suppose,  Mr.  Speaker, 
when  we  feel  you  should  possibly  he  a  bit 
tougher  with  the  government,  especially  the 
ministers,  but  again  I  know  this  is  a  difficult 
task  which  you  have.  We  on  this  si^^e  feel 
you  are  exercising  it  with  fairness  and  objec- 
tivity and  we  are  extremely  pleased  to  see 
that  you  are  in  good  health.  We  sincerely 
hope  you  will  continue  to  be  with  us  and  in 
that  capacity  for  many  years  to  come. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  The  member  is 
not  expecting  to  take  over? 

Mr.  Roy:  Pardon  me? 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  we  took  over,  we  would  have 
no  objection  to  keeping  the  same  Speaker.  I 
think  possibly  this  House  should  give  con- 
sideration to  having  some  permanency  in  the 
chair  as  well.  I  think  it  would  be— 

Mr.  Young.  In  that  case,  we  will  agree. 

Mr.  Roy:  Do  you  see  that,  Mr.  Speaker? 
I  have  my  colleagues  on  my  left  agreeing 
with  me.  Your  objectivity  and  fairness  are 
exuding  to  all  sides  of  the  House  here. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  make  a  few 
comments.  I  will  not  make  a  few  comments 
about  the  Throne  Speech  because  I  think 
there  was  so  little  in  it  I  would  be  wasting 
everybody's  time  even  to  discuss  it  except 
to  point  out  that  as  a  member  of  this  House 
looking  at  the  approach  of  the  Conservative 
government  to  various  problems  which  exist 
in  this  country,  I  find  it  indeed  ironic  that 
the  national  leader  of  the  federal  Conserva- 
tives should  be  enunciating  certain  policies 
at  the  federal  level  on  which  one  of  his  col- 
leagues in  the  same  party,  who  is  in  a  posi- 
tion to  do  something,  apparently  does  not 
agree  with  him.  One  wonders  what  sort  of 
unanimity  or  rapport  exists  between  certain 
members  of  that  party. 

For  instance,  Mr.  Stanfield  has  covered  the 
length  and  breadth  of  this  country  talking 
about  the  question  of  inflation  and  saying  it 
is  a  cancer  in  our  society.  It  is  something 
which  has  first  priority  with  him  and  some- 
thing that  should  be  dealt  with  and  he  has 
suggested  certain  measures  to  take  care  of 
that  problem. 

It  is  ironic  that  in  the  Throne  Speech  by 
his  colleague,  the  Premier  of  the  province, 
very  little  should  be  mentioned  about  infla- 
tion at  all;  secondly,  nothing  was  mentioned 
about  what  steps  this  province  is  taking  first 


of  all  to  curb  the  inflationary  spiral  or  to  curb 
the  governmen's  own  appetite  for  deficit 
spending;  an  1  thirdly,  what  helpful  measures 
he  might  take  to  help  those  who  are  on  fixed 
incomes  and  suffering  so  badly  from  the 
question  of  inflation. 

The  federal'  leader  as  well  suggests  wages 
and  price  controls  and  this  does  not  seem  to 
sit  well  with  the  Premier  of  this  province. 
He  has  continually  dodged  whether  he  is  in 
favour  of  that,  in  favour  of  die  policy  from 
his  leader. 

Mr.  O.  F.  Villeneuve  (Glengarry):  Put  the 
responsibility  where  it  belongs. 

Mr.    Roy:    Well,    is    he    against   it   or   not? 
Mr.  G.  Nixon:  He  is  twisting  words  again. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  third  thing  which  I  find  ex- 
tremely ironic,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  I  think 
since  1972  the  federal  Conservatives  have 
been  suggeesting  that  the  federal  sales  tax 
on  building  materials  should  be  removed. 
They  have  been  consistent  on  this,  in  sug- 
gesting that  the  federal  government  should 
be  removing  the  federal  sales  tax  on  build- 
ing materials,  whereas  the  Premier  here  in 
this  province  increased  the  sales  tax  on 
building  materials  by  40  per  cent  just  last 
year. 

That  just  points  out  the  inconsistencies  and, 
I  suppose,  the  difficulty  which  the  federal 
Conservatives  have  to  take  power.  Their  ap- 
proaches to  the  problems  are  inconsistent 
within  their  own  party. 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  may  recall  that  last  year 
in  my  reply  to  the  Throne  Speech  I  dealt 
with  a  problem  involving  the  opticians  in  this 
province,  the  problem  of  the  controls  by  one 
company  called  Imperial  Optical.  I  might  say, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  after  speaking  on  it  in  the 
Throne  Speech  and  after  bringing  in  a  pri- 
vate member's  bill,  and  raising  it  in  esti- 
mates, and  raising  it  on  a  number  of  occa- 
sions with  the  then  Minister  of  Health  (Mr. 
Potter)— who  at  first  kept  mentioning  that 
I  was  wrong,  that  there  was  no  conflict  of 
interest— I  am  happy  to  report  that  continual 
badgering  of  the  minister  has  produced  some 
results,  and  as  you  know,  the  board  of  oph- 
thalmic dispensers  has  been  changed.  Four 
of  the  five  members  from  the  board  have 
been  replaced,  and  been  replaced  by  two  lay 
members. 

I  was  pleased  to  see  as  well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  present  Minister  of  Health  (Mr,  Mil- 
ler) has  accepted  our  suggestions  on  partici- 
pation by  the  public  in  these  professional 
boards,   disciplinary   committees   and   such,    I 


APRIL  2,  1974 


655 


was  very  pleased  to  see  mention  of  this  in 
the  statement  on  the  Health  Disciphnes  Act, 
as  presented  by  the  minister  here  today. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  speak 
briefly  on  the  question  of  law  reform  in  the 
courts,  and  the  attitude  taken  by  the  gov- 
ernment, especially  in  the  area  of  adminis- 
tration of  justice  and  the  administration  of 
the  courts.  I  want  to  mention  that  as  one 
who  has  participated  in  the  administration 
of  justice  in  various  capacities  in  this  prov- 
ince I  am  most  disappointed  by  the  priority 
that  is  given  to  administration  of  justice  by 
the  Premier  of  the  province. 

First  of  all,  by  the  very  individuals  that 
he  has  involved  in  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice, the  result  has  been,  to  say  the  least, 
chaotic  and  a  mark  of  incompetence.  You 
recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  following  the  1971 
election,  the  former  member  for  St.  George 
was  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Mr.  A. 
F.  Lawrence.  The  first  thing  that  the  Pro- 
vincial Secretary  for  Justice  did,  for  no  ap- 
parent reason,  was  to  decide  to  present  a 
bill  that  would,  for  all  intents  and  purposes, 
cut  the  salaries  of  certain  levels  of  judges— 
the  Supreme  Court  judges  and  the  county 
court  judges. 

He  would  cut,  in  fact,  the  provincial  re- 
muneration and  for  no  apparent  reason.  There 
was  no  public  pressure  to  do  this.  In  fact, 
the  trend  had  been  to  try  to  encourage  com- 
petent people  from  the  profession  to  accept 
posts  to  serve  as  judges  to  improve  our 
standard  of  justice.  And  he  comes  along,  for 
no  reason,  and  antagonizes  all  the  judges 
at  these  various  levels. 

He  talked  a  bit  as  well  about  ofFtrack 
betting,  and  he  left  for  greener  pastures. 
He  says,  "I've  had  enough."  He  left  and 
he's  now  in  the  federal  House  still  making 
a  fool  of  himself  up  there  in  the  federal 
House. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  Get  ofi^  that  stuflF. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  he  was  replaced 
as  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  by 
the  hon.  member  for  Halton  West  ( Mr. 
Kerr).  The  first  thing  he  did  was  bring  in  a 
bill  to  repeal  the  bill  that  his  predecessor 
had  brought  in  about  judges,  and  he  de- 
cided to  compensate  the  judges,  or  at  least 
bring  them  back  to  the  previous  level.  Then 
his  biggest  contribution  as  provincial  secre- 
tary was  chasing  across  the  province  talking 
to  housewives  about  Sunday  shopping  and 
this  type  of  thing.  For  one  who  was  involved 


in  as  important  a  post  as  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Justice,  it  was  indeed  really  a  worthless 
contribution. 

His  final  volley  was  (Hrected  against  the 
judges,  especially  the  provincial  judges,  for 
being  lazy  and  he  succee<led  in  antagonizing 
that  group  of  people  who  at  that  time  were 
labouring  under  very  difficult  circumstances. 

In  the  Justice  secretariat,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
had  the  member  for  York  Mills  (Mr.  Bales), 
who  very  early  as  Attorney  General  of  the 
province  unfortunately  lost  all  credibility  as 
senior  law  officer  for  the  Grown  when  he  was 
involved  in  a  conflict  of  interest  involving 
land.  Then  he  showed  absolute  failure  of 
sensing  any  pulse  of  what  his  role  was  as 
Attorney  General  in  the  Fidinam  afi^air  where 
evidence  clearly  indicated  that  there  might 
have  been  a  prima  facie  case.  He  could  not 
understand,  and  he  had  to  be  pressured  by 
the  opposition  members  even  to  investigate 
this  situation. 

It  was  obvious,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  he  had 
no  sense  of  the  administration  of  justice  and 
that  he  really  had  no  feel  of  what  a  senior 
law  officer  of  the  Grown  should  be  in  this 
province.  Unfortunately,  he  relinquished  the 
position  as  the  chief  law  officer  to  his  senior 
officials  who  were  really  making  the  decisions 
for  him. 

I  intend  to  come  back  to  this  to  show 
what  happens  when  an  Attorney  General  is 
not  able  to  censure  or  is  not  able  to  control 
the  officers  that  work  within  his  department, 
officers  who  have  great  powers.  Very  few 
people  hear  about  these  special  prosecutors 
that  they  have,  but  these  people  have  all  the 
resources  of  the  Grown  at  their  disposal. 
Their  decisions  are  seldom  challenged  and 
there  is  really  no  one  to  check  on  them  unless 
the  Attorney  General  is  there  to  keep  them 
in  line. 

If  I  might  mention  the  member  for  Bell- 
woods  (Mr.  Yaremko)  who  was  Solicitor  Gen- 
eral, he  gave  a  pathetic  performance  as  well. 
Mr.  Speaker,  after  he  was  named  Solicitor 
General,  I  recall  a  great  article  in  one  of  the 
newspapers  that  said  he  was  going  to  be  a 
fantastic  crime  fighter.  His  biggest  contribu- 
tion was  chasing  after  pinball  machines  when 
he  should  have  been  looking  at  organize<l 
crime  in  this  province.  In  fact,  this  was  a 
pathetic  situation.  He  was  seizing  pinball 
machines  in  the  riding  of  the  Provincial  Secre- 
tary for  Justice  who  kept  telling  him,  "Stay 
away  from  my  riding  and  quit  seizing  those 
machines."  It  was,  in  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  a 
ridiculous  situation.  It  was  obvious,  as  well, 
that  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police  had  very 
little  confidence  in  him. 


656 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


It's  unfortunate,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  since 
1971  the  lack  of  excellence  and  the  lack  of 
calibre  in  the  Justice  section  have  really  done 
irreparable  damage  to  the  administration  of 
justice  in  this  province.  This  excellence  was 
established  by  the  former  Attorney  General, 
Mr.  Wishart,  who  had  the  confidence  of 
the  judges  and  the  confidence  of  the  law 
enforcement  people.  In  fact,  he  must  have 
been  a  genius  since  he  was  at  the  same  time 
Solicitor  General,  Attorney  General  and  Pro- 
vincial Secretary  for  Justice.  Things  used  to 
work  pretty  smoothly  there.  Everybody 
seemed  to  be  relatively  pleased  at  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice  at  the  time.  All  of  this, 
Mr.  Speaker,  has  really  gone  down  the  drain. 
It's  very  unfortunate  that  there  has  not  been 
more  talent  and  more  capability  in  the  Justice 
section. 

One  of  the  major  mistakes,  Mr.  Speaker, 
made  by  the  hon.  member  for  York  Mills  as 
Attorney  General  was  his  lack  of  sensing 
the  pulse  of  the  importance  of  some  of  the 
recommendations  of  the  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission. First  of  all,  he  sat  on  the  report  of 
the  Law  Reform  Commission  for  something 
like  eight  to  10  months.  Then  finally,  when 
he  presented  it,  if  you  recall,  Mr.  Speaker, 
he  made  a  lengthy  statement.  One  of  the 
things  that  he  was  very  categorical  about  was 
the  fact  that  in  the  administration  of  justice, 
the  administration  of  the  courts  and  the  in- 
dependence of  the  courts  was  something  that 
should  be  kept  under  the  Attorney  General. 

I  might  just  read  some  of  the  things  that 
were  said  at  the  time  by  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral and  some  of  the  replies  made  by  cer- 
tain groups  of  individuals  involved  in  the 
administration  of  justice.  I  recall,  Mr. 
Speaker,  back  at  the  opening  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  at  the  1974  assizes,  the  member  for 
York  Mills  was  reported  to  have  made  this 
statement: 

Attorney  General  Dalton  Bales  has  told 
the  province's  judges  and  lawyers  that  the 
administration  of  the  province's  courts  will 
continue  to  be  under  the  control  of  his 
ministry.  Speaking  at  the  formal  opening 
of  the  1974  Supreme  Court  assizes  yester- 
day, Mr.  Bales  confirmed  the  government's 
decision  that  the  administration  of  the 
courts  should  remain  under  government 
control,  despite  recent  suggestions  that  a 
quasi-independent  body  be  set  up  to  assume 
the  function 

The  reason  I  suggest  it  is  especially  important 
that  the  courts  be  absolutely  independent, 
Mr.  Speaker,  has  become  obvious,  I  think, 
in  the  US.  I  think  very  few  people  will  doubt 


the  courage  of,  for  instance,  individuals  like 
Judge  Sirica,  who  was  prepared  to  stand  up  to 
whatever  pressures  were  exerted  from  above. 
I  think  the  finest  hour  of  the  independence 
of  the  judiciary  was  pointed  out  in  that  situ- 
ation, and  it  is  extremely  important  here.  If 
I  might  go  on  to  read: 

The  treasurer  of  the  Law  Society  told 
the  assizes,  however,  that  the  structure  of 
court  administration  must  be  viewed  as 
long-range.  Mr.  Robins  recalled  that  the 
Law  Reform  Commission  recommended  in 
its  report  that  the  court  administrator 
should  not  be  part  of  Mr.  Bales'  ministiy. 
Mr.  Robins  said  the  benchers  and  Law 
Society  have  expressed  concern  that  Mr. 
Bales'  proposal  would  not  adequately  pro- 
tect the  independence  of  those  who  will  be 
responsible  for  the  administration  of  the 
courts. 

The  Attorney  General  had  said  at  the  time, 
Mr.  Speaker: 

In  making  this  decision  [in  other  words, 
to  keep  the  courts  under  his  administration] 
we  were  mindful  of  the  obvious  need  to 
maintain  an  independent  judiciary,  and 
have  on  several  occasions  stressed  that  it 
is  not  our  intention  to  interfere  with,  or  to 
attempt  to  influence  in  any  way,  adjudica- 
tive functions  of  a  judge. 

Well,  that's  a  sham,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  in- 
tend to  point  out  how  in  a  trial  in  Ottawa 
the  Attorney  General  of  the  time,  the  mem- 
ber for  York  Mills,  abused  the  great  powers 
that  are  given  to  him  under  the  Criminal 
Code,  and  in  fact  used  the  judge  and  the  pro- 
vincial court  as  a  tool  of  the  prosecution  when 
they  are  supposed  to  be  independent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  show  how  he 
abused  this  process,  this  trial  involved  the 
prosecution  conducted  by  the  special  Crown. 
In  other  words,  these  people  are  working 
right  out  of  the  department  in  Toronto.  The 
special  Crown  in  this  case  was  Ian  Cartwright. 
I  intend  to  show,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  through 
the  administration,  the  whole  process,  and 
the  conducting  of  this  particular  trial,  the 
Crown  was  biased;  that  this,  in  fact,  turned 
into  a  personal  vendetta  between  the  Crown 
and  one  of  the  accused  in  the  case,  and  that 
the  Attorney  General  was  used  in  the  case— 
or  I  should  say,  misused  in  the  case— in  the 
sense  that,  as  I  suggested  before,  the  ofHicals 
of  his  department,  not  knowing  what  was  go- 
ing on,  used  the  powers  that  he  had  to  try 
in  fact  to  further  the  trial. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  trial  involved  the  Queen 
versus  one  Leopold  Neilsen,  one  Jason  "the 
Wolf"    Wentzell,    and    one    Warren    Joseph 


APRIL  2,  1974 


657 


Smith.  This  involved  37  counts  of  fraud 
against  Neilsen  and  one  count  of  possession  of 
a  cheque  obtained  by  fraud;  18  counts  of 
fraud;  18  counts  of  fraud  against  Wentzell, 
and  17  counts  of  fraud  and  one  count  of 
possession  against  Smith.  This  was  a  joint 
charge  with  Neilsen.  This  was  all  in  one 
information. 

Wentzell  was  well  known  in  Ottawa.  He 
was  a  lawyer,  a  well-known  practitioner  in 
Ottawa  and  he  has  been  a  former  alderman 
in  the  city  of  Ottawa.  Wentzell  had  acted  as 
a  lawyer  for  a  company  called  All  Grads 
Group;  in  fact,  this  company  was  involved 
in  a  scheme  whereby  it  was  organizing 
university  scholarships. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  intend  to  challenge 
in  any  way  the  fact  that  there  might  have 
been  a  prima  facie  case  to  lay  this  charge  in 
the  first  place,  and  that  lawyers  or  former 
aldermen  or  anyone  else  are  subject  to  prose- 
cution like  anyone  else.  But  in  this  particular 
case,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  intend  to  show  how, 
in  fact,  the  provincial  courts  were  abused,  the 
provincial  judge  was  used  by  the  Attorney 
General's  department,  it  turned  into  a  per- 
sonal vendetta,  immunity  was  granted  to 
certain  individuals,  which  does  not  exist  imder 
our  judicial  system,  and  there  were  certain 
other  matters.  I  intend  to  point  these  things 
out  as  I  go  on  with  the  trial. 

First  of  all,  the  accused  got  involved  in 
the  preliminary  hearing.  Two  of  the  accused, 
Mr.  Speaker,  elected  to  proceed  by  way  of 
judge  and  jury,  and  of  course,  the  provincial 
judge  at  that  point  holds  the  preliminary  hear- 
ing. The  other  accused  elected  to  proceed  by 
way  of  judge  alone— the  provincial  court 
judge.  But  the  provincial  court  judge  in  this 
case  had  jurisdiction  to  send  the  three  on  to 
the  preliminary  hearing. 

The  preliminary  hearing  was  held  in  front 
of  one  Judge  Michel  who  is  a  provincial 
judge  in  North  Bay  I  think.  Judge  Michel 
is  a  fellow  I  know  personally;  he  is,  in  fact, 
a  former  member  of  the  Crown  attorney's 
office. 

It  would  appear  obvious,  Mr.  Speaker,  at 
the  outset  of  this  trial  that  Cartwright,  the 
special  Crown  attorney,  was  out  to  get 
Wentzell.  One  of  the  ways  to  be  sure  of 
getting  Wentzell  involved  or  get  a  conviction 
against  Wentzell  was  to  taint  Wentzell  with 
the  evidence  of  the  other  two,  to  try  to  keep 
the  three  accused  together,  especially  one  Neil- 
sen who  was  obviously  involved  in  this. 
Keeping  Neilsen  along  with  Wentzell  would 
help    in    the    prosecution    because    the    jury 


would  hear  the  evidence  against  Neilsen  and 
would  make  some  inference  against  Wentzell. 
The  preliminary  hearing  began,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  at  the  outset  of  the  preliminary 
hearing,  three  counsel  were  representing 
these  individuals.  They  were  well-known 
counsel  in  Ottawa:  Mr.  Arthur  Cogan  rep- 
resenting Mr.  Wentzell;  Mr.  Ed  Houston 
representing  Smith;  and  a  Mr.  Shore  rep- 
resenting Neihsen. 

Right  from  the  outset  of  the  trial  it  was 
obvious  to  counsel  involved  in  this  case 
that  this  was  going  to  be  a  lengthy  case  and 
so  they  approached  Cartwright  and  said  to 
him:  "Rather  than  get  involved  in  a  very 
lengthy  preliminary  hearing,  why  don't  \ou 
prefer  an  indictment?  Why  don't  you  get 
the  Attorney  General  to  prefer  an  indictment 
now?  We  could  go  on  to  trial;  we  could 
save  a  lot  of  expense." 

Unfortunately  Cartwright  was  having  noth- 
ing of  the  offer  made  by  the  three  defence 
counsel.  He  felt  that  a  preliminary  hearing, 
if  not  helpful  to  the  accused,  would  be  at 
least  helpful  to  his  case.  He  used  the  pre- 
liminary hearing  as  a  form  of  disclosure  for 
himself. 

Th?  preliminary  hearing  got  going  and 
they  heard  14  days  of  evidence  which  is  ex- 
tremely lengthy  for  a  preliminary  hearing. 
What  happened  was  that  after  14  days  the\' 
had  an  adjournment  and  one  of  the  ac- 
cused, Neilsen,  was  in  custody.  They  forgot 
to  bring  him  back  every  eight  days  for  a  re- 
mand and  so  lost  jurisdiction  over  Neilsen. 
With  Neilsen  being  charged  jointly  with 
the  other  two,  and  having  lost  jurisdiction 
over  him,  the  Crown  found  itself  in  a  real 
predicament.  In  fact,  it  looked  as  though  the 
14  days  of  evidence  was  going  to  go  down 
the  drain. 

But  not  for  Cartwright.  What  he  de- 
cided to  do  at  this  point  was  to  present  the 
new  information  and  proceed  with  the  new 
information  against  the  three.  Of  course,  both 
counsel  for  the  other  two  accused  objected  to 
this.  They  said,  "We've  already  heard  14  days 
of  evidence  in  relation  to  our  clients  and  there 
is  no  reason  why  we  should  have  to  start 
over;  because  with  new  information,  if  coun- 
sel did  not  consent,  you  would  have  to  start 
the  proceedings  all  over  again. 

He  tried  to  force  this  on  and  counsel 
brought  a  motion  for  prohibition  in  Supreme 
Court  and  before  the  motion  was  heard 
the  special  Crown  attorney,  Mr.  Cartwright, 
was  heard  the  special  Crown  attorney, 
withdrew  the  new  information  and  decided 


658 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


to  lay  the  new  information  against  Neilsen. 
What  he  decided  to  do  was  to  proceed  with 
the  other  two  accused,  in  whose  case  they 
had  already  had  14  days  of  evidence,  and 
side  by  side  put  in  Neilsen.  It's  a  procedure 
I'd  never  heard  of  but  this  was  challenged 
right  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Canada 
and  the  court  felt  there  was  nothing  im- 
proper about  it. 

In  any  event,  they  proceeded  side  by 
side  on  both  informations.  Throughout  this 
matter,  Cartwright  himself  suggested  to 
defence  counsel  that  if  there  were  38  counts 
in  this  case  he  would  not  be  proceeding 
to  trial  with  more  than  seven  or  eight  counts. 
I  have  correspondence,  Mr.  Speaker,  which 
I  intend  to  enter  into  the  record  which 
clearly  shows  this.  He  told  counsel  that  even 
after  two  days  or  eight  days  of  preliminary 
hearing   or   14  days   of  preliminary   hearing. 

These  people  kept  saying  to  him— first 
of  all  the  counsel  for  Neilsen,  who  had  been 
in  custody  for  two  years,  said,  "I'm  prepared 
to  plead  guilty  to  these  counts."  One  would 
think,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  would  be  a  right 
in  this  society  today  for  the  accused,  if  he 
so  decides,  to  plead  guilty;  he  is  entitled  to 
that.  But  not  in  this  particular  situation 
because  to  plead  guilty  he  would  have  to  get 
the  consent  of  the  Crown  to  re-elect  to  plead 
guilty  before  a  provincial  court  judge. 

Cartwright  was  not  having  any  of  this  be- 
cause he  wanted  to  keep  Neilsen  along  with 
the  other  two  so  he  could  taint  them  again 
—keep  the  three  together  so  that  the  evidence 
would  be  more  overwhelming  against  the 
other  two.    He  consistently  refused  this. 

Counsel  for  Smith  as  well  was  prepared  to 
enter  a  plea  of  guilty  but  Cartwright,  as  I 
say,  was  not  having  any  of  this.  In  fact, 
counsel  for  Smith  suggested  that  he  plead 
guilty  to  one  count  and  make  restitution  for 
$12,000,  and,  in  fact,  this  will  become  signi- 
ficant when  we  see  the  sentence  that  was 
given  to  Smith  at  the  end  of  the  trial.  In 
any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  happened  was 
the  preliminary  hearing  continued  and  they 
had  37  days  of  preliminary  hearing,  if  you 
can  imagine  the  cost,  the  length  of  time  in- 
volved—37  days  of  preliminary  hearing. 

At  that  point,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  provincial 
court  judge,  Michel,  adjourned  the  matter 
to  nile,  first  of  all,  on  whether  Neilsen,  one 
of  the  accused,  could  plead  guilty  and  sec- 
ondly to  rule  on  certain  evidence  and  on 
whether  the  accused  should  be  committed  for 
their  trial.  He  ruled  that  all  evidence  heard 
against  Smith  was  actually  not  admissible 
and,  in  fact,  only  the  evidence  in  relation  to 
the  one  count— the  one  count  he  had  offered 


to  plead  guilty  on— was  admissible.  So  he 
put  the  decision  over  for  a  few  days  to  con- 
sider this. 

At  that  point  counsel  for  the  defence 
suspected  that  something  was  up.  I  got  a 
phone  call  from  his  counsel  who  said,  "I 
think  the  Attorney  General  is  considering  pre- 
ferring an  indictment." 

What  preferring  an  indictment  means,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  at  that  point  that  the  At- 
torney General  decides,  and  he  has  this  power 
under  the  Code  to  say,  "We  say  that  these 
people  are  going  on  to  trial.  Never  mind  the 
preliminary  hearing  or  anything  else,  we 
prefer  an  indictment  before  a  grand  jury." 
The  Attorney  General  has  this  power.  Even 
before  an  election  is  made  or  anything  else 
he  can  say,  'We  are  preferring  an  indict- 
ment," and  take  it  up  before  grand  jury  and 
on  to  trial. 

But  preferring  an  indictment  is  improper 
when  you  decide  to  embark  on  a  course  of  a 
preliminary  hearing.  Once  you  decide  to 
have  a  preliminary  hearing  it  is  highly  im- 
proper to  get  involved  in  this;  because  you 
gave  it  to  a  provincial  judge,  he  is  the  one 
who  is  going  to  rule  on  the  evidence.  I  con- 
sider it  unwarranted  interference  in  a  judi- 
cial process  even  to  consider  this. 

When  I  got  word  from  defence  counsel 
on  this  point  I  spoke  to  the  member  for 
York  Mills.  That  was  before  he  decided  to 
prefer  an  indictment.  I  said  to  him,  "I  under- 
stand that  this  Mr.  Cartwright  is^  trying  to 
get  you  to  prefer  an  indictment."  And  he 
said,  "Yes,  they  are." 

I  said  to  him  at  that  point-this  was  right 
in  the  House-Tt's  highly  improper  for  you 
to  get  involved  in  preferring  an  indictment 
at  a  time  when  you  have  heard  37  days  of 
evidence,  and  a  provincial  judge  has  put  the 
matter  over  to  make  certain  rulings  on  the 
evidence  to  decide  whether  he  should  commit 
or  not." 

He  said,  "Yes,  I  consider  it  a  highly 
volatile  step-a  step  that  I  will  give  serious 
consideration  to."  He  said,  "You  can  rest 
assured  that  I'll  be  looking  at  the  situation 
very  closely. 

Well,  two  days  later  he  preferred  the 
indictment.  I  couldn't  believe  it  when  coun- 
sel called  me  back  and  said,  "He  has  decided 
to  prefer  an  indictment." 

Preferring  an  indictment,  generally  speak- 
ing, Mr.  Speaker,  happens  at  the  outset.  If 
the  Attorney  General  decides  at  that  point 
he  is  not  going  to  have  a  preliminary  hear- 
ing, he  says,  "Let's  prefer  an  indictment." 
Or  it  happens  sometimes,  Mr.  Speaker,  when 


APRIL  2,  1974 


659 


the  magistrate  discharges  an  accused  and  the 
Attorney  General  feels  that  he  should  go  on 
to  trial  in  any  event. 

But  preferring  an  indictment  is  a  pretty 
bold  step  in  any  case;  it's  seldom  used.  But 
preferring  an  indictment  in  the  middle  of  a 
preliminary  hearing  is  what  I  consider  to  be 
an  unwarranted  interference  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  summer,  I  recall,  there 
was  a  preliminary  hearing  in  Kingston  involv- 
ing a  murder  where  two  accused  were 
charged  with  murdering  of  another  indivi- 
dual, and  there  was  a  lot  of  press  about  this 
situation.  I  recall  reading  the  transcript  of 
that.  But  what  happened  in  that  particular 
case,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  that  the  inmates  who 
were  witnesses  against  the  accused  were 
afraid  to  testify,  and  the  Crown  had  not 
promised  them  either  to  try  to  hide  their 
identity  or  to  get  them  moved  to  other  peni- 
tentiaries. And,  of  course,  wdth  the  people 
refusing  to  testify  at  the  preliminary  hearing, 
the  magistrate  had  no  choice  at  that  point 
to  discharge  both  accused. 

So,  at  that  point  I  wrote  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral and  said  this  is  a  case  where  he  should 
prefer  an  indictment,  because  he  could  grant 
certain  security  to  these  witnesses  from  the 
other  inmates;  tell  them  that  they  can  be 
sent  to  another  penitentiary  and  then  they 
will  give  their  evidence.  In  fact  what  hap- 
pened, Mr.  Speaker,  was  that  an  indictment 
was  preferred  by  the  Attorney  General,  they 
had  the  trial  and  the  accused  were  convicted. 

But  in  this  particular  case,  it  was  after  37 
days  of  preliminary  hearing,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Can  you  imagine  the  cost  of  something  like 
this?  You  have  three  accused,  you  have  the 
whole  administration  of  justice  involved— 
the  judge,  all  the  officials-and  he  decides 
at  that  point  to  prefer  an  indictment. 

I  asked  the  Attorney  General,  "Why  did 
you  do  such  a  thing?"— I  walked  right  into 
his  office  and  said,  "I  consider  this  highly 
improper.  Why  did  you  decide  to  prefer  an 
indictment?" 

He  said,  "First  of  all,  defence  counsel  were 
stalling  proceedings  by  motioning  us  to 
death."  He  said  defence  counsel  were  bring- 
ing on  too  many  motions.  And  he  said,  sec- 
ondly, "Some  of  the  witnesses  we  were 
concerned  about  were  not  in  good  health 
and  we  were  afraid  that  these  witnesses 
would  not  be  around  and  then—" 

Mr.  Gaunt:  They  would  die. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  well  that  was  what  he  was 
afraid   of— that  is   what   I   thought.   He  said: 


"We  are  concerned  that  time  is  of  the  es- 
sence.   We   have   to   proceed   on   with   this." 

And  so,  I  want  to  deal  with  these  two  mat- 
ters. There  is  the  question  of  the  health  of 
the  witnesses  and  the  question  of  whether 
counsel  were  in  fact  abusing  the  process  by 
bringing  on  these  motions. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  just  bring 
some  of  these  matters  to  the  attention  of  the 
members  here  about  these  questions.  First 
of  all,  there  is  counsel  wanting  to  plead 
guilty,  which  I  consider  to  be  extremely  un- 
fair on  the  part  of  the  Crown  not  to  allow 
an  individual  to  plead  guilty  on  certain 
counts.  And  I  want  to  read  into  the  record, 
Mr.  Speaker,  a  letter  sent  by  Mr.  Shore,  who 
is  counsel  for  Neilsen.  The  indictment  took 
place  some  time  in  the  early  part  of  Novem- 
ber, 1973.  This  is  a  letter  written  in  May, 
1973,  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, 18  King  St.  E.,  Toronto,  Ont.,  attention 
of  Mr.  Ian  Cartwright. 

Dear  Sir: 

Re:    Leopold   Neilsen  versus   Regina. 

This  will  confirm  our  conversation  out- 
side No.  2  courtroom,  60  Waller  St.,  Ot- 
tawa, on  May  29,  1973,  wherein  you  ad- 
vised me  that  in  the  event  of  a  formal 
committal,  the  Crown  would  proceed  to 
trial  on  the  count  alleging  illegal  posses- 
sion of  a  cheque  [That's  one  count.]  ob- 
tained by  fraud  from  William  Shawley  and 
five  or  six  counts  alleging  fraud  against  the 
individual  complainants. 

Now,  recall  this  is  in  May  and  the  prelimi- 
nary hearings  weren't  for  quite  some  time 
and  at  that  point  it's  on  record  that  Crown 
counsel  had  said  he  was  only  proceeding  with 
seven  or  eight  counts.  To  continue  with  the 
letter,  he  said: 

Due  to  Mr.  Neilsen's  predicament,  I 
advised  you  that  I  am  prepared  to  seek 
instructions  now  with  regard  to  a  plea 
of  guilty  to  these  six  or  seven  counts.  You 
indicated  that  if  Mr.  Neilsen  wishes  to 
plead  guilty,  you  are  not  prepared  to  with- 
draw any  of  the  37  counts  which  he  is 
presently  facing. 

And  of  course,  what  defence  counsel  wanted 
at  that  point,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  to  say:  "Look, 
he's  going  to  plead  to  seven  or  eight  counts. 
You  withdraw  the  other  30  or  so  counts." 
But  you  know,  plea  bargaining  is  something 
that  is  frowned  upon.  But  in  this  case  it  was 
not  really  plea  bargaining,  because  Crown 
counsel  had  advised  that  they  would  not  be 
proceeding  with  the  30  counts  at  the  trial 
in  any  event.  He  goes  on  to  say: 


660 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


As  the  trial  is  not  likely  to  take  place 
until  at  least  the  fall,  some  four  months 
hence,  and  because  Mr.  Neilsen  has  been 
in  custody  since  June  2,  1972,  it  is  grossly 
unfair,  in  my  opinion,  to  prosecute  my 
client  on  37  counts  when  he  may  be  pre- 
pared to  plead  to  the  six  or  seven  counts 
on  which  you  will  be  proceeding  a  trial. 

In  the  event  that  Mr.  Neilsen  does  plead 
guilty  at  a  later  stage,  I  intend  to  introduce 
into  evidence  this  letter  in  mitigation  of  a 
sentence. 

Well,  obviously  Cartwright  refused  this.  What 
happened  in  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  the 
election  that  he  wanted  to  make  to  plead 
guilty,  which  the  provincial  judge  was  sup- 
posed to  rule  upon,  was  annulled  by  the  pre- 
ferring of  the  indictment  by  the  Attorney 
General. 

What  Neilsen  had  done  originally  was  that 
he  had  elected  to  be  tried  by  a  provincial 
judge. 

And  Mr.  Shore  goes  on  to  say  in  the 
letter  to  myself  dated  March  4,  1974: 

His  election  was  declined  and  he  was 
ordered  to  undergo  a  preliminary  inquiry, 
although  he  was  in  custody  at  the  time  and 
has  been  in  custody  since  June  2,  1972, 
when  he  was  arrested  in  Florida.  On  Oct. 
25,  1973,  a  formal  application  for  re- 
election in  order  to  plead  guilty  to  a  draft 
indictment  which  had  been  prepared  by  the 
Crown  .  .  . 

In  fact,  the  Crown  had  prepared  the  draft  in- 
dictment for  trial.  And  so,  having  seen  the 
draft  indictment,  he  said  "I'll  plead  guilty 
before  the  provincial  judge  to  these  counts." 

The  presiding  judge  adjourned  the  ap- 
plication one  week  for  a  decision  when  the 
Crown  would  not  consent  to  same.  The 
next  day  the  Hon.  Mr.  Bales,  then  Attorney 
General,  preferred  an  indictment  against  all 
three  accused,  thereby  effectively  nullify- 
ing Mr.  Neilsen's  application  to  plead  guilty 
l)efore  the  fudge  who  had  heard  over  30 
days  of  evidence  on  a  preliminary  inquiry. 

It  seemed  to  make  sense  that  he  would  plead 
before  the  provincial  court  judge  who  had 
heard  all  the  evidence. 

So,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  one  of  the  first 
things  that  I  consider  highly  improper  in  not 
allowine  an  accused  to  plead  guilty.  I  consider 
that  highly  unfair. 

Now,  the  second  point  made  on  this  is  the 
health  of  the  witnesses.  I  intend  to  read  into 
the  record,  Mr.  Speaker,  certain  letters  written 
by  the  special  prosecutor  in  this  case  to  his 


chief  witness,  whose  health  he  was  concerned 
about.  The  chief  witness  was  Robert  J. 
Clendenin,  a  corporation  lawyer  in  Mon- 
mouth, 111.,  who  was  involved  in  the  scheme 
in  the  United  States;  and,  of  course,  he  was 
a  very  valuable  witness  for  the  Crown  in 
the  prosecution. 

On  Sept.  6,  1973,  Cartwright,  counsel  for 
the  Attorney  General,  wrote  this  man  a  letter 
trying  to  get  him  to  come  and  give  evidence 
in  Ottawa.  One  of  the  things  he  said  to  Mr. 
Clendenin  at  that  time  was: 

I  am  deeply  concerned  about  the  ques- 
tion of  your  health  [I  am  reading  from  the 
tetrel  dated  Sept.  6,  19731  and  I  wonder 
if  I  could  impose  upon  you  to  ask  if  you 
would  outline  to  me,  in  a  letter,  your  age 
and  your  current  state  of  health  and  also 
any  difficulties  that  you  encountered  when 
you  came  to  Ottawa  last  November. 

My  reason  for  it  is  that  I  would  like  to 
draft  an  affidavit  and  send  it  down  to  you 
to  be  sworn  and  returned  to  me  so  that  I 
may  put  it  before  the  court  on  Oct.  30  on 
my  motion  to  have  the  trial  proceed  at 
that  time.  Could  you  please  provide  me 
with  the  particulars  of  your  jurisdiction 
in  order  that  I  may  properly  draft  this 
affidavit? 

I  hope  that  you  do  not  feel  that  this  is 
an  imposition.  I  am  certainly  very  grateful 
for  your  assistance. 

He  is  trying  to  get  Clendenin  to  sav  that 
he  is  not  well  so  he  can  have  an  affidavit 
and  thereby  sort  of  justify  to  the  Attorney 
General  the  preferring  of  the  indictment  and, 
secondly,  justify  to  the  Supreme  Court  judge 
that  this  trial  should  proceed  expeditiously 
because  he  has  some  sick  witnesses. 

Mr.  Clendenin  replied  to  Mr.  Cartwright 
on  Sept.  28,  1973,  in  a  letter  from  Mon^ 
mouth.  111.  He  stated  as  follows,  Mr.  Speaker; 
Dear  Sir: 

Since  your  letter  of  Sept.  6,  1973,  I 
have  not  received  volumes  one  and  two  of 
the  transcript  of  my  testimony  taken  in 
Ottawa  in  November,  1972.  As  soon  as  the 
date  has  been  firmed  for  the  trial  involving 
the  records  of  Educational  Development 
Services  Inc.  [this  was  one  of  the  com 
panics  involved  in  the  scheme]  and  you 
have  determined  when  my  testimony  will 
be  taken,  I  would  respectfully  request  that 
you  send  me  by  registered,  certified  mail 
a  subpoena  requesting  my  attendance  at 
the  hearing. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


661 


He  went  on  to  say: 

At  present  my  health  is  good  for  a  man 
of  69  years  of  age,  and  I  would  be  reluc- 
tant to  sign  an  affidavit  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  attempting  to  accelerate  any  trial. 
The  only  diflBculties  I  had  with  the  hearing 
liist  November  was  the  necessity  of  stand- 
ing on  my  feet  for  several  days  in  a  wit- 
ness box,  since  my  circulation  is  not  as 
good  as  in  my  youth.  I  also  managed  to 
catch  a  bad  cold  and  possibly  the  flu, 
\\  hich  winds  up  later  with  some  congestion 
dn  my  lungs. 

Mr.  Clendenin  clearly  stated  at  that  point 
that  there  was  nothing  really  wrong  with  his 
health  and  that  he  was  not  prepared  to  sign 
an  affidavit  to  play  into  the  special  prosecu- 
tor's hands.  Tnis  was  one  of  the  reasons 
given  to  me  by  the  Attorney  General  for 
preferring  the  indicbnent,  the  health  of  a 
witness.  To  my  knowledge  there  was  no 
other  witness  who  was  sick  or  had  any  prob- 
lems in  this  case.  He  must  have  been  refer- 
ring to  Mr.  Clendenin,  but  it  is  obviously 
not  the  case  that  there  is  something  wrong 
with  the  health  of  that  witness. 

Mr,  Speaker,  if  I  might  point  this  out, 
Cartwright  clearly  stated  in  a  letter  of  Sept. 
11  that  he  did  not  intend  to  proceed  on 
38  counts  but  only  on  seven  or  eight  counts. 
In  his  letter  to  Mr.  Clendenin  of  Sept.  11, 
1973,  he  stated: 

I  have  decided  that  for  a  trial  only  a 
certain  number  (probably  about  seven)  of 
charges  of  fraud  vdll'  be  heard,  and  one 
charge  of  possession  of  a  cheque  fraudu- 
lendy  in  the  United  States  will  be  heard. 
My  reasoning  is  that  it  is  senseless  to  have 
a  trial  of  some  38  counts  when,  if  anyone 
is  convicted,  he  will  get  the  same  sentence 
for  seven  charges  as  he  would  for  38. 
[Well,  that  seems  to  make  sense.]  Another 
effect  of  this  would  be  to  shorten  the 
overall  length  of  the  trial,  which  should 
make  it  considerably  easier  for  a  jury  to 
understand  the  evidence. 

What  had  they  been  doing,  Mr.  Speaker, 
wasting  their  time  at  the  preliminary  hear- 
ings? They  had  gone  37  days  on  38  counts, 
and  the  Cro\\Ti  counsel  himself  admitted  that 
he  had  no  reason  to  go  on  to  the  trial  on 
this  many  counts.  He  just  intends  to  go  on 
with  seven  or  eight  counts.  He  has  refused 
to  plead  guilty  by  counsel  or  be  prepared  to 
plead  to  some  of  these  particular  offences, 
because  it  appears  very  clear  that  what  he 
wants  to  do  is  keep  these  three  cases  to- 
gether on  for  trial.  He  has  successfully  ac- 
complished this  by  getting  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, as  I  said  earlier,  to  prefer  an  indictment. 


Just  to  give  you  some  idea  at  the  attitude 
of  Crown  and  defence  counsel  in  this  partic- 
ular case  —  and  I  suupose  that  there  was 
some  animosity  on  both  sides— Cartwright  on 
page  2  of  his  letter  of  Sept.  11  states: 

I  anticipate  that  on  Tuesday,  Oct.  30, 
counsel  for  all  three  acctised  will  make 
numerous  and  lengthy  objections  as  to 
everything  under  the  sun,  including  per- 
haps the  absence  of  any  coat  racks  for  them 
in  counsels'  changing  room. 

So  you  can  see  there  is  animosity  going  on 
between  Crown  and  defence  counsel  in  this 
case. 

In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  other 
reason  given  for  the  Attorney  General  for 
preferring  the  indictment  is  that  he  was  being 
motioned  to  death  by  counsel.  The  only 
motions  brought  by  counsel,  Mr.  Speaker, 
were,  first  of  all,  a  motion  brought  by  the 
two  counsel,  when  Cartwright  attempted  to 
get  these  people  on  a  new  information,  and 
that  seemed  like  a  valid  motion  because  at 
the  time  they  already  had  14  days  of  pre- 
liminary hearing  and  why  should  they  start 
all  over  again  on  a  new  information?  In  fact, 
that  motion  was  granted.  That  was  one  of 
the  motions  that  the  member  for  York  Mills 
was  talking  about. 

The  second  motion  was  brought  by  coun- 
sel for  Neilsen  when  they  tried  to  put  a  new 
Information  against  this  man  and  run  it  joint- 
ly with  the  other  information  because  you 
will  recall  that  he  was  starting  afresh  after 
14  days  of  evidence.  In  fact,  the  judge  said, 
"We  will  just  continue  on  as  we  have  al- 
ready heard  14  days  of  evidence,"  although 
they  had  lost  jurisdiction  on  him.  They 
went  right  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Can- 
ada on  this.  I  have  the  transcript  or  the 
factum  from  the  Supreme  Court  on  this  par- 
ticular motion.  In  fact,  three  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Canada  granted  the  appeal. 
I  shouldn't  say  they  granted  the  appeal  but 
they  allowed  a  motion  for  an  appeal.  So 
there  was  no  merit  whatsoever  in  the  mo- 
tion. Why  would  three  judges  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Canada  even  let  the  full 
court  hear  this  particular  appeal? 

The  third  motion,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  dis- 
missed with  reluctance.  It  involved  another 
motion  which  was  pending  before  the  Su- 
preme Court  when  the  Attorney  General 
decided  to  prefer  his  indictment.  As  I  said 
before,  Mr.  Speaker,  after  all  this  work  was 
done  by  the  pro^/incial  court,  after  the  pro- 
vincial court  judge  was  seized  with  this 
matter  and  the  matter  had  been  put  over 
for   adjudication,    the   Attorney   General    de- 


662 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cided  to  prefer  the  indictment.  As  I  said 
before,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  consider  it  highly 
improper  to  have  done  so. 

The  next  step  then  is  that  they  go  on  for 
30  days  of  trial,  if  you  can  imagine  that,  Mr. 
Speaker.  They  have  already  had  37  days  of 
preliminary  hearing  in  this  case.  They  went 
on  for  another  30  days  of  trial.  The  result  of 
the  trial,  I  might  point  out  at  this  point, 
was  that  Wentzell,  the  person  who  Cart- 
vwight  was  after,  was  acquitted.  He  was 
acquitted  completely.  Neilsen,  who  had  at- 
tempted to  plead  guilty  on  seven  counts, 
was  allowed  to  plead  guilty  at  that  point 
because  Cartwright  could  no  longer  deny 
him  the  right  to  plead  guilty  when  he  got 
him  before  the  Supreme  Court.  He  pleaded 
guilty  to  the  seven  counts  and  was  sen- 
tenced, I  think,  to  two  years.  Smith  was 
found  guilty  on  just  the  one  count  of  pos- 
session, a  count  that  he  said  he  was  pre- 
pared to  plead  guilty  on,  and  was  asked  to 
make  restitution  for  $2,000. 

One  asks,  what  was  this  whole  procedure 
of  37  days  of  preliminary  hearings  and  30 
days  of  trial  all  about? 

It  is  clear  that  what  happened  in  this 
case  was  a  personal  vendetta.  It  got  out  of 
hand.  Crown  counsel  should  always  approach 
cases  with  respect,  Mr.  Speaker.  He  should 
approach  cases  from  an  objective  point  of 
view  and  never  on  a  personal  basis.  It  ap- 
peared that  in  this  case  it  was  a  vendetta. 
It  appeared  to  be  an  obsession  on  the  part 
of  special  counsel  to  get  Wentzell.  Can  you 
imagine  the  terrific  cost  of  prelminary 
hearings  of  37  days  and  30  days  of  trial? 
I  would  think  that  this  trial  would  have 
cost  somewhere  upwards  of  $500,000. 

In  this  information,  Mr.  Speaker,  from  cer- 
tain information  that  I  have  here  appar- 
ently the  Crown  would  only  enter  evidence 
favourable  to  the  Crown,  and  that  should 
never  be  done.  Crown  counsel's  role  is  to 
present  the  evidence  to  the  judge,  or  to  the 
jury,  but  he  should  never  withhold  evi- 
dence which  might  be  favourable  to  the 
accused.  I  understand  that  this  was  done  in 
this  case. 

More  important,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  one  was 
charged  as  a  lawyer  acting  for  the  com- 
pany, why  was  not  the  accountant  who 
signed  all  the  cheques  and  was  very  much 
involved  with  the  administration  of  the  com- 
pany also  charged?  The  accountant  in  this 
case  was  named  Robert  Murray.  He  was  a 
very  important  witness   in  this  case. 

What  happened  was  that  he  was  brought 
in  to  testify,  and  of  course  he  testified  un- 


der the  protection  of  the  Canada  Evidence 
Act.  His  counsel,  at  that  point,  said,  "What 
about  any  charges  that  might  flow  against 
Mr.  Murray?"  —  because  he  was  involved 
with  all  these  people— and  Crown  counsel 
said,  "I  assure  you  that  there  will  be  no 
charges    laid   against    Mr.    Murray." 

In  fact,  what  he  was  doing  was  grant- 
ing him  immunity.  Well,  immunity  is  not 
something  that  is  known  under  our  system 
of  justice,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  is  done  in  the 
US— you  had  a  situation  where  you  had 
Dean  testifying  before  a  committee  —  but 
it's  not  something  that  is  germane  to  our 
system  of  justice.  If  a  witness  co-operates 
with  the  Crown,  obviously  this  is  a  factor  to 
be  taken  into  account  if  he  is  charged,  and 
is  a  factor  to  be  taken  into  account  on 
sentence  only,  not  whether  he's  going  to  be 
charged  or  not.  Because  this  is  a  prima  facie 
case  against  him.  But  apparently  the  Crown 
in  this  particular  case  granted  him  immun- 
ity and  I  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no 
authority  for  this. 

The  part  that  is  frightening,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  it  comes  back  to  my  original  point,  is 
that  when  you  have  a  weak  Attorney  Gen- 
eral who  is  being  bossed  around— 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  C.  E.  Mcllveen  (Oshawa):  Where  has 
the  member  for  Grey-Bruce  (Mr.  Sargent) 
been. 

Mr.  Martel:  We'll  have  some  order  around 
here  now. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Here's  a 
kw  and  order  Speaker  if  ever  I  saw  one. 

Mr.  Mcllveen:  The  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  will  keep  some  order  around  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Do  you  want  to  vote 
now? 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  coming  to  the 
end  of  the  anatomy  of  this  trial.  The  point 
I  was  trying  to  make  was  that  these  special 
Crowns  working  out  of  Toronto— and  I  have 
great  respect  for  many  of  them.  Very  com- 
petent individuals,  Mr.  Manning,  Mr.  Powell, 
all  very  capable  individuals  we've  heard 
about— have  great  powers  and  have  the  re- 
sources of  the  whole  Attorney  General's  de- 
partment. Decisions  made  by  them  are  seldom 
challenged  because  they're  always  working 
on  special  prosecutions,  prosecutions  which 
are  very  complex.  But  it's  important  that  the 
Attorney  General  keeps  an  eye  on  these 
people,  because  nobody  is  really  there  to 
check  on  them. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


The  only  check  that  there  is,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  an  independent  court,  a  court  that  will 
keep  them  in  line.  And  when  the  Attorney 
General  participates,  and  when  you  have  a 
situation  like  this,  with  the  help  of  the  At- 
torney General  you  really  abuse  a  process 
that  you  embark  on  at  a  preliminary  hearing. 
I  can't  emphasize  this  enough,  that  when  a 
judge  is  seized  with  a  case  and  he's  going  to 
hear  it,  then  our  courts  should  have  the  in- 
dependence to  hear  the  evidence  and  make 
a  decision  on  it,  and  the  Attorney  General 
should  not  interfere  at  that  point.  It's  highly 
improper. 

So  I  think  this  matter  should  be  looked 
into,  and,  obviously,  not  looked  into  by 
someone  in  the  Attorney  General's  depart- 
ment. They  shouldn't  be  investigating  them- 
selves. We've  had  that  happen  too  often.  I 
think  the  matter  should  be  looked  into  by 
either  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  or  a 
judge  of  the  county  court,  because,  as  I  say, 
there  is  really  no  one  to  check  on  these  indi- 
viduals. First  of  all,  very  few  people  even 
know  they  exist  or  that  this  area  exists.  They 
have  this  great  power  and  there's  no  check 
on  it  unless  you  have  a  very  competent  and 
capable  Attorney  General. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  sure  ain't  easy, 

Mr.  Roy:  Right.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
And  so,  I  think  there  should  be  a  judicial 
inquiry  into  this  whole  case,  to  look  at  this 
and  to  bring  these  matters  out,  as  to  what 
happened  in  this  case.  And  I  would  suggest 
first  of  all,  in  the  investigation  of  this  case, 
that  they  look  into  the  attitude  of  the  Crown. 
Because  it's  important  that  the  Crown  keeps 
his  objecivity  throughout.  The  minute  that 
the  Crown  loses  his  objectivity  and  it  becomes 
a  personal  vendetta,  there's  no  room  in  our 
system   of  justice  in  Canada  for  this. 

We've  seen  too  many  DAs  in  the  US  who 
are  packing  a  gun  and  trying  to  look  like 
hotshots,  trying  to  be  effective  to  make  sure 
that  they're  going  to  be  re-elected  the  next 
time.  Because,  as  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker, 
these  people  down  there  are  elected,  whereas 
here  in  Canada  these  people  are  named  and 
they  won't  be  jeopardized  whether  they  get 
a  conviction  or  whether  they  don't  get  a 
conviction.  And  because  of  that  system,  Mr. 
Speaker,  complete  objectivity  should  rule  on 
the  part  of  the  Crown. 

The  judicial  officer  or  the  judge  looking 
into  this  should  look  into  the  question  of 
preferring  indictment.  This  is  a  fantastic 
power  that  the  Attorney  General  has,  and 
if  it  is  abused— and  especially  if  you  have 
a   weak  Attorney   General   and   these   indivi- 


duals talk  the  Attorney  General  into  the 
abusing  of  this— then  it  hurts  the  administra- 
tion of  justice. 

We  should  be  looking  at  the  question  of 
granting  immunity.  Since  when  does  that 
exist  in  our  system  of  justice,  granting  im- 
munity to  individuals?  Not  in  .so  many  words; 
he's  not  saying  'Tou're  granted  immunity," 
but  he's  saying,  "There  will  be  no  charges 
laid  against  you." 

We  should  look  as  well  at  the  question 
of  offering  evidence  which  is  only  favourable 
to  the  Crown.  This  is  a  very  bad  practice 
as  well.  The  Crown  counsel  is  an  officer  of 
the  court.  He  should  be  offering  evidence 
which  is  favourable  not  only  to  the  Crown 
but  to  the  defence.  It's  to  be  remembered 
again  that  the-  Crown  has  all  the  resources 
of  the  OPP  and  investigators  at  its  fingertips. 
Money  is  no  question.  If  it  uncovers  evidence 
which  might  be  favourable  to  the  defence  it 
should  let  the  defence  know  about  this. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  consider  to 
be  highly  improper  is  the  Crown  refusing  to 
allow  an  accused  to  plead  guilty.  In  other 
words,  refusing  to  let  an  accused  plead  guilty, 
when  he  is  prepared  to  plead  guilty  on 
counts  the  Crown  intends  to  prefer  in  any 
event.  I  consider  that  to  be  an  abuse  of  the 
process,  and  I  think  this  matter  should  be 
looked  into  fully. 

I  know  one  shouldn't  make  comments 
about  individuals  who  find  it  extremely  diffi- 
cult to  defend  themselves  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  these  practices  are  going  on  and  I 
think  it's  in  the  public  interest,  especially 
when  taxpayers'  moneys  are  being  used  and 
when  the  administration  of  justice  is  at  stake, 
to  let  the  public  know  exactly  what  happens. 
It  comes  back  to  my  point  that  it's  important 
our  courts  be  completely  independent. 

Members  will  recall  some  time  ago  we 
decided  to  split  the  question  of  police  and 
prosecution.  We  put  the  police  under  the 
Solicitor  General.  This  was  a  very  positive 
step  in  my  opinion,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  we 
were  separating  this  function. 

What  does  it  appear  like  to  the  public 
when  the  same  boss  is  the  boss  of  the  judges 
and  the  boss  of  the  prosecution?  I  have 
talked  to  provincial  court  judges  and  they  feel 
uncomfortable  in  this  situation,  especially 
with  some  of  these  special  CrouTi  attorneys 
who  say  to  the  judge,  "I  think  you  should 
convict"  or  "I  think  you  should  commit 
someone  for  trial."  The  judge  doesn't  agree 
and  the  special  Crown  attorney  goes  back  and 
talks  to  his  boss  in  Toronto  or  to  the  deputy, 
Mr.  Callaghan,  or  somebody  and  says,  "This 
character  in  Sudbury"  —  or  somewhere  else  — 


664 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


"is  not  co-operating  with  us.  He  gives  me 
a  bad  time  every  time  I  go  there." 

What  do  members  think  the  deputy  At- 
torney General  or  the  boss  says  when  these 
fellows  come  back  and  ask  for  a  pay  raise  or 
want  to  talk  about  their  pension  or  some- 
thing; or  they  want  to  talk  about  attending  a 
convention  somewhere?  These  people  feel 
they  are  in'  a  very  uncomfortable  situation 
when  we  don't  have  the  split.  I  think  it's 
important,  Mr.  Speaker. 

1  was  glad  to  hear  that  the  new  Attorney 
General  is  giving  certain  consideration  to 
having  it  split  and  to  having  a  situation  as 
they  have  in  the  federal  courts  of  Canada, 
where  the  administration  of  the  courts  is 
something  which  comes  under  the  chief  judge. 
They  keep  their  complete  independence  and 
we've  seen  wdth  Watergate,  how  important 
that  can  be  and  how  important  it  is  to  have 
a  judge  who  could  act  completely  inde- 
pendently and  not  submit  to  pressures  from 
above. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Hydrogate. 

Mr.    Roy:    Mr.    Speaker,    I   would    like    to 
mention- 
Mr.  Gaunt:  Cartwright?   A  good'  start. 
Mr.  Roy:  Pardon  me? 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Cartwright  was  on  this?  He's 
got  a  bad  record.  He  handled  the  raspberry 
case  and  he  lost  that  one. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Another  reason  I  think  it's  extremely  im- 
portant to  have  this  independence  aside  from 
this  trial  and  aside  the  fact  that  we  have  a 
situation  in  which  provincial  court  and 
county  court  judges  have  the  same  boss^at 
least  county  court  judges'  salaries  or  their 
pension  are  not  dependent  on  the  provincial 
govemanent  but  the  provincial  judges'  are- 
is  we  have  a  bill  which  is  going  to  come  into 
force  in  this  country  called^I  don't  really 
know- we  call  it  the  wiretapping  bill.  As 
you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  it's  probably  going 
to  come  into  force  around  June  1  or  some- 
time in  the  month  of  June.  Great  powers 
are  given  in  this  bill  to  pohce  and  to  certain 
judges  and  this  power  must  be  exercised 
wisely. 

1  had  occasion  to  attend  the  seminar  on 
this  bill  at  Osgoode  Hall  some  two  weeks 
ago.  We  had  probably  one  of  the  reigning 
experts  in  the  world  on  wiretapping,  Sam 
Dash,  who  was  special  counsel  on  the  Irwin 


committee.  His  views  of  the  bill  were  that 
in  this  country  we  are  embarking  on  a  very 
dangerous  experiment  because  in  the  US 
they  have  had  such  a  bill  since  1968  which 
gives  less  power  than  our  wiretapping  bill. 
After  Watergate  they're  having  second 
thoughts  on  whether  priorities  should  be 
given  to  privacy. 

In  1968,  when  Nixon  came  in  he  thought 
that  privacy  was  not  important  and  that 
security  was  the  important  thing  and  they 
passed  this  particular  bill.  It  was  called  a 
safe  streets  Act  or  bill— something  along  this 
line.  Dash  says  they  are  giving  serious  con- 
sideration in  1974  to  doing  away  with  this 
particular  bill  because  of  the  powers  given. 
One  of  the  problems  under  the  bill,  as  Mr. 
Dash  said,  was  that  too  man}-  powers  were 
given.  W4iat  happens  after  a  while  is  that 
that  the  judges  who  are  granting  the  police 
jurisdiction  to  tap  become  a  rubber  stamp, 
and  they  are  granting  permission  as  a  matter 
of  course. 

The  reason  that  it  can  happen  in  this  par- 
ticular province,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  this.  First 
of  all,  under  the  vdretapping  bill— and  I  have 
had  the  occasion  to  go  through  it  in  depth 
—is  that  the  people  at  the  federal  level  don't 
seem  to  have  appreciated  the  fact  that  we 
have  made  a  split  here,  that  the  Solicitor 
General  is  in  charge  of  investigation  here. 
They  keep  talking  about  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral being  the  one  who  is  going  to  designate 
people  to  do  the  tapping  of  phones  or  what- 
ever method  they  use.  He  says  that  it  is  the 
Attorney  General,  so  that  has  not  been 
recognized  by  the  federal  level. 

The  second  thing  about  this  that  concerns 
me  greatly,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  you  must 
remember  that  approval  for  wiretapping  is 
just  like  giving  a  blank  warrant.  The  basis 
of  obtaining  permission  for  wiretapping  is 
the  basis  of  getting  what  is  called  search 
warrants.  When  you  get  a  search  warrant 
you  are  looking  for  something  specific.  You 
go  into  somebody's  home  on  June  12  and 
you  are  looking  for  a  gim;  you  are  looking  for 
something  else,  and  that  is  it;  that  is  the 
finish  of  this  warrant.  If  you  want  another 
warrant  you  have  to  go  out  and  get  one. 

Permission  for  wiretapping  on  the  other 
hand  is  like  a  general  warrant.  You  put  the 
tap  on  and  you  leave  it  there  for  30  days  and 
you  can  hear  conversations  about  all  sorts  of 
things.  And  if  you  haven't  heard  something 
for  30  days  you  get  an  extension;  you  get  it 
for  another  30  days.  So  it  is  extremely  dan- 
gerous to  give  police  that  kind  of  power. 

For  the  police  to  be  able  to  tap  they  are 
going    to    have   to    go    to    either    a    Supreme 


APRIL  2,  1974 


665 


Court  judge  or  to  a  county  court  judge.  Now 
what  happens  if  they  go  to  a  county  court 
judge? 

Half  of  the  county  court  judges  across  this 
province  are  sitting  on  police  commissions, 
and  when  the  police  force  wants  a  particular 
warrant  to  go  out  and  tap  they  go  before  the 
judge  who  sits  on  their  commission.  Now  what 
sort  of  enthusiasm  is  the  judge  going  to  have 
to  refuse  them  this  particular  warrant?  Con- 
sider that,  Mr.  Speaker. 

We  have  raised  it  in  this  House  before— 
and  I  notice  the  former  Solicitor  General,  the 
member  for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  Yaremko)  is 
here.  We  have  raised  that  matter  before— the 
inherent  conflict  that  exists  in  having  county 
court  judges,  or  provincial  court  judges  for 
that  matter,  sitting  on  police  commissions.  But 
it  is  extremely  important  in  this  wiretapping 
bill,  because  if  our  county  court  judges  who 
are  going  ot  be  granting  these  things  are 
sitting  on  police  commissions,  and  they  refuse 
a  warrant,  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  police 
commission  the  chief  is  certainly  going  to  tell 
the  judge  about  maybe  having  missed  out  on 
a  prosecution  because  he  didn't  allow  him  to 
tap. 

So  the  only  safeguard  that  the  public  is 
going  to  have  under  this  particular  bill,  Mr. 
Speier,  is  that  we  have  astute  and  inde- 
pendent judges,  and  that  they  look  very 
closely  at  each  particular  application,  and 
that  these  applications  be  detailed.  Because, 
as  I  say,  when  you  put  a  tap  on  somebody's 
phone,  when  you  decide  to  use  that  type  of 
method  of  prosecution,  really  you  have  given 
a  blank  cheque  to  the  police. 

I  do  not  say  the  police  in  this  coimtry  have 
abused  this  power  but,  you  know,  it  was 
interesting  because  Sam  Dash  gave  an  in- 
dication at  the  meeting  that  the  police  very 
often  don't  reveal  how  many  taps  they  have 
made.  They  don't  reveal  that  at  all.  He  gave 
as  an  example  a  very  professional,  very 
competent  district  attorney  in  New  York.  His 
name  escapes  me  for  the  moment,  Mr. 
Speaker,  but  this  man  is  well  known  right 
acioss  the  US,  and  he  used  to  continually  re- 
port that  there  were  about  300  taps  in  the 
cit\'  of  New  York  in  any  given  year.  As  it 
turned  out  he  said  that  what,  in  fact,  the 
police  were  reporting  were  only  successful 
taps.  In  other  words,  when  a  tap  was  not 
successful  they  would  not  report  and  in  fact, 
there  w^re  something  like  20,000  to  25,000 
taps  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

So  if  the  police  don't  decide  to  reveal  this 
particular  information,  we  are  giving  them  a 
blank  cheque.  As  I  say,  it  is  great  powers  that 
are  given  to  them. 


Sam  Dash,  who  I  was  extremely  impressed 
with— and  as  I  say,  he  was  an  authority  on 
this  particular  subject-was  explaining  that 
wiretapping  is  not  something  that  is  a  recent 
phenomenon.  He  said  the  overhearing  of 
conversatioas,  or  the  delving  into  the  privac) 
of  people,  started  in  the  Bible;  and,  as  he 
explained,  when  the  first  telegraph  pole  went 
up  a  wiretapper  probably  climbed  it  as  well. 
So  one  generation  has  a  tendency  to  forget 
the  mistakes  of  the  other.  He  says  we  are 
embarking  on  a  dangerous  experiment.  The 
point  has  to  be  made,  Mr.  Speaker,  now 
that  we  have  the  report  on  the  police  and  the 
police  commissions  that  has  just  come  down. 
I  would  like  the  Solicitor  General  give  us  an 
undertaking— in  fact,  I  think  he  has  given 
such  an  undertaking— that  judges  no  longer 
will  be  sitting  on  police  commissions,  but  I 
also  think  that  the  judges  who  are  presently 
sitting  on  police  commissions  should  be  asked 
to  leave, 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey  Bruce)  :  Right. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  should  be  taken  off  the 
police  commission.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say 
at  this  time  about  the  independence  of  the 
courts  in  terms  of  matters  that  are  of  great 
concern  to  me  and  that  certainly  should  be 
looked  into. 

If  I  might,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
speak  briefly  in  French  on  a  problem  that 
is  of  concern  to  me,  and  one  that  is  also  of 
great  concern  to  other  people  especially  in 
certain  areas  of  the  north  and  eastern  On- 
tario as  well  as  Ottawa,  It  is  the  matter  of 
the  use  of  French  in  the  courts. 

You  will  recall,  Mr,  Speaker,  that  in  the 
1972  Throne  Speech  this  government  prom- 
ised to  encourage  the  use  of  French  in  the 
courts.  I  was  extremely  disappointed  to  read 
about  the  member  for  that  great  northern 
riding— what's  the  riding? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Thunder  Bay. 

Mr.  Roy:  Thunder  Bay— when,  subsequent 
to  asking  a  question,  he  was  advised  that 
people  would  be  charged  for  translation. 
Well,  that  really  encourages  people  to  com- 
municate with  their  members  in  their  own 
language!    In  fact,  it  is  a  great  deterrent. 

Mr.  D.  A.  Paterson  (Essex  South):  The 
NDP  has  no  bilingual  secretaries? 

Mr.  Stokes:  It  shows  the  degree  of  com- 
mitment that  they  make. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  the  real  degree  of  commit- 
ment on  the  part  of  this  government.  I 
think  it  is  such  a  retrograde  step  that  I  can't 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


find  words  to  condemn  such  a  practice.  What 
does  one  tell  an  individual  who  wants  to 
communicate  with  his  member  or  with  the 
government  in  his  own  language? 

Mr.  Good:  We've  got  lots  of  bilingual 
secretaries. 

Mr.  Roy:  Consider  what  would  happen  if 
they  tried  to  do  something  like  that  in  Que- 
bec. Imagine  the  hue  and  cry  in  the  Province 
of  Quebec  if  an  English  Canadian  wrote  to 
the  provincial  government  or  his  member  and 
was  told  that  he  would  have  to  be  charged 
for  his  letter  to  be  translated  into  French. 
Can  you  imagine  what  would  happen,  Mr. 
Speaker?  This  government  seems  to  be  pre^ 
pared  to  accept  that  approach.  I  can't  find 
words  to  condemn  something  as  retrograde  as 
this. 

iMr.  Laughren:  Most  offensive. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  other  problem,  of  course, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  it  is  especially  ironic  in 
the  area  of  the  city  of  Ottawa.  An  accused 
person  in  the  city  of  Ottawa  who  is  charged 
with  an  offence  might  be  French-speaking, 
often  the  officer  will  be  French-speaking,  as 
will  the  judge  and  the  Crown  and  defence 
counsel— but  they  can't  speak  a  word  of 
French  in  that  court  because  the  language 
of  the  courts  is  English  only. 

But  should  that  person  cross  the  river  into 
Hull,  in  the  national  capital— and  we  con^ 
sider  Ottawa- Hull  as  the  national  capital  — 
there  he  would  have  a  choice  of  languages: 
he  could  have  his  trial  in  French  or  in  Eng- 
lish.  It  is  a  ridiculous  situation. 

In  the  riding  of  Prescott  and  Russell, 
where  85  per  cent  of  the  population  is 
French-speaking  and  many  of  them  have  dif- 
ficulty speaking  English,  the  witnesses,  the 
judge,  the  Crowns  and  all  the  court  officials 
speak  French.  But  because  of  this  ruhng, 
which  I  consider  to  be  an  idiotic  ruling— it's 
the  Judicature  Act  which  says  all  proceedings 
shall  be  in  English  only  —  these  people,  who 
can  hardly  speak  English,  are  breaking  their 
mouths  trying  to  testifying  in  English.  And 
those  who  cannot  speak  English  must  have  a 
translator  to  put  it  down  in  English  for  the 
record,  although  everybody  understands  what 
they  are  saying  in  the  first  place  in  French. 
It  is  an  absolutely  ludicrous  and  ridiculous 
situation. 

I  have  pointed  this  out  a  number  of  times. 
In  1969,  in  fact,  as  a  defence  counsel  I  chal- 
lenged this  section  of  the  Judicature  Act. 
Unfortunately,  when  I  got  into  court  to  chal- 
lenge, the  Crown  withdrew  the  charge  against 


my  client  and  I  had  no  further  case.    That 
took  care  of  that  problem. 

In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  federal 
level,  an  Act  called  the  Official  Languages  Act 
was  passed;  and  at  the  time  this  Act  was 
passed  the  provinces  were  told  that  French 
would  be  allowed  in  the  criminal  courts 
when  the  provinces  were  prepared  to  allow- 
French  in  their  civil  courts.  So  this  prov- 
ince has  decided  not  to  allow  French  in  its 
civil  courts,  and  of  course  we  don't  have  any 
French. 

I  come  back  to  the  promise  made  by  the 
Premier  in  the  Throne  Speech  of  1972:  When 
is  the  government  going  to  do  something 
about  this  absolutely  ludicrous  and  ridiculous 
situation?  We  have  officials  who  are  capable 
of  doing  things.  What's  the  purpose  of  ap- 
pointing bilingual  judges  or  French-speaking 
judges  if  they  are  never  going  to  hear  any 
evidence  in  their  own  language?  Isn't  that 
a  ridiculous  situation? 

And  we  continually  keep  doing  that.  We  say 
we  have  problems  if  they  should  go  to  the 
court  of  appeal.  None  of  these  problems, 
Mr.  Speaker,  do  I  consider  to  be  of  sufficient 
importance  to  deny  the  people  in  that  area 
their  rights,  you  know.  How  in  the  hell  are 
you  going  to  convince  the  people  in  Quebec 
that  advances  are  being  made  over  here  when 
they  come  into  Ottawa?  In  Quebec  they  can 
have  a  trial  in  either  language,  but  not  if  they 
come  into  Ottawa. 

And  so,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  the  reason  I 
\nl\  be  presenting  this  bill  which  is  going  to 
be  an  amendment  to  the  Judicature  Act  to  try 
to  assist  the  government  in  keeping  their  word 
and  enforcing  their  policy  which  was  in  the 
Throne  Speech. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Long  overdue. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  briefly 
mention  some  of  these  matters  in  French. 

La  question  du  frangais  dans  les  Cours  est 
une  question  qui  me  taquine  depuis  assez 
longtemps.  M.  I'Orateur,  je  trouve  absolument 
ridicule  qu'en  1974  on  attend  encore,  nous 
les  francophones  de  Test  de  I'Ontario,  ou  du 
nord  de  I'Ontario,  pour  avoir  le  franyais  dans 
les  Cours  quand  il  n'y  a  aucune  raison  justi- 
fiable pour  ne  pas  nous  permettre  cela. 

Si  vous  vous  rappelez,  M.  I'Orateur,  dans 
le  discours  du  Trone  de  1972,  le  Premier 
Ministre  de  la  province  avait  mentionne  qu'on 
encouragerait  I'usage  du  frangais  dans  nos 
Cours  de  justice.  Moi  j'avais  I'lmpression  que 
ce  n'etait  pas  quelque-chose  qui  devait 
prendre  trop  de  temps,  parce  que  dans  la 
region  d'Ottawa,  dans  la  region  de  Prescott- 


APRIL  2.  1974 


667 


Russell,  peut-ltre  dans  certaines  regions  du 
nord  de  la  province,  on  en  a  des  franco- 
phones. 

On  a  des  juges  qui  sont  bilingues,  on  a 
des  procureurs  qui  sont  bilingues,  on  a  des 
oflBciers  qui  sont  bilingues.  Et  cependant  tout 
le  monde  parlait  en  anglais  dans  les  Cours, 
c*6tait  une  situation  absolument  stupide.  Je 
n'ai  jamais  pu  comprendre  pourquoi  on  ne 
pemiettait  pas  I'usage  du  frangais  ici. 

Je  voudrais  dire,  M.  I'Orateur,  que  ce  qu'on 
pr^conise  n'est  pas  une  question  de  changer 
la  province  de  I'Ontario,  demander  qu'une 
personne  dans  la  region  de  Durham  ici  en 
Ontario,  ou  au  centre  de  Toronto  ait  un 
proems  en  frangais.  Mais  c'est  un  fait  que  dans 
certains  secteurs  ou  on  a  50,  75,  85  pour  cent 
de  francophones  et  qui  se  trouvent  pres  des 
frontieres  de  la  province  de  Quebec,  on  ne 
pent  meme  pas  avoir  un  proces  en  frangais. 
Je  trouve  cet  6tat  de  chose,  M.  I'Orateur, 
absolument  ridicule. 

A  ce  sujet  je  voudrais  mentionner  qu'en 
1969  je  defendais  un  individu,  un  franco- 
phone de  Vanier.  Le  procureur  dans  la  cause 
etait  frangais;  moi-meme  je  parlais  frangais. 
Le  juge  etait  bilingue,  le  procureur  est  devenu 
juge  plus  tard,  cest  M.  Vincent.  C'etait  la 
police  de  Vanier  ou  tous  les  officiers  parlaient 
frangais.  Je  me  suis  dit:  "Je  ne  vois  aucune 
loi  qui  m'empecherait  d'avoir  un  proces  en 
frangais,  k  part  la  loi  que  j'ai  deja  mentionee, 
la  loi  sur  nos  statuts  qu'on  appelle  Judicature 
Act." 

De  toute  fagon,  M.  I'Orateur,  j'ai  d^cid^  de 
proceder  en  Cour  avec  cette  cause-1^  et  de- 
mander au  juge  pour  avoir  un  proems  en 
frangais.  Ce  qui  est  arrive  c'est  que,  au  mo- 
ment ou  j'allais  plaider  ma  cause  en  frangais, 
la  couronne  a  retire  I'accusation  centre  I'ac- 
cus^  et  comme  de  fait  je  n'avais  plus  de  cause. 

Ce  qui  arrive  depuis  ce  temps-la,  M. 
f  Orateur,  c'est  qu'en  1970  on  a  pass6  une  loi 
qui  s'appelle  la  loi  sur  les  langues  oflBcielles. 
Vous  savez  que  le  Federal  a  juridiction  en 
matiere  criminelle  ici  et  permet  I'usage  du 
frangais  dans  toutes  nos  Cours  federales.  Ce 
qui  arrive  c'est  que  la  Province  a  juridiction 
sur  la  procedure  de  nos  Cours  et  le  Federal 
a  la  juridiction  sur  la  question  des  lois. 

Les  provinces  se  sont  objeclees,  certaines 
provinces  peut-etre  avec  raison.  En  Colombie 
ils  ont  dit:  "Ecoutez,  en  Colombie  britanni- 
que,  ou  peut-etre  a  Terre-Neuve,  on  ne  pent 
pas  avoir  un  proems  en  frangais,  on  n'a  pas  les 
oflBciers  on  n'a  pas  le  personnel  qui  permet- 
trait  d'avoir  un  proems  en  frangais."  Ce  qui 
est  arrive,  M.  I'Orateur,  c'est  que  le  Federal  a 
fait  une  concession  aux  provinces.  Et  on  leur 


dit  au  Federal:  "On  ne  passera  pas  le  frangais 
dans  nos  Cours  de  justice  au  Criminel  tant 
que  vous  ne  serez  pas  prdts  a  i>ermettre 
1  usage  du  frangais  dans  vos  Cours  civiles." 
Malheureusement,  ici  en  Ontario,  on  attend 
toujours  qu'une  decision  soit  prise  par  la 
province  pour  changer  la  loi  que  j'ai  men- 
tionnee,  le  fameux  Judicature  Act.  II  n'y  a 
aucune  raison,  M.  I'Orateur,  pour  qu'on  ne 
change  pas  cette  loi  et  qu'on  ne  permette  pas 
I'usage  du  frangais  dans  nos  Cours. 

Une  autre  chose,  M.  I'Orateur,  qui  m'a 
extremement  pein6,  c'est  de  voir  un  de  mes 
collogues,  en  Chambre  ici,  le  depute  de 
Thunder  Bay,  qui  avait  mentionn^  qu'il  avait 
regu  une  lettre  d'un  de  ses  61ecteurs  et  que 
pour  faire  traduire  cette  lettre  ici  a  la  Pro- 
vince, on  le  forgait  k  payer.  Pouvez- 
vous  imaginer  une  situation  aussi  ridicide 
que  quelqu'un  qui  veut  communiquer  avec 
son  gouvemement  provincial,  qui  vent  com- 
muniquer avec  son  depute,  ne  pent  pas  le 
faire  dans  sa  langue  quand  on  dit  ici  dans 
la  Province  qu'on  permet  I'usage  des  deux 
langues  en  Chambre.  Je  trouve  cette  situa- 
tion absolument  ridicule  et  j'espere  que  le 
gouvemement  va  la  clarifier  pour  que  si  un 
individu  veut  communiqer  avec  son  gouver- 
nement  dans  une  langue,  il  ne  soit  pas  oblige 
de  payer  pour  faire  traduire  cette  lettre. 

Je  peur  imaginer  ce  qui  arriverait,  M. 
I'Orateur,  si  dans  la  province  de  Quebec  un 
anglophone  ecrivait  a  son  gouvemement  et 
qu'on  lui  repondait:  "Si  tu  ne  veux  pas  tra- 
duire ta  lettre  de  I'anglais  au  frangais,  on 
va  te  charger  quelque  chose."  C'est  absolu- 
ment ridicule,  M.  I'Orateur,  et  je  voulais 
souligner  cette  situation  et  esperer  que  le 
gouvemement  va  changer  ce  fameux  r^gle- 
ment. 

J'espere  qu'U  va  aussi  accepter  le  dicton 
de  mon  bill  pour  I'usage  du  frangais  dans 
nos  Cours. 

Mr.  Speaker,  having  talked  about  the 
courts,  I  intend  to  embark  briefly  on  the 
question  of  minority  rights.  There  are  a  few 
I  should  mention.  I  have  a  number  of  things 
to  say  about  women's  rights,  for  instance,  and 
I  was  just  wondering,  it  being  6  o'clock, 
whether  I  should  move  the  adjournment  of 
the  debate  and  resume  at  8  o'clock. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  hon.  member  finds  this 
a  convenient  place  for  the  member  to  break 
his  remarks  a  motion  is  not  necessary;  he 
can  resume  at  8. 

It  being  6  o'clock,  p.m.,  the  House  took 
recess. 


668  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 


Tuesday,  April  2,  1974 

Linear  induction  motors,  statement  by  Mr.  Rhodes  619 

Health  Disciplines  Act,  statement  by  Mr.  Miller  620 

Health  Disciplines  Act,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Roy,  Mr.  Lewis, 

Mr.   Singer,   Mr.  Shulman 622 

Linear  induction  motors,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Cassidy  624 

Maple  Mountain  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  625 

Oil  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Singer  627 

Fuel  costs  of  greenhouse  growers,  questions  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Lewis  630 

Gasoline  travel  ads,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Roy  631 

Wind  energy  seminar,  question  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Burr  632 

Meeting  with  press,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Singer  632 

Oil  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Young,  Mr.  MacDonald,  Mr.  Lewis  633 

Commuter  ticket  interchangeability,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Deacon  634 

Information  services  funding,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Deans  634 

Crop  insurance,  question  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Wiseman  635 

Alleged  Mafia  activities,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Shulman 635 

Housing  costs,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  Good   636 

Presenting  report,  standing  procechiral  affairs  committee,  Mr.  Morrow  636 

Town  of  Strathroy  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Eaton,  first  reading 636 

Health  Disciplines  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Miller,  first  reading  636 

Borough  of  North  Yorfc  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Bales,  first  reading  637 

Victoria  Hospital  Corp.  and  the  War  Memorial  Childten's  Hospital  of  Western  Ontario 

Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Walker,  first  reading 637 

Dominion    Cartage    Ltd,    and    Downtown    Storage    Co.    Ltd.    Act,    bill    respecting, 

Mr.  MacBeth,  first  reading  637 

Regional   Municipalities   Amendment  Act,  bill  respecting,   Mr.   White,  second  reading  637 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Taylor 

Mr.  Roy 640 

Recess,  6  o'clock  667 


No.  17 


Ontario 


Hegiglature  of  (J^ntario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Tuesday,  April  2,  1974 

Evening  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARUAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


671 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  o'clock,  p.m. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  Speaker:  When  we  rose  at  6  o'clock  I 
believe  we  were  being  favoured  with  a  few 
remarks  from  the  member  for  Ottawa  East. 

Mr.    A.    J.    Roy    (Ottawa    East):    Yes,    Mr. 

Speaker,  when  one- 
Mr.    E.    R.    Good    (Waterloo    North):    The 

member  can  take  on  the  government. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  I'd  love  to  take  on  the  gov- 
ernment. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Let's  let  the 
crowds  in  now. 

■Mr.  Roy:  I  don't  particularly  care  for  the 
competition,  though.  I'm  one  who  is  sporting 
and  it's  hardly  sporting,  to  me,  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  be  talking  to  just  one  individual  across 
the  way. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  It's  quality,  not 
quantity. 

Mr.  Good:  There  isn't  an  NDP  member  in 
the  House  tonight. 

Mr.  C.  E.  Mcllveen  (Oshawa):  The  mem- 
ber had  better  turn  this  way. 

Mr.  Roy:  To  my  left— oh,  we've  got  one. 
The  next  speaker,  one  member  of  the  NDP. 

Mr.  N.  G.  Leiuk  (Humber):  Let  the  mem- 
ber talk  over  here. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  We 
could  defeat  them  tonight  if  we  had  a  couple 
more  in  here. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  one  of  the 
matters  the  government  dealt  with  some  time 
ago,  and  I  suggest  is  only  giving  lip-service 
to,  is  the  status  of  women  and  women's  rights 
in  this  province.  I  think  it's  obvious,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  women  have  now  established 
themselves  as  a  permanent  and  essential  part 
of  the  Canadian  labour  force. 

The  old  stereotype  of  working  women  as 
marginal  workers   —  young,  single,  and  out 


Tuesday,  Apkil  2,  1974 

looking  for  a  husband  -  is  slowly  being  shat- 
tered. Todav  women  of  all  age  groups,  both 
married  and  single,  are  filling  jobs  in  our 
society  at  an  ever-increasinj/  rale.  In  1972, 
Mr.  Speaker,  there  were  1.2  million  women 
in  the  Ontario  labour  force. 

In  other  words,  one  out  of  every  three 
workers  in  Ontario  is  a  woman.  This  is  sub- 
stantially higher  than  10  years  earlier  when 
working  women  in  Ontario  numbered  692,00 
or  only  29  per  cent  of  the  labour  force.  'The 
rapid  changes  that  have  occurred  in  Canada 
since  the  end  of  the  Second  World  War 
have  profoundly  affected  the  lives  of  women. 
Technological  developments,  increasing  ur- 
banization and  industrialization  and  the  prog- 
ress in  science  and  medicine  have  changed 
the  way  we  Hve  and  will  continue  to  change 
our  lives.  Canadian  women  have  benefited 
greatly  from  this  progress. 

Women  can  now  expect  to  live  longer 
and  healthier  lives.  Two  hundred  years  ago, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  average  life  expectancy  was 
not  more  than  35  years,  but  today  a  Cana- 
dian woman  can  expect  to  live  almost  to  the 
age  of  76.  There  used  to  be  two  cycles  in  a 
woman's  life;  the  pre-marital  stage  and  the 
period  given  over  entirely  to  bearing  and 
raising  of  children.  Today  most  women  have 
a  third  cycle  between  the  ages  of  35  and 
76  in  which  time  many  want  to  work  or 
pursue  their  own  interests.  In  comparison 
with  the  life  span  of— 

Mr.  Sargent:  Men  do  the  same. 

Mr.  Roy:  —our  great  grandmothers  this 
represents  the  ecjuivalent,  really,  of  a  second 
life. 

Another  change  in  the  last  100  years  has 
been  the  increasing  education  available  to 
women.  Little  by  litde  the  doors  of  nearly 
all  educational  institutions  have  been  opened 
to  women;  yet  many  areiis  of  educational 
endeavour  are  still  male-orientated,  especially 
in  law,  medicine,  dentistry  and  engineering. 
In  Canada  we  regard  these  as  male  profes- 
sions, yet  there  are  substantial  clifFerences  in 
the  way  these  professions  are  regarded  in 
other  countries. 

It  is  interesting  that  in  the  USSR  the 
majority  of  doctors   are  women.     In   Finland 


672 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


most  dentists  are  women  and  architecture  is 
considered  as  suitable  tor  women  as  it  is  for 
men.  Until  the  development  of  obstetrics 
only  women  assisted  other  women  in  child- 
birth and  it  was  considered  wrong  for  men 
to  assist.  Really  there  are  few  feminine  or 
masculine  occupations.  It  just  depends  on 
the  place  one  lives  and  the  town  m  wliich 
one  lives. 

The  labour  force  study  by  the  Ontario 
provincial  government  found  that  generally 
working  women  were  better  educated  than 
men.  In  1970  it  was  estimated  that  30  per 
cent  of  the  female  labour  force  in  Ontario 
had  completed  high  school  compared  to  18 
per  cent  of  the  working  men.  Men  overtook 
women  slightly  at  post-secondary  level,  since 
15  per  cent  of  working  men  and  12  per  cent 
of  working  women  had  some  or  complete 
university  education.  Despite  this,  average 
earnings  of  females  are  consistently  lower 
than  the  average  earnings  of  men. 

The  survey  conducted  by  the  Boaixl  of 
Trade,  which  I  intend  to  go  into  in  more 
depth,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  described  as  con- 
fidential and  only  for  the  use  of  the  Board 
of  Trade.  It  showed  gross  discrepancies  in 
the  average  weekly  salaries:  of  male  and 
female  employees  in  various  industries. 

Briefly,  for  example,  and  I  intend  to  go 
further  into  depth  on  this,  Mr.  Speaker,  a 
senior  male  clerk  in  a  retail  establishment 
earned  an  average  salary  of  $145  a  week, 
while  the  senior  female  clerk  earned  an  aver- 
age salary  of  $115  or  79  per  cent  of  the 
man's  salary.  The  junior  male  clerk  in  the 
construction  industry  earned  an  average 
weekly  salary  of  $100,  while  the  junior  female 
clerk  earned  $84  or  84  per  cent  of  the  man's 
salary.  When  these  differences  are  examined 
it  is  no  wonder  they  were  labelled  as  con- 
fidential. 

The  Employment   Standards   Act  states: 

No  employer  .  .  .  shall  discriminate  be- 
tween his  male  and  female  employees  by 
paying  a  female  employee  at  a  rate  of 
pay  less  than  the  rate  of  pay  paid  to  a 
male  employee,  or  vice  versa,  employed 
by  him  for  the  same  work  performed  in 
the  same  establishment,  the  performance 
of  which  requires  equal  skill,  effort  and 
responsibility  and  which  is  performed  un- 
der similar  working   conditions. 

However,  it  is  well  known  that  this  type  of 
discrimination  still  exists  in  quite  a  number 
of  Canadian  industries. 

Some  people  still  use  the  argument  that 
men  should  be  paid  more  than  women  be- 
cause   thev    are    breadwinners    and    have    a 


family  to  support.  Carrying  that  type  of 
reasoning  to  its  local  conclusion,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, you  would  have  to  say  that  a  man  sup- 
porting five  children  should  be  paid  more 
than  a  man  supporting  one  child,  and  that 
is  obviously  ridiculous  in  our  society. 

Most  people  have  accepted  the  idea  that 
a  person  should  be  paid  according  to  his  or 
her  merit  regardless  of  sex.  In  many  cases 
women  have  to  work  because  they  are  the 
breadwinners.  Thirty-nine  percent  of  all 
women  workers  in  Ontario  are  self-sup- 
porting because  they  are  either  single,  wid- 
dowed,  divorced  or  separated.  Among  mar- 
ried women,  some  of  them  are  the  sole 
breadwinners  of  the  family  because  their  hus- 
bands are  unemployed,  disabled  or  stu- 
dents. Even  if  the  husband  is  employed,  his 
wife  may  have  to  work  to  supplement  his 
income.  The  wife's  decision  to  work  often 
raises  the  family  to  a  much  better  standard 
of  living. 

In  the  past,  once  a  woman  was  married, 
she  was  considered  as  having  lifelong  eco- 
nomic security.  Today,  this  is  simply  not 
true.  Many  marriages  no  longer  last  a  life- 
time and  marriage  breakdown  is  on  the  in- 
crease. As  an  example,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  1961 
there  were  in  Canada  36  divorces  per  100,000 
population.  In  1970  this  had  increased  to  136. 
Quite  apart  from  those  women  who  are  di- 
vorced, there  are  those  whose  husbands 
have  deserted  them,  frequetly  leaving  them 
with  children  for  whom  they  have  to  care. 

There  are  those,  of  course,  who  are  sep- 
arated. In  fact,  over  a  quarter  of  a  million 
working  women,  or  almost  one-tenth  of  the 
female  working  force  in  Canada,  are  either 
separated,  divorced,  deserted  or  widowed. 
Add  to  these  over  one  million  single  wom- 
en who  make  up  more  than  one-third  of  the 
female  laboiir  force  and  the  assumption  that 
female  employees  have  no  real  need  starts 
to  crumble. 

In  the  past  the  family  had  been  the  cen- 
tral focus  of  the  woman's  life.  However,  the 
position  of  a  woman  in  relation  to  her  fam- 
ily has  already  changed  enormously  if  you 
look  back  a  few  generations.  Our  great- 
grandmothers  spent  a  great  deal  of  time 
cooking  and  sewing  for  the  family.  A  signifi- 
cant part  of  her  day  was  involved  in  the 
large  household  and  the  work  required  to 
maintain  it.  The  large  number  of  children 
that  she  bore  in  her  short  lifespan,  all  made 
life  for  our  great-grandmothers  very  differ- 
ent from  what  it  would  be  like  today. 

For  the  maiTied  woman  200  years  ago, 
life    was    often    hard,    with    little    time    for 


APRIL  2,  1974 


673 


leisure,  but  she  would  experience  a  sense  of 
being  central  to  the  survival  of  the  mem- 
bers of  her  family.  Today  modernization  of 
the  smaller  home  and  a  flood  of  goods 
and  services  have  reduced  this  work.  The 
size  of  the  family  has  decreased  significantly 
and  women  consistently  have  more  leisure 
time  than  ever  before. 

In  the  past  a  Canadian  woman  usually 
spent  most  of  her  adult  life  caring  and 
looking  after  six  or  seven  children.  Today 
the  average  is  three  children  and  the  wom- 
an's lifespan  is  much  longer. 

I  firmly  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  wom- 
en will  have  an  increasingly  important  role 
to  play  in  our  labour  force.  Much  still 
needs  to  be  done  to  change  outdated  at- 
titudes toward  women  who  work  but  this  is 
slowly  being  accomplished.  More  women 
must  be  attracted  to  the  political  world  as 
well,  and  I  am  sure  I  would  probably  get 
the  approval  of  the  member  for  St.  David 
(Mrs.  Scrivener).  In  this  House  of  course, 
Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  three  female  MPPs. 
Considering  the  fact  that  50  per  cent  of  the 
inhabitants  of  this  province  are  women,  I 
feel  there  should  possibly  be  more  female 
representation. 

Just  to  digress  for  a  moment,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I  note  that  one  of  the  outstanding  wom- 
en politicians  of  this  countr}%  Agness  Mc- 
Phail,  was  in  fact  the  first  woman  elected 
to  the  Canadian  parliament.  She  was  well 
known  across  Canada  and  the  US  for  her 
wit  and  her  compelling  demand  for  social  re- 
form at  a  time,  of  course,  when  women's 
lib  was  not  all  that  popular.  To  a  child 
who  was  the  eldest  daughter  of  a  back- 
woods Ontario  farmer  born  in  a  log  farm- 
house in  1890  and  educated  in  a  small 
rural  school,  nothing  could  have  seemed 
less  probable  than  a  political  career.  She 
was  elected  at  age  33  to  the  House  of 
Commons. 

In  those  days  women's  liberation  had  not 
>et  been  invented,  but  Agnes  McPhail  sin- 
cerely embraced  the  philosophy  of  equality 
for  the  sexes.  Throughout  her  life  she  had  to 
consider  many  times  the  opposite  attractions 
of  marriage  and  a  political  career.  Politics 
consumed  her  life  and  attention  but  she  felt 
she  could  make  room  for  the  traditional 
hnme,  husband  and  family. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  just  read  some- 
thing that  she  said  in  parliament  one  day 
v.hen  she  spoke  on  the  subject  of  women's 
rights  and  the  diflRculty  of  acceptance  by  the 
male,  she  wrote  as  follows: 

'When    I    hear   men   talk   about    woman 

being   the    angel   of  the   home,    I   always. 


mentally  at  least,  shrug  my  shoulders  in 
doubt.  I  do  not  want  to  be  the  angel  of 
any  home.  I  want  for  myself  what  I  want 
for  other  women,  absolute  eciuality.  After 
that  is  secured,  then  men  and  women  can 
take  turns  at  being  angels. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  briefly  go  into  the 
Roard  of  Trade  figures  which  were  publishe<l 
—these  figures  came  out  in  1973.  As  I 
mentioned  before,  the  equal  pay  provisions 
of  the  Employment  Standards  Act,  one  would 
think,  would  correct  this  situation  but  in 
spite  of  the  legislation  the  figures  rcleas^cl— 
well,  first  of  all,  the  figures  JFrom  the  Minis- 
try of  Labour,  women's  bureau,  in  1971  show 
us,  for  instance,  that  with  accounting  clerks 
the  difference  between  male  and  female  is; 
male  $111  a  week,  female  $94;  bookkeeper 
senior,  male  $162  a  week,  female  $124;  cost 
accounting  clerk,  $137  for  a  male,  $104  for  a 
female;  material  record  clerk,  $133  for  a 
male,  $94  for  a  female. 

I  can  go  on.  For  instance,  the  Board  of 
Trade  figures  which  were  released  in  Septem- 
ber, 1972,  show  the  following:  In  industr)-, 
for  a  clerk  the  average  male  was  making 
$120  a  week,  a  female  $98;  wholesale  inter- 
mediate clerk,  male  $130,  female  $105;  and 
so  on.  The  figures  range  for  all  positions, 
whether  we  talk  about  publishing,  marketing 
sales,  construction,  service  trade,  transporta- 
tion. On  average,  the  figures  for  females,  as 
a  percentage  of  the  male  salary,  range  from 
about  74  per  cent  to  about  86  per  cent 
throughout. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  appears  obvious  that  the 
Employment  Standards  Act  either  is  not 
being  enforced  or  is  just  being  given  lip- 
service.  I  think  it's  going  to  take  some  initia- 
tive on  the  part  of  this  government  to  see 
to  it  that  this  situation  is  corrected. 

For  instance,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  fringe  bene- 
fits granted  to  female  employees,  I  read 
in  a  news  release  dated  Feb.  7,  1973,  that 
the  Ontario  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Guindon) 
appointed  a  task  force  to  examine  the  prac- 
ticality in  bringing  into  force  section  41(g) 
of  the  Human  Rights  Code;  it  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

The  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code 
Amendment  Act,  1972,  does  not  apply  to 
any  bona  fide  insurance  plan  that  provides 
life,  accident,  sickness  or  disability-  insur- 
ance or  benefits  that  discriminate  against 
an  employee  because  of  age,  sex,  marital 
status,  until  the  day  to  be  named  b\  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  or  by  his  proclama- 
tion. 
The  release  went  on  to  say  that  a  task  force 
was  being  formed  and  said: 


674 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


This  section  is  designed  to  eliminate 
existing  differentials  in  fringe  benefits 
•which  today  play  an  important  part  of  the 
total  pay  package.  Women  have  been 
badly  discriminated  against  with  regard  to 
pensions,  especially  in  pension  plans.  This 
discrimination  must  end  quickly.  It  has 
been  and  is  still  wrongly  assumed  that 
women  employees  do  not  need  pension 
plans  and  that  they  do  not  have  financial 
responsibilities  for  dependants  or  that  a 
single  female  employee  has  no  need  for 
any  form  of  pension  security'. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  They  survive  their  depend- 
ants. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  view  of  the  statistics  that  nine 
per  cent  of  the  female  labour  force  is  separ- 
ated, deserted,  divorced  or  widowed,  in  view 
of  the  dramatically  rising  divorce  rate  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  33  per  cent  of  the 
female  working  force  is  single,  there  is  ob- 
viously an  imperative  need  for  security  for 
these  women  that  equal  pension  benefit  rights 
can  provide. 

Miss  Sylvia  Gelber,  director  of  the  wom- 
en's bureau,  Canada  Department  of  Labour, 
said  in  a  speech  in  February  1973,  that  it 
has  almost  been  a  tradition  to  set  a  so- 
called  normal  retirement  age  for  women 
which  was  lower  than  that  for  men.  A  1970 
survey,  "Pension  Plans  in  Canada"  by  Sta- 
tistics Canada,  indicated  that  23.2  per  cent 
of  women  now  under  pension  plans  are  re- 
quired to  retire  at  an  earlier  age  than  men 
under  the  same  plans.  Miss  Gelber  stated 
that  in  many  plans  a  man  may  have  been 
entitled  to  enter  the  pension  plan  after 
one  year  of  employment  while  the  woman 
in  the  same  organization  would  only  be 
entitled  to  enter  the  same  plan  after  five 
years  of  employment. 

When  it  is  realized  that  the  level  of  a 
pension  is  generally  calculated  on  the  basis 
of  the  number  of  years  of  employment,  the 
extension  of  the  period  before  entitlement 
at  the  beginning  coupled  with  the  shortening 
of  the  period  at  the  end,  when  an  earlier 
retirement  age  was  fixed,  would  adversely 
affect  the  level  of  a  woman's  pension. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  what 
the  Department  of  Labour  has  done  to 
change  some  of  these  statistics  in  relation  to 
the   pension   plan. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  of  February,  1974, 
statistics  from  the  women's  bureau,  Canada 
Department  of  Labour,  show  that  in  mana- 
gerial occupations  women  make  up  three 
per  cent  of  the  total   average  earnings,  yet 


the    average    earnings    of  men   exceed   those 
of  women  by  over  100  per  cent. 

In  clerical  occupations  women  make  up 
nearly  75  per  cent  of  the  work  force,  yet 
the  annual  earnings  of  men  exceed  those  of 
women  by  more  than  50  per  cent.  In  the 
service  industries,  into  which  much  of  the 
rapidly  increasing  female  labour  force  has 
been  absorbed,  women  account  for  almost 
60  per  cent  of  the  total  work  force,  but  the 
average  earnings  of  men  are  more  than  twice 
those  of  women. 

In  sales  occupations,  as  in  managerial 
occupations,  women  make  up  a  relatively 
smaller  proportion  of  all  employees— about 
one-third  of  the  total.  The  earnings  of  men 
exceed  those  of  women  by  one  to  1%  times. 

In  the  professional  and  technical  occupa- 
tions women  make  up  more  than  40  per 
cent  of  the  total.  Teachers,  nurses  and  li- 
brarians account  for  about  three-quarters  of 
all  the  professional  women.  This  category 
also  includes  doctors,  lawyers  and  dentists, 
the  great  majority  of  whom  are  men.  The 
earnings  of  the  men  exceed  those  of  women 
in  these  categories  by  something  like  66 
per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  appears  obvious  that  in 
spite  of  legislation  which  exists  here  at  the 
provincial  level,  a  more  vigorous  and  en- 
thusiastic enforcement,  not  only  in  words 
but  in  practice,  must  be  done  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Labour  so  that  the  women  of  this 
province  reach  equal  status  with  men. 

The  final  thing  I  would  like  to  say  about 
the  problem  of  the  status  of  women  is  that 
the  Law  Reform  Commission  recently  pre- 
sented a  report  in  relation  to  the  status  of 
women  and  their  rights  in  marriage  and  that 
type  of  thing,  and  we  would  encourage  the 
government  to  look  at  this  problem  as  early 
as  possible. 

One  of  the  things  I  have  always  found, 
as  a  lawyer,  to  be  an  anachronism— some- 
thing that's  out  of  the  past,  something  that 
should  no  longer  exist  in  today's  generation 
—is  the  matter  of  dower.  Women  have  been 
complaining  about  the  matter  of  dower  for 
some  time.  As  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  dow- 
er relates  to  a  married  woman  and  involves 
a  one-third  life  interest  in  real  estate  upon 
the  death  of  the  husband.  Am  I  right? 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Yes. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  don't  handle  real  estate 
transactions  very  much,  Mr.  Speaker,  so  I'm 
just  rephrasing  something  that  I  learned  in 
my  law  school  days. 


^  _. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


675 


Many  provinces  have  done  awav  with 
this  question  of  dower,  and  I  would  sug- 
gest that  if  the  government  seriously  looks 
at  the  question  of  law  reform  in  the  area 
of  women's  rights,  dower  can  be  done  away 
with  as  well;  the  corresponding  benefits  can 
be  given  to  women,  be  it  under  the  De- 
pendants* Relief  Act  or  another  Act  involv- 
ing succession  for  women  and  we  can  do 
away  with  this  problem. 

Everv  time  transactions  take  place  in  real 
estate,  they've  always  got  to  get  somebody 
to  sign  the  documents.  It's  a  problem  that 
causes  difficulty  in  drafting  and  executing 
documents. 

If  this  problem  were  looked  at  by  the 
government  from  a  total  package  point  of 
view,  women  would  be  the  first  to  say  that 
this  right  of  dower  is  something  that  is  a 
relic  of  the  past,  is  no  longer  necessary  in 
1974,  and  in  fact,  probably  hasn't  been 
necessary  for  the  last  25  years. 

Mr.  E.  \V.  xMartel  (Sudbury  East)  How 
much  longer? 

Mr.  Roy:  What's  that? 

Mr.  Martel:  How  much  longer? 

Mr.  Sargent:  We're  not  going  to  say.  We've 
got  the  women's  vote  now. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  don't  care  how  long. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  you  keep  bugging  me,  I'll 
repeat  all  this  in  French. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  don't  care  how  long.  I  just 
want  to  know  how  long  the  member  is  going 
to  be  so  that  I  have  time  to  go  the  wash- 
room. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  There's 
time. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
party  wants  to  go  on  record  as  looking  at 
this  question  of  the  status  of  women  and 
paying  more  than  lip-service  to  it.  We  in 
this  party  not  only  have  candidates  and  mem- 
bers of  the  other  sex,  we  are  in  vigorous  and 
enthusiastic  support  of  the  status  of  women. 
We  do  not  simply  pay  lip-service  to  it,  like 
some  of  the  male  chauvinists  on  the  other 
side.  These  are  basically  my  comments,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  thank  you  for  your  generosity. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East. 

Mr.    E.    W.    Martel    (Sudbury    East):    Mr. 

Speaker- 
Mr.    A.    Carruthers    (Durham):    Well,   let's 

have  it. 


Mr.  G.  Nixon  (Dovercourt):  Stand  up,  Elie. 

Mr.  Martel:  Shall  I  get  on  the  chair? 

An  Hon.  member:  Get  under  it. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Is  this  the 
same  speech  as  last  year 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  I  think 
he  should  go  and  see  a  chiropractor. 

Mr.  Marteh  It's  obvious,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  chiropractors*  dinner  has  got  to  some  of 
my  friends  across  the  way. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  How  about  you,  Elie? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  wouldn't  even  associate  with 
anyone  who  was  at  that  type  of  function. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  Where's  that  chiropractor? 

Mr.  Martel:  Let  me  say  that  I,  like  everyone 
else  in  this  chamber,  am  absolutely  delighted 
at  the  recovery  of  Mr.  Speaker,  whom  all  of 
us  know  has  given  this  House  some  of  the 
fairest  type  of  rulings  that  we  have  seen  in 
here  in  many  a  year.  I  well  remember  his 
predecessor,  and  I  only  take  my  own  term  in 
this  House  in  making  my  remarks,  because  I 
wouldn't  want  to  go  back  beyond  that  stage. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  The  member  can't 
talk  about  the  member  for  Ottawa  West  (Mr. 
Morrow). 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  my  colleague  says  I  cannot 
talk  about  the  member  for  Ottawa  VV^est 
who  served  as  the  Speaker,  and  certainly  I 
wouldn't.  I  only  take  it  from  the  time  I 
came  here. 

Mr.  Young:  He  was  a  very  good  Speaker. 

Mr.  Martel:  And  I  found  a  tremendous  dif- 
ference in  what  Mr.  Speaker's  approach  was. 
There  was  a  fairness  about  his  rulings  that 
allowed  this  House  to  work  in  a  better  atmos- 
phere, despite  the  tense  situations  that  pre- 
vail from  time  to  time. 

It  is  unfortunate,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  in 
this  Legislature,  where  the  inmates  are  the 
only  people  who  run  the  institution,  have 
never  really  moved  to  improve  the  condi- 
tions for  members.  We  put  so  much  stress 
on  the  members  that  we,  in  the  last  session 
for  example,  would  have  four  or  five  of  our 
members  very  badly  afilicted,  all  of  them 
ending  up  in  hospital  with  very  serious  con- 
ditions. It  has  always  amazed  me  that  117 
of  us,  in  fact,  could  put  ourselves  through 
this  type  of  torture  when  in  fact  we  should 
be  here  ordering  the  business  of  the  House 
in  the  best  interests  of  people  of  Ontario. 


676 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


That  backbenchers  in  particular  would  find 
themselves  so  underserviced  in  tenns  of  staff 
and  assistance  has  always  amazed  me.  I 
guess  it  has  amazed  me  because  Tory  back- 
benchers are  willing  to  accept  it,  where  in 
fact  the  cabinet  —  we  didn't  see  any  of  the 
cabinet  members  collapsing  last  session,  al- 
though we  saw  five  or  six  backbenchers  who 
were  understaffed  and  overworked  —  had  a 
great  deal  of  staff  to  do  their  reserach. 

Mr.  Sargent:  They'll  all  eventually  be  re- 
cycled in  the  cabinet,  don't  worry  about  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Maybe  they  are  so  busy  try- 
ing to  get  to  the  cabinet  they  haven't  got 
the  fortitude  to  demand  what  is  necessary 
for  a  backbencher  to  carry  on  his  function  as 
a  member  in  this  Legislature,  but  I  want  to 
tell  vou,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  backbenchers 
in  this  Legislature  are  very  important.  The 
cabinet  minister  isn't  short  of  staff.  "Billy  the 
Kid,"  with  his  complement  of  90,  isn't  short 
of  staff. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  Martel:  Don't  interrupt  me,  Mr. 
Speaker,  at  this  stage.  "Billy  the  Kid"  has 
got  about  90.   He's  got  about  90. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  Martel:  And  I  have  spoken  to  nearly 
every  Conservative  backbencher  in  this  House, 
who  agree  with  me;  and  there  isn't  one  of 
them  that  has  the  courage  to  say  it.  In  fact, 
Mr.  Speaker  in  his  present  capacity  was  in 
Quebec  not  long  ago,  when  the  select  com- 
mittee visited  Quebec,  and  the  Quebec  mem- 
bers of  that  Legislature  said  to  Mr.  Speaker 
that  if  they  didn't  have  a  riding  secretary  and 
a  secretary  in  Quebec  City  they  just  didn't 
know  how  they  could  function. 

We  in  this  Legislature  think  we  can  go 
on  carrying  the  tonnage  for  the  cabinet,  who 
have  all  of  the  services  at  their  disposal;  we 
are  willing  to  go  on,  and  the  Cabinet  doesn't 
even  know  the  problems  of  the  members  of 
this  Legislature.  They  don't  even  recognize 
them.  The  Camp  commission,  which  was  set 
up  to  make  it  possible— I  am  not  saying  to 
favour  the  members— to  make  it  possible  for 
members  to  work  in  a  meaningful  way  as 
members  of  a  Legislature,  not  ombudsmen, 
has  bombed  in  totality.  We  paid  Dalton 
Camp  $260  a  day  or  so  to  come  up  with 
that  type  of  report.  We  might  as  well  have- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  gave  Doug  Fisher  and 
Farquhar   Oliver   $160   a    day   each    and    got 


recommendations   a  kindergarten  class   could 
have  come  up  with,  really. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): I  thought  it  was  pretty  good. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Who 
is  that  cabinet  minister  over  there? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  ( Victoria-Haliburton ) : 
A  good  minister. 

Mr.    Martel:     I'm    not    interested    in    red 
herrings.  I'm  interested  in  the  type- 
Mr.    P.    J.    Yakabuski    ( Renfrew    South ) : 
Tell  us  about  Manitoba  then. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  Tell  us  about  B.C. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Fishing  co-ops,  $50,000  in 
the  black  to  $50,000  in  the  red  after  the 
socialists  touch  them. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  This,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  precisely 
what  I  said  a  few  moments  ago  when  I  said 
the  Tory  backbenchers  didn't  have  the  guts 
to  say  what  had  to  be  said.  They  will  now 
bring  in  the  red  herring.  Why  don't  they  talk 
common  sense? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  The  member  is  a 
mackerel  fisherman. 

Mr.  Martel:  I'm  some  other  type  of  fisher- 
man too. 

Mr.  C.  E.  Mcllveen  (Oshawa):  He's  a  frog 
fisherman. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Watch  out,  the 
member  for  Grey-Bruce  says  it's  a  good 
speech. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  one  looks 
at  the  five  or  six  members  of  the  back  bench 
who  collapsed  during  the  last  session,  includ- 
ing Mr.  Speaker,  one  has  to  wonder  why  we 
get  stupid  remarks  from  that  side  of  the 
House.  It  reminds  me  of  teachers,  Mr. 
Speaker— 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  don't  bring  them  up! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  —who  do  all  of  their  quibbling 
in  the  teachers'  room.  Most  of  those  people 
who  have  just  commented  do  all  of  their 
quibbling  in  the  back  alleys,  in  the  corridor 
or  in  this  chamber.  When  it  comes  time  to 
talk  about  the  realities  they  try  to  run  a  red 


APRIL  2,  1974 


677 


herring  into  it.  There  isn't  a  Tory  over  there 
who  doesn't  know  I'm  right. 

Mr.  Camithers:  Oh,  I  don't  agree. 

Mr.  R.  K.  McNeil  (Elgin):  I  didn't  think 
he  was,  but  if  the  member  is  right,  it  is  the 
first  time. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:   Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  delighted, 
might   I    say,   that   the   real    Mr.    Speaker  is 
very  much  better  and  I  hope  the  government- 
Mr.  Sargent:  He  is  repeating  himself. 
An  hon.  member:  Yes,  he  is  wandering. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  He  was  admiring 
the  member  for  Sudbury  East  up  until  a 
moment  ago. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  for  Grey-Bruce 
can  call  it  as  he  likes,  I'm  still  delighted  to 
see  Mr,  Speaker  is  in  good  health;  and  if  some 
of  the  other  Tories  want  to  collapse  from 
exhaustion  that's  fine.  I'm  not  too  sure  they 
are  interested. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  terrible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  He  is  not  very  kind. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well  it  is  true  though.  I  can't 
help  it  if  it  isn't  kind,  it  is  truthful. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  is  the  truth  we  want 
more  than  kindness. 

Mr.  Martel:  My  friend  the  Minister  of 
Housing  makes  a  comment.  The  Minister  of 
Housing  would  support,  I  know,  a  riding 
oflBce  so  that  his  constituents  who  don't  hap- 
pen to  be  within  the  confines  of  Queen's 
Park  can  phone  him  daily  and  would  in  fact 
obtain  the  same  type  of  service  in  their  area 
as  those  members  from  Toronto  can  provide 
for  their  constituents  because  their  secre- 
taries are  in  Queen's  Park  every  day.  That 
is  in  fact  what  I  am  speaking  about— 

Mr.  Camithers:  I  have  no  difficulty. 

Mr.  Martel:  —that  my  constituents  in  the 
riding  of  Sudbury  East  are  as  entitled  to  be 
able  to  be  in  constant  contact  with  their 
member  as  are  those  constituents  of  members 
in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Toronto. 

Mr.  McNeil:  The  member  will  have  to  be- 
come more  available  to  his  constituents. 

Mr.  Marteh  —who  can  phone  Queen's 
Park  daily  to  talk  to  a  secretary  of  a  member 


who  happens  to  be  here.  That  service  isn't 
available  to  our  constituents- 
Mr.  Camithers:  The  member  will  have  to 
pay  some  attention  to  his  constituents. 

Mr.  Martel:  —those  of  us  who  Uve  beyond 

the  confines  of  Toronto. 

Mr.    Speaker,    I    want   to    speak    at    some 

length  on  one  specific  topic- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  —but  before  I  do  there  are 
three  or  four  minor  topics  I  want  to  talk 
about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  It  is  contagious.  He 
sits  right  behind  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  (Mr.  Cassidy). 

Mr.  Martel:  I  want  to  talk  about  my  friend 
the  Minister  of  Financial  and  whatever  it  is— 
they  change  that  name  so  frequently  I  can't 
keep  up  with  the  changing  of  the  name. 

An  hon.  member:  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations  (Mr.  Clement). 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  whatever  it  is. 

An  hon.  member:  His  memory  is  not  very 
good. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Sometime  ago  I  presented  to 
to  the  minister  two  catalogues- 
Mr.  Yakabuski:  Eaton's  and  Simpson's 

Mr.  Martel:  —  from  Sears  —  one  catalogue 
from  Windsor  and  one  catalogue  passed  out  to 
the  residents  of  northern  Ontario  in  the  Sud- 
bury district.  As  I  looked  through  those 
catalogues  I  found  great  price  differentials 
for  the  people  of  the  city  of  Sudbury  and 
in  the  area  of  Sudbury. 

It  used  to  be  that  we  were  told  that  it 
was  freight  rates  that  made  the  difference 
to  northern  Ontario,  but  I  remind  this  House 
that  in  fact  the  distance  from  Toronto  to 
Windsor  is  approximately  the  same  distance 
as  the  distance  from  Toronto  to  Sudbur>-, 
about  265  miles,  and  I  have  to  ask  myself 
why  is  there  article  after  article  that  ranges 
from  a  difference  of  $1  to  $40  for  the 
people  of  the  city  of  Sudbury. 

Mr.  McDveen:  More  expensive  going 
through  the  snow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  They  make  more 
money  up  there. 


678 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  Is  that  it?  I  would  suspect 
the  Minister  of  Housing  is  right. 

Interjection  by  an  hon,  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  Whatever  the  traffic  can  ab- 
sorb, that's  what  you  charge  them.  I  guess 
that  is  the  free  enterprise  concept.  When  we 
questioned  the  minister  he  was  not  really  able 
to  justify  the  price  for  his  corporate  friends, 
And  in  both  catalogues,  even  on  motors  of 
the  same  size,  the  same  weight,  we  had  a 
differential  of  anywhere  from  $5  to  $10  to 
$15.  But  I  can  only  suggest  that  it's  a  cor- 
porate rippoff. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Young:  Just  see  how  the  tie  and  dress 
go  well  over  there. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  right;  that  red  tie  yes.  My 
colleague  draws  my  attention  to  that  red  tie 
and  that  flaming  red  dress  across  the  way. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Is  the  member  in 
trouble  again? 

Mr.  Young:  That's  what  you  call  harmony. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  I  just  wanted  to  make 
sure  the  member  for  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick 
(Mr.  Grossman)  was  awake. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Well,  with  the  mem- 
ber for  Sudbury  East  speaking  he'd  have  to 
make  sure. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  right;  because  with  the 
minister  sitting  there  I  am  not  sure  much  pen- 
trates. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Watch  that  language. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  I've  got  the  seven-year 
itch. 

Well.  Sears  rip  us  off  and  I  would  .suspect 
if  this  government  were  interested,  one  might 
check  the  other  groups  of  dealers  and  find 
out  that  Eaton's  and  Canadian  Tire,  and  all 
these  corporations  in  fact,  do  the  same  thing. 

And  what  really  bothers  me  is  one  point: 
I  have  listened  in  this  House  for  five  years 
and  we  have  always  been  told  it's  transporta- 
tion; but  when  you  find  that  there  is  no 
difference  in  distance,  now  what  the  hell  is 
it- 


Hon.   Mr.   Grossman:    Mr.   Speaker,   watch 


Mr.  Martel:  —that  allows  them  to  charge  us 
S25  more  per  item- 


Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  It  is 
government  buying. 

Mr.  Martel:  —except  that  the  corporations 
know  full  well  that  this  Tory  government 
doesn't  do  a  thing  to  equalize  prices;  except 
equalize  the  price  of  beer,  and  that  is  a 
farce. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Working  man's  drink. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well  it  might  be  the  working 
man's  drink. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  You  see,  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East  has  no  regard  for  the  working 
man. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East  is  not  a  working  man,  is  he? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  want  to  address  to  my  friend, 
the  minister,  some  remarks  about  Morrow, 
Wickett  and  Ross  A.  Shouldice.  I  spoke  in 
this  House  two  years  ago  about  that  holy 
triumphant  of  three  Tories. 

Mr.  J.  P.  MacBeth  (York  West):  "Trium- 
phant," there's  a  good  word. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Tory  bagman  for  the 
Sudbury  area,  Ross  A.  Shouldice,  has  been 
charged  by  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  And 
within  the  next  13  days.  Morrow  and  Wickett, 
because  no  charges  have  been  laid  against 
them  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral or  by  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations,  will  apply  for  another 
licence  to  go  on  their  merry  way  to  con- 
tinue to  ripoff  the  people  of  the  Sudbury 
area. 

All  the  evidence  was  gathered  in  that 
investigation  two  years  ago.  Morrow  and 
Wickett  were  allowed  to  surrender  their 
licence  without  having  it  taken  away  from 
them  for  real  estate  purposes.  They  will  be 
in  a  position  as  of  April  13  or  April  15  to 
ask  to  have  their  licence  reinstated. 

In  another  12  or  13  days  we  will  have 
that  Tory  hack  group— and  they  are  all  well 
known  Tories— continue  to  sell  houses  in  the 
Sudbury  region,  fleecing  people  left,  right 
and  centre;  as  they  did  in  the  member  for 
Algoma's  community  of  Blind  River.  They 
will  be  able  to  go  on  their  way  ripping 
people  off.  This  is  despite  the  fact  that  every 
investigator  from  the  Ministry  of  the  Attor- 
ney General  and  the  Ministry  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  has  felt  there 
should  be  charges  laid.  There  will  not  have 
been  a  charge  laid  by  this  government,  not 
a  charge. 


APRIL  2.  1974 


679 


Mr.  MacBeth:  Triumphant! 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  They  won't 
get  away  with  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  And  those  thieves,  those  thugs, 
within   two  weeks  will  be  back  seUing  real 
estate- 
Mr.    Gilbertson:    There's    going   to    be    no 
ripofF  in  my  riding. 

Mr.  Martel:  —with  the  blessing  of  the 
former  Attorney  General,  who  was  the  former 
Minister  of— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  —Municipal  Affairs,  the  mem- 
ber for  York  Mills  (Mr.  Bales). 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Does  the  member  for  Sud- 
bury East  allow  ripoffs  in  his  riding? 

Mr.  Martel:  So  far  we  can't  catch  up  to 
them. 

I  want  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it's  a 
disgrace  that  this  government  would  not  have 
laid  charges  against  those  groups;  and  I  want 
to  tell  you  that  it's  my  intention  again  at 
some  later  date  to  bring  a  good  deal  more 
new  material  to  this  debate  on  these  things. 

I  make  that  charge  here  as  I  would  outside 
this  House  if  someone  doesn't  think  I  would. 
As  members  know,  they  have  already  sued 
me  once  for  $100,000.  Within  the  last  six 
months  I  have  been  threatened  with  another 
law  suit  by  a  close  connection  of  that  group 
but  when  we  start  putting  our  lawyers  on  to 
testing  the  validity  they  immediately  back  oflF. 
I  suspect  their  case  isn't  very  strong. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  what  one  calls  a 
blufiF. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  that's  right.  They  want  to 
keep  us  quiet.  It's  interesting,  though,  that 
every  time  a  Tory  cabinet  minister— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Imagine  making  the 
member  shut  up;  imagine  that. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  a  dreamer. 

Mr.  Martel:  Every  time  a  Tory  cabinet 
minister  came  to  Sudbury,  Mr.  Morrow  was 
out  to  pick  them  up.  That  might  tell  mem- 
bers why. 

Oh,  yes.  Every  time  Mr.  Lawrence— re- 
member the  white  knight  of  Ontario,  when 
he  was  the  Attorney  General?— every  time  he 
came  to  Sudbury  Mr.  Morrow  was  there  to 
pick  him  up  at  the  airport.  He  ferried  him 
around  the  city.  All  the  Tories  in  that  area 


now  disclaim  any  acknowledgement  of  Mor- 
row, Shouldice  and  Wickett,  but  in  fact,  every 
cabinet  minister  from  the  former  Attorney 
General  down,  when  they  came  to  Sudbury, 
were  picked  up  by  Mr.  Morrow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  wrong. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  it's  not  wrong. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  don't  think  I've  ever 
met  Mr.  Morrow. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  I'm  telling  the  minister 
he  is  dead  wrong. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  There  must  be  some- 
thing wrong  with  me. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  is.  Senility  has  set  in 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  must  be  way  down. 

Mr.    Martel:    Yes,    but    I    don't   think   the 
minister  ever  came  to  the  area. 

An  hon.  member:  We  weren't  going  to  say 
anything  about  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Are  we  supposed  to 
let  the  member  know  when  we  are  coming? 

Mr.  Martel:  Some  do. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handlenvan:  Why  doesn't  he  pick 

us  up? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  have  picked  the  occasional 
cabinet  minister  up.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  —one  last  point  I  want  to  talk 
about  before  I  get  into  the  major  topic. 


An  hon.  member:  We  thought  he  was  on 


it. 


Mr.  Martel:  I  was  just  fencing  here  a  little. 
It's  the  annoimcement  by  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  (Mr.  Bemier)  who,  some 
time  ago  in  a  press  release,  said  "Ore  Search 
to  Receive  Tax  Breaks."  In  other  words,  we 
are  going  to  give  more  tax  concessions  not 
only  for  mining  companies  but  for  anyone 
else  who  might  want  to  explore  or  try  to 
discover  the  natural  resources  in  northern 
Ontario. 

An  hon.  member:  That  was  in  September 
last  year. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  this  was  within  the  last 
month. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 


680 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  I  don't  know  when  they  are 
going  to  give  it  to  them  but  that's  what  the 
minister  wants  to  do.  That  flies  in  the  face  of 
everything  the  select  committee  on  economic 
and  cultural  nationalism  has  been  studying. 
The  select  committee  on  economic  and  cul- 
tural nationalism- 
Mr.  Sargent:  Did  they  go  to  Europe? 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  we  went  to  Europe  and 
we  found  out  that  no  European  country 
allows  its  natural  resources  to  be  developed 
by  outside  interests. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  right.  The  member 
might  learn  that,  but  his  Liberal  friends  have 
been  giving  it  away  just  as  the  Tories  have. 
The  minister  wants- 
Mr.  Haggerty:  What  is  Barrett  going  to  do 
in  British  Columbia,  a  sellout  with  Japan? 

Mr.  Ruston:  They  are  going  to  take  it  over. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  understand— 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  He  has  taken  every- 
thing else  over. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  suggest  the  minister  might 
read  what  Barrett  has  advised  the  mining 
industry  on  what  they  are  going  to  do.  In 
Ontario  we  are  going  to  give  more  tax  con- 
cessions. I'm  just  wondering— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  How  did  the  member 
get  into  Europe? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  minister  should  have  come 
with  us. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  He  doesn't  get 
to  go  anywhere. 

Mr.  Martel:  It's  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  select  committee  discovered  the  main 
reason  the  Americans  were  here  was  the 
cheap  source  of  natural  resources  for  Ameri- 
can production.  And  here  we  have  the  Minis- 
ter of  Natural  Resources  in  Ontario  suggest- 
ing we  should  give  more  tax  concessions  to 
allow  the  Americans  to  come  in  and  take 
more  out. 

I  hope  the  Minister  of  Housing,  when  that 
comes  before  cabinet,  prevents  that,  because 
he  happened  to  sit  on  that  select  committee. 
He  should  be  in  a  position  to  take  on  the 
Minister  of  Mines  over  this  nonsense  of  his  to 
give  more  tax  concessions  to  more  outsiders 
to  exploit  and  discover  the  natural  resources. 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  is  going  to  have  a 
hard  time  finding  a  Minister  of  Mines. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  that's  right,  he  didn't. 
That's  what  I'm  saying— I  hope  my  friend  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources  is  taken  on 
by  my  friend,  the  Minister  of  Housing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  He  is  far  tougher 
than  I  am. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  is  tougher  than  the  minis- 
ter? Not  with  the  mining  companies  he  ain't. 
He's  right  in  the  hip  pocket  of  those  boys. 
An  interesting  article  on  mining  appeared  at 
the  same  time,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Sargent:  How  long  is  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  going  to  speak? 

Mr.  Martel:  Does  the  member  want  to 
leave?  I  won't  miss  the  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  at  all. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  is  an  interesting  article 
in  the  Sudbury  Star. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That's  the  same  speech  the 
member  made  last  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  was  an  article  in  the 
press  recently,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  respect  to 
why  people  weren't  exploring  or  out  to  ex- 
plore. This  article  by  Richard  Anco  said: 

Is  it  an  oversimplification  to  blame  NDP 
governments  and  stiffer  taxation  for  the 
marked  drop  of  exploration  dollars  spent  in 
Canada?  Or  have  the  boom  years  accounted 
for  most  of  Canada's  easily  accessible 
mineral  deposits? 

The  Prospectors  Association  was  told 
that  exploration  expenditure  for  all  mining 
companies  declined  22  per  cent  in  1972 
and  30  per  cent  in  1973. 

Despite  record-making  profits  by  most  of  the 
mining  companies  in  Ontario  in  1973,  their 
exploration  dropped  by  30  per  cent.  The 
stupidity  that  comes  from  this  government  is 
that  we  had  better  give  more  companies,  not 
even  those  involved  in  mining,  more  tax 
concessions   to   explore.   They   reduced   it. 

For  example,  my  friends  at  Falconbridge's 
profit  was  up  1,100  per  cent.  At  Inco  their 
profit  was  up  at  over  100  per  cent.  We  have 


APRIL  2.  1974 


the  minister  responsible  for  mining  in  Ontario 
saying  we  have  to  give  more  tax  concessions 
so  they  will  explore.  Well  that  is  a  lot  of 
garbage. 

If  that  is  all  the  Tories  have  for  policy, 
then  I  say  they  are  bankrupt.  If  the  mining 
companies  simply  have  to  reduce  their  ex- 
ploration year  after  year  to  extract  from  this 
government  more  in  the  way  of  tax  con- 
cession, then  I  say  that  the  government  is 
sick. 

What,  my  colleague,  the  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth  and  I  have  been  trying  to  get 
in  the  select  committee  is  a  development 
corporation  sponsored  by  the  government, 
a  Crown  corporation.  I  don't  think  we  have 
to  buy  these  beggars  to  come  in  here  to 
exploit  our  natural  resources.  I  don't  think 
we  have  to  give  our  shirt  away  and  we  are 
doing  that  today. 

Interjections  by  hon.  membe:  ;. 

Mr.  Martel:  This  government  is  so  enam- 
oured of  the  corporate  people  like  Powis. 
There  are  some  interesting  statements  that 
come  from  Powis,  the  head  of  Noranda.  They 
recently  said  that  workers  don't  want  to  work 
in  the  mining  industry.  Members  will  recall 
about  a  month  ago  the  mining  association 
said  that  workers  were  lazy  and  didn't  want 
N  to  go  to  the  mining  communities. 

It  is  obvious  why.  They  say  the  people  are 
lazy.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  When 
they  cut  back  the  mining  industry  is  never 
hurt;  but  cut  back  and  guys  lose  their  jobs 
and  their  homes.  We  have  had  a  reduction  of 
5,000  workers  at  Inco  alone  in  the  last  18 
months  and  Inco's  profits  doubled  during  that 
time.  We  have  Powis  and  representatives  from 
Inco  saying,  the  workers  are  lazy  and  they 
don't  want  to  go  work  in  a  mining  com- 
munity. 

But  would  you,  Mr.  Speaker?  Would  you 
go  into  a  mining  community  and  buy  a  home 
with  the  type  of  boom-bust  economy  that 
these  beggars  play  around  with  where  they 
hire  and  overhire  and  overproduce  and  then 
layoff  up  to  5,000  men  because  of  attrition 
and  so  on?  One  can't  expect  workers  to  go  in 
and  face  that  type  of  crisis.  But  Powis  makes 
those  statements. 

There  was  an  interesting  statement  by 
William  Mahoney  recently  about  the  reaction 
of  Powis.  In  fact  I  will  tell  members  whom 
he  was  talking  to;  Boise  of  Quebec  Cartier 
Mines  and  Norman  Wadne.  We  had  a  good 
deal  of  experience  with  Norman  Wadce.  He 
used  to  be  with  Inco  until  they  dumped  him. 
Now  he  is  with  the  Ontario  Mining  Associa- 
tion and  he  is  making  all  kinds  of  platitudes 


on  their  behalf.  Dome  Mines  and  Kerr-Addi- 
son have  never  worried  about  a  community 
they  were  in.  My  colleague,  the  member  for 
Nickel  Belt  (Mr.  Laughren)  and  my  colleague 
the  member  for  Sudbury  (Mr.  Germa)  and  my- 
self were  at  a  meeting  recently  with  Inco 
and  Falconbridge  and  we  said  to  them:  "Lx)ok, 
you  have  got  to  tell  the  regional  ct)uncil  and 
the  local  municipal  councils  about  your  lay- 
offs and  your  over-expansion  .so  that  in  fact 
the  municipal  councils  can  make  read>-  for 
these  sort  of  conditions."  The  PR  man  from 
Falconbridge,  Norman  Green,  said  to  us:  "You 
people  don't  have  a  right,  nor  do  the  city 
fathers  have  a  right,  to  know  when  we  are 
going  to  over -expand  or  when  we  are  going  to 
hire  or  when  we  are  going  to  lay  off." 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  reminded  him  that  those 
natural  resources  belong  to  us  and  not  to 
Falconbridge.  And  if  this  government  had  any 
courage,  it  would  insist  that  Falconbridge  and 
Inco  tell  the  municipal  fathers,  who  have  to 
put  in  the  new  subdivisions  and  who  have 
to  add  onto  the  new  schools  and  who  have 
to  make  all  the  arrangements.  This  can't  be 
tolerated,  because  in  Sudbury  in  1971  we 
had  the  highest  number  of  people  looking 
for  housing  in  Canada. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  vacancy  rate  was  zero.  It's 
22  per  cent  today  in  the  apartments  and  in 
total  it's  9%  per  cent  in  the  city;  and  every- 
body is  losing  their  shirt  except  Inco  and 
Falconbridge. 

The  municipality  put  in  new  subdivisions. 
They  put  in  new  sewer  and  water  systems, 
as  we  did  in  my  municipality  of  Capreol,  to 
allow  for  this  expansion.  And  when  Inco  got 
finished  and  Falconbridge  got  finished,  they 
laid  off  and  we  have  moved  from  19,000 
hourly-rated  men  in  Copper  Cliff  to  less  than 
14,000. 

And  who  has  suffered  the  hardship?  Inco? 
They  doubled  their  profits  last  year,  from 
$109  million  in  1972  to  $227  million.  I  am 
right.  The  minister,  the  think-piece  over  there, 
doesn't  believe  me.  He  can  ask  his  friend 
the  Minister  of  Housing. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  have  an  idea  that 
wasn't  a  parliamentary  remark  even  though  I 
didn't  hear  it. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That's  the  way  it  is  supposed 
to  be. 


682 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  It's  the  municipality  that  picks 
up  the  pieces,  and  the  local  taxpayer  who 
picks  up  the  pieces,  and  it  doesn't  cost  Inco 
or  Falconbridge  a  cent.  It's  the  federal  gov- 
ernment that  pays  to  bring  workers  in  and 
then  pays  to  take  workers  out. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  But  their 
contributions  to  the  Tory  party  go  up. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes;  and  you  know,  our  type 
of  municipality  can't  support  that,  and  that's 
why  people  don't  go  into  mining  municipali- 
ties to  work,  regardless  of  the  irresponsible 
statements  by  Powis  and  Norm  Wadge.  Be- 
cause if  they  go  into  a  municipality  like  that 
and  they  buy  a  home  and  there's  a  reduction 
in  staff,  these  people  lose  their  shirt. 

The  company  doesn't  lose  a  cent.  They 
never  have,  and  this  government  has  never 
had  the  courage  to  say:  "Wait  a  minute,  let's 
get  some  rationale  in  the  development  of 
these  natural  resources.  Let's  get  a  handle  on 
the  way  we  will  produce  and  the  amount  we 
will  produce,  in  a  steady  continuous  growth 
pattern  but  not  boom  and  bust."  We  from 
the  north  have  experienced  the  boom-bust 
economy  for  years  and  the  Tories  have  never 
had  the  courage  to  say  to  industry:  "Now 
wait  a  minute  gentlemen.  That  type  of  opera- 
tion and  that  type  of  performance  simply  can- 
not be  tolerated  by  those  communities  any 
longer,  because  it's  the  general  taxpayer  who 
pays  the  shot." 

Mr.  Laughren:  No  guts, 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  right. 

I  want  to  say  that  I  was  delighted  to  hear 
that  the  government  was  considering  a  Crown 
corporation.  Hopefully  nert  week  we  will  see 
it  in  the  budget. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  can  imagine. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South):  That  will 
be  some  Crown  corporation. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  have  a  suspicion  that  all  the 
Tories  will  do  is  do  the  exploration  on  behalf 
of  the  mining  companies  and  then  turn  it 
over  to  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That's  right.  They  are  giving 
them  serviced  lots  and  they  develop  their 
serviced  lots  and  make  more  money, 

Mr.  Martel:  Right.  In  fact  as  one  planner 
told  me,  he  said  with  serviced  lots  it  won't 
go  down  one  cent.  They  won't  pass  the  sav- 
ing on  to  the  consumer.  Just  increase  their 
profits. 


Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Who  told 
the  member  that? 

Mr.  Martel:  A  planner  told  me  that  within 
the  last  week. 

Well  the  real  topic  I  want  to  talk  about— 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Come  on.  The  member 
has  to  back  up  these  statements. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  suggest  that  if  the  member 
wants  to  take  pen  in  hand  he  should  write 
one  Mr,  Herb  Akehurst,  who  is  the  regional 
engineer  for  the  regional  municipality  of 
Sudbury.  Would  the  member  do  so? 

He  asked  me  to  put  it  on  the  line  and  I 
put  it.   Would  he  check  it  out  now?  No. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No,  of  course  not.  He'd 
rather  not  hear  the  truth, 

Mr.  Martel:  No.  He  shoots  his  mouth  off! 

What  I  want  to  talk  about  really  at  some 
length,  is  this  government's  response  to  the 
community-based  services. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  The  member  has  come  a 
long  way,  but  now  he's  spoiling  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
leave?  If  he  has  nothing  positi\e  to  contri- 
bute, why  doesn't  he  leave? 

Mr.     Laughren:     He's     a     flannel     mouth, 

Mr.  Martel:  I  want  to  talk  about  the  com- 
munity-based services  at  some  length.  These 
emerging  services  are  not  only  in  Metro  To- 
ronto or  in  my  community,  my  colleague 
from  Wentworth  has  a  question  tonight  of 
the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices (Mr.  Brunelle).  The  deception  which 
has  been  perpetrated  on  those  groups  by 
this    government    is    something    to    behold. 

For  three  years  information  services  have 
been  waiting  for  a  reply.  It's  being  studied; 
three  years  and  no  answers.  That's  what  my 
friend  and  colleague,  the  member  for  Went- 
worth, is  going  to  speak  to  the  Minister  of 
Community  and  Social  Services  about,  so  I 
don't  want  to  get  involved  in  that. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  Is  that  the  government  there? 

Mr.  Martel:  Community  services  started 
developing  a  good  long  time  ago.  They  de- 
pended on  the  United  Fund- 
Mr.  Laughren:  Is  that  the  government 
there?  Is  that  what  represents  the  Province 
of  Ontario  over  there? 

Mr.  Martel:  They  did  it  through  the  Red 
Feather— 


APRIL  2,  1974 


683 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 
Mr.    Laughren:    They've    got    to    be    sick. 
Mr.  Ferrier:  It  was  a  disaster. 
Mr.  Martel:  They  did  it  through  private- 
Mr.   Laughren:  Why  don't  they  whip  the 

government    members    into    the    House?    It's 

ridiculous.     How    many    cabinet    ministers? 

There    are    only    three    cabinet   ministers   in 

the  House  tonight  for  this  debate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  have  three  cabi- 
net ministers,  the  member  has  only  six  mem- 
bers there.  What  does  he  want? 

Mr.  Laughren:  How  many  members  has 
the  government  got? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  should  ha\  '■  at  least  as 
many  cabinet  ministers. 

Mr.  Ferrier:   It  should  have  25  membersi 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please! 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  Tories  have  no  respect 
for  the  legislative  process. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  have  one  minis- 
ter for  ever\-  two  NDP  members.  Come  on 
now;  that's  not  bad. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  The  minister's  colleagues  are 
still  up  at  the  chiropratic  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  member 
for  Sudbury  East  has  the  floor. 

An  hon.  member:  We've  got  more  in  our 
rump  than  the  NDP  has  in  the  whole  party. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  Get  that  rowdy  member 
under  control,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Where's  his  leader? 
He  can't  even  be  here. 

Mr.   Martel:   Where's  the  minister's? 

Mr.    MacDonald:    Where's    his    leader? 

Mr.  Martel:  Where's  his? 

Mr.  Ferrier:  Where's  his  leader? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  asked  the  member 
first. 


Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  If  they  haven't  got 
Donald    MacDonald,   they've   got   nothing! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  Is  this  the  government,  really? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Is  this  the  government? 
What  a  bunch. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Come  on,  get  us  some 
government  members  over  there.  Get  us 
some  cabinet  ministers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Laughren:  What  a  pathetic  represen- 
tation! 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  these  various 
groups  started  to  develop  because  the 
government  failed— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Isn't  the  member 
glad  I  came  in?  I  woke  everybody  up. 

Mr.  Martel:  —to  meet  the  social  needs 
in  certain  fields  of  service  to  people. 

Mr.  Laughren:  In  all  fields. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  saw  the  Metro  emergency 
shelter  come  into  development.  We  saw  the 
community  information  centres  come  in.  We 
saw  the  drop-in  services  come  in.  We  saw 
the  daycare  services  come  in.  We  saw  the 
church  groups  come  in.  All  were  trying  to 
pick  up  the  pieces  of  the  delivery  of  social 
services  to  people  and  this  government  failed 
in  totality- 
Mr.  Laughren:  The  Band-Aid  government! 

Mr.  Martel:  —to  develop  the  types  of 
services  for  people.  We  saw  volunteer  groups 
try  to  pick  up  the  pieces  all  over.  The  minis- 
ter—the think-piece— knows  full  well  that 
he  met  with  an  information  group  last  week 
which  is  providing  a  tremendous  service  in 
his  community. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  At  first  I  thought  he 
was  saying  pink  piece. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  might  have  been  closer  to 
the  truth,  but  I  don't  want  to  insult  the 
minister. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Don't  he  self-conscious. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Isn't  the  member  glad 
I  gave  him  a  line?  It's  the  brightest  line  he 
has  had  all  dav. 


684 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATION 


Mr.  Mattel:  Right.  Most  of  the  services 
which  developed  were  volunteer  in  nature. 
They  had  no  funding. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No  thanks  to  this  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  had  no  permanent  fund- 
ing and  their  staff  wasn't  on  a  continuity 
basis,  so  that  although  they  realized  the 
necessity  for  services,  they  just  couldn't  pro- 
vide them.  This  government  certainly  wasn't; 
and  if  the  Ministry  of  Community  and  Social 
Services  is  saying  it's  meeting  the  needs  of 
this  community,  that's  a  lot  of  bunk!  There 
isn't  a  person  in  this  Legislature  who  doesn't 
realize  that.  The  Ministry  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  is  so  full  of  holes  and  so  full 
of  an  inability  to  deliver  the  needs  of  the 
people  in  this  community,  in  this  province, 
that  it's  sick. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  He  isn't  nearly  as  good 
an  actor  as  the  member  for  Port  Arthur  ( Mr. 
Foulds). 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Wrong  again. 

Mr.  Martel:  Wrong  again? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  The  member  is  wrong 
again. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  only  suggest  to 
the  member  for  Algoma— 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  He  is  wrong  again. 

Mr.   Martel:    —if  he  were  to  pick  up  the 
report- 
Mr.  Gilbertson:  Wrong  again. 

Mr.  Martel:  —and  I'm  sure  he  never  reads 
it— from  the  northern  affairs  oflBcers  he  would 
find  that  of  the  complaints  and  problems 
which  come  to  northern  affairs  officers  by  far 
and  away  the  largest  number  are  in  the  field 
of  Community  and  Social  services.  Now,  I 
suggest  he  reads  the  report. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Same  old  jargon. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  suggest  the  member  reads 
the  report  before  he  shoots  his  mouth  off. 

Mr.  Laughren:  He  doesn't  care. 

Mr.  Martel:  He's  never  read  a  report  in 
his  life. 

Mr.^  Laughren:  The  member  for  Algoma 
doesn't  care  about  that, 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Don't  strike  that  man! 


Mr.  Laughren:  He  needs  striking. 

Mr.  Martel:  Would  the  minister  tell  him  to 
read  something?  Just  for  once? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  knows  more 
without  reading  than  with  all  the  reading  the 
member  has  done  in  his  life. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  knows  zilch. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  What  has  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East  read  recently? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  said,  Mr,  Speaker,  these 
in  fact  were  volunteer  groups  who  lacked 
funding  and  didn't  have  the  permanent  staff 
and  couldn't  provide  the  continuity  of  service 
that  was  necessary.  Those  who  did,  in  fact, 
were  provid'ng  services  very  sincerely,  but 
the  commun  ly  didn't  know  that  the  services 
were  availal  e  in  many  instances.  I'm  going 
back  a  numl  ^r  of  years  now  as  I  pick  up  the 
chronology  of  this  problem. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  member  is  not  com- 
municating. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East  is  right  again. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  churches,  for  example, 
catered  to  their  own  particular  congregation, 
but  in  fact  the  people  beyond  that  congrega- 
tion didn't  know  that  the  services  were  avail- 
able, so  that  they  weren't  meeting  a  com- 
munity need.  I'm  not  being  critical  of  the 
churches;  I'm  saying  that  they  tried.  They 
just  didn't  know.  They  didn't  have  a  per- 
manent staff.  It  was  all  voluntary. 

The  services  often  became  very  inflexible, 
very  tightly  knit  around  any  particular  re- 
ligious denomination. 

An  hon.  member:  Why  was  that? 

Mr.  Ferrier:  A  lack  of  funding. 

Mr.  Martel:  What  occurred,  despite  this, 
was  that  the  need  continued  to  escalate  with 
the  lack  of  funding. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  It  was  the  lack  of  funding. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  attitude  of  these  people 
was  genuine,  if  somewhat  paternalistic,  but 
they  were  attempting  to  fill  the  void  created 
by  the  failure  of  this  government,  through 
Community  and  Social  Services,  to  be  able 
to  deliver  services  to  people. 

Two  or  three  years  ago  the  federal  gov- 
ernment panicked.  They  had  a  high  unem- 
ployment  rate   and   they  really   didn't   know 


APRIL  2,  1974 


685 


what  to  do  to  prevent  these  people  showing 
up  on  the  unemployment  insurance  rolls  so 
they  provided  Opportunities  for  Youth  fund- 
ing and  they  provided  LIP  funds. 

But  interestingly  enough,  the  criterion  laid 
down  was  that  people  could  only  go  into  the 
field  of  delivering  services,  because  what  the 
LIP  people  were  faced  with  was  that  they 
couldn't  compete  with  the  business  commun- 
ity. That  was  one  of  the  guidelines  laid  down 
by  the  federal  government,  that  if  you  got  a 
LIP  fund  you  couldn't,  in  fact,  compete  with 
the  free  enterprise  system.  So  where  in  fact 
could  they  go?  They  were  actually  forced  into 
services  to  people. 

Having  that  happen  really  started  to  show 
the  loopholes,  or  the  total  lack  of  program- 
ming by  the  ministry.  Contrary  to  wnat  Tory 
cabinet  minister  after  Tory  cabinet  minister 
has  said,  those  who  attempted  to  obtain  the 
funding  were  not  young  people.  In  fact  the 
people  who  made  immediate  use  of  LIP 
grants  were  people  like  the  YMCA,  the  settle- 
ment houses,  the  multiple  service  centres 
which  had  developed,  such  as  the  Woodgreen 
community  centre.  The  Metro  Social  Plan- 
ning Council- 
Mr.  Laughren:  Good  example. 

Mr.  Martel:  —immediately  started  to  pick 
up  the  funding  that  was  available  for  LIP. 
It  wasn't  the  youth  that  the  minister  respon- 
sible for  the  Youth  Secretariat  (Mrs.  Birch) 
talks  about,  not  at  all;  in  fact,  it  was  those 
long-established  community  services,  the 
YMCA  and  so  on.  They  knew  how  to  apply, 
and  they  were  aware  of  the  needs  of  the 
community. 

What  most  of  them  did,  of  course— the 
YMCAs  and  the  YWCAs  in  Toronto-was 
they  sponsored  all  kinds  of  groups;  they 
helped  them  to  fill  out  the  forms  and  to 
obtain  the  LIP  grants  that  were  necessary 
in  order  to  get  federal  funding,  because  for 
the  first  time  there  was  funding  to  provide 
services  to  people. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I  wonder  if  the  member  would  allow  me 
to  interrupt  to  tell  you  about  the  election 
results  in  Nova  Scotia  tonight? 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh,  that  would  be  great! 

Mr.  Singer:  Thirty-one  Liberals,  12  Tories 
and  three  NDP. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  How  many  did  the  NDP  win? 

Mr.  Singer:  Three. 


Mr.  Martel:  Well,  that  is  an  increase! 
Mr.  MacDonald:  They're  on  the  way  up. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  that's  a  50 
per  cent  increase— greater  than  any  other 
party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Imagine-another  35 
years  and  they'll  be  right  in  there. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  There  was  a  50  per  cent 
increase  in  members  and  a  100  per  cent 
increase  in  popular  vote. 

An  hon.  member:  They  gained  one  seat, 
one  lousy  seat. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  I  would  prefer  to  win 
an  extra  one  than  lose  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  brilliant. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That's  what  the  Tories  did 
—they  lost. 

Mr.  Martel:  How  many  did  the  Tories 
lose? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  lose  all  the  battles 
and  vnn  the  wars. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury 
East  has  the  floor.  I  suggest  that  he  continue. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  trying  to,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  want  to  make  the  point  very  clearly  that 
contrary  to  what  a  number  of  Conservative 
cabinet  ministers  have  attempted  to  portray, 
it  wasn't  the  young  people  who  went  out 
initially  and  got  the  grants  from  LIP.  It  was, 
in  fact,  the  long-established  community  serv- 
ices in  Metro  Toronto  that  were  able,  because 
they  knew  how  to  get  the  funding.  They  were 
the  people  who  made  use  of  the  LIP  grants. 
It  wasnt  the  youth,  as  was  implied  by  the 
minister  responsible  for  the  Youth  Secretariat, 
the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices and  a  few  more  over  there.  It  was  the 
long-established  ser/ices. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  don't  think  they  im- 
plied anything  of  the  kind. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrell  (Minister  without 
Portfolio):  What  has  the  member  got  against 
young  people? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  have  nothing  against  them; 
and  I'll  come  to  that.  The  point  I  make  to 
my  friend  across  the  way  is  that  the  attack 
on  the  LIP  programme  and  the  government 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


refusal  to  fund  it  have  always  been  directed 
against  the  youth— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Who  said  so? 

Mr.  Martel:  I'm  going  to  quote— and  I  hope 
the  minister  is  here  in  a  few  moments  when 
I  quote  some  of  the  statements  of  the  minis- 
ter responsible  for  the  Youth  Secretariat— 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Go  ahead: 

Mr.  Martel:  I  just  hope  he  stays  around. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
He'll  be  around  longer  than  the  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  he  has  got  to  catch  up 
by  four  years— and  I  don't  think  he  had  55 
per  cent  of  the  vote  last  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  only  had  51  per  cent, 
it  was  my  first  election. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  all  right.  Eat  your 
heart  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  It  Mali  be  65  per  cent, 
next  time. 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  75  per  cent. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  He'll  be  the  Premier  of 
the  province  some  day.  Mark  my  words. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  That's  what  is 
called  overkill. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  never  over- 
confident. 

An  hon.  member:  What  did  you  get  in  by 

last  time? 

Mr.  Martel:   Fifty-five  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  hon.  member  for 
Sudburv-  East  address  his  remarks  to  the 
Chair?  ■ 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  saying  that  the  longest- 
established  groups  provided  the  basis  on 
which  the  emerging  services  obtained  their 
expertise  to  gain  funding. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  means 
the  Conservative  groups.  Why  doesn't  he 
say  it? 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  no.  Is  the  minister  saying 
that  the  YMCA  is  a  Conservative  group? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Yes,  of  course. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  don't  the  Conservatives 
fund  them,  then? 


Mr.  Laughren:  Why  don't  the  Conservatives 
channel  some  of  their  election  funds  to  the 
YMCA  in  that  case? 

Mr.  Martel:  In  any  case,  Mr.  Speaker, 
maximum  use  was  made  of  LIP  to  obtain 
funds  and,  for  the  first  time,  there  was 
developed  a  whole  range  of  social  services 
that  had  been  missing  before— services  which 
the  government  was  not  able  to  fund  and 
will  never  be  able  to  fund  because,  as  I  said 
during  the  minister's  estimates  because  it 
calls  on  volunteers,  although  they  need  full- 
time  workers.  For  the  first  time  these  services 
developed— and  I  am  going  to  list  some  of 
them.  They  included  such  things  as  the  free 
interpreter  service  for  immigrants  —  for  the 
Chinese,  the  Italians,  the  Greeks,  the  Portu- 
guese, who  make  up  a  third  of  this  city— and 
to  which  this  cruddy  government  puts 
$100,000  for  the  total  province,   $100,000. 

Mr.  Laughren:  CRiddy.  Hear  that?  Cruddy. 

Mr.  Martel:  Cruddy.  I'm  going  to  come 
back  to  that,  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  unparliamen- 
tary. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It's  appropriate,  though. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  don't  care  whether  it  is 
parliamentary  or  not.  The  trick  that  this  gov- 
ernment laid  on  these  young  people  and  the 
other  groups  in  avoiding  funding  them  is 
something  to  behold  and  that  is  what  I  am 
going  to  document. 

Another  group  was  Adjustment  into  Society 
Inc.  The  former  one  was  dealing  with  immi- 
grants; the  next  one  deals  with  health.  It  is 
a  community-supported  programme— no  sup- 
port from  the  Tories— which  takes  people  out 
of  999  Queen  and  is  an  intermediate  step  in 
getting  them  back  into  the  community.  The 
funding  from  the  Ontario  government  to  that 
group  is  zilch. 

That  is  in  Health.  I  just  want  to  point  out 
that  there  are  seven  fields  which  are  in- 
volved here.  Daycare  centres— one  of  the  few 
daycare  centres  in  Toronto  is  one  of  these, 
which  in  fact  provides  daycare  service  beyond 
4  o'clock.  It  provides  daycare  service  at 
night— not  funded  by  this  government;  no 
way.  But  that  is  just  a  third  of  the  seven 
types  of  services  provided. 

The  birth  control  and  the  VD  information 
centre— do  the  members  know  what  is  done 
there?  They  are  asked  to  go  to  the  hospitals 
to  provide  translation  services  to  the  ethnic 
community.  They  are  asked  to  go  to  the 
high  schools   and  so  on.   They  work  in  the 


APRIL  2,  1974 


687 


ethnic  community.  And  unlike  Ae  former 
Minister  of  Health  with  whom  I  used  to 
argue  all  the  time— maybe  that  is  why  he  was 
canned— they  believe  in  family  planning.  The 
former  Minister  of  Health  didn't  agree  with 
family  planning.  He  said  that  should  be  left 
entirely  to  the  family  physician.  He  didn't 
believe  in  community  clinics  to  help  people 
plan  their  families;  he  said  the  family  physi- 
cian did  that.  Well,  that's  a  lot  of  gobblede- 
gook.  This  group  was  trying  to  provide  that 
service  in  the  high  schools,  in  the  hospitals 
and  so  on— no  funding. 

Eastview  Neighbourhood  Association  is  a 
nuilti-service  centre.  This  government  has 
now  started  another  study,  after  three  years. 
They  are  going  to  study  multi-service  centres. 
That  was  in  a  recent  statement  by  the  think 
piece  for  social  services.  These  people  deal 
with  children  after  school  and  in  the  evenings, 
and  they  deal  with  senior  citizens;  but  there 
is  no  funding. 

There  is  another  group  called  Smile:  It  is  a 
cultural  group  made  up  of  11  people  and 
they  go  into  hospitals  for  the  aged  and  the 
crippled  and  so  on.  This  group  of  11  pro- 
vides entertainment.  I  have  their  schedule  for 
the  next  couple  of  months.  It  is  interesting 
that  this  government  will  willingly  fund  the 
Toronto  Symphony,  the  opera,  you  name  it. 
For  whom— the  wealthy?  Who  else  can  go  to 
the  O'Keefe  Centre? 

Mr.  Taylor:  The  member  would  be  sur- 
prised. 

Mr.  Martel:  These  groups  of  professional 
actors  are  playing  for  only  the  poor  people 
but  they  can't  get  funded.  We  provide  all 
kinds  of  funding  for  11  or  12  programmes 
down  at  the  minister's  favourite  bastion, 
Ontario  Place— free  concerts. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  No,  my  favourite 
place  is  the  Brunswick  Hotel. 

Mr.    Martel:    I   wouldn't  be   surprised. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  is  the  greatest 
place  in  the  city. 

Mr.  Martel:  This  group  called  the  Smile 
cultural  group  play  for  senior  citizens,  they 
go  into  homes,  they  go  into  schools  and  a 
whole  range  of  things;  no  funding.  For  ex- 
ample, on  March  4  they  were  at  the  Leisure 
World  Nursing  Homes;  on  March  5  they 
were  at  the  Young  at  Heart,  another  nursing 
home;  on  the  sixth  they  were  at  the  Centre 
for  Creative  Living  on  Bathurst  in  the  after- 
noon and  the  Hilltop  Acres  in  the  evening; 
on    the   seventh   thev   were   at  the   Cliffcrest 


Friendship  Club;  on  the  eighth  they  were  at 
the  Edgeley  Apartments;  on  the  lllh  they 
were  at  Falstaff  Community  Centre;  on  the 
12th— it  just  goes  on  and  on  as  they  provide 
a  type  of  culture  that  most  of  the  people 
we  are  talking  about  would  never  obtain. 
Yet  the  government  is  constandy  willing  to 
pour  funds  into  recreational  facilities,  into 
the  Royal  Ontario  Museum,  and  so  on,  that 
many  many  people  can  never  get  to  see. 
Many  people  in  senior  citizen  homes  could 
never  get  out  to  see  these  things 

Mr.  Laughren:  Right. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  won't  fund  them;  but 
we'll  fund  the  bloody  Toronto  Symphony 
where  every  rich  banana  can  get  down  to 
the  O'Keefe  Centre  to  attend. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  Shame. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Parrott  (Oxford):  How  can  the 
member  say  that? 

Mr.  Martel:  What? 

Mr.  Parrott:  How  could  the  member  say 
that  to  us. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  Discrimination. 

Mr.  Martel:   Listen  to  the  troglodytes. 

An  Hon.  member  Oh,  the  member  should 
not  be  so  crude. 

Mr.  Martel:  Right  out  of  the  dark  ages. 
I  wonder  how  those  people  in  the— 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  When  did  the  member  at- 
tend his  last  symphony? 

An  hon.  member:   Did  he  ever  attend? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  I  have  been  at  a  sym- 
phony. It's  interesting,  you  know,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  The  member  knew  what 
they  were  doing,  did  he? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  wonder  how  the  people  in 
the  senior  citizens'— 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Did  he  know  what  they 
were  doing  when  he  went  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  How  does  he  spell 
it?  He  is  the  teacher. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  don't  know  how. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


688 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  I  just  made  up  a  new  word. 

An  hon.  member:  Did  he  enjoy  the  play? 

Hon.   Mr.   Grossman:    I   think  he  tried  to 
pronounce  an  old  one, 

Mr.  Martel:  What  bothers  me,  Mr.  Speak- 


An  hon.  member:  The  member  for  Lake- 
shore. 

Mr.  Martel:  —and  what  my  friends  don't 
want  to  recognize  is  that  people  in  the 
senior  citizen  communities  cannot  get  out. 
Many  are  incapacitated  and  they  can't  get 
out  to  see  these  things.  And  surely  if  we 
are  going  to  fund  the  Toronto  Symphony, 
surely  if  we  are  going  to  fund  them,  we 
could  fund  a  group  like  this  to  go  in  and 
provide   entertainment  for  groups. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  No  wonder  kids  can't 
spell. 

Mr.  Martel:  And  if  the  government  is  that 

stupid  that  it  can't  see  the  need- 
Mr.  Parrott:  Some  senior  citizens  do  have 

these  opportunities. 

Mr.   Speaker:  Order  please,  order. 

Mr.   G.   Nixon:   Control  yourself. 

Mr.   Martel:  And  shut  up  for  God's  sake. 

Interjections   by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East  shouldn't  get  uptight. 

An  hon.  member:  What's  the  matter  vwth 
him? 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  Can't  he  take  it? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Can't  he  take  a  little  heck- 
ling? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  can  take  more  than  any  of 
the  members  opposite  can  give, 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  He's  the  greatest. 
Interjections   by  hon.   members. 
Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  MacBeth:   The  member  doesn't  know 
what  he  is  talking  about, 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  I  suggest  I  know  a  good 
deal  more  of  it  than  the  member  for  York 
West. 

An  hon.  member:  Ah,  I'll  say  that. 


Mr.  Martel:  In  fact,  I  suspect  I've  forgotten 
more  about  it  than  he'll  ever  know. 

An  hon.  member:  We  sure  appreciate  his 

remarks. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Not  the  way  he  is  talking 

now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  think  we'd  better 
find  a  cultural  mission  for  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  members  please 
keep  order.  Let  the  speaker  for  Sudbury  East 
have  the  floor  and  let  him  say  his  little  piece. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  appre- 
ciate that. 

An  hon.  member:  Listen  to  him. 
Mr.  Martel:  Well,  the  other- 
Mr.  Yakabuski:   He  is  wandering  all  over. 
Mr.  Parrott:  He  has  just  started. 

Mr.  Martel:  Couple  of  hours.  I've  just 
started,  that's  the  first  sheet. 

Mr.  Leluk:  Just  warming  up. 

Mr.  Martel:  I'm  just  warming  up. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Why  doesn't  he  say  some- 
thing? 

Mr.    Martel:    Well,    Mr.    Speaker,   we   also 
have  information  centres.  And  the  government 
has  been  sitting  on  information  centres- 
Mr.  Laughren:  Right. 
Mr.  Martel:  —for  three  full  years. 
An  hon.  member:  We  know  that, 

Mr.  Martel:  They  have  been  devising  a 
policy  now  for  three  years.  That  is  in— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  not  true;  that's 
not  true. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  would  the  minister  get 
up  and  challenge  me  on  that  then? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Well',  in  the  first  place, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  government  has  had,  through 
the  Ministry  of  Labour,  in  my  riding  alone, 
an  information  centre  that  has  been  in  exist- 
ence for  years. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  minister  is  out  of  order. 

An  hon.  member:  Order,  order. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  He  was  asked  to  respond, 
Mr,  Speaker. 


APRIL  2.  1974 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  asked  me,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Interjections  by  hon  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'll  come  to  how 
much  funding  the  government  has  given  to 
them.  The\'  ha\e  been  devising  a  policy  for 
information   centres  across   this  province— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  has  got 
it  all  confused.  Have  a  talk  to  me  after  the 
session;  I'll  tell  him  what  he  is  trying  to  talk 
about  and  make  it  clear. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  no. 

An  hon.  member:  Put  him  straight;  put 
him  straight. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  no. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  for  Sud- 
bury East  is  reading  it  all. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  government 
has  been  developing  a  policy  on  information 
centres  for  three  years.  They  have  funded  the 
odd  one  in  Toronto.  In  fact,  I  tell  the  minister 
that  they  funded  $18,000  last  year,  but  they 
have  not  got  a  policy  on  it  yet. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  It  obviously  hasn't  reached 
the  members. 

Mr.    Martel:    What?    Well    mine    has    the 

highest- 
Mr.  MacBeth.   It  obviously  hasn't  reached 

the  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  want  to  tell  the  member  for 
York  West  that  the  information  centre  that 
got  one  of  the  highest  grants  last  year  was 
the  one  in  Sudbury.  Now  the  member  can  put 
that  in  his  pipe  and— 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Why  doesn't  the  member  for 
Sudburx  East  go  to  it  and  find  out  some- 
thing? ■ 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  always  get  the 
biggest  investment  in  Sudbury.  They  get  the 
biggest  investment  in  everything. 

An  hon.  member:  He  should  check  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  they  have  not 
been  able  to  devise  a  policy  regarding  in- 
formation centres  in  three  years. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Right.  No  policy. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  have  misled  every  group 
that  has  appeared  before  them;  and  the  min- 


ister who   just   spoke  had   a   group  into  his 
o£Bce  last  week. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  last  week. 

Mr.  Martel:  Right.  And  they  are  concerned, 
as  the  minister  knows,  that  there  is  no  policy. 
There  might  have  been  some  funding,  but 
there  is  no  policy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Now  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East  is  changing. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  I  am  not.  That's  what  I 
said  in  the  beginning.  The  minister  had  better 
check  Hansard.  The  minister  is  wrong  and 
now  he  has  admitted  it.  There  is  funding  but 
there  is  no  policy;  and  that's  what  I've  said. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  don't  get  it,  when— 

Mr.  Martel:  Three  years,  no  policy.  And 
what  does  the  Bloor-Bathurst  group  do?  They 
have  a  walk-in  service. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  do  a  very  good 
job. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  have  a  legal  assistance 
clinic.  They  have  a  free  clothing  store  for 
the  pK)or,  and  they  have  English-Spanish  staff 
to  assist  the  group. 

Mr.  Laughren:  More  than  the  Tories  have 
ever  done. 

Mr.  Martel:  But  unfortunately,  there  is  no 
policy  yet  on  how  the  government  funds  it. 

An  hon.  member:  It's  ad  hoc. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services  has  been  sitting  on  it  for 
three  years,  and  every  time  he  is  asked  he 
gives  the  same  statement  as  he  gave  to  the 
member  for  Wentworth  today— "We  are  look- 
ing at  it."  For  how  long? 

Mr.  Laughren:  He's  looking  at  it  through 
closed  eyes. 

Mr.  Martel:  How  long?  Well,  most  of  the 
programmes  in  those  seven  areas  that  deal 
with  health,  information  centres,  culture,  im- 
migrants, and  so  on,  are  supportive  in  nature, 
they  are  preventive  in  nature,  and  they  han- 
dle crisis  cases.  And  these  groups  have 
pointed  out  beyond  a  shadow  of  a  doubt  the 
great  number  of  loopholes  in  the  government 
programme,  over  and  over  again  in  area  after 
area,  and  have  pointed  out  the  total  lack  of  a 
programme  by  the  government. 

Unfortunately,  despite  delivering  these  valu- 
able services,  this  group  has  had  to  spend 
most  of  its  time  looking  for  funding.  They 


690 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


have  had  to  scramble  for  two  years  at  least 
in   an  effort  to  obtain  funding.  Interestingly 
enough,  at  the  same  time  that  they  are  beg- 
ging this  government  for  funding- 
Mr.  Laughren:  They  are  bailing  it  out. 

Mr.  Martel:  —they  are  bailing  it  out.  Yet 
this  government's  agencies  continue  to  send 
people  who  need  services  to  the  centres  de- 
veloped by  the  LIP  funds. 

For  example,  when  people  are  leaving  the 
Vanier  Institute,  when  the  young  ladies  are 
leaving  Vanier  to  return  to  Toronto,  they  are 
given  the  name  and  a  card  to  contact  the 
information  centre  in  Toronto.  Not  a  govern- 
ment-funded one;  not  one  that  the  govern- 
ment even  puts  a  cent  in;  but  they  tell  the 
young  ladies  and  give  them  the  card  saying, 
"Please  go  and  see  this  group  if  you  run  into 
snags." 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Anything  wrong  with 
that? 

Mr.  Martel:  Except  if  the  government 
would  fund  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Anything  wrong  with 
volunteer  groups  doing  these  jobs? 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  no.  Yes,  there  is,  if  they 
don't  have  the  adequate  funding  to  continue 
at  least  with  some  regular  staff  permanently, 
then  there  is  something  wrong  with  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  are  doing  the  govern- 
ment's job. 

Mr.  Martel:  Because  it's  ad  hoc.  Doesn't 
the  minister  see  that? 

Mr.  Taylor:  Is  it  working? 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Taylor:  It  is  not  working? 

An  Hon.  member:  That's  a  great  recommen- 
dation. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Children's  Aid  Society  in 
Toronto  continues  to  send  children  to  the 
West  End  Parents'  Association,  which  is  a 
daycare  centre  to  help  mothers  and  children 
when  a  crisis  situation  occurs.  But  the  govern- 
ment funds  the  Children's  Aid  Society  and 
has  the  Children's  Aid  Society  sending  people 
who  are  in  need  of  help  to  a  volunteer  or- 
ganization which  the  government  refuses  to 
fund  on  any  permanent  basis.  In  fact,  this 
government  even  refuses  to  fund  it  on  a 
short-term  basis. 


It  has  the  free  interpreters'  service.  The 
hospitals  continually  draw  on  this  service. 

I  just  have  two  quick  examples  to  show 
what's  happening.  There  was  a  Chinese 
woman  who  was  to  have  a  caesarean  section 
and  they  didn't  have  anyone  in  the  hospital 
who  could  tell  her  what  was  happening,  what 
they  were  doing.  They  went  to  the  inter- 
preters' service,  a  free  voluntary  service,  and 
they  found  someone  to  come  into  the  hospital 
to  tell  the  woman  what  in  fact  the\-  were 
going  to  do.  They  didn't  have  anyone  to  tell 
her. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Which  hospital? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  can  find  out  all  the  details 
if  the  minister  wants. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  The  member  doesn't  know? 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh,  don't  give  me  that  garbage. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  He  doesn't  know.  He  is  just 
talking. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Which  hospital? 

Mr.  Martel:  I'm  not  going  to  name  the 
hospital  here.  But  if  the  minister  is  sincere  in 
wanting  that  information,  I  will  obtain  it  for 
him.  I  will  write  it  down  right  now,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Please  do- 
Mr.  Martel:  I  want  to  put  this  down- 
Mr.  MacBeth:  Put  it  on  the  record. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  First,  go  ahead  and  finish 
this  speech. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —because  in  the 
Chinese  community  we  have  the  Mount  Sinai 
Hospital,  which  has  a  great  many  Chinese 
on  staff. 

Mr.    Martel:    I    am    talking    about    Metro 
Toronto,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  am  not  talking  about 
one  area;  I  am  talking  about  Metro  Toronto- 
Mr.  MacBeth:  Whereabouts  in  Metro? 

Mr.  Martel:  —and  I  will  provide  the  in- 
formation. 

An  hon.  member:  I'm  sure  he  will. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  also  had  the  case  of  an- 
other woman— ff  the  member  doesn't  believe 
me,  he  can  phone  Kay  Brown  of  immigration 
services. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  The  member  is  the  one  w'o 

is  doing  the  talking,  Let's  have  it  from  him. 


APRIL  2,   1974 


691 


Mr.  Laughren:  It  is  the  member's  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  Mart  el:  There  was  a  woman  in  a  To- 
ronto hospital  whose  child  was  bom  prema- 
turely, which  meant  they  kept  the  child  in 
tlie  hospital'  when  the  mother  was  released. 
But  there  was  no  one  there  to  tell  the  mother 
what  was  happening.  They  again  called  on  the 
free  interpreter  .service  to  come  in  and  explain 
this  to  the  mother,  because  she  thought  they 
were   taking   the   child   away   from   her. 

It's  no  secret  that  the  Don  Jail  also  uses 
the  services  of  this  group.  The  courts  use  the 
services  of  this  group,  as  do  the  public  health 
mrses,  the  VON  and  the  police.  And  if  my 
friend  wants  to  check  it  out,  I  suggest  he 
does  so.  If  he  is  so  obtuse  as  to  not  belieVe 
it,  then  I  suggest  he  check  it  out  and  come 
into  the  House  and  tell  me  I  am  wrong. 

Mr.  Laughren:  He  is  hypocritical  too. 
Mr.  Leiuk:  He's  not  questioning  the  service- 
Mr.    Martel:    Because,    like    most    of    the 
Tories,  Mr.  Speaker,  he  doesn't  want  to  accept 
that  this  is  happening  in  Metro  Toronto  today. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  I  think  they  are  probably 
providing  a  pretty  good  service. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Ignorance  is  bliss,  John 
MacBeth. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  hide  it,  John. 

Mr.   Laughren:   Ignorance  is  bliss. 

Mr.  Martel:  Another  group  that  calls  on 
these  groups  of  volunteers,  Mr.  Speaker,  are 
the  birth  control  centres.  I  have  a  case— and 
I  am  going  to  read  some  of  the  cases  for  my 
friend  before  I  am  finished  tonight;  I  will 
read  the  specific  cases.  I  hope  he  stays  around. 

Mr.  LeIuk:  Oh,  we'll  be  around. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  hospitals  in  Toronto  are 
requesting  the  birth  control  centres  to  go  into 
counsel  immigrant  people  in  Toronto  with 
respect  to  preventing  unwanted  families  and 
so  on.  They  are  calling  on  a  volunteer  group, 
without  government  funding,  which  is  pro- 
viding a  social  service  that  should  be  pro- 
vided by  the  government  of  Ontario.  They  are 
calling  on  this  group,  because  as  I  say  On- 
tario puts  in  $100,000  towards  the  total  immi- 
gration service  for  the  whole  province— 
$100,000  for  the  immigrant  community  in 
Ontario.  The  government  members  should  be 
ashamed  of  themselves. 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Are  you  sure? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  There  are  hundreds 
of  thousands  more  that  they  have. 

Mr.  Martel:  A  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  There  are  hundreds  of 
thousands  more. 

Mr.  Martel:  Nonsense,  nonsense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  is  not  nonsense,  I 
happen  to  be  involved  in  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  I  am  coming  to  it.  I 
will  explain  my  case,  and  when  I  am  finished, 
the  minister  can  get  up  and  explain  his  gov- 
ernment's position.  Okay? 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  haven't  got  one.  They 
haven't  got  a  position  on  that. 

Mr.  Martel:  Another  group  that  is  called 
upon,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  senior  citizen  volun- 
tary group.  For  example,  most  of  the  trans- 
portation for  senior  citizens  to  get  to  and  from 
hospitals  is  arranged  by  the  voluntary  entities. 
Again,  they  dont'  have  funding. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  real  problem  is  that  we 
have  these  seven  areas  where,  as  I  have 
demonstrated,  government  agencies  turn  to 
these  voluntary  agencies,  which  are  not 
funded,  to  provide  services  which  the  govern- 
ment is  incapable  of  providing  or  doesn't 
want  to  provide. 

How  in  God's  name  does  it  go  on?  If  the 
government  is  going  to  provide  services  to 
people,  how  in  God's  name  can  it  do  it  with- 
out funding? 

Mr.  Laughren:  For  a  Tory,  it  is  easy. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  guess  it  is.  Now,  as  to  the 
salaries— and  in  a  few  minutes  I  am  going  to 
come  to  some  of  the  statements  of  the  minis- 
ter responsible  for  the  Youth  Secretariat.  The 
group  that  has  been  working  for  the  last 
couple  of  years  worked  for  $85  a  week  in 
take-home  pay.  They  have  no  holiday  pay. 
They  have  no  fringe  benefits.  They  have  no 
job  security.  There  is  no  permanent  funding. 
They  do  it  as  a  service  to  people.  .And  the 
government  asks  them  to  continue  to  provide 
those  types  of  services  without  an  adequate 
remuneration. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Why  does  the  member  want  to 
institutionalize  everything? 


692 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  Don't  institutionalize  it.  Fund 
it.  That  is  all  I'm  asking.  Fund  it. 

Mr.  Taylor:  He  wants  everything  institu- 
tionalized-like  US  Steel. 

Mr.  Martel:  God,  he  is  right  out  of  the 
dark  ages.  How  can  a  young  man  be  so 
obtuse  and  so  much  in  the  dark  ages? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Parrott:   Wrong  on  both  accounts. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  is  one  whose  education  was 
provided  by  and  was  paid  for  by  the  federal 
government,  and  he  shoots  his  mouth  off  like 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  So  was  the  member's— 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  I  paid  for  it  myself.  I  paid 
for  my  own. 

Mr.  Parrott:  So  did  I. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  you  didn't.  No,  that  was 
funded,  Harry. 

An  hon.  member:  You're  not  kidding— out 
of  the  public  purse. 

Mr.  Martel:  You're  bloody  well  right  it  was. 

You're  darn  right  it  was,  buddy.  You  guys- 
Mr.    Speaker:    Will   the   hon.    member  for 

Sudbury  East  turn   around   and   address  the 

Chair,  please? 

Mr.  Martel:  Ah,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  hon.  member  wants  the 

floor,   he  must  turn  around  and  address  the 

Chair. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  don't  get  so 
rangy-tang  on  me. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Are  you 
going  to  take  that? 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  last  May  the  crisis  came 
—and  this  was  just  the  beginning- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  all  of 
these  voluntary  organizations  which  devel- 
oped, which  the  government  of  Ontario's 
agencies  call  on  to  provide  services,  but 
which  the  Ontario  government  has  refused  to 
support  in  any  way,  shape  or  form. 

Last  May  the  crisis  came.  The  federal  gov- 
ernment decided  that  they  were  cutting  oflF 
LIP  funding  at  that  stage. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Why? 


Mr.  Martel:  Well,  they  figured  the  unem- 
ployment crisis  was  beaten. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Ontario  government  had 
refused  to  contribute  all  along,  even  though 
all  the  services  which  were  developed  were 
in  the  field  of  community  and  social  services— 
which  is  a  provincial  responsibilty,  by  the 
way,  if  the  minister  isn't  aware  of  it.  I  have 
seen  so  many  discussions  in  this  place  about 
whose  responsibility  under  the  constitution 
this  field  is  or  that  field  is.  Well,  social  serv- 
ices is  this  government's  responsibility.  It 
doesn't  come  under  the  federal  government. 
Maybe  this  government  should  start  to  look 
after  that  field,  but  it  has  never  ranked  very 
high  with  this  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  How  many  millions 
did  we  spend  on  it? 

Mr.  Martel:  This  government  spent  $241 
million  last  year. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  practically 
nothing? 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  right,  in  terms  of  what 
the  total  budget  was.  In  fact  last  year  was 
the  first  time  that  this  government  matched 
what  the  federal  government's  contribution 
was  in  this  province  to  services  to  people— 
for  the  first  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Not  bad  considering— 

Mr.  Martel:  Not  bad.  Not  bad  considering 
what? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Considering  how  much 
money  we  had. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  it  ranks  lowest  on  the 
totem  pole?  That  Tom  Eberlee  who  used  to 
feel  that  he  was  a  powerful  civil  servant  left 
this  jurisdiction  because  he  couldn't  get  the 
necessary  funding  in  that  field? 

An  hon.  member:  Not  true. 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  doesn't 
believe  that? 

Mr.  Martel:  When  that  crisis  came  the 
number  of  agencies  fell  from  258  to  at  most 
160.  The  government  of  Ontario  was  really 
delighted,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  really  was.  It 
was  hoping  they  would  just  all  die  out  and 
that  would  eliminate  the  problem,  but  that 
hasn't  happened.  In  fact,  despite  the  diffi- 
culties, they  continue  to  spring  up. 

Remember  the  former  Minister  of  Reven- 
ue, he  used  to  talk  about  the  faces  of  the 


APRIL  2,  1974 


693 


crowd?  Well,  these  people  are  the  same  way. 
The\  continue  to  spring  up.  They  continue 
to  be  faces  in  the  crowd  as  they  see  the 
pressing  need  for  services  to  people  in  so 
niany  areas  that  this  government  will  not 
even  try  to  recognize. 

There  were  staff  cutbacks  and  there  was 
a  whole  host  of  problems,  but  out  of  this 
there  developed  in  Metro  Toronto  a  work 
group.  And  do  you  know  who  is  on  that 
Metro  work  group?  Let  me  tell  you  the 
agencies:  Community  Care  Services  Incor- 
porated; community  daycare  committees; 
Inter  Agency  Council  tor  Services  to  Immi- 
grants and  Migrants;  the  Metro  organiza- 
tions of  LIP;  Project  73;  St.  Christopher 
House;  the  Social  Planning  Council  of  Metro 
Toronto;  the  University  Settlement  House; 
the  YMCA;  the  YWCA.  You  know,  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  pretty  responsible  group  developed 
and  what  it  was  developed  for,  of  course, 
was  to  find  permanent  funding. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Is  the  member  sug- 
gesting they  don't  get  any  funds  from  us? 

Mr.  Martel:  Very  little. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Oh,  what  is  he  talk- 
ing about? 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  the  provincial  secretary 
will  have  his  day  in  court. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  University  Settlement 
House  alone  got  thousands. 

Mr.  Martel:  Not  thousands,  hundreds  of 
thousands,  millions— millions,  not  thousands 
of  dollars.  Tell  me  about  the  millions. 

All  of  these  groups  came  together  to  form 
a  'Metro  work  group  to  try  to  get  the  On- 
tario government  to  contribute  and  I  have 
indicated  the  groups  involved.  Because  of 
the  pressures  of  the  necessity  of  funding, 
it  led  to  a  demonstration  in  Queen's  Park. 
There  was  a  meeting  with  the  present  At- 
torney General  (Mr.  Welch)— who  used  to 
be  the  think-piece  in  those  days— and  he 
took  them  up  to  the  fourth  floor  in  the 
building  at  the  back.  I  happened  to  be  in 
attendance  and  when  the  minister  got  all 
finished  conning  them  I  said  to  them,  "You 
know,  friends,  you've  just  been  seduced. 
They  won't  give  you  a  cent."  They  said, 
"Oh,  no."  And  I  said,  "Yes.  They  don't  in- 
tend to  give  you  a  cent.  They  intend  to  mis- 
lead you.  They  intend  to  bring  you  on  in  the 
all-embracing  arm  of  the  Tory,  but  they're 
seducing  you.  They  won't  fund  you." 

I  think  some  of  them  were  sceptical  of 
what  I  said  on  that  day. 


An  hon.  member:  I  don't  blame  them. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  I'm  glad  the  member 
said  that,  because  we're  going  to  find  out 
what  the  government  did  give  them.  I  hope 
he  stays  around  for  that,  too. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  Don't  forget  what  you're 
talking  about. 

Mr.  Martel:  At  that  time,  the  minister 
said,  "We'll  take  from  our  existing  funding, 
the  existing  programmes,  to  assist."  Well, 
let  me  tell  you  what  the  existing  funding  is 
in  those  areas  that  I  mentioned.  Community 
development  grants— the  total  amount  for  the 
entire  province,  $84,000.  The  entire  prov- 
ince. Immigrant  services  in  the  budget, 
$100,000  for  all  of  Ontario.  Do  you  know 
where  most  of  that  is  spent?  I  checked  with 
immigrant  services  today  before  I  came  in. 
Do  you  know  where  the  majority  of  that  is 
spent?  In  nice  little  ethnic  culturad  pro- 
grammes. 

But  in  the  needs  to  the  people  in  the 
community,  the  permanent  funding  promised 
by  the  government  of  Ontario  is  $100.  Per- 
manent funding,  $100.  That's  what  immigra- 
tion services  gets  in  Ontario  in  the  way  of  per- 
manent funding.  The  other  $100,000,  I'm 
told  by  the  ethnic  community,  is  in  fact  for 
cultural  demonstrations  and  so  on.  But  to 
help  the  people  in  their  translation  prob- 
lems and  so  on  there  is  virtually  nothing. 
In  fact,  my  friend  the  member  for— oh,  I 
forget  where  he's  from— Mr.  Leluk. 

Mr.  Leluk:  Humber. 

Mr.  Martel:  Humber.  We  were  in  Quebec 
recently  and  he  was  amazed  to  learn  that  in 
the  city  of  Montreal  alone  there  was  three- 
quarters  of  a  million  dollars  for  the  ethnic 
community.  At  least  three-quarters  of  a  mil- 
lion they  said? 

Mr.  Leluk:  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes.  Ours  is  $100,000  for  all 
of  Ontario,  through  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services'  department; 
$100,000. 

Grants  to  community-based  senior  citizens' 
services  in  Ontario,  $900,000.  Information 
centres,  Metro  got  $18,000  last  year— and 
this  is  for  the  minister  from  Toronto— but  no 
programme  after  three  years.  Daycare  serv- 
ices; there's  limited  use  of  the  Canada  As- 
sistance Plan.  The  federal  government  has 
made  provisions  which  would  allow  this 
government  to  make  use  of  the  Canada  As- 
sistance Plan  for  daycare  centres,  but.  In 
fact,    this    government    has    refused.    Social 


694 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


art  services,  there's  no  meaningful  alloca- 
tion. Oh,  we'll  get  from  the  ministry  that 
UPOCA  gets  the  money  and  that's  used" 
but,  in  fact,  the  greater  amount  is  not  to 
meet  community  needs. 

In  August  of  last  year— you  will  recall,  that 
meeting  was  held  in  June  with  the  then  Pro- 
vinicial  Secretary  for  Social  Development,  and 
for  the  next  two  months  nothing  happened— 
then  on  Aug.  15  this  group  finally  managed 
to  get  a  meeting  with  "Billy  the  Kid,"  and 
he  listened  very  sympathetically  to  them  and 
he  told  them  that  he  thought  he  would  see 
the  then  provincial  secretary  to  see  if,  in  fact, 
funding  could  be  provided.  In  fact,  he  said, 
the  government  of  Ontario  wasn't  concerned 
with  the  short-term  funding,  but  in  fact  it 
^vas  concerned  with  the  programme  over  the 
long  haul,  which  would  cost  the  Ontario 
government    on    an    annual-basis    funding. 

From  that  meeting  with  the  Premier  they 
were  told  that  one  Mr.  Bruce  Fountain  would 
set  up  another  series  of  meetings.  They 
thought  that  was  going  to  go  ahead,  the  Metro 
work  group,  and  they  talked  to  a  Mr.  Sirman 
from  the  Social  Development  policy  branch. 
They  had  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Sirman 
saying  that  these  meetings  would  go  on. 

But,  unfortunately,  when  Mr.  Sirman  found 
out  they  had  the  letter  he  said,  "That  letter 
should  never  have  gone  out.  That  was  an 
unauthorized  letter,  and  we  really  weren't 
looking  at  that  sort  of  thing  at  all.  Some 
secretary  sent  it  out  inadvertently  and  there- 
fore we're  not  sure." 

Well,  after  a  lot  of  harassment  and  calling 
of  various  ministries  the  group  finally  got  a 
series  of  meetings.  They  were  to  meet  with 
people  under  the  jurisdiction  of  one  David 
Cole  and  a  group  of  civil  servants  from  the 
daycare  department,  the  citizenship  depart- 
ment, the  senior  citizens'  department,  infor- 
mation centres  and  social  services.  Sure 
enough,  these  meetings  with  respect  to  perma- 
nent funding  started  to  transpire  in  Novem- 
ber. However,  at  the  same  time  that  these 
meetings  were  going  on  the  then  Minister 
without  Portfolio  who  certainly  by  her  re- 
actionary statements  deserved  a  full  cabinet 
post  started  on  her  merry  way.  And  in  Novem- 
ber, the  member  for  Scarborough  East  (Mrs. 
Birch)  indicated—!  just  quote  from  an  article 
in  the  Globe  and  Mail:  "Mrs.  Birch  Denounces 
LIP  as  Game  for  Non-jobs." 

I  want  you  to  take  very  careful  note  of  that 
"non-jobs,"  Mr.  Speaker,  because  some  time 
later  the  minister  also  made  a  statement 
about  youths  who  didn't  want  to  take  jobs 
that  were  dead  ends.  She  \\'ants  it  both  ways. 


but   she's   critical   in   November  of  non-jobs. 
Here  is  what  she  says: 

Ontario's     cabinet     minister    responsible 
for    youth    yesterday    denounced    Ottawa's 
opportunities   for   Youth    and   Local    Initia- 
tives    Programmes.     "They    have     created 
large     groups     of    professional     grant-get- 
ters—" 
I  want  to  remind  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
grant-getters  were  the  very  volunteer  organi- 
zations which  have  been  in  your  community 
and   my   community   for   years,    such   as   the 
YMCA   and   the   Social   Planning  Council   of 
Metro  Toronto.  These  were  the  people  who 
went  out  and  got  the  funding.  To  con!:inue: 
"—who  have  become  very  skilled  at  writing 
briefs  to  the  government,  at  getting  more 
funds   to   create  more  non-jobs." 
And   as   I   said,   there's   a   statement   by   the 
Minister    without    Portfolio    later    on,    about 
January,    about   the   youths    who    refused    to 
take  dead-end  jobs.  She  wants  it  both  ways.  1 
think  she  was  trying  to  qualify  for  the  cabinet 
by  these  statements  and  she  certainly  did;  she 
got  a  full  cabinet  post.   She's  a  think  piece 
now. 

"These  people  are  active  all  across  Can- 
ada playing  what  really  looks  like  a  nice 
shiny   new  game   invented   by  the  federal 
government,    a    game    called    'Invent    the 
Social  Service'  or  'Find  a  New  Need'." 
Well,  my  God!  You  know,  that  that  woman 
who  now  hoMs  the  rank  of  a  cabinet  minister 
in  this  province  could  make  a  statement  like 
that  is  irresponsible,  because  one  only  has  to 
work  in  the  field  of  the  needy  in  this  province 
to    find   the   total    lack   of   services   available 
to  the  needy.  And  she  got  a  full  cabinet  post 
for  that  statement,  I'm  convinced.  Find  a  new 
need! 

If  this  government  started  to  fund  the  social 
programmes  necessary  to  provide  the  services 
to  people,  or  accept  its  responsibilit\-  under 
the  constitution  of  this  country,  we  wouldn't 
have  that  statement.  We  wouldn't  find  people 
trying,  on  a  shoestring  of  $85  a  week,  to  pro- 
vide services  to  the  needy  in  this  community 
and  in  the  rest  of  the  communities  across  this 
province  because  there  is  such  a  void,  there 
is  such  a  need  for  services  under  the  Ministry 
of  Community  and  Social  Services,  that  its 
absolutely  almost  to  a  point  that  one  can't 
believe  that  it's  so  devoid  of  neec!\  pro- 
grammes. 

But  the  new  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  was,  in  fact,  the  patsy.  She  was 
the  patsy  for  the  government  of  Ontario 
which,  in  fact,  eventually  wanted  to  sa\-  no  to 
LIP  funding  or  those  groups  of  LIP  pro- 
grammes which  had  developed.  She  was  going 


APRIL  2,  1974 


695 


to  become  the  person  who  was  going  to  tell 
the  public  that  all  of  these  services  were  not 
necessary,  were  useless,  and  so  on.  And  she 
was  willing  to  do  it,  obviously. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  doesn't 
believe  that? 

Mr.  Martel:  She  said: 

Ottawa  made  a  number  of  basic  mis- 
lakes  with  the  OFY  and  the  LIP  grant 
programmes.  The  money  handed  out  in 
grants  was  never  adequately  managed  by 
the  federal  government.  There  was  never 
adequate  super\'ision  of  accountability 
within  the  project.  Without  clear  account- 
abilit>,  the  money  paid  out  resembled 
allowances  more  than  it  did  salaries. 

I   want   to   tell   this    House   that  she  lied   to 
the  public.   Because   it  happened  and  I  am 
saying- 
Mr.  Taylor:  Well,  the  member  shouldn't. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  happened  to  be  on  a  pro- 
gramme with  the  director  of— 

Mr.  Taylor:  She  can't  reply  to  the  member 
tonight. 

Mr.  Martel:  No.  She  is  deUberately  deceiv- 
ing- 
Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy   (Peel  South):   That's 
imparl  i  amentary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  can  dis- 
agree with  her  but  he  doesn't  have  to  call  her 
a  liar. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  The  member  cannot 
call  any  other  member  a  liar. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  didn't  call  her  a  liar,  I  just 
said  she  was  deceiving  the  public.  Well,  I 
want  to  tell  the  members  why.  Would  they 
listen  long  enough  so  I  can  tell  them  why? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  doesn't  have  to 
call  her  a  liar. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  If  he  has  something  to 
say  to  her  let  him  tell  her. 

Mr.  Martel:  Don't  give  me  the  nonsense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  She  was  entitled  to 
her  opinion. 

Mr.  Martel:  Xo,  not  that  opinion.  Because 
in  fact  it  was  a  distortion  of  the  facts,  and 
she  knew  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Retract  it. 


Mr.  Martel:  I  was  on  a  radio  programme 
with  Cam  Mackie,  who  Is  the  director  of  the 
LIP  programme  from  Ottawa,  and  the  fed- 
eral government  and  the  provincial  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  have  a  right  to  say  no  to 
every  LIP  programme  in  Ontario,  and  they 
in  fact  are  asked  that  information. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a 
point  of  order.  If  the  hon.  member  would 
care  to  check  with  the  federal  authorities  he 
would  find  that  the  Province  of  Ontario  has 
the  right  to  comment— just  to  conrmjent— not 
to  have  the  final  say. 

Mr.  Martel:  What  in  fact  Mr.  Mackie  in- 
dicated to  me  and  to  the  bright  new  young 
minister  was  that  if  Ontario  criticized  the 
programme  or  indicated  that  Ontario  did  not 
want  that  programme  to  be  funded,  that  is 
what  in  fact  Ottawa  would  do. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What's  that  got  to  do 

with  lack  of  accountability? 

Mr.  Martel:  And  the  minister  said  that 
Queen's  Park  had  no  input,  and  that  was  a 
distortion  of  the  facts. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What  has  that  got  to 
do  vvath  lack  of  accountability  which  the 
member  says  doesn't— 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  no,  I'll  go  back. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  The  gov- 
ernment has  power  over  it  and  then  it  turns 
around  and  says  it  has  no  responsibility. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Our  government  has 
nothing  to  say  about  the  way  they  ac- 
counted for  it. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  It  had  some  veto  powers. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  had  veto  power  over  the 
programme. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  nonsense. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Name  me  one  programme  that 
went  through  that  this  government  put  its 
thumbs  down  on. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  can  pretend  that  it 
didn't  occur  and  that  the  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Social  Development  didn't  make  these 
statements,  but  I  was  on  a  programme  with 
Mackie  when  he  said  that  if  Ontario  did  not 
want  that  LIP  programme  to  be  funded,  that 
in  fact  Ottawa  would  recognize  that  request 
by  Ontario  and  turn  it  down. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  is 
squirming  around. 


696 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  And  the  government  had  the 
provincial  secretary  go  out  and  say  that  pro- 
grammes—in fact,  I  will  quote  her  again. 
"  'Invent  the  Social  Service',  or  'Find  a  New 
Need'."  "The  moneys  handed  out  in  grants 
were  never  adequately  managed  by  the  fed- 
eral government."  That  would  mean  to  say 
that  they  weren't  managed  by  the  Ontario 
government  either  because  it  had  veto  power. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Oh,  nonsense.  The 
member  had  better  apologize. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  was  never  adequate 
supervision  or  accountability  within  the 
projects. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  The  member  doesn't  believe 
that.  Who  told  him  that?  What  is  he  reading 
from? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  director  of  the  programme. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Well,  the  member  doesn't 
necessarily  take  that  as  gospel,  does  he? 

Mr.  Martel:  Would  I  take  what  emanated 
from  her  mouth  as  gospel? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  The  member  is  pretty  gul- 
lible. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh,  and  if  I  accept  her  state- 
ment that  makes  me  less  gullible,  is  that 
right? 

Mr,  MacBeth:  Far  above  yours. 

Mr.   Martel:    Oh,   right.   Your  gullibility  is 


Mr.  Taylor:  What  is  the  member  quoting 
from? 

Mr.  Lawlor:  A  pure  piece  of  blandishment 
on  the  provincial  secretary's  part. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes. 

Mr.  Taylor:  What  is  he  quoting  from? 

Mr.  Martel:   What  in  fact  she  was  doing, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  she  made  these  statements- 
Mr.  Taylor:  Newspaper  comments. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  she  made  the  statement; 
the  member  can  check  it  out. 

Mr.  Taylor:  What  is  the  member  quoting 
from? 

Mr.  Lawlor:  She  did  very  great  harm. 

Mr.  Martel:  She  accused  all  of  these  groups 
of  being  professional  grant-getters.  Most  of 
them  came  from  long-established  community 
services. 


Mr.  MacBeth:  Does  the  member  endorse 
all  the  LIP  programmes?  Does  he  endorse 
them  all? 

Mr.  Martel:  If  I  had  the  veto  power  I 
would  veto  those  I  didn't  want,  and  Ontario 
had  that  power. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Nonsense. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  they  did. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Come  on,  does  the  member 
endorse  them  all  or  not? 

Mr.  Martel:  And  they  were  non-jobs,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Two  months  later  Mrs.  Birch  will 
make  the  statement,  in  Januar}',  that  all  these 
young  people  don't  want  to  take  jobs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'd  like  to  remind  the  hon. 
member  that  he  should  refer  to  the  hon. 
minister  either  from  her  riding  or  her  port- 
folio. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  quoting  from  the  press. 
Well,  the  new  think-piece  then.  Two  months 
after  that  statement  the  new  think-piece, 
when  she's  decrying  these  non-jobs,  will  come 
out  with  statements  to  the  youth,  she  says, 
who  don't  want  to  to  take  dead-end  jobs.  So 
she  can't  have  it  both  ways,  can  she?  But 
these  two  statements  made  her  a  prime  candi- 
date for  the  cabinet.  What  she  was  doing  in 
fact  was  setting  the  stage  for  the  Ontario 
government's  refusal  to  fund  emerging  serv- 
ices. 

That  this  minister  could  even  suggest,  in 
the  same  article,  which  I  could  read,  that 
there  were  no  gaps  in  the  social  services  in 
Ontario,  is  nonsense.  It  is  nonsense.  There  are 
so  many  gaps  in  the  Ministrv  of  Community 
and  Social  Services  it  looks  like  a  sieve. 

An  hon.  member:  He  doesn't  mean  that. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  is  no  rehabilitation  to 
speak  of,  there  is  just  nothing.  It  is  just  so 
full  of  loopholes  it's  pathetic.  If  some  Tory 
cabinet  members  would  at  least  read  some 
of  the  reports  prepared  by  Swadron,  the 
Senate  report  on  poverty  and  so  on,  instead 
of  going  back  to  preconceived  notions  about 
what  people  on  welfare  are  all  about,  then 
in  fact  we  might  have  a  different  attitude  in 
the  cabinet  with  respect  to  that  ministry. 
In  fact  a  couple  of  young  aspirants  to  the 
cabinet  who  didn't  quite  make  it  said  to  me, 
"That's  the  last  ministry  I'd  want,  because  it 
has  got  such  low  priority  in  government 
circles." 

Mr.  Taylor:  Who  said  that? 


APRIL  2,  1974 


697 


Mr.  MacBeth:  Who  were  the  young  aspir- 
rants  who  said  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  A  couple  of  members 
of  his  party. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  no. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  The  member  wouldn't  want  to 
embarrass  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  has  not  a  bad 
budget  for  a  low  priority. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  as  I  said,  the  minister  was  really  pre- 
paring the  way  for  the  province  to  opt  out. 
We  spoke  to  Mr.  Mackie  on  a  programme 
called  the  "Alan  Anderson  Show, '  an  hour- 
long  programme  on  the  CBC  in  which  Mr. 
Mackie  commented— you  can  check  it  out— 
that  Ontario  could  effectively  prevent  a  grant. 
She  then  made  another  statement  some  time 
later  about  youth.  What  the  hon.  minister 
failed  to  recognize,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  it 
isn't  youth  that's  primarily  in  those  groups. 
That's  the  intriguing  part.  The  government 
hasn't  really  looked  into  that. 

In  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  Alexander 
Park  group  the  age  range  is  from  25  to  54. 
If  one  looks  into  the  Smile  company,  the 
theatrical  group  I  spoke  about  that  was  going 
all  over,  the  average  age  is  32.  That  hardly 
sounds  like  a  bunch  of  irresponsible  youth. 
But  that's  what  the  game  has  been  played 
on. 

That  was  the  same  game  played  by  the 
former  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services  (Mr.  Wells)  when  he  made  the  state- 
ment that  all  long-haired  young  people  don't 
want  to  work.  The  Swadron  report  totally  cut 
that  to  pieces  and  said  that  the  people  who 
wouldn't  take  jobs  in  the  long-haired  group 
that  the  minister  was  speaking  about  at  the 
time  were  the  exception,  not  the  rule. 

The  Swadron  report,  which  the  government 
set  up,  which  not  a  cabinet  minister  has  read, 
said  that  these  are  the  myths  and  the  mis- 
conceptions that  decisions  are  made  on,  and 
it  said  it  is  the  exception  to  the  nile  who 
doesn't  go  to  work  between  the  ages  of  16 
and  24. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  And  that  government  deliber- 
ately spawns  them. 

Mr.  Martel:  In  1971,  prior  to  that  election, 
that  is  exactly  what  the  government  was 
doing;  it  was  taking  on  the  youth.  And  now, 
to  avoid  getting  out  of  funding  in  the  area 
that  is  totally  its  responsibilty,  social  services 
to  people,  it  allows  her  to  come  out  with 
statements  in  November  that  they  are  para' 


sites  and  they  are  only  interested  in  pro- 
fessional grant-getting  and  the  services  Are 
dead  end. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  No.  The  member  is  wrong 
there. 

Mr.  Marteh  The  member  for  Dovercourt 
should  read  the  paper  once  in  a  while. 

Mr.  Leiuk:  Don't  believe  everything  vou 
read. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  That  garbage  is  off  base. 
Somebody  is  telling  the  member  this.  He 
doesn't  know  himself. 

An  hon.  member:  I  think  he  believes  ever\'- 
thing  he  reads. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  is  what  we  call 
NDP  hyperbole.  Or  exaggeration,  other 
people  call  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  minister  should  see  his 
fan  mail.  Every  blue-eyed  reactionary  in  the 
province  has  written  congratulating  him. 

Mr.  Martel:  When  I  speak  to  Cam  Mackie 
and  he  tells  me,  "You  have  input,"  and  the 
minister  says,  "Oh  no,"  well  the  minister 
could  have  vetoed  any  of  them.  This  was 
stated  categorically  on  radio. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrel!:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order  if  I  may,  the  member  is  misconstru- 
ing my  words.  We  have- 
Mr.  Deans:  What  is  the  point  of  order? 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrel!:  We  have  input  and  we 
have  the  right  to  comment,  but  the  decision 
properly  is  made  by  the  federal  administra- 
tion whose  budget  is  being  spent. 

Mr.  Marte!:  Right  on!  But  the  minister  of 
the  day,  the  former  youth  minister  did  not 
say  that  in  her  statement.  In  fact,  she  deliber- 
ately misled  by  indicating  Toronto  had  no 
input  whatsoever.  The  minister  knows  it  and 
I  know  it. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  No,  we  don't  know  it.  Re- 
tract. 

Mr.  Marte!:  I  won't  retract  it. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  No,  we  don't  know  it. 

Mr.  Marte!!:  Interestingly  enough,  Mr. 
Speaker,  at  the  same  time  that  she  was  taking 
off  on  these  information  centres  and  so  on 


698 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  were  a  dead  end,  she  was  also  respon- 
sible a  number  of  years  ago  in  the  establish- 
ment of  an  information  centre  in  Scarborough. 
Do  members  know  the  type  of  funding  for 
her  information  centre? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  No. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  would  they  be  interested 
in  knowing? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  No,  not  from  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East. 

Mr.  Martel:  Would  they  be  interested  in 
knowing  where  the  funding  came  from  for 
the  information  centre  in  her  riding? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Nope. 

Mr.  Martel:  LIP. 

Mr.   G.   Nixon:   She's  pretty  smart,   eh? 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  the  government  takes 
on  the  LIP  programme  left,  right  and  centre 
and  is  helping  the  group.  She's  a  very  dainty 
lady.  The  government  goes  out  and  gets 
LIP  funding  and  then  takes  on  the  rest.  But 
her  information  centre  receives  LIP  fund- 
ing. Isn't  that  intriguing? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrel!:  And  they  did  that 
many  years  before. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  shoot  off  from  both  sides 
of  their  mouth  at  the  same  time,  because 
she  was  preparing  for  the  day  the  Tories 
would  make  their  final  statement,  which  was 
made  on  March  15,  and  which  I  will  come 
to  in  a  little  while. 

Well,  anyway,  from  the  meeting,  I'll  just 
show  you,  Mr.  Speaker  how  the  government 
was  preparing  itself  to  say  no  in  the  public's 
eye.  The  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development,  as  she  is  now,  made  the  two 
statements.  She  took  on  youth  in  one  breath 
and  she  took  on  the  LIP  in  the  other,  be- 
cause the  government  thought  they  were  all 
youth  which  they  aren't,  and  she  covered 
the  whole  waterfront.  The  government  was 
really  trying  to  find  a  way  to  say  no.  They 
really  were.  They  have  been  trying  to  find 
a  way  to  say  no  since  last  June.  I  advised 
the  group  last  June  they  wouldn't  get  a  cent 
out  of  this  government. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  How  does  the  member 
know? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  coming  to  that.  I  hope 
the  member  stays  around.  I  knew  from  the 
meeting    with    Cole    and    company.     Those 


were  the  various  groups  that  met  with  the 
Metro  work  committee.  Cole  drew  up  a  list 
of  recommendations.  To  his  credit,  he  recog- 
nized, as  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  is  well  aware,  that  most  of 
the  programmes  in  Toronto  that  were  provid- 
ing services  were  indeed  needed  and  pro- 
viding a  valuable  service  in  the  field  of 
delivery  of  services  to  people. 

Mr.  Taylor:  Why  is  the  member  knocking 
it? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  government  hasn't 
funded  it.  That's  why  I  am  knocking  it. 

The  minister  is  well  aware  of  it,  because 
David  Cole  in  the  ministry's  department 
drew  up  a  set  of  recommendations  which  the 
now  new  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Welch)  ac- 
cepted, recommendations  that  David  Cole 
submitted  to  the  former  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Social  Development  who  was  then  the 
think  piece.  Cole's  recommendations  are  as 
follows: 

"It  is  recommended  that  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development  request 
that  the  senior  citizens'  bureau  examine 
the  Elderly  Persons'  Centres  Act  and 
other  programmes  of  assistance  currently 
available  with  a  view  to  making  immedi- 
ate alterations  which  might  enable  these 
programmes  to  more  eff^ectively  meet  com- 
munity needs. 

It  is  recommended  that  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development  request 
that  the  Ontario  Council  for  the  Arts  de- 
velop a  submission  dealing  with  the  ques- 
tion of  programme  assistance  to  what  are 
here  termed  as  social  service  art  projects, 
and  which  was  loosely  known  as  communi- 
ty theatre,  for  special  consideration  by  the 
cabinet  committee  on  Social  Development 
before  March  31,  1974. 

It  is  recommended  the  Provincial  Secre- 
tary for  Social  Development  ascertain  the 
status  of  the  community  information  cen- 
tre proposal  currently  before  Management 
Board,  [Currently?  It's  been  there  for 
three  years!  and  urge  quick  action  to  re- 
solve this  long-standing  policy  and  pro- 
gramme question. 

It  is  recommended  that  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development  inquire 
delay  in  the  completion  of  regulations  for 
Bill  160  and  seek  assurance  that  these 
regulations  will  enable  direct  funding 
assistance  to  be  made  available  to  com- 
munity daycare  centres,  or  services  such 
as  those  in  question,  by  April  1,  1974. 
[Mr.  Cole  is  from  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity  and   Social   Services'  staff.l 


APRIL  2,  1974 


899 


It  is  recommended  that  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development  request 
that  the  citizenship  bureau  submit  a  pro- 
posal for  consideration  by  the  cabinet 
committee  on  social  development  which 
would  enable  direct  financial  assistance  to 
be  made  available  for  special  immigration 
and  migrant  ser\ices  at  a  reasonable  level 
and  on  a  sustaining  basis  beginning  April 
1,  1974. 

It  is  recommended  that  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development  request 
the  establishment  of  a  Social  Development 
policy  field  committee  on  multi-service  cen- 
tre support  to  be  immediately  convened  by 
the  Deputy  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  for  the  purpose  of  co-ordi- 
nating response  to  all  such  requests  for 
programme  and  funding  assistance  within 
that  policy  field,  and  to  report  to  him  on 
their  activities  and  make  whatever  appro- 
priate recommendations  as  seem  required 
on  this  subject  within  six  months 

What  that  means  is  that  Mr.  Cole  and  repre- 
sentatives from  six  different  agencies  went  out 
in  Toronto  and  looked  at  the  programmes 
offered— as  I  attempted  to  outline  them  at  the 
beginning— in  the  health  field,  in  the  com- 
munity and  social  service  field,  in  the  immi- 
gration field  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Cole  and  the  group  of  civil  servants 
met  with  the  work  groups  from  Metro  To- 
ronto, who  are  just  a  representative  group, 
really,  of  what  is  going  on  in  the  province. 
Over  a  number  of  months  Mr.  Cole,  who 
works  for  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services,  presented  this  to  the  provin- 
cial secretary,  who  accepted  it  as  his  pro- 
posals, not  something  the  group  asked  for. 
Those  were  the  proposals  the  then  provin- 
cial secretary  would  take  to  cabinet.  He 
agreed  with  them.  Based  on  the  assessment 
by  Mr.  Cole,  of  the  minister's  staff,  the  then 
provincial  secretary  accepted  them  as  valid 
and  necessary  to  the  delivery  of  services  to 
the  residents  of  Metro  Toronto.  As  I  say, 
they  are  just  a  representative  group  for  the 
total  province. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  The  member  has  been 
dreaming. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  sorry,  if  the  member 
doesn't  believe  me,  he  can  walk  across  the 
floor  and  ask  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  if  I'm  right  That  is,  if  the 
member  has  the  courage  to  do  it;  he's  flapped 
his  gums  long  enough. 

Mr.  LeIuk:  The  member  sounds  like  a 
denturist. 


Mr.  Marteh  Would  he  go  across  the  floor? 
Maybe  the  minister  would  allay  the  fears  of 
the  member  for  wherever-it-ls  as  to  whether 
or  not  Mr.  Cole  did  make  those  six  recom- 
mendations; and  did  the  then  provincial  secre- 
tary not  accept  them  as  his  own?  Would  the 
minister  indicate  for  the  member  if  that  is 
correct  or  not?  He  is  going  to  have  a  night- 
mare tonight.  He  might  have  something  else 
besides  but  I'm  not  .sure. 

Mr.  MacBcth:  I've  already  had  three  or  four 
of  them  listening  to  the  member. 

Mr.  Martel.  Would  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  assure  him  the 
facts  are  right  so  that  he  doesn't  develop  a 
case  of  ulcers  or  something  like  that? 

Mr.  MacBeth:  I  could  very  well  do  that  if 
I  listen  to  him  much  longer. 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  mem- 
ber must  know  that  the  Social  Development 
policy  committee  is  an  extension  of  cabinet 
and  all  matters  are  most  confidential. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  callted  verbal  gymnastics. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  How  does  the  meml^er  know 
so  much  of  what  goes  on  in  cabinet? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  minister  knows  the  then 
provincial  secretary  told  the  committee,  "We 
accept  those  as  our  recommendations."  I'm 
not  asking  what  went  on  in  cabinet.  I'm 
asking  whether  the  then  provincial  secretary 
did,  in  fact,  accept  those  because  a  member 
of  the  minister's  staff  recommended  them?  It 
went  that  far.  That's  all  I  want  my  friend  to 
know. 

Mr.  Stokes:  He  presented  them  to  cabinet. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  How  does  the  member  know 
that? 

Mr.  Martel:  Because  he  is  having  fits  of 
grandeur  over  there. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  How  does  he  know  that? 
Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  MacBeth:  He  has  no  idea  at  all  He  is 
just  talking. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  know  that 
the  then  provincial  secretary  accepted  them. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  How  does  he  know? 

Mr.  Martel:  They  weren't  the  same  requests 
by  the— 

Hon.  Mr.  Crossmao:  They  have  a  good 
relationship  with  Xerox. 


700 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  Has  the  minister  of— well  what- 
ever it  is— 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  Think  about  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  What  is  his  new  portfolio? 
Whatever  it  is? 

Mr.  Stokes:  He  is  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  He  is  the  minister  who  heads 
Natural  Resources— with  human  resources. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  is  a  spy— he  has  got 
those  guys  whose  faces  always  appear— you 
know,  some  of  his  staff. 

Well  it  wasn't  what  the  group  asked  for, 
but  after  6y2  months  of  trying  to  get  funding, 
they  were  willing  to  go  along  with  what  Mr. 
Cole  recommended  and  what  the  former 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 
said  he  would  take  to  cabinet. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  How  does  the  member  know 
that? 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  we  know. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  He  has  no  idea.  He  is  just 
talking  to  hear  himself  talk. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  We  know  what  goes  on  in  the 
government  party.  Even  the  way  they  look  in 
the  morning  tells  us  a  lot  of  things. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  diffi- 
cult, I  expect,  for  the  member  for  Lincoln 
and  the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services  to  accept  that.  You  have  to  recall 
at  the  same  time  that  these  are  being  accept- 
ed, the  new  think  piece,  the  Provincial  Secre- 
tary for  Social  Development,  was  going 
around  taking  on  the  various  programmes. 
Everything  she  said  really  flew  in  the  face 
of  what  Mr.  Cole  discovered  as  he— having 
been  sent  out  by  the  Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services— made  an  analysis  of  the 
programmes.  He  was  reporting  back  to  the 
minister  that  the  programmes  were  necessary 
and  were  needed.  And  the  new  "think  piece" 
over  there,  she  is  taking  the  programmes  on. 
Now  there  is  a  kind  of  conflict  and  the  staff 
finds  one  thing.  And  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  East,  she  without  even  know- 
ing- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  Without  even  knowing,  she 
carries  on  with  her  terrible  statements.  After 
the  member  for  Lincoln— 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East  hasn't  been  called  a  think  piece  in  his 
life,  has  he? 


Mr.  Martel:  After  the  member  for  Lincoln 
accepted  these— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  —as  his  proposals,  he  indicated 
that  maybe  they  should  have  some  more 
discussion;  and  that  maybe  he  should  take 
them  to  cabinet  for  cabinet  approval.  Once 
cabinet  approved,  there  would  be  a  series  of 
ongoing  meetings  with  the  work  group  and 
there  would  be  discussion  at  cabinet.  If  the 
two  forces  came  together,  then  the  whole 
problem  would  be  resolved— and  another 
series  of  meetings  were  scheduled.  Now,  we 
have  had  a  series  of  meetings  since  last  June 
to  get  funding.  Well,  the  member  for  Lincoln 
was  supposed  to  take  this  to  cabinet  on  Feb. 
15;  however,  cabinet  didn't  apparent  have 
time  to  discuss  all  the  recommendations,  all 
six  of  them— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  is  keep- 
ing better  track  of  the  cabinet  than  I  do.  I 
can't  remember  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well- 

An  hon.  member:  Isn't  the  member  going 
to  go  to  cabinet? 

Mr.  Martel:  They  didn't  have  time  to  dis- 
cuss all  the  recommendations,  so  it  was  sug- 
gested to  the  groups  that  they  would  have 
to  postpone  the  other  set  of  meetings. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Where  did  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East  hide?  Under  the  carpet? 

Mr.  Martel:   I  have  a  link  in  the  cabinet. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  I  think  he  must  hide  under 
the  carpet  with  other  people. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  can  eat  his  heart 
out.  I  know  more  about  what  is  going  on 
than  the  member  for  York  West,  and  he  only 
belongs  to  the  Tory  party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East  doesn't  know  he  invents. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  won't  be  able  to  take  on 
one  statement  I've  made.  Why  doesn't  he 
take  his  little  lawyer  beagle  inquiry  kit  and 
go  around  to  see  where  I  am  wrong. 

Mr.  Taylor:  That  wouldn't  be  difficult. 

Mr.  Martel:  Try  it.  Try  it.  Play  Sherlock 
Holmes  of  the  Legislature,  okay? 

Mr.  Ferrier:  He  is  Dr.  Watson. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


701 


Mr.  Martel:  Well,  anyway,  the  cabinet  was 
supposed  to  meet  on  Feb.  15,  and  decided  it 
couldn't.  So  the  meeting  with  the  Metro 
group  had  to  be  postponed  and  that  was  the 
nrst  of  yet  another  series  of  postponements— 
as  the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services  is  aware. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Come  out  from  under  the 
rug. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  started  in  June  of  1973 
and  by  Feb.  15,  1974,  they  haven't  been  able 
to  reach  a  consensus.  Well,  David  Cole 
phoned  the  Metro  work  group  and  he  said, 
"Why  don't  we  cancel  this  meeting  from  the 
first  week  of  March,  which  is  very  close  to 
us,  to  the  second  or  the  third  week  of 
March?"  And  the  group  said,  "Now  wait  a 
minute.  \\>  have  had  a  number  of  postpone- 
ments ahead  \  and  we  want  to  meet  with 
the  minister  who  is  responsible  before  the 
budget  is  struck." 

Hor».  Mr.  Grossman:  Isn't  that  a  long 
story? 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Yes. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  has  been  a  lot  longer  for 
those  people  who  have  been  working  without 
funding,  I  want  to  tell  the  minister— a  lot 
longer  for  those  people  who  have  tried  to 
provide  ser\-ices  the  government  hasn't  been 
able  to  provide  and  do  it  without  funding. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  think  the  member 
has  made  his  point. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  objected  to  the  meet- 
ings. David  Cole  went  back  to  someone  and 
they  agreed  to  meet  with  the  provincial 
secretary  on  March  7.  Members  will  recall 
that  about  that  date  a  great  number  of 
aspirants  were  deflated  —  those  aspirants  to 
cabinet  posts  who  didn't  get  them  had  their 
alter  egos  totally  destroyed  and  they  sulked 
for  two  or  three  days. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Their  real  egos  not  their 
alter. 

Mr.  Martel:  Their  what?  Their  real  ego? 

Mr.   MacDonald:   Not  their  alter. 

Mr.  Martel:  A  number  of  them  didn't  show 
up  for  meetings  for  three  days  after  the  an- 
nouncement. They  didn't  show  up  for  three 
days  at  select  committee  meetings.  They 
were  a  litde  upset  with  "Billy  the  Kid." 


be  a  further  delay.  With  a  cabinet  shuffle, 
they  had  to  delay  it  and  the  reason,  of 
course,  was  they  were  going  to  have  to  meet 
with  the  new  think-piece. 

The  new  think-piece  for  social  develop- 
ment should  really  have  been  familiar  with 
it.  She  shouldn't  have  needed  any  type  of 
delay,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  she  had  been 
making  pronouncements  about  those  groups 
back  in  October,  November,  December,  Jan- 
uary and  February.  She  didn't  need  anv  time 
—she  had  her  sights  set  on  shooting  them 
down  in  the  beginning.  But  that  is  what  the 
Metro  work  group  was  told— "We  have  to 
let  the  provincial  secretary  have  time  to 
adjust  to  the  new  portfolio."  I  found  that  a 
bit  amazing  because  the  statements  she  had 
been  making  on  the  LIP  groups  and  so  on 
indicated  to  me  beyond  a  shadow  of  a  doubt 
that  she  knew  all  there  was  to  know  about  it. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  No,  there  was  a  maladjust- 
ment there. 

Mr.   Martel:   That's   right;   it  was  mal,  all 

right.  Be  that  as  it  may- 
Mr.  Lawlor:   The  ministerial  responsibility 

changes  a  person. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  rests  heavy  on  her,  does  it? 
Mr.  Lawlor:  Yes. 

Mr.    Martel:    Yes,   she  has    to  move   from 
irresponsible  statements  to  total- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  To  ministerial  statements. 

Mr.  Martel:  Right,  to  ministerial  statements. 
The  March  7  meeting  was  scheduled.  We  have 
had  a  whole  series  of  dates  with  the  Minister 
of  Community  and  Social  Services  and  the 
think-piece  for  that  field,  who  were  going  to 
advise  the  Metro  work  group  about  funding. 
This  has  gone  on  from  June,  1973.  We  are 
now  down  to  March  7,  1974,  almost  a  year. 
On  March  7,  they  were  advised  that  they 
would  be  granted  a  hearing  on  March  15. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  His  own  members  are  leav- 
ing him. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  don't  need  my  members  to 
support  me.  I  want  them  to  go  and  feel  free. 
I  think  I  can  take  on  the  others.  It  doesn't 
really  matter. 

An  hon.  member:  In  what  way  does  he 
mean  that? 


Mr.  Lawlor:  Talk  about  being  in  the  rump.  Mr.  Martel:  Relating  the  facts  as  they  are. 


Mr.  Martel:  What  happened  to  the  Metro 
group  was  that  in  the  process  there  had  to 


Mr.  MacBeth:  There  are  two  members  be- 
side himself. 


702 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  they  finally  got  a 
meeting  on  March  15.  Before  I  go  into  what 
was  announced  on  March  15,  I  told  the  group 
when  they  came  to  see  me  on  March  7  that 
I  could  predict  again,  as  I  did  in  June  of  last 
year,  what  the  government  would  give  them. 
It  wasn't  hard  to  predict;  one  only  had  to 
look  at  what  they  were  doing.  I  want  to  in- 
dicate what  other  groups  have  done  for  the 
emerging  services  in  Metro  Toronto,  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  I  can  just  find  it  here.  I  must  find 
that. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Did  he  lose  his  date  book? 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  I  just  lost  a  piece  of 
paper  and  I  think  I  have  to  find  it.  Here 
we  are. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  interesting— if  you  recall, 
I  indicated  how  much  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment had  contributed  to  immigration  serv- 
ices and  so  on.  Well,  here's  what  the  groups 
in  Toronto  have  done  to  fund  the  Metro 
work  group. 

The  United  Fund  provided  $23,000  in 
interim  support  in  1973  for  20  services,  and 
has  anticipated  an  additional  $294,000  for 
1974,  for  one  staff  member  on  each  of  35 
services. 

The  council  of  Metro  Toronto  provided 
$130,000  as  interim  support  for  59  services 
in  Metro  Toronto  during  the  months  of 
November  and  December. 

Recently  the  Department  of  the  Secretary 
of  State  announced  an  allocation  of  $99,500 
for  immigration  services.  The  Ontario  con- 
tribution up  until  that  date?  Zilch.  I  want 
the  member  for  Dovercourt  to  be  proud  of 
himself,  because  it's  his  community  that 
we're  serving. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Is  this  a  provincial  matter? 
Immigration? 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  More  services  there  than 
any  place  in  Toronto. 

Mr.  Martel:  Right.  It's  the  members'  com- 
munity that  we're  serving. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Since  when  did  immigra- 
tion   become    a    federal-provincial   matter? 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  the  Tories  managed  to 
tax  them  to  death. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  government  opened 
a  welcome  house  to  welcome  the  immigrants. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  To  help  the  situation,  yes. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  right. 


Mr.  MacDonald:  So  they  assumed  some 
responsibility. 

Interjections   by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I  get 
into  the  final  statement  on  March  15,  I  want 
to  spend  some  time  with  this  material  just 
outlining  the  various  services  being  offered 
in  Toronto.  I  intend  to  take  a  little  time 
doing  that. 

An  hon.  member:  Well,  don't  let  us  rush 
the  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  are  seven  groups— 
don't  go  away  mad,  boys.  Just  stay  around. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  It's  all  right  for  the  mem- 
ber to  punish  his  own  party,  but  not  us. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  I  want  to  punish  the 
government  members  for  the  way  they've 
responded  to  the  needs  of  the  emerging 
services  and  the  people  of  Metro  Toronto. 

There  are  seven  services;  infonnation 
services  are  one.  Most  of  the  centres  have 
received  grants  from  their  area  municipalities 
from  Metro,  or  from  both  levels.  Their  func- 
tion "has  been  built  upon  the  basis  of  local 
community  support;  to  in  fact  assist  people 
to  obtain  information  which  the  government 
of  Ontario  is  not  in  a  position  to  provide." 

Well,  that's  unfortunate,  eh?  They're  not 
in  a  position  to  provide. 

I  want  to  just  show  a  couple  of  cases  to  my 
friend,  the  hon.  member  from  somewhere.  I 
can't  use  his  name,  so  I  have  to  say- 
Mr.  Ferrier:  York  West. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  for  York  West. 
I  hope  he  stays  around. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East  is  the  member  for  nowhere. 

Mr.  Martel:  Here  are  a  number  of  cases 
provided  assistance  for  by  an  information 
centre.  These  can  actually  be  documented; 
I  just  asked  for  summaries.  They  can  actu- 
ally be  documented  if  the  government  of 
Ontario  wants  them. 

A  call  came  into  a  centre  from  a  woman 
who  was  calling  from  a  phone  booth.  Her 
husband  had  just  thrown  her  and  her  four 
children  out  on  the  street.  Her  husband  was 
an  alcoholic,  she  was  a  woman  who  had 
never  been  on  welfare  and  who  had  been 
used  to  being  on  a  secure  income  until  this 
year  when  her  husband's  problem  became 
worse.  She  had  no  place  to  stay  and  now  had 
to  get  emergency  assistance. 


APRIL  2.  1974 


703 


Well,  you  know  it's  interesting,  if  one 
were  to  try  to  turn  to  any  government 
agency  after  5  o'clock  at  night  in  Toronto, 
or  in  Sudbury  or  the  Soo,  it  becomes  almost 
an  impossihihty  to  find  a  Community  Social 
Services  oflBce  open,  or  a  general  welfare 
office. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  That's  wrong.  We  have 
them  in  the  city  of  Toronto. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh,  I'm  saying  there  are  one 
or  two,  but— 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  Well,  all  right.  Let  the 
member  make  up  his  mind.  One  thing  or 
the  other. 

Mr.  Deans:  He  said  it  was  almost  im- 
possiljle. 

Mr.   Martel:   Well,  how  do  people  know? 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  Well,  an  agency  will  tell 
them. 

Mr.  Martel:  What  agency? 

Mr.  G.  Nixon:  The  police  can  tell  them. 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  it's  interesting,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  member  for  Dovercourt 
would  make  that  statement  that  "the  police 
would  tell  them." 

Do  you  recall  the  case  of  a  young  girl 
iust  about  a  month  and  a  half  ago,  who  was 
held  over  in  jail  and  who  ultimately  com- 
mitted suicide?  The  judge  said  that  he  didn't 
Inow  any  other  place  to  send  her,  a  girl  of 
16.  There  are  five  or  six  centres  in  Toronto 
which  she  could  have  gone  to,  but  the  judges 
and  the  police  didn't  know  about  them.  And 
a  16-year-old  girl  committed  suicide.  A  dis- 
grace, a  total  disgrace,  because  there  are  no 
real  linkups  of  the  information  which  is 
available— and  that's  why  information  serv- 
ices are  important. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Touche. 

Mr.  Martel:  They're  important  and  we 
ha\'e  stupid  remarks  that  are  never  checked 
out.  I  hope  this  member  can  tell  me  why 
some  judge  in  a  court  in  Toronto  didn't  know 
that  there  was  some  place  other  than  the  Sally 
Ann,  or  the  local  jail,  to  send  a  girl  of  16— 
who  ultimately  committed  suicide  in  her  cell— 
who  was  a  ward  of  the  Children's  Aid  Society. 
Maybe  others  can  rest  easy  with  that,  I  can't. 
I  just  can't. 

There  are  no  information  centres.  This  is 

^         just  a  t>'pical  case  Most  government  agencies, 

as  all  of  us  know— there's  the  exception— work 


from  9  o'clock  on  Monday  morning  until 
5  o'clock  on  Friday  afternoon.  And  the  real 
problems,  the  crisis  cases,  develop  on  the 
weekend  or  at  night.  You  try  to  find  assistance 
and  you  can't. 

Does  a  young  person  in  Metro  Toronto  even 
know  where  to  turn  to  find  a.ssi.siance  at 
night?  Or  on  the  weekend?  But  these  informa- 
tion centres  are  manned  by  people  for  a 
measly  $85  a  week.  There's  no  holiday  pay. 
The  government  has  had  a  study  for  three 
years  and  it  .still  doesn't  have  a  programme. 
It  still  doesn't  have  a  policy. 

In  the  second  case,  the  centre  received  a 
call  from  a  family  \vho  was  in  arrears  in  rent 
and  was  being  evicted.  The  hiisbanrl  hal 
been  at  work  for  three  months,  but  had  Ix-en 
unemployed  for  a  long  time  previous  to  this. 
He  was  having  difficulty  in  getting  caught  up 
in  paying  his  rent.  No  agency  in  the  com- 
munity was  able  to  help.  We've  all  come 
across  this  type  of  problem. 

The  man  did  not  want  to  give  up  his  job 
and  there  was  his  fear  of  garnishee,  and  so 
forth.  And  so,  with  the  help  of  the  centre  the 
family  was  placed  in  Metro  emergency  shelter. 
It  wasn't  done  by  a  government  agency.  This 
is  the  point  I  make.  This  is  done  by  volunteer 
agencies  and  the  government  could  never 
even  start  to  fund  the  great  number  of  people 
involved  in  these  volunteer  groups.  Certainly 
they  have  permanent  staff,  but  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  their  staff  are  volunteers. 

What  they  need  is  funding,  permanent 
funding,  for  the  permanent  staff  who  help 
to  bring  in  the  voluntary  staff  who  then  in 
fact  will  provide  the  service.  But  if  the  gov- 
ernment of  Ontario  had  to  pay  for  all  of  the 
staff  to  provide  the  services  that  the.se  ijroups 
are  providing,  it  would  banknipt  the  province. 

There  must  be  permanent  funding  for  the 
permanent  staff  which  is  ongoing  and  then 
they  can,  in  fact,  draw  in  the  volunteers.  Not 
the  same  ones  all  the  time,  because  you  can't 
expect  the  same  voKmteers  to  do  it.  But  with 
permanent  funding,  where  they  didn't  have 
to  spend  all  their  time  looking  for  funding, 
we  might  be  able  to  intermesh  the  .services 
offered  by  the  Ministr>'  of  Communit>  and 
Social  Services  with  those  that  are  partially 
funded  and  work  in  conjunction  with  the 
bulk  of  the  people  who  arc  willing  to  do  it- 
some  of  it  on  a  volunteer  basis. 

If  there  is  no  penuanent  funding,  the  whole 
thing  is  going  to  collapse.  You  can't  expect 
people  to  spend  90  per  crnt  of  their  time 
trying  to  find  funding.  And  community  and 
social  service  is  a  provincial  re.sponsibilit\-.  It 
is   not   Metro  Toronto  that   is  responsible.   It 


704 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is  not  the  federal  government's  responsibility. 
It's  a  provincial  responsibility. 

This  government  can't  simply  dump  it  on 
the  municipality,  or  the  federal  government 
and  opt  out,  and  that's  what  it  has  done. 
It  has  allowed  the  volunteer  groups,  the  com- 
munity-funded groups,  the  federal  govern- 
ment and  the  municipal  governments  to  fund 
these  across  the  province,  and  this  govern- 
ment has  opted  out  of  its  com.mitment  in 
totality. 

Let  me  tell  the  members  of  another  case. 
The  centre  received  a  call  from  a  woman,  a 
widow  who  had  a  difficult  nine  year  old  son. 
She  had  called  14  places— and  you  tell  me 
it's  available-she  had  called  14  places  to  find 
a  list  of  private  schools  that  might  take  the 
boy.  A  worker  at  the  information  centre  sug- 
gested that  that  might  not  be  the  best  solu- 
tion and  suggested  that  the  woman  contact 
the  counselling  agency,  the  Big  Brothers 
organization.  The  woman  said  she  wanted  to 
try  this  first  solution  and  so  the  worker  gave 
her  the  information.  They  tell  me  that  there 
was  no  arguing.  She  called  14  places— 14 
places! 

Another  case:  The  centre  received  a  call 
from  a  hospital.  The  hospital  was  referring 
to  a  volunteer  group  a  former  patient  who 
did  not  have  money  and  didn't  have  a  place 
to  stay.  It  was  up  to  the  information  centre, 
on  the  release  of  this  individual,  to  find  a 
place  for  the  person  to  stay.  Why  didn't  a 
government  agency  pick  it  up?  Why  wasn't 
there  a  government  agency  that  the  hospital 
could  phone  and  say,  "Find  a  place  for  this 
individual  to  live  until  he  gets  re-established 
in  the  community"?  Why  wasn't  there  a  gov- 
ernment agency?  Well,  that's  information 
centres.  If  members  want  to  read  them  I 
have  nine  cases  here  which  were  submitted 
to  me  by  one  information  centre  alone.  Just 
one.  And  it  goes  on.  Well,  I  will  continue, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

The  second  field  of  service,  of  course,  is 
the  immigrant  centres,  and  I  want  to  list,  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  I  might,  the  immigrant  centres 
that  have  developed  with  LIP  funding:  Arab 
Community  Centre,  Centre  for  Spanish- 
Speaking  People,  Italian  Centre,  Chinese 
Information  and  Interpreter  Service,  East- 
minster  Community  Service,  Greek  Informa- 
tion and  Social  Services,  Greek  Free  Interpre- 
ter Service,  Information  Centre  for  West 
Indians,  New  Canada,  North  York  Birth  Con- 
trol and  VD  Information  Centre,  Portuguese 
Information  and  Interpreter  Service,  Toy 
Lending  Centre,  West  End  Assistance,  and 
Working  English.  Then  there  are  those  which 
Sidn't  start  with  LIP  funding,  the  immigrant 


services,  but,  in  fact,  which  are  now  receiving 
LIP  services.  They  include  the  Filipino  Asso- 
ciation in  Canada  of  Toronto,  Grange  Com- 
munity Storefront,  Indian  Immigration  Aid 
Services,  Italian  Immigrant  Aid  Society,  Inter 
Agency  Council  for  Services  to  Immigrants 
and  Migrants,  Mobility  Counselling  Services, 
St.  Christopher  House,  St.  Caspar  Community 
Centre,  University  Settlement,  WoodGreen 
Community  Centre— this  is  a  Chinese  outreach 
programme— the  YMCA  and  the  YWCA  have 
used  LIP  funding.  These  are  all  ethnic  serv- 
ice centres  and  this  government's  contribution 
on  a  permanent  basis  is  $100  a  year.  Just 
$100  a  year  permanent  funding.  And  for  all 
of  these  groups,  which  desperatelv  need  help, 
the  total  commitment  by  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment is  $100,000  and  most  of  it,  I  am  told  by 
the  people  who  are  actually  working  in  the 
field,  goes  for  little  soirees  of  cultural  develop- 
ment and  so  on.  The  basic  understanding,  the 
basic  translation  and  the  basic  rules  of  com- 
munication are  totally  avoided,  are  totally 
neglected,  and  most  of  the  funding  has  come 
from  the  federal  government,  from  the  Minis- 
ter for  Cultural  Affairs,  and  Ontario's  contri- 
bution on  a  permanent  basis  is  $100  a  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  in  view  of  the  hour 
the  hon.  member  would  like  to  move  adjourn- 
ment of  the  debate? 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be- 
cause I'm— 

Mr.  Laughren:  He's  just  warming  up. 

Mr.  Martel:  —just  warming  up  really. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Sounds  like  he  was 
burning  up. 

Mr.  Martel  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  In  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  standing  order  28,  I  now  deem 
that  a  motion  to  adjourn  has  been  made.  In 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  standing 
orders  27  and  28,  the  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth  has  filed  proper  notice  with  me  that 
he  was  dissatisfied  with  the  answer  given  to 
a  question  by  the  hon.  Minister  of  Commun- 
ity and  Social  Services.  He  may  now  debate 
that  matter  for  a  period  of  five  minutes.  The 
minister  may  then  reply  if  he  so  wishes. 

The  hon.  member  for  Wentworth. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


705 


INFORMATION  SERVICES  FUNDING 

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  vou,  Mr.  Speaker.  Be- 
cause there  are  only  nve  minutes  I  want  to 
get  directly  to  the  meat  of  what  dissatisfies 
me.  The  minister  seems  unaware  of  the  fact 
that  over  the  last  three  years  he  has  procrasti- 
nated with  regard  to  permanent  funding  for 
information  services  centres.  The  one  in 
Hamilton,  as  I  tried  to  bring  to  his  attention 
during  the  question  period,  has  run  out  of 
funds.  The  funds  they  currently  have  will 
not  allow  them  to  continue  this  very  valuable 
service  beyond  the  end  of  April. 

If  it  were  the  first  time  it  had  been  raised 
with  the  minister  I  could  well  understand  his 
answer.  His  answer  to  one  part  of  my  ques- 
tion was,  and  I  quote  from  page  563-3 
Hansard  of  today,  Mr.  Speaker,  our  policy 
will  be  announced  in  due  course." 

I  want  to  point  out  to  the  Minister  of 
Community  and  Social  Services  that  is  exactly 
the  same  answer  he  gave  in  a  letter  of  Oct. 
13,  1972,  to  the  information  services  centre 
which  I'm  asking  about,  in  which  he  said: 
"Pending  an  Ontario  government  decision  as 
to  a  possible  ongoing  role  for  the  government 
in  the  organization  and  operation  of  centres 
such  as  the  Hamilton  and  district  central  in- 
formation service,"  he  had  sent  them  a 
cheque  for  $6,665  which  he  called  a  non- 
recurring grant. 

That  was  Oct.  13,  1972.  On  March  20, 
1973,  he  wrote  again  to  the  same  group  and 
said  "I'm  pleased  to  enclose  a  cheque  for 
$8,300".  He  went  on  to  say: 

It  is  a  non-recurring  grant  from  my  min- 
istry to  Central  Information  Services,  Ham- 
ilton and  district,  pending  an  Ontario  gov- 
ernment decision  as  to  a  possible  ongoing 
role  for  the  government  in  the  organization 
and  operation  of  centres  such  as  Central 
Information  Services. 

On  Dec.  14,  1973,  he  again  wrote  to  the 
same  group,  saying: 

I'm  pleased  to  inform  you  that  a  non- 
recurring grant  totalling  $6,000  has  been 
approved  ror  the  Central  Information  Serv- 
ices, pending  [again]  an  Ontario  govern- 
ment decision  as  to  a  possible  ongoing  role 
in  the  organization  and  operation  of  centres 
such  as  yours. 

It  has  a  familiar  ring.  Today,  when  the  minis- 
ter stood  up  after  having  brought  to  his 
attention  the  fact  that  this  extremely  vital 
service  is  going  to  have  to  be  discontinued  at 
the  end  of  April  because  this  government  has 
been  unable  or  unwilling  to  come  forward 
with  an  ongoing  programme  of  financing,  he 


has  the  gall  to  stand  in  his  place  and  say, 
"Our  policy  will  be  announced  in  due  course." 

An  Hon.  member:  He  didn't  even  give  the 
member  a  cheque,  did  he? 

Mr.  Deans:  No. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  He  didn't  give  a  cheque? 

Mr.  Deans:  Let  me  tell  the  House  some- 
thing. This  Ls  a  project  in  Hamilton  which 
not  only  I  consider  vital.  The  member  for 
Hamilton  West  (Mr.  McNie),  the  minister 
without  portfolio,  wrote  to  that  service  and 
said  he  wholeheartedly  endorsed  their  efforts 
and  would  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Social  and  Community  Services  the 
value  of  their  project  and  the  need  for 
funding. 

The  member  for  Hamilton  Mountain  (Mr. 
J.  R.  Smith)  said  he,  too,  supported  their  re- 
quest for  funding  and  would  bring  the  matter 
to  the  attention  of  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services. 

I  have  supported  the  efforts  put  forward 
by  the  group.  The  group  dealt  with  1,500 
requests  for  information  in  January;  1,300  in 
February,  and  1,300  in  March.  There  is  a 
need  which  is  being  filled;  it  is  a  need  which 
ought  to  have  been  filled  by  government,  but 
which  has  not  been  filled  by  government. 

Let  me  go  on  to  tell  the  minister  that  even 
though  he  wants  to  disregard  the  support  of 
the  member  for  Hamilton  West,  the  member 
for  Hamilton  Mountain,  my  support,  and 
perhaps  that  of  my  colleagues  and  other  col- 
leagues from  Hamilton,  let  me  read  to  him 
what  the  Premier  says  about  this  group. 

On  Jan.  25,  1973,  he  said: 

I  am  well  aware  of  the  valuable  service 
that  agencies  such  as  yours  provide  for 
the  citizens  of  Ontario  and  I  look  forward 
to  a  continuing  harmony  between  govern- 
ment and  non-government  infonnation 
agencies. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What's  wrong  with 
that? 

Mr.  Deans:  I  am  going  to  tell  the  minister 
something— it  is  going  to  be  pretty  damn 
hard  to  have  a  continuing  hannony  with  this 
agency  after  the  end  of  April. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  not  kidding. 

Mr.  Deans:  Because  unless  the  go\ernment 
is  prepared  to  say  something  concrete  about 
the  way  in  which  it  is  going  to  be  funded 
there  will  be  no  agency  with  which  to  have 
any  harmony. 


706 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  member's  time  has  ex- 
pired. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  say  to  him,  that  as  a  minis- 
ter of  the  Crown,  if  he  is  prepared  to  back 
up  his  Premier  it  is  time  he  came  out  and 
made  a  statement  to  the  effect  that  he  is 
either  going  to  fund  them  or  is  not  going  to 
fund  them,  and  let  them  know  where  they 
stand. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  minister  may  now  reply 
and  may  take  five  minutes  to  do  so  if  he 
wishes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  entirely 
support  what  the  Premier  said,  that  the  com- 
munity information  centres  do  provide  very 
worthwhile  services. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Let  the  minister's  actions 
match  his  words. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  Actions  speak  louder  than 
words. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  The  figures  I  have,  Mr. 
Speaker,  are  a  little  different  from  the  hon. 
member's;  maybe  his  are  more  accurate.  The 
figures  I  had  been  given  show  that  in  the 
fiscal  year  1972-1973  we  provided  funding 
to  11  centres  for  a  total  of  $55,000.  Out  of 
that  amount  Hamilton  centre  received 
$15,000.  In  this  year  1973-1974,  we  provided 
a  total  funding  of  $42,300,  and  out  of  that 
amount  Hamilton  received  $6,000. 

Mr.  Deans:  What's  that  going  to  do  at  the 
end  of  April? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  I'd  like  to  say  to  the 
hon.  member  that  certainly,  it's  aU  very  well 
for  him  and  his  colleagues  to  be  able  to  say 
that  money  is  no  object,  because  they  haven't 
got  the  responsibility  to  provide  it.  But  this  is 
a  very  expensive  programme  and,  therefore, 
we  must  establish  criteria  and  we  must  have 
controls. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  How  long? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  I'd  also  like  to  say  to 
the  hon.  member- 
Mr.  Ferrier:  What  about  human  needs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  —that  we  have  re- 
organized our  ministry.  As  the  hon.  member 
knows,  we  sent  them  copies  of  our  task 
force  reports  and  this  is  an  ongoing  procedure. 
We  feel  that  in  our  reorganization  of  our  dis- 
tricts, the  main  purpose  is  to  provide  more 
information,  more  decentraHzation  and  more 


authority  to  the  district.  We  want  to  make 
sure  that  the  implementation  of  this  com- 
munity information  services  programme  is  in- 
tegrated with  our  district  offices.  And  also 
what  about  northern  Ontario?  The  northern 
affairs  branch  provides  a  very  important  infor- 
mation service  in  the  north. 

Mr.  Deans:  What  happens  at  the  end  of 
April? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Therefore,  we  must 
have  as  much  as  possible  a  uniform  pro- 
gramme. In  conclusion,  I  would  like  to  tell 
the  hon.  members  that  our  policy  is  under 
very,  very  active  review  and  sometime  in  the 
near  future  it  will  be  announced. 

Interjections  by  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle.  In  the  meantime,  we 
are  not  standing  still.  We  are  funding  several 
of  the  centres.  The  member  for  Wentworth's 
centre  received  $6,000  a  few  months  ago. 
Therefore,  they  should  not  be  in  that  dire 
position. 

Mr.  Deans:  But  it  runs  out.  What  is  the 
minister  going  to  do  at  the  end  of  April? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  should  point  out  to  the  hon. 
members  that  the  other  debate  of  which  I 
have  received  notice  is  that  from  the  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  West,  in  which  he 
notified  me  that  he  was  not  satisfied  with 
the  answer  given  to  his  oral  question  which 
had  been  directed  to  the  Premier  ( Mr.  Davis ) 
regarding  gasoline  and  fuel  oil  prices. 

I  was  not  aware  of  any  other  arrangements, 
and  I  have  been  informed  that  the  hon.  Min- 
ister of  Energy  (Mr.  McKeough)  is  present 
to  deal  with  this  particular  question  and  this 
particular  debate.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
standing  orders,  I  must  say,  that  permits 
another  minister  to  respond. 

Section  27  ( i )  says :  "A  minister  may  in  his 
discretion  decline  to  answer  any  question." 
Section  27  ( j )  says :  "A  minister  to  whom  any 
oral  or  written  question  is  directed  may  refer 
the  question  to  another  member  who  is  a 
member  of  a  board  of  commission."  But  it 
does  not  apply,  in  my  opinion,  to  another 
member  of  the  ministry. 

Therefore,  if  the  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  wishes  to  take  his  five  min- 
utes, and  there  is  nothing  that  I  can  find 
that  would  prevent  his  doing  that,  I  point  out 
that  at  the  same  time  there  is  no  provision 
that  would  compel  the  minister,  in  this  case, 
the  first  minister,  the  Premier,  to  reply. 


APRIL  2,  1974 


707 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  just  looked  dissatisfied.  He  was 
really  satisfied. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  the  Minister  of  Energy's 
ministry  we  are  discussing,  althouKh  I  am 
discussing  a  kind  of  governmental  approach 
that  flows  from  this.  I  obviously  don't  mind 
a  debate,  and  obviously  the  Minister  of 
Energy  could  reply.  I  am  a  little  concerned 
about  the  precedent  that  we  are  then  estab- 
lishing, I  don't  really  know  where  to  go, 
because  it  means  that  one  minister  can  step 
in  for  another  minister  on  almost  anj-  count 
if  he  is  so  surrogated. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  May  I  interject?  With 
respect,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  precedent  to 
cover  this  particular  point,  I  believe,  in  the 
last  session,  and  I  think  I  participated  myself. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  there? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  think  there  might  be  too. 
If  I  may  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  there  is 
legitimacy  in  the  minister  dealing  with  the 
topic  which  falls  within  his  portfolio  when 
the  question  had  gone  to  the  Premier.  It's  one 
thing  to  shift  from  one  minister  to  another 
minister  in  a  different  ministry.  It's  another 
thing  to  shift  from  the  Premier,  who  speaks 
for  the  whole  government,  to  the  minister  in 
whose  jurisdiction  that  issue  falls. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Okay. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  The  circumstances  were 
exactly  the  same. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  informed  that  there  is, 
in  fact,  a  precedent.  I  was  not  aware  of  that 
precedent.  If  there  is  a  precedent,  we  are 
bound  to  follt)w  that  precedent. 


OIL  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  Good.  That's  just  fine.  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  Premier's  answers  to  my  ques- 
tions this  afternoon  were  unacceptable  on 
every  conceivable  ground.  Let  me  try  very 
quickly  to  set  the  context. 

The  mere  act  of  negotiation  which  the 
premiers  of  Canada  and  the  Prime  Minister 
of  Canada  entered  into  last  week  is  recogni- 
tion of  the  need  to  control  prices  in  the  area 
of  oil  and  fuel  and  gasoline  costs.  The  mere 
act  of  negotiation  presupposes  that.  Now, 
during  the  negotiating  process,  the  oil  com- 
panies were  well  looked  after  by  the  increase 
to  $6.50.  Who  then  protects  the  consumer? 

That  leads  me  to  the  second  point.  Was 
there  a  need  to  protect  the  consumer  from 


exorbitant  or  additional  costs  levied  by  the  oil 
companies?  Their  record  in  this  arf-a,  Mr. 
Speaker,  speaks  for  it.self.  Thi-y  :ire  not  to  be 
trusted.  They  abu.se  the  constnncr.  They  ap- 
preciate inordinate  profits  without  justification. 

Immediately  after  the  conference  was  over 
the  suggestion  was  that  the  incrcasrs  to  the 
consumer  in  Ontario  would  be  approximately 
seven  to  7¥i  cents  per  gallon  of  gasoline  or 
home  fuel  oil.  Forty-eight  hours  later  it  was 
jmnounced  authoritatively,  both  by  the  in- 
dustry and  by  the  federal  government,  that 
the  increase  would  be  up  to  10  cents.  VV^uj  is 
to  protect  the  consumer  against  the  addi- 
tional increase  of  2%  cents  per  gallon? 

Mr.  Speaker,  during  the  course  of  the  da> 
the  NDP  research  department  at  Queen's  Park 
has  compiled  certain  interesting  statistics,  cer- 
tain figures  in  terms  of  what  it  will  mean  for 
individual  oil  companies  in  Ontario  if  we 
apportion  a  certain  share  of  the  market  to 
them  based  on  previous  years.  F"or  Esso, 
using  their  share  of  the  market  in  1973,  it 
will  mean  an  additional  $3.3  million  from 
the  consumer.  For  Gulf,  an  additional  $19 
million.  For  Texaco,  an  additional  $14  million. 
For  Shell  Oil,  an  additional  $21  million.  For 
those  four  oil  companies  alone,  an  additional 
$87  million  from  the  consumers  of  Ontario, 
out  of  the  total  package  of  about  $116  million 
additional  paid  by  the  people  of  this  province 
to  the  oil  companies. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  point  out  to  you  that  that 
$87  million  to  those  four  companies  alone 
would  be  enough  to  provide  the  provincial 
share  for  a  minimum  income  scheme  for 
everybody  in  Ontario  over  the  age  of  60. 
When  the  Premier  is  asked  why  he  will  not 
intervene  to  prevent  this  happening  he  has  a 
variety  of  arguments. 

The  first  argument  he  uses  is  that  it  is  a 
federal  matter  rather  than  a  pro\  incial  matter. 
Well,  it  may  have  been  in  the  national  in- 
terest to  set  a  wellhead  price,  but  then  it's 
in  the  provincial  jurisdiction  to  protect  the 
consumers  of  Ontario. 

That  is  why  Saskatchewan  is  lowering  the 
price.  That  is  why  Alberta  is  low<  ring  the 
price  and  that  is  why  Xova  Scotia  inde- 
pendently had  a  commission  of  inquiry  into 
the  oil  companies.  And  the  default  (m  the 
part  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  to  pro'ect 
the  consumers  is  a  default  on  the  agreement 
which  the  Premier  entered  into  with  the 
federal  government,  because  there  they  were 
setting  national  wellhead  prices,  with  the 
provinces  to  look  after  their  own  consumers. 

Then,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Premier  goes  on  to 
argue  that  it  is  all  right  to  regulate  the  public 
sector  in  Ontario,  but  not  the  private  sector. 


708 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Because  Ontario  Hydro  is  a  Crown  corpora- 
tion it  is  all  right  to  govern  its  rates,  but  it's 
not  all  right  to  intrude  on  private  multi- 
national corporations  in  the  private  sector. 

Well,  let  it  be  pointed  out,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  Ontario  regulates  Consumers'  Gas  and 
Union  Gas.  The  government  requires  them  to 
come  before  the  Ontario  Energy  Board  for  a 
rate  application.  They  are  in  direct  competi- 
tion, particularly  in  the  home  fuel  business, 
with  the  multi-national  corporations. 

Now,  isn't  that  the  irony  of  irons?  We 
discriminate  against  our  own  Canadian-owned 
companies.  We  prejudice  their  position  by 
forcing  them  to  take  rate  applications  to  the 
Ontario  Energy  Board  while  we  will  not  force 
the  multi-national  oil  companies  to  justify 
their  rate  increases.  It  conforms  with  the  gov- 
ernment's policy  on  the  invitation  to  further 
control  and  ownership  of  the  uranium  indus- 
try, but  it's  an  absurd  anomaly  and  inconsis- 
tency in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Premier  of  On- 
tario says  that  this  government  fights  inflation 
generally  in  overall  terms  and  he  talks  about 
constraining  the  public  sector.  Well,  that's  all 
a  matter  of  looking  at  the  way  in  which  the 
public  sector  is  used.  If  one  looks  at  the 
amount  of  money  the  government  is  going  to 
spend  on  GO-Urban  transit  or  the  conse- 
quences for  the  hospital  workers  of  its  hospi- 
tal ceilings,  then  we  say  to  the  government 
that  its  constraints  on  the  public  sector  are 
invalid  on  one  hand  and  perverse  on  the 
other  and  that,  in  fact,  in  the  area  of  cost  of 
living  and  inflation  —  whether  it  is  food, 
whether  it  is  housing,  whether  it  is  automo- 
bile insurance  or  whether  it  is  increases  in 
gasoline  fuel  oil  and  diesel  fuel- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  has  had 
five  minutes  now. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —there  is  absolutely  no  evidence 
on  the  part  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  of 
protecting  the  consumer.  The  attitude  is,  the 
consumer  be  damned.  It  has  abdicated  in 
total,  and  frankly  that  is  a  betrayal  of  the 
public  trust. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  say  that  having 
been  dragged  away  from  a  very  pleasant  per- 
formance at  the  theatre  tonight  to  come  here— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  might  have  stayed  there. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  If  he  had  answered  this 
afternoon  he  wouldn't  have  needed  to  be 
back. 


Mr.  Stokes:  Please  accept  our  humble  apolo- 
gies on  behalf  of  the  people  of  the  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —I  was  delighted  that 
you  followed  the  precedent  and  I  am  able 
to  reply  to  this  question.  One  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  NDP  don't  want  answers 
to  questions;  they  want  to  go  on  grandstand- 
ing, they  want  to  make  statements  and  they 
don't  wimt  to  hear  the  facts.  They  sit  there  in 
their  smugness  and  they  don't  want  the 
answers. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  are  waiting  for  the  facts. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Does  the  minister  remember 
some  of  his  statements  about  the  money- 
grubbing  companies?  Remember  his  state- 
ments about  them  ripping  off  the  public? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Well,  Mr.  Speak  r. 
having  sat  quietly  and  trying  to  be  as  unpro- 
vocative  as  I  normally  am,  I  would  just  like 
to  review  certain  facts. 

First  of  all,  the  price  of  oil  \A'as  frozen  h\ 
action  of  the  federal  government  on  Sept.  4 
last,  at  $3.80  at  the  wellhead  and  at  $4  at 
Edmonton,  which  is  determined  to  be  the 
frozen  price.  The  agreement  last  Wednesdav 
raised  that  frozen  price  from  $4  to  $6.50  at 
Edmonton  and  we  would  have  translated  that, 
and  do  translate  that,  into  about  a  7V2  cent 
increase. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  during  the 
last  six  months  while  the  freeze  has  been  on, 
to  my  knowledge  east  of  the  line  because 
of  imports  and  to  some  extent  west  of  the 
line,  prices  have  risen  or  have  been  adjusted 
at  least  three  times.  Because  of  variables 
other  than  simply  the  cost  of  cnide  oil,  be- 
cause of  the  cost  of  shipping,  because  of 
the  cost  of  transportation  there  have  been 
adjustments.  There  have  been  adjustments 
during  the  last  six  months.  The  history  of 
those  adjustments  was  that  in  each  case  the 
companies  went  to  the  Minister  of  Energy, 
Mines  and  Resources  and  to  the  National 
Energy  Board  and  asked  for  certain  adjust- 
ments, as  they  have  now. 

They  have  now  asked,  as  I  understand 
and  read  the  papers,  for  another  two,  2%  or 
three  cents,  depending  on  which  paper  you 
read,  and  I  suppose  that  there  is  a  variable 
between  the  companies.  I  think  it  is  reason- 
able to  assume  that  during  the  last  six 
months,  and  I  am  not  justifying  what  they  are 
asking  for— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  certainlv  is. 


APRIL  2.  1974 


709 


Hon.     Mr.     McKeough:     During     the     six 
months  I  am  assuming  that  it  is  reasonable- 
Mr.  Stokes:  Is  he  going  to  intervene? 

Hon.    Mr.    McKeough:     —to    assume    that 

there  have  been  increases- 
Mr.  Lewis:  One  half-cent  per  gallon.  Their 

figures. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  am  assuming  that 
it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  there  have 
l/oen  increases  in  transportation  costs,  in 
labour  rates,  in  refinery  costs,  in  the  costs 
of  goods  and  services. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  an  apologist  for  the  oil 
companies  the  minister  is.  What  an  apologist 
for  the  oil  companies. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  am 
not  justifying  one-tenth  of  one  per  cent.  That 
is  not  my  job. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  certainly  is  his  job. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  It  is  the  job  of  the 
companies  to  go  to  the  NEB— 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  it  is  the  job  of  the  com- 
panies to  come  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  if 
the  hon.  member  wants  an  answer  I  will 
carry  on. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  60  seconds  re- 
maining. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.  MucDonald:  .Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  sym- 
bolic that  the  Minister  of  Enerjo'  is  situatctl 
in  the  Sunoco  buildinjj. 

Interjections  by  hon.  meml>ers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Forty-five  seconds  remaining. 

Hon.  .Mr.  .McKeough:  It  lost  the  member 
for  York  South  his  job  as  leader  of  that  partv 
and  he's  destroying  the  new  leader. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  spent  five 
minutes  justifying  the  actions  of  the  oil  com- 
panies and  I  think  it's  more  than  symlK)lic 
that  he  is  situated  in  an  oil  company's 
building. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  meml>ers. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  That's  a  cheap  shot 

Mr.    Speaker:    Time    has    now   expired.    In 
accordance  with  the  provisions- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  House  leader 
have  some  comments  before  the  House  is 
adjourned? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  No,  Mr.  Speaker;  except 
to  say  that  on  Thursday  we  will  continue 
the  debate  on  item  No.  2  on  the  order  paper. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  deem  the  motion  to  adjourr. 
to  have  been  carried. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:50  o'clock,  p.m. 


CONTENTS 


Tuesday,  April  2,  1974 
Resumption  of  the  debatt  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Rc)\ ,  Mr.  Mirtcl  671 

Motion   to   adjourn   debate,   Mr.    Martel,   agreed   to  '04 

Debate     re     answers     to     oral     questions,     Mr.     Deans,     Mr.     Brunelle,     Mr.     Lewis. 


Mr.     McKeough 
Adjournment    


705 
70<) 


No.  18 


iidk 


Ontario 


Hegtsilature  of  Ontario 

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


Thursday,  April  4,  1974 

Afternoon  Session 


Speaker:  Honourable  Allan  Edward  Reuter 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewb,  QC 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARUAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


Price  per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliamer^t  Bldgs.,  Toronto 


CONTENTS 


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


713 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

POINT  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Hon.  M.  Birch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  personal  privilege,  on  April  2  at  approxi- 
mately 9:45  the  hon  member  for  Sudbury 
East  (Mr  Martel)  made  a  statement  in  which 
he  suggested,  and  I  quote:  "and  I  want  to 
tell  this  House  that  she  lied  to  the  public." 

I  have  drawn  this  to  your  attention,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  would  like  to  have  the  hon. 
member  retract  this  statement. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  think  I  suggested  that  the  hon. 
member  did,  in  fact,  deliberately  mislead  the 
public  in  some  of  her  statements  surrounding 
LIP  funding  and  the  fact  that  the  province 
did  not  have  any  input— 

An  hon.  member:   Withdraw. 

Mr.  Martel:  —I  am  not  about  to  withdraw 
into  the  way  the  LIP  funds  would  be  allo- 
cated in  this  province. 

Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  Withdraw 
the  statement.   It  is  the  easiest  way. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  must  say  to  the  hon.  mem- 
ber that  he  may  have  thought  he  said  that 
the  hon.  minister  had  deliberately  misled  the 
House.  Even  if  this  is  what  took  place,  that 
is  not  permitted  in  this  House.  I  have  re- 
viewed Hansard  and  the  words  are:  "She 
lied  to  the  public."  I  read  that  in  Hansard 
myself.  I  would  ask  the  hon.  member  if 
he  would  kindly  withdraw  that  remark. 

Mr.    Martel:    I   will    withdraw   the   remark 
but  she  lied  and,  Mr.   Speaker,  I  just- 
Interjections   by   hon.    members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

Mr.  Martel:  —add  that  in  my  opinion  she 
deliberately    misled    the   public. 


Thursday,  April  4,  1974 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  mu.st  either 
withdraw  the  remark  or  refuse  to;  one  of 
the  two.  Does  the  hon.  member  withdraw 
the  remark? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  will  withdraw  the  remark, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  the  boy,  that's 
the  boy. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  call  to  the  attention 
of  members  of  the  House  the  fact  that  in 
our  galleries  today  we  have  with  us  some 
100  students  from  the  Eastwood  Collegiate 
Institute  in  Kitchener.  I  hope  all  the  mem- 
bers will  join  with  me  in  welcoming  them 
to  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministr>-. 


SPENDING  CEILINGS  IN  EDUCATION 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  inform  members 
of  the  House  that  we  have  mailed  today  to 
every  school  board  in  the  province  copies  of 
the  1974  general  legislative  grants  and  ap- 
portionment regulations. 

An  hon.  member:  About  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  new  regulations  con- 
tain a  number  of  important  refinements  and 
I  would  like  to  draw  the  members'  attention 
to  these. 

Last  August,  when  the  1974  expenditure 
ceilings  were  announced,  it  was  very  clear 
that  inflation  was  having  a  significant  im- 
pact on  school  board  spending.  For  many 
boards,  despite  their  best  efforts  to  budget 
wisely,  it  was  becoming  increasingly  diflRcult 
to  cope  with  rapidly  rising  costs  which  were 
beyond  their  control.  Thus  the  1974  ceilings 
a.s  announced  in  August  were  increased  by 
7.9  per  cent  over  the  ceilings  of  the  year 
previous. 

At  that  time,  after  evaluation  of  the  pre- 
dicted impact  of  inflation,  it  was  felt  that 
the  7.9  per  cent  increase  would  adequately 
accommodate  unavoidable  cost  increases  en- 
countered   bv   school   boards. 


714 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


In  the  ensuing  six  months,  however,  the 
eflFects  of  inflation  have  continued.  Now,  in 
the  face  of  rising  costs  over  which  school 
boards  have  httle  or  no  control,  we  are  con- 
cerned that  boards  may  be  forced  to  make 
budget  decisions  which  could  have  a  detri- 
mental effect  on  educational  programmes. 

We  do  not  want  this  to  happen.  Thus  the 
regulations  released  today  include  provisions 
for  an  increase  in  the  1974  expenditure  ceil- 
ings of  a  further  2.6  per  cent,  making  the 
total  increases  in  1974  ceilings  over  1973's 
approximately  10.5  per  cent. 

The  revised  1974  ceilings  are  $704  per 
elementary  school  pupil,  up  11.75  per  cent 
over  1973;  and  $1,231  per  secondary  pupil, 
up  8.94  per  cent  over  1973. 

Upon  careful  analysis  we  believe  that  the 
revised  ceilings  will  permit  all  school  boards 
to  maintain  the  level  of  quality  which  they 
have  achieved  in  their  schools,  and  avoid 
decisions  which  might  have  a  detrimental 
efiFect  on  children  in  the  classrooms. 

It  should  be  emphasized,  however,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  any  decision  by  a  school 
board  to  increase  its  spending  to  the  new 
ceiling  levels  is  strictly  a  local  board  de- 
cision. The  ceilings  are  merely  upper  spend- 
ing limits  and  they  still  require  boards  to 
seek    economies    in    their    operations. 

The  fact  that  we  are  today  adjusting  the 
1974  ceilings  does  not  in  any  way  alter 
the  principle  of  the  ceilings  which  con- 
tinues to  be  the  policy  of  this  government. 
The  impact  of  inflation,  which  has  been 
greater  than  foreseen  earlier,  has  created 
a  unique  situation  and  we  are  taking  this 
action  to  ensure  that  the  ceilings  continue 
to  be  fair  and  equitable  and  reflect  the 
actual   conditions   faced  by  school  boards. 

There  are  two  other  changes  in  the  1974 
regulations  which  deserve  mention  at  this 
time. 

One  is  that  the  method  of  calculating 
grants  for  French-language  instruction  has 
been  changed  and  simplified  and  will  re- 
sult in  increased  assistance  to  most  boards 
in  this  province  for  their  French  language 
educational   programmes. 

Secondly,  more  grant  assistance  is  also 
being  provided  to  school  boards  toward  the 
cost  of  unapproved  debt  assumed  from  the 
pre- 1969  school  boards.  The  maximum  mill 
rate  for  this  purpose  will  be  reduced  from 
0.75  equalized  mills  to  0.2  equalized  mills 
for  elementary  schools  and  0.6  equalized 
mills  for  secondary  schools.  Any  excess  will 
be  met  by  provincial  grants. 


It  continues  to  be  government  policy  that 
provincial  grant  support  be  maintained  at 
60  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  elementary 
and  secondary  education  in  Ontario  and 
this  policy  is  embodied  in  the  1974  regula- 
tions. 

The  refinements  which  have  been  incor- 
porated into  the  regulations  will  permit 
boards  to  make  financial  and  educational 
decisions  which  wdll  benefit  their  schools 
in  a  tangible  way.  As  always,  Mr,  Speaker, 
pupils   are   our  prime   concern. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  That 
was  a  dignified  retreat— as  usual.  The  min- 
ister finally   came   to  his   senses. 


RYERSON  RADIO  STATION 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities):  Mr.  Speaker,  hon.  mem- 
bers will  recall  that  on  Dec.  3  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  advised  the  House  of  the 
government's  decision  to  establish  CJRT-FM 
as  a  separate  and  independent  corporation 
with  the  capability  to  operate  the  present 
CJRT  radio  station  and  to  continue  its 
educational   broadcasting  activities. 

At  that  time  the  Premier  also  stated  that 
a  managing  board,  including  members  of 
the  private  sector  and  representatives  from 
Ryerson,  would  be  established. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  the  government's  in- 
tention during  this  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  introduce  legislation  that  will 
establish  the  new  corporation  to  run  CJRT- 
FM.  In  the  meantime,  I'm  pleased  to  be 
able  to  advise  hon.  members  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  interim  board  to  help  set 
up  the  new  corporation.  The  interim  board 
is  expected  to  become  the  new  corporation's 
managing  board. 

Until  the  new  corporation  is  established, 
the  interim  board  will  work  with  Ryerson's 
board  of  governors  and  keep  the  minister 
informed  of  matters  aff^ecting  the  radio 
station. 

Members   of  the  interim  board  are: 

Mr.  Donald  B.  McCaskill  (chairman), 
president,  Connlab  Holdings  Ltd.,  Toronto; 
Mrs.  Mary  Alice  Stuart  (vice-chairman);  Mr. 
John  Twomey,  chairman,  radio  and  TV  arts, 
Ryerson  Polytechnical  Institute;  Mr.  Frank 
C.  Buckley,  vice-president,  W.  K.  Buckley 
Ltd.;  Mr.  Cosmo  J.  Catalano,  assistant  vice- 
president,  public  affairs,  Bell  Canada;  Dr. 
Abbyann  D.  Lynch,  professor,  St.  Michael's 
College,  University  of  Toronto;  Mr.  Fred 
Pollard,  principal.  Tabor  Park  Vocational 
School;  Mr.  Peter  Hunter,  president,  Sigmun 


APRIL  4,  1974 


715 


Communications  Ltd.  and  McConnell  Ad- 
vertising Co.  Ltd.;  Mr.  James  Pearce,  Pearce 
Audio- Visual  Presentations;  Mr.  John  T. 
Ross,  Robert  Lawrence  Productions  Ltd.; 
Mr.  Jack  R.  Gorman,  assistant  to  the  presi- 
dent, Ryerson  Poly  technical  Institute;  Mr. 
Edward  J.  Brisbois,  president,  Challenger 
Manifold  Corp.  Ltd.;  and  Mr.  C.  R.  Fin- 
ley,    acting  station    manager,   CJRT-FM. 


HEALTH  PLANNING  TASK  FORCE 
REPORT 

Hon.  F.  S.  MUler  (Minister  of  Health):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  late  1972  and  early  1973,  as 
you  may  remember,  the  Ministry  of  Health 
embarked  on  an  extensive  programme  to 
integrate  and  restructure  the  ministry  itself 
and  to  develop  a  single  comprehensive 
health  care  programme.  And,  at  much  the 
same  time— actually  in  January,  1973— a 
health  planning  task  force  was  established 
by  cabinet  directive  to  develop  a  compre- 
hensive plan  to  deliver  services  to  meet 
the  health  needs  of  the  people  of  Ontario; 
in  other  words,  a  plan  to  complement  the 
internal  reorganization  of  the  ministry. 

The  man  appointed  as  chairman  of  this 
health  planning  task  force  was  Dr.  Fraser 
Mustard,  dean  of  the  faculty  of  medicine  at 
McMaster  University  and  vice-president  of 
the  McMaster  Health  Sciences  Centre,  who 
has  considerable  experience  in  heading  task 
forces  on  major  projects.  His  task  force  was 
made  up  of  members  of  health  professions, 
universities  and  the  field  of  economics,  to- 
gether with  senior  ministry  officials.  All  these 
members  brought  to  the  meetings  a  wide 
background  of  individual  knowledge  and 
accumulated   experience  in  their  own  fields. 

Their  report,  which  will  be  tabled  at  the 
appropriate  time  this  afternoon,  is  a  com- 
prehensive study  of  health  care  delivery  in 
Ontario.  It  makes  proposals  and  recom- 
mendations that  could  bring  about  wide  and 
fundamental  changes  afi^ecting  the  entire 
health  care  system— changes  in  roles,  struc- 
tures and  practices  at  all  levels. 

These  proposals  now  require  close  exam- 
ination and  wide  discussion  before  any  other 
action  is  taken  since,  if  they  are  implemented, 
they  could,  directly  or  indirectly,  affect  the 
lives  of  every  individual  in  the  province. 

The  government  has  decided  that  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  the  report  makes  it  desirable 
that  this  publication,  despite  the  colour  of 
its  cover,  should  be  regarded  strictly  as  a 
green  paper. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  For  Health, 
that's  a  nice  colour. 


Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  That  is 
clever. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  one  of  our  patients 
bled  on  it. 

We  are  committed  to  the  principle  of  pub- 
lic involvement  in  the  planning  of  health 
services.  Changes  on  so  wide  a  scale  as  the 
report  proposes  could  not  be  undertaken  by 
the  government  without  the  understanding, 
co-operation  and  full  support  of  the  public, 
health  professions  and  health  agencies.  We 
want  to  make  sure  that  these  are  the  issues 
and  that  these  are  the  best  ways  of  approach- 
ing them.  Also  we  want  to  find  out  whether 
these  proposed  solutions  are  the  right  ones 
or  whether  there  may  be  either  equally  valid 
or  better  answers. 

We  consider  a  period  of,  say,  three  or  four 
months  from  the  date  of  publication  of  the 
report  should  be  allowed  for  discussion  and 
proper  feedbacks  by  all  interested  parties. 
After  that,  when  we  have  been  able  to  ana- 
lyze the  respK)nse,  a  comprehensive  policy 
will  be  formulated. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Making  up  for  lost  time. 


VALIDATION  STICKERS 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transpor- 
tation and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker, 
there  has  been  a  press  report  from  Ottawa 
indicating  that  charges  against  motorists  for 
failure  to  display  1974  validation  stickers 
have  been  dismissed.  At  this  time  we  do  not 
have  all  the  particulars  of  the  decision  of  the 
court. 

Prior  to  the  implementation  of  the  multi- 
year  licence  plate  there  were  two  require- 
ments: firstly,  that  the  registration  be  renew- 
ed annually  and,  secondly,  that  the  plate 
issued  for  the  current  year  be  displayed.  The 
implications  of  the  introduction  of  the  vali- 
dation stickers  were  considered,  including 
their  validity. 

However,  since  the  decision  of  the  court 
in  Ottawa  has  been  brought  to  my  attention, 
I  am  satisfied  after  further  examination  of 
the  Act  and  regulations  that  they  do  not 
clearly  relate  the  validation  sticker  to  the 
multiyear  plate  in  respect  to  the  reqtiire- 
ments  of  display.  Amending  legislation  will 
be  introduced  at  this  session  to  clarify  the 
matter. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  They  bungled  again. 

Hon.   Mr.  Rhodes:   There  is  no  defect  in 
the  Act  and  regulations- 
Mr.  Singer:  No,  no.  None  at  all  I 


716 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Foulds:  Just  in  the  minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —insofar  as  vehicle  own- 
ers being  required  to  renew  the  vehicle 
registration  and  pay  the  prescribed  fee. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Is  the  government  going 
to  give  them  their  money  back? 

Mr.  Singer:  Only  in  the  mind  of  the  judge. 
If  he  thinks  so  we  will  change  the  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Also  there  is  no  impair- 
ment in  the  identification  of  vehicles  and 
their  owners.  In  these  circumstances,  I  am 
prepared  to  recommend  refund  of  fines  levied 
in  respect  of  convictions  for  failure  to  display 
the  validation  stickers  where  the  registration 
fee  has  been  paid. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  hon.  member  for  Armour- 
dale  (Mr.  Carton)  is  the  most  relaxed  mem- 
ber of  the  House. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  He  didn't 
have  to  resign  over  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  oh,  now  we  will  hear  it. 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  delighted  that 
the  member  has  been  waiting  for  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Now  here  it  is. 


MAPLE  MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPMENT 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  should  like  to  advise 
the  House  today  of  the  government's  inten- 
tion as  a  result  of  evaluating  feasibility  stu- 
dies for  a  recreational  complex  at  Maple 
Mountain  in  northeastern  Ontario.  Over  the 
past  several  months  there  have  been  much 
sneculation  and  comment  on  what  is  essen- 
tially a  normal  and  continuing  programme  of 
my  ministry  to  encourage  and  support  the 
development- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  is  the  problem. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  -and  improvement  of 
Ontario's  tourist  industry,  an  industry  which 
is  a  major  source  of  jobs  and  income  in  this 
nrovince.  A  key  consideration  which  led  to 
the  investigation  of  the  feasibility  of  this  pro- 
ject was  the  economic  benefits  and  develop- 
ment which  could  accrue  to  northeastern 
Ontario. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Move 
it  to  Windsor. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Tourism  is  big  business 
and  in  1973  it  produced  over  $2  billion  in 
revenue  for  Ontario  business  firms. 


Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  the  justification! 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Tourism  is  the  third 
largest  industry  in  this  province  and  tourist- 
related  businesses  account  for  over  200,000 
jobs, 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  The  minister 
will  change  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  have  a  potential 
for  more  and  it  is  my  ministry's  responsi- 
bility to  seek  out  and  explore  opportunities. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  do  they  pay? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  During  the  past  few 
months  my  ministry  has  been  criticized  in 
connection  with  this  programme  for  being 
innovative  and  for  seeking  ways  to  improve 
and  enhance  Ontario's  tourist  facilities.  That 
kind  of  criticism,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  welcome. 

My  ministry  has  also  been  criticised  for 
having  feasibility  studies  prepared  on  a 
recreational  complex.  That  kind  of  criticism 
is  less  easy  to  accept  for,  as  many  good 
businessmen  know,  before  one  invests  a  lot 
of  money  in  an  idea  one  also  has  to  be  very 
careful  and  in  addition  invest  a  great  deal 
of  hard  work  and  a  sufficient  amount  of 
money  to  determine  its  economic  feasibility. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Like  Minaki. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Yes,  like  Minaki,  a 
very  valuable  project  in  northwestern  On- 
tario. 

Mr.  Martel:  Bailing  out  the  government's 
bankrupt  friends  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Accordingly,  Mr. 
Speaker,  over  the  past  several  months  we 
have  been  testing  the  idea  of  a  Maple 
Mountain  recreational  complex  to  determine 
how  feasible  that  specific  project  would  be 
and  to  provide  a  more  general  assessment 
of  the  types  of  tourism-related  programmes 
which  show  greatest  promise  for  the  north. 
We  have  also  been  exploring  the  various 
ways  a  recreational  complex  like  Maple 
Mountain  would  develop  wdthout  govern- 
ment participation. 

There  have  also  been  suggestions  that  the 
government  has  not  made  known  its  in- 
tentions clearly  enough  and  has  not  per- 
mitted the  public  to  participate  in  the 
planning  process.  Mr.  Speaker,  with  all  due 
respect  for  such  suggestions,  my  ministry 
has    been    quite    explicit    that    to    this    point 


APRIL  4,  1974 


717 


it  has  been  studying  the  feasibility— and  I 
would  like  to  repeat  for  the  information  of 
those  in  the  opposition,  the  feasibility  of  the 
project  only.  Policy  decisions  with  regard 
to  whether  the  project  would  proceed,  and 
how,  would  be  appropriately  left  to  sub- 
sequent phases  of  the  overall  decision-mak- 
ing process— and  of  course  include  public 
participation. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  What  does 
that  mean? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Indeed,  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development  (Mr. 
Grossman)  last  Saturday  at  the  resources 
conference  for  the  Ontario  delegations  made 
this  very  statement. 

Mr.  Foulds:  After  the  fact— hold  an  in- 
quest after  the  fact. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  It  would  be  irrespon- 
sible for  the  government  to  have  raised  ex- 
pectations by  making  premature  announce- 
ments. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Raised  expectations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  The  members  opposite 
have  been  doing  a  pretty  good  job  at  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  he  talking  about? 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  Why 
doesn't  the  NDP  leader  dry  up? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  As  hon.  members  know, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  Maple  Mountain  concept 
has  its  supporters  and  its  detractors— that  is 
not  unusual  for  a  project  of  this  kind. 

There  have  also  been  those  who  have  sug- 
gested alternative  projects  for  enhancing  the 
economy  of  the  north;  or,  indeed,  for  utiliz- 
ing the  land  and  water  around  Maple  Moun- 
tain for  non-economic  purposes.  Such  alter- 
native suggestions  are  neither  right  nor 
wrong— they  are  just  diflFerent. 

An  hon.  member:  Right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Based  on  usual  differ- 
ent premises  and  values. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  public  participation  instead 
of  pubhc  exclusion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Obviously,  all  of  the 
different  points  of  view  cannot  prevail,  given 
their  conflicting  nature  and  the  limited  funds 
available  for  the  development. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  How  would  he  know  un- 
less he  knew? 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  our  evalu- 
ation of  the  preliminary  studies  into  the 
economic  feasibility  of  Maple  Mountain  is 
now  complete,  and  the  government  has  de- 
cided that  there  is  sufficient  support  for  it 
to  widen  the  basis  of  its  investigation  and 
to  proceed  into  the  next  phase. 

Of   immediate   importance,   of  course,   will 
be   the   registration   of  caution   by   the   Bear 
Island     Foundation     against     all     ungrantc-d 
lands- 
Mr.  Lewis:  I  should  think  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —in  the  110  townships 
in  the  North  Bay,  Sudbury  and  Haileybur\ 
areas,  within  which  Maple  Mountain  is  lo- 
cated. The  caution  is  against  the  disposition 
and  registration  of  the  land  by  the  Crown 
and  before  any  further  activity  can  proceed, 
this  matter  will  have  to  be  satisfactorily 
resolved. 

At  the  present  time  the  question  of  the 
validity  of  the  caution  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  director  of  titles  who,  pursuant  to  the 
Land  Titles  Act  must  hold  a  hearing  con- 
cerning the  validity  of  the  registration  of 
the  caution. 

I  can  advise  the  House  that  the  director 
of  titles  has  asked  the  Bear  Island  Founda- 
tion for  particulars  regarding  its  caution. 
These  have  now  been  received  and  a  hear- 
ing will  be  convened  at  an  early  date.  When 
the  title  of  the  land  has  been  decided,  and 
if  the  tide  is  shown  to  be  in  the  hands  of 
the  Crown,  then  and  only  then  will  my  min- 
istry proceed  with  the  second  phase  of  the 
project. 

The  second  phase  will  involve  a  number 
of  studies  including  environmental  impact 
study,  socio-economic  study,  an  attitudinal 
study,  and  a  mechanism  for  all  interested 
parties  to  express  their  views  on  the  Maple 
Mountain  project. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): What  is  the  point  of  that— after  the 
government  has  decided? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Many  groups  and  indi- 
viduals have  expressed  their  interest  in  par- 
ticipating in  the  discussions  regarding  the 
feasibility  of  such  a  project,  such  as  the  On- 
tario Ski  Resorts  Association,  the  municipal 
cotmcils  in  the  area  affected,  the  Save  the 
Maple  Mountain  Association,  the  general  tax- 
payers of  the  province  of  Ontario— and,  of 
course,  the  Indian  bands  in  the  local  com- 
munity. 

The  second  phase  of  this  project  will  also 
involve    direct    approaches    to    the    federal 


718 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


government  to  find  out  the  interests  of  the 
Department  of  Regional  Economic  Expan- 
sion in  providing  development  grants  for 
northeastern  Ontario— similar  to  the  federal 
investment  of  $13  million  made  in  Quebec 
for  the  Mont  St.  Anne  resort  complex  in 
the  eastern  part  of  that  province. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  He  wants 
the  federal  government  to  finance  it  for  him. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  We  are  going  to  get  an 
airport,  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Approaches  in  greater 
depth  v»dll  also  be  made  to  the  private  sector 
to  ascertain  their  interest  in  investing  in  the 
Maple   Mountain  recreational  complex. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  has  already 
done  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  The  cost  of  the  studies 
in  the  second  phase  is  estimated  at  $160,000. 
My  ministry  will  be  asking  the  federal  gov- 
ernment to  share,  on  an  equal  basis,  the 
costs  of  these  studies. 

I  should  like  to  stress,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
Maple  Mountain  is  not  a  fait  accompli. 
There  are  many  decisions  still  to  be  made, 
and  many  points  of  view  still  to  be  con- 
sidered. I  believe,  however,  we  are  now  in 
a  position  based  on  the  work  initiated  by  my 
ministry  and  subject  to  the  hearing  respect- 
ing the  Bear  Island  caution,  to  proceed  into 
the  second  phase. 

As  promised,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  filing  with 
the  Clerk  of  the  Legislature  today  a  copy 
of  the  consultants'  reports  prepared  to  date 
—and  these  are  available  to  the  public  for 
its  evaluation. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  great  exercise  in  public  ex- 
clusion. 

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


MAPLE  MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  hon.  minister  who 
just  made  the  statement  regarding  Maple 
Mountain,  if  we  are  to  expect,  since  he  has 
accepted  only  phase  one— I  see  he  has  pro- 
vided me  with  considerable  documents  in  that 
regard- 
Mr.  Havrot:  Got  all  the  phases  there. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Since  he  has  accepted 
'only  phase  one  and  has  armouncedi  public 
hearings    from    the    people    concerned,    pre- 


sumably in  the  community  of  Maple  Moun- 
tain, in  the  Tritown  area  and  elsewhere— 

Mr.  Havrot:  They're  all  for  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —is  it  possible  that  those 
hearings  could  recommend  to  the  miriister  the 
abandonment  of  the  programme  if  those  views 
are  expressed  with  force,  authority  and  fact 
from  people  concerned?  Or  are  we  to  accept 
the  minister's  statement  that  all  of  these  hear- 
ings are  just  a  fagade,  and  a  fraud  and  that 
the  basic  decision  has  been  made  and  the  pro- 
gramme will  go  forward?  If  the  latter  is  true, 
how  much  money  are  we  committed  for? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  indicated 
very  clearly  in  the  statement  that  we  would 
have  the  full  hearings- 
Mr.   R.  F.   Nixon:   What's  the  use  of  the 
hearings? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —once  we  have  the 
cautions  cleared  and  the  title  of  the  land 
vested  in  the  hands  of  the  Crown. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  is  the  point  of  those 
hearings  if  a  decision  has  been  made? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  The  hearings?  Well,  if 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  would  read  the 
statement  and  the  report,  he  might  under- 
stand. Obviously  he  wasn't  listening  to  the 
statement;  he  was  trying  to  figure  out  what 
kind  of  annoying  question  he  could  ask— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  was  listening  to  the 
minister,  and  he  said  he  had  decided  to  go 
forward  and  have  those  hearings  later. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  He  didn't  say 
that. 

An  hon.  member:  The  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position should  try  again. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  No,  no.  Obviously,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  likely 
is  trying  to  interpret  something  he's  heard 
from  some  other  party  and  not  the  statement 
that  was  made  in  the  House  today. 

Inerjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  He's  just  catching  up. 

Mr.  Havrot:  He  hasn't  got  a  clue  what  he's 
talking  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  said  very  clearly  that 
we  will  be  holding  the  hearings  and  that  all 
parties  in  this  province— those  who  wish  to 


APRIL  4,  1974 


719 


invest,    the    municipal    council,    the    general 
public,  the  Indians  bands— 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Even  the  Liberal  Party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —would  be  given  the 
right  and  the  opportunity  of  expressing  their 
views.  And  if,  in  the  opinion  of  those  listen- 
ing to  the  hearings  and  eventually  the  cabinet 
of  this  province,  the  project  should  not  go 
forward  for  obvious  reasons  given,  that's  a  de- 
cision this  cabinet  will  make. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Good.  Will  the  minister 
then  answer  the  second  part  of  the  question? 
What  is  the  commitment  in  dollars  if  we  go 
forward  with  the  full  programme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  we  go 
ahead  with  the  full  programme,  the  commit- 
ment in  dollars  will  be  determined  at  that 
time.  Obviously  if  the  clearing  of  title  takes 
some  period  of  time  and  if  the  hearings 
should  take  a  period  of  time,  I  hope  my 
friend  can  appreciate  that  there  will  be  an 
inflationary  effect  on  the  cost  of  the  project. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Surely  there  is  an  esti- 
mate in  this  pile  of  stuff  as  to  what  the  com- 
mitment would  be  if  we  were  to  go  forward 
now? 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer  and  Minister  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs):  Read  it  over  and— 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Yes,  sure, 
read  it  over- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
why  I  supplied  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
and  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party 
( Mr.  Lewis )  with  the  complete  documenta- 
tion—so they  might  read  it  and  find  out. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  But  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion, in  case  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
cannot  understand  the  report,  we  feel  that 
the  investment  by  the  Province  of  Ontario— 

An  hon.  member:  Well,  that's  possible. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  You're  a  real  beauty. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  The  min- 
ister doesn't  understand  very  much  about  any- 
thing, the  pipsqueak. 

Mr.:  Speaker:  Order. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —for  a  complete  opera- 
tion, for  phase  one  and  phase  two  of  con- 
struction—would be  in  the  range- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  should  have  a  cau- 
tion against  himself— 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  I  would  just  take 
caution  if  I  were  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  It  would  be  in  the 
range  of  about  $13.5  million  by  the  Province 
of  Ontario— and  these  are  projected  figures— 
and  $13.5  million  is  anticipated  from  the 
federal  government  as  well.  The  balance 
would  come  from  the  private  sector. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Supplemen- 
tary- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  if  I  may,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:   I  have  just  read  through  the 

studies- 
Interjections  by  hon,  members. 
An  hon.  member:  Anything  I  can  do- 
Mr.   Lewis:   Well,  it's  pretty  insubstantial 

stuff,  I'll  tell  you.  It's  pretty  insubstantial. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  is  not  per- 
suaded? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I'm  not  persuaded,  no. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Does  the  member  still 
think  it  is  a  hotdog  stand? 

Mr  Lewis:  Now  that  the  minister  is 
through  the  process  of  public  exclusion  and 
he  has  been  dragged,  kicking  and  screaming, 
into  phase  two,  can  I  ask  him  if  it  is  his 
intention  to  go  ahead  if  he  does  not  get  the 
federal  funding  and  the  private  sector  fund- 
ing? 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial^  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  We've  got  to 
hear  what  the  public  says  first. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, let  us  clear  up  a  situation  that  seems  to 
be  prevailing  in  the  mind  of  the  leader  of 
the  NDP:  Not  so  many  days  ago  he  said,  "Are 
you  going  to  have  public  participation  in  the 


720 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


second  phase  if  you  should  go  forward  with 

it?" 

Well,  if  he  would  read  the  statement  again 

he  would  understand  why  we  are  going  into 

a  second  phase- 
Mr.  Lewis:  This  is  a  commitment- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —but  obviously  he 
doesn't  understand  English  either. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  very  clearly  stated 
that,  firstly,  the  government  will  do  its  feas- 
ibility study  number  one  and,  secondly,  we 
will  have  participation  by  all  interested  par- 
ties. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Okay: 

Hon  Mr.  Bennett:  And  we're  not  being 
dragged  into  this.  This  government  has  al- 
ways asked  for  public  participation  and  input 
into  the  Design  for  Development  programme. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.    Mr.    Bennett:    But    before    we    find 

ourselves— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  is  a  ridiculous  posi- 
tion. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Why  don't  you  give  up  with 
your  programme? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  a  laughing- 
stock— 

Hon.    Mr.   Bennett:    No,   the   member   is— 
and   we'll   show   the   public   of  northeastern 
Ontario  that  he  is  the  laughing-stock- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —because  obviously  in 
Timmins  last  Saturday  it  was  he  who  couldn't 
understand  English- 
Mr.  Lewis:  What  did  I  do  in  Timmins  last 

Sunday? 

Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon:    He    certainly  made  a 

speech. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Obviously,  sir,  if  we 
are  to  have  public  participation,  we'd  like 
to  do  it  from  a  knowledgeable  point  of  view, 
and  not  just  complete  input  from  an  un- 
known source  of  what  we  intend  to  do  or 
would  like  to  do.  I  think  that  something 
should  be  done  for  northeastern  Ontario  in 
a  financial  way. 

Mr.  Reid:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  the  hon.  member  for 
Rainy  River  with  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Reid:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  won- 
der if  the  minister  could  tell  us  if  public 
input  from  only  the  business  sector  of  the 
community  is  what  he  considers  public  par- 
ticipation? My  primary  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker— 

An   hon.   member:   Did  the  member  read 

it? 

Mr.  Reid:  Yes,  I'm  a  speed  reader,  too. 
Can  the  minister  indicate  to  the  House  if 
there  are  funds  to  be  allocated  in  the  up- 
coming budget  of  April  9  and  if  those  funds 
will,  in  fact,  be  earmarked  for  this  project? 
If  tiiis  project  does  not  go  ahead,  will  he 
consider  such  a  project  Mdth  public  participa- 
tion for  the  people  of  northwestern  Ontario? 

Mr.  Havrot:  They  have  got  Minaki 
Lodge. 

Mr.  Reid:  We  don't  want  that  kind. 

Hon.     Mr.     Bennett:     First    of    all,     Mr. 
Speaker,  it  is  our  intention- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —to  seek  not  only  the 
business  community's  expression  of  opinion 
on  Maple  Mountain  recreational  complex  but 
indeed  that  of  all  the  people,  the  Indian 
bands  included,  which  is  most  important. 

Mr.  Reid:  Why  ask  the  business  com- 
munity first? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Because  we  value  the 
business  community's  opinion  when  we  are 
trying  to  do  a  feasibility  study.  I  would 
think- 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  one 
would  think  that  the  business  community 
was  not  the  public  of  this  province.  To  my 
understanding,    they    are    taxpayers    of    this 


APRIL  4,  1974 


721 


province,   the  same   as   you  and  me.  Their 
opinion,  to  us,  is  very  valuable. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Secondly,  in  regard 
to  the  funds  provided  in  the  1974-1975 
estimates,  sir,  there  are  funds  in  there  under 
special  projects. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  to  what  extent?  How 
much? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  That  will  come  all  in 
due  course,  sir,  when  the  estimates  are 
tabled. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South):  A 
supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  the  hon.  member  for 
Cochrane    South   with   a   supplementary. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  Does  this  commitment  to 
proceed  to  phase  2  mean  the  minister  is  not 
interested  in  pursuing  any  other  projects  of 
major  tourist  interest  in  northeastern  Ontario, 
namely  the  science  centre  in  our  area  or 
some  other  projects,  which  might  be  spread 
throughout  the  northeast? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Let  me  assure  all  mem- 
bers of  this  House  that  because  we  happen 
to  be  now  proceeding  with  phase  two  of 
Maple  Mountain  it  does  not  cut  ofiF— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —our  consideration  of 
other  developments  in  the  Province  of  On- 
tario from  a  tourist  point  of  view. 

An  hon.  member:  I  should  say  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Beimett:  That  includes,  sir,  the 
science  centre  in  Timmins,  for  which  we 
now  have  consultants  working  on  its  feasi- 
bility and  whether  we  can  advance  it.  I 
hope  we  will  have  a  report  for  this  House 
in  a  matter  of  six  to  seven  months. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  And  a  hotdog  stand  in 
Sudbury,  too. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Will  the  minister  advise  us 
in  advance  of  the  date  on  which  the  local 
registrar  is  to  hold  his  hearing  under  the 
Land  Titles  Act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  think  that  question 
would  be  better  placed  to  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  province  (Mr.  Welch). 

Mr.  Renwick:  Perhaps  the  minister  could 
ask  his  colleague  to  let  the  House  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Benn^:  I  would  suggest  the 
member  ask  him. 


Mr.  Renwidc:  Thank  you. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  there  have  been  oulte 
a  large  number  of  supplementaries.  The  non. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


INQUIRY  INTO  HOSPITAL 
EMPLOYEES'  REMUNERATION 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  of  the  Premier. 
Now  that  the  ceiling  levels  for  education  have 
been  announced,  would  it  be  possible  for  tiie 
Premier  to  make  a  statement  indicating  what 
will  be  the  budgetary  controls  on  the  hos- 
pitals of  the  province,  particularly  the  11  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto  which  face  a  strike 
which,  imder  the  law  of  the  province,  would 
be  an  illegal  strike?  Could  the  Premier,  either 
himself  or  through  the  Ministry  of  Health  or 
the  Ministry  of  Labour,  allow  one  of  his  col- 
leagues to  attend  the  negotiations  so  that  the 
good  faith  of  the  province  on  behalf  of  the 
provision  of  money  for  hospitals  would  be 
made  clear  and  we  could  avoid  what  would 
be  an  illegal  strike  by  a  statement  of  govern- 
ment policy  in  this  regard? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that 
is  perhaps  an  oversimplification  of  the  prob- 
lem. This  government  obviously  is  concerned 
about  the  possibility  of  an  illegal  strike.  We 
will  be  discussing  this  with  my  colleagues,  the 
Minister  of  Health  and  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Guindon),  in  cabinet  and  quite  franldy 
at  this  precise  moment,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
wish  to  make  any  further  awnment. 

I  would  just  say  that  we  recognize  the 
situation,  and  with  great  respect,  I  think  the 
point  of  having  somebody  go  to  indicate  what 
the  ceilings  may  or  may  not  be  is  something 
of  an  oversimplification  of  the  issue. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  I  realize 
the  Premier  said  he  doesn  t  want  to  say  more, 
but  would  he  not  say,  surely,  that  since  the 
ceilings  for  education  have  been  established  it 
is  quite  possible,  vrith  the  budget  now  only 
a  few  days  off,  to  give  the  specific  informa- 
tion to  the  people  concerned  so  that  at  least 
they  know  tne  parameters  in  which  they  are 
negotiating? 

He  doesn't  want  to  say  more,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  The  govern- 
ment has  just  increased  the  education  ceilings 
quite  significantly  bevond  what  most  assumed 
it  would  increase  tnem;  whether  they  are 
adequate  or  not  is  another  matter.  Can  the 
Premier  at  least  indicate  to  those  hospitals 


72: 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


which  have  just  begun  the  bargaining  process 
—the  two  Scarborough  hospitals— the  kind  of 
plan  he  might  have  available  for  them  as  of 
May  1,  which  would  set  a  pattern  for  the  rest 
of  the  province?  Surely  that  would  make 
sense? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  there 
are  a  number  of  things  the  government  will 
be  considering.  I'm  interested  in  the  observa- 
tions from  the  members  opposite  but  quite 
frankly  I'm  not  prepared  to  comment  any 
further  here  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Housing.  Is  he  prepared  to  let 
stand  his  words  as  quoted  in  this  morning's 
Sun  indicating  that  he  said  that  "families  earn- 
ing less  than  $17,000  don't  have  much  to  look 
forward  to  in  the  way  of  owning  a  home." 
Surely  this  flies  in  the  face  of  his  so-called 
housing  action  programme,  which  is  designed 
to  provide  housing  facilities  and,  we  presume, 
at  least  some  independent  housing  facilities 
for  those  people  with  earnings  well  below 
that  level,  since  the  minister's  statement  has 
really  put  about  60  to  65  per  cent  of  the 
people  in  the  province  out  of  any  hope  of 
owning  a  home  of  their  own? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  grateful  to  the  hon. 
member  for  raising  the  question,  because 
obviously  the  statement  quoted  in  the  Sun  is 
correct  but  out  of  context.  I  made  that  state- 
ment saying  that,  at  the  time  I  made  the 
statement,  there  did  not  appear  to  be  any- 
thing for  people  of  that  income  category  to 
look  forward  to.  However,  the  whole  tlirust 
of  our  programme  was  to  make  it  possible  for 
people  in  that  income  category  to  look  for- 
ward with  some  degree  of  confidence  to  own- 
ing a  home. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  When? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  In  the  near  future. 
We  are  talking  in  terms  of  1974,  1975,  1976. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Like  at  Malvem? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Is  the 
minister  aware— and  I  am  sure  he  is— that 
the  only  approvals  for  single-family  dwel- 
lings in  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  area  re- 
cently have  been  in  Etobicoke,  where  I  un- 
derstand that  302  approvals  have  been 
granted   for   homes   selling  for   no   less   than 


$100,000  with  a  top  limit,  at  present  prices, 
of  $150,000?  Surely  the  minister,  if  he  is 
prepared  to  support  a  programme  called 
"action  housing,"  is  going  to  have  to  say 
something  more  than  action  will  be  available 
soon?  Is  there  something  he  can  say  to  the 
House  now,  in  view  of  the  statistics  that 
come  day  after  day  in  the  local  press  and 
media,  which  are,  in  fact,  increasing  the 
pressures  on  housing  prices  in  the  absence 
of  any  kind  of  concrete  policy  from  the  gov- 
ernment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  can't  make  a  specific  statement  today  and 
possibly  not  tomorrow  either.  We  are  meet- 
ing with  regional  councils,  with  area  mu- 
nicipalities and  with  the  private  sector.  We 
are  developing  agreements  which  will  be 
announced,  because  they  will  be  specific  in 
terms  of  production  targets,  production  dates, 
prices,  the  amount  of  the  developments  which 
will  be  in  the  public  sector  and  those  which 
will  be  in  the  private  sector.  I  hope  that 
when  those  announcements  are  made  the 
hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition  will  join  in 
the  general  acclaim  for  the  programme,  which 
I  have  great  confidence  in. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  I  will  when  I  have 
a  look  at  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
How  is  it  that  the  Ontario  housing  action 
programme  is  emerging  in  such  fits  and 
starts?  Has  the  minister  no  overall  plan? 
Secondly,  of  the  four  projects  announced  in 
Mississauga— which  suddenly  emerged  from, 
I  think,  one  of  the  directors  of  the  ministry- 
it  was  said  that  30  per  cent  of  the  lots  re- 
quested from  the  private  sector  should  be 
put  aside  for  those  earning  up  to  $18,000  a 
year,  but  since  more  than  70  per  cent  of  the 
province  earns  less  than  $18,000  a  year,  why 
is  the  minister  asking  for  only  30  per  cent 
of  the  lots  to  provide  housing  for  70  per  cent 
of  the  people? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of 
all,  the  announcement  in  Mississauga  is  not 
the  announcement  of  a  specific  programme. 
It  is  part  of  negotiations  that  are  ongoing 
with  the  municipality  and  with  the  de\elop- 
ers.  I  believe  that  our  director,  Mr.  Strachan, 
did  say,  "Say  30  per  cent  and  you  may  get 
40  or  45,  depending  on  our  negotiations." 

Mr.  Lewis:  Or  20,  or  15. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  There  must  be  an 
oversupply  of  serviced  lots  and  the  one  way 
to  bring  that  oversupply  about  is  to  enable 
developers   to   bring   their   developments   on- 


APRIL  4.  1974 


723 


stream  quicker  tlian  under  the  normal  pro- 
cedures. 

Mr.  Breilhaupt:  The  ministry  is  not  doing 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Well,  we  will  be, 
Mr.  Speaker.  That  is  the  whole  thrust  of 
the  programme. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  not  happening.  It  is  just 
not  happening. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  In  the  aggregate, 
we  will  create  an  oversupply  of  serviced 
lots,  which  will  automatically  have  a  depress- 
ing eflFect  on  the  market. 

Interjections   by  hon.    members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  We  do  not  pretend 
and  never  have  claimed  that  this  is  the  an- 
swer to  all  of  the  housing  problems,  and 
there  are  other  activities  which  vsdll  take 
care  of  other  income  groups. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  will  not  pass  it  on  to 
the  consumers.  They  will  pick  up  a  big 
profit. 

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

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St  George):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, a  supplementary:  Are  we  to  take  it,  then, 
that  the  minister  is  now  telling  this  House 
that  the  economic  forecasts  which  have  been 
made,  which  indicate  a  major  slowdown  in 
the  private  investment  area,  are  not  true? 
Or  what  is  he,  in  fact,  saying  about  these 
forecasts,  since  he  is  relying  so  heavily  on 
the  private  sector? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  don't  quite  un- 
derstand the  hon.  member's  question  but  I 
will  hazard  a  guess.  If  there  are  economic 
forecasts  about  a  slowdown  in  investments, 
that  slowdown  has  not  surfaced  in  the  hous- 
ing field  or  in  the  building  field.  There  may 
be  other  areas  where  there  is  a  slowdown. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  hasn't  slowed  down  in  the 
speculation  field. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Can  the 
minister  explain  why,  since  he  made  his  ori- 
ginal statement  about  forcing  prices  down, 
there  has  been  another  five  per  cent  rise  in 
housing  prices?  Was  there  any  connection 
with  his  statement? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  ob- 
viousK-  if  there  was  any  connection  with  the 
statement  it  dfd  not  have  the  desired  eflFect. 


What  I  did  .say  was  that  we  are  embarking 
on  a  number  of  programmes  which  we  hope, 
in  the  aggregate,  will  help  to  solve  the  prol> 
lem  of  housing  in  Ontario.  There  is  no  way 
that  any  single  programme  is  going  to  ac- 
complish that;  nor  will  it  be  accomplished 
overnight.  We  have  given  ourselves  two  to 
three  years  and  we  hope  the  effects  will  be 
seen  this  year  and  next  year. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  people  aren't  going 
to  give  the  government  that  long. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  The  situation  is  hopeless. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker,  since  the  minister  seems  to  have 
some  information  that  he  would  like  to  put 
forward:  He  says  two  or  three  years.  What 
is  he  going  to  do  when  the  vacancy  rate  in 
the  apartments  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  falls 
to  zero,  as  is  predicted  for  this  fall,  if  his 
programme  is  simply  going  to  provide  some 
relief  within  two  to  three  years?  We  talk 
about  a  crisis  now.  What  is  he  going  to  do 
to  handle  the  situation  when  in  September 
there  is  simply  no  accommodation,  no  matter 
how  much  money  you  have,  as  far  as  an 
apartment  is  concerned? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  first 
of  all  it's  the  opinion  of  my  ministry  that 
some  of  the  predictions  about  zero  vacancy 
rate  are  self-serving  predictions.  We  are  try- 
ing to  check  into  the  validity  of  those,  because 
they  do  come  from  a  group  which  would 
benefit  by  a  zero  vacancy  rate.  We  do  not 
believe  that  prediction  is  valid. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Good  point. 

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

Mr.  I.  Deans  ( Wentworth ) :  Is  it  then- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sorry,  I  believe  the  hon. 
member  for  Sudbury  East  was  up  first. 

Mr.  Martel:  May  I  ask  the  minister,  if  we 
put  more  land  on  stream,  what  assurance  has 
he  that  savings  that  are  going  to  accrue  to 
the  developer  will  in  fact  be  passed  on  to  the 
consumer  in  the  form  of  reduced  housing 
costs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  answer  to  that  is  quite  simple.  Before  it's 
done  we  will  have  binding  undertakings  from 
the  developer  which  are  actionable  and  en- 
forceable. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well  now,  this  is  developing 
into  a  debate,  but  in  order  to  equalize  it  I 


724 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


will  allow  one  more  question  from  the  Liberal 
Party.  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa  East. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  might  I  ask  the  min- 
ister: In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  minister  is 
talking  pretty  tough  to  the  land  speculators, 
recently  and  again  yesterday,  and  in  fact  just 
echoing  what  his  predecessor  in  the  depart- 
ment had  said,  and  in  fact  what  the  Premier 
had  said  with  no  apparent  improvement  in  the 
situation,  does  he  plan  to  bring  on  legislation 
in  relation  to  land  speculation  or  does  he 
plan  to  continue  the  charade  of  his  pre- 
decessor? 

Mr.  Mattel:  Put  a  100  per  cent  tax  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  cries 
of  anguish  and  pain  which  are  arising  indicate 
my  words  are  having  some  effect. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  prices  going  up. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  And  the  prices  go  up. 

An  hon.  member:  He  is  like  Daniel  in  the 
lions'  den, 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  There  has  been 
some  reaction;  but  obviously  any  legislation 
to  be  brought  before  this  House  in  that  regard 
will  be  announced  in  due  course. 


SEPTIC  TANK  INSPECTIONS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  through  you 
to  the  Minister  of  the  Environment,  I  wonder 
if  he  can  explain  the  delay  in  bringing  for- 
ward the  regulations  under  the  statutes  that 
give  him  the  authority,  as  Minister  of  the 
Environment,  to  supervise  the  inspection  of 
septic  tanks  across  the  province?  This  author- 
ity passed  to  his  ministry,  I  believe  on  April 
1,  and  the  lack  of  a  procedure  which  is 
understood  across  the  province  is  holding  up 
the  approvals  and  once  again  affecting  the 
supply  of  serviced  lots. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Especially  in  Essex  county. 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment): Mr.  Speaker,  the  member  is  talk- 
ing about  part  VII  of  the  Environmental  Pro- 
tection Act  and  its  proclamation,  which  will 
be  done  very  shortly.  AU  our  MOHs  have 
been  notified  in  this  province  to  carry  on— 

Mr.  Singer:  In  the  aggregate,  yes. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  —in  the  way  they  are 
now  doing  things  until  this  Act  has  been  pro- 


claimed, and  it  will  be  proclaimed  momen- 
tarily. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Is  it 
considered  that  even  when  it  is  proclaimed 
the  inspection  procedure  will  increase  in  cost 
and  also  increase  in  the  time  required  for 
approvals? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  If  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  waits  until  my  statement  comes 
out  next  week  he  will  get  the  answers  to 
those  questions. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  can  hardly  wait. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West.  I  am  sorry;  all  right,  one 
supplementary. 

Mr.  D.  A.  Paterson  (Essex  South):  Will 
the  minister  check  with  his  oflBcials  to  make 
sure  that  the  medical  officers  of  health  in 
each  county  health  unit  are  notified  to  carry 
on  with  the  procedure  as  it  exists  today, 
specifically  Essex  county  where  they  are  re- 
jecting everything? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
no  jurisdiction  until  we  do  proclaim  the  Act. 
We  have  notified  all  those  who  have  phoned 
in  requesting  information  to  carry  on  until 
the  Act  is  proclaimed. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  is  the  delay? 

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

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  ministry 
have  the  staff  to  take  over  next  Wednesday 
—I  am  sorry,  on  April  9— when  the  Act  will 
be  proclaimed?  Does  the  ministry  have  the 
staff  to  take  over  or  is  it  being  assumed 
that  the  medical  officers  of  health  are  going 
to  continue  on  as  before  but  charge  the 
minister's  increased  rates  of  which  he  wants 
to  take  a  portion? 

An  hon.  member:  One  hundred  and 
twenty-five  dollars? 

Mr.  Roy:  And  bungle  it  like  the  Minister 
of  Transportation. 

Mr.  Good:  Does  the  minister  think  $125 
is  not  an  excessive  fee  to  pay  for  inspection 
of  a  private  sewage  system? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  More  of  the  government's 
mess. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  If  the  member  is  talk- 
ing about  the  MOHs,  they  were  all  called 
into  a  meeting  some  time  ago.  They  are 
fully  aware  of  what  we  plan  to  do. 


APRIL  4,  1974 


725 


An  hon.  member:  No  they're  not. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Oh,  yes  they  are. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  As  far  as  the  timing 
of  the  fee  structure  goes  I  will  be  making 
an  announcement  in  the  House  at  the  first 
of  the  week. 

J  Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 

S        borough  West. 


LAND  BANKING 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  would  like  to  ask  of  the 
Minister  of  Housing,  amidst  all  of  the  specu- 
lative land  development  in  Ontario  gener- 
ally and  southern  Ontario  particularly,  why 
did  he  fasten  on  the  purchase  of  4,000  acres 
in  the  regional  municipality  of  Durham?  I 
guess  it  would  be  in  the  area  between 
Brooklin  and  Whitby.  How  much  did  the 
government  pay  or  what  form  did  it  take 
in  terms  of  government  acquisition?  What 
exactly  does  the  minister  intend  to  use  the 
land  for? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  first, 
since  the  assembly  is  not  complete,  I  don't 
believe  it  would  be  in  the  public  interest  to 
speak  about  specific  prices  or  total  acreage 
or  even  exact  locations.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion whatsoever,  and  many  of  the  people  in 
the  area  know,  that  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
is  engaging  in  landbanking  in  the  area.  It's 
part  of  the  long-range  landbank  plans  of 
Ontario  Housing  Corp.  It  will  be  kept  in 
agricultural  production  where  it  is  suited 
for  that  use.  There  are  no  immediate  plans 
for  the  use  of  that  land  in  the  housing  ac- 
tion programme. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  the  minister  explain  then 
why  he  has  banked  land  some  years  in  the 
past  if  not  to  service  the  land  and  use  it 
for  housing  now?  What  about  the  3,000 
acres  in  Waterloo  region  and  the  1,000 
acres  right  beside  Brantford?  What's  the 
sense  of  having  a  bank  if  when  we're  in  a 
crisis  situation  the  government  doesn't  serv- 
ice the  land  and  sell  the  lots? 

An  hon.  member:  Get  on  with  it. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon,  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
hon.    Leader    of    the    Opposition    asked    a 


question  a  few  days  ago  and  I  had  the 
answer  prepared.  In  regard  to  the  first  ques- 
tion, "Why  we  don't  ser\ice  it?"  it  is  be- 
cause the  servicing  has  to  be  feasible  and 
economical. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  It  would  seem  to 
me,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  hon.  leader  would 
recognize  the  fact  that  by  servicing  isolated 
landbanks— 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Isolated  land;  3,000  acres 
of  land? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  It  Ls  isolated  in  the 
sense  that  there  are  private  developments  in 
between  which  are  not  slated  for  early  de- 
velopment. There  would  be  speculative 
gains  by  those  people.  In  the  ordinary 
course  of  events  land  would  be  developed. 
However,  if  the  hon.  leader  really  expects 
the  3,000  acres  in  Waterloo  and  the  1,000 
acres  in  Brantford  township  to  be  developed 
immediately,  perhaps  he  should  speak  to  the 
municipal  ofiicials  in  the  area  because  there's 
simply  no  demand  for  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  if  I  may 
come  back  to  it.  Doesn't  the  minister  see 
the  folly  inherent  in  the  policy  of  grabbing 
4,000  acres  here— incidentally  without  ever 
speaking  to  the  regional  municipality  of 
Durham  about  it?  He  didn't  tell  them  in 
advance.  They  read  about  it  in  the  Globe 
and  Mail.  But  the  government  grabs  4,000 
acres  here,  which— 

Mr.  Breithaupt  It  happened  in  Waterloo 
in  the  same  way. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —may,  or  may  not  be  main- 
tained in  agricultural  production.  The  min- 
ister can  give  no  undertaking  of  senicing 
or  housing.  There  are  3,000  acres  some- 
where else  which  he  now  says  were  in- 
appropriately acquired  for  current  housing 
needs.  How  hapless  is  the  programme?  Has 
the  government  no  coherence  in  the  acquisi- 
tion of  land— 

An  hon.  member:   Not  him. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —in  the  public  sector  for  the 
provisions  of  housing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm 
surprised  at  the  hon.  member,  who  decries 
the  speculation  being  carried  on  in  this 
province,  when— 


726 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  is  the  chief 
speculator  in  Ontario.  It  is  driving  the  land 
prices  up. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —he  suggests  that 
we  advise  him— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  has  become  the 
king  of  speculation. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —we  advise  the 
House,  and  we  advise  the  municipal  officials 
in    advance   of   landbanking   activities. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Any  consultation 
of  that  nature  would  simply  play  into  the 
hands  of  the  speculators  and  we're  not 
about  to  do  that  on  this  iside  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  the  minister  talking 
about? 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  The 
minister  is  helping  them. 

Mr.  Singer:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Would  the  minister  tell  us  why  he  is  going 
to  be  any  better  than  Macaulay  or  Randall 
or  the  member  for  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick 
(Mr.  Grossman)  and  why  he  and  none  of  the 
three  have  been  able  to  produce  houses  on 
the  1,700  acres  in  Malvern  since  1954? 

Mr.  Lewis:  He's  worse. 


up. 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:   Hundreds  have  gone 
). 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  is  20  years  ago. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm 
flattered  by  the  hon  member's  remarks.  I 
hope  I  can  be  as  good  as  my  predecessors  in 
this  Housing  ministry. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  was  so  long  ago  that 
that  w  as  a  new  government. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  should  have  a  tete- 
a-tete  with  the  member  for  Carleton  East 
(Mr.  Lawrence). 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  two  supplementaries;  I 
would  really  be  interested  in  what  the  min- 
ister has  to  say.  Doesn't  the  minister  believe 
that  when  he  sets  up  a  regional  municipality 
and  decentralizes  power  and  authority,  as  the 
Treasurer  would  have  it,  that  it  makes  some 
sense  to  speak  to  them,  if  necessarily  private- 


ly, in  advance  about  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment's intention  to  acquire  a  massive  acreage 
for  landbanking  purposes  so  that  the  govern- 
ment's purposes  can  mesh  with  theirs  in  the 
planning  of  a  community? 

The  second  supplementary  to  that  is, 
doesn't  he  realize  that  in  all  his  so-called 
scare  statements  without  action,  he  is  driv- 
ing the  speculators— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Why  scare  state- 
ments? 

Mr.  Lewis:  —on  to  an  exchange  of  land 
which  is  increasing  the  speculative  price?  The 
minister  has  become  the  chief  inducement  to 
speculation  in  Ontario,  has  he  not? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
are  two  questions  here.  In  regard  to  the  first 
part  of  the  question,  no,  I  do  not  believe 
that,  if  you  wish  to  acquire  land  on  a  confi- 
dential basis,  you  can  involve  people  outside 
the  ministry,  including  staff  of  the  municipali- 
ties who  would  have  to  be  involved  in  the 
planning  process. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  happens  to  their  plan- 
ning? 

Mr.  Deans:  What  does  the  minister  do? 
Plan  around  their  decisions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  They  will  be  able 
to  be  involved  in  the  plan  when  the  land 
acquisition  has  been  completed.  I  have  made 
a  commitment  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion to  table  land  assembly  as  soon  as  it  has 
been  completed  and  I  will  continue  to  do  so. 

With  regard  to  the  second  part  I  have  no 
evidence  whatsoever  that  any  threats  or  words 
that  we  have  been  directing  at  the  speculators 
have  increased  speculation.  In  fact,  some 
people  are  drawing  back  from  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh  yes,  no  evidence  of  nrice 
increases! 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  start- 
ed these  statements  about  three  weeks  ago. 
If  the  hon.  member  can  complete  a  land 
transaction  in  three  weeks  he  has  a  secret 
that  many  people  would  like  to  have. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Can  the  minister  assure  us,  even 
though  he  didn't  talk  to  the  officials  in  the 
areas  where  he  has  bought  these  lands,  that 
he  had  somebody  look  at  the  official  plan 
to    see   if   the   purchases   fitted   in   with   the 


APRIL  4,  1974 


727 


decisions   that   had   been   made   publicly?    I 
don't  believe  the  minister  even  did  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  stat- 
ed in  answer  to  a  previous  question  that 
much  of  this  land  is  agricultural.  It  will  be 
maintained  in  agricultural  production,  which 
it  might  not  have  been  if  it  had  been  bought 
by  private  developers. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  this  government  policy  to 
buy  up  land  privately  to  keep  it  in  agricul- 
tural production? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  In  my  view,  the 
government  is  as  good  a  landbanker  as  is  any 
private  organization. 

Mr.  Roy:  We  are  going  to  send  this  Han- 
sard to  the  minister's  riding.  They  will  love 
it. 

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


PICKERING  AIRPORT 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker, 
of  the  Treasurer.  Since  the  federal  govern- 
ment's submission  to  the  Pickering  airport 
inquiry  shows  that  if  the  airport  is  built 
Oshawa's  employment  will  decline  in  abso- 
lute terms,  doesn't  the  minister  think  it  is 
now  time  for  the  Ontario  government  to 
intervene  and  indicate  that  that  would  truly 
destroy  the  intent  of  the  Toronto-centred 
region  plan  and  it  must,  therefore,  oppose 
the  airport? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  comment  is  inter- 
esting and  perhaps  helpful,  but  I  haven't  got 
the  leadership  in  this  matter  of  Pickering. 
That  is  the  Minister  of  Housing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Minister  of  Housing? 
Hasn't  he  enough  to  do? 

Mr.  Singer:  That  he  is  not  doing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  minister  a  supple- 
mentary? Surely  a  matter  which  destroys  the 
Toronto-centred  region  plan,  and  it  deals  with 
the  federal  airport,  is  rather  more  his  bailiwick 
than  that  of  the  Minister  of  Housing? 

Mr.  Stokes:  What  happened  to  the  Design 
for  Development? 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  has  happened  to  the 
Design  for  Development  now  that  this  kind  of 
proposal  will  destroy  it  utterly?  Oshawa  was 
a  growth  centre. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  As  the  member  may  recall, 
last  Sept.  13  the  Premier  announced  that  the 


Toronto-centred    region   plan   was  being   re- 
considered and  revamped  and  modernized. 

Mr.  Reid:  He  should  have  thought  of  doing 
that  to  the  cabinet. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  He  said  that  a  sum  of 
money— I  think  $1,500,000— was  being  made 
available  to  the  municipalities  in  this  very 
large  and  important  region.  That  study  is  go 
ing  on.  Factors,  such  as  the  one  the  member 
mentioned,  will  no  doubt  be  considered  and 
we  will  have  a  point  of  view  which  may  be 
expressed  at  a  later  time  to  the  federal  gov- 
ernment. 

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

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Since  the 
whole  matter  of  dispersing  and  directing 
growth  to  the  east  was  a  major  platform  and 
a  major  principle  of  the  Toronto-centred 
region  plan,  would  the  Treasurer  not  consider, 
in  his  responsibility  for  the  economic  growth 
and  direction  of  the  province,  that  it  is  im- 
portant immediately  to  prepare  a  new  plan 
and  a  new  location  for  the  airport  or  any  type 
of  growth  incentive  far  to  the  east  so  Oshawa, 
in  fact,  will  be  helped? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Your  friends  in  Ottawa 
are  the  people  who  decided  upon  that  second 
airport. 

Mr.  Deac(Mi:  "Your"  friends?  They  are  your 
friends. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That  was  not  our  de- 
cision, 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  this  case,  they  are  your 
friends. 

Mr.  Roy:  How  about  a  statement  from  the 
Premier? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  hon.  Premier  is  per- 
fecdy  correct  in  saying  we  are  doing  every- 
thing humanly  possible  to  increase  develop- 
ment in  eastern  Ontario- 
Mr.  Good:  The  government  hasn't  done  a 
thing,  not  one  thing. 

Hon.  Mr.  While:  —as  evidenced  by  the 
very  large  DREE  agreement  signed  in  Corn- 
wall a  few  weeks  ago  by  me  and  witnessed 
by  the  Mim'ster  of  Labour. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  A  good  thing. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Yes,  our  friends  arc  pro- 
viding that  money. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  think  we  signed  the 
deal  on  a  Tuesday,  and  only  a  few  days  later 


728 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


on  the  foll'owing  Friday  a  very  large  company 
announced'  they  were  creating  a  very  large 
new  plant  there  employing  more  than  1,000 
employees. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Excellent. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  We  are  moving  ahead  in 
this  and  in  a  variety  of  other  ways.  I  suppose 
there  is  no  point  in  this  answer  to  recapitulate 
the  improvements  made  to  the  Ontario  De- 
velopment Corp.  plans.  No  doubt,  as  time 
goes  by,  the  fruitful  imaginations  of  members 
on  this  side  will  create  additional  innovative 
plans  to  create  development  and  employment 
in  eastern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Deacon:  What  about  the  airport?  That 
is  the  key  one. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  This  government's  plans 
and  federal  money!  A  great  team. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  haven't  heard  a  decent 
idea  out  of  that  side  of  the  House  for  15 
years,  not  one. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Come  in  more  often. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 


CORPORATION  INCOME  TAX  PAID 
BY  OIL  COMPANIES  TO  PROVINCE 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Revenue,  could  he  indicate  to  the  House 
whether  he  knows  how  many  of  the  major 
oil  companies  with  operations  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario  paid  a  provincial  corporation  in- 
come tax  last  year? 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
I  don't  have  that  information,  Mr.  Speaker, 
but  I  think  I  could  get  it  for  the  hon.  mem- 
ber. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Would  he  indicate  which  com- 
panies paid  a  provincial  corporation  income 
tax  and  in  what  amount— even  in  total? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  am  not  prepared  to 
disclose  information  as  to  individual  com- 
panies, Mr.  Speaker.  I  think  I  might  be  able 
to  obtain  some  general  information. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Surely  that  is  public  in- 
formation? 

Mr.  Singer:  But  that  is  public  knowledge. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sorry,  I  didn't  hear  that.  The 
minister  is  not  prepared  to  disclose  the 
amounts  of  corporate  income  tax  paid  by  the 
oil   companies    to   the   Province   of   Ontario- 


public  oil  companies  operating  in  this  prov- 
ince? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Does  the  minister  under- 
stand the  distinction  between  a  private  com- 
pany and  a  public  company? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Now  surely  we  are  entitled  to 
that  information.  Who  is  the  minister  pro- 
tecting? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  minister  had  better 
think  about  that  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  There  are  certain  restric- 
tions under  the  Income  Tax  Act,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  I  must  be  bound  by.  I'll  look  into  the 
question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  am  talking  about— what  did 
he  say  at  the  end?  I'm  sorry. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  said  I  will  look  into  the 
question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  has  the  answer  to  a  question 
asked  previously. 


JUDGEMENT  AGAINST  MINISTRY  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  ques- 
tion that  was  asked  by  the  member  for 
Huron-Bruce  (Mr.  Gaunt),  which  I  took  as 
notice,  was: 

Because  of  the  judgement  plus  costs  awarded  today 
against  the  Ontario  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
in  the  Hartman  raspberry  case,  and  because  the 
Ontario  taxpayers  are  going  to  have  to  pay  for  this 
mistake,  could  the  minister  tell  me  if  there  have  been 
any  changes  in  personnel  at  the  Vineland  research 
institute  by  way  of  resignations  or  firings;  and  what 
does  the  minister  intend  to  do  to  see  that  this 
doesn't  reoccur? 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  question  was  raised 
shortly  before  3  o'clock  on  Thursday,  March 
14,  1974,  and  refers  to  "the  judgement  plus 
costs  awarded  today."  The  facts  of  the  matter 
are  as  follows: 

1.  The  Ontario  Court  of  Appeal  issued  its 
judgement  in  the  Hartman  case  on  Nov.  9, 
1973; 

2.  The  judgement  directed  a  reference  to 
the  local  master  at  St.  Thomas  for  assessment 
of  the  damages  in  the  case; 


APRIL  4,  1974 


729 


3.  The  report  on  assessment  of  damages 
was  signed,  and  therefore  issued,  by  the 
local  master,  Mr.  Justice  J.  A.  Winter,  a  local 
master  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ontario,  St. 
Thomas,  on  Friday,  March  15,  1974; 

4.  The  report  was  received  by  the  Crown 
law  oflBce,  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General 
through  the  mail  on  Monday,  March  18,  1974. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
answer  the  question?  Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  HI  get  to  the  answer. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Not  all  that  doubletalk. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I'll  get  to  the  answer; 
and  if  the  member  for  Grey-Bruce  were  smart 
enough  to  listen  he  would  see  the  implications 
in  what  I  am  saying. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  just  got  the  raspberry. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  am  not  in  a  position, 
therefore,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  deal  with  any 
judgement  plus  costs  in  the  Hartman  case.  It 
was  awarded  on  Thursday,  March  14,  1974, 
and  I  wonder  how  the  member  for  Huron- 
Bruce  could  have  been  in  possession  of  such 
information  on  which  to  base  his  question. 
That  is  very  peculiar  to  me. 

Mr.  Sargent:  It  is  in  the  paper.  All  the 
papers  carried  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  However,  if  the  question 
relates  to  the  report  on  assesment  of  damages, 
a  document  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ontario 
that  had  not  been  signed  by  the  local  master 
until  the  day  following  the  day  on  which  the 
question  was  raised,  my  information  is  that 
the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General,  by 
notice  of  appeal  dated  March  25,  1974,  has 
undertaken  an  appeal  from  the  report  of  the 
local  master.  Accordingly,  the  case  is  sub 
judice  and  I  am  not  prepared  to  comment  on 
any  aspect  of  the  Hartman  case  while  it  is 
still  in  the  hands  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  is  the  minister  doing  now? 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Sub  judice. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Supplemen- 
tary, Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Explain  the  manipulations  of 
the  courts. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  May  I  ask  the  minister,  on  a 
slightly  different  matter  related  to  the  Hart- 
man case,  why  Mr.  Hartman  was  refused 
plants  in  1973?  Does  this  represent  govern- 


ment policy,  not  to  do  business  with  anyone 
who  has  a  law  suit  or— 

Mr.  Givens:  Who  doesn't  happen  to  be 
a  Conservative. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  —who  is  undertaking  a  suit 
against  the  provincial   government? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Anybody  the  minister 
doesn't  like. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  have  never  met  Mr. 
Hartman;  as  a  matter  of  fact  I  have  never 
seen  him,  in  answer  to  the  question  of  my 
hon.  friend  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 
To  say  I  don't  like  him-I've  never  met  the 
man. 

An  hon.  member:  There  are  lots  of  people 
one  doesn't  know  whom  one  doesn't  like. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
sell  him  some  raspberry'  plants? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  For  the  simple  reason 
I  didn't  even  know  he  wanted  any. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  tried  to  give  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  the  raspberry  for  a 
long  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Would  anyone  buy  raspberries 
off  a  man  like  that? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Not  even  a  used  rasp- 
berry. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Not  from  the  member,  but 
I  would  from  him. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  an  arch  Tory. 

Mr.  Singer:  A  supplementary:  Would  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  clear  my  confusion 
with  regard  to  his  answer?  Is  he  telling  the 
member  for  Huron-Bruce  in  that  long  recital 
that  he'd  done  something  improper?  Is  he 
not  aware  that  the  member  for  Huron- Bruce 
could  legitimately  get  that  information  on 
which  he  based  his  question  by  reason  of 
the  fact  that  the  formal  order  may  not  have 
been  taken  out  on  the  d;iy  he  put  the  ques- 
tion, and  the  local  ma.ster  could  well  have 
announced  it  without  the  formal  order  hav- 
ing been  signed? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Yes,  an.swer  that  one;  let 
the  minister  get  some  help. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  suppo.so  there  is  no 
significance  in  the  fact  that  the  matter  was 
transferred  to  the  court  at  St.  Thomas  and 
was  handled  by  a  lawyer  who  was  a  former 
Liberal  member  for  Elgin— 


730 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Right  on. 

Mr.   Lewis:   A   former   Liberal   member? 

Mr.  Singer:  A  supplementary:  Why  was  it 
necessary  for  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  to 
get  so  incensed  about  legal  procedures  which 
he  doesn't  understand,  and  to  make  nasty 
innuendoes  about  my  honest  and  sincere  col- 
league,  the  member  for  Huron-Bruce? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  minister  have 
an  answer  to  another  question? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  is  the  minister  appealing? 
Just  because  it  was  a  Liberal  lawyer? 

Mr.   Singer:   That's  the  only  reason. 

Mr.   Sargent:  A  supplementary. 

Mr.   Speaker:   A  supplementary. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Am  I  to  understand  that  the 
minister  has  done  $100,000  damage  to  one 
citizen  and  that  no  one  will  be  fired  or  no 
one  will  be  questioned  as  to  the  damage 
done?  Will  this  go  on  like  this  or  is  he  going 
to  investigate  the  whole  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  matter 
is  before  the  courts  on  appeal  to  determine 
what  action  shall  properly  be  taken. 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  supplementary:  I'm  asking 
if  the  minister  is  going  to  investigate  the 
fact  that  someone  has  erred  in  his  job— to 
the  extent  of  $100,000  to  a  citizen-and  is 
the   minister   not   going  to  investigate   it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  is  out  of  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Get  the  member  for 
Downsview  to  give  some  legal  advice. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  minister  has 
indicated  that  this  is  before  the  courts. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  don't  care  if  it  is  before 
the  courts.  What  is  he  going  to  do  about 
it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Nothing,  it  is  before  the 
courts. 

Does  the  hon.  minister  have  the  answer 
to  another  question?  I  was  informed  that  he 
had. 

Mr.   Roy:   Answer  the   question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  The  hon.  member  for 
Lanark  (Mr.  Wiseman)  is  absent  today  and  I 
think  I'd   best  wait  until  next  week. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  has  the  an- 
swer to  a  question  recently  asked. 


COST  OF  DENTAL  CARE 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Affairs):  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
hon.  member  for  Wentworth  asked'  a  question 
in  this  House  on  March  28;  really  there  were 
two  questions.  Firstly,  and  I'm  paraphrasing 
his  question  directed  to  me,  what  was  the 
basis  on  which  dental  rates  were  determined; 
how  were  they  determined;  and  secondly  why 
were  dentists— and  he  referred  to  a  certain 
plan  or  plans— charging  more  for  their  ser- 
vices to  people  imder  those  plans  than  to 
those  who  were  uninsured? 

'I'm  advisedi  by  the  superintendent  of  in- 
surance, Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  premium  rates 
for  health  insurance  plans,  such  as  dental  care, 
covering  major  companies  are  negotiated  by 
the  insurers,  the  employer  companies  and,  to 
a  great  extent,  the  union  representing  the 
employee  group.  The  rates  and  coverages 
offered  are  determined  by  the  vmderwriting 
and  claims  experience  and  the  extent  of 
coverage  subject  to  deductibles  and  co-insur- 
ance elements.  If  the  hon.  member  has  any 
specific  complaint  in  regard  to  the  rates  relat- 
ing to  one  or  both  of  the  companies  he  re- 
ferred to  in  his  question,  I  would  be  glad  to 
discuss  it  with  him. 

Insofar  as  the  professional  fees  charged'  by 
the  dentists  are  concerned,  this  is  not  within 
the  responsibility  or  jurisdiction  of  my  minis- 
try but  is  related  to  the  Ontario  Dental  Asso- 
ciation's schedule  of  fees.  The  insurance  con- 
tracts usually  provide  for  payments  based  on 
this  fee  schedule.  If  the  member  has  any  other 
question  relating  to  that— 

Mr.  Deans:  A  supplementary:  I  was  under 
the  impression,  perhaps  mistakenly,  that  the 
minister  was  going  to  ask  the  superintendent 
of  insurance  to  inquire  into  the  schedule  be- 
ing paid  at  the  Steel  Co.  and  the  Dofasco 
plants  in  the  city  of  Hamilton. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  sorry,  I  didn't 
understand  it  that  way.  If  the  member  would 
like  us  to  take  a  look  at  the  actual  schedule 
or  the  agreement  to  see  if  it  refers  to  the 
ODA  schedule  of  fees,  I  can  obtain  that  in- 
formation very  quickly. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Energy 
has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 


APRIL  4.  1974 


731 


OIL  PRICES 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  Tuesday,  I  think, 
the  member  for  Yorkview  (Mr.  Young)  asked 
questions  relating  to  inventories  of  niel  oil, 
arkl  I  have  an  answer  for  him. 

Spring  inventories  of  middle  distillates  in 
Ontario  have  been  more  or  less  constant  for 
the  past  three  years.  In  other  words,  there 
has  been  no  apparent  buildup  this  spring  by 
the  oil  companies;  nor  has  there  been  a  de- 
cline from  previous  years.  Warmer-than-usual 
weather  is  the  main  factor  in  these  inventories 
not  bedng  lower  than  in  previous  years. 

Statistics  are  not  available  for  heating  oil 
per  se;  onl\'  middle  distillates  are  reported— 
which  includes  all  heating  oil,  diesel  fuel  and 
so  on. 

"But  the  predominant  factor  in  changes  in 
this  total  middle  distillate  inventory  is  the 
amount  of  heating  oil,  and  we  assume  and  can 
assume  that  the  percentages  are  reJatively  the 
same. 

The  figures  cover  all  the  refinery  tankage 
and  major  terminals  in  Ontario  west  of  the 
Ottawa  Valley.  They  do  not  include  small 
storage  tanks,  such  as  bulk  plants,  which  are 
assimied  to  be  relatively  constant,  and  there- 
fore not  significant  in  looking  at  relative  in- 
ventor)' changes. 

Tliese  are  from  National  Energy  Board 
sources,  not  from  Statistics  Canada,  and 
Statistics  Canada's  May  figures  sometimes 
differ  slightly  when  they  are  published  some 
months  hence. 

The  figures  are,  Mr.  Speaker:  as  of  March 
31,  1972,  there  were  about  7.1  million  barrels 
in  storage;  March  31,  1973,  7.3  million 
barrels;  April  3,  1974,  about  7.1  million 
barrels. 

The  member  also  asked— or  perhaps  I  sug- 
gested I  would  try  to  find  out-the  figure  as 
to  storage;  and  1  am  informed  that  there  is 
no  meaningful  number  as  to  total  storage 
capability  because  the  oil  refineries— where  me 
large  volumes  are— swing  their  storage  tanks 
from  one  product  to  another  as  various 
product  levels  change. 

A  more  helpful  yardstick  might  be  the  peak 
or  the  highest  middle  distillate  inventory 
attained  this  season.  This  occurred  in  October 
or  Xo\  ember,  at  the  start  of  the  season  when 
levels  were  about  15  million  barrels,  which  is 
over  tvdce  today's.  The  figures,  starting  in 
June  of  1973,  7.1  million;  July  8.1;  August 
10.8:  September  13.5;  October  14.7;  Novem- 
ber 15;  December  14.8;  January  13.6;  drop- 
ping down  to  the  present  7.1. 


Mr.  BullbrcxA:  May  I  ask  a  supplementary? 

Hon.    Mr.    McKeough:    The    member    for 

Sandwich-Riverside  (Mr.  Burr)— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  this  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Bullbro<^:  May  I  assume  that  the  in- 
ventory evaluation  that  the  minister  has  given 
to  the  House  is  based  on  information  provided 
by  the  indtistry  itself  or  through  the  National 
Energy  Board  or  Statistics  Canada;  and  does 
the  minister  have  any  independent  method  of 
monitoring  the  propriety  of  these  statistics? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  No, 

Mr.  BuIIbro<4c:  Would  it  be  the  minister's 
intention  to  establish,  as  they  have  in  the 
United  States,  some  independent  monitoring 
device? 

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

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Could  the  minister  answer 
why  that  wouldn't  be  in  the  public  interest 
to  do  so? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Because  the  statis- 
tics are  gathered  both  by  the  National  Energy 
Board  and  by  Statistics  Canada.  There  is 
some  large  stadff  involved  in  that  process. 

Mr.  Reid:  Dependent  on  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  We  have  no  reason 
to  believe  that  they  are  not  as  accurate  as 
they  can  be— and  we  have  no  intention  of 
duplicating  that  process. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Time  for  oral  questions  has 
expired. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Not  a  single  private  member 
got  in  today,  not  at  all. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Petitions: 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett  presented  the  report  on 
the  Maple  Mountain  recreation  complex. 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch  presented  the  report  of 
the  health  planning  task  force. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  On  behalf  of  the  At- 
torney General,  I  have  the  honour  to  present 
to  this  House  the  report  of  the  Ontario  Law 
Reform  Commission  on  motor  vehicle  acci- 
dent compensation. 

This  report,  which  covers  197  pages,  con- 
tains an  extensive  review  of  the  existing 
system  of  automobile  insurance  and  sets  out 
the  recommendations  of  the  commission  for 


732 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


chaises  in  the  system.  The  commission  re- 
commends: 

That  an  integrated  scheme  specifically 
concerned  with  compensation  to  motor  ve- 
hicle accident  victims,  not  dependent  upon 
the  fault  principle,  should  replace  the  exist- 
ing system. 

As  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  I  will  be  giving  these  recommen- 
dations careful  consideration  in  developing 
the  most  appropriate  form  of  automobile  in- 
surance designed  to  provide  economic  and 
efficient  compensation  to  victims  of  motor 
vehicle  accidents. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor,  from  the  standing  private 
bills  committee,  presented  the  committee's 
report  which  was  read  as  follows  and 
adopted: 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bills  without  amendment. 

Bill  Prl,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Belleville. 

Bill  Pr2,  An  Act  respecting  St.  Catharines 
Slovak  Club  Ltd. 

Bill  Pr7,  An  Act  respecting  the  Niagara 
Peninsular  Railway  Co. 

Bill  Pr8,  An  Act  respecting  the  Incorpo- 
rated   Synod    of   the    Diocese    of   Ontario. 

Bill  PrlO,  An  Act  respecting  Root's  Dairy 
Ltd. 

Bill  Prl4,  An  Act  respecting  the  Town  of 
Walkerton. 

Bill  Prl9,  An  Act  respecting  the  Borough 
of  North  York. 

Your  committee  would  recommend  that  the 
fees,  less  the  actual  cost  of  printing  and 
penalties,  if  any,  be  remitted  on  Bill  Pr8,  An 
Act  respecting  the  Incorporated  Synod  of 
the  Diocese  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions: 

Introduction  of  bills. 


REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY  OF 
HALDIMAND-NORFOLK  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Regional 
Municipality  of  Haldimand- Norfolk  Act,  1973. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  provides  for 
some  minor  changes  in  the  work  of  the  new 
regional  council  which,  incidentally,  assumed 
its  important  responsibilities  this  past  week- 
end. 


It  allows  the  new  regional  committee  of 
adjustment  and  the  land  division  committee 
to  complete  any  matters  not  disposed  of  by 
the  local  committees. 

This  bill  also  provides  that  members  of  the 
council  of  the  village  of  Jarvis  be  deemed  a 
commission  under  the  Public  Utilities  Act 
for  the  purpose  of  hydro  distribution  in  the 
Jarvis  area. 


TOWN  OF  OAKVILLE  ACT 

Mr.  Kennedy  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  respecting  the  town  of 
Oakville. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  BUILDING 
CORP.  ACT 

Mr.  Carruthers,  in  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Dymond,  moves  first  reading  of  bill  intituled. 
An  Act  respecting  the  Presbyterian  Church 
Building   Corp, 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  TORONTO  ACT 

Mr.  Wardle  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Toronto. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  CHATHAM  ACT 

Mr.  Spence  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  respecting  the  Cit>'  of 
Chatham. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  WINDSOR  ACT 

Mr.  B.  Newman  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  the  Cit\'  of 
Windsor. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  LONDON  ACT 

Mr.  Walker  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
London. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the 
bill. 


APRIL  4.  1974 


733 


JUDICATURE  ACT 

Mr.  Roy  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  to  amend  the  Judicature  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  give  a 
brief  explanation  of  this  bill,  under  the 
Judicature  Act  in  this  province,  English  is 
the  only  language  permitted  in  the  courts. 
This  hill  proposes  an  amendment  which  is 
in  line  with  the  1972  Throne  Speech  pre- 
sented by  the  govemment,  which  said  it 
would  encourage  the  use  of  French  in  the 
courts,  and  this  is  what  this  bill  does. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  WESTERN 
ONTARIO  ACT 

Mr.  Walker  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  the  University 
of    Western    Ontario. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Walker  (London  North):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  will  just  serve  notice  that  I  will 
move  in  committee  that  the  board  of  gov- 
ernors in  that  particular  bill  be  made 
Canadian,  although  it  does  not  now  say  so. 


WATERLOO  WELLINGTON 
AIRPORT  ACT 

•  Mr.  Good  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  respecting  the  Waterloo 
Wellington   Airport. 

Motion    agreed    to;    first    reading    of    the 
bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 


THIRD  READINGS 

The  following  bills  were  given  third  read- 
ings  upon  motion: 

Bill  1,  An  Act  to  amend  the  University 
Expropriation  Powers  Act. 

Bill  13,  The  Regional  Municipalities 
Amendment  Act,  1974. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  before 
the  next  order  is  called,  I  would  like  to 
inform  the  members  of  tihe  House  that  to- 
morrow His  Honour  will  join  us  in  the  cham- 
ber  for   the   last   time. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  third  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 
Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the 
opening  of  the  session. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martcl  (Sudbury  East):  Mr. 
Speaker,  before  I  pick  up  from  where  I  left 
oflF  the  other  night,  I  want  to  go  back  to 
the  point  of  order  or  the  point  of  personal 
privilege  raised  by  the  Provincial  Secretar>' 
for  Social  Development  (Mrs.  Birch)— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  That  matter 
has  been  resolved  in  the  House.  The  hon. 
member  may  not  raise  it  again. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  not  going  to  raise  it,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  just  want  to  clarify  the  press  re- 
lease that  I  was  quoting  from  and  just  draw 
to  Mr.  Speaker's  attention  what  was  behind 
the  comment.  In  a  press  release,  a  prepared 
statement  by  the  minister,  which  was  carried 
in  the  Globe  and  Mail  on  Nov.  21,  1973- 
and  I  quote  the  hon.  minister— it  states: 

The  moneys  handed  out  in  grants  were 
never  adequately  managed  by  the  federal 
goverrmient.     There    was    never    adequate 
supervision    or    accountability    within    the 
projects,   and   without  clear   accountability 
the  money  paid  out  resembled  allowances 
more  than  it  did  salaries.  The  projects  se- 
lected  seemed  to   be  picked  on  the  basis 
of  how  they  would  sound  in  the  Ottawa 
press  releases  rather  than  by  hard  scrutiny 
of  the  benefits. 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  Ontario  government  did  in 
fact  have   an   input,   or  could  have   had   an 
input,  on  each  and  every  grant  handed  out 
by   LIP.    I   was   on   a  programme   with   Mr. 
Mackie,   the   director  for  the  distribution   of 
these  grants,   wherein   Mr.   Mackie   indicatetl 
that  Ontario  had  an  input  on  each  grant  and 
that  if  the  Ontario  government  did  not  want 
a  grant  to  be  paid,  Ottawa  would  not  have 
given  it. 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  The 
Church  of  Satan.  How  about  the  Church  of 
Satan? 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  the  member's  govem- 
ment had  a  say  in  it— they  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  have  a  say  in  it  and  veto  it,  and 
if  they  had  not  taken  that  opportunity- 
Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  What's  wrong 
with  the  Church  of  Satan? 

Mr.  Martel:  —if  the  govemment  of  Ontario 
had  not  taken  that  opportimity  then  that 
simply  cannot  be  blamed  on  Ottawa.  To  me 
that  is  dissembling-I  think  that  is  the  term 


734 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  is  used  around  here  occasionally.  It  is 
dissembling,  because  one  could  have  gone  on 
to  give  the  full  story  to  the  press  so  that  in 
fact  the  public  would  have  been  well  aware 
of  how  the  grants  were  handed  out,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

By  the  minister's  failure  to  indicate  that 
to  the  public,  what  in  fact  the  minister  was 
doing  of  course  was  starting  the  long  road 
to  finally  saying  no,  we  are  not  funding  any 
of  the  emerging  services.  That  was  the  first 
in  a  series  of  statements  by  the  minister 
which  sounded  the  death  knell  to  the  emerg- 
ing services  starting  last  Noveml>er.  Whether 
or  not  the  minister  took  exception  to  what  I 
said,  I  still  make  the  point  it  was  dissembling. 

I  want  to  go  on,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  pick 
up  from  where  I  left  off  the  other  night.  I 
was  talking  about  the  amount  of  funding 
provided  by  the  provincial  government  for 
immigrant  services  in  this  province.  The  total 
funding,  permanent  funding,  for  immigrant 
services  in  Ontario,  where  in  Metro  Toronto 
alone  one-third  of  the  populace  is  made  up 
of  immigrants,  is  $100  a  year.  That's  the  total 
funding. 

Last  year  the  services  involving  the  Chi- 
nese, the  Greeks,  Italians  and  Portuguese, 
and  there  is  three  staff  on  each,  went  to  the 
federal  government,  to  Metro  Toronto,  and 
to  the  province,  and  asked  each  of  the  three 
levels  to  put  up  $10,000  each  for  the  various 
services.  Ultimately  the  federal  government 
gave  $10,000;  ultimately  Metro  Toronto  gave 
$10,000.  Finally  in  June— the  request  was 
made  early  in  the  year— the  province  wrote 
back  to  the  immigrant  services  and  said, 
"Gould  you  cut  that  back  to  $5,000?" 

This  didn't  help  the  four  groups  in  ques- 
tion and  they  said  no.  Ultimately  come  Jan- 
uary 1974,  almost  a  year  later,  each  of  these 
groups  received  a  grand  total  of  $750  each 
or  $3,000.  That  was  Ontario's  contribution. 
Despite  the  fact  that  one-third  the  population 
of  this  city  is  made  up  of  immigrants,  we 
funded  those  services  to  the  maximum  tune 
of  $750  each,  or  $15  a  week-$15  a  week- 
to  help  in  translation  for  the  immigrant  com- 
munity. The  chiselling  that  this  government 
does  when  it  comes  to  services  to  people  is 
more  than  the  mind  can  understand. 

The  third  group  that  started  to  emerge 
some  years  ago  was  the  multi-service  centre, 
Mr.  Speaker.  These  groups  have  developed 
like  the  rest  out  of  necessity— the  inability  of 
the  Minister  of  Gommunity  and  Social  Serv- 
ices (Mr.  Brunelle)  to  get  adequate  funding 
to  hire  adequate  staff  to  do  the  job  necessary. 
He  just  hasn't  got  the  money  to  hire  the 
staff. 


As  I  said  to  the  minister  during  his  esti- 
mates, if  we  are  going  to  lose  al  of  the 
emerging  services  and  the  thousands  of  vol- 
unteer workers,  then  in  fact  we  are  in  trouble. 
We  are  in  serious  trouble,  because  what  most 
of  the  emerging  services  are  asking  for  is  a 
funding  for  the  permanent  staff.  Beyond  that 
they  then  start  to  draw  in  all  kinds  of  volun- 
tary staff— people  who  are  committed  to 
assisting  others  less  fortimate.  But  we  are 
going  to  lose  those  work  groups  and  as  I  have 
told  the  minister  on  many  occasions,  he  will 
not  get  enough  money  from  Treasury  Board. 
Treasury  Board  will  not  cough  up  nearly  the 
money  necessary  to  provide  the  services  that 
are  presently  here,  because  they  rely  heavily 
on  volunteers. 

The  government  has  got  to  fund  the  per- 
manent staff.  Is  that  too  hard  to  understand? 
Otherwise,  it's  not  only  going  to  lose  them 
but  it's  going  to  lose  the  thousands  upon 
thousands  of  volunteer  workers,  and  as  a 
province  we  simply  will  not  have  the  money 
to  fund  the  necessary  staff  the  Ministry  of 
Gommunity  and  Social  Services  is  going  to 
need  in  order  to  meet  the  needs  of  people 
as  society  becomes  more  complex. 

The  multi-service  centre  takes  a  family  and 
looks  at  its  total  needs,  it  tries  to  cut  through 
the  red  tape  and  get  the  total  need  of  the 
family  resolved.  The  government  agencies 
don't  do  that. 

A  welfare  worker  goes  into  a  family  that 
has  problems.  It  doesn't  have  to  be  a  welfare 
case,  it  can  be  any  other  type  of  problem  in 
a  family,  but  whatever  the  agency  is  it  only 
looks  at  the  one  problem.  If  there's  an 
emotionally  disturbed  child  they  simply  look 
at  the  problem  of  the  emotionally  disturbed 
child,  they  don't  look  at  the  total  problem  of 
the  family.  So  we  end  up  with  12  or  13 
agencies  looking  after  the  needs  of  one  family. 

This  sort  of  thing  is  on  record.  The  minister 
has  it  documented  over  and  over  again.  His 
staff  does  one  job  only.  The  Ministry  of 
Labour  staff  will  go  in  and  they'll  send 
another  worker  in,  the  Ministry  of  Health 
sends  a  worker  in;  there's  no  co-ordination. 
There's  nobody  there  to  look  after  the  total 
need  or  to  make  sure  that  the  tot^  need  is 
being  looked  after  by  one  person  who  might 
send  the  person  off  in  the  right  direction  or 
get  them  in  touch  with  the  right  people  and 
then  do  the  follow-up  necessary,  looking  at  it 
as  a  total  need. 

We'll  send  them  in.  We  send  them  in  by 
the  hundreds;  frequently  there  are  10  or  12 
agencies  working  with  the  same  family  and 
none  of  them  even  know  it.  They  don't  even 


APRIL  4,  1974 


735 


know  there's  another  agency  involved.  That's 
where  the  duplication  is,  right  within  govern- 
ment circles;  the  duplication  starts  there,  not 
where  the  minister  placed  it  later  on  in  one 
of  her  further  statements  which  I'll  read  in 
a  few  moments.  This  is  where  the  duplica- 
tion is. 

Multi-service  centres  are  trying  to  cut 
through  some  of  that  and  look  after  the  total 
need.  Every  member  of  this  Legislature 
knows  when  he  goes  home  on  weekends  the 
number  of  cases  he  gets,  and  I  suspect  the 
overwhelming  majority  are  in  social  needs. 
Not  necessarily  welfare  or  more  money  on 
welfare,  but  a  whole  range  of  social  needs 
that  we're  not  meeting.  The  Metro  work 
groups  which  have  started  to  develop  are 
filling  the  gaps  in  the  ministry's  own  jurisdic- 
tion. 

I  just  want  to  read  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  what 
the  Metro  work  group  on  community  services 
is: 

Many  of  the  human  services  projections 
initiated  through  the  Local  Initiative  Pro- 
gramme reflect  a  trend  in  service  delivery 
which  deserves  particular  attention.  Experi- 
enced service  workers  indicate  recipients  of 
service  in  communities  are  often  most  eflFec- 
tively  served  when  a  cluster  of  services  are 
provided  in  one  community  location.  These 
could  be  recreation  or  leisure  services,  or 
interrelated  services  ofi^ered  in  one  setting 
such  as  education  and  counselling  or  in- 
formation and  referral,  food  relay,  daycare, 
creative  play  and  parental  education.  More 
and  more  commimity-based  services  are 
multi-faceted  in  the  programmes  and  serv- 
ices they  provide. 

There  is  not,  anywhere  in  government,  an 
agency  that  does  that.  It's  totdly  lacking,  and 
everyone  over  there  knows  that.  Until  we  start 
to  pull  these  pieces  together  we're  going  to  be 
squandering  money  uselessly. 

The  first  group  that  developed  out  of  these 
emerging  services  two  years  ago  was  one  in- 
volved with  daycare  centres.  The  nJes  and 
regulations  that  surround  daycare  centres,  Mr. 
Speaker,  almost  boggle  the  mind.  iTiey  are  so 
restrictive  that  in  ^ct  they  hamper,  really 
hamper,  the  development  of  daycare  centres. 

In  the  city  of  Toronto  it  would  be  diflScult 
to  find  those  that  are  funded  by  the  govern- 
ment in  any  way,  shape  or  form  remaining 
open  at  night.  Yet  we  have  many  people  who 
work  from  4  to  12,  including  mothers  who 
might  be  working  4  to  12  and  single-parent 
families,  with  no  daycare  services  at  night. 
Those  that  have  the  daycare  centre  service  at 
night  are  the  ones  that  are  looking  for  fund- 


ing from  the  government  of  Ontario  so  that 
in  fact  they  can  provide  services  contrary  to 
what  goes  on  in  this  province,  where  most  of 
the  services  are  from  9  o'clock  on  Monday 
morning  to  5  o'clock  on  Friday  afternoon. 
What  one  does  for  services  beyond  those 
hours  is  diflBcult  to  understand.  That  is  when 
most  of  the  services  are  available.  The  crisis 
situation,  the  evening  services  are  not  there. 
But  this  group,  because  they  are  grass  root, 
realize  that  there  has  to  be  flexibility  in  the 
daycare  services.  But  not  so.  The  government 
just  sits  and  waits. 

They  have  been  led  a  merry  chase  too.  You 
will  recall  the  group  first  met  and  tried  to 
get  funding  from  the  government  a  year  ago 
May,  but  on  March  15  the  crunch  came.  They 
haa  been  misled  all  along  into  thinking  some- 
thing was  coming.  Here  is  part  of  their  state- 
ment: 

We  find  it  incomprehensible  that  approxi- 
mately   nine    months    later,    in    Feoruary, 
1974,  the  daycare  community  still  has  no 
indication  of  what  to  expect  from  the  regu- 
lations,  whether  it  will  turn  out  to  be  a 
token  gesture  or  a  redefinition  of  the  con- 
cept  of  daycare   and    its    implications   for 
parents  and  children  in  general.  If  the  regu- 
lations will  prove  to  be  restrictive  in  rda- 
tionship  to  emerging  community  services, 
these  closely  budgeted  groups  will  still  be 
economically  harassed  from  one  month  to 
the  next  and  the  quality  of  daycare,  an 
apparent  concern  to  educators  and  parents, 
will  inevitably  suffer. 
The  Social  Arts  Services  was  the  sixth  group 
that  developed.  I  read  to  the  House  the  other 
night  the  performances  by  Ae  Smile  Com- 
pany alone. 

In  over  two  years  of  operaHon  we  have 
played  more  than  500  performances  to  a 
total  audience  [I  hope  the  minister  is  listen- 
ing  to   this]    of  75,000  senior  citizens  in 
Metro  Toronto  alone. 
These  are  people  who  couWn't  afford  to  go  to 
the  O'Keete  Centre,  or  people  who  coiudn't 
afford  to  go  to  see  the  Toronto  Symphony. 
This  group  of  11  people  took  their  company 
into  the  homes  and  provided  entertainment 
for  over  75,000  senior  citizens.  Their  fund- 
ing? Well  they  will  die  in  a  couple  of  weeks. 
We  as  a  province  spend  more  mone\-  on 
the  fine  cultures,  the  stuff  that  the  upper  crust 
enjoys,   than  we  do  funding  things  for  the 
masses,  for  the  ordinary  people.  How  many 
of  the  ordinary  people  go  to  watch  the  ballet? 
There  is  a  growing  interest  in  it,  and  I  am 
not  saying  we  shouldn't  fund  it,  but  culture, 
I  am  sure,  shouldn't  be  denied  to  the  other 
groups.   If  we  are  going  to  fund  one  level 
why  can't  we  fund  them  all? 


736 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  statement  from  the  minister  several 
\veeks  ago  was,  "Well  we  fund  through  the 
Ontario  Arts  Council."  That  is  great.  They 
fund  through  the  Ontario  Arts  Council.  I 
would  like  the  minister  to  be  able  to  tell 
me  why  the  groups  that  were  providing 
some  theatre  for  75,000  senior  citizens  in 
the  last  couple  of  years,  and  schools  and 
so  on,  shouldn't  be  adequately  funded?  I 
would  like  to  ask  the  minister  how  in  fact 
we  get  the  senior  citizens  out  to  any  of 
these  forms  of  entertainment?  Many  of  them 
are  not  totally  bedridden— many  of  them  are 
—but  they  can't  make  the  great  trek  half- 
way across  Toronto,  Why  shouldn't  the  en- 
tertainment come  to  them?  That's  what's 
happened;  they  are  not  getting  funding 
either.  In  fact  nothing  is  getting  to  the 
senior  citizens.  He  is  going  to  put  the  panic 
on  there.  Interestingly  enough,  the  ministry 
—the  statement  I'm  going  to  read  in  a  few 
minutes  is  going  to  help— is  giving  a  one-shot 
deal,  $150,000,  for  senior  citizens.  That  is 
a  magnificent  sum.  All  it  is  going  to  do, 
really,  is  get  a  lot  of  groups  active  in  the 
province  for  one  year  and  without  a  con- 
tinuing funding.  In  fact,  he  is  going  to  over- 
extend  the  funds  already  available  in  the 
$900,000  for  senior  citizens. 

After  10  or  11  months,  surely  to  God  this 
government— 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  The  funds  will  be  there 
next  year. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  it  is  a  one-shot  grant. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Give  them  time  to 
conform. 

Mr.  Martdl:  The  Ministry  of  Community 
and  Social  Services,  to  help  the  emerging 
services,  gave  a  one-shot  grant— and  it  is 
only  one-shot,  for  one  year— of  $150,000. 
That  is  insuflBcient  and  the  minister  knows 
that  full  well;  he  has  had  it  researched  from 
top  to  bottom.  He  has  had  David  Cole  and 
a  whole  number  of  civil  servants  from  his 
ministry  on  it;  those  programmes  have  all 
l>een  checked  out  and  the  recommendations 
have  been  positive  that  the  programmes  be- 
ing  offered  are   superb. 

Contrary  to  what  the  think-piece  thinks, 
fhey  are  superb;  the  minister  knows  it  from 
David  Cole's  report.  All  the  reports  the 
minister  has  indicate  that  there  isn't  duplica- 
tion of  service  and  that  they  are  providing 
a  much  needed  service. 

The  former  provincial  secretary  accepted 
the  recommendations  laid  down  by  David 
Cole.     I'm    sure    the    minister    must    have. 


Where  did  the  crunch  come?  Before  Treasury 
Board,  as  usual,  when  it  said  services  to 
people  are  irrelevant.  The  minister  and  I 
both  know  there  is  no  way  he  is  going  to 
be  able  to  provide  the  services,  if  these 
various  services  fold,  which  are  going  on 
in  this  city  and  across  Ontario  today. 

I  want  to  describe  some  of  the  pro- 
grammes very  briefly.  One  is  entitled  "For 
a  Better  Tomorrow",  from  Bathurst  St.,  and 
the    objectives    are: 

We  hope  to  aid  the  youth  of  immigrant 
families  in  acclimatizing  themselves  to  a 
new  environment  and  a  new  language  by 
offering  a  programme  which  encompasses 
both  educational  and  recreational  ac- 
tivities. 

Members  will  recall  that  for  immigration, 
for  the  newly  arrived  immigrants,  we  have 
$100  permanent  funding;  we  had  a  total 
fund  last  year  from  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  of  $100,000.  The 
people  out  there  to  whom  I've  spoken  of 
late  tell  me  most  of  the  $100,000  goes  for 
cultural  events;  but  to  really  help  those 
people  adjust— not  just  the  children— it  is 
going  to  have  to  go  much  beyond  children. 
It  is  going  to  have  to  go  to  the  adults 
because  they  come  from  a  different  type  of 
background  from  the  one  we  know  here. 
The  young  children  are  going  to  be  raised 
in  our  type  of  environment,  and  the  rift 
growing  between  those  groups  is  almost  in- 
tolerable; what  do  we  provide  for  services 
to  overcome  it?  They  are  good  enough  to 
pay  approximately  one-third  of  the  tax,  I 
suppose,  in  Metro  Toronto  and  the  govern- 
ment puts  in  $100  of  permanent  funding. 
It's  a  disgrace. 

Here  is  the  second  programme.  I  could 
go  through  160  of  these;  I  have  them  all 
here.  I  am  going  to  pinpoint  a  few  items 
from   each  of  the  various  services. 

The  Brrchcliffe  Community  Concern 
Office  and  its  objectives: 

To    unite    the    members    of    the    com- 
munity,   those   that   have   and    those    that 
need.   To  give  knowledge  to  all  members 
of   the   community,   to  make   them   better 
citizens     and    make     their     community    a 
better  place  in  which  to  live. 
What  does  this  service  provide,  for  example? 
Domestic,    handyman    and    volunteer   service 
to    the    elderly    and    shut-ins.    We    talked 
about    that    during    the    minister's    estimates 
—if  we  hope  to  keep  senior  citizens  out  of 
institutions   we   are   going  to  have  to  bring 
groups   together   so   that   those   who   are  ca- 
pable can  assist  the  elderly  to  stay  in  their 
homes. 


APRIL  4.  1974 


737 


\\  ell,  what  better  way?  We  are  not  going 
to  have  the  staff,  and  does  the  minister  think 
volunteers  can  ha\e  an  ongoing  programme 
if  there  isn't  some  permanent  staff?  Surely 
to  Cod  the  minister  must  realize  that  to  have 
ongoing  progrannnes  we  have  to  have  people 
who  are  there  constantly— not  all  of  them— 
then  we  draw  on  volunteers  to  do  work  for 
these  people.  But  if  we  are  not  even  going 
to  provide  funding,  then  we  are  going  to 
have  to  build  more  nursing  homes  and  more 
homes  for  the  aged  and  put  people  in  places 
the\  don't  want  to  be  in.  Most  of  them,  if 
the\  couM  get  a  little  assistance,  would  love 
to  stay  in  their  homes  as  long  as  possible, 
l:>ecause  most  of  them  are  very  independent. 

Community  on  the  Move  is  just  another 
one.  This  is  a  social  service  for  and  by  the 
residents  of  Lawrence  Heights,  an  Ontario 
Housing  development;  it  provides  leadership 
training,  recreational  programmes,  hot  lunch 
programmes,  information  centre  and  a  com- 
munity newspaper. 

Agincourt  Community  Services  Association 
was  established  to  provide  an  ongoing  refer- 
ral service  responding  to  local  needs  by  insti- 
tuting programmes  to  meet  various  needs  in 
the  community  and  to  facilitate  information 
exchange  among  people  living  and  working 
in  Agincourt. 

Community  Meals,  at  240  Wellesley  St., 
has  as  its  objective  to  provide  nutritious  and 
sociable  meals  for  senior  citizens  and  handi- 
capped persons.  That's  going  to  go  down  the 
drain.  The  meals-on-wheels  programme  is 
going  to  collapse  or  the  govenmient  is  going 
to  have  to  eventually  fund  the  whole  thing 
itself— and  it  is  not  going  to  have  the  money. 

What  else  does  the  service  provide?  In 
addition  to  nutritious  and  sociable  meals  for 
senior  citizens  and  handicapped  persons,  it 
is  interested  in  expanding  into  programmes 
on  nutrition  and  budgeting  and  an  emerging 
programme  of  preparing  meals  for  bedridden 
persons  seven  days  a  week.  That'll  keep  them 
in  their  homes.  It'll  give  them  company  and 
make  their  lives  less  lonely.  But  no,  this  gov- 
ernment will  watch  it  go  down  the  drain. 

The  LIP  project.  Phase  two  for  Excep- 
tional Adults,  aims  to  introduce  and  train 
mentally  handicapped  adults  to  enter  into 
society.  What  does  this  service  provide?  It 
teaches  mentally  handicapped  adults,  not  ac- 
ceptable at  existing  workshops,  the  basis  of 
home  economics,  manual  workshop  skills  and 
elementary  office  procedures,  and  trains  in 
speech  therapy,  social  behaviour  and  physical 
education.  Well,  there  is  another  one  going 
down  the  drain. 


Call-A-Service  provides  social  service  for 
the  elderly  and  the  handicapped,  such  as 
transportation,  keeping  the  elderly  independ- 
ent as  long  as  possible.  The  transportation 
is  to  take  senior  citizens  to  see  doctors,  to 
go  to  the  hospital,  to  go  shopping,  to  go 
visiting,  to  attend  church  events,  and  there 
is  a  telephone  service  for  shut-ins. 

Inter-City-Angels  was  established  to  expose 
and  involve  children  in  the  multitude  of  art 
forms  available  in  society.  Artists  in  different 
media  are  employed  to  provide  workshops 
for  children,  mainly  in  the  inner-city  elemen- 
tary schools.  And  if  we  know  anything  about 
the  problems  in  the  inner-city  schools  in  To- 
ronto, we  know  that  those  are  some  of  the 
most  deprived  schools  in  Metro.  Sonoe  of  the 
hardest  problems,  the  toughest  sledding  is 
in  that  area.  That  doesn't  matter? 

Future  Opportunity:  The  objective  of  this 
service  is  to  provide  an  in-depth  free  tutorial 
service  of  high  quality  to  those  who  would 
be  unable  to  avail  themselves  of  such  as- 
sistance due  to  financial  consideration.  The 
service  provides  tutorial  aid  in  remedial  read- 
ing, remedial  English,  English  as  a  second 
language  and  mathematics  primarily  for 
school-age  children  and  adolescents  of  immi- 
grants and  low-income  families.  Adults  are 
also  accepted  if  aid  is  needed  for  employ- 
ment or  correspondence  high  school  courses. 

One  service  to  seniors  was  set  up  to  help 
senior  citizens  in  any  way— health,  informa- 
tion, transportation,  visitation. 

The  Kuriov  Metro  Housing  Project  Youth 
Service  has  as  its  objective  to  work  with  the 
children  and  the  youth  in  the  Ontario  Hous- 
ing area.  It  provides  clubs,  sports,  craft$,  bus 
trips  for  children  and  youth  and  a  summer 
camp.  One  has  only  to  have  lived  in  a  high- 
rise  for  a  while  or  gone  out  to  visit  some  of 
the  Ontario  Housing  Corp.'s  developments, 
before  they  became  somewhat  more  enlight- 
ened, to  realize  the  vital  need  for  that  type 
of  programme.  One  only  has  to  go  over  to 
St.  James  Town,  where  my  colleague  and  I 
Kved  for  a  while,  where  there  are  10,000 
or  20,000  people  in  a  knothole  to  see  the 
total  lack  of  programmes  for  children. 

Interval  House  is  a  residential  distress 
centre  for  sole-support  mothers  and  diiWren. 
Service  is  directed  to  women  in  emotional, 
financial  and  housing  crises.  But  does  this 
service  provide  basic  food,  shelter,  clothing 
needs,  baby  sitting,  children's  activity,  coun- 
selling, residence  with  referral  and  follow-up 
programme  and  distress  calls? 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  list  is  endless.  One  gets 
almost  to  a  point  of  despondency  over  the 
reaction  of  the  government  of  Ontario  with 


738 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


respect,  as  I  said  the  other  night,  to  the  ser- 
vice that  comes  under  provincial  jurisdiction. 
Under  the  constitution  of  this  country,  this 
government  is  responsible  for  social  needs. 
The  people  that  are  funding  it  are  the  federal 
government,  the  United  Fund  and  the  munic- 
ipalities. And  where  in  God's  name  is  On- 
tario? It's  out  in  the  woodwork.  It  hasn't 
funded  a  cent. 

I've  seen  the  game  go  on  in  here  year  and 
year.  I've  watched  it  played  with  the  Indian 
community  as  the  government  banters  back 
and  forth  over  who  is  constitutionally  respon- 
sible for  the  Indians.  They  are  the  pawns  in 
the  game.  The  minister  knows  this.  Like  my- 
self, he  comes  from  northern  Ontario  where 
we  know  the  plight  of  the  Indians  and  what 
they  have  been  put  through  and  continue  to 
be  put  through  as  we  play  the  game  of  who 
is  responsible. 

We  know  who  is  responsible  in  the  field  of 
social  services  in  Ontario.  We  know  whose 
constitutional  responsibility  it  is.  And  we  also 
know  who  hasn't  provided  the  funds  to  keep 
these  services  which  everyone,  including  this 
minister's  staff,  has  indicated  are  absolutely 
vital  and  necessary  services. 

I  could  go  on,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  these.  I 
won't.  I  want  to  turn  now  to  something  else, 
if  I  might.  By  the  way,  this  whole  bundle  is 
the  programmes  just  in  Metro  Toronto  alone 
that  are  going  to  go  down  the  drain.  It  is 
surely  going  to  be  an  interesting  day  to  see 
what  the  minister  is  going  to  do  for  staff,  if 
he  has  to  put  staff  in  to  meet  the  demands 
that  have  been  created  by  the  type  of 
complex  society  we  are  in. 

I  want  to  turn  to  the  minister's  statement 
though.  You  will  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  before 
I  introduce  this,  that  I  mentioned  that  from 
June  on  last  year-I  guess  it  was  June  we  met 
with  the  then  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  (Mr.  Welch)-that  the  minister 
started  to  dangle  the  bait  in  front  of  these 
groups.  As  I  indicated  the  other  night,  after 
we  left  the  minister's  oflBce  I  said  to  them, 
"You  have  just  been  seduced.  The  minister 
will  hot  give  you  a  cent."  But  I  said,  "You 
try."  It  went  on,  and  there  was  a  whole  series 
of  meetings  which  I  put  on  the  record  the 
other  night,  a  whole  series  of  delaying  tactics. 
The  whole  ball  game  was  all  there. 

'It's  hke  the  information  centres.  My  col- 
league mentions  letters  about  them  for  three 
years.  I  understand  that  information  centres 
have  actually  been  studied  by  the  ministry 
for  13  years,  not  three;  13  years  ago  was  the 
first  report  on  information  centres.  And  now, 
the  crunch  comes.  There  is  no  policy.  As  my 
colleague  indicated  the  other  night,  he  had 


three  identical  letters  from  the  minister.  The 
only  thing  changed  was  the  date,  as  the\'  up- 
dated the  letters.  The  ministry  said,  "\\'e're 
studying  it,  and  we'll  announce  a  policy 
shortly.' 

The  government  doesn't  have  a  policy. 
From  June  to  March  15  would  be  nine  or  10 
months.  It  was  a  merry  chase  ansAvay  before 
there  was  a  statement  of  Ontario  govenmient 
pohcy  in  reference  to  LlP-initiat^  projects. 
Well,  this  is  some  statement.  This,  after 
months  of  study,  after  acceptance  b\-  the 
former  think-piece,  after  having  them  analysed 
and  accredited  and  approved,  we  get  this 
statement  of  government  policy  from  the 
ministry: 

As  you  know,  for  something  more  than 
a  year  the  secretariat  for  social  develop- 
ment has  been  considering  the  role  that 
the  government  of  Ontario  ought  to  play 
in  financing  the  project  started  under  the 
federal  government's  LIP  grants  pro- 
gramme. 

Our  discussions  have  invoked  many  non- 
governmental groups,  including  the  Metro 
work  group.  Since  the  decisions  we  have 
taken  owe  much  to  these  discussions  [Yes, 
the  decisions  we  have  taken  have  owed 
much  to  these  discussions]  I  think  it  is 
appropriate  that  these  decisions  be  an- 
nounced, in  the  first  instance,  to  you  people 
as  representatives   of  that   group. 

Well,  that  is  an  insult  to  anyone's  intelli- 
gence, because  what  they  are  about  to  an- 
nounce is  nothing.  After  all  of  the  input  and 
the  approval  by  David  Cole  and  the  various 
government  people.   Listen  to  this: 

From  the  first  we  have  said  clearly  that 
the  government  of  Ontario  is  willing  to 
provide  support  and  assistance  to  LlP-ini- 
tiated  projects— within  our  existing  pro- 
grammes and  priorities. 

Well,  I  listed  the  other  night  the  amounts 
that  the  goviemment  of  Ontario  had  really 
contributed.  As  I  said,  $100,000  totall\'  for 
immigrant  services.  There  was  nothing  in 
there  for  the  immigrant  needs.  Community 
development;  $84,000  for  the  total  province. 
Information  centres;  really  zero.  The  go\em- 
ment  managed  to  give  $18,000  in  Metro  To- 
ronto, but  without  any  policy.  It  is  just  a 
disaster. 

From  "our  existing  programmes."  Well,  the 
government  has  done  nothing  from  its  exist- 
ing programmes  to  meet  the  need.  Reall\,  it 
hasn't.  Just  look  at  this  material  concerning 
the  agencies;  the  government  gave  $84,000 
in  total  for  community  workers— $84,000.  That 
is  the  salary  of  eight  people  for  Ontario. 


APRIL  4,  1974 


739 


"But  we  are  not  prepared  to  abandon  our 
normal  criteria  calling  for  extensive  volun- 
tary involvement.  .  .  ."  What  this  government 
wants,  in  fact,  is  all  voluntary  involvement, 
or  they  want  the  federal  government  to  pay 
the  shot,  or  they  want  Metro  Toronto  or  the 
various  municipalities  or  the  community  or- 
ganizations to  pay  the  shot.  This  govern- 
ment's commitment  is  zero. 

Mr.  E.  P.  Momingstar  (Welland):  It  is  a 
good  government,  and  a  great  minister  over 
there. 

Mr.  Martel:  Good  for  whom?  The  wealthy? 
T  go  on:  ".  .  .  invoheinent  in  some  pro- 
gramme areas  and  for  significant  local  par- 
ticipation in  the  funding  of  many  projects." 
We  have  the  significant  contribution.  I  put 
those  on  the  record  the  other  night  too,  to 
show  you  that  the  community  fund  had  al- 
ready invested  heavily— very,  very  heavily— 
but  in  fact  the  only  one  who  had  failed  to 
invest  any  money  was  the  province.  They 
are  on  the  record  anyway,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
haven't  got  them  with  me. 

"We  are  not  prepared  to  distort  the  priori- 
ties that  we  have  set  for  the  development 
and  maintenance  of  social  services  in  On- 
tario." That  is  a  lot  of  gobbledygook,  too, 
because  there  are  no  policies. 

Using  those  criteria  and  within  those 
priorities  I  am  happy  to  announce  that  we 
have  committed  $150,000  for  grants  to  help 
programmes  serving  senior  citizens  across 
Ontario  to  make  the  transition  to  normal 
financing  under  the  Ontario  Elderly  Per- 
sons' Centres  Act.  Clearly  these  grants  will 
benefit  a  number  of  LIP  projects.  The 
grant  will  be  made  on  a  one-time-only 
basis. 

One   time  only;   $150,000  for  the  province. 

That  is  not  going  to  do  anything  to  meet  the 

needs.  It  just  isn't. . 

.   I  go  on  then  to  the  next  one: 

In  order  to  make  transitional  period  eas- 
ier, we  will  instruct  the  senior  citizens' 
bureau  to  encourage  homes  for  the  aged 
throughout   Ontario   .    .    . 

I  am  also  happy  to  announce  that  the 
regulations  under  Bill  160  have  now  been 
approved  so  that  we  wHl  be  able  to  pro- 
vide limited  direct  provincial  government 
assistance  to  community  daycare  services 
by  early  this  year.  We  anticipate  that  some 
LIP-initiated  projects  may  qualify  for  the 
assistance.  .  .  . 

No   one  has  seen  the  regulations  yet.   As   I 
say,  that's  10  months  after  the  legislation  was 


Eassed;  we  are  still  waiting  to  see  the  regu- 
itions. 

Your  group  and  others  that  we  spoke  to 
have  expressed  a  concern  that  the  nnilti- 
service  approach  to  social  services  is  not 
being  actively  enough  explored  and  de- 
veloped in  Ontario.  To  reassure  you  that 
this  is  a  matter  of  major  concern  to  us,  we 
are  appointing  a  committee  to  study  [it]. 

Well,  yet  another  committee.   How  long  do 
these  studies  go  on?  We  now  have  another 
study  with  respect  to  multi-service  centres. 
Your   group    also   asked    us    to    look    at 
additional  financial  support  for  .  .  .  "social 
service    arts."    Many    programmes    of    this 
nature  were  financed,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
through    LIP    grants.    We    would    recom- 
mend that  these  projects  make  application 
to  the  Province  of  O^itario  Council  for  the 
Arts.  [Isn't  that  a  magnificent  suggestion?] 
This   agency  is  able  to  support  a  limited 
number  of  high  quality  efforts  in  the  area. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  That's  Tor\' 
charity. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  and  here  from  my  friend- 
no,  I  haven't  got  to  the  point  of  my  friend, 
the  hon.  member  for  Wentworth  (Mr.  Deans). 
To  continue: 

You  asked,  too,  that  we  consider  com- 
munity assistance  over  and  above  existing 
programmes.  Both  these  areas  are  already 
marked,  particularly  in  Metro  Toronto,  h\ 
a  large  degree  of  duplication.  .  .  . 

Well,  we  know  what  that  means. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  if  there  is  duplication, 
they  don't  fund  anything. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Oh,  I  see. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  see— and  that's  information 
centres.  After  three  years,  in  a  recent  letter 
to  our  colleague,  the  member  for  Wentworth, 
the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices is  telling  us  it's  again  being  studied.  Here, 
in  fact,  is  what  the  minister  has  to  say: 

Both  these  areas  are  already  marked, 
particularly  in  Metro  Toronto,  oy  a  large 
degree  of  duplication  of  service. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  is  almost  deliberately 
misleading. 

Mr.  Martel:  It's  called  dissembling:  dis- 
sembling, yes. 

We  agree  that  such  services  might  be 
worthwhile,  particularly  in  rural  Ontario, 
and  we  agree  that  information  centres  that 


740 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


are  accessible  and  objective  already  play  an 
important  role  in  the  provision  of  services 
in  the  province  and,  indeed,  the  provincial 
government  is  already  involved  in  the 
financing  of  such  services. 

It  was  $18,000  last  year;  18,000  bucks.  You 
know,  the  whole  charade  for  11  months;  it  is 
absolutely  nauseating. 

Your  group  has  asked  us  for  a  number  of 
things.  We  are  taking  specific  action  to 
help  the  projects  you  have  started  to  aid 
senior  citizens  [It  is  $150,000  for  the  whole 
province]  to  meet  the  requirements  of  our 
existing  programmes.  Our  new  legislation 
for  day  care  may  benefit.  .  .  We  will  con- 
tinue on  a  more  formal  basis  to  examine 
the  potential  for  multi-service  delivery  .  .  . 
For  your  "social  service  arts"  [your  com- 
munity information  centres  and  your  im- 
migration services].  We  can  only  recom- 
mend that  you  continue  to  examine  the 
possibility  of  working  through  programmes 
that  already  exist  in  Ontario. 

They  have  been  trying  for  three  years— and 
there  is  nothing  there  to  work  through. 

Mr.   Laughren:    Well,   cabinet   is   listening 
today. 

Mr.  Martel:  She  says: 

I  would  like  to  add  one  personal  word. 
I  worked  many  years  as  a  volunteer  in  the 
development  of  social  services  in  my  own 
community. 

And  that's  the  point  I  drew  the  other  night. 
Her  information  centre  is  operating  on  a  LIP 
^nt.  Isn't  that  interesting?  "I  know  some  of 
the  sacrifice  you  people  have  made"-$85  a 
week  for  three  years,  no  holiday  pay,  no  in- 
creases, no  fringe  benefits,  no  medical  pro- 
tection. Some  sacrifice! 

Mr.  R.  Gisbom   (Hamilton  East):   Would 
the  member  say  she  is  an  unprogressive  Tory? 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes. 

Mr.  Gisbom:  The  hon.  lady  is  not  a  pro- 
gressive Tory. 

Mr.  Laughren:  She's  no  red  Tory. 

Mr.  Martel:  And  finally: 

We  have  looked  carefully  at  your  pro- 
posals. We  have  considered  carefully  the 
decisions  we  have  made  and  I  hope  that— to 
some  extent  at  least— they  meet  with  your 
approval. 

Well,  can  you  imagine— can  you  imagine  that 
junk  meeting  anyone's  approval? 


An  hon.  member:  Yes. 

Mr.  Martel:  Can  you  imagine— 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  meets  the  approval  of 
the  anti-labour  member  for  Timiskaming  (Mr, 
Havrot). 

Mr.  Martel:  —the  unmitigated  gall  of  a 
minister  of  the  Crowai  to  come  before  a 
group,  after  that  ministry  had  said  in  fact  all 
of  these  programmes  were  worthwhile,  after 
months  of  research  by  the  ministiy  staflF 
recommending  that  they  be  funded,  the  think- 
piece  says:  "No,  we  will  put  $150,000  in." 

Well,    the    Metro    work    group    has    just 
recently  put  out   a  statement,   they  make  a 
comparison- 
Mr.  Drea:   Where  do  they  get  the  money 
for  all  of  these  things  they  keep  maihng  out? 

Mr.  Martel:  LIP. 

Mr.  Drea:  LIP  mailed  that  out? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  don't  think  they  mailed  this, 
not  to  me  anyway;  they  delivered  it  person- 
ally. Well,  the  member  might  want  to  run  a 
red  herring  into  it  to  cover  up  his  own 
embarrassment,  but  please  don't  interfere  with 


Mr.  Drea:  I  am  not  running  a  red  herring 
over  it  at  all,  I  just  wonder  about  the  money 
problems.  If  they're  broke,  how  come  the  big 
mailout? 

Mr.  Martel:  Most  of  it  is  being  funded  by 
the  UFO-the  who?  Well,  that  would  be 
more  than  the  Tory  bagmen  would  give. 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  we  are  subsidizing  it,  too. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  member  might  take 
some  of  the  land  speculation  profits  of  the 
member  for  Fort  William  (Mr.  Jessiman)  and 
fund  a  few  LIP  projects. 

Mr.  Martel:  If  I  could  sell  on©  aci«  of  knd 
and  make  $90,000  profit,  I  could  assist  a 
group,  I  could  fund  the  organization. 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  The  member 
wouldn't  want  anybody  to  have  an  acre  of 
land.  Give  us  something  constructive  now. 

Mr.  Laughren:  We  just  want  to  tax  the  land 
speculators.  Nothing  wrong  with  that.  It's  a 
good  social  programme,  progressive  taxation. 
The  member  is  not  against  that  surely. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.   member. 

Mr.  Martel:  Community  funding?  I  put  all 
the  lists  on  the  record  the  other  night  when 
the  member  stormed  out  because  it  wasn't  his 


APRIL  4,  1974 


741 


turn  to  speak.  I  put  them  in  the  Hansard  and 
if  the  member  wants  to  go  back- 
Mr.  Drea:  I  wasn't  here  the  other  night, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  engagements  elsewhere. 
Now  let's  keep  the  record  straight.  I  am  not 
going  to  be  insulted  in  here  by  some  clown. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Tell  the  truth 
now;  the  member  got  up  and  stomped  out 
because  he  couldn't  get  the  floor. 

Mr.  Cilbertson:  He  is  wasting  the  time  of 
the  House. 

Mr.  Drea:  That's  not  true  and  the  member 
knows  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  figures  were  put  on  the 
record  the  other  night,  if  the  member  wants 
to  check  them  out,  the  community  funding. 
The  federal  government  and  Metro  Toronto 
have  put  in  large  amounts  of  money.  The 
only  one  who  hasn't  put  any  money  in  any- 
thing is  the  member's  own  government. 

Well,  Ifet's  see  the  response  of  the  Metro 
work  group  to  this. 

Mr.  Laughren:  We  understand  the  mem- 
ber's embarrassment. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  am  not  embarrassed. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Well  he  should  be. 

Mr.  Deans:  We  don't  understand  why  he  is 
not. 

Mr.  Martel:  If  he  is  not  embarrassed  I  can't 
understand  why  he  is  not. 

Well  on  the  first  position,  the  minister's 
statement  of  March  15  says: 

As  you  know,  for  some  time,  more  than  a 

year,  the  secretariat  for  social  develapm«it 

'has  been  considering  the  role. 

The  response  of  the  group: 

The  Metro  work  group  has  been  ddscuss- 
'ing  the  problems  of  responsibility  in  fund- 
ing of  social  services.  Mrs.  Birch  persists  in 
discussing  LIP.  The  real  issue  is  the  crisis 
in  Metro  Toronto  of  new  services,  but 
Tnostiy  of  the  entire  commimity  and  social 
service  field. 

In  other  words  we  have  been  digressing,  as  I 
said  much  earlier.  The  attack  started  on  the 
LIP  funding  so  that  in  fact  the  province 
would  be  in  a  position  to  say  no.  But  many 
of  the  organizations  involved  in  the  Metro 
work  group  never  received  LIP  grants,  never. 
There  is  a  whole  wide  range:  The  'Toronto 
Social  Planning  Council,  3ie  YMCA,  the 
YWCA;  they  are  all  pushing  these  emerging 
services  if  they  meet  the  ne^'.  But  the  th^k- 


piece  from  over  there,  as  she  triea  to  prepare 
us  for  the  shock  of  saying  no,  kept  attacking 
LIP  because  she  was  trying  to  soften  up  the 
public  to  accept  the  inevitable,  that  the  On- 
tario government  wasn't  going  to  fund  emerg- 
ing services. 

(The  second  point  from  the  minister's  state- 
ment: 

From  the  first  we  have  said  clearly  that 
the  government  of  Ontario  is  willing  to  pro- 
vide support  and  assistance  to  LIP-initiated 
programmes. 

And  their  response: 

It  is  the  continued  inadequacy  of  pro- 
vincial policies  in  programme  funding 
which  has  created  the  present  crisis.  There- 
fore an  offer  to  fund  emerging  services 
from  within  existing  programmes  and  poli- 
cies is  tantamount  to  refusing  any  support. 
For  example,  there  is  only  $84,000  for  com- 
munity development  programmes  in  the 
whole  of  Ontario  and  not  even  a  policy  for 
information  centres  (after  three  years  of 
study). 

The  minister's  whole  statement  was  a  lot  oi 

rubbish. 

The  third  point  that  the  work  group  made 

rebutting  the  minister's  statement- 
Mr.  Laughren:  Don't  buy  that. 

Mr.  Martel:  "We  are  not  asking  you  to  dis- 
tort your  govemmttit's  priorities.' 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  minister  mustn't  buy 
that.  I  wouldn't  buy  anything  from  the  mem- 
ber. 

Mr.  Martel:  "We  are  merdy  asking  you  to 
finance  them." 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Their  response  goes  oo: 

An  unreleased  report  of  the  provincial 
Ministry  of  Community  and  Sodal  Services, 
compiled  in  June,  1973,  indicated  that  most 
'emerging  services  in  Metro  rank  very  high 
relative  to  programme  priorities  of  various 
ministry  departments. 

I  say  that  to  my  friend  from— 

Mr.  H.  C.  Parrott  (Oxford):  Sudbury  East? 

Mr.  Martel:  No.  I  wanted  the  other  mem- 
ber to  get  that. 

An  hon.  member:   Oxford. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oxford.  I  wanted  him  to  get 
that  because  a  ministerial  report  said  this. 
He  will  file  that  away,  will  he? 


742 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


We  endorse  the  two  criteria  of  volun- 
terism  and  local  participation  [And  this 
has  been  there.  The  only  commitment  we 
haven't  got  is  anything  from  the  Tory 
government].  We  meet  both  of  them  con- 
sistently. However,  where  local  funding 
is  unavailable,  often  in  the  area  of  greatest 
need,  the  province  must  accept  its  just 
financial  responsibility. 

And  it  hasn't  accepted  any. 

In  the  minister's  statement  she  makes  that 

great     announcement     of     $150,000.     Here's 

their  response  to  that: 

The  total  operational  funding  available 
under  the  Elderly  Persons'  Centres  Act 
in  1973-1974  was  $900,000,  This  level  of 
funding  was  totally  inadequate  for  existing 
groups  eligible  for  funding.  To  activate 
more  groups  to  compete  for  this  limited 
funding  is  an  exercise  in  futility. 

The  regulations  of  the  Act  are  them- 
selves unduly  restrictive.  They  prevent  thie 
implementation  of  the  full  intent  of  the 
Act. 

We    go    on    as     the    minister    talks    about 

transitional    periods: 

Tying  senior  citizens  to  institutionalized 
services  run  from  homes  for  the  aged 
when  they  are  able  to  function  in  the 
community  is  not  an  alternative. 

The  minister  has  heard  me  say  this  for  two 
years,  at  least.  We  have  got  to  assist  but 
the  government  is  not  assisting.  The  minister 
goes    on   to   say: 

Mr.  A.  Carruthers  (Durham):  Was  that  a 
message  from  Garcia  or  was  that  an  inter- 
departmental   communication? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  recent  communique- 
Mr.  Carruthers:  Interdepartmental? 

Mr.  Laughren:  We're  giving  him  some 
ammunition. 

Mr.  Afiartel:  No,  I  won't  comment  because 
he's  not  here.  I  wouldn't  do  it  without  his 
attendance. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  would  be  any  labour 
member. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  what  I  was  thinking 
about  but  I  wouldn't  do  it  The  minister 
said,  "I'm  also  happy  to  announce  that  the 
regulations  under  Bill  160  have  now  been 
approved."  The  group  responded: 

Limited  financing  of  Bill  160  is  not  a 
responsible  answer  to  untold  daycare 
needs  of  working  people  in  Metro  Toronto. 


The  province  obviously  has  no  sense  of 
urgency  for  the  daycare  needs  of 
children. 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  have  no  sense. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  go  on:  "Bill  160  was 
passed  almost  10  months  ago  and  as  yet  no 
child  nor  working  mother  has  benefited." 
It  was  a  good  Act  10  months  ago.  The 
only   trouble  is   that  it   is   not  working  yet. 

Mr.    Laughren:    Tory    commitments. 

Mr.  Martel:  As  I  said  when  the  minister 
brought  that  bill  in,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  dur- 
ing his  estimates,  if  we  only  had  an  election 
every  year  we'd  get  all  kinds  of  daycare 
centres  and  so  on  because  that's  the  year 
we  fund.  I  suspect  that's  \\'hy  we're  putting 
it  off  and  we  can  bring  it  in  in  time  for 
next  year  and  make  full  implementation  of 
the  bill. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  is  like  the  freight  rate 
reductions  in  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  on  the  e\e  of  an  elec- 
tion. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  ONR  has  done  a  lot 
for  them. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  What  would  the  member 
do  if  he  was  in? 

Mr.  Martel:  Does  the  member  want  me 
to  say  we  would  do  what  the  Tories  are 
doing?  What  they're  doing  is  nothing. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  The  member  will  never 
get  the  chance. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East  can't  say  that.  It's  the  most  progressive 
government  this  province  ever  had. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  point  7:  The 
multi-service  approach  began  in  1967.  A  full 
study  was  made  on  10  such  projects  in  1969. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  Is  this  a  reading  pro- 
gramme? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  hon.  member  might  learn 
something  if  he  listens  long  enough,  because 
he  won't  do  any  research  on  his  own. 

Mr.  Parrott:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury East  doesn't  have  all  that  long,  though. 

Mr.  Carruthers:  This  is  carrying  it  too  far. 
When  the  hon.  member  reads,  I  cannot  un- 
derstand him. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  Tor>^  after  Tory 
reads  his  speech  in  its  entirety  in  this  House 


APRIL  4,  1974 


743 


and  no  one  over  here  says  a  word.  No  one 
sa>s  a  word  as  they  read  their  entire 
speeches. 

Mr.  Cilbertson:  The  NDP  members  are 
the   biggest  hecklers  in  here. 

Mr.  Camithers:  The  hon.  member  is  not 
reading  his  own  speech. 

Mr.  Martel:  I'm  just  reading  to  make  sure 
that  these  notes  that  were  prepared  are 
precise. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  and  to  cut  down  on 
time. 

Mr.  Martel:  To  get  back  to  the  point: 

The  multi-service  approach  began  in 
1967.  A  full  study  was  made  on  10  such 
projects  in  1969.  The  province  is  present- 
1\-  assisting  one  such  project  in  York. 

Sometimes  studies  are  a  good  idea— 
\\hen   you   honestly   do   need   more    facts. 

What  have  we  got  here  on  multi-service 
centres  in  the  announcement  by  the  hon. 
minister?  He  is  going  to  study  it  again.  He 
is  going  to  have  a  look  at  it.  We  will  set 
up  another  committee.  Well,  we  have  had 
studies  from  1967  to  the  present,  and  we 
are  going  to  have  an  interdepartmental 
committee  set  up  and  study  it  again.  What 
are  they  going  to  study?  More  procrastina- 
tion? How  they  can  avoid  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Is  the  hon.  member 
not  aware  of  the  funding  on  the  one  in 
North  York? 

Mr.  Martel:  Right,  since  1967.  My  God,  if 
the  rest  of  the  province  has  to  wait  that 
long,    we'll    never    see    it.    We    won't    live 

so    long. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  minister  won't  be  in 
government  so  long. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  eighth 
point:  The  minister  suggested  the  group  go 
to  POCA  to  get  funding  for  providing  pro- 
grammes in  the  senior  citizens'  homes  and 
so  on.   Their  response: 

POCA    has    already    indicated    that    it    is 
sexerely  underfinanced.   Ontario  shows  ht- 
tie  concern  in  making  cultural  arts  acces- 
sible   to   all    people,    not   just   the   affluent 
minority." 
That  is  what  I  have  been  saying.  We  provide 
all  kinds  of  funding  for  the  affluent  minority 
to  enjoy  culture,  but  we  don't  provide  fund- 
ing  so   that   the   ordinary   people   can   enjoy 
culture.   What   is   it,   is   it  a  sick   system   we 
ha\e    got    over    there?    Maybe    the    Speaker 
could  tell  me. 


As    for    the    immigration    and    information 
centres,   there  is  supposed  to  be  overdupli- 
cation;    that's   what   the   minister   said— there 
were  too  many  and  there  was  duplication. 
Where  is  the  evidence  [and  this  is  the 
question  they  pose  to  the  minister]  to  sub- 
stantiate the  claims  of  duplication? 

The   United  Community   Fund  has  sent 
out    assessment    teams    of    volunteers    and 
professionals,  as  did  the  federal  Secretary 
of  State,  who  did  not  find  any  duplication. 
I  hope  the  minister  heard  that.  The  federal 
Secretary  of  State  did  not  find  any  duplica- 
tion in  immigration  services,  and  neither  did 
the  United  Community  Fund.  How  does  the 
think-tank  tell  us  then  that  there  is  duplica- 
tion? Would  the  minister  tell  us  some  day 
where  there  is  duplication,  instead  of  making 
carte  blanche  statements  with  no  substance? 
In    fact,    both    the    United    Community 
Fund  and  the  Secretary  of  State  are  par- 
tially financing  many  of  these  services. 

If  "the  provincial  government  is  already 
involved  in  the  financing  of  such  services," 
from  where  is  the  funding  coming?  There 
are  no  provincial  policies  nor  budgets  to 
finance  information  centres  or  immigration 
services  [none]. 

We  know  that  over  half  of  the  com- 
munity development  budget  was  raised 
last  year  to  fund  a  few  information  centres. 
Such  cynicism  seriously  undermines  the 
province's   credibility  [in  the  whole  field]. 

Getting  down  to  the  last  four  points,  Mr. 
Speaker,  part  of  the  minister's  statement  said, 
in  relation  to  senior  citizens'  groups— and  I 
quote:  "Your  group  has  asked  us  for  a  num- 
ber of  things.  We  are  taking  specific  action 
to  help  the  projects."  Their  response  to  that 
particular  paragraph  of  the  minister's  state- 
ment is: 

We  also   asked  you  a  number  of  other 
tilings.     In    particular,    we    asked    you    to 
begin  using  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan- 
as  do  Alberta  and  BC. 
This   government  only  uses  the  Canada   As- 
sistance   Plan    when    it    can    extract    a    fair 
largess    without    really    putting    comparable 
fimding  in. 

The  sudden  transition  of  the  mentally  re- 
tarded from  the  Ministry  of  Health  to  the 
Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Services- 
questions  were  put  in  debate  last  week,  ques- 
tioning the  sincerity  of  that  move.  By  doing 
that  they  were  able  to  get  an  additional  $35 
million  from  Ottawa.  If  tliat  hsuln't  l>een 
forthcoming  there  are  many  people  in  the 
community  who  believe  that  the  treatment 
for  the  mentally  retarded  would  have  stayed 


744 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


in  the  Ministry  of  Health.  It  wasn't  the  con- 
sideration of  the  needs  of  people  at  all,  it 
was  the  consideration  of  picking  up  $35  mil- 
lion more  from  Ottawa  —  that  is  what  was 
really  behind  it  all. 

The  minister  says.  "I  would  like  to  add 
one  personal  word;  I  worked  many  years  as 
a  volunteer  in  the  development  of  services 
in  my  own  community."  And  their  response: 
"As  a  former  vokmteer  and  community 
worker,  we  would  expect  you  to  be  assisting 
us  in  our  proposals  and  ending  our  sacri- 
fice." 

I  suspect  her  financial  sacrifices  weren't 
too  great.  In  my  experience  I've  seen  people 
working  in  the  community;  these  profes- 
sional do-gooders  that  salve  their  conscience 
by  going  out  and  doing  a  little  canvassing 
one  night  a  year  for  the  cancer  or  for  the 
blind  —  that's  their  contribution  to  society. 
It  salves  their  conscience. 

Mr.   Gilbertson:   Better  than  nothing. 

Mr.  Mattel:  Yes,  these  do-gooders,  we 
would  be  better  off  without  tliem— some  of 
them. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  The  member  doesn't  know 
how   much   good   the   do-gooders   do. 

Mr.  Martel:   Oh  yes,  right. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  try  it  sometime?  It  is  not 
as  easy  as  he  says. 

Mr.  Martel:  My  friend  —  no,  I  can't  be 
bothered  talking  to  him. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  member  for  Algoma  is  in 
enough  trouble;  they've  moved  him  from  the 
other  sid-e  of  the  row. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Yes,  but  I'm  in  the  front 
bench. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  member  for  Algoma  is 
back  where  he  started. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  know,  but  I'm  in  the 
front  row— I  started  at  the  back. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Don't  forget,  they  are  look- 
ing in  the  Algoma  riding  to  find  another  can- 
didate. 

An  hon.  member:  Don't  forget  that. 

Mr.  Deans:  They  called  to  see  if  we  could 
provide  someone. 

An  hon.  member:  We  said:  "No,  leave  him 
where  he  is." 


Mr.  Martel:  Here  is  the  final  statement  I 
want  to  quote,   Mr.   Speaker: 

The  response  of  the  Ontario  go\ern- 
ment  does  not  meet  with  our  approval, 
nor  does  it  meet  with  the  approval  of  the 
wider  community  concerned  with  human 
needs  in  our  city.  Clearly,  the  area  of  pro- 
vincial policy  and  unmet  community  needs 
must  be  reviewed  by  Premier  Davis. 

Interestingly  enough,  they've  been  trying  to 
get  a  meeting  with  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
since  March  15  or  16— almost  the  day  after 
they  were  told  "no  way." 

Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Stand 
in  line. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  ( Timiskaming ) :  Join 
the  club. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  tell  me  that  even  the 
Conservative  backbenchers  have  difficulty  in 
getting  to  see  the  Premier,  so  we  shouldn't 
feel  too  badly.  "Billy  the  Kid"- 

Mr.  Carruthers:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East  is  way  back  at  the  end  of  the  line. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  is  not  very  receptive,  and 
there  is  a  line-up  of  Tory  backbenchers. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
show  some  respect  toward  the  Premier  instead 
of  calling  him  "Billy  the  Kid." 

Mr.  Martel:  What  should  I  do,  pay  homage 
to  him? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  The  member  is  supposed  to 
honour  those  in  authority. 

Mr.  Martel:  Am  I? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  And  not  be  so  ridiculous. 

Mr.  Martel:  I've  always  had  a  great  deal 
of  faith  in  law  and  order  men.  I  look  at 
Spiro  Agnew  and  Richard  Nixon  today— two 
of  the  greatest  law  and  order  men  in  the  last 
decade, 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Did  the  member  ever  look 
at  himself?  Did  he  ever  look  at  himself? 

Mr.  Martel:  Their  law  and  order  perform- 
ance—those great  law  and  order  men. 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  moved  crime  from  the 
streets  into  the  White  House, 

Mr.  Martel:  They've  robbed  everybody 
blind,  Spiro  is  going  to  be  disbarred,  but  he 
was  a  great  law  and  order  man—don't  give 
me  that  nonsense. 

If  you  see  a  social  need  you  move  in  to 
help  it. 


APRIL  4,  1974 


745 


Mr.  C.  E.  Smith  (Simcoe  East):  Come  on, 
the  member  for  Sudbury  East  should  give  us 
the  message. 

Mr.  Martel:  This  group  has  been  waiting, 
Mr.  Speaker,  almost  two  full  weeks  to  meet 
with  the  Premier— two  full  weeks.  I  checked 
again  today  with  my  friend,  the  former 
Attorney  General,  Arthur  Wishart,  to  see  if 
that  date  had  been  finalized.  It  still  isn't 
finalized. 

I  checked  with  Arthur  yesterday  to  see 
about  it.  The  group  has  phoned  almost  daily 
to  get  a  meeting. 

Unless  we  get  serious,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
start  to  fund  the  groups,  they  in  fact  are 
going  to  go  down  the  drain.  And  maybe  the 
member  for  Durham  would  like  to  read  these 
services  that  are  being  offered  and  he 
wouldn't  sit  there  with  such  cynicism. 

Mr.  Camithers:  I  am  in  one  myself;  I  am 
dealing  with  one  right  now. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  well  I  am  dealing  on 
behalf  of  160  of  these  groups  right  now. 

Mr.  Camithers:  I  am  getting  results,  too. 
I  am  getting  results. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  so  am  I,  without  a  policy. 
That's  called  the  all-embracing  arm  of  the 
Tory.  Well  put  another  patch  on  the  old 
tube.  We  don't  resolve  the  total  need,  we 
just  keep  patching  it. 

Mr.  Camithers:  The  member  doesn't  go 
after  things  the  right  way. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  these  groups 
don't  meet  with  the  Premier  and  if  the 
Premier  doesn't  see  to  it  that  adequate  fund- 
ing is  immediately  established,  the  vast 
majority  of  these  groups  will  disappear— and 
that's  what  the  government  wants,  I  am  con- 
vinced—and the  community  of  Metro  Toronto 
and  the  area  outside  of  Metro  Toronto,  the 
people  who  need  services,  will  not  have  those 
services.  I  suggest  to  the  government  that 
this  is,  first  and  foremost,  directly  a  provincial 
responsibility,  social  needs,  and  it  simply  can- 
not ignore  it  any  longer.  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Oxford. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Parrott  ( Oxford ) :  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  don't  know  whether  it  is  the  fate  of  the 
House  to  be  subjected  to  discussions  from 
those  sitting  so  close  together,  but  let  me  tell 
you,  though  we  may  sit  together,  there  is  a 
great  gulf  between  us. 


Mr.  Laughren:  I  would  hope  so,  I  would 
hope  so. 

Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Let  me  assure  vou,  too,  that 
there  is  going  to  be  a  great  gulf  in  the  length 
of  our  discussions.  Before  I  comment  on  that 
further,  I  hope  that  you  will  convey  to  the 
member  for  Waterloo  South  (Mr.  Renter), 
who  is  indeed  the  Speaker  of  this  House,  the 
best  wishes  of  not  only  the  member  for  Ox- 
ford but  indeed  all  of  the  people  that  I  rep- 
resent. As  a  neighbouring  municipality,  I  think 
we  perhaps  have  had  the  privilege  of  know- 
ing the  hon.  Speaker  perhaps  better  than 
some  other  people  of  this  province,  and  we 
have  always  felt  it  a  great  privilege  to  count 
on  his  friendship. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That's  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Parrott:  As  I  see  it,  one  of  the  rather 
strange  things  that  occur  in  this  House  is 
that  the  remarks  that  I  hear  in  the  chamber 
and  the  remarks  that  I  hear  outside  the  cham- 
ber about  the  good  humour,  about  the  great 
respect  and  alwut  the  fine  character  of  the 
Speaker  are  consistent.  That  is  a  ver\  rare 
thing  to  see  happen.  Usually  what  is  said  in 
the  House  doesn't  necessarily  reflect  the  same 
kind  of  comments  that  we  hear  in  the  cor- 
ridors. But  in  this  instance  I  am  sure  that  all 
of  us  say  with  a  great  deal  of  sincerit\-  how 
much  we  respect  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

There  is  another  area  that  perhaps  is  \vr\- 
seldom  mentioned,  and  I  would  like  to  dwell 
on  for  just  a  minute,  and  that  is,  indeed,  the 
attendants  to  the  Speaker.  I  think  that  we 
are  served  here  in  the  House  by  the  pages 
and  the  other  attendants  with  a  great  deal 
of  care  and  consideration  and  I  think  we  see 
in  these  young  people  probably  the  finest 
examples  of  the  youth  of  Ontario.  I,  for  one, 
would  like  to  say  thanks  to  them.  Just  last 
week  I  was  in  my  riding  and  a  page  who 
had  served  in  this  House  just  last  term  was 
at  a  meeting  and  put  on  a  show.  He  did 
ventriloquism,  some  magic,  and  spoke  as  well. 
He  did  a  tremendous  job.  It  is  a  great 
experience.  I  know  from  those  who  have 
served  here  in  this  House  what  a  great 
stimulus  to  their  lives  the  six-weeks'  service 
in  this  House  has  been,  and  I  hope  that  all 
of  those  who  are  currently  serving  and  those 
who  have  served  before  will  continue  and 
that  some  day  they,  too,  may  serve  in  this 
chamber  or  the  chamber  in  Ottawa.  But 
whether  they  do  that  or  not  I  am  sure  the\ 
will,  indeed,  serve  in  their  communities. 

A  little  comment  on  the  previous  speaker. 
They  tell  me  that  if  one  is  going  to  speak 


746 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


for  an  hour  you  need  about  30  seconds'  prep- 
aration. If  it  s  for  five  minutes  you  need  about 
an  hour's  preparation.  I  don't  know  what  a 
three-hour  speech  might  take,  but  on  that 
basis  I  suspect  30  seconds'  preparation  and 
three  hours  delivery  is  perhaps  a  ratio.  There 
were  comments  from  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  that  illustrate,  as  I  suggested  at  the 
beginning,  that  there  is  a  great  difference 
between  his  position  and  mine,  and  there  is 
one  area  that,  believe  it  or  not,  I  would  like 
to  follow  up  on.  There  is  some  agreement. 

I  would  like  to  comment  a  little  bit  in 
these  next  few  minutes  on  how  we,  as  mem- 
bers, should  service  our  ridings. 

Quite  frankly,  this  is  not  a  personal  com- 
plaint. I  knew  full  well  the  terms  of  the 
contract  when  I  was  elected.  The  terms 
weren't  quite  as  good  as  I  had  been  experi- 
encing prior  to  my  election. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  I  am  sure  of 
that! 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  I  didn't  consider  that  any 
great  problem.  In  fact,  I  thought  it  was  the 
greatest  thrill  of  my  life  to  have  been  so 
honoured.  And  I  still  think  that  way. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  What  a  price  to  pay  for  a 
thrill! 

Mr.  Parrott:  Well,  it  may  be.  Thank  you, 
that's  exactly  the  point  I'm  coming  to.  That 
was  a  very  apt  line,  sir. 

An  hon.  member:  You  can  always  count  on 
the  member  for  Huron-Bruce  for  assistance. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Before  I  get  into  that  par- 
ticular point,  I  feel  that  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  commission  on  the  Legislature 
headed  by  Dalton  Camp  have  given  to  us 
many  things  of  which  I  am  personally  appre- 
ciative. 

I  think  the  difference  in  salary  was  accept- 
able. I  certainly  think  the  ability  to  travel  in 
our  ridings  now  is  most  acceptable  and  was 
most  necessary.  Perhaps  all  of  us  have  not 
made  any  great  changes  in  our  methods  of 
going  about  our  ridings.  Perhaps  most,  if  not 
all,  of  the  members  considered  that  a  part 
of  the  duty,  but  it  seems  logical  and  reason- 
able that  we  should  be  recompensed  for  that 
expense.  I  think  for  those  of  us  who  are  from 
out  of  to\\Ti  to  be  recompensed  for  our  ac- 
commodation while  here  is  just  a  logical  busi- 
ness approach. 

Unfortunately  that's  where  the  business 
approach  stopped  as  far  as  I  was  concerned. 
It  fell  very  far  short  when  we  start  to  think 
in  terms  of  how  we  should  service  our  ridings. 


The  Camp  commission,  if  I  can  call  it  that, 
did  recognize  a  difference  in  ridings.  And  I 
think  it  should  have  done  so  when  it  got  into 
the  area  of  how  we  as  membeirs  could 
properly  look  after  those  people  that  we  try 
to  serve.  I  guess  the  reason^  it  hasn't  is  that 
neither  that  commission  nor  indteed  ourselves 
have  come  to  the  problem  of  what  our  basic 
role  is  in  this  assembly  and  in  this  province. 

'I've  asked  myself,  and  I'm  sure  many  of 
the  members  have,  am  I  mi  ombudsman  or 
am  I  a  legislator?  Quite  frankly,  I  would  like 
to  think  of  myself  as  both.  But  if  indeed'  I 
am  an  ombudsman,  it  seems  to  me  that  I  am 
grossly  understaffed  and  shghdy  underpaid. 
If  I  am  a  legislator,  I  think  I  am  perhaps 
overpaid  and  have  suflBcient  staff.  But  we  must 
answer  that  basic  question  in  my  mind,  what 
is  our  basic  role  in  society? 

Mr.  Deans:  How  did  the  member  come  to 
that  conclusion? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Which  does 
he  consider  the  most  important? 

Mr.  Deans:  Surely  his  primary  function  is 
as  a  legislator, 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  agree  that  my  primary  func- 
tion is  a  legislator. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well,  why  woidd  the  member 
say  that  he  is  overpaid  and  understaffed? 

Mr.  Parrott:  As  an  ombudsman. 

Mr.  Deans:  No.  He  said  that  he  is  overpaid 
and  suflBciently  staffed  as  a  legislator. 

Mr.  Parrott:  That's  right.  If  I  had  no  con- 
stituency work  to  do  wnatsoever,  I  honestly 
believe  that  I  could,  with  the  staff  that  our 
caucus  research  supplies,  do  a  reasonably 
adequate  job  as  a  legislator,  provided  I  was 
not  too  encumbered  vvdth  all  of  the  other  de- 
tails that  I  am  now  encumbered  with  within 
my  riding  and  within  this  House.  I'm  talking 
about  the  purism  of  a  legislator  with  no 
ombudsman  rolfe  to  play. 

Let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  think 
I  should  be  both  and  for  these  reasons.  First 
of  all,  I  would  like  to  keep  in  touch  with 
reality  in  both  roles.  I  would  use  the  ex- 
ample, perhaps  in  my  professional  life,  of 
someone  teaching  in  a  medical  or  dental 
school  who  has  not  had  the  great  advantage 
of  serving  part  of  his  time  at  least  in  private 
practice.  I  think  he  loses  that  sense  of  reality, 
of  urgency,  and  of  relevance  to  what  he  is 
trying  to  say  to  his  students.  If  I  had  my  way, 
I  would  like  to  see  in  many  areas  that  those 
in  the  academic  world  woiild  have  to  spend 


APRIL  4.  1974 


747 


at  least  a  portion  of  their  week  within  the 
confines  of  the  work-a-day  world. 

Secondly,  I  don't  think  the  role  of  the  om- 
budsman is  the  job  of  a  civil  servant.  I  would 
like  to  see  him  an  elected  official.  Therefore, 
again  I  think  that  is  another  argument 
that  I  should  be  both  an  ombudsman  and  a 
legislator.  I  think,  in  addition,  if  we  were  only 
legislators  we  would  perhaps  fail  to  see  to  the 
same  degree  the  needs  of  our  community.  If 
we  serve  in  the  dual  role,  I  think  legislation 
could  normally  be  expected  to  follow,  in  that 
we  were  attempting  to  serve  the  needs  of  our 
community.  As  a  legislator  I  would  I  expect 
that  I  could,  with  some  research  help,  discuss 
what  is  necessary  for  the  future,  but  as  an 
ombudsman  I  would  see  very  clearly  what  is 
necessary  today.  Again,  I  submit  those  as 
reasons  why  I  think  we  should  be  both. 

Of  recent  date,  as  members  well  know,  the 
federal  government  has  seen  fit,  indeed,  to 
provide  its  members  with  riding  offices.  Nov/ 
just  because  the  federal  government  has  seen 
fit  to  do  it  doesn't  necessarily  make  it  right 
in  my  mind  for  a  lot  of  reasons.  I  think  the 
fact  it  has  done  it  has  put  us,  as  members  of 
this  assembly,  in  an  extremely  untenable  posi- 
tion. Whether  we  like  it  or  not,  we  are  go- 
ing to  be  in  a  direct  comparative  position  with 
our  federal  counterparts. 

Mr.  Martel:  Quebec  has  had  it  for  three 
years. 

Mr.  Parrott:  That  may  be  but  in  Ontario  it 
is  going  to  be  here  for  us.  When  one  con- 
siders that  perhaps  the  provincial  member 
deals  far  more  directly  with  the  problems  of 
people  than  do  the  members  of  the  federal 
House- 
Mr.^  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Sarnia):  The  member 
doesn't  have  to  say  perhaps. 

Mr.  Parrott:  All  right,  I  will  amend  that 
with  the  member's  approval.  Indeed,  we  do 
deal  with  the  problems  of  people  far  more 
direcdy  than  do  our  federal  friends  and  that 
is  the  great  joy  of  being  a  member  of  this 
House.  We  are  dealing  with  people  and  I 
would  not  have  it  otherwise. 

I  am  very  mindful  of  this  particular  prob- 
lem right  now  because,  as  the  members  of  this 
chamber  well  know,  I  have  had  the  great  mis- 
fortune to  lose  my  federal  friend  and  mem- 
ber of  long-standing  for  Oxford,  the  great 
Wally  Nesbitt. 

An  hon.  member:  He  was  a  great  fellow. 

Mr.  Parrott:  It  has  given  me  a  new  per- 
spective on  what  the  two  roles  might  be. 


I  know  there  are  a  lot  of  problems  with 
unemployment  insurance,  but  apart  from 
that  one  the  real  people  problems  of  this 
province  are  related  to  the  activities  of  this 
chamber.  There  is  no  way  that  a  member, 
under  the  present  conditions,  can  even  re- 
motely c-ope  with   the  problem: 

I  would  like  to  say  a  word  or  two  about 
my  great  friend,  Mr.  Nesbitt,  the  member  for 
Oxford  for  some  20  years.  When  one  looks 
at  the  election  results  of  his  various  terms- 
there  were  seven,  eight  or  nine  of  them  in 
total;  one  of  the  safest  .seats,  I  guess,  in  the 
Dominion  of  Canada— one  would  have  to  ask 
himself  why?  The  reason  was  very  obvious. 
He  served  his  people  well.  That  record  is 
without  question  and  they  knew  it  on  the 
day  of  election.  That  is  the  way  it  should  be, 
in  my  mind,  and  I  think  we  all  lost  a  great 
servant  of  the  people  when  Mr.  Nesbitt 
passed  away  last  Christmas. 

If  it  had  worked  well  for  him— not  in  the 
process  of  being  re-elected;  if  that  is  the 
point  I  have  made,  I'm  sorry,  it  has  been 
made  badly— it  was  not  that  Mr.  Nesbitt 
could  be  re-elected  but,  indeed,  we  could 
recognize  that  he  was  serving  the  people.  One 
would  only  need  to  walk  the  streets  of  our 
communities  to  know  just  how  deeply  he  was 
missed  and  how  greatly  he  was  needed,  which 
is  more  to  the  point  and  right  on.  He  was 
needed  because  without  a  man  of  his  calibre 
and  of  his  standing  there  are  many  injustices 
in  this  society  which  will  not  be  remedied. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  must  play  this  dual 
role.  If  that  were  the  case,  I  felt  I  had,  per- 
haps, to  try  an  experiment  and  if  I  could 
take  a  few  minutes  of  the  time  of  this  House, 
I  will  tell  members  what  we  have  tried  in 
Oxford.  We  have  simply  put  the  secretary' 
who  was  normally  associated  with  my  ofiice 
here  in  Queen's  Park,  in  the  riding  on  a  full- 
time  basis.  Let  me  assure  members  that  ex- 
periment is  working,  if  we  can  measure  it  by 
the  number  of  calls  she  is  receiving.  I  feel 
sorry  for  her.  Quite  frequently,  I  can't  get  the 
line  to  get  home.  She  is  on  that  telephone 
almost  incessantly,  but  there  are  still  some 
unanswered  problems. 

What  am  I  able  to  do  here  in  Queen's 
Park?  Well,  sometimes  I  am  able  to  scrounge 
a  few  typed  letters,  and  I  go  to  the  coffee 
machine  and  make  my  own  coffee.  Indeed,  I 
lick  my  own  envelopes. 

Mr.  Deans:  Oh,  heavens,  no. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Exactly,  "Oh,  heavens,  no." 
It's  a  crime— 

An  hon.  member:  Gee,  that's  tough. 


748 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Parrott:  —that  a  member  who  is 
attempting  to  serve  the  people  of  his  area  is 
reduced  to  an  occupation— and  I  hope  that  the 
members  won't  interject  here  and  suggest  that 
I  am  making  derogatory  remarks  about  that 
type  of  occupation,  not  at  all;  but  I  think— 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  The  hon.  member  has  better 
things  to  do  with  his  time  than  lick  envelopes; 
that's  what  he  is  saying. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Precisely,  and  I  appreciate 
that  comment  from  the  member  for  Samia. 
He  knows  what  I  am  saying  and  I  feel  that 
he  is  agreeing  with  the  comment,  at  least  in 
part. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I'd  like  the  hon.  member 
to  recognize  the  legislative  responsibility  of 
the  opposition  members.  Much  more  onerous 
tasks  are  superimposed  upon  the  opposition 
member's  responsibility. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  not  suggesting  that  our 
roles  are  identical.  I  recognize  that  they  are 
different.  I  am  going  to  come  to  that  in  just 
one  minute,  but  before  I  do,  I  am  wondering 
if  the  i)eople  of  this  province  fully  recognize 
that  if  one  does  try  an  experiment,  such  as 
the  one  I  am  presently  attempting  in  Oxford, 
someone  still  has  to  pay  the  rent  on  that 
oflBce.  Someone  has  to  pay  for  the  phone; 
indeed,  if  a  person  wants  to  call  into  that 
oflBce,  the  citizen  has  to  pay  for  the  long- 
distance call.  That's  not  fair.  I  think  that  the 
people  of  this  province  should  be  able  to 
contact  their  members  at  will  on  a  direct 
basis,  without  cost  to  themselves.  I  enjoy 
that  contact  with  the  people  of  my  ridina, 
and  I  am  sure  the  other  members  of  thTs 
House  do. 

There's  another  alternative  that  we  could 
take:  We  could  consider  the  possibility  of 
staffing  our  offices  with  volunteers.  There  are 
many  jobs  within  a  member's  oflSce  that  might 
be  done  by  volunteers,  but  I  have  attempted 
that  experiment  and  it  has  failed.  I  think 
there  is  a  necessity  to  have  a  continuity  of 
secretarial  help-help  that  a  member  can 
count  on,  that  will  be  there  and  that  will  do 
as  he  asks  and  will  continue  to  do  so.  Volun- 
teer help  might  be  fine  for  an  election,  but  it 
doesn't  help  the  member  to  serve  the  riding 
he  represents. 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
ask  Mr.  Camp  and  those  members  associated 
with  him  on  the  commission  on  the  Legisla- 
ture to  look  again  at  their  recommendations. 
As  I  understand  it,  we  still  have  a  report  to 
receive  and  I  think  it  is  not  too  late.  To  be 
a    little   more    specific,    I    would   like    to    see 


something  similar  to  what  our  federal  con- 
freres have. 

I  am  not  asking  for  any  great  change  here 
in  the  provincial  assembly  but,  following  up 
on  the  point  made  by  the  member  for  Samia, 
I  would  say  that  we  can't  treat  each  riding 
the  same.  I  think  it's  a  mistake  to  try  to  do  so. 
Some  of  us  are  within  commuting  distance 
of  our  ridings.  Some  of  us  have  to  leave  on 
Monday  morning  and  not  see  our  ridings 
again.  Others  are  home  every  evening.  So 
we  have  got  to  treat  our  ridings  differently— 
the  report  said  so— but  there  are  still  some 
areas  where  they  haven't  recognized  the  great 
differences  that  we  are  faced  with  as  mem- 
bers. 

I  am  not  asking  that  the  commission  should 
not  hold  us  accountable.  I  am  saying,  how- 
ever, that  the  members  could  perhaps  present 
themselves  to  the  Speaker's  office  with  the 
proposals  that  they  felt  were  needed  to  serve 
his  area;  and  having  done  so,  within  certain 
broad  general  limits  such  as  our  travel 
allowance,  that  staffing  problem  would  be 
solved. 

I  think  that  to  do  less  means  we  cannot 
properly  serve  in  our  role  and,  secondly,  it 
will  keep  a  lot  of  people  who  are  more  than 
capable  of  doing  so  from  serving  in  this 
chamber  when  they  see  the  workload.  Not 
that  I  think  any  of  us  is  complaining  par- 
ticularly about  that  workload;  as  I  said  be- 
fore, we  knew  it,  we  asked  for  it,  and  many 
of  us  are  enjoying  it.  But  I  think  that  many 
of  us  are  still  concerned  that  we  are  not  able 
to  provide  the  type  of  service  to  the  people 
of  our  ridings  that  we  would  like  to  do,  and 
I  hope  that  those  members  of  the  commission 
on  the  Legislature  may  well  reconsider  their 
position  and  give  us  some  individual  deter- 
mination within  our  ridings,  let  us  be  account- 
able, but  let  us  be  able  to  do  a  job  for  the 
people  of  Ontario.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Perth. 

Mr.  H.  EdighoflFer  (Perth):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  am  very  happy  once  again  to  take 
part  in  this  Throne  debate.  I  guess  the  usual 
custom  is  to,  first  of  all,  offer  congratulations 
to  the  new  ministers  and  to  the  new  parlia- 
mentary assistants.  As  I  look  around  the 
chamber  I  see  one  parliamentary  assistant  here 
and  I  just  hope  that  he  will  pass  those  con- 
gratulations along  to  the  rest. 

I  also,  Mr.  Speaker,  would  like  to  say  that 
I  am  pleased  to  see  you  back  in  your  position, 
hale  and  hearty  and  presiding  over  this  House 
with  your  usual  good  wit  and  firm  hand- 
Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  The  member 
had  better  qualify  that. 


APRIL  4.  1974 


749 


Mr.  EdighofiFer:  —and  I  hope  you  continue 
to  enjoy  your  duties.  I  might  also  say  that  I 
am  very  glad  to  see  that  Uie  acting  Speaker 
is  looking  well  today. 

In  reply  to  the  Throne  Speech,  Mr. 
-Speaker,  I  looked  it  over  carefully  once, 
twice,  even  a  third  time,  and  it  is  really  most 
difficult  to  explain  to  anyone  really  what  is 
<x>ntained  in  those  historic  15  pages.  The 
newspapers  carried  many  stories  with  lots  of 
predictions  of  what  might  be  contained 
therein,  and  it  again  served  the  usual  purpose 
for  the  government,  I  presimie. 

It  is  interesting  that  after  the  Throne 
Speech  was  read  the  editorials  in  many  of  the 
papers  the  next  day  tried  to  outline  some  of 
the  programmes.  But  the  headlines  really  told 
the  story.  One  stated,  "A  Far  from  Dynamic 
Programme."  Another  one  said,  "Many  Good 
Proposals  in  Bland  Throne  Speech."  Another 
one  said,  "Throne  Speech  General  But  Not 
Specific."  And  just  to  be  more  specific,  one 
editorial  stated  that  when  Vincent  Massey 
was  Governor  General  of  Canada  he  noted 
that  his  public  utterances  were  confined  to 
"Governor  Generalities." 

That  same  editorial,  Mr.  Speaker,  went  on 
lo  say: 

Many  of  the  proposals  are  laudable,  such 
as  the  increase  in  aid  for  elderly  and  dis- 
labled  persons  and  for  regions  such  as  the 
northern  part  of  the  province  which  feel 
that  they  have  been  neglected.  However,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  wait  until  more  details 
are  given  to  learn  the  full  extent  of  the 
proposals.  Efforts  will  be  made  to  make 
nousing  more  readily  available,  particularly 
for  those  with  low  incomes,  although  again 
the  specific  details  are  withheld. 

In  response  to  the  concern  over  the  grow- 
ing shortage  of  good  land  for  agricidtural 
purposes,  proposals  are  advanced  to  help 
tensure  that  land  acquired  for  development 
•will  be  kept  in  agricultural  production  until 
the  development  occurs. 

Interesting  suggestions  for  improving 
safety  on  the  highways  include  compulsory 
use  of  seatbelts  and  new  measures  against 
drunken  drivers.  Presumably  a  drunk  driver 
With  an  unfastened  seat  belt  will  be  in 
double  jeopardy.  All  in  all,  it  is  a  pro- 
igramme  which  should  keep  the  Legislature 
busy  for  some  months  and  may  well  prepare 
the  ground  for  a  new  provincial  election 
campaign. 

Then  it  finished  off  by  saying:  "Like  the 
federal  Throne  Speech  before  it,  the  provin- 
cial one  didn't  say  very  much." 


It  is  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  just 
prior  to  the  Throne  Speech  here  in  the 
Legislature  one  of  our  colleagues  was  in  the 
city  of  Stratford  talking  to  a  group  of 
students  and  a  service  club.  Naturally  the 
people  in  the  audience,  because  of  their 
active  interest,  wanted  some  up  to  date 
information  on  the  operations  of  govern- 
ment and  they  questioned  the  parliamentary 
assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Revenue  about 
what  might  be  in  the  Throne  Speech.  Accord- 
ing to  the  newspaper  report  the  headline 
said:  "MPP  Drops  Some  Hints."  But  as  I 
looked  over  the  column,  he  was  not  too  ac- 
curate and  did  not  cover  too  many  problems 
mentioned  in  the  Throne  Speech.  The  article 
did  mention  that  he  was  questioned  about 
finances  for  political  campaign  and  he  did 
say  that  he  thought  there  would  be  legisla- 
tion calling  for  disclosure  of  contributions. 
He  also  said: 

I  would  like  to  cut  down  on  election 
spending  as  much  as  you  would,  but  we 
have  to  spend  what  we  think  we  must  to 
get  elected.  We  don't  like  to  take  chances. 

And  for  your— 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  for  Lon- 
don North  (Mr.  Walker),  was  it? 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  I'm  sorry  he's  not  here, 
but  I  did  send  out  a  questionnaire  last  fall, 
and  on  that  questionnaire  I  asked:  "Should 
there  be  limits  on  spending  by  candidates  in 
election  campaigns?"  The  answers  that  came 
back  were  92.3  per  cent  yes,  and  5.8  per 
cent  no.  So  it  really  shows  that  the  govern- 
ment is  not  fully  aware  of  what  the  grass- 
roots opinion  really  is. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Once  more. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  one 
sentence  in  the  Throne  Speech  which  really 
intrigued  me  and  it  is  this:  "You  will  be 
asked  to  approve  legislation  which  will  re- 
quire an  environmental  assessment  of  major 
new  development  projects." 

I  like  that  sentence  very  much,  because 
after  what  has  been  taking  place  in  our  area 
with  Ontario  Hydro  I'm  just  sorr>-  that  this 
wasn't  in  the  Throne  Speech  last  year. 

My  colleague,  the  member  for  Huron- 
Bruce,  has  spoken  ver>'  recently  and  placed 
in  the  record  of  this  House  his  concern  and 
the  concern  of  the  people  in  the  area,  for  the 
manner  in  which  Ontario  H>clro  has  decided 
to  acquire  transmission  line  rights  of  way 
over  western  Ontario,  and  particularly  over 
class  1  and  2  farmland.  I  really  fed  it's  my 
duty  to   add   my  few  words   to   express   the 


750 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


objection  of  many  residents  of  Wallace 
township  who  want  to  continue  farming 
without  huge  towers  on  their  property. 

I  have  much  faith  in  the  intellect  and  the 
reasonableness  of  farmers;  they  are  in  busi- 
ness and  want  to  produce  food  for  us. 

Mr.  J.  M.  Turner  (Peterborough):  That's 
pretty  weak. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  If  Ontario  Hydro  could 
show  that  this  power  is  necessary  and  that 
there  is  no  other  feasible  way  to  get  it 
to  the  market,  I  know  they  would  not  de- 
prive other  people  of  this  source  of  power. 

Last  year,  Ontario  Hydro  exported  5.36 
billion  kw  hours  to  the  US  at  a  profit  of 
$31.7  million.  It's  expected  that  this  will 
increase  in  1974.  These  farmers  do  not  see 
why  all  this  power  export  is  necessary,  par- 
ticularly if  it  reduces  agricultural  production. 

In  this  regard,  the  editor  of  the  Listowel 
Banner  recently  commented  as  follows— and 
I  think  this  is  important  to  put  on  the  rec- 
ord. I  quote  from  the  editorial  dated  Feb. 
28,  1974: 

Hydro  might  be  absolutely  right  when 
it  states  that  the  amount  of  land  cost  to 
production  because  of  transmission  lines  is 
minimal,  but  a  farmer  faced  with  losing 
a  600-ft  wide  strip  from  a  100-  or  200- 
acre  farm  can  hardly  be  expected  to  wel- 
come the  prospect. 

While  it  might  be  hard  for  Hydro  en- 
gineers and  lav/yers  to  understand,  most 
farmers  have  an  attachment  to  their  land 
bordering  on  human  relationship.  Their 
land,  especially  if  it  is  a  family  farm,  rep- 
resents a  lot  more  than  soil,  trees,  crops, 
or  even  dollars  and  cents.  It  is  the  result 
of  years  of  effort,  planning,  sacrifice,  toil 
and  sweat,  and  to  be  forced  to  sign  away 
a  foot,  let  alone  a  wide  strip  of  such  land 
to  make  way  for  monstrous  structures  of 
cement  and  steel  is  a  bitter  pill. 

It  is  not  that  farmers  do  not  realize  the 
value  of  hydro.  They  do.  Indeed  many  of 
them  are  among  Hydro's  best  customers. 
On  a  day-to-day,  man-to-man  basis,  no 
one  has  more  respect  for  the  Hydro  line- 
man than  does  the  farmer.  But  as  far  as 
the  farmer  is  concerned,  the  men  at  the 
top  of  Ontario  Hydro  are  something  quite 
different.  They  are  the  people  who  double- 
talked  their  fathers  years  ago  and  who  are 
now  forcing  their  neighbours  to  face  land 
expropriation.  Given  such  a  situation,  plus 
the  fact  that  its  own  maps  are  not  abso- 
lutely according  to  Hoyle,  Hydro  can 
hardly  be  surprised  to  find  good,  respon- 
sible  farmers   lining  up   on  the  other  side 


of  the  fence.  If  Hydro  has  changed  its 
method  as  it  claims,  it  is  going  to  take 
more   than   words   to  convince  the  fanner. 

So  ends  the  quote. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  subject  is  very  prominent 
in  the  minds  of  many  people  in  the  nortli 
part  of  my  riding  and  in  many  parts  of 
ridings  to  the  east  and  to  the  west.  Recently 
there  was  a  letter  in  many  of  the  newspapers 
in  Ontario  written  by  a  member  of  a  veter- 
inary clinic  who,  I  think,  is  very  much  aware 
of  what  our  land  in  our  area  is  used  for,  and 
how  important  it  is  for  the  production  of 
food. 

Just  in  case  the  Minister  of  Energy  ( Mr. 
McKeough)  or  the  Premier  or  members  of 
Ontario  Hydro  have  missed  this,  I  feel  it 
should  go  on  the  record  because  it  shows 
what  will  take  place  if  this  Hydro  line  goes 
as  Ontario  Hydro  wants  it  to.  It  states: 

As  individuals  who  live  in  and  serve  the 
portion  of  Perth  county  being  affected  by 
the  proposed  Ontario  Hydro  corridor  from 
Bradley  junction  to  the  Georgetown-Guelph 
area,  we  would  like  to  express  our  grave 
concern.  We  serve  the  farming  community 
at  Wallace  township  as  well  as  adjacent 
portions  of  Wellington  and  Huron  counties. 
In  this  area  we  find  a  high  percentage  of 
farms  stocked  to  capacity  with,  predomi- 
nantly, cattle  and  hogs.  In  fact,  they  rely 
on  a  large  volume  of  their  grain  needs  to 
come  from  other  areas.  Fanners  in  this 
area,  with  100  acres  of  land,  would  lose 
13.6  acres,  with  the  exception  of  approxi- 
mately six  who  would  lose  60  of  the  100 
acres. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  It's 
also  bean  country,  too. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  To  continue: 

This  would  constitute  a  loss  of  13.6  per 
cent  of  their  resources  to  provide  adequate 
feed  for  their  livestock.  We  are  certain  that 
a  large  portion  of  farmers  would  have  to 
reduce  the  number  of  livestock  kept  on 
these  farms. 

Perth,  Huron  and  Wellington  counties 
are  among  the  most  productive  agricultural 
counties  in  Ontario.  A:  Perth  county's 
total  milk  production  annually  is  second 
only  to  Oxford  county  in  Ontario;  B:  In 
1973  Perth  county  shipped  78,263  head  of 
cattle,  which  was  more  than  any  other 
except  Waterloo.  Perth  county  shipped 
331,049  hogs  in  1972  and  was  second  to 
none.  The  preferred  corridor  through  Wal- 
lace township  by   Ontario  Hydro  will   re- 


APRIL  4,  1974 


751 


(juire  1,200  acres.  In  the  total  length  of  this 
one  corridor  crossing  Bruce,  Huron,  Perth 
and  Wellington  counties  over  9,000  acres 
will  be  required. 

Ontario  Hydro  suggests  that  if  all  facets 
of  construction  proceed  perfectly  a  mini- 
mum of  1V4  years  per  tower  line  would  be 
refjuired,  a  total  of  4'/^  years  minimum  for 
the  construction  of  the  three  lines.  There- 
fore, upwards  of  9,000  acres,  a  good  portion 
of  which  is  No.  1  and  No.  2  grade  agricul- 
tural land,  will  be  out  of  production  for  at 
least  five  crop  years.  Besides  removal  of  this 
large  acreage  temporarily,  over  40  acres  of 
prime  No.  1  and  over  100  acres  of  No.  2 
land  would  permanently  be  removed  from 
production  by  tower  line  bases. 

With  consumer  food  prices  climbing  at 
an  alarming  rate,  we  caimot  justify  the  re- 
moval of  this  type  of  land  from  production. 
It  isn't  that  we  are  self-suflBcient.   During 
the  dairy  year  commencing  April  1,   1973 
to  March  31,  1974,  we  will  import  approx- 
imately   47    million    pounds    of    butter    as 
well   as   a   large   amount  of  cheese.   It   is 
commonly  accepted  that  American  beef  is 
continuously  flowing  into  Canada. 
This   letter  continues  on  and  compares  pro- 
duction and  shows  how  it  has  increased  in 
the  last  three  and  four  years  regarding  milk 
and  beef.  The  final  sentence  in  this  letter  is 
most  important.  It  says: 

We  feel  that  the  agricultural  contribu- 
tions of  Perth  county  and  its  neighbours  are 
important  and  hereby  request  an  in-depth 
objective  look  at  the  long-range  effects  of 
such  a  corridor. 

This  letter  was  submitted  to  many  newspapers 
by  the  Listowel  veterinary  clinic. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  feel  Ontario  .Hydro  should 
have  its  policy  in  black  and  white  well  ahead 
of  construction.  Because  of  past  experience 
many  land  owners  feel  that  they  are  dealing 
with  a  giant  steam-roller.  Many  editorials 
have  been  written  in  this  regard.  Many  peo- 
ple have  discussed  this.  They  feel  that  the 
people  who  are  working  for  Hydro  out  in 
the  area  are  responsible  people,  but  they  are 
only  working  on  orders  from  head  office  here 
in  Toronto  and  feel  that  they  cannot  count 
on  the  decisions  that  are  made  out  there. 

Ontario  Hydro  has  spent  thousands  and 
maybe  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  ad- 
vertising how  to  live  better  electrically.  As 
people  have  pointed  out  on  many  occasions, 
maybe  we  have  been  brainwashed  and  mavbe 
we  expect  too  much  of  Hydro.  But  now  they 
are  reversing  their  stand.  I  just  read  in  one 
of   the   papers   the   other   day   that   Ontario 


Hydro,  along  with  the  Ministry  of  Industry 
and  Touri.sm,  has  planned  11  seminars  acio^ 
Ontario.  They  are  alerting  companies  on  how 
to  cut  out  electricity  costs.  That  article  stated 
they  were  sending  out  7,000  letters  to  com- 
panies across  the  province  telling  them  about 
these  seminars  and  how  to  cut  out  thc-se  elec- 
trical costs.  It  says: 

The  courses  will  be  designed  to  con- 
vince businessmen  that  savings  of  up  to 
30  per  cent  are  not  uncommon  with  rela- 
tively minor  investment  and  new  e<|uip- 
ment.  [Then  the  article  goes  on  to  savl 
The  ministry  [and  I  presume  that  is  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism]  will  in- 
troduce new  products  aimed  at  cutting 
heating  costs.  One  is  a  thermostat  that 
automatically  turns  back  when  plants  are 
empty  at  night.  Another  is  an  infra-red 
heater  that  is  electrically  economical. 

However,  they  will  have  four  lectures  and 
are  holding  11  planning  seminars.  I  think  the 
cost  will  be  $5  for  the  members  of  industry 
to  be  present.  It  states  in  the  paper  the 
registration  will  naturally  include  lunch,  be- 
cause this  government  loves  lunches,  and 
audio-vision  displays. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Nobody  is 
going  to  pay  $5  to  listen  to  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism.  They  are  wasting  their 
money  if  they  do. 

An  hon,  member:  Wining  and  dining  them. 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  In  that  area,  yes. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  should  send  a  tape. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Wine  them  and  dine  them. 
That's  the  government  policy.  Maybe  on 
Jordan  wines. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  Maybe,  Mr.  Speaker,  Hy- 
dro prefers  power  before  food,  and  that  is 
what  a  lot  of  other  people  may  have  to  live 
on  if  Hydro  doesn't  change  its  thinking. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Or  Moog  and  Davis. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  Just  before  I  leave  the 
subject  of  Ontario  Hydro,  I  wish  to  say  that 
there  are  a  group  of  concerned  farmers  of  the 
united  townships  of  Tumberry,  Howick,  Wal- 
lace, Maryborough,  Peel,  Woolwich  and  Pil- 
kington  who  really  reject  Hydro's  proposal 
and  suggested  that  these  lines  could  go  fur- 
ther north,  which  would  be  shorter  and  prob- 
ably cheaper.  I  hope  that  Ontario  Hydro 
and  the  cabinet  take  a  good  look  at  their 
proposal  and  agree  with  their  wishes. 


752 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  just  like  to  say  a 
few  words  about  land-use  planning.  I  was 
hoping  to  see  something  substantial  in  the 
Throne  Speech  regarding  land-use  planning. 
In  1973  the  Throne  Speech  stated  that  there 
would  be  major  new  programmes  designed  to 
ensure  sound  planning,  and  particularly  to 
preserve  the  land  resource  for  the  use  and 
advantage  of  future  generations.  That  was  in 
1973,  but  in  1974  the  government  has  com- 
pletely forgotten  this  need. 

Last  year,  as  I  mentioned  earlier,  I  sent 
out  a  questionnaire;  and  on  that  question- 
naire I  asked  two  questions  that  had  to  do 
with  land-use  planning.  One  question  was: 
"Should  Ontario  have  an  overall  land-use 
plan?"  Again,  the  people  answered  with  a  re- 
sounding "yes,"  78.2  per  cent  for  and  9.2 
per  cent  against.  I  also  went  a  little  further 
and  asked:  "Should  agricultural  land  be  des- 
ignated and  accompanied  by  a  special  re- 
duced tax  rate?"  Again,  67  per  cent  said 
"yes,"  21  per  cent  "no,"  and  11  per  cent 
had  no  comment. 

I  think  the  people  are  really  looking  for 
direction,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  to  date  nothing 
substantial  has  been  offered.  If  the  amount 
of  energy  and  money  that  has  gone  into  the 
government  policy  regarding  regional  gov- 
ernment had  been  expended  on  land-use 
planning,  we  would  not  be  in  the  predica- 
ment we  are  in  now. 

I  also  have  a  word  or  two  to  say  about 
nursing  homes,  Mr.  Speaker— 

An  hen.  member:  Yes,  good  idea. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  I  was  glad  to  see  the  new 
Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller)  appointed  be- 
cause, of  course,  he  was  parliamentary  as- 
sistant to  the  previous  Minister  of  Health; 
I  have  had  experience  with  him  when  he 
was  parliamentary  assistant,  and  he  took  a 
great  interest  in  extended  health  care. 

With  this  experience,  I  hope  he  will  take 
time  to  assess  the  further  need  for  more 
nursing  homes  in  many  areas.  To  date, 
though,  it  appears  that  the  ministry  has  been 
approving  additions  to  present  homes  or  ap- 
proving new  facilities  and  looked  at  the  need 
only  on  a  statistical  basis.  That  is,  if  the 
area  has  four  beds  per  1,000  of  population, 
then  another  area  can't  have  more  beds  if 
they  have  four  beds  per  1,000. 

I  hope  that  the  minister  looks  a  little 
closer  at  the  need  and  gives  consideration 
to  each  area  of  the  province  on  its  own  con- 
ditions. Many  areas  find  that  they  are  per- 
haps more  dormitory  areas  or  have  a  bigger 
percentage  of  retired  people.  Naturally,  if 
this  is  the  case,  the  need  could  be  greater. 


And  if  there  are  a  number  of  good  homes 
in  the  area,  1  suggest  that  he  look  very 
closely  at  updating  or  adding  to  the  present 
homes.  I  know  from  my  own  experience  in 
visiting  nursing  homes  in  my  area,  that  the 
smaller  nursing  home  gives  the  kind  of  care 
that  those  patients  and  their  families  appre- 
ciate, because  of  the  more  home-like  and 
human  attitude. 

Not  too  long  ago,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  March 
27,  there  was  an  announcement  in  my  ridinj? 
regarding  transportation.  I  have  talked  about 
transportation  in  this  House  since  1967,  per- 
taining particularly  to  better  access  to  High- 
way 401  from  the  city  of  Stratford.  On  that 
date,  March  27,  the  Ministry  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications  armounced  that 
they  were  considering  a  new  highway  from 
New  Hamburg  to  Stratford;  that's  Highway 
7  and  8.  I'm  sure  that  when  you've  gone  up 
to  the  festival,  Mr.  Speaker,  you've  noticed 
how  clogged  that  road  really  is.  But  I  have 
to  say  that  in  announcing  this  highway  the\' 
stated  that  we  would  not  have  it  until  1980 
or  1982,  and  it  might  not  even  be  con- 
structed until  1985. 

An  hon.  member:  Shame. 

An  hon.  member:  Terrible. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  Now,  they  have  had  a 
study  team  there  for  about  14  or  16  months. 
I  saw  a  figure  of  the  cost  in  the  newspaper, 
but  I  won't  repeat  it  because  I'm  not  certain 
that  it's  exactly  correct.  But  they've  had  that 
team  working  for  over  a  year— mind  you, 
with  some  public  participation— trying  to  sort 
out  the  best  route.  And  they  finally  decided. 

However,  I  found  it  most  interesting— and 
I  attended  many  of  the  public  meetings  in 
the  area— that  a  member  of  the  study  team 
stated  specifically  at  many  of  the  meetings 
that  the  minister  had  the  final  say  and  that 
the  local  member  would  have  input.  I  would 
just  like  to  record  at  this  time  that,  as  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  the  representative  of  the 
study  team  was  not  exactly  correct;  I've 
talked  to  the  previous  minister  and  to  the 
present  minister  and  to  date,  after  offering 
my  services,  I  have  not  been  asked  for  any 
particular  advice  on  this  highway. 

This  route,  Mr.  Speaker— and  I  am  sure 
you  are  aware  that  part  of  this  route  is  con- 
structed from  Kitchener  to  New  Hamburg  at 
the  moment— this  route  is  planned  for  four 
lanes.  But  then  that  is  for  1991.  Imagine— 
1991. 

This  really  shows  how  fast  this  particuLir 
ministry  really  works. 


.\PRIL  4.  1974 


753 


Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agriail- 
ture  and  Food):  Does  the  hon.  member  want 
a  four-lane  highway? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Eaton  (Middlesex  South):  The 
minister  will  give  him  one. 

Mr.  R.  F  Nixon:  I'll  bet  they  call  it 
"Stewart  Highway." 

Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  I'm  just  coming  to  that 
now. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  Well,  the  minister  certain- 
ly has  been  up  in  Perth  quite  a  bit;  he  should 
have  heard  that. 

An  hon.  member:  No,  he  has  never  got 
over  losing  Perth. 

An  hon.  member:  He  won't  get  over  Huron 
for  a  long  time  either. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  We're  pulling  the  net  tighter 
and  tighter. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  He's  in  the 
wringer. 

Mr.  EdighoflFer:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  it's  in- 
teresting that  when  this  study  team  was  in 
our  area  on  March  27,  they  of  course  tried 
to  soften  things  a  bit  and  stated  that  they 
now  would  be  doing  a  study  to  see  whether 
they  should  upgrade  the  present  Highway  7 
and  8. 

I  know  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  is  most  interested  in  how  I  feel  on  this 
subject,  and  I  would  say,  first  of  all,  that 
they  should  have  upgraded  the  present  High- 
way 7  and  8  five  or  10  years  ago.  So  they 
are  way  behind  time  in  that  respect. 

I  would  also  like  to  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
from  my  experience  of  driving  on  the  present 
two-lane  highway  from  New  Hamburg  to 
Kitchener,  which  is  designed  to  be  eventually 
a  four-lane  highway,  it's  a  very  badly  de- 
signed highway  for  two  lanes  and,  I  think, 
it's  very  dangerous.  So  if  this  particular  high- 
way is  going  to  be  built,  Mr  Speaker,  I 
would  have  to  say  that  this  highway  should 
be  built  as  a  four-lane  highway  immediately. 
The  only  thing  else  I  would  add  to  that  is 
that,  since  that  we  have  a  new  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  (Mr. 
Rhodes)  and  because  the  announcement  came 
from  his  oflBce,  I  would  like  to  invite  him 
to  come  up  to  our  area  as  soon  as  possible. 
I  can't  supply  a  chauffeur,  but  I  would  be 
glad  to  take  him  over  the  route  and  discuss 
it  further  with  him  personally. 


Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Why  doesn't  the  mem- 
ber get  the  Women's  Institute  group  and 
take  them  along  with  them? 

Mr.    Haggerty:    That    is   by    hovercraft   so 

he  won't  get  all  the  bumps. 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  They  are  all  right  now.  I 
was  out  to  see  them  the  other  night. 

Mr.  Speaker,  just  before  closing  I  wotild 
like  to  say  that  many  areas  were  covered  in 
the  Throne  Speech.  Mind  you,  we  didn't  get 
many  details,  but  there  was  one  point  I  no- 
ticed which  was  left  out  of  the  Throne 
Speech.  It  seems  as  if  these  types  of  points 
are  quite  often  left  out  of  government  pro- 
nouncements. Not  too  long  ago— I  believe  it 
was  on  March  15— the  London  Free  Press 
had  an  editorial.  I  am  always  interested  in 
the  editorials  of  the  London  Free  Press  be- 
cause generally  they  are  quite  favourable  to 
the  government.  But  this  one  here  was  en- 
titled, "Lose  Your  Job  At  A  Profit."  I  would 
just  like  to  quote  from  this  editorial. 

The  Ontario  government  has  evidently 
adopted  an  intriguing  programme  of  job 
renewal  made  easy.  When  it  is  desired  to 
mov«e  a  high  civil  servant  out  of  a  job  and 
replace  him  with  the  government's  latest 
choice,  just  make  certain  that  it  is  worth 
his  while  to  leave.  It  is  very  simple.  It 
smooths  the  way  for  everybody  and  no 
one  is  hurt.  It  is  an  even  simpler  proce- 
dure when  it  is  all  done  with  public 
money. 

The  latest  example  of  the  government's 
regime  of  high-mindedness  in  job  replace- 
ment is  the  disclosure  that  A.  A.  Rowan- 
Legg  was  paid  a  total  of  $42,000  to  termi- 
nate his  employment  as  Ontario  Agent 
General  in  Britain  and  turn  the  job  over 
to  former  Londoner  Ward  Cornell. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Who  is  that? 

Mr.  Edighoffer.  Well,  he  was  also  distin- 
guished as  Mr.  Hockey  Night  in  Canada. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  He  is  really  selling  On- 
tario products  and  food  produce. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Does  he  still  do  those  Avco 
Finance  commercials? 

Mr.  Edighoffer:  To  go  on  with  the  edi- 
torial, all  that  was  in  there  was  that  he  was 
knows  as  Mr.  Hockey  Night  in  Canada  and 
he  was  the  campaign  manager  of  the  Treas- 
urer (Mr.  White). 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


-54 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  hon.  member:  Could  he  stick  handle? 

Mr.  EdighofFer:  It  said  he  was  most  inter- 
ested in  supplying  public  relations  expertise 
to  various  enterprises  of  the  Ontario  Con- 
servative Party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Let  me  tell  the  member 
he   has  been   excellent   at  all   those, 

Mr.  EdighoflFer:  It  could  be. 

Hon.   Mr.   Bennett:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Deans:  Financially  at  least. 

Mr.  EdighoflFer:  I  am  coming  to  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  That's  good. 

Mr.  EdighoflFer:  The  editorial  said: 

There  was  a  new  twist  to  the  procedure. 
Mr.  Rowan-Legg  received  $35,000  in  sever- 
ance pay  and  also  $7,000  for  job  relocation 
in  Toronto.  It  is  logical  enough  when  you 
think  of  it.  Relocation  payments  have  been 
in  order  for  urban  renewal.  Why  not  for 
job  renewal? 

The  system  was  established  in  a  more 
celebrated  case  with  the  Workmen's  Com- 
pensation Board.  It  worked  so  well  then 
that  the  Ontario  government  probably  de- 
cided to  use  it  regularly.  In  that  instance, 
a  Workmen's  Compensation  Board  member. 
Jack  Cauley,  was,  according  to  testimony 
at  a  public  hearing,  paid  handsomely  for 
simply  withdrawing  from  the  board  two 
years  early,  but  there  was  a  misunderstand- 
ing. Mr.  Cauley  understood  that,  in, 
addition  to  sick  leave  and  vacation  credit 
of  $62,000,  he  was  to  be  paid  his  regular 
salary  of  $27,000  a  year.  He  made  quite  a 
fuss. 

Then  later  it  was  the  turn  of  Mr. 
Cauley's  boss  in  the  Workmen's  Compen- 
sation Board,  Brig.  Gen.  Bruce  Legge,  to 
be  offered  a  year's  salary  to  resign.  Mr. 
Legge  had  been  coping  with  a  series  of 
administrative  problems  at  WCB.  He  was 
replaced  by  Michael  Starr,  a  former  federal 
Conservative  labour  minister. 

It  may  well  be  that  the  province  has 
been  a  beneficiary  in  all  of  these  moves. 
Both  Mr.  Starr  and  Mr.  Cornell  are  emi- 
nently capable  men.  It  is  the  implications 
of  the  replacement  system  that  are  in- 
teresting. The  discovery  may  have  been 
made  by  now  in  the  high  echelons  of  the 
Ontario  civil  service  that  the  best  way  to 
achieve  a  profitable  retirement  or  relocation 
is  to  find  a  friend  or  functionary  of  the 


Ontario   Conservative    Party   and   make    it 
essential  to  have  him  installed  in  your  job. 

And  that  ends  the  editorial  from  the  London 
Free  Press. 

An  hon.  member:  Right  on. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  London  Free  Press? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Great  paper. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  distributed  in 
Middlesex  too. 

Mr.  EdighoflFer:  I  think  it's  a  most  inter- 
esting editorial.  They  call  it,  "A  Job  Renewal 
Made  Easy  programme,"  and  when  I  look  at 
the  initials,  they  spell  JRME.  I  really  don't 
know  how  you  pronounce  that,  Mr.  Speaker, 
but  it  sounds  like  some  kind  of  a  germ.  I 
just  hope,  though,  that  the  people  of  Ontario 
will  soon  see  how  the  taxpayers'  money  is 
being  wasted. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  closing,  I  have  to  say  that 
the  Throne  Speech  again  was  too  general.  It 
has  not  really  shown  the  widest  desire  to 
relieve  any  of  the  immediate  problems  relat- 
ing to  inflation,  housing  or  land-use  planning, 
and  I  am  certainly  ready  to  support  the 
meaty  amendment  placed  by  my  leader. 

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

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  My  opening  remarks  are 
going  to  be  a  personal  reference  to  you,  sir. 
Occasionally  my  oldest  daughter,  who  is  now 
nine  years  old,  makes  an  appearance  in  the 
galleries  of  the  legislative  building  and,  need- 
less to  say,  your  dress  and  attire  and  general 
deportment  have  convinced  her  that  you  are 
absolutely  the  No.  1  person  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  She  shows 
soimd  judgement,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  She  thinks  that  you  control 
everything,  run  everything  and  that  you  are 
scrupulously  fair.  I  have  assured  her;  on  all 
three  counts  that  that  is  true. 

She  was  therefore  very  upset  at  the  end  of 
the  session  last  December  to  find  that  Mr. 
Speaker  had  taken  ill.  And  although  she 
wasn't  down  for  the  opening  this  time,  she 
was  very  relieved,  satisfied  and  happy,  as  we 
all  were,  when  I  reported  to  her  that  you 
were  indeed  in  good  health,  looking  firie  and 
everything   was   well    with    the   Provihce    of 


APRIL  4,  1974 


755 


Ontario.  She  says  she  certainly  hopes  that  it 
will  continue,  as  we  all  do. 

My  opening  remarks  in  terms  of  an  in- 
dividual area  of  concern  this  year  relate  to 
the  Americanization,  if  you  like,  or  the  de- 
Americanization  of  our  universities.  I  am 
concerned  by  a  recent  incident  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Windsor,  my  old  university,  with 
respect  to  the  non-aclmittance  of  graduate 
students— students  who  have  A  averages— 
from  one  section  of  clinical  psychology  into 
the  graduate  programme,  the  master's  pro- 
gramme. 

One  cannot  convey  to  the  Minister  of 
Colleges  and  Universities  (Mr.  Auld),  in  a 
question  in  the  House,  all  of  the  detailed 
concepts  which  I  would  hope  could  be  car- 
ried out  in  this  field.  But  my  question  to  him 
earlier  this  week  was  to  ask  if  he  would  see 
that  all  of  the  individual  disciplines  in  the 
universities  of  our  province  devised,  by 
themselves  and  on  common  agreement 
amoHgst  all  of  these  departments  from  all 
universities  a  rational  graduate  student 
admission  policy  that  would  take  into  account 
the  differing  backgrounds  and  the  diflFerent 
training  of  students  who  apply. 

When  I  was  department  head  of  chemistry 
at  the  University  of  Windsor,  which  I  be- 
came back  in  1968,  my  predecessor  and  the 
other  department  heads  of  chemistry  across 
this  province  had  already  decided  that  this 
was  what  they  should  do  within  the  discf- 
pline  of  chemistry  right  across  this  province. 
In  this  way,  if  they  were  called  upon  at  any 
time  to  justify  the  numbers  of  graduate  stu- 
dents they  were  admitting  or  why  they  ad- 
mitted those  particular  graduate  studen*^s, 
there  would  be  common  agreement  as  to  the 
actions  taken  and  why  they  were  taken.  By 
talking  to  each  other,  through  the  experience 
we  had,  we  attempted  to  devise  what  is  in 
effect  a  rational  policy  in  this  area. 

It  was  not  an  easy  thing  to  do,  as  we 
found.  It  had  been  going  on  for  about  a 
year  before  I  occupied  that  particular  chair 
as  a  representative  from  the  University  of 
Windsor,  and  it  carried  on  for  another  year 
and  a  half  before  we  could  say  we  had  a 
policy,  which  we  then  kept  testing  each  and 
every  year. 

The  policy  was  very  simply  this.  No  stu- 
dent can  be  admitted  to  graduate  school  in 
any  university  in  Ontario  unless  he  has  a 
B  average.  Our  experience,  and  experience 
at  other  universities,  had  shown  that  if  stu- 
dents had  a  B-plus  or  better  average  they 
performed,  with  the  odd  exception,  remark- 


ably better  in  graduate  school;  the  simple  B 
average  cutoff  point  was  in  fact  too  low. 

So  within  our  ov^m  universities,  for  our 
own  graduates,  we  established  that  the  mini- 
mum would  be  B-plus.  We  then  said  that 
all  those  students  who  have  backgrounds 
with  which  we  are  unfamiliar  will  be  re- 
quiretl  to  take  the  American  set,  the  Ameri- 
can-marked graduate  record  examinations. 

iThese  examinations  are  very  important  for 
students  in  American  universities  oecause  of 
the  vast  background  difference  from  one 
American  university  to  another.  This  situa- 
tion is  not  true  in  the  universities  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario,  One  can  be  fairly  well 
assured  that  a  graduate  in  chemistry  from  the 
Lakehead  has  an  equivalent  background  to 
a  graduate  in  chemistry  at  the  University  of 
Toronto  or  at  the  University  of  Windsor  or 
any  other  university.  From  experience  look- 
ing around  the  rest  of  Canada,  we  found 
this  also  to  be  true  for  the  rest  of  the  univer- 
sities in  Canada,  There  was  not,  in  the  field 
of  chemistry,  what  one  would  call  a  weak 
university  in  terms  of  its  undergraduate  pro- 
gramme. So  we  could  take  a  student  with  a 
B-plus  average  from  Dalhousie  University 
who  applied  and  know  that  B-plus  average 
was  in  fact- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  That  strikes  a  responsive 
note. 

We  would  know  that  was  in  fact  equiva- 
lent to  a  B-plus  average  from  the  University 
of  Manitoba  or  from  our  own  institution. 

•So  in  terms  of  Canadian  students  we  were 
happy.  Anyone  who  had  a  B-plus  or  better 
was  accepted  if  we  had  the  positions  avail- 
able. 

At  our  own  university  from  time  to  time— 
and  this  occurred  as  far  as  I  can  recollect  in 
1965  and  1966- we  asked  our  own  graduating 
class  in  honours  chemistry  who  were  think- 
ing of  going  on  to  graduate  school  to  write 
the  GR  examinations,  the  graduate  record 
examinations  produced  for  Princeton  so  that 
we  could  compare  their  scores  with  those  we 
were  getting  on  other  apphcants  who  were 
let  in,  from  the  United  States  primarily. 

We  wanted  to  compare  their  progress 
through  graduate  school.  We  found  a  situa- 
rion  that  would  not  surprise  anyone.  We 
found  the  scores  attained  by  the  Canadian 
graduates,  those  from  our  department,  were 
not  as  high  as  the  graduate  record  examina- 
tion scores  of  the  Americans. 

However,  in  graduate  schocJ  there  was  no 
measurable   difference   between   the   groups. 


756 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


It  confirmed  to  us  what  we  suspected,  that 
the  GREs  were  needed  as  a  test  for  Ameri- 
can graduates  because  of  the  wide  diversity 
of  universities  and  the  wide  differences  in 
programmes.  The  GREs  were  needed  down 
there  and  have  been  in  use  for  some  years. 
Chemistry  departments  at  most  American  col- 
leges and  universities  geared  their  under- 
graduate programme  around  material  given 
to  pass  a  graduate  record  examination.  After 
the  graduate  record  examinations  are  given— 
and  they  can  be  taken  three  or  four  times 
in  the  course  of  a  given  year— one  can  get 
a  copy  of  the  examination  that  had  been 
given  in  the  immediate  past.  We  used  to 
obtain  copies  of  these,  and  when  we  looked 
at  them  we  found  they  were  repetitious  in 
their  testing  of  material  in  a  certain  area. 
That  is,  one  exam  did  not  differ  vridely  in 
the  area  it  covered  from  another  examina- 
tion. The  questions  would  differ,  but  not  in 
the  area. 

When  we  looked  at  those  examinations, 
we  could  see  that  by  and  large  they  asked 
no  questions  in  the  area  of  what  we  would 
call  theoretical  chemistry,  which  we  gave 
all  across  Ontario  and  Canada  generally  as 
one  of  our  fourth-year  subjects.  No  questions 
like  that  appeared.  They  were  more  heavih- 
weighted  in  the  area  of  factual  inorganic 
chemistry  than  any  Canadian  or  Ontario 
university  was. 

We  adopted  the  attitude  here  in  Canada- 
and  I  think  it's  a  right  one— that  there's  no 
point  in  burdening  one's  mind  down  with  a 
whole  bunch  of  facts  provided  one  knows 
where  to  look  for  those  facts.  That  was  not 
the  attitude,  generally  speaking,  in  the 
United  States.  So  one  had  a  lot  of  factual 
material  appearing  on  those  examinations. 

If  we  were  going  to  make  it  a  require- 
ment that  our  graduates  take  those  examina- 
tions and  we  were  going  to  use  them  as  a 
basis  for  entering  graduate  school,  we  would 
have  had  to  rearrange  our  undergraduate 
programmes  in  order  to  see  that  they  were 
at  least  exposed  to  that  material.  This  we 
were  unwilling  to  do. 

We  were  well  aware,  by  comparison  of 
examinations  from  year  to  year,  that  in  fact 
one  could  plan  an  undergraduate  programme 
geared  to  passing  those  examinations.  This 
we  did  not  and  would  not  do  in  Ontario, 
and  therefore  we  knew  that  our  students 
writing  those  same  examinations  would  not 
score  as  highly  as  students  taking  those  ex- 
aminations in  United  States  universities. 

We  said  that  graduate  record  examinations 
will  not  be  a  test  of  admittance  to  graduate 


school  for  a  Canadian  student,  but  for  any 
student  whose  background  we  didn't  know, 
we  would  have  them  take  the  GRE  and  ase 
that  as  a  score. 

We  also  knew  that  those  students  apply- 
ing to  us  from  the  British  Isles  also  had  an 
aptitude  towards  chemistry  that  was  rather 
similar  to  ours.  Their  programmes  again  were 
not  geared  to  assimilating  data  but  rather 
to  attaining  concepts.  And  because,  again, 
those  institutions  could  be  rated  as  good  or 
better,  relative  to  Ontario  ones,  we  simply 
said  that  an  upper  second  class  from  any 
British  Isles  university  is  acceptable  as 
equivalent  to  a  Canadian  student  in  terms 
of  admission,  and  we  did  not  require  them 
to  take  that  examination. 

We  found,  by  trial  and  error  over  the 
years,  that  graduates  in  chemistry  from  some 
of  the  Oriental  universities— the  University 
of  Hong  Kong,  the  University  of  Korea,  the 
University  of  South  Vietnam  and  the  Uni- 
versity of  Taiwan  —  were  as  good  as  those 
from  the  British  institutions.  Again,  we  did 
not  require  a  GRE  from  students  from  those 
universities,  and  we  were  never  disappointed. 
A  B-plus  or  certainly  an  A  average  in  chem- 
istry from  those  universities  honestly  grading 
students  —  and  we  never  found  that  they 
didn't— was  identical  to  our  students.  With 
the  US  students  it  was  very  applicable,  as  ?t 
was  with  students  from  India,  Pakistan  and 
South  America,  and  we  required  those  stu- 
dents to  take  the  GRE. 

By  the  way,  we  also  policed  ourselves  very 
carefully.  We  always  had  a  meeting  in  tl'e 
first  week  of  October,  at  which  time  we  all 
brought  in  the  lists  of  graduate  students 
whom  we  had  accepted  and  what  their  GRE 
scores  were  if  they  were  in  the  categories 
that  I've  outlined;  or  if  they  were  Canadian 
students,  British  or  from  the  University  of 
Hong  Kong,  we  also  listed  what  their  grades 
were.  We  brought  enough  copies  for  every 
department  head  in  Ontario  and  laid  them 
on  the  table.  And  if  there  were  any  ex- 
tenuating circimistances,  if  somehow  we  had 
let  someone  in  with  a  B  average  or  with 
a  GRE  score  of  less  than  720,  which  was  the 
cutoff  point  in  the  chemistry  scores,  they 
really  had  to  justify  to  us  why  they  had  let 
that  particular  student  in.  On  the  odd  time 
there  were  good,  solid  extenuating  circum- 
stances why  a  student  who,  on  the  surface 
of  things  didn't  meet  up,  was  admitted.  We 
really  put  the  pressure  on  our  coUeagites, 
when,  as  would  happen  from  time  to  time, 
it  appeared  one  institution  was  gettiiig  a. 
little  soft. 


APRIL  4,  1974 


757 


I  am  suggesting  to  the  Minister  of  Col- 
leges and  Universities  that  because  in  On- 
tario the  province,  through  its  grants  to  the 
universities,  pays  $8,000  a  year  in  round 
terms  for  a  stuaent  on  a  master's  programme 
and  $12,000  a  year  in  roimd  terms  for  a 
student  on  a  PhD  programme,  those  disci- 
phnes  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  which  have 
not  agreed  they  should  have  some  common, 
completely  clear,  sorted  out  admission  standi 
ards,  should  be  told  by  the  minister:  "You 
had  better  get  together  and  you  had  better 
sort  them  out  pretty  promptly  because  we 
want  to  ensure  that  in  the  Province  of  On- 
tario Canadians  stand  a  good  chance  of  get- 
ting into  graduate  school  in  those  institutions, 
and  so  that  we  know  a  graduate  student  ad- 
mitted to  the  University  of  Windsor  is  ad- 
mitted on  the  same  fair,  equitable  terms  as  a 
graduate  student  admitted  to  the  University 
of  Toronto  or  the  Lakehead  or  anywhere 
else." 

With  the  department  heads  working  around 
the  province  with  whoever  in  their  depart- 
ments helped  them  with  the  graduate  ad- 
missions—the committees  on  graduate  admis- 
sions—they will  be  able  to  devise  a  common 
admissions  standard  which  will  be  fair,  and 
then  they  apply  it.  The  minister  shouldn't 
be  saying  to  the  separate  disciplines,  such  as 
psychology  which  is  the  case  in  dispute  at 
Windsor  at  the  moment:  "This  must  be  your 
standard;"  but  they  might  w^U  be  interested 
in  seeing  what  the  results  of  those  discus- 
sion were. 

I  am  suggesting  it  isn't  going  to  be  a  par- 
ticularly easy  task.  They  can  look  and  see 
what  has  happened  in  other  disciplines  and 
how  they  arrived  at  their  standards,  such  as 
the  chemistry  one  I  have  outlined.  In  a 
sense  the  disciplines  do  differ  from  one  to 
another  so  one  leaves  it  to  those  disciplines 
to  work  out  those  standards  and  leaves  it 
to  the  disciplines  to  police  them,  but  the 
minister  must  say:    "This  should  be  done." 

This  should  and  must  be  done  so  the 
public  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  knows  it  is 
getting  good  value  for  the  $8,000  spent  for 
a  master's  student  and  good  value  for  the 
$12,000  spent  for  a  PhD  student.  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  unduly  or  subtly  anti-American 
here  but  if  the  Province  of  Ontario  is  going 
to  be  subsidizing  masters'  students  by  $8,000 
and  PhD  students  by  $12,000  a  year  for  the 
few  openings  there  are,  and  because  of  the 
tightness  of  money  for  colleges  and  univer- 
sities in  the  province,  there  must  be  an  op- 
portunity for  those  qualified  Canadian  under- 
graduate students  to  enter  into  the  graduate 
programme.    The  Ontario  taxpayers'  money 


must  be  used  to  further  the  education  of 
Canadians  first  and  students  of  other 
nationalities  second. 

'We  do  not  drop  the  standards  for  graduate 
student  admission  to  ensure  that  the  pro- 
grammes are  entirely  fiHed  with  Canacuans 
out  we  ensure  that  Canadians  get  in.  If  a 
choice  has  to  be  made  it  should  be  the  Cana- 
dian, in  general  terms,  who  is  accepted  first 
so  that,  across  the  province,  there  can  be 
no  charge  of  the  type  we  have  seen  in  the 
last  week  surrounding  the  clinical  psychology 
division  at  the  University  of  Windsor. 

Before  I  leave  this  topic,  I  might  say  that 
some  of  the  discipUnes  in  Ontario  have  been 
very  keen  to  do  things  of  this  sort.  It  hasn't 
been  just  the  chemistry  which  has  done  it, 
the  mathematics  disciplines  have  done  it; 
geography  and  political  science  have  done 
it.  I  believe  geology  has  done  it.  There  are 
five  or  six  dSciplines  which  have  met,  set 
up  and  reached  this  common  agreement  on 
the  admissions  standards.  Enough  have  done 
it  to  show  the  other  disciplines  how  they 
have  done  it  and  why,  so  they  may  not  take 
2%  years  to  arrive  at  some  policy  which 
wouM'  be  acceptable  in  this   area. 

In  the  statements  that  were  given  prior 
to  the  question'  period  today,  I  was  rather 
interested  to  hear  about  the  licence  sticker 
situation  that  exists  in  the  province.  It  oc- 
curred to  me  to  make  one  comment  in  the 
Throne  Speech  debate  on  those  stickers. 

iThe  idea  of  four-year  plates  with  stickers 
that  go  on  them  is  a  good  one.  When  the 
stickers  came  out,  however,  I  was  rather  dis- 
appointed. When  I  put  mine  on  mv  car,  if 
I  stood  30  feet  away  from  it  I  couldn't  see 
it. 

There  was  a  difference,  there  was  a  sticker 
on  that  licence  plate  but  if  I  took  my  glasses 
off  I  couldn't  see  it  10  ft  away. 

And  I'm  only  short-sighted  in  one  eye,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  other  is  fine.  I  am  tempted  to 
wear  a  monocle  of  course. 

However,  to  return  to  the  point,  one  of  the 
things  which  always  reminded  people,  as 
January  wound  its  way  into  February  and 
so  on,  to  get  their  new  licence  plates  was 
that  they  could  see  the  starding  difference; 
and  here  we  have  a  sticker  which  one  really 
can't  see. 

•Mr.  C.  E.  Mdlveen  (Oshawa):  Maybe  the 
member  should  get  his  eyes  tested. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Maybe  the  one  good  eye 
isn't  functioning  quite  up  to  par.  TTie  mem- 
ber is  not  saying,  surely,  that  these  stickers 
markedly  show  themselves,   that  they  jump 


758 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


out    and    say    that    the    hcence    plates    have 
changed? 

I  lived  for  a  year  in  Los  Angeles  doing 
some  graduate  work  and  they  had  the  same 
system.  They  have  had  it  all  through  the 
sixties.  A  licence  plate  lasts  for  four  years, 
but  their  stickers,  when  put  on  the  comer, 
are  markedly  different.  They  glow  in  the 
dark,  and  when  the  time  of  year  comes  when 
one  needs  to  put  that  sticker  on,  one  can 
see  that  sticker  as  one  drives  dowTi  the  street; 
you  are  constantly  reminded  of  it. 

In  that  period  when  you  have  to  purchase 
the  new  stickers,  by  the  very  way  in  which 
they  visually  present  them  to  you,  one  says: 
"Ah,  I  haven't  got  mine  yet." 

I  think  that  contributed  very  much  this 
year  to  the  vers'  slow  sales  that  progressed 
through  almost  to  the  end  of  February,  that 
fact  that  people  were  not  reminded  by  see- 
ing a  marked  difference  in  licence  plates. 
That  marked  difference  could  be  achieved  by 
having  a  sticker  fixed  to  that  plate  which  in 
fact  would  catch  the  attention. 

I  suggest  to  the  new  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communication  that  next  year's 
sticker  be  one  which  glows  in  the  dark;  black 
on  blaze  orange  would  be  very  acceptable 
on  licence  plates  in  this  province,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

I  want  to  sav  a  few  words  in  the  area  of 
health.  The  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller) 
relying  very  much  on  an  internally-produced 
report  from  one  of  the  departments,  has  said 
there  should  not  be  a  heart-lung  pump 
machine  at  lODE  Windsor  Western  Hospital. 

Well,  I  tend  to  agree  with  some  of 
the  thinking  that  led  "to  that  recommen- 
dation; the  thinking  being  that  where 
these  machines  have  been  in  operation  in 
other  narts  of  the  province  it  has  been  shown 
that  the  first  10  or  11  times  these  machines 
are  used  the  patients  in  fact  died,  that  it  takes 
a  little  use  of  the  machine  by  the  team  that 
has  been  collected  to  use  it  before  the  exper- 
ti'^e  is  arrived  at  where  the  patient  survives. 
They  have  very  legitimate  concern  in  Wind- 
sor there  may  not  be  enough  use  of  that 
heart-lung  machine— really  it  is  a  heart  by- 
pass pump— so  that  the  team  would  be  ade- 
quately experienced. 

In  the  input  on  that  decision  they  went 
back  into  OHIP  records  to  see  how  manv 
people  from  Windsor  had  been  treated  with 
a  heart-lung  pump  or  a  bvpass  pump  in  other 
centres  in  Ontario  or  the  United  States  and 
were  billing  OHIP  for  it.  Then  they  said: 
"Look,  the  use  of  Windsor  people  of  this 
device  is  only  20  or  25  cases  a  year,  and  on 


that  basis  the  demand  is  not  large  enough— 
to  give  a  team  in  the  city  of  Windsor  any 
expertise.  Therefore  the  results  of  the  opera- 
tions using  this  pump  would  not  be  highly 
satisfactory." 

The  counter-argument  from  the  medical 
staff  most  concerned  with  this  at  lODE 
hospital  was  that  there  were  many  instances 
—and  their  guess  was  100  a  year— when  that 
pump  would  be  used.  Because  there  was  no 
pump  in  the  area,  the  patients  died,  or  the 
hospitals  knew  they  were  in  such  poor  shape 
they  could  not  be  transported  to  London  or 
Toronto  or  Cleveland  where  that  machine 
could  be  used.  They  subsequently  died,  per- 
haps not  as  a  result  of  not  having  used  it, 
but  they  were  never  in  good  enough  shape  to 
get  them  to  a  place  where  it  could  be  used. 
If  all  those  patients  were  counted,  we  would 
have  a  per  patient  use  of  about  lOO-a-year 
at  Windsor  and  that  would  certainly  give  the 
team  using  this  device  enough  expertise  that 
the  patients  would  not  be  dying  as  the  result 
of  an  inexperienced  team. 

The  disagreement  really  came  do^vn  to  do 
we  have  20  or  100  patients  a  year  who'd  use 
it  in  the  Windsor  area?  The  ministry  just  said 
no,  it  said  no  also  for  another  reason.  It  had 
two  other  reasons  and  one  of  them,  I  think 
was  fairly  valid,  one  of  them  was  invalid. 

One  reason  was  that  internal  medicine  had 
advanced  to  the  stage  where  the  internists 
were  saying  that  most  of  the  operations  in 
which  a  heart  bypass  pump  was  used  could 
now  be  corrected  by  chemical  treatment. 
The  internists  were  saying  this  but  the  heart 
specialists  were  disagreeing  with  the  in- 
ternists on  that  point.  It  appeared  that  the 
Ministry  of  Health  bought  the  argument  of 
the  internists  but  it  still  isn't  proved  that 
chemical  treatment  can  replace  the  use  of 
a   heart-lung   pump   machine. 

The  second  reason  is  the  one  which  is 
invalid;  that  first  one  was  invalid  enough 
but  one  could  say  it's  at  least  a  philosophical, 
intellectual  argument  the  ministry  adopted. 

The  other  one  was  that  wherever  there 
has  been  a  heart-lung  pump  machine-<ir 
rather  we  fear  that  if  there  is  a  heart-lung 
pump  machine  the  same  team  which  be- 
comes expert  in  the  usage  of  that  heart 
pump  bypass  would  want  to  get  into  open- 
heart  surgery.  Therefore  we  don't  want  to 
take  the  risk  of  putting  in  this  type  of  ma- 
chine in  Windsor  because  they  might  use  it 
for  a  couple  of  years;  then  the  team  gets 
expert  at  it  and  says,  "Here  we  are,  expe- 
rienced with  a  heart  bypass  machine;  we 
want  now  to  start  operating  on  the  heart." 


APRIL  4.  1974 


759 


Where  are  the  giits  in  the  ministry?  If  it 
says:  "No,  it  is  not  going  to  be  expanded 
to  open-heart  surgery  and  that  is  the  only 
use  we  are  going  to  let  you  put  it  to,"  it 
should  be  able  to  say  that  at  any  given  time 
and  not  fear  a  request  of  that  type  coming 
in.  It  should  have  approved  the  heart-lung 
machine. 

The  ministry  goes  around  and  savs;  "We 
really  want  co-operation  from  the  public.  We 
want  to  give  decision-making  powers  to  the 
regional  health  councils  and  what-have-you." 
In  the  Essex  county  committee  there  were 
great  disagreements  within  the  committee  for 
a  while,  once  the  money  for  this  machine 
was  raised  by  a  group  of  individuals,  as  to 
whether  nor  not   they   should  have  it. 

They  finally  said:  "We'll  try  it  for  a  year. 
If  the  medical  staff  at  lODE  thinks  there 
are  100  in  the  course  of  the  year,  okay,  let's 
give  it  a  year's  trial.  If  the  first  10  or  11  die 
until  that  team  gets  used  to  each  other,  so 
be  it.  That's  the  choice  of  the  people  on 
whom  the  machine  will  be  used;  the  team 
will  have  time  with  the  patients  after  that 
to  become  expert  on  it  and  after  a  year's 
time  we'll  know  whether  there  are  100  pa- 
tients and  whether  there  are  enough  people 
around  to  use  the  machine  for  a  valid  use 
so  the  team  becomes  expert  on  it;  and  wheth- 
er the  team,  in  fact,  is  a  good  team  to  be 
using  it." 

They  said:  "We  approve  it.  Let's  put  it  on 
a  one-year  trial  basis." 

So  help  me,  I  can't  see  why  the  Ministry 
of  Health  could  not  have  said:  "Okay,  on  a 
year's  trial  basis.  We  know  your  concerns 
down  there  in  Essex  county  regarding  its 
use,  and  we'll  be  watching  along  with  you." 

There  is  no  excuse,  in  my  mind,  why  they 
could  not  have  bought  the  decision  of  that 
Essex  county  medical  advisory  committee. 
By  not  so  doing  what  the  ministry  hasn't 
seemed  to  grasp  is  that  they  have  pretty  well 
killed  forever  co-operation  by  citizen  groups 
in  Windsor  around  health  projects  becauire 
of  this  experience.  They  have  certainly  ojot 
a  much  more  cynical  group  of  people,  a 
much  more  suspicious  group  of  people  with 
respect  to  the  Health  Ministr)'  sitting  on  the 
Essex  county  health  advisory  committee.  And 
it  has  not  given  them  any  encouragement  to 
proceed  along  new  lines  with  respect  to 
other  medicine  and  other  medical  events  m 
that  county. 

If  I  was  a  member  of  that  committee  and 
had  fought  through  the  decisions  and  listen- 
ed to  all  the  arguments  from  both  sides— 
the  heart  people  in  Windsor  and  the  internists 


in  Windsor— and  then  had  the  health  minis- 
try cancel  the  dc-cision  just  like  that.  I  would 
have  been  pretty  disappointed;  and  prelly 
put  off  by  the  ministry  officials. 

I'm  still  saying  to  the  ministry  oflBcials,  nut 
it  back  in— let  it  go  for  a  year's  trial  and 
then  see. 

One  of  their  arguments  is  money;  that 
they  are  going  to  have  to  pay  so  nmch  each 
time  that  machine  is  used.  There  is  a  certain 
fee  submitted  to  OHIP  for  it.  Well  let  me 
tell  members  what  happens  when  a  Winds()r 
patient  has  to  be  taken  to  Detroit.  After  a 
lot  of  letter  writing  to  the  Ministry  of  Health, 
it  is  determined  that  only  90  per  cent  of  the 
Ontario  medical  rate  is  paid  to  the  doctor- 
but  somehow  they  always  end  up  payin-^  a 
fair  amount  of  the  hospital  bill,  thank  God, 
on  behalf  of  the  patient. 

If  one  patient  was  in  hospital  in  a  month 
in  Detroit,  and  that  is  not  an  undue  length 
of  hospital  time  for  a  patient— the  size  of  the 
bill  would  pay  the  entire  operating  costs  of 
the  use  of  that  machine  for  a  whole  year  at 
lODE  Western  hospital  in  Windsor. 

So  on  economic  terms  they  have  absohitely 
no  argument  whatsoever  in  having  a  trial 
period  for  that  machine  in  Windsor. 

•When  the  point  came  up  the  other  day  in 
the  House  I  suggested  to  the  Minister  of 
Health  that  —  and  this  is  where  a  cnmch 
really  comes,  personally— if  a  patient  is  taken 
to  London,  is  taken  to  Toronto,  is  taken  to 
Montreal,  is  taken  to  Cleveland  in  order  that 
one  of  these  heart  bypasses  be  used,  you 
have  the  family  very  concerned.  At  least  one 
member  of  that  family  wants  to  be  with 
them.  That's  not  a  surprising  attitude  for 
the  member  of  that  family  to  take.  But  we 
find  that  the  cost  of  the  transportation  down 
and  the  cost  of  the  accommodation  for  at 
least  the  three  or  four  critical  days  around 
the  time  of  its  use  is  high— and  in  many  cases 
they  can't  afford  it. 

I  mad©  a  suggestion  to  the  Minister  of 
Health,  not  just  for  the  Windsor  situation 
but  for  any  other  community  across  the  prov- 
ince, that  if  the  family  has  to  go— and  it's 
reasonable  that  they  should— to  a  different 
city  because  the  Ministry  of  Health  in  its 
economizing  policy  say:  "We  are  not  going 
to  scatter  these  things  around  in  a  way  that 
you  all  might  like  to  see;"  then  the  Ministry 
of  Health  should  at  least  pay  their  transporta- 
tion costs— and  go  a  long  way  to  pay  most  of 
their  accommodation  costs  as  well. 

That  is  the  humane  thing  to  do  in  this 
situation.  They  might  not  want  to  pay  for 
eight  members  of  \&  family  for  three  or  four 


760 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


days,  but  they  should  be  able  to  pay  it  for 
one  for  three  or  four  days. 

It's  a  tense  enough  situation  anyway  —  an 
emotional  situation.  The  patient  is  going  in 
to  imdergo  heart  surgery,  or  heart  bypass 
surgery,  and  the  family  should  not  have  the 
economic  burden  as  well. 

'There  is  one  other  small  point  with  respect 
to  health  in  the  city  of  Windsor.  A  couple 
of  years  ago  a  group  of  people  came  to  see 
me  who  were  all  rehabilitated  alcoholics. 
Many  of  them  had  been  through  that  excel- 
lent treatment  centre,  the  Donwood'  Institute 
in  the  Metro  Toronto  area.  They  had  run 
across  a  particular  problem  which  they 
brought  to  me  to  see  if  I  could  help  them 
out. 

They  are  now  off  alcohol.  They  are  ex- 
alcoholics.  They  are  making  a  good  attempt 
to  stay  off  it.  However,  all  their  old  friends 
still  exist.  Whenever  they  go  over  to  visit 
any  of  their  old  friends  socially  they  find 
they  are  offered  a  drink.  I  mean,  their  old 
friends  aren't  alcoholics,  but  they  are  still 
drinkers  and  in  the  com-se  of  the  evening 
they  have  a  drink. 

They  feel  very  embarrased  because  they 
can't,  though  very  tempted  I  suppose  in  many 
cases,  and  they  found  that  they  were  tending 
to  stay  at  home  and  not  visit  any  of  their 
old  friends  because  their  old  friends  always 
had  drink  around.  Or  their  old  friends,  in 
their  presence,  would  not  haul  out  a  beer 
because  they  knew  it  might  upset  them.  They 
were  making  their  friends  uncomfortable  and 
they  found  that  they  had  to  really  terminate 
their  old  friendships  and  there  was  not  much 
way  in  which  they  could  easily  establish  new 


They  said  to  me:  "Is  there  some  place  in 
the  city  of  Windsor  where  we  could  get 
together  and  set  up  a  social  centre  for  re- 
habilitated alcohohcs,  where  we  can  go  and* 
have  a  social  evening  and  not  experience  any 
pressure  to  have  any  akohol  and  alcohol  wiK 
not  be  there?" 

I  gave  them  a  hand  in  tracking  down 
some  places  and  they  got  very  admirably 
set  up  in  the  old  library  in  the  Adie  Knox 
Community  Centre,  which  is  very  centrally 
located  on  a  bus  line  in  Windsor.  They  got 
some  funding  at  that  time  through  LIP 
grants,  but  they  have  all  run  out.  They 
need  about  $15,000  to  $18,000  a  year  to 
keep  that  centre  in  operation  as  they  have 
in  the  past.  It  has  worked  remarkably  suc- 
cessfully. There  are  a  lot  of  people  who 
are  getting  a  lot  of  strength  and  sustenance 
from  coming  to  that  centre  and  knowing  they 
can  come  there  and  associate,  on  a  social 
basis  pure  and  simple,  with  people  who  have 
had  the  same  problem  that  they  have  but 
are  in  no  danger  of  encountering  any  alcohol 
on  the  premises. 

I  would  suggest  to  the  Ministry  of  Health, 
or  to  any  other  ministry  that  might  be  inter- 
ested, that  this  is  a  project  worth  funding. 
It  has  become  very  satisfying  and  is  reaching 
and  serving  a  real  need  in  Windsor. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  further  remarks.  I 
could  start  them  now  for  half  a  minute  or 
wait  until  8  o'clock. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  if  the  hon.  member 
finds  this  a  convenient  spot  to  break  his 
remarks  I  think  it  would  be  appropriate. 

It  being  6  o'clock,  p.m.,  the  House  took 
recess. 


APRIL  4,  1974  761 


Page 

Col. 

ERRATA 

No. 

Line 

Should  read: 

13 

501 

1 

37 

"The  Atomic  Energy  Commission  has  been 

13 

501 

1 

40 

it  must  suflFer  from  verbal  indigestion." 

13 

503 

1 

30/31 

In  its  famous  Brookhaven  report  of  1957,'* 
he  says: 

13 

503 

1 

42 

"The  Brookhaven  report  goes  on  to  say 
that 

13 

503 

1 

47 

almost  zero."  / 

13 

503 

2 

11 

"All  this  does  not  begin  to  consider  the 

13 

503 

2 

28 

rors  and  three  design  errors." 

13 

503 

2 

31 

"There  is  another  danger  after  the  fuel 
has 

13 

503 

2 

43 

nuclear  progranmie  involving  plutonium 
239." 

13 

507 

1 

43 

imagined   are   given  priority  over  safety   of 

762  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  April  4,  1974 

Spending  ceilings  in  education,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells  713 

Ryerson  radio  station,  statement  by  Mr.  Auld  714 

Health  planning  task  force  report,  statement  by  Mr.   Miller  715 

Validation  stickers,  statement  by  Mr.  Rhodes  715 

Maple  Mountain  development,  statement  by  Mr.  Bennett  71C 

Maple  Mountain  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis, 

Mr.    Reid,   Mr.    Ferrier   718 

Inquiry  into  hospital  employees'  remuneration,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon, 

Mr.  Lewis  721 

Housing   programmes,   questions    of   Mr.   Handleman:    Mr.    R.    F,    Nixon,    Mr.    Lewis, 

Mrs.  Campbell,  Mr.  Shulman,  Mr.  Martel,  Mr.  Roy  722 

Septic  tank  inspections,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Paterson, 

Mr.    Good    724 

Land  banking,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Singer  ..  725 

Pickering  airport,  questions  of  Mr.  White:   Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Deacon  727 

Corporation   income   tax  paid  by   oil  companies  to  province,   questions  of  Mr.  Meen: 

Mr.    Lewis    728 

Judgement    against    Ministry    of    Agriculture,    questions    of    Mr.    Stewart:    Mr.    Gaunt, 

Mr.   Singer,   Mr.   Sargent   728 

Cost  of  dental  care,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Deans  730 

Oil  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Young,  Mr.  Bullbrook  731 

Presenting  report.  Maple  Mountain  recreation  complex,  Mr.  Bennett  731 

Presenting  report,  health  planning  task  force,  Mrs.  Birch  731 

Presenting  report,  motor  vehicle  accident  compensation,  Mr.  Clement  731 

Presenting  report,  standing  private  bills  committee,  Mr.  Taylor  732 

Regional  Municipality  of  Haldimand-Norfolk,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Irvine,  first  reading  ...  732 

Town  of  Oakville  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Kennedy,  first  reading  732 

Presbyterian  Church  Building  Corp.  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Dymond,  first  reading  732 

City  of  Toronto  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Wardle,  first  reading  732 

City  of  Chatham  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Spence,  first  reading  732 

City  of  Windsor  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  B.  Newman,  first  reading  732 

City  of  London  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Walker,  first  reading  732 


APRIL  4.  1974  763 


Judicature  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Roy,  first  reading  733 

University  of  Western  Ontario  Act,  hill  respecting,  Mr.  Walker,  first  reading  733 

Waterloo  Wellington  Airport   Act,  hill   respecting,   Mr.  Go<k1,  first  reading                            733 

Third  readings,  Bills  1  and  13  733 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on   the  Speech   from  the  Throne,  Mr.    Martel,   Mr.   Parrott, 

Mr.   Edighoffer,   Mr.   Bounsall  733 

Recess,   6   o'clock  760 

Errata  7hl 


Na  19 


Ontario 


Hesijslature  of  d^ntario 


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


Thursday,  April  4,  1974 

Evening  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


Oftily  tadex  of  proceedings  appears  at  back  of  this  issue.) 


767 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  o'clock. 


p.m. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  Have  the 
Conservative  members  decided  to  leave  per- 
manently? 

Mr.  Speaker:  When  we  rose  at  6  o'clock, 
I  believe  the  member  for  Windsor  West  had 
the  floor.  He  may  continue. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Quite  a  remarkable  pheno- 
menon; hour  after  hour,  day  after  day,  no- 
body here.  Don't  they  like  the  place?  Why 
don  t  they  get  themselves  dis-elected? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Quality  matters. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  we  could  hear  the  member 
for  Windsor  West. 

An  hon.  member:  The  quality  of  the  rest 
is  pretty  poor. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  I 
would  endorse  those  remarks  by  my  colleague 
from  Lakeshore,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  feel  that 
none  of  my  speeches  is  really  a  success  unless 
the  member  for  Lakeshore  has  added  some- 
thing to  it.  I  hope  he  does  as  we  go  on.  He 
often  gives  me  ideas  for  them,  anyway,  so 
he  can  contribute  vocally  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  It's  talking  to  a  vacuum  at  the 
best  of  times  so  they  may  as  well  be  away. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  That's  the  agreement  we 
have. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  other  side  would  say 
that's  why  my  speeches  are  so  non-humorous 
at  times,  because  of  the  contribution  of  the 
member  for  Lakeshore,  but  that's  obviously 
said  with  tongue  in  cheek  by  those  who  know 
him. 

il  am  going  to  speak  at  the  moment  on  the 
auto  trade  pact  and  the  responsibility  which 
the  Premier  of  this  province  (Mr.  Davis)  and 
at  least  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism (Mr.  Bennett)  have  in  pressing  the  view- 
point of  Ontario  home  to  the  federal  govem- 


Thursday,  April  4,  1974 

ment.  It  is  a  responsibility  which  in  my 
opinion,  they  have  been  abrogating  because 
the  auto  pact  strikes  right  at  the  heart  of 
Ontario's  economy. 

In  August,  1973,  there  were  88,800  work- 
ers employed  in  Ontario  in  the  auto  industry; 
10.9  per  cent  of  all  the  manufacturing  work- 
ers in  Ontario  are  in  the  auto  industry.  That 
is  up  slightly  from  the  figures  of  March, 
1973,  a  year  ago.  Obviously  there  are  many 
communities  in  Ontario  which  are  —  indeed 
the  entire  province  is  —  very  dependent  upon 
this  industry  and  would  be  adversely  afi^ected 
by  any  downward  revision  of  the  auto  pact 
or,  what's  very  clfear  now,  a  continuation  of 
the  status  quo  in  the  auto  trade  pact 

Quite  briefly,  as  all  members  perhaps  know, 
the  pact  became  a  necessity  because  of  the 
deplorably  depressed  state  of  the  Canadian 
auto  industry  in  the  late  1950s.  Prof.  Bladen, 
an  economics  professor  at  the  University  of 
Toronto,  headed  what  became  known  as  the 
Bladen  commission  which  was  established  to 
investigate  the  entire  situation  in  the  auto 
industry  in  Ontario,  essentially.  There  was 
no  auto  industry  at  that  time  in  Canada  out- 
side Ontario. 

•The  members  considered  all  points  of  view 
of  the  commission  and  reported  in  the  early 
1960s.  At  that  time  Canada  was  running 
an  enormous  trade  deficit  with  the  US  in 
automotive  products.  The  vv^ges  were  lower 
than  those  paid  in  the  US  industry  and  the 
prices  of  the  automobiles  were  higher.  In 
addition,  due  to  the  short  production  runs 
in  Canada  and  the  small  Canadian  market, 
the  Canadian  auto  industry  was  protected  by 
tariflFs  and  was  highly  inefficient,  productively. 
There  appeared  to  Bladen  to  be  two  main 
alternatives  and  the  Bladen  conmiission,  in 
the  reports,  discussed  them  both  thorou^y. 

They  said  rationalize  the  industry  behind 
tariff  walls  and  in  Canada  produce  only  a 
small  number  of  models  for  the  Canadian 
market  only.  The  other  models  brought  in 
from  other  countries  would  therefore  be 
much,  much  more  costly;  their  price  would 
be  exorbitant.  Or,  they  said,  rationalize  the 
entire  auto  industry  on  a  continental  basis 
which  guarantees  a  minimum  level  of  produc- 
tion in  Canada.  At  that  time  very  few,  if 
any,  of  the  North  American  models  or  parts 


768 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


for  those  models  were  produced  in  any  other 
country.  Of  course,  that  is  not  the  case  today. 
As  we  know,  the  second  alternative  was 
chosen  and  the  auto  pact  become  operative 
in  January,  1965. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  The 
sweetest  deal  for  Canada. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It  seemed  at  the  time  that 
the  plan  would  benefit  Canadian  workers  and 
consumers- 
Mr.  Haggerty:  It  has. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  —in  both  increased  jobs  and 
rates  of  pay,  or  at  least  about  the  same 
number  of  jobs. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  has. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  If  the  member  for  Welland 
South  will  just  hold  his  comments  rmtil  later 
on,  I  will  produce  the  figures  and  the  facts 
that  show  in  a  lot  of  areas  that  this  was  not 
a  deal  that  we  cotJd  have  or  should  have 
entered  into. 

The  second  alternative  was  chosen  and 
the  auto  pact  came  in.  It  seemed  that  it 
would  benefit  the  workers  in  both  increased 
jobs  and  pay,  or  at  least  about  the  same 
number  of  joIds  was  the  hope  if  increasing 
automation  eliminated  jobs  at  the  ever- 
relentless  rate  it  appeared  to  be  about  to  do. 
The  expectation,  of  course,  by  all  Canadians 
—make  no  mistake  about  that— was  that  the 
price  differential  would  disappear  com- 
pletely between  US  and  Canadian  models  or 
at  least  the  factory  retail  price  differential 
would  disappear  completely  as  a  result  of 
the  greater  efiBciency  of  production  and  the 
rationalization  of  the  entire  industry  on  long- 
run  models  with  one  plant  producing  all  of 
the  models  of  a  given  land  for  a  huge  section 
of  the  market  in  both  the  US  and  Canada. 

It  was  clear  the  main  benefit,  in  a  mone- 
tary way  though,  would  be  to  the  automobile 
manufacturers  themselves.  The  US  govern- 
ment agreed  to  the  scheme  primarily  on  the 
grounds  of  what  is  good  for  CM  is  good  for 
the  US,  and  indeed  it  has  been  quite  a  golden 
harvest  for  the  US  auto  makers  themselves. 
By  rationalizing  the  production,  as  they  have 
done  right  across  North  America,  they  have 
definitely  maximized  the  profits. 

What  actually  was  the  agreement  in  1965, 
because  it  is  hard  for  a  casual  reader  of  the 
newspapers  to  actually  keep  in  mind  what 
the  agreement  was?  What  were  the  safe- 
guards that  we  hear  mentioned  that  were 
inserted  into  the  auto  pact?  What,  in  fact, 
was  it?  There  were,  very  simply,  two  things. 
They  said  that  the  ratio  of  finished  assembled 


automobile  units  to  sales  would  not  be  ever 
less  than  the  1964  ratio  of  0.92  to  1  or  92 
per  cent.  As  long  as  the  assembly  of  autos 
in  Canada  did  not  fall  below  92  per  cent 
of  sales— the  1964  figures— that  was  one  of 
the  main  safeguards. 

Then  the  Canadian  added  value  was  the 
second  point.  That  would  be  not  less  than 
the  1964  figure  in  monetary  terms,  which 
was  60  per  cent  of  the  Canadian  sales,  that 
is,  the  production  in  dollar  amounts  from 
all  sources.  This  includes  parts,  depreda- 
tion on  capital  equipment  and  buildings,  as 
well  as  the  labour  in  assembling  the  vehicle, 
which  should  be  no  less  than  60  per  cent  of 
the  sales.  Another  way  of  saying  it  is  that 
the  Canadian  content  in  terms  of  parts  and 
labour  should  be  no  less  than  60  per  cent 
of  the  Canadian  sales  which,  in  effect,  put 
a  base  figure  on  auto  production,  a  figure  of 
$774  million  for  Canadian  labour  and  parts. 
In  return  for  these  safeguards,  of  course,  all 
tariffs  were  abolished  by  both  coimtries  on 
new  parts,  and  new  cars  are  transferring 
back  and  forth  across  the  border. 

In  addition,  and  completely  separate  from 
the  pact— these  two  points  were  the  only 
points  of  the  pact— the  automobile  companies 
gave  letters  of  intent  to  the  Canadian  gov- 
errmient,  letters  of  understanding  between 
the  four  auto-makers  and  the  Canadian  gov- 
ernment, in  which  the  manufacturers  prorn- 
ised  to  increase  production  facilities  in 
Canad  by  $268  million  by  the  year  1968. 
In  the  preamble  to  the  pact  itself,  the  ob- 
jective of  what  was  sought  to  be  achieved 
in  this  US-Canada  auto  pact  was  quite  clearly 
and  categorically  stated. 
It  says: 

That  the  trade  barriers  are  to  be  lib- 
eralized to  enable  the  industries  in  both 
countries  to  participate  on  a  fair  and 
equitable  basis  in  the  expanding  market  of 
both  countries. 

The  keys  words  are  "a  fair  and  equitable 
basis"  in  the  ever-expanding  market. 

What  effect  has  the  pact  had  since  1965? 
It  certainly  appears  on  the  surface  to  be  a 
success  for  all  concerned.  The  car  manufac- 
turers have  certainly  rationalized  production 
and  maximized  their  profits.  They,  above  all 
others,  would  hate  to  see  the  pact  discarded 
or  cancelled,  which  of  course  can  be  done  by 
one  year's  notice  on  the  part  of  either  the 
United  States  or  Canada.  The  big  losers 
would  be  the  people  who  have  maximized 
their  profits,  the  auto  companies. 

It  appears  to  be  a  success  in  terms  of 
providing  jobs  for  the  Canadian  workers,  but 


APRIL  4,  1974 


769 


this  is  slightly  misleading.  Since  1965  em- 
ployment has  increased  in  the  automobile 
field  in  Canada,  in  spite  of  the  automation 
that  ever  relentlessly  reduced  the  jobs,  but 
so  have  the  sales  increased  tremendously. 
The  percentage  increase  in  jobs  has  not  come 
anywnere  near  to  matching  the  increase  in 
sales,  the  units  assembled  and  so  forth. 

It  is  therefore  ver\'  diflBcult,  if  not  im- 
possible, to  determine  if  the  pact  itself  has 
resulted  in  an  increase  in  jobs  or  a  decrease 
in  jobs,  because  without  the  pact  one  can- 
not tell  what  the  employment  in  the  indus- 
try' would  be  since  the  market  has  expanded 
so  much  since  1965.  There  really  is  no  way 
one  can  prove  that. 

in  1965,  in  dollar  terms,  Canada  con- 
sumed 7.5  per  cent  of  the  North  American 
output  and  produced  four  per  cent.  In  1973, 
Canada  consumed  eight  per  cent  of  the 
North  American  output  and,  in  the  terms  of 
the  dollar  value  going  into  those  cars  from 
all  sources,  produced  six  per  cent.  So  we 
still  haven't  reached  that  fair  and  equitable 
basis  whereby  our  production  from  all  sources 
in  terms  of  dollar  value  has  expanded  to 
meet  the  sales  that  are  made  here  in  Canada. 

In  1970,  mainly  because  of  the  commit- 
ment by  the  auto  industry  to  expand  and  the 
addition  of  new  plants— first  in  Ste.  Therese, 
Que.,  by  CM,  then  at  Talbotville  by  Ford 
to  produce  the  Pinto  and  the  Maverick  in 
1970— as  well  as  a  lot  of  sales  of  Pintos  and 
Mavericks,  it  looked  as  if  the  dollar  value  of 
sales  for  the  first  time  would  equal  the  dollar 
value  of  production  and  that  perhaps  they 
had  caught  up.  But  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  was 
the  only  year  in  which  the  dollar  value  in 
production  ever  got  close  to  equalling  the 
dollar  value  in  sales.  That  was  a  peculiar  year 
in  which  compacts  sold  well. 

Also  contributing  to  that  situation  in  1970 
was  the  fact  that  snowmobiles  were  added 
to  the  auto  pact,  something  not  anticipated 
at  the  time  of  the  embarkation  on  the  pact. 
At  that  time,  Canada  enjoyed,  and  still  does 
enjoy,  a  large  balance  of  trade  in  snow- 
mobiles with  the  United  States,  which  helped 
to  even  out  the  1970  figures  and  helped  to 
make  the  figures  not  look  any  worse  than 
they  are  at  the  present  time. 

In  terms  of  other  benefits,  wage  parity  has 
been  negotiated;  so,  for  the  workers  who 
are  employed,  wage  parity  has  been  achieved. 
It's  been  a  success  for  the  US  workers  as  well. 
Although  they  haven't  experienced  the  same 
percentage  increase  in  jobs  in  assembly  as 
have  the  Canadian  workers,  it  is  the  type 
of  job  created  in  the  United  States  as  a  result 
of  the   pact   that   has   benefited   the    United 


States  worker.  In  the  auto  industry,  all  of  the 
design,  all  of  the  research  and  development, 
and  virtually  all  of  the  purchasing,  exc-ept  for 
a  small  amount  still  done  by  General  Motors 
at  their  Oshawa  plant,  are  being  transferred 
to  the  United  States.  All  of  the  top  mana- 
gerial positions  and  all  of  the  related  secre- 
tarial positions  are  all  in  the  United  States— 
and  some  of  the  positions  in  all  those  areas 
have  disappeared  from  Canada.  It  is  also  the 
quality  of  the  job  as  well,  particularly,  in 
which  the  US  and  the  US  worker  has  bene- 
fited. 

Along  with  these  positions  that  I  have 
mentioned,  those  areas  for  the  vast  majority 
of  all  the  skilled  workers,  there  are  the 
technical  and  managerial  positions  requirini^ 
persons  of  either  advanced  education  or  ad- 
vanced training. 

Indeed,  it  is  clear  that  since  1965  the  jobs 
created  in  Canada— in  the  Talbotville  plant, 
the  St.  Therese  plant— have  all  been  in  the 
labour-intensive  area,  in  the  assembly  area, 
but  not  in  any  area  that  requires  any  skills. 

So  this  means  that  Canadian  workers  as  a 
result  of  the  pact  are  again  just  one  step  re- 
moved from  being  hewers  of  v/ood  and 
drawers  of  water.  We  have  become  screwers 
and  drivers— and  that  is  all  we  have  become 
in  the  auto  industry  as  a  result  of  the  auto 
pact. 

At  a  time  when  our  society  is  producing 
highly  trained,  more  educated  people  from 
the  youth  of  our  nations  who  could  be  em- 
ployed in  the  auto  industry,  we  find  in 
Canada  they  do  not  have  that  opportunity. 

The  Liberal  government  has  said  that  the 
auto  industry  is  capable  of  standing  on  its 
own  two  feet  without  any  safeguards— and 
we  are  well  beyond  the  1964  level  anyway. 
Well,  that  couldn't  be  more  wrong.  As  I  said 
in  a  speech  about  two  years  ago,  in  terms  of 
expansion  there  is  nothing  now  to  prevent  all 
of  the  expansion  in  all  areas  of  the  auto 
industry  occurring  solely  and  simply  in  the 
United  States.  And  this,  in  fact,  is  what  has 
happened. 

Automotive  investment  in  1973  was  only 
five  per  cent  of  US  investment,  compared 
with  the  norm  of  around  nine  per  cent.  It 
has  been  below  this  norm  ever  since  1970. 
This  suggests  that  the  US  government  is 
succeeding  in  getting  the  auto  makers,  in 
terms  of  dollar  value  in  all  of  the  areas,  to 
expand  and  produce  in  the  United  States. 
This  expansion  is  not  taking  place  in  Canada 
and  this  is  quite  easily  seen  in  these  figures. 

Back  in  1965,  1966,  1967,  1968  we  were 
always  aroimd  eight  per  cent  to  11  per  cent. 


770 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


We  are  now  down  to  five  per  cent  of  the 
expansion  in  the  auto  field.  So  if  the  safe- 
guards are  not  negotiated  upward  we  cannot 
leave  the  status  quo  as  it  is.  We  will  simply 
find  that  the  dollar  value  of  Canadian  con- 
tribution will  continue  to  shrink. 

The  1965  floor  level  will  in  fact  become 
a  ceiling,  because  no  one  is  saying  to  the 
auto  makers  that  they  must  go  by  the  spirit 
of  the  wording  in  the  pact— a  fair  and  equit- 
able share  of  all  expanding  sales. 

Expansion  in  both  plant  and  equipment 
was  needed,  starting  in  1972,  so  that  now  in 
1974  there  would  be  plant  production  facili- 
ties here  to  meet  the  1974-1975  consumer 
demand. 

Canadians  no  longer  produce.  This  pro- 
duction drop  wiU  be  at  an  ever-increasing 
pace  from  here  on  in.  And  the  preservation 
of  the  present  safeguards  is  no  solution 
whatsoever.  This  represents  the  status  quo, 
and  we  will  continue  to  fall  behind. 

In  fact,  if  we  return  to  the  1964  level— 
which  was  supposed  to  be  the  floor  but  which 
is  now  becoming  the  ceiling— 35  per  cent  of 
Canadian  workers  now  employed  would  be 
jobless.  Production  facilities  shifting  to  the 
US,  and  all  the  expansion  taking  place  there, 
is  causing  this  to  happen. 

In  1972  Canadian  content  in  a  car  was 
44.2  per  cent.  In  1973  it  had  fallen  to  43.7 
as  a  result  of  expansion  in  the  industry  tak- 
ing place  in  the  US;  and  this  will  continue 
to  be  the  case. 

The  Canadian  content  of  North  American 
new  vehicle  production  as  a  percentage  of 
the  Canadian  motor  vehicle  sales  in  1972 
was  103.2  per  cent  but  in  1973  it  had  fallen 
to  95.7  per  cent.  So  Canadian  content  of 
North  American  produced  vehicles  declined 
as  a  percentage  of  Canadian  new  vehicle 
sales  from  103  per  cent  to  95.7  per  cent  in 
one  year.  Exports  of  cars  and  trucks  from 
Canada  grew  by  only  11  per  cent  to  12  per 
cent  between  1972  and  1973,  and  at  the 
same  time  Canadian  sales,  increased  at  more 
than  twice  that  rate. 

Our  sales  increased  by  25  per  cent;  our 
exports  grew  between  only  11  and  12  per 
cent.  In  this  situation,  Ontario,  because  of 
the  large  work  force— over  10  per  cent  of  ovir 
work  force  in  Ontario  is  associated  with  the 
auto  industry  —  should  really  be  making  firm 
proposals  to  the  federal  government,  in  any 
and  all  negotiations  on  whatever  subject, 
that  they  must  quit  taking  a  laissez-faire 
attitude  and  get  out  there  and  see  that  the 
safeguards  in  that  auto  pact  are  increased. 

Retaining  the  safeguards  certainly  doesn't 


represent,  as  I've  said,  nearly  enough.  They 
must  be  drastically  increased.  As  the  auto 
industry  expands  in  North  America  —  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  assiune  that  it  won't 
still  continue,  in  spite  of  a  gigantic  scare 
over  an  energy  crisis  this  winter  —  the  expan- 
sion of  facilities  that  must  take  place  in 
Canada  should  take  place  almost  entirely 
in  the  non-assembly  area.  It  should  take 
place  in  the  skilled  employment  area,  the 
area  of  tool  and  dye  makers  and  the  auto 
parts  industry. 

Canada,  in  fact,  has  a  vast  assembly  capa- 
city and  very  little  else.  Again,  my  concern 
is  that  all  we've  become,  because  we  simply 
assemble,  is  a  nation  of  screwers  of  nuts  and 
twisters  of  bolts. 

In  1970,  the  ratio  of  passenger  car  pro- 
duction in  Canada— that  is,  the  assembling  of 
them— to  sales,  was  1.9  to  1.  In  other  words, 
we  assembled  90  per  cent  more  cars  in 
Canada  than  we  sold.  How  is  it  that  our 
dollar  value  is  so  much  less?  It  means  that 
virtually  all  the  parts  going  into  all  those 
automobiles  that  we  assemble  are  produced 
in  some  other  country.  There  were  new 
plants  being  built  in  the  last  year  in  Portugal 
and  in  Brazil  and  over  the  last  two  or  three 
years  in  Japan.  All  of  these  parts  coming  in 
are  going  into  the  auto  companies.  I  think 
it  is  the  Pinto  that  is  assembled  at  the  Talbot- 
villfe  plant— not  one  part  in  that  entire  Pinto 
car  is  made  in  Canada  or  Ontario.  Every 
part  is  imported^— the  ball-bearings  from  Ger- 
many, the  motors  from  Japan,  etc. 

Ill  1972,  the  ratio  of  passenger  car  pro- 
duction to  sale  of  North  American  cars  went 
to  1.77  and  in'  1973  fell  to  1.57.  You  might 
say  we  are  getting  back  on  the  proper  side 
of  things;  the  ratio  of  cars  assembled  to  cars 
sold  is  decreasing.  In  fact  you  could  say, 
simple-mindedly,  with  our  car  assembly  not 
so  far  outstripping  our  sales  in  North  Ameri- 
can cars,  we  must  be  catching  up  in  some 
way. 

Well,  exactly  the  reverse  turns  out  to  be 
true,  because  our  assembly  capacity  has  in 
fact  stayed  the  same;  all  that  has  happened 
is  that  our  sales  have  gone  up  and  we  have 
not  increased'  in  any  area  of  the  parts  manu- 
facturing industry.  In  fact  those  figures 
simply  reflect  the  fact  that  we  are  not 
expanding  in  the  Ontario  or  Canadian  field 
because  no  one  is  forcing  the  auto  companies 
to  do  that  expansion  here.  Of  course  we 
should  demand  that  we  transfer  to  Canada, 
as  part  of  an  increased,  updated  auto  pact, 
some  of  the  research,  design  and  the  develop- 
ment work. 

Canada's  sales,  as  I've  said,  equalled  eight 


APRIL  4,  1974 


771 


per  cent  of  the  North  American  market  for 
North  American  vehicles  of  all  kinds.  Re- 
search and  development  should  occur  in 
Canada  and  design  should  occur  in  propor- 
tion to  the  Canadian  sales.  Doubt  may  be 
expressed  by  some  people  as  to  the  feasibility 
of  this,  but  I  simply  point  out  that  the 
Unitetl  States  government  has  forced  General 
Motors  to  keep  all  its  design  and  entire 
managerial  section  separate.  Buick  is  not 
supposed  to  know  what  Chevrolet  is  doing 
in  design.  What  I  am  saying  is  that  one  sec- 
tion of  all  these  different  designs  of  all  these 
cars  and  all  its  design  components  and  team 
could  very  easily  be  moved  to  Canada  and 
done  here  in  Canada  with  Canadian  design 
people. 

And,  of  course,  the  factory  retail  price 
must  be  equalized.  There  is  no  conceivable, 
no  defensible  reason  why  the  factory  retail 
prices  should  continue  to  exist  as  a  differ- 
ence. I  have  some  interesting  figures  on  that. 
Mr.  Speaker,  two  years  ago  it  was  clear, 
when  you  subtract  the  difference  in  Cana- 
dian taxes  and  you  subtract  the  value  of  the 
Canadian  dollar  vis-a-vis  the  American  dollar 
so  you  can  actually  see  what  the  factorv 
retail  differences  are,  on  the  larger  model 
of  cars,  75  per  cent  of  the  actual  price  dif- 
ferential, amounting  to  as  much  as  $400, 
came  from  a  difference  in  factory  retail  price. 
In  the  smaller  cars  it  fell  to  25  per  cent. 
But  there  is  no  justification  for  either  of  those 
figures  being  different. 

I  have  some  1973  figures  at  the  moment, 
and  I  have  got  a  long  list  of  them  here,  that 
came  into  my  hands.  I  can  mention  some  of 
the  models.  After  taxes,  a  two-door  Pinto, 
assembled  in  Talbotville  and  shipped  to  anv 
place  in  the  US,  has  a  factory  price  in  the 
US  of  $1,968.  That  same  car,  after  subtrac- 
tion of  taxes,  amounts  to  $2,319  in  Canada. 
They  are  all  assembled  in  Talbotville,  Ont. 
After  taxes  and  monetary  values  are  sub- 
tracted, there  is  still  $343  difference  in  the 
price,  and  there  is  no  possible  way  that  can 
be  justified  in  any  way.  It  is  absolutely 
ridiculous,  and  you  can  go  on  and  on  and 
on.  That  represents  a  19  per  cent  difference 
in  factory  price.  The  Pinto  three-door  has  a 
20  per  cent  difference  and  the  Pinto  wagon, 
18  per  cent. 

As  you  go  further  up  the  scale,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, in  size  of  car,  it  gets  even  worse.  The 
Ford  Torino,  four-door,  has  a  23  per  cent 
difference  and  the  Lincoln  Continental,  25 
per  cent  difference  in  factory  retail  price. 
In  no  way  can  it  be  explained  and  in  no  way 
should  it  be  tolerated. 


In  General  Motors  the  small  Vega  two- 
door  has  a  15  per  cent  difference  in  factory 
retail  price  after  subtraction  of  taxes  and 
US-Canadian  dollar  differences.  The  Chevro- 
let Impala  sedan,  has  21  per  cent  and  the 
Oldsmobile  Delta,  24  per  cent.  In  the  Chrys- 
ler products,  the  Chrysler  Newport  has  a  19 
per  cent  difference;  the  Plymouth  Valiant 
four-door,  20  per  cent  difference  and  tho 
Dodge  Polaris,  16  per  cent.  In  the  American 
Motors  field,  the  little  Gremlin  has  a  17  per 
cent  difference  in  the  factory  price;  the  Am- 
bassador wagon,  19  per  cent  and  the  Matador 
four-door  sedan,  23  per  cent  difference.  None 
of  them  are  justified  whatsoever. 

The  argument  that  the  auto  companies 
tried  to  use  for  years  was  the  simple-minded 
one,  that  there's  a  difference  in  taxes.  We 
have  subtracted  the  taxes.  The  vahies  of 
the  Canadian-American  dollar  can  be  easily 
adjusted,  and  we  subtracted  those  out.  They 
had  to  search  for  something  else. 

They  came  out  with  the  appallingly  in- 
credible line  once,  that  it's  because  in  Can- 
ada we  have  to  translate  our  brochures  which 
are  used  across  the  rest  of  the  North  Ameri- 
can continent  into  French.  It  has  been 
estimated  that  the  total  cost  of  effecting  all 
these  translations,  the  difference  in  cost  to 
the  companies  in  having  a  French  and  Eng- 
lish one,  if  you  add  all  the  costs  of  the 
French  translations  chargeable  to  Canada,  is 
about  $30,000  a  year  per  company.  If  they 
pay  more  than  that  they  are  getting  taken. 

So  the  four  major  companies  were  talking 
about  $120,000  total  attributable  to  that. 
That  was  the  single  explanation  they  gave 
at  one  time.  If  you  take  the  number  of 
vehicles  produced  and  divide  it  into  $120,000, 
it  works  out  to  about  10  cents  per  vehicle. 
Mr.  Speaker,  yet  the  prices  have  a  $323 
difference.  It's  a  ludicrous  argument  they 
made.  And  let's  say  that  my  estimations  are 
out  by  a  whole  factor  of  10  in  terms  of  the 
cost  of  translations.  Then  it's  $1  a  car  differ- 
ence, not  $323  a  car  difference.  There  is  just 
no  justification  for  it  whatsover. 

Now  for  the  last  couple  of  years  we've 
had  negotiations  with  the  US  where  the 
federal  government  has  feebly  suggested 
that  there  should  be  tariff-free  transfer  of 
all  vehicles  by  individuals.  The  answer  is 
sure.  Not  one  Canadian  would  object  to 
automobiles  being  transferred  across  the 
border  by  individuals.  If  you  live  in  Toronto 
go  down  to  Detroit  and  buy  yourself  a  car 
and  drive  it  back.  Go  down  to  Alabama 
or  Florida  on  vacation,  buy  a  car  down 
there  and  drive  it  back  to  Canada;  no  duty. 
That  would  be  completely  acceptable  if  the 


772 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


factory  retail  prices  were  equalized.  We 
would  have  nothing  against  that  whatsoever. 
The  only  difference  would  therefore  be  the 
taxes.  Even  in  the  border  towns,  with  service 
now  being  a  very  important  factor  in  buying 
a  car,  I  cannot  see  my  fellow  residents  of 
Windsor  flocking  across  to  Detroit— it  isn't 
very  safe  over  there  anyway— to  buy  theii 
new  cars  to  avoid  a  one  or  two  per  cent 
difference  in  sales  tax,  or  something  of  this 
sort.  It  just  would  not  be  done  in  sufficient 
numbers  to  give  automobile  dealers  great 
cause  for  concern. 

In  addition,  the  US  government  has  taken 
it  to  the  next  step;  they've  said:  "What  about 
used  cars?"  I  say  sure,  let  tariff-free  transfer 
of  used  cars  take  place  two  years  after  the 
introduction  of  tariff-free  importation  of  new 
cars,  when  from  the  dealers'  point  of  view 
the  auto  sales  market  has  adjusted  to  what 
they  can  expect. 

I  made  a  suggestion  that  there  should  be 
a  logbook  provided  with  each  car  in  which 
the  name,  the  address  and  the  occupation  of 
each  and  every  owner  is  listed.  That  logbook 
must  stay  with  the  car.  That's  a  complete 
record  of  that  car  and  if  a  car  has  that  log- 
book with  it,  then  that  car  can  be  sold  in 
Ontario  irrespective  of  from  where  it  comes 
and  there  need  be  no  duty  charged.  Or, 
provided  there  is  a  logbook  with  that  used 
car,  an  Ontario  resident  visiting  any  other 
province  or  state  or  any  other  country  should 
be  able  to  bring  that  car  back  into  Canada 
duty  free. 

One  conclusion  about  the  auto  pact  that  I 
have  come  to  is  that  we've  taken  a  terrific 
hosing.  The  factory  retail  price  has  not  been 
equalized  and  no  government  of  Canada 
seems  to  have  put  any  pressure  on  these  auto 
companies  to  ensure  that  that  occurs.  Be- 
cause of  that,  we  in  this  party  would  strongly 
oppose  any  further  continentalization  of  any 
other  product  or  rationalization  of  any  other 
segment  of  the  North  American  industry  so 
that,  as  has  happened  with  the  Canadian  auto 
industry,  the  Canadian  industry  comes  wholly 
under  US  control. 

With  the  auto  industry  firmly  and  entirely 
in  US  hands  anyway,  we  have  little  to  lose 
due  to  rationalization.  We  simply  needed 
to  monitor  this  pact  so  that  we  in  Canada 
were  sure  we  were  getting  all  of  the  benefits. 
And  I  say  to  the  Premier  of  this  province 
and  I  say  to  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism- 
Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  In  their 
absence. 


Mr.  Bounsall:  In  their  absence,  that's  very 
true— that  they  should  be  going  to  Ottawa 
over  its  negotiations  on  other  points  and 
saying  to  them  in  the  strongest  possible 
terms.  "You  update  the  auto  pact  agreements 
so  that  we  in  fact  end  up  with  our  fair  and 
equitable  share  of  the  expanding  market 
here  in  Ontario  and  Canada."  They  have  not 
done  this;  they  have  not  taken  that  seriously 
and  they  are  under  an  obligation  to  do  so. 

Let  me  tell  you  one  other  thing  that  we  in 
Ontario  here  can  do,  Mr.  Speaker.  It's  very 
galling  that  whenever  I  want  to  get  anv  of 
these  figures  that  I've  talked  about  and  pro- 
duced here  tonight  I  have  to  go  to  the 
annual  reports  of  the  Present  of  the  United 
States— to  the  Congress  and  its  annual  reports 
on  the  operation  of  the  automotive  products 
trade  agreement.  That's  where  I  have  to  go 
to  get  my  figures  because  these  are  not  even 
collected  in  Canada  by  our  federal  govern- 
ment. There  is  no  monitoring  of  that  auto 
pact  of  any  sort  done  by  the  Canadian 
government. 

The  Province  of  Ontario,  to  safeguard  its 
own  workers'  jobs,  to  safeguard  the  10  per 
cent  of  all  manufacturing  jobs  done  in  this 
province  by  the  auto  industry,  could  and 
should  set  up  its  own  monitoring  of  this 
auto  pact.  The  government  then  would  have 
the  figures  to  show  Ottawa  how  it  has  been 
abrogating  its  responsibilities.  If  Ontario 
doesn't  do  at  least  this  in  the  area  which  is 
fully  open  to  it  to  do  so  it  is  abrogating 
a  responsibility  to  the  workers  and  to  the 
economic  success  and  prosperity  of  this  prov- 
ince. We  would  have  some  Canadian  figures 
we  could  wholly  trust  to  use  in  our 
negotiations. 

With  respect  to  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  was  one  other 
area  I  was  very  disappointed  in,  beins;  the 
labour  critic  for  our  party.  I  was  a  little  bit 
disappointed  but  not  unduly— 

An  hon.  member:  Was  the  member? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  —because  I  reall)-  didn't  ex- 
pect much,  but  to  find  absolutely  nothing  in 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne  in  the  area  of 
labour  was  a  little  bit  disconcerting.  There 
was  no  reference  at  all  to  the  minimum  wage 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario;  no  reference  at 
all  to  an  increase  in  the  minimum  wage  in 
this  province.  Of  course,  the  standard  position 
has  now  prevailed  in  Ontario  as  it  has  always 
prevailed;  we  are  always  behind  every  other 
province.  As  we  stand  right  here  todav,  in 
terms  of  minimum  wages  across  Canada, 
either  in  effect  or  annoimced,  we  are,  of 
course,  tied  for  fifth  place  in  terms  of  prov- 


APRIL  4,  1974 


773 


inces.  The  Provinces  of  Saskatchewan,  British 
Columbia,  Quebec  and  Manitoba  are  now 
ahead  of  us,  or  will  be  ahead  of  us  very 
shortly,  and  the  federal  government  is  now 
ahead  of  us  for  its  employees. 

Mr.  Foulds:  We  didn't  even  make  the 
playoffs. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  There  is  a  $2.20  minimum 
this  month  for  a  federal  employee  and  we  sit 
here  in  Ontario  at  $2.  This  is  the  most  in- 
dustrialized area  in  Canada  and  we  are 
content  to  stay  tied  for  fifth  place  with  the 
other  provinces  and  the  federal  government 
has  even  outstripped  us. 

I  have  made  the  arguments  many  times 
before.  I  said  the  government  should  have 
started  a  couple  of  years  ago;  it  shoidd  have 
fixed  a  fair  base  rate  and  adjusted  that  base 
rate  semi-annually  according  to  the  percent- 
age increases  in  salaries  and  wages.  If  it 
took  the  Manitoba  formula  for  adjusting  its 
minimum  wage,  based  on  a  percentage  of  the 
industrial  wages  prevailing  in  the  province, 
the  minimum  wage  that  should  be  paid  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario  right  now  would  be 
$2.63  an  hour  —  and  we  sit  content  at  $2 
an  hour. 

There  was  not  a  reference  to  it.  Maybe 
the  announcement  will  come  just  in  time  for 
Christmas,  as  if  the  workers  who  are  receiv- 
ing it  don't  know  ahready  exactly  what  that 
attempt  is.  It  is  a  simple  move  to  bamboozle 
them  and  they  are  not  buying  that  any  more, 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  terms  of  the  minimum  wage. 

There  was  no  reference  at  all  to  increased 
workmen's  compensation  benefits.  We  heard 
so  much  about  that  workmen's  compensation 
task  force  report.  We  had  a  bill  in  this 
House,  which  we  debated  last  December, 
which  implemented  that  task  force's  recom- 
mended, reorganization.  With  all  that  dis- 
cussion, the  workers  across  the  province  who 
heard  of  something  going  on  in  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Board  were  convinced^ 
or  thought— they  might  be  getting  increased 
benefits.  Oh,  no!  Not  for  our  Workmen's 
Compensation  Board  recipients,  those  people 
who  were  injured  in  the  workplace.  Not  at 
all. 

Now,  we  have  another  Throne  Speech  in 
March,  1974,  and  not  a  mention  of  work- 
men's compensation  pension  benefit  increases. 
It  is  appalling.  People  are  still  on  pensions 
based  on  the  earnings  they  made  15,  25,  30 
years  ago  in  this  province.  No  adjustment 
has  ever  been  made  for  per  cent  increase 
in  salaries  and  wages  or  the  cost  of  living 
in  this  province.  It  is  nothing  shy  of  chican- 


ery,   really,    and    not    a    mention    this    time 
again. 

All  of  us  here  in  this  House  get  workmen's 
compensation  recipients  contacting  us,  saying, 
"This  is  what  I  nave  been  offered.  I  nave 
been  on  this  pension  for  17  years  and  never 
an  increase.  When  are  you  going  to  do  some- 
thing?" Every  member  in  this  House  gets 
this  and  nothing  is  done.  Nothing  was  men- 
tioned in  this  Throne  Speech  with  respect 
to  workmen's  compensation  benefits. 

The  holiday  situation  is  rather  interesting, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Last  December  we  passed  a 
bill  in  this  House,  which  was  a  step  forward; 
that  is  why  we  voted  for  it  finally.  We 
couldn't  oppose  legislation  coming  in  in 
Ontario  which  gave  an  extra  week's  holiday 
for  someone  in  his  or  her  first  year.  Some- 
one in  the  first  year  of  employment  in  On- 
tario is  now  guaranteed  two  weeks  holiday. 

iWell,  it  might  be  interesting  for  the  House 
to  know  that  on  March  13  legislation  was 
introduced  in  Saskatchewan  which  guaranteed 
everybody  three  weeks  vacation  in  their  first 
year  of  employment.  And  Saskatchewan  isn't 
industrialized.  Here's  Ontario— with  the  great 
industrial  work  force  we  have  here,  in  the 
many  routine  boring  production  jobs  that 
require  time  off  from  that  just  for  the  worker 
to  retain  his  sanity— and  we  are  happy  to  say 
there  is  two  weeks  holidays.  Here  is  Saskat- 
chewan with  three  weeks  holidays  already. 

One  other  point  that  is  rather  interesting. 
I  got  a  call  just  last  week  from  a  super- 
intendent of  an  apartment  building  here  in 
Toronto.  This  is  one  of  the  areas  which  we 
said  would  not  be  subject  to  statutory  holi- 
days and  vacations  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
He  pointed  out  that  he  is  manager  of  an 
apartment  building  that  has  224  units  and 
why  cannot  he  have  a  right  to  a  vacation. 
He  and  the  rest  of  his  colleagues  in  the 
apartment  management  business  get  no  vaca- 
tion in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  A  224- 
apartment  unit  building  keeps  him  on  the  go 
all  the  time.  He  gets  a  vacation  only  by 
being  able  to  make  a  deal  witli  the  apart- 
ment manager  of  the  one  next  to  him  so 
that  that  guy  does  double  the  work  for  a 
week  while  he  gets  away. 

In  other  words,  if  he  wants  a  holiday  he 
has  to  work  double  and  take  over  the  man- 
agement of  a  second  apartment  building  for 
somebody  else  in  return  for  his  time  off. 
That's  a  discrimination  in  our  holidays  that 
has  got  to  be  removed.  There  may  well  be 
a  lower  limit  you  want  to  put  on  the  number 
of  units.  You  might  say  a  manager  w^ho  is 
a  manager  of  a  20-unit  building  has  really 
only    a   part-time   job    anyway   and   he   can 


774 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


always  get  away  a  few  hours  a  day  or  maybe 
two  or  three  days  at  a  time.  In  a  20-unit 
building  you  may  well  have  tenants  who 
know  each  other  and  they  may  well  have 
someone  within  the  building  who  would  be 
happy  to  manage  it  for  a  week  and  hold  off 
their  problems  until  he  comes  back. 

But  in  a  200-unit  apartment  building  that 
situation  is  an  impossibility.  Yet  we  say  to 
this  guy,  "No,  sir,  you  don't  have  any  right 
to  any  vacations  at  all  in  tliis  province."  That 
and  other  holiday  anomalies  have  got  to  be 
removed  from  that  legislation. 

'I  am  going  to  speak  very  briefly  on  the 
situation  of  Hydro  tonight,  Mr.  Speaker,  very 
briefly.  I  have  been  deeply  involved  with 
the  Hydro  transmission  corridors  and  the 
expansion  of  the  problems  involved  with  and 
the  public  concern  over  the  expansion  of  the 
nuclear  generation  plants,  particularly  up  at 
Douglas  Point  in  Bnace  county,  and  other 
concerns  about  other  nuclear  plants  being 
built  across  Ontario. 

I  had  a  very  productive  meeting  today 
with  some  of  the  top  workers— not  the  top 
management,  but  some  of  the  top  department 
workers  of  Hydro— with  respect  to  how  they 
go  about,  and  how  they  are  going  to  go 
about  in  the  future,  treating  the  farmers 
across  whose  land  the  Hydro  transmission 
corridors  occur,  and  how  they  will  go  about 
seeing  that  they  get  a  fair  offer.  In  the 
situation  that  arose  in  getting  the  power  hnes 
and  buying  up  the  land  for  the  power  trans- 
mission lioes  down  from  Douglas  Point,  from 
Bradley  station  down  to  Wingham  station 
particularly,  it  was  absolutely  appalling  the 
way  in  which  the  purchasers  for  Hydro 
treated  those  farmers. 

iWe  fully  understand  that  if  you  have  a 
farmer  who  does  not  want  to  sell  any  bit  of 
his  property,  who  is  concerned  about  the 
value  which  his  farm  now  has  in  producing 
food  which  is  in  short  supply  in  this  world, 
that  farmer  is  seeing  himself  now  as  a  rather 
more  important  person  in  the  economic  life 
of  om-  country,  something  which  he  hasn't 
been  for  a  few  years.  If  he  is  utterly  op- 
posed to  that  hydro  line  going  across  his 
farm,  the  Hydro  person  going  in  to  try  to 
negotiate  a  sale  can't  ever  be  right  in  those 
farmers'  terms.  But  they  have  just  been  in- 
credibly screwed  about  by  the  Hydro  nego- 
tiators. 

Hydro  have  realized  this.  They  have 
realized  some  of  their  errors.  At  least,  they 
said  they  did  today.  They  have  said  the  way 
in  which  they  are  going  to  set  about  redress- 
ing this  for  the  future.  But  just  a  word  to 
Hydro:    You   had   better  train   the  people   in 


this  field  very  carefully.  You  had  better  have 
them  spend  five,  six,  seven  hours  if  need  be 
with  the  farmer  on  first  contact  so  that  he 
absolutely  knows  all  the  parameters  in  terms 
of  the  purchase.  He  knows  all  of  the  situa- 
tions in  which  he  can  lease  it  back  or  not 
lease  it  back. 

lOne  of  the  other  options  as  well,  if  the 
farmer  therefore  finds  the  whole  thing  intoler- 
able, would  be  to  sell  his  farm  to  Hydro 
and  let  Hydro  lease  it  out  or  lease  it  out 
through  ARDA;  or  sell  it  again  on  the  open 
market  if  that  particular  farmer  doesn't  want 
to  get  involved. 

We  will  be  looking  very  closely  at  this 
because  of  the  conversation  I  had  today,  as 
to  just  how  much  Hydro  will  live  up  to  its 
commitment  to  treat  the  people,  particularly 
farmers,  whose  lands  and  livelihood  they  are 
playing  around  with  —  how  well  they  treat 
them  in  the  future  in  the  land  purchases  they 
obtain  from  them. 

I  was  up  in  Kincardine  a  couple  of  weeks 
ago  at  a  public  meeting  put  on  by  Hydro 
to  explain  the  safety  or  lack  thereof,  and 
the  reasons  for  the  expansion  of  their  nuclear 
generating  plant  at  Douglas  Point.  I  was 
very  impressed  with  that  meeting.  Their 
technical  staff  was  there  and  no  matter  how 
emotional  the  comments  were  from  the  floor 
they  took  the  time  to  explain  the  situation 
in  laymen's  terms  as  carefully  as  they  could. 
Being  a  research  chemist,  I  can  assure  the 
House  that  in  terms  of  the  operation  of  these 
nuclear  generating  plants  —  this  CANDU 
system  which  Canada  has  developed  for 
nuclear  power  generation  —  they  are  abso- 
lutely safe.  Short  of  bombs  landing  directly 
on  the  plants,  there  is  no  way  mat  these 
reactors  can  either  get  out  of  hand  or  can 
be  easily  sabotaged. 

If  you  think  of  a  nut  trying  to  come  into 
the  plant  to  do  something  which  will  sabo- 
tage that  plant  or  cause  vast  leakages  of 
radiation,  that  just  can't  occur. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Not  even  the  member  for 
Scarborough  Centre  (Mr.  Drea). 

Mr.  Bounsall:  So  that  indeed  is  reassur- 
ing. 

Several  other  points,  though,  need  to  be 
of  concern  to  the  Canadian  public.  They  still 
have  not  yet  solved  what  to  do  with  the 
radioactive  waste  materials.  At  the  moment 
they  are  keeping  them  in  concrete  containers 
under  guard.  When  I  asked  at  that  meeting 
what  was  the  volume  of  radioactive  waste 
that  needed  to  be  stored,  because  they  had 
not    mentioned    any    volume,    they    said    by 


APRIL  4,  1974 


775 


1990,  based  on  what  they  had  and  the  plants 
they  have  set  up,  it  will  be  only  a  rather 
small  total  volume.  I  pressed  them  again  on 
it  and  they  said  "from  our  calculations  it  is 
a  six-storey  building  the  size  of  a  football 
Beld." 

Now  one  can  look  at  that  in  two  ways.  One 
can  say  that's  pretty  big,  or  that's  not  so 
big  in  terms  of  what  you  can  find  around  the 
country  in  underground  storage  facilities  and 
lead-lined  concrete  containers  to  hold  a 
volume  of  material  equal  to  a  six-storey 
building  the  size  of  a  football  field.  In  all  of 
Ontario  one  might  be  able  to  find  that 
capacity. 

But  the  problem  is  the  half  life  of  radia- 
tion is  about  7,000  years— meaning  half  of 
the  radiation  level  will  have  decreased  in 
7,000  years.  For  radiation  to  be  nil  takes 
about  six  or  seven  half  lives.  We  are  talking 
about  that  stuff  being  held  in  those  con- 
tainers for  40,000  to  50,000  years. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  That's  no  problem. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  can  see  our  great,  great 
grandchildren,  ever  so  far  removed,  cursing 
our  generation  for  handing  a  storage  problem 
of  radioactive  waste  on  to  them  in  the  way 
that  we  are  doing  it.  With  each  nuclear 
generating  station  that  we  build  we  are  going 
to  be  producing  more  radioactive  waste  which 
is  going  to  have  to  be  stored  for  this  length 
of  time;  and  that  is  a  real  concern  to  me  in 
terms  of  what  we  are  handing  on  to  future 
generations. 

The  storage  facilities  themselves  present 
diflBculties.  They  wear  out  in  about  50  years. 
So  we  are  always  going  to  have  to  be  going 
through  a  continuous  process  of  transferring 
these  stored  raioactive  wastes  from  one  place 
to  another;  from  one  storage  tank  which  is 
starting  to  wear  out  into  another  one.  And 
we  are  going  to  hand  this  problem  on  for 
40,000  or  50,000  years  from  the  volume 
which  we  will  have  in  1990.  I  am  not  so 
sure  we  have  the  moral  right  to  do  that. 

I  would  really  question  that  whole  area 
of  proceeding  blithely  ahead  with  nuclear 
power  generation,  even  though  the  pro- 
duction of  it,  as  far  as  the  operation  of  the 
plant  goes,  is  safe,  10  times  as  safe  in  its 
operation,  as  any  other  nuclear  design,  par- 
ticularly the  system  in  the  United  States. 

Whenever  you  bring  this  up  to  Hydro— 
and  I  must  admit  that  Hydro  oflScials  don't 
make  these  decisions;  these  decisions  are 
going  to  be  made  by,  essentially,  the  Minister 
of  Energy  here  in  Ontario  (Mr.  McKeough) 
—their  reply  is:  "Well  you  know,  what's  the 


alternative,  going  back  to  coal-steam  genera- 
tion?" I  say  no,  that's  not  the  alternative, 
that's  the  bogeyman  which  they  bring  out, 
that  by  1990  we're  going  to  be  dependent 
upon  coal  for  energy  generation. 

The  present  Minister  of  Health  (Mr. 
Miller),  one  of  the  two  other  engineers  in 
the  House,  I  forget  whether  it  was  a  year  ago 
in  his  speech  in  the  Throne  Speech  debate, 
or  last  fall  in  a  budget  address,  laid  out  the 
technology  of  hydrogen  production  from 
water.  And  he  is  right  on,  his  figures  were 
correct;  we  are  only  15  years  away  from  it 
being  technologically  feasible,  in  economic 
terms,  to  take  water  and  extract  from  it  the 
hydrogen  that's  going  to  be  replacing  natural 
gas  as  our  main  source  of  heat  and  energy 
from  1990. 

What  I'm  saying  is  if  a  nuclear  station  is 
not  to  be  built  and  some  other  form  of  energy 
is  used  in  that  plant  it  will  be  a  hydrogen- 
operated  plant;  and  the  only  product  of 
hyroden's  combustion  is  the  very  clean  water 
vapour  itself.  That's  the  type  of  thing  to 
which  we  can  be  looking  forward  and  to 
which  we  should  be  looking  forward. 

Let  me  say  something  else:  If  the  Province 
of  Ontario  really  wanted  to  be  serious  in  this 
whole  field,  Mr.  Speaker,  they  would,  in  fact, 
give  funds  and  approve  research  projects  to 
speed  up  that  process  of  technological  ad- 
vance. They  would  give  funds  to  the  Ontario 
Research  Foundation  so  that  the  15-year 
period  on  feasibility  could  be  reduced  to 
possibly  eight  or  10  years  so  that  we  wouldn't 
have  to  build  colossally  costly  pipelines  from 
BaflBn  Island  to  get  some  natural  gas  down 
here. 

We  could  be  producing  hydrogen  gas  and 
replacing  natural  gas  in  this  province  in  eight 
to  10  years  if  this  Minister  of  Energy  and 
this  cabinet  wanted  to  make  that  commit- 
ment in  research  funds.  Give  it  to  the  Ontario 
Research  Foundation  and  get  the  patents  on 
the  process,  the  same  as  was  done  with  the 
CANDU  nuclear  plant.  There's  a  forward 
step  which  the  province  can  take  and  get 
for  itself  a  product  which  can  be  marketable. 

In  those  terms  I  have  something  to  say 
about  the  Ontario  Research  Foundation. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside): 
Yes,  but  the  cabinet  isn't  listening. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Sure  he  is. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  There  are  some  prospective 
cabinet  ministers  over  there,  perhaps. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Possibly  some  recycled  ones. 


776 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  hon.  member:   Stick  around  a  while. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We  can  trust  those  gentle- 
men over  there  to  pass  the  good  word  along. 
The  Premier  is  always  prone  to  say  he  al- 
ways reads  Hansard. 

Mr.  Foulds:  See  the  member  for  Carleton 
East  light  up  at  that  suggestion. 

Mr.  A.  B.  R.  Lawrence  (Carleton  East): 
I  don't  think  I  have  ever  seen  one  recycled 
in  here. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  want  to  say  a  word  about 
the  Ontario  Research  Foundation.  You  know, 
Mr.  Speaker,  Ontario  has  reneged  completely 
on  its  commitments  to  do  any  sort  of  re- 
search or  have  any  sort  of  research  endeavour 
in  this  province.  Let  me  give  the  members 
some  of  the  figures. 

In  1964-1965,  through  the  Ontario  Re- 
search Foundation,  the  Province  of  Ontario 
spent  $4,753  million.  From  there  it  started 
to  taper  off,  and  then  picked  up  again  so 
slowly  it's  not  even  worth  remarking.  I  won't 
give  you  all  the  figures,  Mr.   Spe^er. 

In  1970-1971  there  was  $1,485  million;  a 
little  bit  of  a  jump  between  1970-1971  and 
1971-1972  in  which  the  figure  reads  $2,215 
million. 

What  was  the  jump  between  that  year  and 
1972-1973,  in  spite  of  the  cost  of  living  going 
up  tremendous:  $2,224  million.  That,  if  my 
calculations  are  correct,  represents  about  half 
of  one  per  cent  increase  in  research-fund 
spending  by  this  province. 

Members  say  what  might  be  a  proper  ex- 
penditure level  on  research  in  this  province? 
The  Province  of  Ontario  is  rougWy  about 
five  times  as  large  in  population  as  the  Prov- 
ince of  Alberta.  The  figure  for  1972-1973  in 
Ontario  was  $2,224  million  to  our  Ontario 
Research  Foundation.  In  Alberta,  in  that 
same  year,  the  amount  was  $3,935,000.  Al- 
berta has  a  commitment  to  the  Alberta  Re- 
search Council  to  put  funds  in  there  to  see 
that  some  original  research  is  done  as  well 
as  applied  research  that  will  be  of  benefit 
to  the  people  of  the  Province  of  Alberta. 
They  have  put  a  lot  of  funds  into  the  petro- 
leum research  section  of  the  Alberta  Re- 
search Council. 

We  are  producing  electrical  energy  by 
nuclear  means  in  this  province,  and  we  have 
got  a  means  of  replacing  that  energy  with 
hydrogen.  We  could  well  put  those  kinds  of 
funds  for  that  type  of  research  into  the  On- 
tario Research  Foundation  or  farm  it  out  to 
other  places  if  it  can  be  bought  more  cheap- 
Iv  elsewhere  in   Ontario.   And  if  those  funds 


go  to  corporations  in  the  United  States,  do 
it  here.  We  should  see  that  that  is  done. 

If  we  funded  research  on  the  same  per 
capita  basis  as  the  Province  of  Alberta,  in 
the  fiscal  year  1972-1973  we  would  have 
spent  over  $20  million  on  research  into  prob- 
lems in  which  this  province  is  interested,  as 
opposed  to  the  $2  million  that  we  did  spend. 

In  other  words,  we  are  spending  a  factor 
of  10  less  than  we  should  be  spending  rela- 
tive to  the  per  capita  expenditure  in  the 
Province  of  Alberta.  And  we  have  vastly 
more  government  funding  at  our  disposal  to 
do  this  than  has  the  Province  of  Alberta. 

What  I  am  saying  is  that  the  $4  million 
expenditure  in  Alberta  costs  the  taxpayer  of 
Alberta  a  hell  of  a  lot  more  in  sweat  and 
tears  than  the  same  per  capita  amount  would 
in  this  province.  We,  as  a  government,  could 
spend  twice  as  much  as  that  on  research- 
even  $40  million—before  we  would  even  start 
feeling  the  pinch.  We  have  certainly  abdi- 
cated our  entire  responsibility  in  this  field. 

Mr.  Foulds:   Absolutely. 

Mr.  Boimsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wanted  to 
say  a  few  remarks  tonight  about  the  arrange- 
ments—not so  much  the  arrangements,  but 
the  distribution  of  the  food  in  the  members' 
cafeteria,  down  below.  Having  reached  this 
time  of  night,  I  don't  think  I  will  spend 
much  time  on  this  subject,  except  to  relate 
one  incident. 

A  party  of  us  went  in  there  once,  shortly 
after  it  was  opened,  and  the  waitress  was 
serving  23  different  locations.  No  wonder  it 
took  an  hour  and  20  minutes  to  get  in  there, 
gulp  down  our  lunch  when  it  finally  arrivedi, 
and  then  leave.    She  was  overworked. 

It  seems  to  me  they  have  slightly  increased 
their  staff,  but  let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
part  of  their  problem  is  the  menu.  I  walked 
in  there  once  last  week,  and  because  I  am 
from  Windsor  I  said  to  the  waitress,  "I'll 
take  the  Windsor  soup."  She  said,  "Well, 
the  Windsor  soup  is.  .  .  ." 

"Don't  bother  to  tell  me,  I'll  just  take  it." 

Presumably,  because  the  menu  said, 
"Windsor  soup,"  she  felt  impelled  to  tell 
everybody  who  ordered  Windsor  soup  what 
it  was.  This  was  at  lunch  time,  and  it  cer- 
tainly would  take  up  some  time. 

The  Windsor  soup  happened  to  be  old 
chicken  gumbo  with  some  noodles  tossed  in. 
That's  Windsor  soup!  I  wouldn't  advise  any- 
one to  try  it.  I  can't  see  why  chicken  gumbo 
with  noodles  added  somehow  is  a  connota- 
tion of  Windsor— but  there  it  was,  Windsor 
soup. 


APRIL  4,  1974 


777 


Mr.  Foulds:  That  is  what  they  do  in  Wind- 
sor Casde. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Add  noodles  to  the  chicken 

gumbo  soup?    Ah  yes. 

When  I  got  to  the  main  portion  of  the 
meal,  I  said,  "I'll  take  the  omelette  of  the 
day."  She  said,  "The  omelette  of  the 
day.  ..."  I  said,  "Don't  bother  telling  me. 
I'll  just  take  the  omelette  of  the  day.  I'm  in 
a  hurry."  Well,  the  omelette  of  the  day 
turned  out  to  be  the  omelette  that  was  feat- 
ured on  the  left-hand  side— the  omelette  with 
kidneys  in  it. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Kidneys  in  the 
omelette! 

Mr.  Bounsall:  On  the  left-hand  side,  in 
the  dinner  section,  it  was  described  as 
"omelette  with  kidneys  and  mushrooms."  On 
the  other  side,  where  I  ordered  it  from,  it 
was  the  "omelette  du  jour."  It  was  the  same 
thing  that  was  on  the  left.  I  thought,  "Well 
I  have  gone  this  far  ..."  so  I  said,  "For 
dessert,  give  me  the  coupe  St.  Jacques."   She 

said,  "The  coupe  St.  Jacques  is "  "Never 

mind  what  the  coupe  St.  Jacques  is.  What- 
ever the  hell  it  is,  1 11  eat  it."  On  every  item 
I  ordered  she  was  prepared'  to  give  me  a 
two-minute  explanation  as  to  what  it  was. 
Peoplfe  were  lined  up  out  the  door  of  the 
members'  dining  room  waiting  to  eat,  and 
we  had  to  go  through  these  explanations! 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  That's  the 
personal  touch. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Well,  if  anyone  wants  to 
know  what  coupe  St.  Jacques  is,  just  go  down 
and  try  it.  I'm  not  even  going  to  tell  what 
coupe  St.  Jacques  is. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Or  ask  the  Minister  for  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  (Mr.  Brunelle). 

Mr.  Deans:  But  it  certainly  has  prompted 
this  speech. 

iMr.  Bounsall:  One  other  thing:  I  had  a 
couple  of  complaints.  We  were  all  upset  in 
this  House  when  the  ground  rules  were  being 
set  up  for  that  dining  room,  that  staif  were 
going  to  be  excl'uded  unless  accompanied  by 
a  member.  And  although  there  were  enough 
remarks  and  petitions  that  that  proposed  rule 
was  changed,  I  am  not  not  sure  the  attitude 
has  changed  one  iota. 

I  have  had  two  or  three  complaints  come  to 
me  about  staff  not  being  allowed  in  there 
unless  they  were  able  to  be  seated  at  a  table 
by  themselves.  A  couple  of  times  I  sat  there 
and  watched,  and  sure  enough,  there  are  two 
MPPs  at  a  four-person  table  or  three  MPPs  at 


a  four-person  table  and  there  is  the  staff  lin- 
ing up  outside.  No  way  will  that  employee 
who  is  on  the  door  let  them  come  in  and 
find  their  place  with  an  MPP.  If  there  are 
two  other  staff  people  at  a  table,  and  two 
staff  people  lining  up  waiting  to  get  in,  they'll 
be  usnered  in  and  .seated  with  the  other  staff. 
In  no  way  is  that  guy  going  to  let  them  sit 
with  MPPs.  I  think  that  attitude  had  better 
disappear. 

In  fact,  there  is  one  incident  I  noticetl  in 
particular,  having  watched  for  it.  There  is 
a  lady  who  has  been  employed  around  here 
for  a  great  many  years  wno  walked  in  to  be 
seated  by  herself.  She  is  well  known  to  all 
the  MPPs.  She  is  employed  in  a  capacity  in 
which  she  does  work  for  us  all  and  is  in  con- 
tact with  us  from  time  to  time.  There  were 
three  MPPs  and  four  chairs  at  our  table  and 
the  same  was  true  over  lunch  at  various  other 
tables.  She  was  not  allowed  the  freedom  to 
walk  in  and  even  ask  MPPs  with  vacant 
chairs  at  their  table  if  she  could  join  them. 
There  wouldn't  have  been  one  of  us  who 
would  have  turned  her  down.  Because  she 
couldn't  take  the  time  to  wait  until  presum- 
ably a  table  opened  up  in  some  other  loca- 
tion, she  left. 

I  don't  think  that  attitude,  that  was  writ- 
ten down  in  black  and  white  and  which  we 
thought  we  had  changed  so  that  staff  could 
eat  Siere,  has  really  been  carried  through. 
Someone,  the  Speaker  preferably,  or  the 
Minister  of  Government  Services  (Mr.  Snow) 
secondarily,  should  talk  to  whoever  is  man- 
aging that  place  and  see  that  that  type 
of  attitude  is  not  continued. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  rising  at  this  time,  I  would  like 
to  go  through  a  few  of  the  formalities  asso- 
ciated with  the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 
Rather  than  congratulating  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  adding  to  your  already  imposing  list  of 
credits  from  this  session,  I  would  like  to  offer 
my  congratulations  at  this  time  to  what  I 
would  like  to  call  your  unsung  help,  that  is, 
the  member  for  Northumberland  (Mr.  Rowe), 
who  so  capably  served  as  deputy  Speaker.  I 
think  that  he  deserves  a  special  plaudit,  sir, 
because  rank  of  course  always  has  its  privi- 
leges. I  think  there  is  usually  a  tendency  to 
reserve  the  better  debates  for  oneself  and, 
unfortunately,  the  deputy  gets  those  of  a 
lesser  light. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Not  in  this 
particular  case. 


778 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  J.  E.  BuIIbrook  (Samia):  Is  that  why 
we  have  the  Speaker  in  the  chair  now?  Is 
that  what  the  member  is  saying.  Is  that  the 
implication? 

Mr.  Drea:  I  hadn't  even  thought  of  it.  I 
was  going  to  be  peaceful  tonight.  I  started 
off  in  a  nice  way  and  the  member  for  Samia 
has  now  provoked  me. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Oh,  dear! 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  The  member  said  the  Speak- 
er reserves  the  best  debates  for  himself  and 
he  is  in  the  chair  now. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  Reid:  That  is  what  he  said.  He  said 
rank  has  its  privileges. 

Mr.  Drea:   I  said  rank  had  its  privileges, 
and  there  was   a  tendency,   Mr.   Speaker,   I 
suggested,  for  your  deputy- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  Try  to  carry  on. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  It  is 
difficult. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  come  back  to 
my  congratulations  to  your  deputy,  I  think 
he  does  an  outstanding  job,  particularly  be- 
cause it  is  upon  his  shoulders  there  are 
inflicted  the  numerous  tedious  operations  in 
this  chamber,  particularly— 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  He  would  do 
a  better  job  if  he  could  count. 

Mr.  Drea:  —the  number  of  endless  replies 
to  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  and,  I  sup- 
pose, commencing  the  week  after  next  a 
seemingly  endless  number  of  replies  to  the 
budget  address.  I  would  also  like  to  offer  my 
congratulations  to  the  member  for  York  North 
(Mr.  W.  Hodgson)  who  serves  as  assistant  to 
the  deputy  Speaker  and  also  as  chairman  of 
the  committee  of  the  whole  House. 

Mr.  Shulman:  He  can't  count  either. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  also  offer  my  congratulations 
to  my  colleagues  who  are  not  on  the  oJQBdal 
roster  but  nonetheless  do  sit  in,  particularly 
during  the  time  of  the  estimates— the  member 
for  Beaches-Woodbine  (Mr.  Wardle)  and  the 
member  for  Victoria-Haliburton  (Mr.  R.  G. 
Hodgson). 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  also  like  to  point  out 
that  since  the  last  session  two  of  oiur  attend- 
ants have  retired,  Mr.  Cy  Saunders  and  Mr. 
Stan  Stevens.  When  I  had  guests  or  other 
members  had  guests  both  of  tifiose  gentlemen 
were    most   courteous   to   them.    Tney   were 


most  helpful  to  them  in  the  Speaker's  gallery, 
sir,  and  I  certainly  hope  that  they— 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  They  didn't  retire.  They 
were  told  to  retire. 

Mr.  Reid:  They  didn't  do  it  voluntarily. 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  Does  the  member  realize 
that,  that  they  were  told  to  retire? 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member  is  stealing  my  line. 
Would  he  just  hold  for  a  moment? 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  Oh,  I  am  sorry.  The  mem- 
ber had  said  "retired." 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  we  were  coming  into  some- 
thing else. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  would  wish  them  well  in  what- 
ever endeavours  they  are  doing  now.  But  I 
would  point  out  to  you,  sir— and  I  suppose  it's 
because  I  have  perhaps  an  aversion  for  uni- 
forms—I for  one  do  not  think  that  having 
attendants  dressed  up  as  some  kind  of  a 
policeman  or  some  kind  of  a  security  guard 
either  lends  any  dignity  or  any  decor  to 
to  something  as  traditional,  as  peaceful  and 
as  symbolic  to  the  citizens  of  the  province  as 
this  chamber. 

Now,  sir,  I  realize  there  is  a  tendency  in 
government,  particularly  this  government— and 
if  I  recall  the  words  of  my  friend  from  the 
press  gallery,  Mr.  O'Heam,  correctly,  it  seems 
to  be  the  last  watering  place  for  every  retired 
general  that  is  around— there  seems  to  be  a 
growing  tendency  here  to  put  all  kinds  of 
people  into  some  type  of  uniform.  I  suggest 
to  you,  sir,  and  most  respectfully,  I  would— 

Mr.  Shulman:  Wait  until  the  member  sees 
the  uniforms  they  are  getting  for  the  NDP. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  didn't  get  it;  what  was  it? 

Mr.  Shulman:  They  are  going  to  put  us  all 
in  imiforms  next  year. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  I  think  they'd  like  to;  I 
think  they'd  like  to. 

Mr.  Deans:  Some  of  us  will  be  in  strait- 
jackets. 

An  hon.  member:  It  may  be;  it  may  be. 

Mr.    Drea:    Speak    for    oneself.    But,    Mr.  ' 

Speaker,  with  the  deepest  of  respect,  I  submit 
to  you,  sir,  that  it  is  a  discordant  note  in  this 
chamber  to  have  attendants  in  that  paricular 
style  of  uniform.  I  would  suggest  to  you,  sir, 
perhaps  a  blue  pin-striped  suit,  or  something 
of  that  calibre. 


APRIL  4.  1974 


779 


Mr.  Singer:  With  a  vest. 

Mr.  Reid:  As  long  as  it's  blue. 

Mr.  Drea:   I  think  that  the  presence  of  a 
uniform  in  the  comers  here,  to  me  is  a  very 
discordant  note- 
Mr.  Deans:  A  sword? 

Mr.  Drea:  Discordant. 

If  you  would  take  a  sampling  of  opinion, 

Mr.    Speaker,    I    think    that    perhaps    some 

changes  in  that  area  might  be  accomplished. 

And    since   it   was   brought  to  my  attention 

about  the  fact- 
Mr.  Shulman:  That's  an  important  one. 

Mr.   Drea:    —that  Mr.    Saunders  and  Mr. 

Stevens  were  asked  to  retire- 
Mr.  Deans:  Because  they  couldn't  a£Ford  to 

buy  uniforms. 

Mr.  Drea:  —well,  I  wish  them  well.  I  wish 
that  they  hadn't  been  asked  to  retire  be- 
cause I  think,  quite  frankly,  that  we  are 
getting  to  be  too  security  conscious  around 
here.  In  fact,  I  think  we  are  on  the  verge  of 
becoming  security  nuts.  The  old  system 
seemed  to  work  very  well  in  this  chamber, 
when  a  rather  middle-aged  or  senior  gentle- 
man could  make  sure  that  people  were  seated 
in  the  proper  gallery.  With  all  due  respect 
to  everyone,  sir,  I  really  don't  think  there 
is  a  threat  to  life  and  limb  every  day  in  this 
chamber.  I  think  we  are  going  the  way  of  the 
United  States  and  other  jurisdictions  without 
any  reason  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  member  should  come 
to  the  question  period. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  changes  in  public  life 
are  misconstrued. 

Mr.  Drea:  Yes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  We'll  die  of  boredom,  that's 
the  only  thing  we'll  die  of  in  here. 

Mr.  Drea:   Mr.   Speaker,  as  is  usually  my 
custom  in   the  Throne  debate,  I  would  like 
to  say  a  few  things  about  some  problems  in 
my  riding- 
Mr.  Reid:  That's  unusual. 

Mr.  Drea:  —in  the  borough  of  Scarborough, 
and  as  they  relate  to  other  matters  across  this 
province. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Does  the  member  mean 
he  is  going  to  retire? 

Mr.  Reid:  Retire  again. 


Mr.  Drea:  Vint  of  all,  sir,  I  would  like  to 
talk  about  electricity.  Over  the  past  year  we 
have  been  mesmerized  to  some  degree  that 
supposedly  in  Canada  we  have  an  energy 
crisis.  I  have  yet  to  find  that  in  this  country 
we  really  have  any  kind  of  an  energy  situa- 
tion, sir,  that  justifies  the  use  of  the  word 
"crisis."  However,  that  is  not  to  say  that  in 
the  future  we  will  not  reach  the  point  where 
other  industrialized  nations  found  themselves 
last  year  where,  because  of  increased  con- 
siunption  and  increased  demand,  the  inability 
of  the  existing  systems  to  carry  the  load  for 
that  consumption  and  demand  would  place 
us  in  a  situation  where  there  is  somediing  of 
scarcity. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  just  like  to  point  out 
to  you  something  from  the  annual  report  of 
the  utilities  commission  for  the  borough  of 
Scarborough— and  I  think  this  has  some  sig- 
nificance. I  want  to  talk  for  a  few  moments 
after  this  about  a  rather  insidious  movement 
toward  eliminating  the  elected  members  from 
either  public  utilities  commissions  or  hydro 
commissions,  whatever  they  are  called  in  par- 
ticular areas. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  last  seven  years  in 
Scarborough  the  population  has  increased  by 
37  per  cent  but  there  has  been  a  59  per 
cent  increase  in  the  domestic  usage  of  electric 
power.  And  I  think  that  is  of  some  signifi- 
cance. As  they  point  out  here,  this  reflects 
the  greater  use  of  electricity  by  borough 
residents  for  space  heating  as  well  as  in 
utilizing  many  more  electrical  appliances.  And 
the  trend  is  expected  to  continue,  due  to  the 
energy  crisis  and  the  scarcity  of  fossil  fuels. 

Now  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  an  increase 
in  electric  power  consumption  that  is  run- 
ning far  ahead  of  a  population  increase  there 
would  be  a  tendency  to  believe  that  a  public 
utilities  commission,  like  the  one  that  so  ably 
serves  the  borough  where  my  riding  is,  would 
have  a  tremendous  increase  in  the  number 
of  its  employees.  Yet,  Mr.  Speaker,  despite 
the  37  per  cent  increase  in  population  and 
the  almost  60  per  cent  increase  in  domestic 
electrical  consumption,  the  staff  has  increased 
only  22  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  two  of  the  commissioners  on 
the  Scarborough  public  utilities  commission 
must  face  the  electors  every  two  years.  The 
third  commissioner  is  the  mayor  serving  in  an 
ex  oflBcio  capacity;  to  remain  there  he  also 
has  to  face  the  electors  every  two  years.  I 
suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  one  of  the  reasons 
for  the  remarkable  record  of  the  Scarborough 
pubhc  utilities  commission  is  that  those  people 
are  elected.  They  have  to  face  the  people.  If 
they  go  to  the  electorate  and  say,  "We  are 


780 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


going  to  run  your  public  utilities  in  a  busi- 
nesslike and  efficient  manner,"  and  the  rates 
go  skyhigh  then  there  will  be  replacements, 
and  rightfully  so. 

But,  sir,  we  are  only  about  a  year  away  in 
this  province  from  concerted  drives  by  local 
municipal  councils  that  there  become  a  pro- 
vincial policy  to  amalgamate  hydro  commis- 
sions and,  as  the  price  of  amalgamation,  that 
commissioners  be  appointed.  The  argument 
somehow  goes- 
Mr.  Shulman:  It's  a  Communist  plot. 

Mr.  Drea:  —that  the  public  is  not  really  in 
a  position  to  determine  the  quality  of  the 
commissioners  who  put  themselves  up  for  elec- 
tion, that  it  would  be  better  done  in  a  calm 
and  meaningful  discussion  by  the  council. 

Sir,  I  suggest  to  you  that  the  record  of 
Ontario  Hydro  in  bringing  electricity  to  this 
province  and  keeping  abreast  of  increasing 
consumer  and  industrial  demand,  of  meeting 
the  challenges  of  a  technological  society,  of 
being  able  to  provide  you  with  electricity, 
whether  for  industrial  or  domestic  use  any- 
where in  the  province,  that  while  they  may 
get  the  glory  for  this,  it  has  been  the  local 
public  utilities  commissions  that  have  been 
doing  the  work  over  all  the  years.  It  may  be 
all  very  well  to  honour  Sir  Adam  Beck.  It 
may  be  all  very  well  to  honour  every  Hydro 
chairman  down  through  the  years.  But  were 
it  not  for  the  local  hydro  or  public  utilities 
commissions  nothing  very  much  would  have 
been  accomplished. 

'Now,  I  suggest  to  you  that  what  the  mu- 
nicipal councils  want  to  do  is  to  raid  the 
treasuries  of  the  hydro  commissions  and  they 
also  want  to  make  it  a  sinecure  for  retired 
politicians,  rather  than  allowing  the  public 
a  direct  voice  in  the  operation  of  their  local 
public  utility.  And  I  think  this  has  deep  sig- 
nificance for  us,  sir,  because  there  is  a  differ- 
ence between  the  lifestyle  in  Ontario  and  that 
of  other  jurisdictions.  One  of  the  primary 
differences  is  that  electricity  long  ago  was 
recognized  as  a  public  utihty,  owned  by  and 
operated  for  the  pubhc;  and  the  public  is 
provided  power  at  probably  the  most  reason- 
able rate  on  the  continent.  I  suggest  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  to  begin  to  tamper  by 
merging,  by  amalgamating,  by  getting  rid  of 
elected  officials,  we  are  eoing  the  road,  which, 
in  some  other  areas,  other  jurisdictions  have 
gone.  Bigness,  efficiency  and  appointments 
may  sound  very  well  on  paper,  but  when  it 
comes  down  to  it  I  have  pretty  basic  faith  in 
people  to  determine  and  to  elect  the  kind  of 
person  who  can  represent  them. 


Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Now  he  is 
talking;  now  the  member  is  talking  sense. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  was  just  pointing  out  that 
record  of  accomplishment.  I  know  of  no  gov- 
ernment under  which  population  has  increased 
37  per  cent  or  production  by  60  per  cent  that 
has  increased  its  staff  by  only  22  per  cent  and 
still  can  meet  the  need.  When  government 
gets  into  the  game  with  appointments,  sir,  the 
staff  goes  far  beyond  any  type  of  production, 
any  type  of  service,  any  type  of  anything. 

Perhaps  a  little  bit  later  in  my  remarks 
tonight,  while  I  read  to  members  some  of  the 
development  courses  for  our  civil  servants  for 
which  they  and  I  are  paying,  we  may  see  the 
reason  why  more  and  more  buildings  appar- 
ently are  required  to  house  the  bureaucracy. 

Secondly,  sir,  on  a  matter  that,  while  I 
think  it  is  in  need  of  immediate  attention  in 
the  borough  of  Scarborough,  I  think  it  is  also, 
because  of  economic  trends  and  because  of 
the  situation  in  housing,  going  to  become  a 
significant  problem  for  urban  dwellers  in  the 
very  near  future;  and  I  am  referring  to  the 
old  question  of  the  invisible  population  or  the 
hidden  population,  the  ones  who  live  in  base- 
ment apartments.  Primarily  because  of  zoning 
and  secondly  because  of  taxes,  these  people 
are  never  reported. 

The  reason  they  are  called  hidden,  of 
course,  is  that  they  are  there.  Their  children 
are  using  the  schools.  They  are  contributing 
to  the  waste  disposal  problem.  They  are  de- 
manding and  crowding  the  recreational  fa- 
cilities. 

I  think  if  the  people  who  live  in  that  base- 
ment apartment  had  their  options  they  have 
no  intention  of  cheating  the  municipality; 
they  would  pay  their  taxes,  they  would  pay 
their  way.  But  it  is  the  owner  of  the  home 
who  tells  them  they  should  keep  it  the  way  it 
is  or  they  will  have  to  get  out. 

With  the  present  shortage  of  housing,  par- 
ticularly for  lower  income  groups  or  for  older 
people,  there  is  a  tendency,  sir,  for  more  and 
more  of  these  basements  to  be  converted  into 
living  quarters  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
provincial  assessors;  or  indeed  without  any 
knowledge  by  the  local  fire  departments  or 
other  people  who  are  and  should  be  con- 
cerned about  this  situation. 

Now  of  course  the  history  of  the  basement 
apartment  is  one  that  I  suppose  was  brought 
about  by  zoning.  In  the  after-the-war  years 
people  wanted— well  I  don't  really  know  if 
they  wanted,  they  were  once  again  taken  in 
by  the  planners.  Planning  doesn't  appear  any- 
where in  this  province  in  regard  to  housing 
until   well   after  World  War  II.   I  somehow 


APRIL  4.  1974 


781 


think  that  in  a  lot  of  ways  the  unplanned 
portion  of  the  province  is  better  than  the 
planned  one. 

However,  the  planners  brought  in  this 
zoning  and  everyone  was  supposed  to  live  in 
the  same  kind  of  house  on  the  same  kind  of 
street,  with  the  circular  drive;  you  were 
going  to  be  with  the  same  kind  of  families 
and  this  was  going  to  really  reorganize  society, 
and  so  on  and  so  forth.  Of  course  25  years 
later  we  know  that  it  didn't  work. 

But  in  any  event,  there  was  a  tendency  in 
the  day  of  the  high  basement,  the  full  base- 
ment which  no  longer  exists,  that  that  coidd 
be  converted  into  living  quarters  and  that 
was  how  you  helped  ease  the  cost  of  the 
second  mortgage.  Of  course  you  were  at  the 
mercy  of  your  neighbours,  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
cause if  they  called  the  zoning  inspector  he 
could  order  you  to  remove  those  tenants 
because  you  were  breaking  the  zoning  law. 
So  therefore  you  wouldn't  pay  taxes  because 
the  mere  payment  of  taxes  would  be  a  prima 
facie  case  that  you  had  broken  the  zoning 
law  and  a  mere  reading  of  the  names  of  the 
occupants  of  the  household  would  be  sufB- 
cient  for  a  zoning  inspector  or  a  bylaw  en- 
forcement person.  They  could  simply  call  at 
the  door  and  say  that  either  the  people  moved 
and  the  basement  was  converted  from  rent- 
able tenants'  quarters  into  what  it  was  in- 
tended for  in  the  house,  or  they  would  have 
to  take  action.  Over  the  years  there  has  de- 
veloped an  underground  style  of  life  in  To- 
ronto and  now,  particularly,  in  the  suburbs. 

Older  people,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  finding  it 
very  difficult  to  keep  up  with  taxes  and  there- 
fore they  put  somebody  into  the  basement 
apartment.  That  person's  rent,  since  it  is 
never  declared,  helps  defray  the  cost  of  taxa- 
tion, so  on  and  so  forth,  and  this  really 
enables  them  to  keep  their  home.  But  now, 
sir,  I  suggest  we  are  at  the  crunch  in  this 
situation. 

I  think  the  time  has  come  when  the  prov- 
ince has  to  get  really  tough  and  take  some 
decisive  action.  I  think,  quite  frankly,  we  are 
going  to  have  to  come  up  with  some  type  of 
legislation  or  progranmie  which  will  oflFer 
amnesty  to  those  who  have  been  renting  base- 
ment apartments.  We  are  now  in  a  situation 
in  which  many  of  these  homes  are  older, 
probably  more  prone  to  fire  than  they  were 
in  the  beginning,  and,  Mr.  Speaker,  there's  an 
awful  lot  of  concern  about  rooming  houses  in 
Toronto  now  and  the  number  of  people  who 
have  been  burned  to  death  in  them. 

I  know  of  no  basement  apartment  which 
has  more  than  one  exit.  If  anything  happens 
in  that  basement,  there  is  only  one  stairway 


out  and  I  suggest  this  is  indeed  a  dangerous 
situation,  particularly  when  the  people  who 
use  this  type  of  accommodation  most  are 
either  older  persons— and  therefore  less  able 
to  race  up  a  flight  of  stairs  to  l>eat  the  fire— 
or  families  with  a  number  of  young  children. 
Of  course,  the  problem  has  been  that  the 
assessment  officer— or  the  assessor  when  he 
was   a   municipal   employee— supposedly   had 

Eowers  to  come  into  one's  home.  He  does 
ave  the  power.  However,  there  are  a  great 
number  of  people  who  take  a  certain  amount 
of  umbrage  at  that.  They  do  believe  that  their 
home  is  their  own  casde  and  therefore  there 
has  been  a  kind  of  resentment,  particularly  in 
the  new  round  of  assessments. 

The  fire  department,  of  course,  if  it  really 
wants  to,  does  have  the  right  to  come  in  and 
inspect  one's  home.  It  may,  by  necessity,  have 
to  go  and  obtain  a  court  order  but  it  can  do 
this.  Unfortunately,  the  fire  departments  have 
more  than  enough  work  to  ao  and  if  they 
find  homes  where  people  do  not  answer  the 
doorbell  for  them,  as  I  say  they  have  more 
than  enough  work  to  do,  therefore  they  do 
not  bother. 

Sir,  there  are  two  questions  in  this.  One, 
udth  municipal  taxes,  particularly  in  Metro- 
politan Toronto  going  to  soar  in  the  next 
month  or  so— and  I  mean  really  go  just  about 
out  of  sight— there  is  the  question  of  taxes. 
If  these  establishments  were  legahzed,  we 
could  put  a  levy  on  the  owners  and  thev 
would  pay  their  proper  tax  to  the  municipal- 
ity. I  don't  really  think  that  after  the  neigh- 
bourhood has  been  accustomed  over  the  years 
to  two  families  living  in  that  supposed  one- 
family  home  there  is  going  to  be  any  demand 
in  the  neighbourhood  for  mass  evictions  or  so 
on  and  so  forth.  They  have  kno^^^l  for  years. 
They  know  the  situation  is  there  but  they  are 
powerless  to  do  anything  about  it.  So  one, 
there  is  the  question  of  taxes;  two,  there  is 
the  question  of  the  enormous  costs  of  schools. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  an  area  in  my  riding 
where,  according  to  the  official  count— accord- 
ing to  the  census  coimt,  according  to  the 
assessment,  according  to  everything— there  are 
sufficient  schools,  there  are  sufficient  play- 
groimds,  there  is  sufficient  everything  -  but 
everything  over  there  is  jammed  to  death 
because  about  one-third  of  the  people  in  the 
area  are  from  that  hidden  population 

It  is  also  very  difficult,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
turn  back  the  tide  of  some  rather  rutliless 
developers,  because  after  all  they  take  the 
figures  and  they  say:  "There  are  X  number 
of  people  living  in  this  area.  According  to 
the  standards  there  can  be  this  number:  we 
are  well  within  the  limit,  we  should  have  the 


782 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


maximiim  density  permitted  by  law."  When 
you  go  to  argue  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  are 
confronted  with  those  figures.  Everybody 
admits  that  the  figures  are  erroneous,  that  of 
course  there  is  a  hidden  population  in  those 
basements,  but  nobody  can  do  anything  about 
it  and  you  are  stuck  with  those  figures.  There- 
fore you  wind  up  getting  highrise  apartment 
houses,  60  residents  to  the  acre;  stacked  town 
houses  30  to  the  acre,  in  an  area  where  there 
shouldn't  probably  be  anything  more  than 
single  homes. 

And  you  can't  fight  it,  sir.  You  cannot  fight 
it  before  the  planning  board  because  they 
read  you  those  erroneoous  figures.  You  cant 
fight  it  before  the  council  because  once  again 
it  is  the  matter  of  record  of  those  figures. 
You  can't  fight  it  before  the  OMB  because 
they  say  according  to  the  figures  that  area  is 
not  overcrowded.  So  once  again  the  bureauc- 
racy has  triumphed. 

It  was  the  plaiming  by  the  bureaucrats  of 
particular  kinds  of  houses  that  got  people  into 
the  basement  apartment  situation  in  the  first 
place.  It  was  the  lack  of  planning  by  all  the 
bureaucrats  who  were  suppyosed  to  be  able  to 
do  something  to  provide  houses.  And  I  say 
all  the  bureaucrats— municipal,  provincial  and 
federal.  It  was  their  lack  of  planning  that  has 
landed  us  in  a  situation  where  there  aren't 
enough  houses  for  people  even  if  they  could 
afford  them. 

Now  it  is  the  bureaucrats  who  are  rattling 
off  official  figures  whife  saying  of  course  they 
are  not  really  official,  that  there  is  a  hidden 
population.  Once  again  the  whole  burden 
passes  back  on  to  the  individual  who  went 
into  a  neighbourhood,  who  bought  or  who 
rented  accommodation  in  good  faith  and 
wanted  only  to  be  left  alone.  Now  he  is 
finding  out  that  because  of  some  peculiar 
arithmetic  and  the  refusal  particularly  of  the 
assessment  branch  of  our  Ministry  of  Revenue 
to  face  up  to  the  situation,  that  there  really 
is  no  remedy  for  them. 

I  suggest  to  you,  sir,  as  I  mentioned  a  few 
moments  ago,  I  think  three  steps  are  needed 
—and  by  the  Minister  of  Revenue  (Mr. 
Meen). 

The  first  step  is  that  the  assessment  officers, 
particularly  at  this  time  when  everything  is 
being  reassessed,  go  down  and  inspect  those 
basements  and  if  they  are  equipped  as  a  base- 
ment apartment,  regardless  of  whether  there 
is  someone  in  there,  that  this  is  drawn  to  the 
attention  of  the  municipality. 

Secondly,  it  is  necessary  that  the  fire  de- 
partment inspectors  be  given  more  power  that 
will  give  them  the  right  to  look  into  those 
homes.  You  know,  Mr.   Speaker,  the  fireman 


is  a  pretty  nice  guy.  He  is  really  not  inter- 
ested in  what  you  are  doing  in  that  house, 
he  just  doesn't  want  you  to  bum  to  death 
in  the  middle  of  the  night.  Certainly  he 
doesn't  want  to  be  there  when  some  poor 
little  kid  couldn't  get  up  the  stairs  and  no- 
body knows  there  is  a  little  kid  in  there 
because  there  really  isn't  any  population  in 
the  basement  of  that  house,  it's  single  family 
residential.  I  think  the  fire  department  should 
have  far  more  power. 

Finally,  I  suggest  that  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  makes  it  abundantly  plain  to  the 
municipalities  through  his  assessment  people 
that  we  are  going  to  allow  them  to  impose 
the  full  burden  of  municipal  taxes  upon  that 
dwelling,  regardless  of  whether  that  base- 
ment is  rented  out  or  not.  Because,  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  you  have  a  basement  apartment 
equipped  to  rent,  sir,  you  will  rent  it  sooner 
or  later.  It  is  like  buying  a  licence  for  an 
automobile;  it  may  be  parked  in  a  field,  but 
sooner  or  later  you  are  going  to  put  it  on  the 
road  and  that's  why  we  want  the  licence  on 
it. 

I  realize  that  this  is  a  bit  of  a  local  problem 
but  I  suggest  to  you  it  is  going  to  spread 
across  this  province.  It  is  going  to  spread  into 
the  smaller  communities.  And  I  think  the 
final  crunch  is  you  can  imagine  people  saying, 
"We  are  overcrowded  in  this  area.  We  don't 
want  to  be  dumped  in  with  another  huge 
highrise,"  and  the  figures  that  show  this  area 
is  underpopulated  come  back  to  haunt  them. 
Of  course,  it's  one  thing  for  me  to  know 
that,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  it's  another  thing  for 
you  to  know  it,  but  it  doesn't  do  one  a 
single  bit  of  good  before  the  Ontario  Muni- 
cipal Board.  That  fellow  just  leans  over  and 
says,  "I've  got  the  figures  and  that's  what  we 
go  with." 

I  think  it's  unfair  to  the  people  who  own 
houses,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  think  it's  unfair  to  the 
people  who,  by  economic  or  social  circum- 
stances beyond  their  control,  reside  in  base- 
ment apartments.  I  think  they  have  a  stake  in 
this.  This  is  a  Legislature  which  is  supposed 
to  be  responsible  to  all  the  people  of  Ontario 
including  those  who  are  in  this  type  of 
accommodation.  I  think  it's  about  time  the 
Minister  of  Revenue— I  congratulate  him  on 
his  new  post— stopped  hiding  behind  a  bureau- 
cratic screen,  passing  the  problem  to  some- 
body else,  and  came  up  with  a  policy  that 
the  buck  stops  here  and  we're  going  to  do 
something  to  bring  out  the  underground  popu- 
lation of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

I  don't  think  there  would  be  a  revolution, 
Mr.  Speaker.  In  fact,  for  the  tax  coffer,  munic- 
ipalities might  be  able  to  lower  the  mill  rates 


APRIL  4,  1974 


783 


a  bit  if  we  end  the  Idnd  of  nonsense  that's 
been  going  on  for  a  number  of  years. 

Now,  sir,  turning  to  the  contents  of  the 
speech  itself,  for  the  second  year  I  am  some- 
what disilhisioned,  but  only  in  one  regard 
and  that  is  a  rather  parochial  matter.  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  a  little  disillusioned  again  be- 
cause my  friend,  the  Minister  of  Education 
(Mr.  Wells),  has  not  accepted  my  request  that 
there  be  an  assistant  Deputy  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation for  separate  schools  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Good  idea. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  vou 
that  the  time  has  come,  particularly  witn  a 
piece  of  legislation  which  we  are  going  to 
consider  in  this  session,  the  consolioation  of 
the  school  boards  Act,  or  whatever  the  title  is. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  How  about  one  for  the 
French  schools,  too? 

Mr.  Drea:  What? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  How  about  one  for  the 
French  schools? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  There  is  one. 

Mr.  Drea:  There  is  one  but  not  for  the 
separate  schools. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Oh. 

Mr.  Drea:  I'm  going  to  come  to  that.  Before 
the  assistant  deputy  minister  for  French  educa- 
tion was  put  in  there  was  an  identical  prob- 
lem. I  think  that  since  the  appointment  of 
that  person— and  it's  my  understanding  that 
that  is  not  the  title  but  it  is  clearly  imder- 
stood  that  is  the  status  so  it's  the  same  thing 
—this  has  certainly  proved  a  great  shot-in-the- 
arm  for  the  educational  aspirations  of  Franco- 
Ontarians  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  reason  I  raised  this— about 
an  assistant  deputy  minister  for  separate 
schools— is  that  we  are  consolidating  the 
school  Acts  and  we  shall  probably  achieve 
that  consolidation  in  this  session.  Of  course, 
in  that  consolidation,  sir,  the  very  words 
"separate  schools"  are  going  to  disappear. 
You  know  and  I  know,  because  of  the  fact 
that  we  belong  to  the  party  which  has  done 
more  for  separate  schools  and  for  Catholic 
education  than  any  other  political  party  in 
North  America. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  What  about  Quebec? 

Mr.  Drea:  We  have  done  more.  I  have  chil- 
dren in  the  separate  schools  and  they  were 


broke  until  this  government  put  money  Into 
them.  The  Premier  at  that  time  was  John 
Robarts  and  the  Minister  of  Education  was 
the  present  Premier.  The  NDP's  80  per  cent- 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Even  Father  Mat- 
thews says  that. 

Mr.  Drea:  Its  blank  cheque  p>olicy  of  paying 
80  per  cent  of  whatever  the  boards  of  educa- 
tion decide  to  do  would  be  taking  money 
away  from  a  great  many  separate  school 
boards  because  they  are  subsidized  far  more 
than  80  per  cent. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  is  ridiculous  and  the 
member  knows  it.  That  is  absolutely  ridicu- 
lous. 

Mr.  Reid:  He  is  getting  paranoid. 

Mr.  Drea:  As  I  said,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  know 
and  I  know  the  tremendous  advances  of 
separate  school  and  Catholic  education  in  this 
province  because  of  this  government.  With 
the  consolidation  that  title  separate  schools 
is  going  to  disappear. 

Mr.  Deans:  Great  government,  great  prov- 
ince, super  world  to  be  in. 

Mr.  Drea:  Secondly,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is 
the  continuing  question  of  the  status  of  separ- 
ate school  education  after  grade  10.  Since  I 
have  children  in  the  system  and  I  am  a 
product  of  the  separate  school  system- 
Mr.  Deans:  They  deny  that. 
Mr.  Drea:  No,  they  are  very  proud  of  me. 

Mr.  Deans:  Oh  I'm  sorry.  They  are  proud 
of  the  member.  I  beg  his  pardon.  Just  watch 
his  arm  doesn't  break  patting  himself  on  the 
back. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  is  patting  his 
children  on  the  back.  Nothing  wrong  with 
that. 

Mr.  Dreaj  Well,  the  suggestion  that  was 
made  to  me  by  my  hon.  friend  was  that  my 
children  weren't  very  proud  of  me. 

Mr.  Deans:  No,  no.  I  said  the  system  was 
not  proud.  I  am  sure  the  member's  children 
are  quite  rightly  proud  of  him. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  regarding  the  sepa- 
rate schools  and  coming  back  to  the  point 
that  I  was  makinjf.  There  is  the  continiiinir 
diflBculty  in  finding  a  mutually  acceptablr 
solution  to  the  problem  of  separate  school 
education  in  grades  11,  12  and  13.  The  sepa- 


784 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


rate  schools— and  I  really  don't  want  to 
reopen  that  particular  question,  although  I 
want  to  make  it  abundantly  plain  that  I 
support  the  decision  of  the  party  to  which 
I  belong  and  the  position  of  my  leader,  the 
Premier.  But  there  is  that  question,  and 
there  is  the  overview  in  it  that  sooner  or 
later  we  are  going  to  have  to  get  into  the 
sharing  of  facilities. 

Mr.  Deans:  It  is  causing  a  lot  of  problems. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  just  don't  think  there  is 
enough  money  in  this  province  to  nm  two  or 
perhaps  even  2%  or  £¥2  school  systems  side 
by  side  all  the  way  from  kindergarten  to 
grade  13. 

I  also  frankly  don't  think  it  would  be  very 
fair  to  a  number  of  children  because,  of 
course,  the  separate  school  education  does 
not  include  vocational  education  anywhere 
in  this  province.  Therefore,  even  if  it  was 
to  continue  on  through  grades  11,  12  and  13, 
it  would  be  academic  education  and  would 
benefit  only  a  small  minority— I  shouldn't  say 
small  minority— a  minority  of  the  children 
who  are  in  those  grades. 

But  because  of  this  consolidation,  sir,  and 
the  elimination  of  separate  schools  as  a  title 
in  the  law,  I  think  the  time  has  come  that 
we  allay  all  the  fears  and  suspicions.  I  know 
those  fears  and  suspicions  are  unfounded,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  think  that  so  do  you. 

This  government  has  no  intention  of  de- 
stroying the  separate  school  system  in  this 
province.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  the  stated 
policy  of  this  government  to  enhance  all 
forms  of  education  in  this  province. 

But  I  think  the  appointment  of  the  assistant 
deputy  minister  at  this  time  would  do  for  the 
separate  schools  in  this  time  of  change  exactly 
what  the  appointment  in  the  French  education 
field  did  for  the  Franco-Ontarians  when  the 
great  change  was  l:)eing  made  in  their  edu- 
cation. And  after  all,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  was 
a  very  significant  change  because  most  of  the 
French-language  schools  came  out  of  the 
separate  school  system.  And  because  they 
were  dealing  in  the  French  language  from 
kindergarten  to  grade  13,  they  in  essence 
became  part  of  the  public  school  system. 

Above  and  beyond  the  question  of  just  a 
different  language  as  the  language  of  instruc- 
tion, I  think  that  question  also  was  taken  into 
account  in  the  appointment  of  the  person 
with  the  status  of  assistant  deputy  minister  as 
a  focal  point  for  people  who  were  concerned 
or  interested  in  that  particular  aspect  of  edu- 
cation in  Ontario.  I  suggest  to  you  the  same 
would  happen  in  the  separate  schools. 


There  was  a  newspaper  article  in  the  Globe 
and  Mail  .last  week  by  Father  Matthews, 
which  incidentally  pointed  out  the  rather 
remarkable  financial  contributions  of  this  gov- 
ernment to  the  separate  school  system.  But 
it  was  also  pointed  out  that  there  was  fear, 
and  there  was  uncertainty,  and  there  was 
some  apprehension. 

I  think  the  appointment  of  a  person  to  this 
post  in  the  Ministry  of  Education  would  ease 
that  and  would  provide,  I  would  hope,  a 
climate  whereby  men  and  women  of  good- 
will from  the  public  school  system,  from 
the  separate  school  system,  and  from  the 
ministry,  could  work  out  a  system  of  shared 
facilities  which  would  I  would  hope  perma- 
nently solve  the  question  of  funding  of  sepa- 
rate school  education  in  grades  11,  12  and  13. 
I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  ques- 
tion was  worked  out  at  the  university  level 
many,  many  years  ago  and  their  sharing  of 
facilities  certainly  has  enhanced  education. 

iMr.  Speaker,  I  say  to  you  and  I  say  to  the 
Minister  of  Education— I  wish  he  was  here 
tonight— that  I  don't  particularly  care  what 
title  you  give  this  appointment,  provided  there 
is  the  clear  understanding  that  whatever  this 
person  or  oflBce  is  to  be  called  he  has  the 
status  of  at  least  an  assistant  deputy  minister. 

Now,  sir,  to  point  out  some  of  the  things 
that  are  in  the  Throne  Speech,  once  again  the 
Throne  Speech  indicates  the  tremendous  con- 
cern this  party  and  the  Premier  have  for  the 
people  of  Ontario,  because  again  our  No.  1 
concern  is  jobs.  You  will  see  every  early  on 
in  the  Throne  Speech  149,000  new  jobs.  This 
party  is  not  content  with  Ontario  remaining  a 
hewer  of  wood  and  a  drawer  of  water.  This 
party  is  concerned  about  creative,  meaningful, 
technical,  brain-work  jobs  for  young  people. 

Mr.  Deans:  Like  the  ones  that  will  be 
created  at  Maplte  Mountain. 

Mr.  Drea:  No,  like  the  ones  that  will  be 
created  by  the  GO-Urban  and  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  GO-Urban  system. 

Mr.  Deans:  Five  hundred  out  of  the  800 
jobs  will  be  menial,  meaningless,  boring  jobs, 
paying  $1.60  an  hour.  I  am  sorry  about  that. 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  the  only  difficulty  with 
that  thesis  is  that  Maple  Mountain  hasn't 
been  approved.  I  had  to  sit  through  a  very 
boring  half  hour  today  while  they  went 
through  all  the  aspects  of  Maple  Mountain 
and  whether  we  had  approved  it  without  any 
public  hearings  or  not.  All  of  you  over  there 
today  were  so  confident  that  it  would  be 
approved.  Then  why  do  you  worry  about  jobs 


APRIL  4,  1974 


785 


that  will  ncN-er  be  created?  Let  me  come  back 
to  my  149,000  jobs  that  are  there  now. 

Mr.  Deans:  Because  it  is  an  indication  of 
the  willingness  of  this  government  to  see 
people  in  servitude,  that's  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Drea:  There  is  no  government  on  this 
continent  that  has  created  more  new  jobs 
through  its  ec-onomic  policies  than  this  one, 
and  the  member  kiK)ws  it  and  I  know  it  and 
they  are  the  best  paying  jobs  in  the  country. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
The  federal  government  in  Ottawa  has. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  federal  government  in 
Ottawa. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  only  thing  the  Liberal  gov- 
ernment in  Ottawa  ever  created  was  unem- 
ployment insurance  and  they  can't  even  run 
that  properly. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  They  pay  this  government 
the  money  and  it  takes  the  credit. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  may  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
thought  that  two  of  the  points  that  were 
raised  by  the  preceding  speaker  were  in  the 
area  of  ver\'  excellent  constructive  criticism. 
I  don't  really  think  that  we  have  the  juris- 
diction to  do  much  more  than  to  push  and 
prod  on  the  auto  pact  revisions.  Having  asked 
our  Ministry-  of  Industry  and  Tourism  and  our 
provincial  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  to  get  crack- 
ing and  get  down  to  Ottawa  and  shake  up 
Mr.  Gillespie  and  friends  concerning  the  re- 
visions—particularly revisions  that  would  bring 
down  the  price  of  automobiles  as  well  as 
create  more  jobs,  more  industrial  production 
in  Ontario— I  would  have  thought  that  per- 
haps he  could  have  seen  another  role  for  him- 
self in  that;  that  perhaps  he  could  have  got 
on  the  phone— if  he  hasn't  already— and  called 
his  national  party,  because  according  to  what 
is  in  the  press,  the  federal  leader  of  the  NDP 
is  what  makes  the  Liberal  Party  in  Ottawa  go 
round. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  And  round  and  round 
and  round. 

Mr.  Drea:  In  the  case  of  the  uranium  situa- 
tion it  was  pointed  out  very,  very  dramatically 
by  the  phone  call  from  Timmins  to  Ottawa 
that  there  is  that  situation.  So  while  I  feel 
that  his  remarks  about  the  auto  pact  are  very 
constructive  criticism— I  agree  with  most  of 
them— I  would  say  that  besides  urging  our 
ministers  to  go  to  Ottawa  and  get  something 
done,  there  is  also  responsibility  upon  the 
people  in  the  provincial  NDP,  that  tney  can 


phone  Ottawa  and  put  some  pressure  on  their 
federal  counterparts. 

I  was  also  impressed  by  tlie  constructive 
criticism  about  research.  I  think  that  he  made 
excellent  points.  It  concerns  ine  tliat  we  are 
in  a  paradox  in  research  in  Canada.  At  a  time 
when  science  is  demanding  more  research, 
public  and  government  have  so  little  regard 
for  research  that  it  is  the  area  that  is  being 
cut  and  trimmed. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  all  very  well  for  every- 
one to  pound  their  desks  here  today  when  the 
rather  substantial  increases  to  education  ceil- 
ings were  announced.  I  would  have  felt  a  lot 
more  confident  if  some  rather  substantial  con- 
tributions to  research  grants  were  announced. 
I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  person 
who  does  the  research  and  develops  the  tech- 
nology controls  not  only  the  jobs  but  the 
economy  of  tomorrow.  The  reason  that  I  am 
impressed  with  the  149,000  new  jobs  is  that 
they  are  the  result  of  projects  underwritten 
by  this  government,  such  as  CANDU.  This 
government  underwrote  the  development  of 
the  Canadian  nuclear  reactor  because  it  isn't 
a  Canadian  nuclear  reactor.  If  we  were  really 
patriotic  or  chauvinistic,  we  would  say  it  is 
the  Ontario  nuclear  reactor- 
Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  come  oflF  it! 

Mr.  Drea:  —because  it  was  Ontario  that 
developed  it. 

Mr.  Singer:  Half  the  money  was  federal 
money,  and  the  member  knows  that. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  This  govenunent  al^^'ays 
take  the  credit,  but  they  put  up  the  money. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes.  The  plan  was  written  in 
Ottawa  and  paid  for  by  Ottawa.  The  member 
knows  that. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  don't  know  that.  In  fact,  the 
only  thing  that  Ottawa  did  in  the  whole  thing 
was  to  try  and  make  a  heavv  water  plant  that 
didn't  work.  And  we  are  still  bothered  by  the 
fact  that  they  haven't  got  heavy  water. 

Mr.  Singer:  How  much  of  the  $2  billion 
that  first  went  in  came  out  of  the  Ontario 
government?  Not  very  much. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  And  45  per  cent  of 
the  taxes. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  Now  that  my  favourite  automo- 
bile man  is  back  in  the  House,  mayl)e  per- 
haps I  can  come  back  to  my  thing  about 
Go-Urban.  The  thing  that  fascinates  me  so 
much  about  Go-Urban,   Mr.   Speaker,  is  the 


786 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


fact  that  these  will  be  the  kinds  of  jobs  that 
are  created  in  development,  in  research  and 
in  technical  areas  for  people  who  are  the 
product's  of  our  educational  system. 

Mr.  Deans:  Who  is  the  member's  favourite 
automobile  man? 

Mr.  Singer:  I  have  a  car. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  you 
that  this  is  the  record  of  accomplishment  by 
this  government,  that  we  are  not  providing 
routine,  drudge,  dreary  and  other  types  of 
jobs  for  people.  We  are  offering  them  the 
opportunity  for  exciting,  creative,  meaningful 
jobs. 

Mr.  Deans:  Like  cutting  dead  elm  trees. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  ever  want 
to  be  in  a  position  where  I  appear  to  knock 
work.  When  I  talk  about  a  drudge  job  or  a 
dreary  job,  I  respect  the  person  who  does  it. 
I  respect  the  person  who  goes  to  work  and 
does  the  job  that  he  doesn't  particularly  like, 
that  he  accepts  his  role  in  society  and  doesn't 
come  with  his  hand  out  to  the  government 
begging  for  some  money  because  he  doesn't 
like  his  working  conditions.  I  respect  him  a 
great  deal. 

But  the  future  of  a  country  is  not  built 
with  repetitious,  dreary,  drudge  jobs  like  that; 
it  is  built  vAth  the  creative,  the  exciting  and 
the  technical.  While  I  respect  both  types  of 
employment,  as  I  respect  all  kinds  of  emplt)y- 
ment,  I  would  suggest  to  you,  sir,  that  we 
are  far  better  off  with  the  creative  jobs  that 
will  produce  the  kind  of  economy  that  wdll 
make  for  the  Ontario  of  the  future  as  high  a 
standard  of  living  as  we  enjoy  now. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  heard  for  about  two 
hours  this  afternoon  what  a  despicable  opera- 
tion the  Ministry  of  Community  and  Social 
Services  is.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  intend  to  spend  a 
few  moments  tonight  setting  the  record 
straight.  The  first  thing  I  would  like  to  do  is 
offer  my  congratulations  to  the  minister,  my 
friend  from  Cochrane  North,  in  that  that 
ministry  bears  a  significant  new  look  this 
session,  and  that  is  by  the  appointment  of 
Miss  Dorothy  Crittenden  as  deputy  minister, 
the  first  female  deputy  minister  in  Ontario. 

I  suggest  that  that  is  only  typical  of  the 
new  look  in  that  ministry  since  this  minister 
has  taken  over.  I  think  it  is  indicative  of  the 
new  paths  that  he  is  going  to  pioneer.  I  think 
that  Miss  Crittenden  deserves  an  enormous 
amount  of  applause  and  admiration  because 
she  is  a  female  who  triumphs  over  a  male- 
dominated  system.  She  was  a  school  teacher. 


but  when  she  went  to  work  for  the  minister's 
department  back  in  the  1930s  she  had  to 
accept  work  as  a  typist  because  a  female 
simply  did  not  aspire  to  higher  executive 
positions  in  those  days.  She  has  worked  her 
way  up  step  by  step  till  now  she  is  at  the 
summit  of  her  professional  career.  She  is  the 
first  woman  deputy  minister  in  this  province 
and  I  certainly  hope  that  she  has  many  years 
of  productive  service  in  this  ministry. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  there  nothing  higher? 

Mr.  Drea:  Pardon? 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  is  she  at  the  summit?  Is 
there  nothing  higher  than  deputy  minister? 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  of  course,  I  would  think 
she'd  be  admirable  as  the  deputy  Premier,  but 
that  may  be  because  I  am  prejudiced. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Or  Premier. 

Mr.  Drea:  But  I  don't  really  think  she  has 
any  ambitions  in  that  direction. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  To  go  any  higher,  she 
is  going  to  have  to  run  for  oflSce. 

Mr.  Drea:  But  that  is  only  typical  of  the 
Brunelle  touch  in  that  ministry. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  Will  the  hon.  member  behave 
himself? 

Mr.  Sargent:  That's  the  kiss  of  deiath. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  also— 

Mr.  Sargent:  Why  doesn't  the  hon.  member 
say  something  intelligent? 

Mr.  Drea:  If  I  said  anything  intelligent 
with  my  friend  in  this  room,  it  would  be  lost. 

Mr.  Deans:  If  anyone  over  there  said  any- 
thing intelligent,  it  would  be  amazing. 

Mr.  Drea:  No,  it  would  be  routine. 

An  hon.  member:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  also  like 
to  thank  the  minister  on  behalf  of  some  other 
females  in  this  province,  those  who  are  not  as 
fortunate  to  have  had  the  success  as  his 
deputy  minister. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  mothers'  allowance  re- 
cipients! 


APRIL  4,  1974 


787 


Mr.  Drea:  No,  they  are  going  to  be  mothers, 
but  they  are  not  going  to  be  on  mothers' 
allowance,  because  they  are  women  who  are 
not  married,  who  are  residing  in  maternity 
homes,  sir,  because  for  one  reason  or  an- 
other— 

Mr.  Deans:  The  hon.  member  surely  isn't 

blaming  the  minister  for  that? 

Mr.  Drea:  No,  I  am  going  to  thank  him, 
because  after  only  two  representations  from 
me  the  whole  scale  of  benefits  in  that  par- 
ticular programme  has  been  changed  in  a 
most  remarkable  manner.  I  think  that  a  min- 
ister who  does  that  deserves  the  credit  of  the 
whole  House,  because  it  is  a  very  small  part 
of  our  population.  It  isn't  the  kind  of  thing 
that  represents  a  lot  of  votes  or  gets  a  lot  of 
headlines,  but  it  takes  a  man  who  is  a  real 
humanitarian,  a  man  who  cares  and  a  man 
who  is  willing  to  do  something  for  those  who 
are  less  fortunate  than  him  in  a  way  that  he 
could— and  he  did  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  I'm  talking  about  my  friend  from 
Cochrane  North,  the  Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services.  There  is  a  maternity 
home  in  my  riding,  sir,  and,  as  you  know,  I 
feel  very  strongly  that  there  have  to  be  alter- 
natives provided  to  females,  other  than  the 
OHIP-paid  abortion  route  when  there  is  a 
child- 
Mr.  R.  G.  Eaton  (Middlesex  South):  Why 
doesn't  the  member  for  High  Park  leave,  then 
the  NDP  benches  will  be  empty? 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  member  has  driven  out 
the  whole  press  gallery. 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Go  on— soon  there  will  be  no  NDP 
members  in  the  House. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  volunteer  to  stay  and  be 
bored. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Allow  the 
member  to  continue. 

Mr.  Sargent:  This  is  not  one  of  the  mem- 
ber's better  efforts. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  I  am  only  warming  up. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  It's  one  of  the  better  efforts 
of  the  member  for  Grey-Bruce;  he  is  staying 
fairly  quiet. 

Mr.  Drea:  Yes,  he  can  go  if  he  wants.  I 
won't  tell. 


Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Drea:  Okay.  I'd  never  say  there  u-as 
nobody  in  the  NDP  benches  exc>ept  the  mem- 
ber for  High  Park. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  He's  not  a  member,  he's  an 
independent. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  I'm  pleased  that  he  is  stay- 
ing. I  hke  his  audience. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  getting  out  of  the 
NDP  anyway. 

Mr.  Drea:  Now  then,  can  I  just  come  back 
to  the  matter  of  maternity  homes,  because  I 
think  it  is  a  great  credit  to  the  minister. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  approached  on  this  sub- 
ject some  many  months  ago,  because  there  is 
a  maternity  home  for  unwed  mothers  in  mv 
riding.  They  face  enormous  financial  diflBcuI- 
ties  because  over  the  years,  for  financial  pur- 
poses, that  type  of  home  has  been  placed 
under  the  Charitable  Institutions  Act.  And 
one  of  the  difficulties  was  the  peaks  and  the 
valleys,  because  to  be  in  a  residence  like  that 
required  special  circmnstance.  And  unfortu- 
nately pregnancies  do  not  go  along  on  a  regu- 
larly sdiediiled,  stable,  organized  basis. 

Mr.  Sargent:  They  are  still  nine  months. 

Mr.  Drea:  Pregnancies  occur  and  no  one 
has  real  control  over  the  number  that  there 
will  be  at  any  time.  Yet  the  facility  is  needed. 
If  there  are  a  number  of  women  who  are  in 
that  position  at  that  particular  time  then,  of 
course,  the  place  is  filled  and  again  there  may- 
be two  months  when  the  place  is  relatively 
emtpy.  This  is  very  diflBcult  to  plan  for,  Mr. 
Speaker,  because  quite  frankly  you  can't  plan 
it.  It  is  very  difficult  for  a  minister  to  ha\e 
to  plan  this. 

In  this  province  of  almost  eight  million 
people  there  are  only  at  any  one  time  prob- 
ably, in  homes  like  this,  somewhere  between 
150  and  175  women.  We  had  financing. 
There  was  the  usual  per  diem  programme 
and  so  on.  I  think  it  shows  the  mark  of  a 
ministry  and  its  minister  when  he  can  take 
time  out  from  the  enormous  administration  of 
the  very  large  programmes  that  he  has,  and 
he  can  literally  spend  about  three  days  find- 
ing out  about  the  finances,  not  only  of  the 
maternity  home  in  my  riding  but  ijideed 
every  one  across  the  province,  of  immcdiateK 
raising  the  per  diem,  of  also  ordering  a  new 
cost  formula  programme  to  be  studied  and 
worked  on,  for  the  first  time  in  about  15 
years    offering    new    hope    to    people    who 


788 


OxNTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


thought  there  was  no  hope  for  the  continua- 
tion of  the  maternity  home. 

Mr.    Shulman:    How   is   sycophant  spelled? 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  you 
that  with  this  one  action,  which  has  provided 
an  alternative  for  the  supposedly  unwanted- 
child  problem— because  the  alternative  of 
abortion  has  been  there  for  some  time  and 
was  becoming  increasingly  attractive  because 
the  decks  were  stacked  in  favour  of  the 
decision  to  have  the  abortion  rather  than  to 
have  the  child  and  either  to  raise  it  or  place 
it  out  for  adoption— that  with  this  one  major 
change  in  the  maternity  homes  programme  of 
this  province,  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  has  done  more  to  come  head- 
on  into  this  problem  than  all  of  the  speeches, 
all  of  the  programmes  and  all  of  the  machina- 
tions of  the  federal  Minister  of  Justice- 
Mr.  Sargent:  Who  is  this  guy? 

Mr.  Drea:  —in  trying  to  pass  the  buck  on 
abortions  back  to  the  provinces.  I  commend 
him  for  it,  sir,  because  there  were  so  few 
people  involved.  I  know  the  personal  amount 
of  work  that  he  put  into  it  and  again  I  suggest 
to  the  House  again  that  that  is  the  mark  of 
the  hon.  member  for  Cochrane  North  as  the 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  in 
this  province.  I  think  that  augurs  well  for 
people  who  are  less  fortunate  than  ourselves 
and  who  have  to  depend  upon  that  ministry 
for  their  sustenance. 

I  think  the  fact  that  they  can  do  some- 
thing for  so  small  and  so  specialized  a  group 
in  this  province  indicates  that  he  is  capable, 
and  when  the  numbers  are  big  he  can  do 
the  same  thing.  I  salute  him  for  it,  and  I  am 
sure  that  there  will  be  thousands  of  children 
who  will  owe  a  great  many  things  to  him, 
and  they  will  never  know  and  they  will  never 
be  able  to  thank  him  for  it.  But  that  is  a 
magnificent  contribution  to  the  future  of  this 
province  which  he  has  done  for  the  maternity 
homes  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  wouM  like  to  come  to  the 
Ministry  of  Health.  I  am  not  so  happy  with 
the  Ministry  of  Health  as  I  am  with  the 
Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Services. 
Mr.  Speaker,  something  has  to  be  done  about 
the  administrative  nightmare  over  at  OHIP.  I 
have  had  two  incredible  experiences  with 
tlie  lunatics  who  operate  out  of  there  today. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Parrott  (Oxford):  Yield  the  floor 
to    the   hon.   member   for   Waterloo   South. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  have  had  two  incredible  expe- 
riences with  the  lunatics  who  operate  today 
out    of    there,    on    Overlea,    that    rival    what 


happened  to  the  preceding  speaker  with  his 
coupe  St.  Jecques  and  so  forth  in  that  bit  of 
wasteful,  sinful  extravagance  that  is  known 
as  the  members'  dining  room  in  the  basement. 
Now  I  had  two  problems  with  constituents 
concerning  OHIP.  The  first  was  the  refusal 
of  OHIP  to  pay  a  bill.  This  woman  had  gone 
in  for  her  annual  checkup- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Drea:  While  she  was  in  the  physician's 
ofiice,  after  having  her  annual  physical  ex- 
amination completed,  she  pointed  out  to  him— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Drea:  That's  a  dreadful  thing  to  say 
about  the  member  for  High  Park;  I  guarantee 

you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Singer:  Okay,  I  have  to  wait  and 
watch. 

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  The  member  for 
Scarborough  Centre  will  never  make  it. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  haven't  even  got  my  first 
breath  yet. 

Mr.  Riddell:  We  have  been  waiting  for  a 
year  and— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  As  the  remnants  of  a  once  proud 
party  they  sit  there.  I  am  sorry  for  them,  but 
I  guess  that's  the  way  it  is. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
woman  had  had  her  annual  physical  examina- 
tion completed  in  the  doctor's  ofiice,  and  she 
had  a  small  cyst  on  her  arm.  She  complained 
to  her  physician  that  that  small  cyst  was  caus- 
ing her  some  difficulty,  catching  on  clothing 
and  so  on  and  so  forth.  I  am  given  to  under- 
stand it  was  not  medically  hazardous  or  any- 
thing like  that. 

In  any  event,  the  doctor  agreed  to  remove 
that  piece  of  tissue,  and  of  course  she  re- 
ceived the  bill.  There  was  a  bill  for  her 
annual  examination  and  there  was  a  bill  for 
the  removal  of  that  particular  piece  of  tissue. 
When  she  sent  the  bills  into  OHIP  they 
wouldn't  pay  her.  They  sent  her  only  the 
money  for  the  annual  examination. 

When  she  called  up  OHIP  they  told  her 
she  should  have  had  the  date  changed  or 
should  have  done  something  else,  because  as 
long  as  it  was  done  at  the  same  time  in  the 
office   they  wouldn't  pay  the  two  bills.   She 


APRIL  4,  1974 


789 


said:  "Do  you  mean  if  I  went  back  the  next 
day  you  would  have  paid  it?"  And  they  said: 
"Of  course." 

Now  Mr.  Speaker,  they  have  just  confirmed 
that  in  writing  to  me,  in  the  most  incred- 
ible letter  I  have  ever  received.  Unfortunate- 
ly, I  left  it  in  my  oflBce  downstairs.  Perhaps 
I  may  refer  to  it  a  bit— no;  no,  I  am  glued 
here,   I  am  glued  for  another  27  minutes. 

Mr.  J.  P.  MacBeth  (York  West):  He  is 
starting  to  sound  like  the  member  for  High 
Park  now. 

Mr.  Drea:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 

clerk- 
Mr.    Shulman:    Why    doesn't    the    member 

suggest  the  Minister  of  Health  resign? 

Mr.  Drea:  I  suppose  it's  a  bit  different  from 
a  cattle  auction,  but  you  know  we  all  have 
to  change  a  little  bit. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That's  a  new  one. 

Mr.  Shulman:  He's  not  at  his  best  tonight, 
that's  what  the  member  of  the  left  said. 

Mr.  Drea:  There's  nobody  from  the  left 
over  there. 

Interjections  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Drea:  All  right,  Mr.  Speaker;  so  in 
other  words,  apparently  if  the  physician  is 
efficient  and  accomplishes  two  medical  tasks 
in  the  same  visit  to  the  office,  he  cannot  be 
paid  even  though  to  me  it  would  seem  quite 
simple.  The  annual  examination  was  medical 
and  the  removal  of  that  particular  bit  of 
tissue  was  surgical.  In  any  event,  I  am  still 
fighting  with  OHIP  on  that  one. 

However,  I  have  another  woman  who  was 
operated  on  on  Feb.  7  for  removal  of  a  gall 
bladder  and  who  was  charged  $250  by  a 
surgeon.  The  bill  was  sent  into  OHIP  to  be 
paid  and  she  hasn't  received  any  money  yet. 
Since  she  has  to  go  back  and  see  that  doctor 
for  some  treatment,  she  feels  rather  badly 
because  she  would  like  to  pay  him;  and  un- 
fortunately at  the  moment  she  doesn't  have 
a  bank  account  of  any  size  because  she  is 
unemployed. 

She  called  OHIP  and  after  giving  about 
the  third  person  who  talked  to  her  the  name 
of  the  particular  surgeon,  she  finally  got  a 
clerk.  The  way  they  work  over  there,  appar- 
ently, is  that  you  have  to  find  the  right  clerk 
who  is  responsible  for  payments  to  the  right 
doctor. 


The  mind  is  already  beginning  to  get  sus- 
picious. This  is  another  one  of  the  triumphs 
of  bureaucracy. 

In  any  event,  she  gets  to  the  woman  and 
the  woman  says:  "Oh  surgery,  that's  dif- 
ferent." The  woman  says,  "Why?^' 

"Well,"  she  says,  "bills  for  surgery  we  put 
into  the  computer,  but  the  computer  rejects 
them  so  we  have  to  do  it  all  over  again 
manually."  The  woman  says:  "Well,  if  you 
know  the  computer  is  going  to  reject  the  bill, 
why  do  you  put  it  in?"  And  the  j?ir!  says: 
"I  know  it  sounds  silly,  but  that's  what  the> 
tell  us  we  have  to  do." 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  when  I  heard  this  from 
this  woman,  I  simply  wouldn't  believe  it.  I 
called  up  OHIP;  and  you  know  that's  true. 

Do  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  they  have 
a  marvellous  system  over  there  for  payment 
of  surgeons'  bills?  They  say  that  because 
there  is  post-operative  care  and  there  prob- 
ably will  be  a  claim  coming  in  after  that, 
they  will  not  pay  for  the  original  surgery 
until  the  claim  for  the  post-operative  care 
comes  in;  they  want  to  pay  it  in  a  package. 
They  say  to  me  "You  should  tell  this  woman 
not  to  worry  because  everybody  understands 
the  system.  The  doctor  won't  ask  her  for 
money;  the  doctor  won't  even  look  at  her  and 
his  niu-se  won't  bother." 

But,  you  see,  Mr.  Speaker,  everybody 
understands  this  marvellous  system  over  at 
OHIP  except  the  people  who  have  to  deal 
with  it.  When  you  find  a  clerk  who  says  "We 
put  it  into  the  computer  but  if  there  is  sur- 
gery the  computer  rejects  it  and  then  we  do 
it  over  manually."  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  sug- 
gest to  you,  as  a  taxpayer,  right  at  that 
moment  you  would  hke  to  get  your  hands 
around  somebody's  throat.  If  the  computer 
is  going  to  reject  it  why  not  do  the  thing 
manually  in  the  first  place?  Or  why  not 
arrange  for  these  things  to  be  paid  or  at  least 
acknowledged? 

Surely,  if  the  doctor  understands  what  the 
method  of  payment  is— and  I  have  a  doctor 
who  lives  by  me  and  I  hear  a  lot  about  OHIP 
payments,  so  I  am  not  so  sure  that  doctors 
go  along  with  all  of  this  as  happily  as  OHIP 
lets  on— if  this  is  a  bookkeeping  transaction 
type  of  thing  between  OHIP  and  the  physi- 
cian, surely  when  one  is  supposed  to  pay  the 
bill  a  little  card  could  be  produced  from  that 
awesome  computer  over  there  which  would 
come  back  to  one  and  say  "This  amount  N\nll 
be  paid  to  your  physician  and  he  will  recei\e 
the  cheque  shortly"  or  "it  will  be  paid  to 
you"  so  that  at  least  one  has  the  acknowl- 
edgement on  it. 


790 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


It  would  seem  to  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  a 
bureaucracy  which  can  produce  the  recent 
change  in  regulations  which  allows  a  16-year- 
old  girl  to  have  an  abortion  without  parental 
consent  or  to  be  sterilized  without  parental 
consent,  the  eflBciency  of  a  bureaucracy  which 
could  do  that  should  be  able  to  set  up  a 
system  by  which  one  can  have  hospital  or 
medical  claims  paid  on  a  little  more  efficient 
basis  than,  "The  computer  rejects  it  all  the 
time  so  we  would  have  to  do  them  manually 
and  that's  what  takes  the  time." 

It  would  also  seem  to  me  that  a  medical 
bureaucracy  which  finds  that  lifeguards  are 
no  longer  needed  in  private  swimming  pools 
—and  it  was  very  efficient  about  getting  rid 
of  that  one,  Mr.  Speaker— if  it  is  so  efficient 
about  that,  it  seems  to  me  that  one  of  people 
could  go  over  and  put  a  little  bit  of  his  or  her 
brain  power  into  straightening  up  OHIP's 
payment  procedures. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  question  about  the  swim- 
ming pool  lifeguards  bothers  me  a  great  deal. 
When  I  was  in  the  newspaper  business  I 
campaigned  for  a  very  long  time— about 
three  or  four  years— for  those  regulations 
which  ensured  that  people  in  private  swim- 
ming pools  would  have  lifeguards.  It  strikes 
me  as  very  peculiar  that  with  no  fanfare,  no 
discussion,  nothing  of  any  kind,  they  were 
suddenly  removed— and  don't  tell  me  it  was 
the  apartment  owners  who  wanted  them  re- 
moved. They  have  so  many  insurance  struc- 
tures they  are  keeping  the  lifeguards  there. 

Mr.  Singer:  Who  removed  them?  The  gov- 
ernment removed  them,  not  the  bureaucracy. 
The  member  should  not  blame  these  name- 
less, faceless  civil  servants;  it  was  the  govern- 
ment which  made  the  change. 

Mr.  Shulman:  It  was  the  minister's  orders. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  member  has  to  take 
the  credit. 

Mr.  Drea:  I'm  not  taking  any  credit.  That 
one  has  to  be  changed,  I  will  tell  the  member. 

Mr.  Singer:  All  right,  then  beat  the  cabinet 
minister  over  the  head.  He  did  it. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  He  is  not  doing  that  badly. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  a  medical  bureaucracy  which  can  pro- 
duce that  kind  of  efficiency  in  fields  where 
it  wants  to  make  sudden  changes,  can  do 
something  about  the  pavment  procedures  over 
at  OHIP. 


Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  also  urge  the  Minis- 
ter of  Health  either  to  drag  the  city  of 
Toronto  into  a  district  or  regional  health 
council  or  else  to  allow  the  other  municipali- 
ties which  are  being  held  back  from  a  much 
greater  health  subsidy  by  the  contrariness  of 
the  city  of  Toronto,  to  have  a  regional  or 
district  health  council  without  the  participa- 
tion of  Toronto. 

When  it  is  a  question  of  the  amounts  of 
moneys  involved,  the  amount  of  money  my 
own  borough  would  receive  in  provincial 
subsidies  which  is  now  being  provided 
directly  by  the  taxpayers  there,  I  suggest  that 
allowing  Toronto  to  hold  up  the  formation 
of  this  district  health  council  because  of  its 
concerns— and  some  of  the  concerns  may  be 
justified- 1  cannot  see  why,  for  instance,  Scar- 
borough, North  York  and  East  York  might 
not  form  a  viable  district  health  council:  or 
perhaps  Etobicoke,  the  borough  of  York,  and 
another  part  of  North  York.  There  are  all 
kinds  of  ways.  It  may  very  well  be  that  be- 
cause of  its  own  particular  and  peculiar  prob- 
lems, the  city  of  Toronto  might  very  well 
have  a  district  health  council  of  its  own.  But 
I  suggest  we  not  delay  the  formation  of  the 
health  councils  throughout  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto because  there  cannot  be  unanimity. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  not  the  kind  of  thing 
that  promotes  good  government  or  efficient 
development  of  health  services.  It's  ridicu- 
lous. By  the  same  token,  if  we  needed  a 
unanimous  vote  in  this  House  we  would  never 
pass  the  legislation. 

I  certainly  like  unanimity  and  I  think 
people  of  good  faith  and  of  good  conscience 
can  get  together  and  solve  many  of  these 
things,  but  sometimes  there  is  a  balky  mem- 
ber. 

This  situation  has  been  going  on  not  just 
a  month  or  two  months;  it  has  been  going  on 
years  and  years  and  years. 

In  other  areas  of  the  province  the  Ministry 
of  Health  has  made  some  accommodations.  In 
my  brief  time  in  the  House,  for  instance,  I 
think  we've  changed  the  scope  and  dimen- 
sions and  programmes  and  outlook  of  those 
district  health  councils  about  five  or  six  times 
because  they  came  to  the  conclusion  there 
wasn't  one  happy  formula  that  could  be 
applied  across  the  entire  province. 

Now,  why  this  head-in-the-sand  attitude 
over  Metropolitan  Toronto  is  beyond  me— 
unless,  of  course,  the  Ministry  of  Health 
wants  to  save  some  money.  If  they  want  to 
save  some  money  by  not  paying  out  the  subsi- 
dies, then  why  don't  they  say  so  instead  of 
saying:   "Well,  get  Toronto  to  come  in  with 


APRIL  4.  1974 


791 


you  and  we  will  pay  the  75  per  cent  on  these 
programmes." 

Once  again,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  ministry  that 
has  a  bureaucracy  that  is  so  eflBcient  in 
changing  regulations  should  certainly  be  able 
to  move  into  this  field  very  eflBciently  and 
very  quickly. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  come  to  my  old 
friend,  the  c-ensor;  the  one  who  is  in  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions-the  film  censor.  Mr.  Speaker,  frankly  I 
would  like  to  see  the  theatres  branch  in  this 
province  follow  the  lead  of  British  Columbia. 
I  personally  think  that  the  operation  of  the 
censor  in  that  province  is  positive.  I  think  it 
makes  a  contribution  to  the  entertainment 
industr>-  and  I  think  it  also  protects  the  public, 
if  indeed  anybody  wants  to  be  protected  these 
days,  from  the  indulgences  or  extravagances 
of  the  film  industry. 

The  reason  I  suggest  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  is 
that  in  the  Province  of  British  Columbia  it  is 
mandators  for  the  advertisement  of  a  film  to 
carry  the  censor's  comments  about  it.  So  you 
see  in  the  theatre  pages  of  the  Vancouver  Sun 
or  Province  the  short,  terse  comments  of  the 
censor  in  the  film  ads.  They  say  that,  frankly, 
the  language  may  be  very  profane,  or  the 
language  may  be  very  crude,  that  there  be 
rather  explicit  scenes  of  violence  and,  to  a 
lesser  degree,  that  there  may  be  some  nudity 
or  what-have-you. 

I'm  not  so  much  concerned  at  this  time 
with  the  nudity,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  think 
what  a  growing  number  of  people  in  this 
province  are  concerned  about  in  the  film 
industn,'  is  the  cult  of  violence.  There  are 
more  and  more  films  being  produced  that, 
frankly,  sir,  I  would  think  might  rather  be 
shown  in  an  amphitheatre  with  psychiatrists 
taking  a  look  at  the  products  of  people  who 
have  either  an  obsession  or  a  penchant  for 
masochism  or  sadism. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  this  province  it  is  virtually 
impossible  for  a  person  who  does  not  read 
movie  reviews  to  know  whether  or  not  when 
going  to  see  a  film  just  how  violent  it  is  going 
to  be.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  suggest  to  you 
that  some  of  the  technological  innovations  of 
the  film  industry  have  made  violence  some- 
what attractive.  It  is  much  easier,  for  instance, 
to  produce  blood  and  gore  in  a  rather  drama- 
tic and  impressionable  way  these  days  than  it 
was  a  number  of  years  ago.  Also,  you  find 
a  great  number  of  particular  occasions  of 
violence.  Apparently  these  days— and  because 
these  examples  are  from  the  United  States 
it  mav  indeed  he  the  situation  there— in  terms 


of  law  and  order  the  police  have  to  break 
the  law  in  order  to  punish  the  criminal. 

I  find  that  kind  of  thing  that  is  permeating 
a  society  like  our  own  particularly  dangerous 
to  young  people,  because  young  pt*ople  are 
the  product  of  a  total  environment.  They  get 
a  taste  and  a  penchant  for  violence,  then  it 
shouldn't  surprise  us  in  later  life,  not  that 
they  become  an  aberrant  or  anything,  but  that 
we  have  a  society  that  accepts  the  brutaliza- 
tion  that  apparently  is  the  hallmark  of  a  great 
many  movie  productions. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  long  ago  given  up 
asking  the  censor  to  do  something  about  sex 
and  nudity  in  films.  I  have  gone  the  route 
with  the  fellow  who  retired  there;  to  ask 
him  about  the  ads,  did  he  pass  them?  He 
couldn't  see  anything  the  matter  with  them. 
I  am  surprised  that  newspapers  ran  them.  So 
I  don't  really  care  about  that  aspect  of  it 
any  more. 

I  have  surrendered  to  the  apparent  hires 
of  Yonge  St.  I  guess  that  is  what  people  want, 
or  at  least  the  people  whom  we  hire  as 
censors  want.  But  I  do  suggest  to  you  that 
the  time  has  come  when  we  start  taking  a 
look  at  the  violence  or  the  language. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  a  couple  of  films  in 
Toronto  right  now  that  franidy  my  wife 
would  have  been  very  uncomfortable  at  and 
she  would  probably  have  fainted  at  some  of 
the  language  in  them.  There  is  no  question 
that  these  are  first-class  films.  I  don't  quarrel 
with  the  technique  or  the  artistry  or  anything 
else.  But  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  fairness  to 
people  who  do  not  want  to  get  into  that  kind 
of  a  scene,  that  the  adoption  of  the  British 
Columbia  policy  might  be  a  good  one  in  this 
province,  because  it  would  compel  the  adver- 
tisement in  the  newspaper  to  state  that  the 
language  is  very  profane  and  offensive. 

If  you  go  in  afterwards  you  have  no  com- 
plaint. If  you  choose  not  to  go  in  I  think  you 
have  been  protected,  because  you  are  not  left 
in  the  theatre  until  the  middle,  had  no  idea 
this  was  coming  and  there  it  has  come;  what 
do  you  do  about  it? 

Nfr.  Singer:  Get  up  and  walk  out. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  think  it  works  very  well  in 
British  Columbia.  I  think  it  is  something  that 
we  should  study  here.  If  we  are  not  going 
to  do  it  then  let's  save  the  taxpayers  some 
money  and  let's  clean  out  the  whole  theatres 
branch. 

I  have  never  wanted  anybody  fired.  I  am 
sure  we  can  get  them  horizontal  transfers 
within   our   mammoth   and   magnificent   civil 


792 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


service.  But  we  must  do  something,  because 
we  don't  censor  the  fihns  any  more,  we  don't 
do  anything.  If  we  can't  even  put  in  Httle 
pockets  of  protection  for  people  then  why 
do  we  have  to  employ  all  of  those  people? 

As  I  say,  I  don't  like  to  fire  anybody,  but 
I  do  like  a  bit  of  efficiency.  Perhaps  if  they 
aren't  interested  in  going  into  this  and  still 
want  to  go  on  with  a  job  that  apparently 
has  no  meaning,  has  no  beginning,  has  no 
end,  then  I  think  perhaps  v^e  should  get 
them  some  horizontal  transfers  within  the 
civil  service. 

Speaking  of  the  civil  service,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  magnificent  book  here  called  the 
Staff  Development  Course  Calendar  1973- 
1974.  It  is  a  very  humorous  book,  very 
humorous  until  you  figure  out  that  we  as 
taxpayers  paid  for  it.  It  deals  with  such  things 
as  the  secretarial  seminar,  interpersonal  rela- 
tions programme,  the  communications  work- 
shop, the  internal  consultants  course,  the 
power  play,  effective  speaking,  instructional 
techniques,  problem  employees'  seminar. 

I  would  like  to  deal  just  for  a  few  moments 
with  good  old  power  play  here,  because  it 
is  magnificent.  We  paid  for  this.  Do  you 
know  they  actually  sent  people  to  take  this 
course?  We  have  to  subsidize  them  to  take 
it.  If  I  had  to  operate  with  this  kind  of  a 
book  I  would  lock  it  up.  But  apparently  they 
find  that  it  is  a  very- 
Mr.  Shulman:  The  Premier  isn't  going  to 
be  happy  with  the  member's  speech  tonight. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  Premier  is  happy  with  all 
my  speeches. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Not  this  one. 

Hon.    Mr.   Grossman:   Why   not? 

Mr.  Drea:  There  isn't  one  thing  in  it  with 
which  he  would  disagree. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  power  play, 
is  —  and  why  have  these  silly  courses?  —  "to 
improve  the  awareness  of  public  administra- 
tors of  various  manipulative  communication 
techniques  and  faulty  reasoning  processes 
which  may  influence  the  decision-making 
process." 

Mr.  Shulman:  What  ministry  is  that  under? 

Mr.   Drea:   The   Civil   Service   Commission. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Who  is  the  minister? 


Mr.  Drea:  I  would  take  it  the  Chairman 
of  Management  Board  is  the  minister. 

Mr.   Shulman:  All  right,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Drea:  May  I  continue? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Please.  I  am  sorr\'  the  min- 
ister isn't  here  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  I'm  sure  I  don't  think  he's 
probably  ever  seen  the  book.  I'm  drawing  it 
to  his  attention. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  In  any  event,  this  workshop  does 
not  utilize  lectures,  films  or  other  traditional 
teaching  methods.  Instead,  participants  com- 
pete as  members  of  teams  in  a  series  of  games 
which  analyse  such  power  plays  as  appeals 
to  superior  authority— Mr.  Speaker,  I  guess 
that's  me  to  you  on  most  occasions;  faulty 
generalization;  personification;  reification— 
whatever  that  may  mean;  analog>',  confusing 
all  and  some;  cultural  bias— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  the  opposition. 

Mr.  Drea:  —emotional  words.  Duration  is 
four  days  in  residence  and  eligibility  is  de- 
signed for  managers,  professionals,  public  re- 
lations officers,  government  representatives 
who  deal  with  outside  clients,  and  internal 
consultants. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario  are 
paying  for  this  nonsense.  If  you  can't  hire 
somebody  who  knows  his  job  and  you  have 
to  send  him  away  for  four  days  to  play  games 
called  power  plays,  this  is  really  a  bit  much. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Does  the  member  think  that 
minister  should  resign? 

Mr.  Singer:  Don't  they  listen  to  this  mem- 
ber in  the  caucus? 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  I  save  it  just  for  the  member 
for  Downsview. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  we  can't  really  help  him 
too  much.  It  is  his  fellows  o\er  there  he 
should  watch. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  somehow  I  get  help. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Why  doesn't  he  tell  the 
Premier  to  fire  the  minister  he  is  talking 
about? 

Mr.  Drea:  I  don't  think  this  is  the  minis- 
try's  thing.   This   is   the  Civil   Service  Com- 


APRIL  4.  1974 


793 


mission.  I  wish  he  would  do  something  about 
the  Civil  Service  Commission. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Does  the  member  mean  the 
minister  doesn't  know  what  is  going  on  in  his 
jurisdiction? 

Mr.  Drea:  No,  that  is  not  what  I  ssdd. 

Mr.  Singer:  A  terrible  admission  of  defeat 

Mr.  Drea:  I'm  just  drawing  this  to  his 
attention. 

An  hon.  member:  Maybe  the  minister  is 
taking  the  course.  Are  members  eligible? 

Mr.  r>rea:  No. 

Mr.  Singer:  This  is  a  terrible  admission  of 
defeat.  The  member's  influence  in  the  Tory 
caucus  isn't  very  great.  ^ 

Mr.  Drea:  We  have  the  commimication 
workshop.  The  thing  that  fascinates  me,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  the  fact  that  this  is  for  PR  men, 
because  it  says: 

The  purpose  is  to  improve  the  process  of 
interpersonal  communication  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  work  within  the  government 
of  Ontario. 

Content:  overcoming  barriers  to  effective 
interpersonal  communication;  communica- 
tion of  one-to-one  relationships;  listening 
and  understanding;  communication  at  meet- 
ings; feedback  techniques,  team-building 
techniques. 

iDuration:  five  days  in  residence. 
Now  here  is  the  eligibility. 

Preference  will  be  given  to  inctunbents 
of  positions  where  communication  skills  are 
particularly  emphasized,  such  as  staff  en- 
gaged in  public  relations. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  hire  a  public  relations 
man,  surely  even  in  the  civil  service  he  should 
be  able  to  talk  to  you.  That  would  be  the 
same  as  getting  a  politician  who  was  tongue- 
tied.  It  wouldn't  work.  We  now  have  a  pro- 
gramme where  we  take  the  public  relations 
man  in  the  government  of  Ontario  and  send 
him  away  to  some  weirdo  commimication 
workshop  which  the  taxpayer  has  to  pay  for 
so  that  he  can  overcome  his  barriers  to  effec- 
tive interpersonal  relationships. 

Mr.  Speaker,  when  the  taxpayers  hear 
about  things  hke  this  and  they  see  there  is 
actually  such  a  book,  they  will  begin  to  get 
ideas.  My  criticisms  of  these  are  remarkably 
mild  compared  to  what  they  would  say. 


We  have  another  little  one  in  here,  the  file 
supervisor  seminar.  This  one  really  moves  me. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  member  has  driven  the 
chairman  of  Management  Board  to  the  other 
side  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Drea:  This  is  to  familiarize  file  super- 
visors with  current  record  management  prac- 
tices in  the  Ontario  public  service. 

Mr.  Singer:  Why  doesn't  the  member  talk 
to  the  member  for  Halton  East  (Mr.  Snow)  as 
he  is  in  charge  of  that  one? 

Mr.  Drea:  No,  no;  it  is  not  him. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  not  him? 

Mr.  Drea:  Nope.  Nope. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  He's  driven 
the  House  leader  to  the  other  side  of  the 
House. 

Mr.  Singer:  That's  right.  The  member  has 
driven  him  to  the  other  side.  He  can't  stand 
it  any  more. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  I  think  he'd  find  it  very 
fascinating. 

Mr.  Shulman:  He  has  taken  the  course. 

Mr.  Drea:  No,  I  don't  think  he  has  taken 
this  one  because,  after  all,  it  says:  "Content: 
Objective  of  the  Ontario  government's  records 
management  programme.'  Well,  if  a  person  is 
hired  and  doesn't  know  what  the  objective  is, 
why  do  we  have  to  send  him  away  up  to  that 
school  in  Barrie  for  five  days?  Why  do  we 
have  to  feed  him?  Why  do  we  have  to  sub- 
sidize him  by  getting  someone  else  to  take 
his  job? 

Mr.  Shulman:  It's  a  beautiful  summer 
resort. 

Mr.  Drea:  And  then  it  says,  down  at  the 
bottom:  "Eligibility:  This  seminar  is  open  to 
personnel  presently  employed  as  file  super- 
visors or  file  coders."  Well,  they  are  hired  and 
they  don't  even  know  the  objective  of  the 
place  they  work  in.  If  I  didn't  have  the 
book,  even  with  my  profound  distnist  of  the 
bureaucracy,  I  wouldn't  really  believe  that 
they  could  produce  such  a  thing. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that  we  ought  to  send 
one  of  these  books  to  every  household  in 
Ontario  and  say,  "Here  it  is,  the  pnxluct  of 
the  civil  service  mind." 


794 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Shulman:  That's  what  the  Tory  gov- 
ernment has  done. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  it's  the  product  of  the  Tory 
government. 

Mr.  Drea:  It  is  not  the  product  of  the  Tory 
government;  it  is  the  product  of  the  Civil 
Service  Commission. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  come  on.  How  can  we 
separate  the  two? 

Mr.  Drea:  Is  the  member  saying  the  civil 
servants  are  all  Tories? 

Mr.  Singer:  No,  I  am  saying  the  Tories 
control  them.  And  if  they  can't,  they  should 
quit. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  certainly  wish  we  did.  That's 
a  very  interesting  thought,  that  we  own  the 
civil  service, 

Mr.  Shulman:  That  programme  was  de- 
veloped' by  the  minister,  and  Tory  MPPs  have 
been  up  there. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  Tories  run  the  govern- 
ment. If  they  can't  do  it  properly,  they  should 
quit. 

Mr.  Drea:  My  friend,  there  are  two  gov- 
ernments. We  are  one  of  them.  There  is 
another  goverrmient  of  many  thousands. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  come  on. 

Mr.  Drea:  And  just  because  my  friend  may 
have  some  influence  in  there,  it  doesn't  neces- 
sarily mean  that  we  own  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  minister's  deputy  de- 
veloped, that  contract. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  reason  I  raised 
the  question  of  this  staff  development  course 
calendar- 
Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  that's  a  good  question. 

Mr.  Drea:  —is  that,  until  things  like  this 
are  brought  to  light,  they  tend  to  perpetuate 
themselves. 

Mr.  Singer:  Leslie  Frost  used  to  stop  them 
when  he  saw  them. 

Mr.  Drea:  Pardon? 

Mr.  Singer:  Leslie  Frost  used  to  stop  them. 
John  Robarts  stopped  them.  If  Premier  Davis 
can't,  well,  get  rid  of  him. 


Mr.  Drea:  I  suggest  that  it  would  probably 
be  a  very  happy  day  for  the  Liberal  Party 
if  the  Premier  of  this  province  was  not  to  be 
in  office  or  was  no  longer  going  to  continue 
in  his  job,  because  the  member  has  a  party 
and  a  leader  that  can't  even  tie  the  Premier's 
shoelaces  and  will  never  be  able  to  if  it  takes 
100  or  200  years. 

Mr.  Singer:  His  shoelaces  are  tied.  I  just 
looked. 

Mr.  Drea:  Because  it  can  take  a  century, 
and  as  long  as  the  Liberals  are  around,  the 
Premier  of  this  province  will  still  be  Premier, 
with  an  ever-increasing  margin. 

The  member  and  his  leader  are  our  great- 
est allies,  the  two  of  them  together. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  why  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  doesn't  wear  laces. 

Mr.  Eaton:  "Blank-cheque  Bob." 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Well,  I  guess  that's  the 
end- 
Mr.  Drea:  When  people  criticize  us,  I  just 
say,  "Would  you  like  the  member  for  Downs- 
view?"  and  they  say,  "Oh,  God,  no,  we'll  vote 
for  you  again."  I  may  use  his  picture  in  my 
campaign,  and  say  "Do  you  want  him?"  I 
may  not  even  have  to  knock  at  the  door. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  Why  doesn't  he  move  the 
adjournment? 

Mr.  Singer:  "The  Perils  of  Pauline." 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member 
would  observe  the  hour  and  move  the  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  I  have  been  trying  to,  but 
I  have  been  so  rudely  interrupted,  sir. 

Mr.  Singer:  "Will  she  fall  off  the  cliff  or 
not?" 

Mr.   Drea:   And  it's  very  difficult  for  me. 
with  the  shading  of  the  light  on  the  clock- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  adjourn 
the  debate. 

Mr.  Singer:  "Or  will  fearless  Frank  come 
to  the  rescue?" 


APRIL  4,  1974 


795 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  Can  we  hope  for  more 
tomorrow? 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  yes,  until  tomorrow. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  We'll  look  forward 
to  it. 

Mr.  Singer:  In  breathless  anticipation,  we 
shall  wait. 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  as  our  greatest  ally,  I 
would  hope  that  the  member  has  breathless 
anticipation. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes. 

Mr.  Drea:  It  would  be  a  novel  form  of 
levitation— 


Mr.   Deans:   The   member  has   moved   the 
adjournment,  will  he  sit  down? 

Mr.  Drea:  —and  that  member  doesn't  like 
any  levitation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Very  breathless. 

Mr.   Drea   moves  the   adjournment   of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  tomorrow 
we  will  continue  with  this  debate. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:30  o'clock,  p.m 


796  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  April  4,  1974 

Resumprion  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Bounsall,  Mr.  Drea 767 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Drea,  agreed  to  795 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  795 


No.  20 


Ontario 


Hesisflature  of  Ontario 


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


Friday,  April  5,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARUAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


790 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  o'clock,  a.m. 
Prayers. 

POINTS  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  on  two  points  of  privilege. 

The  first  one  is  it  is  my  understanding 
that  tradition  says  that  every  backbench 
member  of  the  House  who  wishes  may 
participate  in  the  Throne  debate.  It  has  now 
been  indicated  this  morning  that  some  of  the 
members  may  not  be  allowed  time  to  par- 
ticipate. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion):   Indicated  by  whom? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  has  been  no  such 
tradition  established,  nor  is  there  anything 
in  standing  orders  to  that  effect;  nor  does 
custom  in  this  chamber  indicate  so. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Is  it  not  in  May,  sir?  Is  it 
your  ruling  that  everyone  does  not  have  to 
be  given  an  opportunity  to  participate? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  don't  think  that  a  ruling 
is  necessary.  I  am  just  confirming  the  facts 
to  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Sir,  is  it  not  possible  to 
extend  the  hours  of  the  House  to  allow  those 
members  who  wish  to  participate  time  to  do 
so? 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  beyond  my  control. 

Mr.  Shulman:   In  whose  control  is  it,  sir? 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Why 
doesn't  the  member  attend  the  sessions  once 
in  a  while? 

Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Do  I  have  any  comment 
from  the  House  leader?  Will  he  make  any 
comment  on  this? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet ) :  Ask  me  a  question 
during  question  period. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  second  matter,  sir,  is 
that  I  believe  it  is  a  privilege  of  the  mem- 


Friday,  April  5,  1974 

hers  of  this  House  to  receive  correspondence 
and  communication  from  members  of  the 
public  who  are  incarcerated  in  our  prisons 
without  those  persons  being  punished  for  so 
doing.  Back  on  June  27,  1973,  one  Daniel 
Brenner,  an  inmate  of  Guelph  Reformatory, 
wrote  me  a  letter  complaining  about  the 
medical  facilities  in  that  institution,  which 
I  subsequently  raised  in  the  House. 

As  a  result  of  that  letter,  many  months 
later— in  fact  last  week  after  he  had  been 
transferred  up  to  Burwash— he  applied  for 
permission  to  transfer  to  Camp  Bison,  which 
is  a  portion  of  Burwash  where  people  may 
take  classes.  He  was  refused. 

As  his  record  was  clean,  he  asked  why  he 
had  been  refused  and  they  then  produced  a 
copy  of  my  letter,  the  letter  which  he  had 
sent  to  me  in  June,  1973,  and  said  that  as 
a  result  of  this  letter  they  didn't  like  his 
attitude.  Sir,  he  is  being  punished  for  com- 
municating with  his  MPP,  and  surely  this 
is  a  breacn  of  privilege? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  presume  the  hon.  member 
is  complaining  of  the  suggested  procedure 
wherein  they  had  taken  a  copy  of  his  con- 
fidential letter  and  certain  consequences 
resulted. 

Mr.  Shulman:  One  can't  punish  a  man  for 
that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  believe  perhaps  the  hon. 
member  does  have  some  grounds  for  com- 
plaint, but  certainly  I  do  not,  in  any  way, 
see  where  this  is  a  parliamentary  privilege 
extended  to  members  of  the  Legislature  and 
not  extended  to  members  of  the  public 
generally. 

The  hon.  member  may  have  some  cause 
for  complaint.  He  has  put  his  point  across 
on  the  floor  of  the  chamber.  I  do  not  believe 
it  is  anything  that  would  constitute  parlia- 
mentary privilege.  However,  he's  made  his 
point. 

Hon.  A.  GrosSVnan  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  He  must  keep 
in  mind  that  at  the  moment  it  is  only  an 
allegation. 

Mr.   Speaker:    Statements  by  the  ministry. 


800 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


MINAKI  LODGE 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry 
and  Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  Feb.  7,  I 
announced  that  an  agreement  had  been 
reached  with  the  owner  of  Minaki  Lodge 
for  the  voluntary  transfer  of  ownership  of 
Minaki  Lodge  Resorts  Ltd.  and  its  associ- 
ated companies  to  the  Northern  Ontario  De- 
velopment Corp. 

At  that  time,  I  made  it  very  clear  the 
government  of  Ontario  is  prepared  to  assure 
that  Minaki  flourishes,  not  only  for  its  own 
sake  but  for  the  good  of  northwestern  On- 
tario. I  pointed  out  that  the  name  of  the  game 
is  not  just  the  creation  of  an  improved  and 
important  facility  at  Minaki,  but  also  it  is 
the  building  of  new  opportunity  in  north- 
western Ontario. 

It  is  the  government's  firm  conviction  that 
an  expanded  and  improved  facility  at  Minaki 
can  act  as  a  magnet  to  draw  additional  peo- 
ple into  northwestern  Ontario  and  that  this 
facility  will  complement  others  which  are 
located  in  this  important  area  of  our  prov- 
ince. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  morning  I  am  pleased  to 
announce  that  a  knowledgeable  board  of 
directors  has  taken  ofiice  to  direct  the  affairs 
of  Minaki.  This  board  will  develop  policies 
aimed  at  providing  a.  facility  designed  to 
attract  Canadian  and  international  visitors  to 
northwestern  Ontario. 

The  seven-member  board  is  sitting  in  the 
Speaker's  gallery  this  morning  and  will  be 
holding  meetings  throughout  the  day  here  in 
Toronto.  The  board  of  directors  consists  of: 
Mr.  Tom  Spence,  an  experienced  motel  oper- 
ator of  Dryden;  Edwin  Fahlgren,  manager 
of  a  Red  Lake  mining  company;  Ben  Ratuski, 
a  Keewatin  businessman  known  for  wild 
rice;  Brian  O'Brian,  owner  of  a  Thunder  Bay 
real  estate  company  and  president  of  the 
associated  Chambers  of  Commerce,  north- 
eastern and  northwestern  Ontario;  David  Cas- 
well, a  well-known  northern  Ontario  hotel 
operator;  Rolland  Doucette,  a  Perth  restaura- 
teur; and  the  seventh  is  Fred  Boyer,  execu- 
tive director  of  the  division  of  tourism  in  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism. 

This  board,  Mr.  Speaker,  has  been  given 
the  dual  responsibility  of  appointing  expert 
management  and  preparing  the  physical  con- 
cept of  the  Minaki  Lodge  to  emerge  in  the 
near  future.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe 
that  through  these  actions  we  shall  produce 
a  facility  that  will  be  of  real  benefit  to 
Ontario. 


Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to  inform  the  House 
that  Minaki  Lodge  is  now  in  the  hands  of 
Canadians.  It  is  the  intention  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  to  get  the  affairs  of  Minaki 
Lodge  back  into  excellent  condition  and 
then  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  put  this 
superb  resource  in  the  hands  of  the  Cana- 
dian private  sector. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 

CORPORATION  INCOME  TAX  PAID 
BY  OIL  COMPANIES  TO  PROVINCE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  ask  the  Premier  a  question  if  I  can 
have  his  attention  for  a  moment.  Does  he 
agree  with  the  statement  made  by  the  Min- 
ister of  Revenue  (Mr.  Meen)  yesterday  that 
it  is  not  within  the  minister's  competence  or 
power  to  reveal  the  tax  returns  submitted  to 
him  by  public  corporations  in  this  province? 
His  answer  was  in  response  to  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  (Mr.  Lewis)  who  was  requesting 
specific  information  in  this  regard. 

Would  the  Premier  not  agree  that  these 
matters  are  a  matter  of  public  record  and, 
particularly  since  the  situation  is  going  to 
have  to  be  made  public,  he  should  instruct 
his  Minister  of  Revenue  to  make  public  this 
information  without  any  further  delay? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  is  presuming  on 
my  knowledge  of  the  law.  This  is  something 
I  would  have  to  discuss  with  the  minister  and 
perhaps  even  with  the  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
Welch). 

Quite  frankly,  I  don't  know  what  the  stat- 
utes provide  with  respect  to  disclosure  of 
tax  information.  If  the  statutes  provide  that 
it  can't  be  disclosed,  obviously  we  must  be 
bound  by  the  statutes.  If  the  statutes  do  not 
so  provide,  of  course,  I  think  the  minister 
would  consider  it. 

I  cannot  give  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
the  legal  opinion  here  this  morning  because 
I  haven't  had  an  opportunity  to  check  the 
statutes  myself.  Quite  frankly,  even  if  I  had, 
I  think  I  would  want  to  get  some  advice 
from  the  chief  law  officer  of  the  Crown  in 
any  event. 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer,  Minister  of 
Economics  and  Intergoverrmiental  Affairs): 
That's  a  good,  tough  question  though. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'm  glad  the  Treasurer 
is  here;  I  have  a  question  or  two  for  him, 
since  this  is  the  first  time  he  has  been  in  for 


APRIL  5.  1974 


801 


a  question  period  for  a  number  of  days.  Will 
he  just  stay  for  a  little  while? 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  The  mem- 
ber is  lucky  he  was  away. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  was  here  yesterday. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if 
the  Premier  would  simply  state,  as  a  matter 
of  principle,  that  if  the  law  does  not  forbid 
it— and  no  one  here  knows  of  any  such  law 
or  regulation— and  if  it  is  just  the  reluctance 
of  the  Minister  of  Revenue,  as  it  appeared 
yesterday,  that  he  will  correct  that  reluctance 
and  see  that  the  public  information  is  pro- 
vided without  delay. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Hard-hitting  "Bob  Nixon" 
is  on  the  warpath,  by  George. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  hear  the  Treasurer  is 
getting  out  of  politics.  I  hear  he  can't  stand 
the  heat.  I  hear  that  he  and  Ward  Cornell 
are  going  to  move  to  London  and  see  what 
they  can  stir  up. 

An  hon.  member:  There's  no  challenge 
here. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  can't  stand  looking  over 
there  any  longer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  Liberals  have 
been  out  of  politics  for  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  almost 
forgotten  the  question;  I  wonder  if  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  can  remember  what  he 
asked  and  then  maybe  I  can  answer  it.  I 
have  a  feeling  my  answer  is  the  same  as  it 
was  to  the  first  question. 

Mr.   R.  F.   Nixon:   I  would  put  it  to  the 
Premier,  if  his  exuberant  friend  can  contain 
himself  for  a  moment- 
Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Has  he  been  up 
all  night? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Will  he  instruct  the  Minis- 
ter of  Revenue  to  give  this  information  if  in 
fact  it  is  just  his  reluctance  rather  than  any 
regulation  which  prohibits  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister 
of  Revenue,  being  one  of  those  very  capable 
men  on  this  side  of  this  House,  doesn't  need 
any  instructions  from  me— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Yes,  that's  two— the  Minis- 
ter of  Revenue  and  the  Treasurer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  it  is  proper  to  release 
this  information,  I  am  sure  he  will  do  so.  But, 
as  I  said  a  few  moments  ago,  it  depends  on 
what  the  statutes  provide. 


RESTORATION  OF  OLD  FORT  WILLIAM 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  the 
question  I  have  for  the  Treasurer  is  not  of 
such  great  importance,  I  would  direct  my  next 
question  to  the  Minister  of  iNatural  Resources, 
who  seems  to  be  in  the  news  again  concern- 
ing the  government  policy  with  regard  to  the 
construction  of  Old  Fort  William. 

Is  he  prepared  to  appear  before  the  public 
acxjounts  committee  to  justify  once  again  the 
charges  in  the  Globe  and  Mail  by  Gerald 
McAulifFe  that  substantial  contracts  have  been 
let  without  tender,  even  though  the  statement 
has  been  made  through  other  members  of  the 
ministry,  that  wherever  possible,  tendering 
procedures  will  be  used?  Is  he  prepared  to 
explain  as  well  why  the  basic  contract  was 
let  without  tender  to  National  Heritage  and 
Pigott  Project  Management,  without  even  the 
requirement  of  a  performance  bond,  although 
they  in  turn  require  100  per  cent  performance 
bonds  from  the  subcontractors  who  are  doing 
the  work  for  them? 

Basically,  is  the  minister  prepared  to  appear 
before  the  committee  on  public  accounts  to 
justify  what  appears  to  be  a  policy  that  flies 
in  the  face  of  the  stated  policy  of  the  admin- 
istration? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may  explain  one 
little  point  regarding  the  article  that  appeared 
in  the  Globe  and  Mail  this  morning— and  I 
might  say  it  is  the  third  one-as  I  read  it  this 
morning,  it  reminded  me,  I  suppose,  of  sau- 
sage—some bad  sausage. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Bad  sausage? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  The  casing  was  good  but 
the  stuffing  was  terrible,  and  I  think  my  friend 
will  have  to  agree  with  that.  Just  one  point, 
though:  I  was  shocked  that  this  session  is  now 
into  its  third  or  fourth  week  and  this  is  the 
first  question  that  the  opposition  members 
have  directed  to  me  in  connection  with  what 
will  be  the  most  fantastic  tourist  attraction  in 
northwestern  Ontario.  This  will  be  a  milestone 
in  the  development  of  tourist  attractions. 
Don't  ever  forget  it. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  It  should  be 
at  what  it  cost  at  public  expense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  I  might  say  further  that 
I  am  in  Thunder  Bay  at  least  once  a  week. 
My  telephone  lines  and  my  mail  communica- 
tions to  northwestern  Ontario  are  excellent- 
Mr.  Renwick:  That  doesn't  excuse  the  way 
in  which  the  contract  was  let,  and  the  minis- 
ter knows  it. 


802 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  —and  I  might  say  that  to 
this  day  I  have  not  received  a  phone  call  of 
complaint  or  a— 

Mr.  Renwick:  Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  —letter  of  complaint.  The 
news  media  are  supporting  our  project  up 
there.  And  all  of  northwestern  Ontario  is 
excited  about  this  particular  development- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  minister  received  a 
question  this  morning.  What  about  the  fact 
that  no  tenders  were  let? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Let's  deal  with  the  question 
of  the  expenditui-e  of  public  funds.  Let's  deal 
with  the  improper  use  of  public  funds. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  Answer  the 
question!  The  minister  can't  get  away  with 
that;  he  doesn't  have  the  talent. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Renwick:  We  will  try  it  in  the  pubhc 
accounts  committee  where  the  minister  won't 
be  able  to  make  his  propaganda  statements. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  I  haven't  received  a 
complaint  from  northwestern  Ontario  about 
the  construction  of  Old  Fort  William— not  one 
complaint— and  I  am  there  looking  for  it  all 
the  time. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  have  over  here. 

An  hon.  member:  What's  so  special  about 
the  member? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  The  former  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Auld)  explained  it 
very  well  with  regard  to  the  question  raised 
by  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  and  I  don't 
think  there  is  any  need  for  me  to  delve  into 
that  further.  But  I  would  say  to  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  that  with  regard  to  the  call- 
ing of  tenders  and  specifically  the  placing  of 
performance  bonds- 
Mr.  Sargent:  What  a  bunch  of  clowns! 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  —this  is  not  a  require- 
ment within  the  contract  itself,  and  many  of 
the  contracts  that  were  called— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  isn't  it?  Surely 
it  should  be. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  is  required  by  public 
accounts. 


Hon.   Mr.   Bemier:   —were  all  subcontracts 
awarded     by    the     contractor    himself,     and 
they    are    not    necessary- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Then  the  minister  is  to 
blame. 

Hon.     Mr.    Bemier:    I    tell    the    member 
that   dealing    with   such   picayune    things    as 
birch  bark,  as  cedar  bark- 
Mr.     Renwick:     As     public     funds,     such 
picayune  things  as  public  funds. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  But  10 
times   as  big! 

Mr.   Speaker:   Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  —for  all  picayune  little 
contracts,  it  is  not  necessary  to  ask  for  a 
performance  bond.  But  I  would  be  pre- 
pared  to   look   into   it   further. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Tories 
trust  Tories  when  they  are  handling  public 
Treasury. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  R.  F,  Nixon:  I  asked  the  minister  if 
he  would  agree  to  appear  before  the  public 
accounts  committee,  where  this  must  be 
gone  into  in  detail;  will  he  give  his  under- 
taking so  to  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  get 
a  request  from  the  public  accounts  com- 
mittee, certainly  I'll  be  glad  to  appear. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  How 
can  the  minister  justify,  simply  by  referring 
to  what  his  colleague  said  in  answer  to  a 
question  some  months  ago,  saying  that  it  is 
not  necessary  to  call  tenders?  Surely  if  the 
government  is  going  to  spend  public  money 
in  the  most  effective  and  fair  way  it  is 
necessary  to  call   tenders? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  just  explained  that, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Many  of  the  contracts  called 
were  subcontracts  by  the  contractor  himself. 
It's  not  necesary  for  them  to  place  per- 
formance bonds  for  contracts  which  may  be— 

Mr.  Renwick:  But  the  major  contract  is 
and  the  accounting  for  it  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  -for  $1,000  to  $2,000 
and  are  very  small  and  picayune  in  nature. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  A  supple- 
mentary: Is  the  minister  not  aware,  in  view 
of  his  answer  to  the  first  question  asked  by 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  that  he  has 
received   complaints   from  northwestern   On- 


APRIL  5,  1974 


803 


tario  and  there  has  been  on  the  order  paper 
since  the  first  week  of  this  session  a  detailed 
question  on  Old  Fort  William?  If  the  min- 
ister had  the  courage  to  answer  that  de- 
tailed question,  he  might  in  fact  clear  up 
a  lot  of  the  misunderstanding  surrounding 
Old  Fort  William,  instead  of  giving  these 
vague   wishy-washy   answers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr,  Speaker,  those 
cjuestions  placed  on  the  order  paper  will  be 
answered   in   due   course. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  supplementary,  in  view  of 
the  minister's  answer:  Is  he  not  aware  that 
I  am  surprised  he  hasn't  had  time  to  answer 
it  in  three  weeks,  if  he  thinks  nobody  has 
asked  him  questions  on  this  matter  for  three 
weeks? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
to  point  out  to  you  that  the  member  for 
Port  Arthur  is  the  only  one  who  has  raised 
any  question  about  the  development  of  Old 
Fort  William.  I  am  surprised,  if  he  is  a 
true  northwestern  Ontarian,  that  he  should 
be  against  a  development  of  that  magnitude. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:   No  one  is  against  it! 

An  hon.  member:   Sure  he  is. 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture  and  Food):   He  doesn't  want  it  at  all. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  what  we  asked, 
that's  what  we  want. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Surely  he  is  not  repre- 
senting his  people  as  they  would  want  him 
to   represent   them. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  is  a  weak  defence 
by  the  minister. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  if 
the  government  spent  the  amount  of  money 
it  is  spending  on  Old  Fort  William  on 
genuine  secondary  industrial  development  in 
northwestern  Ontario,  it  would  have  a  much 
stronger  economic  infrastructure  than  with 
the  Disneyland  tourist  trade  it  is  now  build- 
ing? 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  Let  the 
member  take  it  up  in  public  accounts  and 
stop  wasting  question  time. 

Mr.  Foulds:   That  is  the  Tories  for  you! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Conmnunications ) :  He  doesn't 
hke  tourists. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  I  would  ask  the  mem- 
ber for  Port  Arthur  to  inform  himself  on 
what  the  tourist  industry  means  to  north- 
western Ontario.  If  he  would  do  a  little  bit 
of  background  research  and  find  out  what 
it  really  means— 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  He  doesn't  like  tourism. 
He  and  the  member  for  Sudbury  (Mr. 
Germa)  want  hot-dog  stands.  What  has  the 
NDP  got  against  tourism? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  —and  the  employment 
it  provides;  the  dollars  and  the  traflBc  it  will 
generate  will  be  fantastic,  beyond  his  wildest 
dreams. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Without  smoke- 
stacks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  He  should  bring  him- 
self up  to  date  on  those  plans. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  He 
doesn't  know  a  boathouse  from  a  dog 
kennel. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  woidd  ask  the  minister  him- 
self what  it  means  to  labour  in  industr\'  and 
the  sweat  shop  industry  itself? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  on  a  new  question. 


RESTRUCTURING  OF  RENFREW 
COUNTY 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'd  like  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Treasurer,  since  he  is  so  anxious 
to  participate  in  the  debate  this  morning.  In 
his  capacity  as  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs,  he  does  have  some  responsibility  for 
the  municipalities  to  some  extent;  how  did 
he  reply  to  the  mayor  of  the  town  of  Ren- 
frew who  complained  that  the  Treasurer  has 
established  an  inadequate  base  for  the  com- 
mittee to  look  into  the  restructuring  of  Ren- 
frew county,  in  that  the  terms  of  reference 
were  going  to  be  established  by  two  people, 
not  elected,  from  only  one  community  in  the 
area?  Has  he  amended  his  position  on  the 
basis  for  that  examination  into  a  possible 
restmcturing,  or  is  he  just  going  to  let  it  go 
and  bull  it  through  as  is  his  custom? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  think  the  mayor's 
letter  has  reached  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 


804 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tion   before    it   reached   me.    At   any   rate,    I 
haven't  seen  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  addressed  to  the 
minister  and  is  dated  March  26. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  haven't  seen  it  yet. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  doesn't  he  read  his 
mail?  Isn't  he  ever  in  his  oflBce? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  have  been  vv^orking  on 
the  budget. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Come  on! 

Mr.   BuIIbrook:    There   is   the  hard-hitting 

Treasurer. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  As 
the  minister  has  not  read  his  mail,  and  the 
letter  must  have  been  on  his  desk  probably 
for  five  days,  can  he  undertake  to  the  House 
that  he  will  review  the  establishment  of  the 
committee  which  is  to  set  up  the  terms  of 
reference  for  the  restructuring  of  Renfrew 
county  to  see  that  it  is  distributed  more 
widely  across  the  communities  of  the  county 
and  to  give  an  answer  to  the  mayor  who 
says  in  his  third  paragraph:  "Since  you  have 
chosen  not  to  answer  two  previous  com- 
munications on  this  matter",  probably  the 
man,  in  some  desperation,  is  communicating 
with  somebody  else? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I'll  certainly  read  the 
letter  and  I'll  certainly  reply  to  it.  Whether 
I  can  meet  the  substance  of  his  request,  I 
cannot  tell  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  really,  essentially, 
the  Treasurer  doesn't  give  a  damn. 

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


OIL  PRICES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Energy  if  he  had  any  part  to 
play  in  what  appears  to  be  a  substantial 
mistake  in  the  establishment  of  the  base 
price  of  the  oil  from  Alberta,  or  if  he  is 
prepared  to  say  the  blame  lies  entirely  else- 
where? Were  his  statisticians  Involved  in  the 
computations  which  we  read  about,  leading 
to  a  fairly  serious  error  involving  an  extra 
$30  million  at  least  in  the  costing  of  this  oil? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Wliat  about  the  99 
cents  a  gallon  on  oil? 


Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  No. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  didn't  hear  the 
answer,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  answer  was  no. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Is  the 
minister  having  his  statisticians  look  into 
this  matter  to  see  if,  in  fact,  it  will  have 
a  direct  effect  on  the  consumers  in  this 
province,  who  seem  to  have  their  prices 
dictated  by  the  agreement  of  the  Premiers, 
based  on,  in  this  case,  inadequate  informa- 
tion? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  since 
the  meeting  of  a  week  ago  last  Wednesday 
we  have  been  having  our  statisticians  and 
others  examine  all  aspects  of  the  matter, 
including  the  differences  between  the  well- 
head price  and  the  Edmonton  price  and 
transportation  costs.  I'm  not  entirely  clear 
as  to  the  references  to  the  differences  be- 
tween synthetic  crude  and  other  oil,  for 
example,  as  contained  in  this  morning's 
paper.  We  are  looking  into  that. 

We  are,  of  course,  looking  into  the  matter 
of  the  other  increase  of  one  or  two  cents 
requested  by  the  companies  and  we  are 
assured  by  Ottawa  they  are  looking  into  all 
these  matters  and  hope  to  come  to  a  resolu- 
tion. 

I  should  also  point  out  one  inaccuracy, 
if  I  may  Mr.  Speaker,  in  what  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  has  said.  He  implied  that 
this  was  an  agreement  reached  by  the 
Premiers  of  the  provinces- 
Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Why 
wasn't  the  minister  at  that  meeting? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  He  is  overlooking 
the  fact  that  the  agreement  in  effect  was- 
and  I  don't  think  it's  too  strong  a  word- 
dictated  by  the   Prime   Minister  of  Canada. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  He  would  have  a  small 
part  to  play. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Would 
the  minister  not  agree  with  the  Premier, 
who  stated  after  the  agreement  was  com- 
pleted that  he  had  accepted— I  wish  I 
could  remember  the  exact  words— but  with 
some  equanimity  and  that  it  was  the  best 
he  could   get? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  reluctance.  Does 
the  member  want  me  to  repeat  what  I  said? 

Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon:    Sure. 


APRIL  5.  1974 


805 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  'Mr.  Speaker,  just  so 
there  is  no  misunderstanding,  I  said  that  I 
was  pleased  there  had  l)een  an  agreement 
reached  so  that  there  wouldn't  be  a  con- 
frontation, that  with  rehictance  we  accept- 
ed the  $6.50  price,  which  was  the  price 
suggested  by  the  Prime  Minister  of  Canada- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  was  an  agree- 
ment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —but  if  we  didn't  reach 
agreement  they  would  impose  the  price  by 
legislation.  Ontario  preferred  a  $6  price, 
and  still  would;  some  sister  provinces  pre- 
ferred $8,  and  some  were  somewhere  in 
between.  Ontario  would  still  like  to  have 
had  $6,  but  the  Prime  Minister  of  Canada 
made  it  abundantly  clear— and  I  understand 
the  position  he  had  to  take,  because  he 
had  to  have  it  solved— when  he  said: 
"Gentlemen,  we  agree  or  it's  $6.50  to- 
morrow afternoon  by  way  of  legislation." 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  The 
Premier  then,  in  clarification  of  what  the 
Minister  for  Energy  has  said,  did  not  really 
feel  the  decision  was  imposed  upon  him 
and  that  he  accepted  it  under  circum- 
stances somewhat  different  than  the  minister 
describes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
that  one  can  use  whatever  interpretation 
one  may  want  to  use. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Try  to  get  it  both  ways. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  was  an  offer  he 
couldn't  refuse. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  first  minister  of  this 
country,  who  had  to  make  a  determination 
because  April  1  was  coming,  said,  very 
politely  but  very  firmly:  "If  we  can  reach 
an  agreement,  fine.  If  we  can't,  it's  $6.50 
by  legislation;"  I  think  he  said  "tomorrow 
afternoon."  It's  as  simple  as  that.  One  can 
use  whatever  interpretation  one  wants. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Sounds  like  "The 
Godfather." 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Supplementary  of  the 
Premier,  if  I  may:  Notwithstanding  whether 
the  agreement  was  reciprocal  or  imposed, 
may  we  properly  assume  from  the  response 
given  by  the  Minister  of  Energy  that  the 
first  ministers  of  all  the  provinces  and  the 
Prime  Minister  of  Canada,  on  behalf  of  the 
people  whom  they  represent,  have  entered 
into  an  agreement  in  connection  with  the 
base  rate  without  taking  into  consideration 
the  wellhead  price  of  synthetic  crude? 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  .Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
tell  the  member  for  Samia  that  we  were 
discu.ssing  the  price  per  barrel  of  oil  coming 
into  the  sister  provinces  of  Canada;  and 
we  were  discussing  a  price-and  there  was 
whatever  terminology  one  might  wish  to 
use— a  price   of  $6.50  plus   transportation. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  take  it  the  answer  is 
yes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No.  There  was  no  men- 
tion- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  By  way  of  final  supple- 
mentary, is  the  Premier  saying  in  effect 
that  he  did  or  did  not  take  into  considera- 
tion in  his  base  rate  agreement  the  wellhead 
price  of  synthetic  crude?  If  he  did,  would 
he  please  tell  us  he  did?  If  he  didn't,  why 
didn't  he?  And  who  advises  the  Premier 
in  connection  with  these  things? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
say  that  neither  the  first  minister  nor  any 
Premier  there  distinguished  between  syn- 
thetic or  non-synthetic  crude.  It's  as  simple 
as  that. 

Hon.    Mr.    McKeough:    Mr.    Speaker,   if   I 
might  just  add  to  this,  I  think  the  member 
is    suggesting    that    the    Premier    was    not 
properly  advised.  May  we  say  that  it  would 
have  been  much  easier- 
Mr.  Sargent:  Sit  down. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 
Mr.  Sargent:  How  can  he  do  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  original  question  was 
directed  to  the  hon.  minister  and  the  hon. 
members  directed  it  to  the  Premier  after. 
The  hon.  Minister  of  Energy  has  every  right 
to  complete  his  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  The  member  has 
suggested  that  proper  advice  was  not  given 
to  the  Premier  of  this  province,  and  I  think 
we  can  say  that  we  were  not  able  to  give 
him  all  the  advice  which  we  would  like  to 
have  given  him  because  of  the  fact  that  from 
the  January  meetings  the  government  of 
Canada  did  not  consult  with  the  other  prov- 
inces. They  entered  into  certain  bilateral  dis- 
cussions, which  Ontario  was  not  necessarily 
part  of.  We  didn't  know  what  was  going  to 
be  put  on  the  table  because  of  the  secrecy 
surrounding  the  federal  government's  plans. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  This  government  entered 
into  an  agreement  and  didn't  know  what  the 
contents  were. 


806 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order.  Has  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  further  questions? 
The  hon.  member  for  Wentworth  on  behalf 
of  the  New  Democratic  Party. 

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Wentworth  has  the  floor. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Members  opposite 
are  just  patsies  for  Ottawa. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Can  you  imagine  signing 
that  agreement,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  not  know- 
ing what  was  in  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  have  recognized  the 
hon.  member  for  Wentworth. 


TORONTO  REAL  ESTATE  BOARD 
PROPERTY  SALES  NEWS  BLACKOUT 

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  This 
family  squabbling  is  getting  a  bit  much. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  if  he  be- 
lieves that  the  recent  action  of  the  Toronto 
Real  Estate  Board,  where  it  decided  not  to 
publish  the  sales  figures  for  property  sales  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  can't  tell 
whether  the  question  is  in  order  or  not. 

An  hon.  member:  It  is  out  of  date  but  it 
is  in  order. 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  it  is  out  of  date.  I  am 
asking  the  minister  whether  he  feels  that 
action  is  in  the  public  interest  or  whether 
he  feels  that  it  is  simply  an  attempt  by  the 
real  estate  board  to  hide  the  rapidly  rising 
prices  of  housing  in  Metropolitan  Toronto. 
Doesn't  the  minister  think  it  might  be  in  the 
public  interest  for  his  ministry  to  take  over 
and  to  publish  such  figures  on  a  monthly  or 
weekly  basis  in  selected  areas  of  the  Province 
of  Ontario  to  ensure  that  the  public  is  aware 
of  the  kinds  of  escalating  prices  that  are 
taking  place? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  I  read  with  in- 
terest the  matter  to  which  the  hon.  member 
refers.  I  was  also  somewhat  ironically  amused 


to  note  that  it  was  the  subject  of  a  press 
release,  which  of  course  would  have  the  eff^ect 
of  drawing  all  sorts  of  attention  to  it.  It  might 
well  be  in  the  public  interest  that  this  infor- 
mation be  made  available.  I  haven't  con- 
sidered it  yet,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  was  somewhat 
surprised  when  I  read  the  announcement  my- 
self. 

Mr.  Deans:  By  way  of  supplementary  ques- 
tion, can  we  anticipate  that  the  minister  might 
be  making  a  statement  with  regard  to  the 
possibility  of  his  ministry  assuming  some 
role  in  the  field  and  making  sure  that  the 
public  of  Ontario  is  made  aware  of  the  kinds 
of  price  increases,  not  only  the  rate  of  in- 
crease but  the  justification  for  the  increases 
that  are  occurring  in  the  Province  of  Ontario 
in  the  housing  field? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
been  advised  by  my  staff  that  the  board  re- 
versed the  decision,  apparently  this  morning, 
and  is  now  going  to  release  those  figures. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Deans:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  member  who 
asked  the  original  should  have  the  first  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Deans:  Regardless  of  the  decision  by 
the  Toronto  Real  Estate  Board  to  release  the 
figures,  does  the  minister  not  feel  that  it  is  a 
public  responsibility  and  that  it  should  apply 
not  simply  to  Toronto  but  to  other  centres  in 
the  province  that  are  feeling  the  effects  of  in- 
creased prices  for  housing?  Does  he  not  feel 
that  it  might  be  in  the  interest  of  bringing 
down  the  price  of  housing  if  he  were  to 
undertake  the  responsibility? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  feel 
that  it  is  in  the  public  interest  to  make  as 
much  information  available  to  the  public  as  is 
possible.  I  would  like  to  point  out  to  the  hon. 
member  that  this  is  an  independent  associa- 
tion and  I,  per  se,  have  no  jurisdiction  over 
it.  But  I  do  think  it  is  in  the  public  interest 
that  the  public  be  advised  of  the  trends,  not 
only  in  real  estate  but  other  commodities  over 
which  we  have  some  interest  or  some  control. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  supplementary 
having  to  do  with  the  other  commodities.  I 
was  wondering,  if  the  minister  believes  this 
information  should  be  public,  as  others 
obviously  do,  would  he  include,  in  a  housing 
price  index  in  that  we  might  develop  some- 
thing like  that,  a  reference  to  the  apart- 
ment rates,  particularly  in  the  Metropolitan 
areas  and  the  urban  areas  of  the  province? 


APRIL  5.  1974 


807 


The  predictions  are  that  the  vacancy  rates  are 
now  at  one  per  cent  and  are  going  to  be 
zero  in  the  fall.  I  think  the  pubhc  should  be 
kept  informed  as  to  how  these  rates  are  chang- 
ing as  well. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  col- 
league the  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Handle- 
man)  made  a  statement  touching  on  this  sub- 
ject yesterday.  I  just  can't  recall  his  entire 
statement  as  to  whether  this  information  was 
going  to  be  looked  into  or  not. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  said  he  didn't  think 
the  shortage  was  as  substantial  as  indicated. 

\fr.  Speaker:  Supplementary?  The  hon. 
member  for  Wentworth. 


RENT  INCREASES 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
ask  the  same  minister  another  question  related 
to  a  similar  field.  Does  the  minister  feel  that 
information'  in  the  following  statement:  "When 
increases  occur,  most  customers  want  to  know 
what  the  extra  dollars  are  buying.  The  answer 
is  unfortunately  next  to  nothing,"  is  suflBcient 
justification  for  increasing  apartment  rentals 
by  10  to  15  to  20  per  cent  right  across  Metro 
Toronto  and  in  other  metropolitan  centres? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  What's  the  question? 

Mr.  Deans:  I  am  asking  the  minister 
whether  he  feels  that  the  following  statement 
is  sufficient  justification  for  the  recent  in- 
creases in  rental;  I  will  read  it  to  him  again: 
"When  increases  occur,  most  customers  want 
to  know  what  the  extra  dollars  are  buying. 
The  answer  is  unfortunately  next  to  nothing." 

That's  the  justification  being  given  for  rent 
increases  right  across  the  province  and  I  am 
asking  the  minister  whether  he  feels  that's 
sufficient  justification  for  the  kinds  of  rent 
increases  that  we  are  seeing  in  the  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  who  made  that  statement  and  I  really 
have  no  comment  to  pass  other  than  that  it 
seems  to  be  somewhat  innocuous.  I  don't  even 
know  who  made  the  comment  or  under  what 
circimistances. 

Mr.  Deans:  Supplementary  question,  may 
I  ask  the  question  of  the  minister,  then,  in 
another  way.  Recognizing  the  rapidly  in- 
creasing rental  costs  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario,  does  the  minister  feel  that  it  is  now 
time  to  demand  that  those  who  are  renting 
provided  adequate  justification  for  rental  in- 
creases in  order  to  ensure  that  there  is  not 
the    kind   of— and    I    use    the    word    again- 


gouging  that  takes  place  as  a  result  of  a 
decrease  in  the  numbers  of  rental  units 
available? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  you 
had  rent  control  you  could  legislate  for  that 
very  thing.  We  have  no  rent  control  in  this 
province  at  this  time  and  I  couldn't  legislate 
and  make  it  mandatory,  with  any  sanctions 
applied  if  the  person  didn't  obey  it,  that 
every  landlord  is  under  an  obligation  in  this 
province  to  give  a  breakdown  on  any  cost 
increase.  I  don't  know  under  what  legislation 
I  could  make  that  mandatory. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville ) : 
Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  min- 
ister just  replied  that  he  has  no  plans  for 
rent  control  at  this  time.  Are  plans  being 
undertaken  by  the  ministry  for  rent  control 
at  some  future  date? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  have  no  such  plans, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  A  sup- 
plementary: Is  the  minister  famihar  with  the 
rent  regulation  legislation  of  the  Province  of 
Quebec,  both  the  new  legislation  and  that 
which  has  been  in  force  for  the  last  20 
years?  What  studies  of  that  programme  has 
the  ministry  got  to  see  whether  it  would 
apply  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  I  have  heard  of 
the  rent  programme  in  Quebec.  I  should 
point  out  to  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  Landlord  and  Tenant  Act  is  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Attorney  General.  I  really 
have  more  than  a  passing  interest  in  it  as 
a  tenant,  but  other  than  that  I  have  no 
legislative  authority  behind  me  relating  to 
tenancies  and  the  rentals  of  properties  with- 
in this  province. 

Mr.    Cassidy:    Well,    a    final    supplemen- 
tary- 
Mr.  Speaker:   There  have  been  a  reason- 
able  number   of  supplementaries. 

The  hon.  member  for  Wentworth,  a  new 
question? 


COMMUNITY  USE  OF  SCHOOLS 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Education.  Is  the  minister 
in  a  position  to  indicate  whether  the  ministry 
intends   at  some  point   to  proceed  with   the 


808 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


recommendations  of  the  select  committee  in- 
vestigating community  use  of  schools,  in 
order  to  allow  the  Hamilton  board  to  make 
some  reasonable  and  rational  determination  as 
to  what  schools  might  be  closed,  or  what 
schools  can  be  used?  And  can  the  minister 
say  whether  or  not  the  ministry  is  prepared, 
at  some  point  in  the  near  future,  to  fund  to 
any  degree  other  than  for  direct  educational 
use  of  school  buildings? 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
That  is  all  under  consideration,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well,  a  supplementary  ques- 
tion: Doesn't  the  minister  understand  that  the 
situation  he  is  creating  in  Hamilton,  both  by 
demanding  that  there  will  be  an  integration 
of  the  separate  and  public  schools,  and  sec- 
ondly by  insisting  there  be  a  closing  down 
because  of  his  financial  arrangements,  is  going 
to  put  the  board  in  a  position  of  not  having 
facilities  for  community  use  within  the  next 
two  years,  unless  there  is  a  clear  indication 
from  the  government  as  to  its  intent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  My  friend,  Mr.  Speaker, 
has  got  that  all  twisted  around. 

Mr.  Deans:  No,  I  have  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  minister  isn't  forcing 
anybody  into  anything,  but  I  will  just  tell 
him  what's  happened.  For  two  years  this 
ministry  has  asked  if  the  separate  school 
board  and  the  public  school  board  in  the 
Hamilton-Wentworth  area  can't  get  together 
and  share  accommodation. 

I  have  sat  patiently  at  many  meetings  and 
I  have  looked  at  what's  there.  There  are 
vacant  classrooms  in  schools  and  there  are 
other  school  boards  who  want  classrooms.  I 
think  the  two  parties  working  together  in  co- 
operation should  be  able  to  solve  their  prob- 
lems. They  haven't,  unfortunately,  to  the  dis- 
credit of  both  of  them. 

Although  I  think  both  of  them  have  tried 
very  hard,  they  haven't  been  able  to  come  up 
with  any  solution.  It  is  not  because  of  fault 
on  our  part.  All  we  have  done  is  to  say  they 
should  get  together  and  try  to  work  out  their 
problem  and  share  accommodation. 

I  must  tell  the  hon.  member  I  met  with 
the  separate  school  board  last  night.  They 
indicated  to  me  their  very  real  concern  that 
they  had  to  move  ahead  because  in  good  faith 
they  tried  to  make  some  accommodation  with 
the  public  school  board  and  to  come  to  some 
conclusion.  Everything  that  had  been  sug- 
gested has  been  turned  down  to  date  and 
hasn't  been  accepted. 


Based  on  my  meeting  last  night,  as  I  said, 
I  am  looking  at  that.  We  are  going  to  have 
to  make  some  special  determinations  on  what 
is  going  to  be  done  in  the  Hamilton  area  in 
order  to  solve  some  of  the  problems  of  those 
boards.  I  am  not  sure  that  it  relates  at  all  to 
the  report  of  the  select  committee  on  utiliza- 
tion of  school  facilities,  because  as  I  under- 
stand it  that's  an  interim  report  and  that 
committee  is  going  to  bring  in  further  reports 
which  may  modify  some  of  the  things  that 
they  have  indicated  in  their  earlier  reports. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementar)',  Mr. 
Speaker:  Has  the  minister  been  approached 
by  anyone,  from  either  a  school  board  or  from 
the  community  where  the  sharing  of  facilities 
has  been  undertaken,  I  believe  in  the  Toronto 
area,  complaining  that  where  the  public  facili- 
ties have  become  redundant  by  population 
changes  it  is  often  the  low  quality  facilities 
that  are  declared  redundant,  and  that  the 
separate  school  supporters  feel  that  they  are 
being  put  into,  let's  say  lower  quality  facili- 
ties because  of  the  minister's  policy  that  does 
not  permit  them  to  build  on  their  own?  Has 
he  heard  that  complaint? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  have  heard  that  com- 
plaint, but  I  would  just  point  out  to  the  hon. 
member  that  there  is  no  law  that  sa}s  they 
have  to  accept  those  facilities. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  ministry  won't  let  them 
build  their  own. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  All  we  have  done  is  said 
to  them  to  start  taking  a  look  at  these  facili- 
ties and  see  if  they  can  be  of  any  use  to 
them.  In  places  where  they  have  taken  them, 
they  have  done  so  on  their  own  free  volition. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  wonder  if  I 
might  remind  the  hon.  members  that  yester- 
day 35  minutes  of  the  question  period  was 
taken  by  the  two  leaders  of  the  opposition. 
Today  two-thirds  of  the  time  has  already 
passed.  There  has  been  no  opportunity  for 
the  ministers  to  give  replies  to  previous  ques- 
tions or  for  any  of  the  backbenchers  to  ask 
questions.  I  think  the  hon.  leaders  should 
perhaps  control  the  number  of  questions 
they  ask.  Now  the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion with  a  supplementary. 

An  hon.  member:  They  are  suppressing 
their  backbenchers. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Ours  too. 


APRIL  5.  1974 


Mr.   Speaker:    If  the   hon.   Leader  of  the 

Opposition  did  have  a  supplementary,  I  am 
sorr)'  I  interrupted  him. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Under  the  circumstances, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  probably  get  the  informa- 
tion privately  from  tne  minister. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth  have  further  questions?  If  not, 
the  hon.  Minister  of  Energy  has  the  response 
to  a  previous  question. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Oh,  I  am  so  glad  he 
came  this  morning. 


WIND  ENERGY  SEMINAR 

H<Mi.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
hon.  member  for  Sandwich-Riverside  (Mr. 
Burr)  has  asked  on  two  occasions  whether 
we  plan  to  send  observers  or  participants  to 
a  conference  on  wind  energy  at  Sherbrooke 
University,  I  think  in  May  or  June. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer  is  no.  That  deci- 
sion has  been  made.  Let  me  just  say  that  we 
follow  with  interest  the  interest  of  a  number 
of  people  in  wind  energy.  We  don't  think 
that  its  day  has  arrived;  we  think  it  is  some 
distance  in  the  future. 

I  ran  across  this  item  this  morning;  actu- 
ally it  came  from  British  Columbia.  It  gives 
us  some  idea,  if  I  can  put  it  this  way,  of  how 
far  out  the  situation  is  at  this  moment. 

In  a  10  mile  per  hour  wind,  which  is 
probably  about  average  for  most  parts  of  the 
east  coast  of  Vancouver  Island,  and  I  under- 
stand it  is  about  the  same  here,  an  efficient 
50-ft  diameter  windmill  can  generate  about 
12  kilowatts  of  electric  power.  To  equal  the 
power  of  a  single  600  megawatt  nuclear  sta- 
tion—and I  should  point  out  that  for  example 
the  Clark  Keith  station  in  Windsor  is  about 
half  that  size— would  require  about  50,000 
very  large  windwills— when  the  wind  is  blow- 
ing! 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  One  might  get  rid  of  the 
whole  province  that  way. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  What's 
stopping  him? 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  I  don't 
know  how  the  minister  can  provide  statistics 
on  wind  if  he  can't  figure  out  the  price  of 

gas. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  To  avoid  interfering 
with  each  other's  wind,  if  I  can  put  it  that 


way,  they  would  have  to  be  spaced  out  at 
least  300  ft  from  each  other  anci  the  installa- 
tion would  then  cover  160  square  miles  of 
land  with  at  least  2,800  miles  of  transmission 
cable. 

We  vdll  continue  to  follow  closely  develop- 
ments in  wind  energy,  but  I  think  we  would 
have  to  say  at  this  moment  it  does  not  pre- 
sent a  practical  solution  to  the  energy  prob- 
lems of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  have 
a  supplementary?  The  hon.  member  for 
Sandwich-Riverside. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  supplementary:  Has  the  minister, 
by  any  chance,  read  my  speech  from  last  week 
directed  entirely  to  him? 

Mr.  Singer:  Does  little  eke. 

Mr.  Deans:  He  read  it  last  night. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  have  not  seen  a  text 
of  the  member's  speech— perhaps  he  woidd 
be  good  enough  to  send  it  to  me  and  I  would 
enjoy  looking  at  it  over  the  weekend— but  I 
have  seen  press  reports  of  it,  yes. 

Mr.  Burr:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary:  If 

I    may    answer    the   minister,    it    appears   in 

Hansard- 
Mr.    Speaker:    This   is   a   question   period. 

There   is   no   answer  by   the   hon.   member. 

This  is  a  question  period. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  may  not— 

Mr.  Burr:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementarj^ 
question:  Would  the  minister  be  kind  enough 
to  consult  Hansard  of  March  25  and  March 
28,  in  which  this  subject  is  dealt  with  at  con- 
siderable length? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Good  for  you! 

Mr.  Burr:  Another  supplementary:  Does  the 
minister  not  reahze  that  the  statement  he  has 
made  this  morning  shows  how  greatly  in  need 
he  and  his  advisers  are  of  going  to  the  seminar 
and  finding  out  what  has  oeen  devised  in  the 
last  couple  of  years? 

As  another  supplementary,  does  the  minister 
not  reahze  that  the  people  who  are  going  to 
be  at  the  seminar  have  said  they  could  de- 
vise a  system  in  four  years  that  woiJd  eive 
the  equivalent  energy  of  the  nuclear  plant 
that  he  is  going  to  take  11  years  to  build  at 
Goderich? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  accept; 
and  I  will  read  the  member's  speech  of  March 


810 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


25  with  a  great  deal  of  interest.  I  undertake 
to  do  that  over  the  weekend.  I  frankly  admit 
that  I  am  not  an  expert  on  this  subject.  I 
have  found  out  enough  about  the  conference 
in  May  that  I  understand,  by  reputation,  some 
of  the  world's  leading  wind  experts  are  to  be 
there  and— 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Then  the  minister  should 
be  there. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Why  hasn't  he  been  invited? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —on  that  basis  I 
assume  that  whether  we  send  anybody  from 
the  ministry  or  not,  there  will  be  representa- 
tion there  from  this  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  have  been  enough 
supplementaries.  The  hon.  member  had  three 
supplementaries.  The  hon.  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  has  the 
answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 


VEHICLES  ON  CONSIGNMENT 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  for  Perth  (Mr.  Edighoffer)  asked  the 
following  question  some  days  ago: 

Does  the  Motor  Vehicle  Dealers  Act 
allow  the  registrar  to  issue  a  directive  pro- 
hibiting a  dealer  to  place  on  his  premises 
a  vehicle  on  consignment? 

I'm  advised  that  the  registrar,  under  the  Motor 
Vehicle  Dealers  Act,  recently  ordered  a  dealer 
to  remove  approximately  40  vehicles  from  his 
premises.  Tliese  were  the  property  of  two 
other  dealers  who  were  also  registered  under 
the  same  Act.  His  authority  for  so  doing  is 
that  under  section  3,  subsection  3  of  the  Act, 
it  clearly  states: 

A  registered  motor  vehicle  dealer  shall 
not  carry  on  business  in  a  name  other  than 
the  name  in  which  he  is  registered  or  in- 
vite the  public  to  deal  at  a  place  other  than 
that  authorized  by  the  registration. 

Two-thirds  of  the  vehicles  on  this  lot  were  in 
the  name  of  another  dealer  registration  and 
therefore  should  not  be  offered  for  sale  from 
a  place  other  than  the  dealer's  premises. 

Further  to  this,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  advise  that  the  principle  of  dealers  offering 
vehicles  that  they  do  not  ovm  to  the  public 
is  very  questionable  where  a  previously  un- 
disclosed lien  may  arise  and  the  purchaser 
may  lose  possession  of  a  vehicle  that  he  has, 
in  fact,  purchased  in  good  faith. 

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


FREIGHT  RATES 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Premier,  since  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  is  not  here.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  every  trucking  company 
in  Ontario  sets  it  own  freight  rates,  how  long 
do  we  have  to  wait  for  this  government,  and 
this  new  minister,  to  correct  this  scandalous 
situation?  This  is  an  important  part  of  our 
economy  and  has  much  to  do  vdth  the  high 
cost  of  living  in  my  part  of  the  province  and 
the  rest  of  the  province.  Why  can't  we  have 
the  Highway  Transport  Board  get  down  to  it 
and  demand  that  these  rates  be  reviewed  on 
behalf  of  the  people  this  year? 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Doesn't 
the  member  believe  in  competition? 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  There  is 
no  competition  when  you  have  restricted 
leases. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be  de- 
lighted to  discuss  this  matter  with  the  Minis- 
ter of  Transportation  and  Communications. 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  supplementary:  We've  had 
this  type  of  response  from  the  former  minis- 
ter (Mr.  Carton),  and  Tm  fed  up  wdth  you 
fellows  saying  you're  going  to  loolc  into  it.  A 
further  supplementary- 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  Is  that  not  so? 


Mr.  Sargent:  That's  all  right.  The  back- 
benchers are  talking,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  want 
to  say  that  I'm  fed  up  with— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well  where  is  the  question? 
What  is  the  supplementary? 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  question  is,  how  long 
is  the  Premier  going  to  allow  former  Min- 
ister of  Highways  Charlie  MacNaughton,  a 
director  of  Laidlaw's,  and  John  Robarts,  to 
sit  with  their  brief  cases  before  the  High- 
way Transport  Board  on  behalf  of  trucking 
companies?  Where  are  the  ethics  involved 
in  this  deal?  Where  are  the  ethics  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  won't 
get  into  a  discussion  of  ethics  here  this 
morning,  because  the  member  and  I  might 
get  into  some  discussion  where  perhaps 
he  might  assume  that  he  should  himself 
question  his   own. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lake- 
shore. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  ask 
the  Premier  to  say  what  he  means  by  that. 


APRIL  5,  1974 


811 


Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  buck  doesn't  stop  here; 
it  stops  in— 

Mr.   Speaker:   Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.    Sargent:    And    the    Premier    should 
know   that  himself. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Sargent:    Of  all  people,  he  tells   me 
that! 

Mr.   Speaker:    Order. 
Mr.   Sargent:   The   Moog  and   Davis- 
Mr.     Speaker:     Order    please.    The    hon. 
member  for  Lakeshore. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  I  want  to 
ask   something  too! 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


ONTARIO  RACING  COMMISSION 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  ond  Commercial  Re- 
lations. 

In  light  of  the  public  revelations  made 
last  year  on  the  Windsor  race  track  and  the 
race  fixing  done  there,  has  the  minister 
under  consideration  revising  the  investi- 
gative procedures  utilized  by  that  commis- 
sion, which  are  highly  questionable,  and 
the  basis  upon  which  they  penalize  in- 
dividuals? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  wouldn't  want  the 
hon.  member  to  think  I  was  speaking  too 
loudly  for  him,  so  perhaps  if  he  could  read 
lips   I   could   give   him  the   answer. 

The  investigative  processes  conducted  by 
the  Ontario  Racing  Commission  are,  I  might 
suggest,  being  improved  upon  almost  con- 
stantly. I  am  aware  that  some  of  the  prac- 
tices, because  of  the  nature  of  the  industry, 
might  lead  some  as  learned  in  the  law  as 
is  the  hon.  member  to  question  them  as  to 
their  validity. 

I  should  point  out  that  the  Racing  Com- 
mission has  already  conducted  hearings  in 
public,  which  is  contrary  to  the  policy  that 
prevailed  up  to  some  short  time  ago— 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Which  is  a  great  improve- 
ment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  —and  I  think  one  of 
the  advantages  of  having  these  matters  dealt 


with  in  public  is  that  people  such  as  the 
hon.  member  and  I  can  have  an  opportunity 
to  look  into  these  investigations  and  know 
what  is  going  on  in  the  hearings,  and  in 
that  way  the  general  improvement  will  be 
beneficial  to  all. 

Fm  very  much  in  favour  of  such  matters, 
except  under  certain  circumstances,  being 
dealt  with  in  public  so  there  can  be  the 
public  scrutiny  I  think  is  in  the  best  in- 
terests of  justice,  and  I  hope  to  see  con- 
stant improvement  in  that  particular  area. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  they  have  their  own  investigative  staff, 
as  the  minister  knows,  and  they  don't  use 
the  regular  police  apparatus,  doesn't  the 
minister,  as  a  lawyer,  find  somewhat  ques- 
tionable the  laying  of  some  nebulous  concept 
called  "specifications",  which  are  in  effect 
really  criminal  charges,  and  the  way  in 
which  they  are  bandied  by  the  commission? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  should  point  out  to 
the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  while  they  do 
use  their  own  investigative  resources,  they 
do  under  certain  circmnstances  work  very 
closely  with  police  forces  both  within  and 
without  of  this  province.  As  the  hon.  mem- 
ber knows,  a  number  of  participants  of  the 
racing  industry  who  are  racing  in  this  prov- 
ince are  in  fact  moving  back  and  forth 
across  the  international  border.  I  am  ad- 
vised that  they  utilize  these  resources  that 
are  available  in  the  United  States  in  certain 
instances,  as  well  as  resources  here  in  the 
form  of  other  police  forces,  particidarly  the 
Ontario  Provincial  Police  in  certain  circum- 
stances. 

Mr.  Lawlor:   What  about  investigation? 

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


FEDERAL  BANK  LEGISLATION 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  I 
would  like  to  ask  the  Treasurer  what  his 
position  is  with  respect  to  the  impending 
federal  legislation  to  amend  the  Bank  Act, 
which  will  enable  provinces  to  buy  into 
new  and  existing  banks,  and  which  may  en- 
able new  banks  to  be  established  by  letters 
patent?  I  consider  this  very  far-reaching 
legislation.  Does  the  Treasurer  intend  to  en- 
courage   its    passage    or    to    discourage    its 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  Well,  sir,  some  parts  of 
Canada  think  they  have  not  been  as  well 
served  by  the  chartered  banks  as  their  eco- 


812 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


nomic  needs  warrant.  What  the  facts  of  the 
matter  are  I  am  not  entirely  sure,  because  the 
banks  in  their  turn  provide  statistical  evi- 
dence to  indicate  that  they  are  lending  more 
money  into  those  parts  or  the  country  than 
moneys  placed  on  deposit  from  there.  They 
conclude  that  they  are  providing  extra  special 
stimulus  to  those  parts  of  the  country  where 
economic  development  has  been  somewhat 
slower  than  here  in  Ontario. 

At  any  rate,  at  the  urging  of  those  parts 
of  Canada  and  particularly  western  Canada, 
the  federal  government  has  decided  to  enable 
provinces  to  own  up  to  25  per  cent  of  a 
chartered  bank.  I  have  no  particular  objection 
to  that,  but  I  think  we  in  Ontario  will  not 
have  to  utilize  that  federal  legislation  because 
I  do  believe  we  are  well  served  by  the 
large  banks  which  have,  I  think,  about  4,000 
branches  across  this  province. 

We  received  requests  from  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  to  do  what  we 
could  to  increase  the  supply  and  lower  the 
cost  of  farm  credit.  The  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture and  Food  and  I  have  been 
meeting  with  the  chartered  banking  as- 
sociation and  we  have  had  a  very  sympa- 
thetic response  from  them.  It  seems  to  me 
that,  in  preference  to  our  starting  our  own 
bank  or  purchasing  part  of  an  existing  bank, 
our  cause  is  best  served  by  going  to  the 
chartered  banks,  when  we  have  requests  of 
this  kind,  and  eliciting  their  special  co- 
operation in  these  extraordinary  needs  of  one 
kind  or  another.  That  is  our  position  at  the 
present  time. 

Mr.  Givens:  A  supplementary:  Well,  is  the 

Treasurer- 
Mr.   Speaker:   The  time  for  oral  questions 

has    expired;    we    have    exceeded    the    time 

actually. 


Mr.   Shulman:   Oh  yes,  I  made  the  rulesl 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  point  out  to  the  hon. 

member  that— 

Mr.  Shulman:  They  agree  with  me. 

Mr.  Speaker:  —the  question  period  has 
developed  that  we  rely  upon  the  leaders  of 
the  two  opposition  parties  to  regulate  their 
number  of  questions.  I  try  to  limit  the  number 
of  supplementary  questions  without  being  too 
restrictive. 

As  I  did  announce  today,  the  time  taken 
yesterday  by  the  leaders  of  the  two  parties 
was  quite  excessive;  it  left  practically  no  time. 
I  brought  it  to  the  attention- 
Mr.  Shulman:  No  diflFerence  today.  It's  no 
different  any  day. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oh  yes,  it's  quite  different 
some  days.  I  brought  it  to  the  attention  of  the 
House  today  and  both  members  did  co- 
operate. Now  I  regret  that  the  hon.  member 
for  High  Park  did  not  have  an  opportunity, 
but  I  assure  him  that  it  was  not  his  turn.  I 
recognize  the  hon.  members  in  turn.  Perhaps 
he  might  direct  that  question  in  the  next 
question  period. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  His  are  better  ques- 
tions, too,  that  is  the  pity. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Before  proceeding  I  should 
announce  to  the  hon.  members  that  His 
Honour  the  Lieutenant  Governor  will  be  in 
the  chamber  just  before  adjournment  time 
at  1  o'clock  to  give  royal  assent  to  certain 
bills.  I  have  also  been  asked  to  inform  the 
hon.  members  that  His  Honour  extends  a 
cordial  invitation  to  all  members  to  visit  with 
him  in  his  chambers  at  the  adjournment  hour 
of  this  House. 


POINT  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Mr.  Shulman:  But,  sir,  on  a  point  of  priv- 
ilege. I  rose  earlier  today  on  a  question  of 
the  privileges  of  the  backbench  members  to 
participate  in  this  debate.  I  asked  for  re- 
sponse from  the  minister  responsible;  he  said 
ask  it  in  the  question  period.  But  because  the 
backbench  members  have  so  few  chances  to 
ask  questions  in  this  House,  I  didn't  get  a 
chance  to  ask  him. 

Now  surely  it  is  a  privilege  of  the  members 
of  this  House  to  participate  in  the  debates, 
and  surely  the  government  should  answer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  made 
the  rules. 


Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 
Motions. 
Introduction  of  bills. 


LAKE  OF  THE  WOODS  DISTRICT 
HOSPITAL 

Mr.  Maeck  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  respecting  Lake  of  the 
Woods  District  Hospital. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 


APRIL  5.  1974 


813 


Cleric  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.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre: 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  In  the  time  that  has  elaps- 
ed since  I  adjourned  this  debate  we  have 
entered  into  a  very  historic  day  in  this  Legis- 
lature, for  today  marks  the  final  oflBcial  visit 
of  a  man  who  has  accomplished  something 
that  very  few  in  their  lifetime  can.  That  is, 
by  his  own  personal  magnitude,  his  own 
dedication  to  office  and  his  coiLstant  example 
of  standing  for  the  very  things  which  are  the 
finest  in  this  province;  he  has  surpassed  the 
institution. 

Sir,  it  was  a  couple  of  weeks  ago  when 
this  Legislature  tendered  a  dinner  to  His 
Honour.  On  that  occasion,  a  journalist  ques- 
tioned me  particularly  along  the  lines  of  "do 
we  need  that  kind  of  symbol  any  more  in 
Canadian  society?"  Of  course,  I  suggest  to 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  had  he  known  a  little 
more  about  the  parliamentary  system  he 
would  have  realized  we  do  need  that  office 
if  our  system  is  to  continue. 

Beyond  that,  it  seems  to  me  that  His  Hon- 
our over  the  years  has  not  only  brought  great 
dignity  to  his  office,  he  has  been  an  example 
to  the  people  of  this  province.  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
don't  think  any  member  of  this  assembly, 
present  at  his  dinner,  was  not  touched  by 
his  final  remarks.  His  Honour  talked  about 
the  great  love  he  has  for  this  province  and 
how  he  had  travelled  this  province.  I  would 
like  to  point  out  that  His  Honour,  in  the 
finest  sense  of  the  word,  is  this  province  be- 
cause to  me  he  symbolizes  all  of  the  things 
that  are  great  and  all  of  the  opportunities 
that  are  available  to  people  in  Ontario. 

Sir,  this  is  indeed  an  historic  day  and  I 
don't  think  it  should  be  marked  with  sad- 
ness. I  think  the  last  thing  His  Honour  would 
like  is  for  people  to  feel  at  all  sad  that  he 
has  completed  his  assignment  for  he  has 
completed  it  so  marvellously  and,  indeed,  he 
has  been  a  great  inspiration  not  only  to  the 
senior  portion  of  our  population  because  he 
has  not  allowed  the  infirmities  which  come 
vdth  advancing  years  to  interfere  with  his 
duties,  he  has  also  been  a  great  source  of 
inspiration  to  young  people  in  this  province. 


Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  deviated  a  bit  from 
the  normal  speech  in  the  Throne  Speech 
debate  because,  with  the  way  the  schedule 
reads,  I  will  be  the  last  speaker  representing 
the  government  party  on  this  day  of  His 
Honour's  last  official  visit  to  the  chamber. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  raise 
with  you  a  matter  of  privilege  and  I  would 
hope,  when  I  am  done  with  the  matter  of 
privilege,  we  shall  have  another  historic  day 
in  this  chamber. 

The  matter  of  privilege  that  I  wish  to  raise 
with  you  concerns  the  denial  to  me  by  an 
arbitrary  ruling  upon  your  part,  with  great 
respect,  which  denies  me  my  full  privilege 
as  a  member  to  communicate  with  my  con- 
stituents. The  nature  of  your  ruling,  sir, 
also  denies  me  the  basic  privilege  of  im- 
munity from  lawsuit- 
Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, on  a  point  of  order.  Is  the  hon.  member 
for  Scarborough  Centre  challenging  the  rul- 
ing of  the  Chair?  Is  this  a  device  by  which 
he  is  going  to  challenge  the  ruling  of  the 
Chair?  If  so,  I  ask  you  to  rule  if  the  hon. 
member  is  in  order  or  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  privilege  has 
to  be  considered- 
Mr.  Speaker:  No.  Order,  please.  I  have  no 
idea  whatsoever  what  the  hon.  member  is 
going  to  refer  to.  Certainly  it  is  highlv  un- 
usual, to  say  the  very  least,  to  raise  what  is 
termed  a  matter  of  privilege  during  the 
Throne  debate.  It  is  quite  correct  that  any 
hon.  member  may  speak  about  any  matter 
he  wishes  to  speak  about  during  his  Throne 
debate  as  long  as  he  stays  within  the  con- 
fines of  parliamentary  procedure.  Now,  it 
seems  to  me  that  to  raise  a  point  of  privilege 
in  this  manner— as  the  hon.  member  kno\%'s 
the  Speaker  has  no  opportimity  to  respond- 
as  part  of  the  Throne  debate,  I  woulci  think 
is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  want  to 
challenge  you,  sir,  but  I  would  hke  to  give 
an  explanation.  The  matter  of  privilege  which 
I  wish  to  raise  concerns  the  Throne  debate 
and  that  is  why  I  bring  it  up  when  it  is  my 
turn  to  speak  in  the  Throne  debate.  It  is  my 
only  opportunity  to  raise  the  matter  of  privi- 
lege concerning  the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 

Mr.  Renwick:  No  it  isn't.  No  it  isn't. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Privilege,  as  referred  to  in 
connection  with  what  the  hon.  member  is 
saying,  refers  to  parliamentary  privilege  con- 
ferred upon  members  of  Parliament.  Now  the 


814 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


privileges  referred  to  consist  of  certain  rights 
conferred  upon  members  of  Legislatures  and 
of  the  House  of  Commons  or  any  parliament, 
which  are  not  conferred  upon  any  member  of 
the  public.  Anything  that  falls  within  the 
ambit  of  that  description  is  a  point  of 
privilege. 

There  have  been  many,  many  hon.  mem- 
bers over  the  past  years  who  have  attempted 
to  rise  on  a  point  of  privilege  when,  in  fact, 
it  was  not  a  point  of  privilege  at  all.  It  might 
have  been  properly  construed  as  a  point  of 
order. 

It  occurred  to  me  that  there  were  certain 
matters  that  perhaps  could  be  raised  and 
should  be  raised  and  I  therefore  did  make  a 
ruling  at  one  time,  not  too  long  ago,  that 
where  an  hon.  member  does  have  something 
to  bring  up  in  the  chamber,  by  way  of  ex- 
planation or  further  indication  to  clarify  cer- 
tain matters,  if  he  consulted  with  the  Speaker's 
ofiBce  this  would  be  permitted.  But  certainly 
during  the  Throne  debate  it  is  improper  to 
raise  a  point  of  privilege. 

Mr.  Drea:  Then  with  great  respect,  sir,  may 
I  ask  the  question  of  when  I  would  be 
allowed  to  raise  a  question  of  privilege  re- 
garding the  Throne  Speech? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Not  at  this  particular  time. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  The  member 
knows  the  rules. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Before  the 
orders  of  the  day. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member  for  High  Park  has 
great  luck  v^dth  that. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

An  hon.  member:  Don't  use  the  word 
privilege. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  am  getting  some  advice,  Mr. 
Speaker,  but  I  don't  want  to  try  to  circum- 
vent your  ruling.  I  am  not  that  type  of  per- 
son. I  will  bring  it  up  at  the  proper  time. 
I  am  not  not  going  to  play  games.  I  respect 
your  ruling.  I  dont  agree  with  it,  but  I  am 
not  going  to  play  games  and  try  to  circima- 
vent  it  by  dropping  the  word  or  the  expres- 
sion privilege. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Very  good. 

Mr.  Drea:  But  perhaps,  sir,  I  might  have 
the  opportunity  to  consult  with  the  Clerk 
and  get  an  idea  of  when  one  can  raise  the 
question  of  privilege  concerning  one's  parti- 
cipation in  the  Throne  Speech  debate,  if 
indeed  it  can't  be  raised  at  that  time. 


Mr.  Renwick:  Is  the  member  going  to  con- 
sult him  now? 

Mr.  Drea:  I  must  say  to  my  friend  from 
High  Park,  we  haven't  done  very  well.  That's 
three  strikes  today,  two  on  him  and  one  on 
me.  Mr.  Speaker,  to  return  to  the  matter  of 
the  Throne  Speech- 
Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downs view):  Why  don't 
the  two  of  them  start  a  football  league? 

Mr.  Drea:  Well  he  has  the  money  and  I 
suppose  I  have  the  mouth.  We  might  do  very 
well. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Well,  the  member  was  honest  there. 

Mr.  Drea:  If  he  had  as  much  luck  in  specu- 
lating with  football  talent  as  he  does  with 
commodities,  why  we  might  get  to  be  a  rather 
famous  duo. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Famous  passing  team. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  pubhc  reaction  to  the  Throne  Speech  has 
been  that  it  is  rather  a  marking  time  event; 
that  it  is  a  kind  of  a  pause  before  a  rather 
significant  Speech  from  the  Throne  to  be  de- 
livered next  year,  because  it  will  form  the 
basis  of  an  election  platform  for  this  party. 

(I  would  sincerely  wish,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  editorialists  who  pontificate  this  view 
would  read  the  Throne  Speech  in  its  entirety 
and  that  they  would  go  back  into  the  history 
of  this  government.  This  government  did  not 
commence  in  the  spring  of  1971  after  the 
leadership  convention  when  the  member  for 
Peel  North  (Mr.  Davis)  became  Premier  of  this 
province.  Where  this  government  has  its 
origins  is  when  George  Drew  took  power  in 
this  province  in  the  1940s. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  look  at  Throne  Speech 
after  Throne  Speech  you  will  see  that  this 
party  and  this  government  has  constantly  been 
building. 

In  the  time  of  George  Drew  we  were  over- 
seeing the  transformation  of  a  society  from 
an  all-out  war  effort  and  a  recovery  from  a 
depression  into  the  beginnings  of  modem 
urban  and  industrial  Ontario.  Aiid  the  Throne 
Speeches  and  the  action  of  that  government 
reflected  that  overview;  and  that  pohcy  was 
carried  on  as  well  by  Mr.  Kennedy  dming  his 
brief  tenure. 

In  Mr.  Frost's  time,  it  was  the  supervision 
of  the  overseeing  of  the  transformation  of 
Ontario  from  a  largely  rural  to  a  largely  urban 
society.  In  Mr.  Robarts'  time,  it  was  oversee- 
ing the  change  from  an  occupationally- 
oriented  society  into  a  very  technologically- 


APRIL  5.  1974 


815 


oriented  society.  We  could  see  that  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  universities,  of  the  voca- 
tional high  schools  and  the  community  col- 
leges and  in  the  great  emphasis  upon  the  need 
for  education  in  our  society. 

Again,  when  we  come  to  the  present 
Premier  we  see  the  overseeing  of  the  trans- 
formation of  a  burgeoning,  pioneering,  ex- 
panding society  into  one  that  is  going  to  be 
aware  of  the  limited  amount  of  resources, 
of  the  problems  of  population  movements 
and  mobility,  of  the  particular  problems  of 
the  elderly  in  our  society,  of  the  particular 
problems  of  younger  people  having  to  face 
a  society  that  literally  changes  every  two 
or  three  years  instead  of  after  a  couple  of 
generations. 

I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
Throne  Speech  of  1974  is  not  one  that  is 
marking  time.  Rather,  sir,  it  is  a  new 
plateau,  for  it  boldly  states  the  pledge  of 
this  government  that  we  are  not  only  pre- 
pared to  meet  the  challenges  of  urban 
Ontario,  substantial  as  they  may  be,  but 
that  we  are  going  to  roll  back  the  last 
undeveloped  frontier  of  this  province,  the 
north. 

I  suggest  to  you,  sir,  there  has  been  no 
more  ambitious  programme  annoimced  by 
an\-  government  in  this  country  than  those 
programmes  announced  in  the  Throne 
Speech  of  this  year,  for  we  are  taking 
dead  aim  on  the  housing  issue.  Despite  the 
fact  that  the  federal  government  has  bungled 
housing  for  more  than  two  decades  through 
the  inability  of  the  Central  Mortgage  and 
Housing  Corp.  and  its  ancillaries  to  come 
to  grips  with  the  basic  nature  of  the 
economic  problem,  we  are  saying  in  eflFect, 
"Forget  about  that,  we  are  going  to  assume 
responsibility  for  preserving  the  Canadian 
dream."  This  is  the  right  of  young  men  and 
women,  of  middle-aged  men  and  women  and 
of  older  men  and  women,  to  save  their 
money  and  to  buy  a  home  and  to  have  it 
as  their  own. 

I  suggest  to  you,  sir,  that  the  day  that 
people  in  this  province  cannot  buy  a  home, 
then  our  society  is  in  rather  deep  and 
rather  permanent  trouble,  and  the  buck 
has  stopped— 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Tell  it 
to  the  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Handle- 
man)  don't  tell  us. 

Mr.  Drea:  —in  this  Throne  Speech;  the 
buck  has  stopped.  The  Minister  of  Housing 
has  stated  it  on  at  least  a  half  a  dozen 
occasions  since  then— and  the  member's  only 
problem  is  he  can't  come  to  grips  with  the 


fact  the  minister  is  speaking  with  a  great 
amount  of  realism.  And  I  am  glad- 
Mr.  B.  Newman:  We  have  heard  that  now 
for  15  years  from  the  member's  side  of  the 
House. 

Mr.  Drea:  —that  the  Housing  Minister  in 
his  action  programme  has  said  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  isn't  going  to  build  all 
of  the  houses,  that  there  is  a  responsibility 
for  private  industry  in  this  field.  I  think 
it  would  be  a  disaster  if  we  were  to  take 
over  all  housing  in  this  province.  We  don't 
want  a  communalized  society;  we  don't 
want  your  house  to  be  determined  by  a 
faceless  person  Mr.  Speaker.  We  want  to 
let  you  have  the  opportunity  to  buy  the 
kind  of  a  home  you  like  and  the  kind  of  a 
home  you  can  afford  and  to  l>e  able  to  seek 
alternatives,  if  you  don't  like  the  particular 
model  that's  there. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  member  is  not 
answering  the  problem. 

Mr.  Drea:  It  would  be  very  easy  for 
the  government  to  take  over  the  whole 
housing  industry.  Heaven  help  us  if  it  did! 
People  would  be  living  in  tents  within  two 
years. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  They  are  going  to  be  in  any 
event. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
also  to  say  that  although  it  is  not  a  radical 
programme,  we  have  come  to  grips  with  the 
last  major  health  cost  item  for  the  senior 
citizens  of  this  province,  and  that  is  the 
announcement  that  we  are  going  into  the 
provision  of  prescription  drugs  for  senior 
citizens  under  the  normal  health  insurance 
programmes. 

Mr.  Singer:   So  much  for  housing. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will  become 
the  first  jurisdiction  to  do  this  on  thil 
continent.  I  think  that  is  a  remarkable 
achievement  of  a  government  in  a  society 
that  supposedly  is  oriented  toward  the 
young,  the  efficient  and  the  successful. 

Mr.   Haggerty:   It  is  30  years  too  late. 

Mr.  Drea:  Thirty  years  too  late?  Thirt>' 
years  ago  when  this  party  took  power  in  this 
province  there  was  a  lackadaisical,  do- 
nothing,    stumblebum    government. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It  has 
not  improved  since. 

Mr.  Drea:  It  took  us  a  long  time  even  to 
correct   the   nonsense   that   had   gone   on.    I 


816 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


suggest  to  the  members  that  we  have  brought 
in  drug  care  for  senior  citizens.  Members 
opposite  have  had  a  party  in  Ottawa  that  has 
dominated  the  Ottawa  scene  over  those  30 
years  and  I  have  yet  to  see  it  do  one  single 
thing  in  the  way  of  drugs  for  senior  citizens. 
So  don't  point  the  finger  at  us. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Tell  us  about  it.  Where  does 
this  government  get  the  money  from?  The 
federal  government. 

Mr.  L.  M.  Reilly  (Eghnton):  Where  does 
the  federal  government  get  the  money  from? 
From  Ontario. 

Mr.  Drea:  That  is  a  government  that  can 
give  $80  million  for  LIP  and  other  screwball 
projects.  Then  members  opposite  ask  us  where 
do  we  get  the  money  from.  The  money  that 
they  put  in  Ottawa  into  weirdo  stuff  could 
provide  prescription  drugs  for  every  senior 
citizen  in  Canada  in  every  province  as  a 
matter  of  right,  and  don't  forget  it. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Tell  that  to  the  immigrant 
groups  and  Injured  Workmen's  Consultants. 

Mr.   Haggerty:    Tell   them. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  member 
for  Scarborough  Centre  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  will  be  perfectly  glad  to  tell 
anybody.  I  will  also  tell  them  about  the 
amount  of  money  that  went  into  the  Church 
of  Satan.  That  has  to  be  a  remarkable  achieve- 
ment by  any  government. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Drea:  If  there  is  that  little  control  over 
a  programme  of  that  magnitude,  then,  sir,  I 
don't  really  think  that  I  want  to  have  any 
part  of  it,  and  I  think  that  as  a  responsible 
legislator  I  have  every  right  to  criticize  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  come  to  grips  with 
the  housing  problem.  We  are  not  going  to 
solve  it  overnight:  we  would  be  less  than 
truthful  if  we  said  we  were.  But  we  have 
embarked  on  the  long  crusade  to  meet  the 
challenge  of  the  rather  expensive  dwellings  in 
the  urban  areas.  Now  for  years  there  has 
been  a  suggestion  that  we  regulate  the  move- 
ment of  people  so  that  they  would  not  all 
come  to  Toronto  or  the  subui^bs,  or  so  that 
they  would  not  all  go  to  Kitchener- Waterloo 
or  to  Hamilton,  but  they  would  go  some 
place  where  there  is  supposedly  a  scarcity  of 
population. 

Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  a  most  impractical  pro- 
gramme. I  do  not  wish  to  be  associated  with 


any  type  of  programme  that  tells  a  person 
where  he  must  live.  If  we  are  going  to  have 
a  society  in  Canada  and  in  Ontario  that  we 
can  be  proud  of,  we  have  to  meet  the  chal- 
lenge rather  than  impose  restrictions  and  hope 
that  we  can  avoid  the  challenge.  That  is 
precisely  what  our  new  housing  action  pro- 
gramme is  going  to  do. 

Mr.  Renwick:  What  about  the— 

Mr.  Drea:  Again  in  the  field  of  aging,  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  do  not  treat  the  health  cost  pro- 
grammes for  the  senior  citizens  as  a  matter 
of  charity.  I  am  very  proud  of  the  Davis  gov- 
ernment because  we  have  stopped  punishing 
thrift.  If  you  had  saved  for  your  old  age  or  if 
you  have  a  pension  above  and  beyond  the 
guaranteed  armual  supplement,  we  don't  sug- 
gest to  you  that  you  are  diff^erent  from  any 
other  senior  citizen  and  make  you  pay  vour 
premimns.  We  provide  premium-free  assist- 
ance to  everyone  over  65,  because  it  isn't 
charity.  It  is  a  dividend  to  those  people  in 
appreciation  of  the  contribution  they  have 
made  to  the  establishment,  the  de\elopment, 
prosperity  and  the  opportunities  that  this 
province  enjoys.  We  have  now  brought  about 
the  final  health  care  programme  which  will 
remove  the  economic  sting  from  the  health 
problems  which  do  occur  more  regularly  with 
the  senior  members  of  our  society. 

When  I  was  first  elected  to  this  chamber 
people  suggested  I  was  a  great  advocate  of 
consumerism.  When  I  told  them  what  this 
government  intended  to  do  in  the  field  of 
consumerism,  people  tended  to  believe  that 
it  was  such  an  imposing  programme  it  would 
have  to  be  introduced  over  a  decade. 

In  this  Throne  Speech,  there  is  the  un- 
mistakable hand  of  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Clement). 

Mr.  Renwick:  Where? 

Mr.  Drea:  We  are  not  only  going  to  deal 
with  the  very  difficult  problem  of  a  Business 
Practices  Act  which  will  drive  the  crooks,  the 
shysters  and  the  fly-by-nights  out  of  business, 
we  are  also  going  to  deal  with  the  very  diffi- 
cult problem  of  warranties  and  guarantees. 
It's  difficult  because  of  the  split  jurisdiction 
and  the  international  trade  ramifications  of 
our  province. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That  has  nothing  to  do  with 
split  jurisdiction.  It's  whether  or  not  this 
government  is  prepared  to  protect  the  con- 
sumers in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 


APRIL  5.  1974 


817 


Mr.  Drea:  This  government  protects  con- 
sumers better  than  any  other  province  does. 

Mr.  Renwick:  We  are  sick  and  tired  of  the 
split  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  member  himself  has  said 
it  on  innumerable  occasions  that  we  have  left 
it  too  long. 

Mr.  Renwick:  We  have  heard  him  describe 
the  problems  and  say  that  the  consumer  min- 
istry- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

An  hon.  member:  This  is  getting  into  a 
debate. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  have  never  said  those  words. 
What  I  have  said— and  the  member  was  there, 
if  he  was  paying  attention  at  that  early  hour 
of  the  morning— was  that  for  practical  pur- 
poses—it was  said  some  time  ago— there  was 
no  real  meaningful  consumer  protection  in 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  How  can  he  say  that's  pretty 
good? 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  what  we  said. 

Mr.  Drea:  That  is  not  what  they  said.  They 
said  I  accused  the  minister  of  having  a  min- 
istry which  was  in  a  shambles.  If  they're 
going  to  quote  me,  let  them  please  quote  me 
correctly. 

Mr.  Renwick:  As  one  goes  through  his 
statement  it's  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Drea:  That  is  not— 

Mr.  J.  Root  (Wellington-DulFerin):  They're 
hard  of  hearing  over  there.  They  can't  hear 
what  the  member  says. 

Mr.  Drea:  There's  a  wide  difference  and  I 
would  suggest  the  member  has  won  many  a 
law  case  on  such  a  wide  difference  as  that. 

.    Mr.  Lawlor:  No  meaningful  consideration. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Let's  not  quibble.  Let's  get 
to  the  specifics. 

Mr.    Drea:    However,    Mr.    Speaker,    I   am 
very  proud  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  in  this  province- 
Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Another  tacky 
job. 

Mr.  Drea:  —for  accepting  a  criticism  like 
mine  and  not  going  off  and  sulking  about  it 
but  going  out  and  doing  something  about  it. 


Mr.  Renwick:  There  is  no  jurisdictional 
problem. 

Mr.  Drea:  There  is  a  jurisdictional  problem 
in  this  province  dealing  with  warranties  and 
guarantees.  Any  practising  solicitor,  surely, 
should  recognize  that. 

Mr.  Renwick:  There  is  no  problem  dealing 
with  warranties  and  guarantees  as  part  of  the 
contracts- 
Mr.   Speaker:   Order,  please.  The  member 
is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Drea:  May  I  suggest  he  talk  to  some 
of  his  federal  colleagues  because  they  keep 
bringing  it  up? 

Mr.  Speaker,  to  come  back  to  the  practical 
realities  of  the  proposed  new  legislation  on 
warranties  and  guarantees,  I  think  it  is  a 
mark  of  this  government  and  of  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  that 
we  are  going  to  return  honesty  to  the  market- 
place in  an  extremely  meaningful  way. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That's  in  the  green  paper. 

Mr.   Drea:   We   are   going  to  balance  the 
scales.  We  are  going  to  make  sure  that  the 
consumer- 
Mr.  Singer:   Meaningful  dishonesty. 

Mr.  Drea:  —is  protected  against  the  sophis- 
tication and  complexities  of  the  TV  promoter; 
against  the  complexities  of  modem  advertis- 
ing; and  against  the  complexities  of  a  nation 
which  is  so  dependent  upon  international  con- 
sumer trade  that  we  have,  for  years,  been 
willing  to  accept  the  American  style  of  guar- 
antee or  the  American  style  of  warrantv.  I 
suggest  that  the  amount  of  attention  paid  b\- 
our  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  to  this  problem  in  its  green  paper 
is  indicative  of  the  fact  that  it  means  business 
and  we  are  now  in  a  position  where  this 
legislation  will  be  coming  in  in  this  session. 
In  the  field  of  transportation,  not  only  in 
southern  Ontario  but  in  northern  Ontario, 
this  government  is  determined  to  open  up 
this  province  so  its  residents  may  enjoy,  to 
the  maximum,  the  full  opportunities  for  eco- 
nomic and  social  development. 

I  suggest  to  you,  sir,  the  road  building  pro- 
gramme in  the  north,  the  feasibility  study  for 
the  road  to  Moosonee,  the  new  extension  of 
the  Ontario  Northland  Railway  which  will  be 
built  from  Moosonee  to  deep  water- 
Mr.  Sargent:  How  was  that  tendered? 
Mr.  Reilly:  We  have  a  great  government. 


818 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Drea:  I'm  glad  the  member  mentioned 
that  without  tender.  Could  I  suggest  he  read 
the  Globe  and  Mail  this  morning?  It  holds  the 
tendering  practices  of  our  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  out  as  a  model 
to  any  government  operation  anywhere  on  the 
continent.  The  member  for  Grey-Bruce's 
problem  is  that  he  only  reads  what  he  wants 
to  read.  In  fact,  I  wonder  if  he  can  read  at  all. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  government  has  one  thing 
that  works.  There  is  only  one  thing  and  that's 
why  he  is  talking  about  it. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  wasn't  talking  about  it.  I 
accept  that  as  normal.  The  member  is  the  one 
who  raised  it.  If  he  is  going  to  read  a  news- 
paper, he  had  better  read  all  nine  columns  of 
it.  He  gets  into  an  awful  lot  of  trouble  stick- 
ing with  the  two  columns  on  the  left. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  member  was  through  two 
hours  ago.  Why  didn't  he  stop? 

Mr.  Drea:  I  have  always  taken  the  posi- 
tion that  if  I  can  bring  out  the  beast  in  the 
member  for  Grey-Bruce  for  public  display, 
it  is  worth  the  effort. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Anybody  over  there  can  do 
that. 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  anyone  may  be  able  to  do 
it.  I  realize  that,  but  somehow  I  do  with  a 
bit  more  clarity  and  acerbity  than  the  norm. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  transportation  programmes 
of  this  province  are  indeed  indicative  of  this 
new  plateau,  for  we  do  intend  to  roll  back 
the  artificial  frontier  that  has  been  the  far 
north  of  northern  Ontario,  the  area  beyond 
Cochrane,  the  area  beyond  the  northernmost 
of  the  east-west  railroads,  the  northernmost 
of  the  Trans-Canada  Highway  routes.  There 
is  an  abundance  of  resources  in  those  areas. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Does  the  member  know  that 
one  trucker  has  all  the  rights  up  there?  He 
has  complete  rights  to  the  north  country. 

Mr.  Drea:  One  trucker? 

Mr.  Sargent:  One  trucker. 

Mr.  Drea:  He  must  be  a  good  one. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Yes,  he  has  got  an  in  for  him. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  No  tendering. 

Mr.  Drea:  Would  that  trucking  company  be 
Star  Transfer? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Which  one? 

Mr.   Drea:    Star  Transfer. 

Mr.  Singer:  No. 


Mr.  Drea:  In  the  north  we  happen  to  own 
a  truck  line  which  is  a  subsidiary  of  the  On- 
tario Northland,  but  I  would  hardly  expect 
the  member  to  know  that. 

Mr.  Root:  I  don't  think  he  knows  what 
trucks  there  are  on  the  highway  up  there? 

Mr.  Sargent:  What's  that? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre  is  the  only  one  with  the  floor. 

Mr.  Drea:  It  is  all  right,  Mr.  Speaker.  I'm 
enjoying  it. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That's  free  enterprise! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Drea:  On  behalf  of  my  colleague  over 
there,  I'm  trying  to  give  him  an  hour  and  the 
member  is  ruthlessly  interrupting  me.  I  don't 
want  to  get  into  a  conflict  of  interest  between 
these  two  fellows,  because  that's  something 
else.  But  if  he  would  allow  me  to  finish,  the 
member  for  Downsview  will  be  next.  Thanks. 

Mr.  Singer:  Thank  you,  I  am  in  no  rush. 
Let  the  member  take  as  much  time  as  he 
wants. 

Mr.  Drea:  Okay. 

Mr.  Sargent:  And  then  he  will  hear  some 
sense. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  again  and  hope- 
fully for  the  final  time,  to  return  to  the 
transportation  programmes  of  this  govern- 
ment. Transportation  and  the  opening  of 
new  routes  in  the  north,  albeit  that  they 
are  the  more  conventional  type  of  trans- 
portation, either  rail  or  road,  are  just  as 
significant  to  the  development  of  the 
economic  and  social  goals  of  this  province 
as  is  our  concern  with  rapid  transit  lines 
in  the  urban  areas. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  you  that  the 
decision  to  go  north,  both  in  terms  of 
road  from  Cochrane  and  in  terms  of  rail 
from  Moosonee,  wfll  be  regarded  in  the 
future  years  as  as  much  a  landmark  as  that 
of  the  Premier  of  this  province  some  two 
years  ago  in  cancelling  the  Spadina  Ex- 
pressway and  in  introducing  the  era  of 
rapid  transit  in  this  province.  That  is  already 
considered  a  hallmark  in  the  social  develop- 
ment  in   this   province. 

Mr.   Singer:    Hallmark  in  backward  steps. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  contents  of  this  Throne  Speech 
with    regard    to    transportation,    particularly 


APRIL  5,  1974 


819 


those  of  the  north,  will  be  as  much  a  hall- 
mark in  years  to  come. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Is  the  member  going  to  re- 
open   Spadina? 

Mr.  Drea:  Am  I  going  to  reopen  Spadina? 
I  have  no  use  for  the  Spadina  Expressway 
and  neither  does  any  thinking  person.  With 
gasoline  going  to  75  and  80  cents  a  gallon, 
thanks  to  that  magnificent  federal  Liberal 
planning,  1  don't  think  any  thinking  person 
is  concerned  about  the  Spadina  Expressway 
these  days.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  presume 
they  are  kind  of  grateful  to  us  for  saving 
them  from  about  a  $250  million  blunder. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Is  the  member  going  to 
have   his   government   review  the  fuel   taxes 
on  bus  systems- 
Mr.   Speaker:  Order,  please. 
Mr.    Drea:    Yes. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  —to  enable  municipal 
bus  systems  to  operate  a  little  more 
efficiently? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  will  the  mem- 
ber for  Scarborough  Centre  please  continue 
liis  address. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  am  dutifully  trying.  Would 
the  member  write?  I  didn't  get  it.  I  want 
to  finish.  Would  he  write  it,  then  I'd  be 
ver>-  glad  to  take  it  up  with  the  minister. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  would  prefer  the 
member   to   answer   concerning— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Drea:  Well,  if  the  member  would— 
you  know,  the  members  all  sit  over  there 
and  snicker,  and  now  they  want  me  to 
answer  questions  in  my  speech.  If  they 
want  me  to  answer  questions,  I  would 
humbly  suggest  to  them  that  they  send  me 
a  note.  I  would  be  very  glad  to  reply. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Do  it  in  question  period. 
Okay? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Okay,  I'll  send  him  a 
note. 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  The  place  is 
getting  so  bad,  he  could  wait  forever. 

Mr.  J.  P.  MacBeth  (York  West):  Put  in  a 
good  word  for  the  minister. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  final  note,  I 
would  like  to  discuss  some  remarks  that 
were  made  in  this  House  yesterday.  I  was 
in  the  unforttmate  position  of  sitting  in  the 


chair  as  your  replacement,  Mr.  Speaker,  so 
I  could  not  interject  or  correct  the  records 
at  that  particular  time,  so  I  am  going  to 
bring  it  up   today. 

Mr,  Speaker,  yesterday  the  allegation  was 
made  that  a  minister  of  the  Crown  re- 
flected the  professional  do-gooder  attitude 
of  people  who  apparently  go  out  and  knock 
on  a  few  doors  and  coUec-t  a  couple  of 
dollars,  or  many  dollars,  on  behalf  of  various 
charitable  causes— 1  think  that  the  one  which 
was  particularly  mentioned  yesterday  was 
that  of  the  cancer  campaign— and  that  some- 
how, by  doing  that,  that  allowed  people 
like  the  particular  minister  of  the  Crown 
who  was  mentioned  to  abrogate  their  other 
responsibilities   in  society. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that  this  is  a 
dreadful  canard.  I  would  like  to  suggest 
to  you  that  there  are  many  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  women  and  men  in  this  province 
who  go  out  and  solicit  funds  on  behalf  of 
their  churches,  on  behalf  of  the  Salvation 
Army,  on  Ijehalf  of  the  cancer  fund,  on 
behalf  of  the  heart  fund,  on  behalf  of  a 
great  many  things.  Rather  than  being  pro- 
fessional do-gooders,  Mr.  Speaker,  those  men 
and  women  are  the  people  who  are  the 
finest  and  the  best  in  their  communities  and 
they  represent  everything  that  the  people 
of  Ontario  stand  for.  And  I  say  that  to  you 
with   deep   respect,   sir. 

I  want  to  dissociate  myself  from  the  type 
of  thinking  that  tries  to  project  the  view 
that  the  women  who  are  standing  out  in 
downtown  Toronto  and  other  centres  to- 
day—with the  temperature  just  above  freez- 
ing—selling daffodils  on  behalf  of  cancer 
research,  are  some  kind  of  professional  do- 
gooders.  I  want  to  dissociate  myself  from 
that,  sir.  I  want  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  those  women  are  the  finest  in  this 
province  and  rather  than  being  the  object 
of  snide  remarks  with  a  nasal  twang,  they 
should  get  the  very  enthusiastic  desk  thump- 
ing of  the  members  of  this  chamber. 

I  am  fed  up  to  death  with  the  idea  that 
unless  you  believe  in  some  kind  of  a  massive, 
collective,  expensive  and  very  often  wasteful 
and  bureaucratic  solution  to  individual  prob- 
lems, then  you  are  somewhat  less  than  a 
thinking  person.  And,  Mr.  Speaker,  just  to 
ensure  that  those  i>eople  who  do  go  out  and 
do  that  kind  of  work— and  it  is  difficult— just 
to  ensure  that  they  know  where  they  stand 
with  the  responsible  members  of  this  Legisla- 
ture, I  am  very  glad  that  the  desk  thumping 
came  from  both  sides  of  the  House  when  I 
made  those  remarks. 


820 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there 
are  a  great  many  members  of  this  House  who 
have  knocked  on  doors  and  solicited  funds  for 
research,  or  for  churches,  or  for  school  pro- 
jects, or  for  a  great  number  of  other  things. 
Quite  frankly,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  rather 
amazed  yesterday  that  those  remarks  were 
accepted  as  ordinary  statements  of  fact.  Be- 
cause certainly  to  me  they  strike  at  the  very 
fibre  of  our  society,  and  to  let  them  go  on 
unchallenged  would  be  a  disservice  to  very 
many  thousands  of  extremely  fine  people. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  ( Downsview ) :  Mr. 
Speaker,  as  I've  listened  to  portions  of  this 
debate  I've  been  very  interested  to  hear  the 
remarks  of  various  members  and  particularly 
the  compliments  that  they  have  addressed  to 
new  cabinet  appointees.  One  notorious  omis- 
sion, I  thought,  was  any  reference  to  five 
hon.  members  who  have  recently  left  the 
ministry. 

Mr.  Shulman:  We  have  mixed  feelings  on 
some  of  them. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  thought,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
someone  at  least  should  have  a  word  or  two 
to  say  about  the  hon.  member  for  Bellwoods 
( Mr.  Yaremko ) ,  the  hon.  member  for  Armour- 
dale  (Mr.  Carton),  the  hon.  member  for  York 
Mills  (Mr.  Bales),  and  the  hon.  member  for 
Kingston  and  the  Islands  (Mr.  Apps).  I  think 
I  left  one  out— the  hon.  member  for  Carleton 
East  (Mr.  Lawrence). 

Perhaps  these  words  coming  from  me  are 
not  inappropriate  because  I've  sat  in  this 
House  since  1959,  a  longer  period  than  all 
of  those  five  members  except  the  member 
for  Bellwoods  who  came  in,  if  my  memory 
serves   me  correctly,  in   1951. 

In  my  opinion,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  without 
dealing  with  each  one  of  these  hon.  gentle- 
men individually,  they  have  served  their  com- 
munity and  this  province  in  an  outstanding 
manner.  I  felt  very  badly,  personally,  that 
after  the  many  years  of  service  each  one  of 
them  has  given,  their  departure  from  the 
ministry  was  done  in  such  a  cold,  abrupt  and 
apparently  unfeeling  way. 

If  there  is  anyone  who  should  know  about 
politics  and  the  feelings  of  politicians,  it's 
the  people  who  serve  JFrom  time  to  time  in 
this  Legislature.  While  I  was  in  frequent  dis- 
agreement with  these  gentlemen  from  time  to 
time  on  points  of  policy  I  have  no  hesitation 
whatsoever  in  saying  here  in  the  Legislature, 


where  it  should  have  been  said  by  someone 
else,  that  the  Province  of  Ontario  owes  a 
great  debt  to  the  unselfish  service  that  each 
one  of  these  five  gentlemen  has  given. 

I  feel  very  badly  that,  when  the  time  came 
and  the  decision  was  made  by  the  Premier, 
the  press  release  given  out  couldn't  have  been 
expanded  by  a  few  pages  at  least  and  a 
paragraph  or  a  sentence  or  two  devoted  to  the 
past  service  of  each  one  of  these  gentlemen. 

I  think  it's  inappropriate.  I  think  it's  un- 
feeling but  perhaps  it  is  a  measure  of  this 
government  and  its  new  approach. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Of  course  it  is.  It  is  the  night 
of  the  long  knives. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  more 
significance  in  the  departure  of  these  partic- 
ular gentlemen  and  the  future  of  COGP.  We 
all  know  about  COGP.  It  was  hailed  as  the 
new  businesslike  approach  to  running  govern- 
ment. Where  did  the  advice  come  from?  It 
came  from  the  leaders  of  the  business  world, 
the  heads  of  big  and  successful  companies, 
who  sat  down  and  said  "We  are  going  to  tell 
you  how  to  run  the  government  as  a  business." 

They  really  felt  the  politicians  were  use- 
less appendages.  I  can  recall  one  evening  in 
the  members  lounge  dowoistairs,  talking  to 
one  of  these  fellows  who  didn't  quite  agree 
with  some  of  the  views  we  were  putting  for- 
ward. Finally  an  argument  developed  and  he 
went  storming  out  the  door  and  snarled  over 
his  shoulder,  "You  political  yahoos  who  waste 
your  time  getting  elected  when  we  are  the 
people  who  know  how  to  run  the  business  of 
the  province."  That  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  un- 
fortunately was  the  attitude  that  permeated 
the  recommendations  of  COGP— the  elected 
people  really  are  dumb.  We  are  the  political 
yahoos  who  waste  our  time  coming  here  and 
the  intelligent  people,  the  successful  business- 
men, should  be  running  the  Province  of  On- 
tario. 

One  of  the  great  ideas  they  came  for^va^d 
with  was  the  establishment  of  policy  secre- 
tariats. And  with  great  flag-waving  and  drum- 
thumping  we  had  a  group  of  ministers,  some 
called  them  superministers,  who  were  pro- 
vincial policy  secretaries.  There  was  one  who 
looked  after  justice;  there  was  one  who  looked 
after  social  services;  there  was  one  who  looked 
after  treasury  and  intergovernmental  affairs; 
and  there  was  a  fourth  one  who  looked  after 
natural  resources.  These  people  were  going  to 
sit  and  think.  They  were  going  to  come  out 
with  ideas  and  they  had  a  variet)-  of  minis- 
tries to  whom  these  ideas  should  be  fed. 

One  secretary  had  eight  portfolios  to  which 
he  was  to  give  ideas.  Another  one  had  six; 


APRIL  5,  1974 


821 


another  one  five;  I  have  forgotten  the  exact 
breakdown.  Well,  it  was  fascinating.  It  was 
fascinating  to  watch  how  it  worked  in  TEIGA 
when  the  present  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr. 
McKeough)  was  the  provincial  Treasurer  and 
grabbed  unto  himself  the  Ministry  of  Munic- 
ipal Affairs.  He  seemed  to  be  roaming  the 
field  and  he  was  dictating  policy  to  hknself 
and  to  the  government  and  to  the  people  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario  and,  I  suppose,  advis- 
ing other  ministries  and  thinking  aixi  so  on. 

It  became  very  diflBcult  in  the  justice  field 
particularly,  and  Mr.  Lawrence,  the  one-time 
member  for  the  riding  of  St.  George,  couldn't 
stand  it  any  more  and  took  himself  from  here 
and  went  to  another  place.  I  don't  really 
blame  him  because  he  was  caught  in  a  use- 
less job.  He  was  given  no  responsibility, 
really.  He  had  no  decisions  to  make.  He  had 
ver\'  little  to  say. 

The  hon.  member  for  Carleton  East  tried 
very  hard  to  make  his  job  work  but  it  just 
didn't  seem  to  fit  together  and  he  has  now 
departed.  So  the  story  goes  throughout  all 
these  secretariats.  With  the  departure  of  these 
five  ministers  it  was  interesting  to  see  what 
happened  to  the  secretariats. 

In  Justice  I  guess  someone  has  now  decided 
that  the  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Welch)  can 
think  as  well  as  do,  so  he  is  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Justice  as  well  as  being  the 
Attorney  General.  It  is  fascinating  to  look  at 
the  estimates  that  were  tabled;  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Justice  is  asking  for  some 
$400,000  this  year  and  in  addition  the 
Attorney  General's  estimates  are  asking  for  a 
very  substantial  sum  of  money.  I  wonder  why? 
I  wonder  why  the  Attorney  General  wants 
that  money  or  why  he  wanted  the  $350,000 
he  was  voted  last  year  because  there  is  only 
one  minister,  not  two  any  more. 

There  used  to  be  a  deputy  minister.  That 
was  another  of  the  tragedies.  Randall  Dick 
who,  to  my  mind  at  least,  was  one  of  the  most 
able  civil  servants  we  have  around  Queen's 
Park  was  also  hived  off  in  a  comer  for  two 
or  three  years  doing  nothing.  The  govenmient 
has  shown  a  little  inteUigence  at  least  in  now 
giving  him  responsibility  as  a  deputy  minister 
in  an  operating  department  and  I  think  that 
is  all  to  the  good.  But  there  is  no  deputy 
minister  in  the  secretariat  for  Justice.  We 
haven't  got  a  minister  and  we  haven't  got  a 
deputy  minister  and  what  the  $400,000  is  for, 
Mr.  Speaker,  escapes  me  completely. 

Why  is  it  not  time  now  for  the  government 
to  admit  that  this  major  COGP  recommenda- 
tion has  been  an  abysmal  failure?  That  the 
secretariats  have  gone  the  way  of  the  horse- 
drawn  buggy  and  that  we  take  out  even  the 


small  amounts  asked  for  in  the  estimates  and 
let's  get  down  to  business. 

What  other  secretariats  appear  to  have  been 
continued?  I  am  not  quite  sure  whether  the 
Treasurer  of  Ontario  (Mr.  White)  is  a  secre- 
tary or  just  the  minister  in  TEIGA.  If  he  is  a 
secretary  some  of  his  thinking  doesn't  seem  to 
project  very  well  for  the  benefit  of  the  people 
of  Ontario  but  surely  he  has  a  full  plate 
looking  after  the  responsibilities  assigned  to 
him.  TTieTe's  Justice  suid  there's  the  TCIGA. 

Then  it's  fascinating  to  note  that  the  hon. 
member  for  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  (Mr.  Gross- 
man) is  now  a  provincial  secretary.  I  watched 
his  first  performance  as  secretary  the  day  he 
made  that  interesting  statement  about  where 
the  pipeline  was  going  to  go.  It  was  as 
though  suddenly  the  hon.  member  for  St. 
Andrew-St.  Patrick  had  done  little  else  but 
worry  about  locations  of  pipelines.  Some  of 
us  know  him  reasonably  well,  and  when  he 
wants  to  make  a  speech  about  something  he 
knows  something  about,  he  doesn't  stumble 
through  four  or  five  pages  of  written  text,  and 
he  did  stumble.  Then  when  the  questions 
came,  he  couldn't  answer  them  and  he  had 
to  point  to  the  member  for  Chatham-Kent 
(Mr.  McKeough).  The  member  for  Chatham- 
Kent,  who  obviously  was  the  author  of  that 
great  piece  of  policy,  had  to  come  in  and  take 
up  the  breach. 

Well,  what's  happened  to  the  member  for 
St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick?  I  suppose  it  was  a 
nice  way  of  easing  him  out  of  the  picture, 
giving  him  a  title  and  preserving  a  min- 
isterial salary.  What  he  has  to  do  escapes  the 
notice  of  anyone  who  sits  in  this  Legislature 
at  all.  It's  rather  a  pity,  because  he  has  cer- 
tain talents  that  the  government  has  used  in 
the  past.  It's  a  pity  to  see  him  hived  off. 

Now  I  come  to  the  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough East  (Mrs.  Birch),  and  I  think  she's 
a  fine  lady.  I  think  her  presence  in  this  House 
adds  a  great  deal  to  our  proceedings.  But  I 
think  again,  if  the  idea  of  COGP  was  mean- 
ingful at  all,  the  appointment  of  people  as 
secretaries  involved  the  selection  amongst  the 
Tory  members  of  people  who  had  had  sub- 
stantial and  varied  experience  in  senior  posi- 
tions in  government. 

In  saying  what  I  am  saying,  I  am  not 
being  critical  of  the  hon.  member.  I  just 
wonder  about  the  basis  on  which  her  appoint- 
ment was  made  when  her  experience  in  this 
House  certainly  has  been  very  limited  and 
her  apparent  knowledge  of  the  various  de- 
partments which  have  come  imder  this  secre- 
tariat is  again  very  very  limited.  I  think  she 
has  a  very  important  role  to  play  in  the  affairs 
of  this  Legislature  and  in  the  affairs  of  the 


822 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Conservative  Party,  but  I  wonder  again  if 
this  is  not  just  another  passing  off.  I  would 
predict  that  the  hon.  member  has  a  very 
bright  future  in  poHtics,  but  if  she  is  going 
to  be  put  in  the  secretariat  and  really  have 
no  responsibility,  then  what  is  the  use?  In 
efiEect,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  am  saying  is  the 
system  of  secretariats  has  been  abandoned, 
and  I  think  it's  time  that  the  Premier  gave  it 
an  honest  burial. 

Let  me  turn  to  my  next  point.  I  want  to 
talk  about  Ontario  housing  at  some  length. 

Mr.  Renwick:  If  it's  of  any  solace  to  the 
member  for  Downsview,  I  am  inclined  to 
agree  with  him. 

Mr.  Singer:  Thank  you,  sir.  I  am  making 
progress.  The  hon.  member  for  Riverdale 
and  I  are  in  agreement.  I  want  to  talk  about 
Ontario  housing.  I  had  hoped  that  I  could 
have  attacked  the  minister.  He  isn't  here,  so 
we  are  going  to  have  to  expect  maybe  that 
he  will  read  this  in  Hansard  or  someone  in 
his  depfutment  might  want  to  tell  him  about 
some  of  my  remarks. 

The  affairs  of  housing,  notwithstanding  the 
remarks  of  the  last  speaker,  in  the  history  of 
this  province  have  been  very,  very  sad.  They 
have  been  very  very  badly  handled.  The 
government  in  the  time  I  have  been  here  has 
run  through  some  five  ministers,  Macaulay, 
Randall,  the  present  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development  (Mr.  Grossman),  the 
now  Attorney  General  and  now  the  new 
member  who  is  the  Minister  for  Housing 
(Mr.  Handleman).  That  portfolio  seemed  to 
attract  to  it  people  who  would  be  able  to 
produce  on  the  eve  of  an  election  elaborate 
plans  for  new  building,  which  usually  got 
substantial  newspaper  coverage— full  pages. 
I  can  remember  Macaulay  building  all  sorts 
of  highrise  buildings  down  on  the  lakefront 
in  the  east  end  of  Toronto.  He  only  built 
them  in  the  newspapers,  but  it  sounded  good 
at  election-time.  Ajid,  of  course,  we  had 
Stan  Randall. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Harbour  City. 

Mr.  Singer:  Stan  was  a  great  fellow,  yes. 

Mr.  Renwick:  And  Malvern. 

Mr.  Singer:  Malvern— oh,  I  am  going  to 
say  a  word  or  two.  Stan  was  a  great  fellow. 
He  was  used  to  selling  refrigerators  to  Es- 
kimos and  he  thought  that  was  the  way  you 
could  build  houses.  It  really  didn't  matter 
whether  you  built  houses  as  long  as  you  made 
a  speech  about  building  houses. 


And  then  we  had  the  hon.  member  for  St. 
Andrew-St.  Patrick  whose  standard  approach 
was  to  dare  anybody  to  criticize  him  and  he 
would  snarl  back  and  that  was  that  end  of 
the  housing. 

Well,  the  Attorney  General,  when  he  was 
Minister  of  Housing,  really  didn't  have 
sufficient  length  of  time  to  have  a  go  at  it, 
so  he  didn't  do  very  much.  And  now  we 
have  the  new  minister  and  the  new  minister 
is  great  at  making  speeches.  In  one  of  the 
Toronto  newspapers  today  there  is  a  story  on 
page  2  that  is  headed:  "All  Talk  and  No 
Action  From  Handleman."  I  think  that  is 
appropriate. 

In  another  Toronto  newspaper  there  was  an 
editorial  headed:  "How  To  Say  Boo  To  A 
Speculator."  There  were  comments  on  the 
remarks  of  the  hon.  minister,  saying  it  is  all 
very  fine  to  make  speeches.  The  last  two  para- 
graphs read  like  this— referring  to  the  min- 
ister's comments  in  relation  to  speculation  in 
land: 

Speculation  in  land  or  anything  else, 
come  to  that,  is  perfectly  legal.  Is  the  min- 
ister warning  that  what  is  legal  may  not  be 
moral  and  that  new  regulations  are  going  to 
be  brought  down  to  give  effect  to  that 
view?  If  not,  surely  he  should  desist. 

Surely  we  are  past  the  point  where  a 
species  of  ritual,  Calvinist  imprecation  does 
any  good.  What  is  needed  from  the  Hous- 
ing Minister  is  not  a  verbal  flailing  in  the 
temple  but  a  cogently  designed  series  of 
measures  to  take  the  profit  out  of  specula- 
tion. If  that  is  what  he  believes  is  necessary 
he— and  it  might  be  added,  Welch,  Davis 
and  all  .  .  . 

And  I  say  well  said  to  the  editorial  writer, 
because  it  is  long,  long  past  that  we  are  going 
to  build  houses  by  the  magnificent  speeches 
of  the  Macatdays,  the  Randalls,  the  Gross- 
mans,  the  Welches,  or  the  newest  incumbent 
in  that  office. 

The  housing  situation  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  is  a  disgrace.  It  is  absolutely  beyond 
understanding  as  to  why  most  of  the  w'kge 
earners  in  this  province  are  unable  to  buy  a 
house.  There  have  been  aU  sorts  of  suggested 
solutions.  My  leader,  when  he  first  entered 
this  debate,  devoted  a  considerable  section 
of  his  speech  to  methods  that  might  be  used. 
Many  of  my  colleagues  have  spoken  frequent- 
ly time  after  time  here  and  outside,  and 
been  reported  amply  in  the  press  about  the 
problems  of  housing. 

I  remember,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  byelection 
in  St.  George  I  was  at  a  meeting  held  in  an 
apartment  house  to  meet  the  now  member  for 


APRIL  5,  1974 


823 


St.  George  (Mrs.  Campbell).  Circulars  had 
been  distributed  through  the  apartment  house 
and  it  was  anticipated  that  maybe  15  or  20 
people  would  show  up.  Instead,  100  people 
came;  they  wanted  to  hear  what  she  had  to 
say— and  the  topic  of  the  evening  was  hous- 
ing. 

I  remember  particularly  one  gentleman  who 
lived  in  that  apartment  building,  a  nice 
apartment  building  in  downtown  Toronto.  He 
was  a  young  man,  good  looking,  well  spoken. 
He  said:  "I  have  a  good  job;  I  earn  $15,000 
a  year.  I  like  my  bosses  and  they  like  me;  I 
expect  I  am  going  to  stay  with  Aem  for  my 
working  life.  But  I  am  married  and  I  dont 
want  to  live  in  an  apartment  for  the  rest  of 
my  life.  What  are  you  politicians  going  to  do 
to  help  me." 

That,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  tragedy  that  exists 
in  our  housing  situation  in  this  province  today. 

There  was  a  report  that  came  across  my 
desk  from  A.  E.  LePage  yesterday,  and  they 
do  a  pretty  good  statistical  analysis.  What  was 
the  average  sale  price  of  houses  in  Metro- 
politan Toronto  in  the  year  1973?  I  think 
$44,000  was  the  average  selling  price  of  a 
house. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  know  and  I  know 
that  someone  earning  $10,000,  $12,000, 
$15,000,^  $18,000,  $20,000,  $25,000  a  year, 
just  can't  afford  to  go  and  buy  a  house  at 
$44,000.  Where  are  the  people  of  Ontario 
going  to  live  and  how  are  they  going  to  be 
able  to  afford  it?  And  what  are  we  going  to 
get  from  the  government,  other  than  the 
speeches  of  the  Macaulays  and  the  Randalls 
and  the  Grossmans  and  the  Handlemans?  You 
don't  build  houses  with  speeches,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  that's  aH  we're  getting. 

Mr.  Speaker,  one  of  the  things  that 
bothers  me  is  that  with  this  great  selec- 
tion of  gentlemen  who  have  been  given 
the  responsibility  for  housing— with  Ontario 
Housing  Corp.  and  now  with  the  Ministry 
of  Housing— there  is  something  radically, 
radically  wrong  with  the  way  Ontario 
Housing  Corp.  has  been  run  in  the  past  and 
the  way  in  which  the  ministry  is  being 
run   now. 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  may  recall  that  when 
the  hon.  member  for  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick 
was  the  minister,  I  mentioned  in  this  House 
that  certain  information  had  come  to  my 
attention  which  indicated  that  perhaps  there 
was  something  unusual  and  suspicious  and 
possibly  very,  very  wrong  about  methods 
that  had  been  used  for  purchasing  land. 
Because  I  didn't  want  to  make  any  accusa- 
tions addressed  against  any  particular  person 


until  I  had  evidence— and  I  won't  make  an 
accusation  until  I  do  have  evidence— I  asked 
for  an  opportunity  to  look  at  the  minutes 
of  the  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  dealing  with 
land  purchases  over  a  fixed  period.  I  asked 
over  the  telephone  and  was  refused  by  the 
general   manager  of  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 

I  \\Tote  to  the  minister  and  the  minister 
said:  "No,  those  are  private  records.  You 
can't  see  them."  Mind  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
this  is  public  business.  We  are  spending  a 
lot  of  public  money  and  one  would  think 
than  an  elected  representative  of  the  public 
should  be  entitled  to  examine  the  records 
of  public  business.  But  the  correspondence 
is  here,  and  I  can  read  it  in  length  if  it 
interests   anybody   today. 

The  minister  said:  "No,  I'm  not  going 
to  let  you  look  at  the  minutes  of  Ontario 
Housing  Corp.  I'm  not  going  to  let  you 
try  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  in- 
formation that  you  have  received  is  correct 
and  the  suggestions  of  bad  practice  are 
correct.  If  you  think  you  have  some  in- 
formation about  a  particular  individual,  tell 
me  and  I'll  look  it  up  and  I'll  tell  you  if 
you're    right." 

Well,  I  had  run  into  a  brick  wall,  Mr. 
Speaker,  so  I  gave  up  on  that  one,  but  I 
never  really  forgot  about  it.  It  passed  off, 
and  we  noticed  no  particular  change  either 
in  land  purchase  arrangements  or  methods, 
and  we  noticed  no  particular  apology  from 
the  ministry.  No  new  systems  were  an- 
nounced and  they  carried  on  as  they  \\'anted 
to.  That  was  one  incident.  There  have  been 
a  series  of  other  incidents. 

I  had  some  of  our  staff  look  at  the 
number  of  times  that  my  colleagues  and 
I  had  been  at  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  about 
a  variety  of  matters.  There  was  the  im- 
proper disposal  of  OHC  building  materials. 
You  may  remember  that  one,  Mr.  Speaker. 
We  asked  about  it  and  we  got  fobbed  off 
with  a  nothing  answer.  Nothing  really  was 
ever  done  about  it.  There  was  the  ques- 
tion of  gifts,  and  I'm  going  to  deal  a  little 
longer  with  gifts. 

Mr.  Speaker,  here  are  photostats  of  the 
many,  many  times  in  the  last  three  or  four 
years  that  we  have  been  tr>ing  to  bring 
some  public  light  to  the  affairs  of  what  goes 
on  in  Ontario  Housing.  We've  had  no 
answers  from  any  of  the  ministers.  All  we 
have  are  the  Macaula>'S,  and  the  Randalls 
and  the  whole  series  of  them  getting  up 
and  building  houses  in  newspapers,  but  as 
for  the  actual  building  of  houses  on  land, 
there  is  none  of  that. 


824 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  another  very  dis- 
turbing incident  that  happened  quite 
recently.  It  turned  up  sort  of  as  a  side 
effect  of  the  inquiry  conducted  by  His 
Honour  Judge  Waisberg  in  the  royal  com- 
mission on  certain  sectors  of  the  building 
industry.  His  terms  of  reference  were  quite 
specific,  that  he  should  inquire  into  ques- 
tions of  violence,  possible  corruption,  and 
so  forth  in  the  building  industry. 

During  the  course  of  that  inquiry,  Mr. 
A.  E.  Shepherd,  QC,  who  is  well  known 
to  many  members  of  this  House,  who  was 
counsel  to  the  commission,  appeared  before 
His  Honour  Judge  Waisberg  on  Dec.  20, 
1973,  and  delivered  a  very  fascinating  state- 
ment. 

The  statement  is  here  and  I  have  it  from 
the  original  transcript.  I'm  not  going  to  read 
it  in  detail  but  it  is  here  and  if  anybody 
wants  to  see  it  I  have  it.  It  said  in  effect 
that  there  were  gifts,  substantial  gifts,  in 
dollars  and  other  favours  given  by  certain 
unnamed  persons  to  senior  officials  of  the 
Ontario  Housing  Corp.  and  it  appeared  that 
those  senior  officials  were  in  a  position  to 
make  decisions  about  which  pieces  of  land 
Ontario  Housing  Corp.  purchased. 

Obviously  what  Mr.  Shepherd  was  getting 
at  was  that  it  was  about  time  a  careful  look 
was  taken  at  this  to  see  whether  or  not  the 
giving  of  these  gifts  did,  in  fact,  wrongly 
direct  the  efforts  of  Ontario  Housing  in  pur- 
chasing certain  lands.  Were  certain  people 
given  favours?  Were  they  given  larger  prices 
than  they  might  have  been  entitled  to  and 
so  on? 

One  of  the  things  Mr.  Shepherd  said  was, 
to  give  an  example: 

We  found  evidence  of  a  gift  of  $2,000 
in  a  gift  certificate  made  at  one  time  by 
one  who  is  a  principal  in  a  company  deal- 
ing with  OHC  to  one  of  the  employees  of 
that  corporation,  whose  duties  required  him 
to  share  in  the  process  of  decision-making 
affecting  the  fate  of  the  application  by  the 
developers,  including  a  company  with 
which  the  donor  is  associated. 

One  would  have  thought  that  this  would  be 
a  matter  of  great  concern  to  the  government. 
Mr.  Shepherd  and  His  Honour  discussed  this 
at  some  length  and  Mr.  Shepherd  suggested 
that  the  police  be  called  in  and  the  police 
were  called  in.  Mr.  Shepherd,  I  understand, 
made  available  to  the  police  the  information 
which  the  commission's  investigators  had 
turned  up. 

The  House  was  still  in  session  I  think, 
wasn't  it,  on  Dec.  20?  Did  we  go  on  after 
Dec.  20  or  did  we  stop?  I  tried  then  and  I 


tried  in  the  House  when  it  came  back  early  in 
March  to  elicit  information  from  the  Attorney 
General  as  to  what  was  happening.  The  only 
reply  I've  been  able  to  get  up  to  this  moment, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  the  matter  is  under  in- 
vestigation. 

I  don't  know  how  long  it  takes  to  investi- 
gate  this    kind   of   charge— it  is   not   one  of 
suggestion— because    one   must   presume   that 
Mr.    Shepherd,    who    is    a    very    competent 
lawyer,  would  not  likely  go  before  a  judge, 
who  is  conducting  a  royal  commission  on  in- 
structions from  the  government  of  Ontario, 
and  make  these  charges  unless  he  was  pretty 
sure  of  the  evidence  he  had  available  to  him. 
That  was  on  Dec.  20  and  this  is  April  5. 
How  long,  Mr.  Speaker,  does  this  kind  of  in- 
vestigation   go    on?    There    were    questions 
raised  both  by  the  judge  and  Mr.  Shepherd 
as  to  what  should  be  done  and  the  matter 
was  left  that  the  police  investigations  would 
go  on.  The  commissioner  is  quoted  as  saying: 
The  police  investigations,  I  should  say, 
should  continue  Mdthout  being  impeded  in 
any  way  by  our  own  investigations. 
Mr.  Sheperd:  That  is  correct. 

And  what  is  your  suggestion  and  recom- 
mendation?  [that's  the  commissioner]. 

Mr.  Shepherd:  I  think  the  proper  course, 
Mr.  Commissioner,  at  this  point  in  time  is 
to  allow  the  police  to  deal  promptly  and 
vigorously  with  the  matter  which  is,  of 
course,  very  much  within  their  field  and 
then,  in  light  of  the  result  of  police  investi- 
gation, for  you,  sir,  to  reassess  the  position 
which  would  be  appropriate  to  adopt. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  has  happened  is  the  police 
investigations,  insofar  as  I've  been  able  to 
ascertain,  have  not  led  to  the  laying  of  any 
charges  as  yet.  You  know,  sir,  that  it  is  an 
offence  for  a  civil  servant  to  receive  gifts  and 
it  is  written  in  our  statutes.  There  have  been 
no  charges  as  yet  laid. 

It  seems,  if  I  read  the  papers  correctly,  that 
this  royal  commission  has  about  concluded  its 
public  hearings,  and  that  the  commissioner, 
on  the  advice  of  Mr.  Shepherd  and  Mr.  Mac- 
Rae,  who  was  with  Mr.  Shepherd,  is  prepar- 
ing his  report— I  am  guessing  about  that;  I 
don't  know.  But  the  whole  incident  to  which 
Mr.  Shepherd  devoted  15  or  18  pages  of  tran- 
script on  the  morning  of  Dec.  20  seems  to 
have  faded  into  the  woodwork. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  something  wrong  in 
Ontario  Housing.  I  know  it  and  many  mem- 
bers of  this  House  know  it.  And  Mr.  Shepherd 
certainly  spoke  about  it  in  a  clear  and  un- 
mistakable way  before  a  judge  of  the  county 
court   of  the   Province   of  Ontario.   What  is 


APRIL  5,  1974 


825 


happening?  Not  a  thing— that's  what  is 
happening.  And  we  are  back  again  to  the 
problem  of  how  we  can  build  houses.  Well, 
we  are  not  building  houses  because  we 
haven't  even  got  a  department  that  seems  to 
be  operating  on  an  even  keel.  We  haven't 
got  a  department  that  is  prepared  to  let 
members  of  the  Legislature  or  members  of 
the  public  know  what's  going  on.  And  1,  for 
one,  frankly  am  getting  sick  and  tired  of 
listening  to  the  speeches  of  Macaulay, 
Randall,  Grossman,  Welch  and  Handleman 
that  don't  produce  any  houses. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Housing  by  headlines. 

Mr.  Singer:  In  1954,  the  Malvern  land 
assembly  was  done;  that  is  20  years  ago,  Mr. 
Speaker.  For  20  years  that  land— some  1,700 
acres— has  been  in  public  ownership,  and 
there  are  a  handful  of  houses  on  it  today. 
What  are  we  getting?  We  are  getting  speech- 
es about  how  it's  a  bad  thing  to  speculate, 
but  we  are  not  getting  any  laws.  We  are 
getting  speeches  about  how  we  need  serviced 
land,  and  if  I  heard  somebody  correctly  this 
morning,  perhaps  there  should  be  more  serv- 
ices, but  surely  it's  the  responsibility  of  the 
municipality. 

We  are  getting  new  statutes  such  as  the 
parkway  green  belt  statute,  which  draws  an 
artificial  line  around  the  periphery  of  Metro- 
politan Toronto,  stops  services  from  going 
across  it  and  stops  development.  We  are 
getting  freezes  imposed  arbitrarily,  months 
ago;  and  metes  and  bounds  descriptions  are 
not  available,  so  people  don't  even  know 
where  the  limits  are. 

We  are  getting  speeches  about  how  we 
are  going  to  speed  up  the  process.  Now,  Mr. 
Speaker,  you  sat  on  a  municipal  council;  you 
know  a  little  bit  about  the  process.  I  wonder 
if  the  present  Minister  of  Housing  or  the 
present  Treasurer  or  any  one  of  them  knows 
anything  about  how  tne  process  works  at 
all? 

And  what  is  the  speeding-up  going  to 
mean?  I  am  familiar  with  one  application  that 
I  think  was  commenced  in  May,  1973.  The 
application  was  in  one  of  the  boroughs  here 
in  Metropolitan  Toronto.  It  involves  a  re- 
quest by  the  ov^mer  to  turn  the  land,  which 
had  a  specific  use,  into  a  use  for  row  houses. 
It  was  no  great  problem,  because  a  battle 
had  been  hotly  fought  by  the  ratepayers 
about  the  land  immediately  abutting  it.  The 
Municipal  Board  had  a  lengthy  hearing  and 
said  of  the  land  immediately  next  door:  "Yes, 
that  land  can  be  used  for  such-and-such  a 
purpose  and  the  density  is  so-and-so." 


On  this  otlxr  piece  of  property,  right  next 
door  to  it,  where  they  wanted  an  exactly 
similar  use,  the  process  has  taken  already  the 
better  part  of  a  year.  There  ha.sn't  Ix-en  one 
single  objection  by  any  ratepayer,  by  any 
member  of  any  planning  staff,  by  any  mem- 
ber of  any  council.  It  is  just  the  paperwork. 

On  this  piece  of  land,  when  it  is  rezoned, 
there  will  be  some  69  housirjg  imits.  But  the 
paperwork  that  is  supposedly  going  to  be 
speeded  up  by  the  ministry,  has  taken  over 
a  year  already— and  there  have  been  no  ol>- 
jections. 

Mr.  Speaker,  surely  it's  about  time  that 
someone  who  begins  to  talk  about  speeding 
up  the  process  began  to,  from  a  position  of 
some  knowledge.  Maybe  the  person  who  is 
going  to  do  that  should  understand  what  goes 
on  in  municipal  councils  and  municipal  plan- 
ning boards.  The  bigger  these  municipalities 
get  the  more  steps  seem  to  be  invented  for 
review  and  review  and  review  and  review 
and  review.  If  the  government  really  believes 
that  there  is  a  way  of  speeding  up  the 
process,  for  goodness  sake,  come  in  here  and 
tell  us.  Come  in  here  and  give  us  some 
directions.  Come  in  here  and  give  us  some 
statutes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  We  will.  We  will. 

Mr.  Singer:  We  have  a  new  minister  over 
there.  Things  will  change  immediately.  That's 
the  way  you  are  going  to  build  houses,  Mr. 
Speaker,  not  with  the  speeches  of  the  Macau- 
lays,  the  Randalls,  the  Grossmans,  the  Welchs 
and  the  Handlemans. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  And  the  Robarts. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  the  Premiers  have  gotten 
into  it.  The  Davises  and  the  Robarts  and  the 
Leslie  Frosts  didn't  build  houses  either,  and 
their  spokesmen  certainly  weren't  able  to 
build  houses. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  has  been  said 
so  many  times  it  probably  isn't  worthy  of 
repetition,  but  it  has  been  said  so  many 
times,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  perhaps  we'll  tr> 
it  just  once  more.  The  reason  that  housing 
costs  are  escalating  is  because  there  is  a 
shortage  of  serviced  lots.  And  the  reason 
there  is  a  shortage  of  serviced  lots  is  because 
of  the  various  statutes,  the  various  govern- 
ment procedures  and  the  lack  of  sureness 
and  the  lack  of  money. 

The  hon.  member  for  York  Centre  (Mr. 
Deacon)  has  said,  and  so  many  of  us  have  said 
so  many  times,  put  in  the  services.  Let  the 
government  of  Ontario  put  in  the  .services. 
You  are  not  going  to  have  houses  unless  yoTi 


826 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


have  water,  Mr.  Speaker.  You  are  not  going 
to  have  houses  unless  you  have  sewers.  You 
are  not  going  to  have  houses  unless  you 
have  roads.  And  if  the  installation  of  those 
services  is  going  to  be  made  dependent  upon 
the  actions  of  the  developers  and  the  hin- 
drances and  the  hurdles  put  in  front  of  de- 
velopment by  government,  then  the  process 
has  to  grind  to  a  halt,  as  it  is  now  doing. 

Surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  must  be  some 
way  within  the  fertile  imaginations  of  all 
the  people  who  occupy  the  treasury  benches 
that  they  could  devise  a  system  whereby  the 
government  is  going  to  be  able  to  finance 
the  installation  of  services.  Once  we  have 
serviced  land  available  then  we  can  put 
houses  on  it.  Then  the  plea  of  the  gentleman 
I  talked  about  a  little  earlier— the  gentleman 
who  was  earning  $15,000  and  was  happy  with 
his  job  and  was  happy  with  his  employers 
and  was  happy  with  his  future  except  that  he 
couldn't  buy  a  house— will  be  answered,  and 
then  maybe  we  can  get  to  the  point  where 
we  are  going  to  be  able  to  do  something 
about  providing  housing  for  the  people,  who 
are  entitled  to  live  in  houses. 

And  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the  time 
has  come  to  have  a  very  serious  look  about 
the  say-noers,  not  the  do-gooders,  but  the 
people  who  say  no  to  anything  that  is  new. 

Somebody  suggested  yesterday  that  the 
projections  of  zero  vacancies  in  apartments 
was  perhaps  self-serving  and  was  being  in- 
stigated by  those  who  presently  own  apart- 
ments so  that  they  can  raise  rents.  One  of 
my  colleagues  suggested  that  in  his  riding 
there  were  lots  of  apartments  going  up,  but 
what  is  in  fact  happening,  Mr.  Speaker,  cer- 
tainly in  this  metropolitan  area,  is  that  the 
ability  to  deal  with  a  piece  of  land  and  erect 
on  it  buildings  for  multiple  use  has  almost 
ceased.  But  there  are  more  people  who 
want  to  have  apartments,  there  are  more 
people  who  want  to  have  houses,  and  really 
the  lid  is  on.  So  it's  not  unnatural  and  it's  not 
self-seeking  to  suggest  that  we  are  heading 
\ery  quickly  to  a  zero  vacancy  rate,  that  we 
are  heading  for  a  dramatic  increase  in  rents. 

With  all  of  the  other  factors  that  are 
affecting  the  cost  of  living,  we  are  not  in  the 
glorious  never-never  land  that  the  member 
for  Scarborough  Centre  was  talking  about, 
but  we  are  in  a  time  of  great  difficulty  in 
this  i5rovince  and  our  people  just  aren't  able 
to  afford  any  longer  the  cost  of  food  and  the 
cost  of  housing  and  the  cost  of  many  other 
things. 

And  what  are  we  getting,  Mr.  Speaker, 
from  the  government?  We  get  more  Handle- 
man  speeches.   I  don't  particularly  fault  the 


new  Minister  of  Housing.  He  is  a  new  boy 
and  he  has  what  is  probably  one  of  the 
toughest  portfolios  in  government,  but  he  is 
in  character  with  what  has  happened  before. 
He  is  completely  in  character  with  Macaulay, 
Randall,  Grossman  and  Welch.  Surely,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  time  has  come  to  stop  saying 
"in  the  fullness  of  time."  They  used  the 
phrase  yesterday,  "in  the  aggregate  we  will 
build  some  houses."  I  don't  know  what  year 
"aggregate"  is,  but  he  was  going  to  build 
some  "in  the  aggregate."  "Wait  until  my 
legislation  comes  in,"  he  says.  That  is  no  help 
to  anybody  who  finds  himself  in  this  very 
difficult  position. 

Mr.  Speaker,  to  sum  up  very  briefly  on  the 
housing  thing,  we  have  no  policy.  We  have 
no  minister  who  knows  how  to  go  about 
establishing  a  policy.  We  have  the  history 
of  Ontario  Housing  functioning  itself  which, 
to  say  the  least,  is  not  a  good  history.  We 
have  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Shepherd  made  be- 
fore the  royal  commission.  They  don't  seem 
to  be  clearing  up  the  department  and  they 
certainly  aren't  building  houses.  The  time  has 
come  to  do  something  about  this  and  that 
time  is  right  now. 

The  next  thing,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  want 
to  make  a  few  remarks  aliout  is  the  question 
of  no-fault  insurance.  This  matter  has  had 
a  great  deal  of  publicity  in  recent  months.  In 
fact,  I  suppose,  publicity  began  to  attach  to 
this  problem  when  the  Premier  on  Thursday, 
Nov.  1,  1973,  spoke  at  the  Insurance  Institute 
of  Ontario  awards  dinner.  I  have  a  text  of 
his  press  release.  On  page  7  he  said  this: 

I  think  it  is  plain  from  my  remarks  that 
some  form  of  so-called  no-fault  automobile 
insurance  is  coming  to  Ontario,  and  it  is 
our  hope  that  it  will  be  run  by  private 
enterprise. 

Fascinatingly,  the  Premier  wasn't  too  sure 
at  all  what  he  had  said,  but  that  is  an  exact 
quote  from  his  remarks. 

In  the  House  on  March  7,  I  asked  him  this 
question: 

Mr.  Singer:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Premier.  In 
view  of  the  Premier's  statement  not  too  long  ago  that 
we  could  expect  new  no-fault  automobile  insurance 
laws  in  Ontario,  and  in  view  of  the  recent  publicity 
given  to  a  proposal  along  these  lines  by  the  insurance 
industry,  is  that  the  kind  of  new  law  that  the  Premier 
had  in  mind? 

And  my  question  goes  on.  The  Premier's 
reply  was: 

Hon.   Mr.   Davis:    Mr.   Speaker,   I  don't   intend  .  .  . 

[I  had  asked  for  a  select  committee,  which 

I  am  going  to  suggest  again  today.] 

...  I  don't  really  recall  saying  that  we  are  going  to 
have  a  new  no-fault  insurance  programme.  I  do 
recall  speaking  to  a  group  of  insurance  people. 


APRIL  5.  1974 


827 


I  don't  know  which  Premier  you  believe, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Is  it  the  one  who  said  on  Nov. 
1,  "I  think  it  is  plain  that  some  form  of  so- 
called  no-fault  insurance  is  coming  to  On- 
tario," or  the  Premier  who  spoke  here  on 
March  7  and  who  said,  "I  don  t  really  recall 
saying  we  are  going  to  have  a  new  no-fault 
insurance  programme"? 

I  don't  know  that  this  is  of  great  moment, 
but  I  would  think  that  the  Premier,  of  all 
people,  should  be  able  to  remember  what  he 
said  and  should  at  least  be  consistent.  When 
he  has  made  that  kind  of  positive  statement 
which  attracted  a  great  deal  of  media  atten- 
tion, he  should  remember  what  he  had  in 
mind.  I  have  been  trying  to  elicit  since  that 
time,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  No-fault 
if  necessary,  but  not  necessarily  no-fault. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  I  s^iess  that  what  it 
means— maybe  yesterday,  yes,  and  tomorrow, 
no.  But  what  it  does  mean  I  don't  know. 
I  have  been  trying  to  elicit  information  from 
the  Premier  and  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations.  The  history  of 
this  whole  thing  has  a  fascinating  ring. 
There  is  a  group  called  the  IBC,  the  In- 
surance Bureau  of  Canada.  They  are  the 
successors  to  what  used  to  be  called  the  All- 
Canada  Insurance  Associates.  They  are  an 
association  of  insurers.  It  became  apparent 
that  the  Premier's  remarks  on  Nov.  1  were 
a  setup  for  the  introduction  or  the  an- 
nouncement of  a  plan  put  forward  by  IBC. 
What  puzzles  me  throughout  this  whole 
story  is  the  way  in  which  the  Premier  was 
either  using  this  or  was  being  used,  and  how 
the  details  took  so  long  to  unfold. 

In  any  event  Mr.  Speaker,  a  plan  was  put 
forward  by  the  IBC,  a  form  of  no-fault, 
which  seemed  to  be  just  great,  depending 
on  who  you  listened  to.  Certainly  its  advo- 
cates touted  it.  Certainly  people  from  sev- 
eral insurance  companies  thought  it  was  a 
wonderful  idea. 

Then  one  day,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  was  a 
meeting  of  a  group  of  lawyers,  the  .\dvo- 
cates'  Society,  when  they  discussed  the  IBC 
plan,  at  great  length  and  bitterly,  and  then 
some  of  the  glow  came  off  the  great  an- 
nouncement. The  IBC  plan  suggested  that 
there  wotild  be  a  quicker  loss  settlement; 
that  there  would  be  reasonable  settlement 
to  those  who  were  at  fault;  that  there  would 
be  more  dollars  back  in  claims  because  of 
a  reduction  in  investigative  and  court  costs 
because  there  would  be  fewer  fraudulent 
and  inflated  claims;  and  that  public  uncer- 
tainty  would   be   removed   and  they   would 


know  exactly  what  they  would  l>e  getting. 
Those  were  some  of  the  strong  points  in  the 
IBC   programme. 

The  criticisms  ran  along  these  lines:  The 
IBC  programme  removed  compensation  for 
non-economic  loss,  and  non-economic  joss 
is  damage  for  pain  and  suffering,  damage 
for  loss  of  life  and  a  couple  of  other  points. 
It  is  dealt  with  in  more  detail  in  the  report 
of  the  Law  Reform  Commission  that  we  saw 
for  the  first  time  yesterday.  The  questions 
that  were  raised,  particularly  by  memljers 
of  the  legal  profession,  were  that  the  public 
was  not  really  prepared,  in  their  opinion, 
to  accept  the  taking  away  of  items  of  dam- 
age, compensable  items  such  as  pain  and 
suffering,  loss  of  life  expectancy  and  that 
sort  of  thing.  TTie  criticisms,  as  I  say,  were 
lengthy  and  quite  bitter  and  the  discussions 
again    went   forward. 

Then,  Mr.  Speaker,  while  this  presenta- 
tion was  being  made— and  this  is  why  I  won- 
der very  seriously  about  who  initiated  it, 
what  kind  of  power  and  influence  existed 
to  brine  it  forward  as  far  as  it  came— there 
came  into  my  possession  something  that's 
called  a  model  bill,  which  was  going  to  set 
up  this  scheme,  the  IBC  scheme.  And  while 
I  have  no  real  knowledge  as  to  who  drafted 
it,  I  have  seen  enough  bills  in  my  term  of 
service  in  this  Legislature  to  say  that  the  bill 
was  drafted  by  someone  who  knew  his  way 
about  drafting— and  drafting  is  a  very  fine 
art— and  who  knew  it  sufficiently  well  to  set 
up  the  bill  in  a  form  that  we  often  see  as 
ministers  introduce  bills  into  this  House.  I 
have  no  way  of  knowing  who  the  draftsman 
was,  but  the  job  of  draftsmanship  is  of  such 
expertise  that  I  wonder  if  it  didn't  come 
from  one  of  the  government  offices. 

What  I  am  trying  to  figure  out,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  where  and  why  the  IBC  plan 
got  such  great  impetus.  Well,  after  the  meet- 
ing—and the  IBC  plan  too  was  hopefully 
going  to  come  into  being  on  Jan.  1.  197.5; 
they  even  had  a  time  sche<lule-they  ran 
into  the  criticisms  of  the  lau^ers,  of  the  in- 
insurance  agents,  of  the  brokers,  of  many, 
many  members  of  the  public  and  that  cool- 
ed  off. 

Then,  fascinatingly,  Allstate,  who  had 
been  a  part  of  the  IBC  setup  originally, 
withdrew  from  IBC  because  of  this  p.irticu- 
lar  proposal  and  gave  publicit>-  to  their 
specific  objections  to  the  IBC  plan. 

There  are  many,  many  things  wrong,  Mr. 
Speaker,  unth  our  present  svstem  of  insur- 
ance. Some  members  of  this  Hoiise  will 
recall  —  the  hon.  member  for  Haldimand- 
Norfolk  (Mr.   Allan),   who  was  here  a  little 


828 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


earlier,  will  certainly  recall  because  he 
chaired  it— that  one  of  the  best  select  com- 
mittees we  ha\'e  ever  had,  in  my  opinion,  in 
this  House  was  the  committee  to  deal  with 
automobile  insurance  which  sat  in  1961,  1962 
and  1963,  That  committee  brought  forward 
a  series  of  recommendations  to  which  the 
committee  was  able  to  agree  unanimously, 
which  was  supported  by  the  All  Canada  in- 
surance group,  which  was  supported  by  the 
lawyers,  which  was  supported  by  everjone 
who  came  in  contact  with  it  except  one 
gentleman,  Irwin  Haskett,  who  happened  at 
that  time  to  be  the  Minister  of  Highways  or 
the  Minister  of  Transport.  Somehow  it  be- 
came his  responsibility  as  to  whether  or  not 
we  were  going  to  have  the  system  of  no- 
fault  that  the  committee  recommended  along 
with  a  great  number  of  other  recommenda- 
tions. 

It  took  about  seven  years,  and  really  the 
departure  of  Mr.  Haskett  from  this  Legis- 
lature, for  the  recommendations  of  the  com- 
mittee to  be  implemented  in  full  and  they 
brought  about  a  very  considerably  improved 
system  of  automobile  insurance,  t  said  the 
recommendations  were  implemented  in  full; 
they  weren't  implemented  in  full  but  the 
substantial   majority  of  them   were. 

The  time  obviously  has  come,  because  of 
all  of  this  talk  about  insurance,  to  have  an- 
other look  at  it.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  govern- 
ment or  the  then  minister  commissioned  a 
group,  David  McWilhams  and  Thomas  Bell- 
were  there  only  two?  I  thought  there  was  a 
group— to  study  insurance  claims  and  it  was 
called  the  minister's  committee  on  insurance 
claims. 

They  brought  forward  a  report  which  they 
dated  August  25,  1972,  and  they  made  it 
available  to  the  present  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  of  Cabinet  (Mr.  Wink- 
ler) who  was  then  the  Minister  of  Financial 
and  Commercial  Affairs.  By  the  time  it  came 
forward  I  think  the  present  minister  had 
the  responsibility,  and  rather  than  make  this 
report  available  to  us,  the  members  of  the 
Legislature— and  I  think  it  is  a  good  report 
—we    were    told    about   its    recommendations. 

'Mr.  McWilliams  is  a  very  capable  man 
and  he  pulled  no  punches  at  all  when  he 
uTOte  about  this  report.  Thomas  A.  Bell, 
who  is  well  known  again  to  many  members 
of  this  Legislature,  joined  in  the  report.  We 
saw  the  recommendations  and  it  took  three 
months— more,  about  six  months— of  battling 
in  the  House  to  be  able  to  get  hold  of  the 
report;  and  there  it  is.  There  are  300-odd 
pages  in  this  report  dealing  with  recom- 
mendations  made   by   McWilliams   and   Bell 


about  how  the  system  of  automobile  insur- 
ance can  be  improved.  Nothing  has  been 
done,  Mr.  Speaker.  Not  a  thing  has  been 
done  to  implement  any  of  these  recom- 
mendations at  all. 

Mr.  Stokes:  They  didn't  even  tighten  up  on 
the  adjusters. 

Mr.  Singer:  Not  a  thing.  Well,  that's  one 
report.  There  is  a  stack  of  documents,  Mr. 
Speaker— it  nms  now  about  2  ft  high  —  about 
what  might  or  might  not  be  done.  That's 
the  second  one. 

There  is  available,  and  it  has  been  put  in 
the  hands  of  the  minister,  the  transcript  of 
the  hearings  of  the  Advocates'  Society  to 
which  I  referred  earlier,  which  took  place 
on  Friday,  Feb.  8.  The  minister  has  a  copy 
of  that  volume  and  it  is  available  for  reading. 

Then,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  the  latest 
document  which  was  tabled  in  this  House 
yesterday.  That  is  the  report  of  the  Ontario 
Law  Reform  Commission  on  motor  vehicle 
accident  compensation.  It  is  a  radical  report; 
it  is  a  very  different  report.  The  report 
admits  that  the  system  the  Law  Reform 
Commission  is  putting  forward  does  not 
exist  in  any  common  law  jurisdiction.  They 
are  a  very  efficient  group  and  their  research 
was  done  well;  they  talk  about  New  Zealand 
law,  and  law  in  the  other  provinces  of 
Canada,  and  English  law,  and  law  in  various 
jurisdictions  in  the  United  States. 

What,  in  essence,  they  are  now  recom- 
mending is  that  the  whole  system  of  motor 
vehicle  accident  compensation  be  taken  out 
of  the  courts  completely.  That  there  be  no 
right  to  go  to  court  if  you're  injured  in  an 
automobile  accident,  but  that  if  you  are  in- 
jured you  will  be  given  payments  in  ac- 
cordance with  a  fixed  scale.  That  there  will 
no  longer  be  damages  for  pain  and  suffering. 
That  there  v^all  no  longer  be  questions  of 
who  was  at  fault.  That  everyone  who  Was 
injm-ed  should  be  compensated  and  they 
should  be  compensated  for  their  financial 
loss  and  their  financial  loss  only. 

The  report  makes  very,  very  interesting 
reading.  I  think  the  time  has  come  now  to 
have  a  discussion  in  this  Legislature,  or  by 
a  committee  of  this  Legislature,  along  with 
members  of  the  public,  to  see  which  way 
we  are  going  to  go  in  this.  Whether  or  not 
the  Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission  idea 
that  we  deal  with  motor  vehicle  accident 
compensation  in  the  same  method  that  We 
deal  with  workmen's  compensation  is  a  good 
idea  or  not,  certainly  remains  to  be  seen.  I 
have    very    substantial    reservations    about    a 


APRIL  5,  1974 


829 


number  of  the  recommendations  in  the  re- 
port. 

The  Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission 
hedges  on  whether  or  not  its  new  plan,  if  it 
comes  into  l)eing,  should  be  done  by  a  pub- 
lic body— by  the  government— or  be  done  by 
a  pri\ate  lx)dy— the  insurance  companies.  1 
think  that  kind  of  thing  deserves  a  very 
thorough  examination  and  some  kind  of  a 
decision  from  the  government  of  the  people 
of   Ontario. 

What  is  obvious  immediately,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, is  that  all  of  the  things  that  have  been 
discussed  in  the  present  concern  about  auto- 
mobile insurance,  certainly  has  to  indicate 
to  any  alert  person  that  there  is  something 
wrong  with  the  system  of  insurance.  Why 
does  the  Law  Reform  Commission  write  a 
volume  like  that  and  make  these  sugges- 
tions if  it  hasn't  concluded  there's  some- 
thing wrong?  And  the  Advocates  Society  and 
the  minister's  committee  on  insurance  claims 
and  many  other  people.  Well,  there  are 
things  wrong,  Mr.  Speaker;  there's  no  ques- 
tion in  the  world  there  are  many,  many 
things    wrong. 

The  concept  of  gross  negligence  goes  back 
into  the  dark  ages.  If  a  gratuitous  passenger 
is  injured  in  an  automobile,  to  get  at  his 
own  driver  —  and  it's  really  not  his  own 
driver,  it's  his  own  driver's  insurer— he  has 
to  be  able  to  establish  his  own  driver  was 
not  ordinarily  negligent  but  was  grossly 
negligent.  Why  we  continue  to  have  that 
concept  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  nobody 
has  been  able  to  explain. 

The  president  of  the  Treasury  Board  said 
two  years  ago  when  he  had  the  responsi- 
bility: "We'll  take  it  out."  Well,  it's  still 
there.  The  select  committee  that  I  talked 
about  in  1961,  1962,  1963,  said:  "Take  it 
out."  But  it's  still  there.  It's  unfair.  It's  un- 
reasonable. It's  illogical.  But  the  concept  of 
gross  negligence  still  remains  as  a  part  of 
Ontario  law. 

Liability  periods.  I  don't  know  why  the 
lawyers  are  so  happy  to  see,  or  somebody 
keeps  being  so  happy  to  see  limitation 
periods  put  into  statutes.  Limitation  periods 
can  often  work  very,  very  serious  hardships. 
Let  me  tell  you  about  a  case  that  I'm  in- 
volved in  as  a  solicitor. 

I'm  acting  for  a  passenger,  a  gratuitous 
passenger,  who  was  very  seriously  injured 
in  an  automobile  accident.  He  initiated  pro- 
ceedings within  the  one-year  period.  Out  of 
that  one  accident,  seven  lawsuits  have 
grown  up;  they're  about  to  be  tried  fairly 
soon.     The    argument    is    going    to    revolve 


around  gross  negligence,  ordinary  negligence 
and   that  sort  of  thing. 

There  were  three  people  in  the  front  seat 
of  the  car,  the  dri\(*r  and  two  passengers. 
The  two  passengers  were  very,  very  serious- 
ly injured;  the  second  passenger  didn't 
realize  that  he  was  stuck  within  the  limita- 
tion period  and  he  didn't  seek  legal  advice 
until  one  week  after  the  limitation  period 
had  expired.  He  was  told,  as  he  had  to  l)e 
told,  that  he  was  out  of  luck.  If  he  had  a 
valid  claim  he  no  longer  was  in  a  position 
to  assert  it. 

Mind  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  accident  had 
given  rise  to  five  different  lawsuits.  The 
courts  are  about  to  determine  who  was  at 
fault  and  how  much  is  going  to  be  paid 
and  to  whom.  One  gentleman  who  was  in- 
volved in  the  accident,  who  was  seriously 
injured  and  who  wasn't  aware  of  the  limi- 
tation period,  is  just  cut  right  out  of  the 
picture   completely. 

Does  that  make  any  sense?  It  doesn't  to 
me.  Surely  the  time  has  come  to  do  some- 
thing about  the  limitation  period. 

These  suggestions  I'm  making  now  are 
things  that  can  be  done  immediately,  but 
there  is  a  long-term  view  and  a  long-term 
approach  to  what  we  should  do  about  auto- 
mobile insurance. 

'The  question  of  insurance  company  sub- 
rogation in  property  claims  is  a  technical 
thing;  but  it  is  a  nuisance,  it  is  ridiculous 
and  I  think  it  should  be  eliminated. 

On  the  question  of  rate  control,  Mr. 
Speaker,  you  are  probably  aware  that  sec- 
tion 367  of  the  Insurance  Act,  which  has 
been  on  the  statute  books  for  over  30  years 
and  gives  power  to  the  government  of  On- 
tario to  control  insurance  rates,  remains  still 
unproclaimed  today.  You  may  be  aware  as 
well  that  committees  of  this  Legislature,  in- 
cluding the  select  committee  I've  talked 
about,  strongly  recommended  that  it  be  pro- 
claimed. 

You  may  be  aware,  sir,  that  many  members 
in  this  House  have  indicated  from  time  to 
time  that  the  government  surely  has  some 
responsibility  to  look  into,  to  inquire  about 
and  to  have  something  to  do  with  and  about 
insurance  rates  and  the  various  inequities 
that  they  produce. 

There  is  no  point  in  giving  a  long  list  of 
these  inequities  at  the  moment.  The  fact  is 
that  we  have  an  unproclaimed  section  of  the 
Insurance  Act,  section  367,  which  is  still 
unproclaimed  after  30  years  on  our  statute 
books,  and  we  don't  have  an  adequate  staff 
in  the  department  of  insurance  that  can  in- 


830 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


telligently  examine  and  comment  upon  insur- 
ance rates. 

In  this  time  of  rapidly  increasing  costs  and 
runaway  inflation,  Mr.  Speaker,  surely  the 
government  should  be  turning  its  attention  to 
things  which  it  can  control.  Surely  we  are 
entitled  to  hear  the  opinions  of  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr. 
Clement)  and  of  his  officials,  based  on  ade- 
quate research,  and  the  opinions  of  actuaries 
and  so  on  as  to  whether  or  not  the  insurance 
rates  that  people  in  Ontario  pay  are  reason- 
able and  fair,  or  whether  or  not  they  add 
substantially  to  insurance  company  profits. 

When  we  get  the  old  saw  that  the  under- 
writing costs  balance  off  the  premium  profits, 
when  we  get  no  explanation  as  to  why  these 
people  stay  in  business  if  they  are  losing 
money  every  year,  when  we  get  no  explana- 
tion as  to  why  the  companies  don't  add  in 
their  investment  income  as  part  of  their  over- 
all financial  position  and  why  they  don't  add 
in  interest  on  prepaid  premiums,  the  time 
has  come  that  the  government  of  Ontario 
should  begin  to  have  an  authoritative  opinion 
and  exercise  some  control  over  insurance 
rates  in  this  province. 

On  the  question  of  who  is  responsible  for 
the  mechanical  condition  of  the  vehicle,  I 
think  there  should  be  a  simple  statutory  pro- 
vision  to   make   the   owner   responsible. 

The  question  of  compulsory  insurance  is 
a  small  thing  in  view  of  the  percentage  of 
people  in  Ontario  who  remain  uninsured, 
but  there  are  still  about  70,000  people  in 
Ontario  who  we  allow  to  drive  on  the  roads 
uninsured.  Why  should  anybody  be  allowed 
to  drive  on  the  roads  and  not  be  insured? 
Why  shouldn't  automobile  insurance  be 
compulsory?  Why  can't  we  do  some  of  those 
things    right    now? 

iThen  there's  the  whole  question  of  deal- 
ing with  claims:  Speed,  cost,  delay,  harass- 
ment, adjusters,  repair  services— all  of  these 
things  have  got  to  come  under  government 
review  and  government  control.  Why  can't 
we  do  it  now?  Why  can't  we  establish  all- 
industry  drive-in  claim  centres  similar  to 
those  in  government-run  insurance  provinces 
so  that  vehicle  damage  can  be  quickly  ap- 
praised and  settled?  What  would  be  hard 
about  that? 

Well,  those  are  a  few  suggestions  about 
what  might  be  done  immediately,  Mr. 
Speaker.  This  is  a  problem  that  is  going  to  be 
ever  with  us,  and  if  the  government  continues 
to  just  get  reports  and  to  turn  its  back  on 
suggestions,  well  it's  just  causing  more  grief 
and  more  difficulty  for  the  people  of  Ontario. 
There  is  a  strong  segment  of  the  population 


of  Ontario  which  believes  that  the  govern- 
ment should  run  all  the  automobile  insurance. 
The  industry  is  finally  beginning  to  flex  its 
muscles.  There  are  legal  critics,  like  James 
Chalmers  McRuer,  former  Chief  Justice  of 
the  High  Court,  who  say:  "Take  all  automo- 
bile litigation  out  of  the  courts."  There's  ai> 
argument  against  that. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  message  I  am  trying  to 
get  through  to  government  is  this,  let  us  in 
this  session  of  this  Legislature  have  some  of 
the  changes  that  are  obvious,  some  of  the 
changes  that  McWilliams  put  forward,  some 
of  the  suggestions  that  I  made  today.  Tliat 
can  be  done  within  the  present  knowledge  of 
the  government.  It  can  be  done  and  no  one 
is  going  to  object  to  it.  But  then,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  time  has  come  to  really  get  to  grips  with 
this  situation. 

If  we  can  establish  select  committees  on 
drainage  and  on  snowmobiles  and  on  the  use 
of  schools,  surely  we  could  establish  a  select 
committee  on  automobile  insurance?  Surely 
then  we  could  begin  to  get  some  feeling  from 
all  sorts  of  people— the  public,  insurance 
people,  the  bosses  who  run  and  own  the 
companies,  the  adjusters,  the  agents,  and  then 
there  is  the  Legislature— about  which  direc- 
tion we  might  move  in. 

Those  people  are  available  to  us. 
McWilliams  is  available  to  us  and  the  Law 
Reform  Commission  is  available  to  us  and 
the  lawyers  certainly  are  not  going  to  be 
backward  about  coming  forward  in  this.  There 
is  a  suggestion  that  the  lawyers  have  a  vested 
interest  in  the  continuing  of  negligence 
actions  before  the  courts— and  perhaps  there 
is  some  validity  in  that  suggestion— and  that 
the  lawyers  are  going  to  fight  very  hard  to 
prevent  the  recommendations  of  the  Law 
Reform  Commission  being  carried  out  in  their 
entirety. 

But  the  lawyers  really  aren't  the  only  test 
in  this.  What  I  am  urging  the  government 
to  do  is,  now  that  we  have  more  reports  than 
we  know  what  to  do  with,  we  start  a  mean- 
ingful public  inquiry  that  hopefully  is  going 
to  chart  our  course  for  the  next  six  or  eight 
or  10  or  a  dozen  years  in  the  future. 

That's  all  I  wanted  to  say  about  automobile 
insurance. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  That  was  very  good. 

Mr.  Singer:  Pardon? 

Mr.  Lawlor:   That  was  very  good. 

Mr.  Singer:  Thank  you. 
Mr.  Speaker,  do  I  understand  His  Honour 
is  coming  in? 


APRIL  5,  1974 


831 


Mr.   Speaker:    Yes. 

Mr.  Singer:  What  time?  Do  you  want  me  to 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  debate  now? 
I  have  another  topic. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Not  quite  yet. 

Mr.  Singer:  All  right.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want 
to  talk  for  a  while  about  inflation.  I  suppose 
I  have  become  more  and  more  incensed  about 
what  is  happening  in  this  province  as  I  sit 
and  listen  to  the  fatuous  statements  that 
come  from  the  treasury  benches,  particularly 
the  ones  dealing  with  gasoline,  fuel  oil  in- 
creases and  so  on. 

An  hon.  member:  Name  them. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  couldn't  help  but  think,  Mr. 
Speaker,  when  I  saw  the  Prime  Minister  of 
Canada  and  the  10  other  smiling  gnomes 
emerge  from  the  conference  room  in  Ottawa 
saying:  "Look  what  good  little  boys  we  are. 
We  are  only  going  to  raise  your  gas  prices  10 
cents  a  gallon.  Aren't  you  lucky?  It  might 
have  been  20";  that  somewhere  along  the  line 
we  have  all  gone  crazy. 

We  get  the  Premier,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
we  get  the  hon.  Minister  of  Energy 
standing  up  and  saying,  "Hurray,  hurray, 
hurray,  we  are  wonderful."  And  the  Premier, 
in  one  moment  of  great  magnanimity  said: 
"Even  Pierre  Trudeau  wasn't  bad  that  day." 
And  1  thought,  what  else  did  we  need  in 
Canada  and  in  Ontario  to  make  it  a  great 
place  to  live  other  than  Davis  saying  that 
Trudeau  wasn't  bad  that  day. 

But  what  happened  to  the  people  by  reason 
of  these  decisions?  Fuel  oil  has  gone  up  10 
cents— well,  we  are  not  quite  sure.  The 
member  for  Chatham-Kent  (Mr.  McKeough) 
wasn't  really  able  to  give  us  any  figures.  He 
was  great  on  windmills  this  morning,  but 
pretty  bad  on  gasoline  prices.  Gasoline  prices 
affect  a  few  more  people  than  the  windmills 
that  he  was  talking  about,  and  yet  we  got 
very  little  information. 

There  was  an  incident  here  in  the  House 
the  other  evening,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  East— Scarborough 
West? 

Mr.  Stokes:  West. 

Mr.  Singer:  Scarborough  West  (Mr.  Lewis) 
—had  addressed  a  question  at  question  period 
to  the  Premier.  The  member  was  dissatified 
with  the  Premier's  answer  and  resorted  to  the 
procedure  available  under  the  rules  to  arrange 
a  debate  on  Tuesday  evening  at  the  hour  of 
10:30.  The  Premier  wasn't  able  to  come  back 
and  join  in  that  debate,  and  apparently  some- 


body suggested  or  directed  that  the  member 
for  Chatham-Kent  come  here. 

I  thought  the  memlx;r  for  Scarlx)rough 
West  made  a  very  reastmable,  logical  and 
intelligent  presentation  at  the  hour  of  10:.30 
on  that  point.  What  shocked  me,  Mr.  Speaker, 
was  the  reply  from  the  member  for  Chatham- 
Kent.  First  of  all,  he  complained  al>out  hav- 
ing to  come  from  the  theatre  to  this  place 
to  indulge  in  the  debate.  I  thought  it  was  just 
too  bad  that  his  valuable  theatre  time  should 
be  taken  up  to  participate  in  the  affairs  of  the 
Legi.slature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Well,  they  are  somewhat 
superfluous, 

Mr.  Singer:  He  got  caught  up  with  a  little 
heckling  as  a  result  of  that  intelligent  open- 
ing remark.  The  barracking  got  fairly  heavy 
and  he  quit  in  midstream.  Well,  it's  obvious 
that  he  had  no  answer. 

iBut  surely,  Mr,  Speaker,  we  can  begin  to 
hear  somewhere  and  from  somebody  what 
kind  of  effect  these  agreements  and  plans 
and  raises  and  prices  are  going  to  have  on 
the  people  of  Ontario, 

It  isn't  enough  to  hear  speeches  like  those 
we've  heard- the  one  that  preceded  mine  this 
morning:  "Ontario  is  great  and  if  only  those 
guys  in  Ottawa  would  do  something  the 
world  would  be  fine,"  Or  the  Premier  throw- 
ing his  hands  up  the  other  day  and  saying: 
"Inflation  is  world-wide.  If  that  Isn't  good 
enough  for  you,  it's  all  Ottawa's  fault.  If 
you  are  talking  about  price  and  wage  con- 
trols, I  don't  believe  in  it.  If  you  are  going 
to  see  what  we  are  going  to  do,  wait— you 
will  see  it  in  the  budget." 

Well,  we've  seen  many  budgets,  and  the 
last  one  sticks  in  my  mind.  The  Treasurer 
told  us  to  put  on  our  sweaters  and  to  turn 
down  the  thermostats  and  the  world  would  be 
fine.    That  didn't  help  very  many  people. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Just  the  beginning  of  it, 

Mr.  Singer:  I  talked  about  housing  prices 
earlier  this  morning.  Rent  is  going  up.  Fuel 
oil  is  going  up.  Everything  is  going  up.  I've 
got  some  figures  here.  The  latest  figures  from 
Statistics  Canada  show  in  one  >ear,  from 
February,  1973,  to  February,  1974,  dairy 
products  have  increased  by  seven  per  cent; 
these  aren't  just  the  other  day's  headlines, 
either.  Butter  went  up  six  cents  a  pound  just 
the  other  day. 

Ice  cream,  skim  milk,  cereal  and  baker) 
products  have  increased  20.5  per  cent;  beef, 
25.2  per  cent;  pork,  13.1  per  cent;  miscel- 
laneous meats,  23.7  per  cent;  poultr)-,  34.5 


832 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


per  cent;  fish,  33.7  per  cent;  eggs,  26.2  per 
cent;  fresh  fruit,  26.9  per  cent;  canned  fruit, 
15.8  per  cent;  fresh  vegetables,  7.4  per  cent; 
canned  vegetables,  13.7  per  cent;  frozen  food, 

10.1  per  cent;  miscellaneous  groceries,  8.2 
per  cent;  sugar,  71.6  per  cent;  honey,  47.4 
per  cent;  peanut  butter,  29  per  cent;  food 
away  from  home,  restaurant  meals  and  so  on, 

17.2  per  cent. 

Wliat  a  terrible,  terrible  tale,  Mr.  Speaker. 
What  are  we  getting?  We  are  getting  the 
Minister  of  Energy  smiling  all  his  way  out 
of  the  theatre  and  grumbling  up  here.  We 
are  getting  the  Premier  saying  "it's  interna- 
tional," or  "those  guys  in  Ottawa  are  pick- 
ing on  us."  He  says:  "Wait  for  the  budget. 
There  will  be  good  news  in  the  budget." 
I  don't  believe  it.  I  don't  believe  it. 

I  don't  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  have 
wandered  through  a  supermarket  in  recent 
weeks— but  do  it.  Do  it  perhaps  over  this 
weekend.  No?  Well,  look  at  the  faces  of  the 
women  who  have  gone  to  do  their  week's 
shopping  —  good,  ordinary  Ontario  residents 
who  have  gone  to  the  store  to  do  their  shop- 
ping, and  notice  the  look  of  horror  on  their 
faces  as  they  go  from  bin  to  bin  and  look  at 
the  newest  price  tags.  They  know  how  much 
money  they  have  in  their  pocket  and  they 
are  wondering,  "How  am  I  ever  going  to  be 
able  to  buy  food  to  feed  my  husband  and 
my  children  next  week?" 

What  are  we  getting?  We  are  getting  the 
smiling  gnomes  emerging  from  Ottawa.  And 
I  don't  apologize  for  or  excuse  the  federal 
people  any  more  than  I  apologize  for  or 
excuse  the  provincial  people,  because  Ottawa 
is  not  doing  anything  to  control  inflation— 
nor  is  Queen's  Park.  But  I  am  sent  here  by 
my  voters  to  talk  at  Queen's  Park  and  I  think 
that  there  are  things  that  can  be  done  here 
within  the  Province  of  Ontario  that  are  going 
to  begin  to  control  this  and  give  some  of  the 
people  of  Ontario  some  kind  of  a  break. 

Let's  look  at  the  kind  of  profits  that  are 
originating  in  corporations  who  seem  to  be 
able  to  sell  food  products,  oil  products,  furni- 
ture products,  department  store  products  — 
whatever  it  is,  corporate  profits  go  up  and 
up  and  up. 

There  doesn't  seem  to  me  to  be  any  valid 
reason  why  we  can't  look  most  seriously  at 
the  usefulness  of  writeoffs,  the  usefulness  of 
depletion  reserves,  the  usefulness  of  the  cor- 
porate tax  arm  that  we  have,  and  no  longer 
be  frightened  about  the  kind  of  threats  that 
are  being  hurled  at  us. 

It  isn't  enough  for  a  Minister  of  Housing 
to  say,  "Maybe  it  is  not  nice  for  people  to 


make  lots  of  money  on  land,  and  if  you  don't 
stop  we  might  do  something  about  it."  Why 
don't  we  do  something  about  profits  on  land? 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  They're 
the   biggest  profiteers. 

Mr.  Singer:  Why  don't  we  do  something 
about  the  inordinate  profits  that  the  oil  com- 
panies are  making?  Gulf  Oil's  profits  went  up 
by  360  per  cent.  Here  comes  the  Premier 
now.  What  is  he  going  to  do  about  the 
profits  of  these  companies?  What  is  he  going 
to  do  about  the  cost  of  living?  What  is  he 
going  to  do  about  runaway  inflation? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Elect  Bob 
Stanfield. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  I  don't  think  that  is  even 
within  the  Premier's  power— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Singer:  —because  he  is  going  to  be  so 
busy  looking  behind  him  to  try  to  hold  a  few 
seats  over  there  at  the  next  election.  He  has 
enough  work  to  do  without  worrying  about 
Bob  Stanfield. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Listen,  the  Liberal  Party 
in  this  province  will  lose,  without  any  question 
whatsoever. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  am  sorry  that  the  Premier 
has  only  come  back  now,  because  I  did  have 
some  choice  remarks  for  him;  and  I  gather 
the  arrival  of  the  Premier  has  nothing  to  do 
with  my  remarks,  that  he  has  come  to  see 
His  Honour. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  hate  to— 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  I  would  commend  to  the 
Premier,  for  his  weekend  reading  the  instant 
copy  of  Hansard,  because  some  of  the  things 
I  have  said  may  strike  a  harmonious  chord- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Singer:  —and  maybe  we  can  get  some 
laws  that  are  going  to  help  the  people  of 
Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  There  have  been  things 
—like  libraries;  we  always  agreed  on  that. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  talked  for 
a  considerable  period  of  time.  I  have  come  to 
the  conclusion  of  the  remarks  that  I  thought 
I  should  put  before  the  House  at  this  time. 


APRIL  5,  1974 


833 


I  hope  that  the  government  will  do  something 
about  some  of  the  suggestions  I  have  put 
forward. 

But  beyond  doubt  the  most  serious  prob- 
lems facing  the  people  of  the  Province  of 
Ontario  are  the  cost  of  living  and  inflation. 
Unless  we  come  to  grips  with  these  kinds  of 
problems— and  I  am  not  a  soothsayer— I  think 
somebody  is  going  to  arrive  on  the  political 
scene,  wnether  they  be  of  the  far  left  or  the 
far  right,  who  is  going  to  promise  ridiculous 
and  untoward  solutions.  And  the  people  are 
going  to  be  so  fed  up  with  the  fatuous 
speeches  and  the  do-nothing  promises  that 
somewhere  along  the  line  we  are  going  to 
get  a  kind  of  government  that  will  take  over 
the  political  system  and  not  bother  to  con- 
sult any  more. 

If  the  democratic  system  is  worth  preserv- 
ing, it  is  time  that  the  Premier  and  his  col- 
leagues paid  a  little  real  attention  to  the 
major  problem  that  faces  the  people  of 
Ontario;  and  that  is,  how  are  they  going  to 
live  on  their  present  income.  How  are  they 
going  to  buy  houses,  food,  gas  and  whatever 
else  they  need?  Unless  we  can  do  some- 
thing about  that,  we  are  all  in  big  trouble 
—the  democratic  process  is  in  big  trouble. 

It  isn't  enough  to  hear  some  of  the  things 
we  have  been  hearing.  We  want  some  action. 
We  have  been  here  a  month  now,  just  a 
month,  and  there  hasn't  been  one  important 
statute  yet  brought  forward  by  government. 
Speeches  galore,  but  not  one  important 
statute.  The  government  has  a  responsi- 
bility and  a  duty  to  do  something  for  the 
people  of  Ontario- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  A  waste  of  time. 
Mr.  Singer:  —and  we  haven't  seen  it  yet. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member  for 
Dovmsview  would  like  to  move  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  debate. 

Mr.  Singer  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Honour- 
able the  Lieutenant  Governor  awaits  without 
to  give  assent  to  certain  bills. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
of  Ontario  entered  the  chamber  of  the  legis- 
lative assembly  and  took  his  seat  upon  the 
throne. 


ROYAL  ASSENT 

Hon.  W.  Ross  Macdonald  (Lieutenant 
Governor):    Pray   l)e  seated. 

Mr.  Speaker:  May  it  please  Your  Honour, 
the  legislative  assembly  of  the  province  has, 
at  its  present  sittings  thereof,  passed  certain 
bills  to  which,  in  the  name  of  and  on  behalf 
of  the  said  legislative  assembly.  I  respect- 
fully request  Your  Honour's  assent. 

The  Cleric  Assistant:  The  following  are 
the  titles  of  the  bills  to  which  Your  Honour's 
assent  is  prayed: 

Bill  1,  An  Act  to  ameiKl  the  University 
Expropriation   Powers   Act. 

Bill  13,  the  Regional  Municipalities 
Amendment   Act,    1974. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  In  Her  Majesty's 
name,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor doth  assent  to  these  bills. 

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

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
fore I  move  the  adjournment  of  the  House, 
I  would  like  to  say  that  an  agreement  has 
been  reached  to  sit  on  Monday  morning  at 
10  o'clock.  We  will  break  for  the  lunch  hour 
at  12,  and  reconvene  for  orders  at  2  p.m.  I 
would  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  ter- 
minate the  general  debate  possibly  by  9  or 
9:30  Monday  evening,  giving  the  windup 
speakers  a  half  hour  each  before  the  votes 
are  called.  I  think  we  can  allow  that  to  re- 
main somewhat  fluid  to  take  care  ^f  who- 
ever happens  to  have  the  floor  at  that  par- 
ticular  time. 

I  would  hope  that  is  agreeable  to  my  col- 
leagues  across   the   floor. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  pleased  that  the  House  leader 
has  made  this  suggestion.  It  will  l^e  certainly 
useful,  by  an  earlier  sitting  on  Monday,  to 
allow  additional  members  to  enter  the  :lo- 
bate  and  perhaps  if  we  also  Jecide  ;o  ut 
through  the  supper  hour  at  that  time  there 
may  be  another  six  or  eight  speakers  uho 
will  get  this  opportunity. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  suggest  at  this  point 
that  there  may  be  some  useful  exchange 
that  could  occur  if  the  rules  committee  were 
to  meet  to  discuss  the  participation  of  mem- 
bers in  the  various  debates.  Mr.  Speaker, 
as  you  are  aware  of  course,  it  is  the  right 
of  every  speaker  who  enters  the  debate  to 
speak  for  as  long  a  time  as  he  or  she  may 
choose.  I  think,  though,  that  we  ha\e  had 
five  of  our  colleagues  who  have  used  up  a 


834 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


goodly  portion  of  time,  as  is  their  right,  and 
it  may  be  that  some  consideration  could  be 
given  to  the  members  of  the  House  coming 
to  some  agreement  as  to  the  length  of 
speeches  within  the  Throne  Speech  and 
budget  debates;  that  is,  of  course,  with  the 
exceptions  of  the  leadoflF  speeches  and  the 
windup  speeches  of  the  respective  parties. 

I  think  we  would  serve  ourselves  well  if 
we  gave  some  consideration  to  that  point, 
as  well  as  perhaps  using  the  occasional 
Wednesday,  if  the  occasion  did  come  up,  to 
carry  on  with  Throne  Speech  debate  earlier 
in  the  usual  month  that  passes  between  the 
opening  of  the  House  and  the  presentation 
of  the  budget. 

With  those  comments,  which  perhaps  may 
be  of  use  to  consider  in  the  future,  I  cer- 
tainly thank  and  commend  the  goverimient 
House  leader  for  accommodating  the  oppo- 
sition  in   this   matter,   and   I   hope   that   all 


those  who  wish  to  enter  the  debate  will  get 
the  opportunity  to  do  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  cer- 
tainly if  we  find  ourselves  confronted  with 
the  situation,  at  6  p.m.  on  Monday,  that 
there  are  sufficient  speakers  remaining  who 
desire  to  speak,  we  will  sit  through  the  din- 
ner hour. 

I  would  also  just  say  that  historically  in 
the  Ontario  Legislature  it  apparently  has 
not  been  traditional  to  place  time  constraints 
or  limitations  on  the  speakers.  However,  It 
does  have  some  appeal,  in  that  a  larger 
number  of  members  would  be  accommo- 
dated and  we  will  have  a  look  at  that  as 
this   session  progresses. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjourn- 
ment  of  the   House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1  o'clock,  p.m. 


APRIL  5,  1974  835 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  April  5,  1974 

Minaki  Lodge,  statement  by  Mr.  Bennett  800 

Corporation  income  tax  paid  by   oil   companies  to  province,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis: 

Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon  800 

Restoration  of  Old  Fort  William,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr  Foulds  801 

Restructuring  of  Renfrew  county,  questions  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  803 

Oil  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough  and  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Bullbrook  804 

Toronto  Real   Estate   Board  property  sales  news  blackout,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement: 

Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  806 

Rent  increases,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  B.  Newman  807 

Commum'ty  use  of  schools,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  807 

Wind  energy  seminar,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Burr  809 

Vehicles  on  consignment,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Edighoffer  810 

Freight  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Sargent  810 

Ontario  Racing  Commission,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Lawlor  811 

Federal  bank  legislation,  questions  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Givens  811 

Lake  of  the  Woods  District  Hospital  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Maeck,  first  reading  812 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Drea,  Mr.  Singer  813 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Singer,  agreed  to  833 

Royal  assent  to  certain  bills,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  833 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  834 


No.  21 


Ontario 


Hcgisilature  of  (J^ntario 


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


Monday,  April  8, 1974 

Morning  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


839 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  o'clock,  a.m. 

Prayers 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  understand  that  routine  pro- 
ceedings, inchiding  question  period,  will  pro- 
ceed at  2  o'clock,  so  we'll  call  for  orders  of 
the  day  now. 

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

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  ( Dovvoisview ) :  Mr. 
Speaker,  it's  approximately  four  years  since  I 
was  asking  for  the  resignation  of  George 
Spence,  who  was  then  the  Provincial  Auditor. 
One  of  the  main  reasons  I  was  asking  for  his 
resignation  was  the  fact  that  the  audit  reports 
we  were  getting  regularly  from  him  were 
pale,  thin,  unexpressive  volumes  which  con- 
tained hardly  any  criticism  at  all  of  the 
handling  of  the  finances  of  the  Province  of 
Ontario  by  the  government  of  Ontario,  by  the 
various  governmental  departments  and  by  the 
agencies  of  the  Crown. 

One  of  the  more  fatuous  answers  that  was 
forthcoming  from  the  Treasury  benches  was 
that  the  reports  were  not  elaborate  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  the  handling  of  Ontario's 
financial  affairs  was  far  better  than  the  han- 
dling of  the  affairs  of  the  government  of 
Canada  and  there  was  really  nothing  called 
for  in  criticism;  that  any  comparison  anyone 
might  have  wanted  to  draw  between  the  kind 
of  reporting  done  here  in  Ontario  and  the 
kind  of  reporting  done  in  Ottawa  by  Maxwell 
Henderson,  was  only  because  Henderson  was 
able  to  rout  out  those  terrible  practices  up 
in  Ottawa;  all  the  good  Tory  practices  here 
in  Ontario  were  fine  and  there  was  nothing  to 
complain  about. 

For  whatever  reason,  the  criticism  of  Mr. 
Spence's   activities  mounted.  The  public  ac- 


MoNDAY,  April  8,  1974 

counts  committee  had  a  very  good  look  at 
some  of  the  things,  and  in  due  course  Mr. 
Spence  went  on  his  way  before  retirement 
age.  He  was  replaced  by  Mr.  Richard  Groom; 
and  the  first  report  following  that  event,  al- 
though signed  by  Spence,  was  authored  by 
Groom.  For  the  first  time— certainly  in  my 
experience  here  in  the  Legislature— there  was 
a  real  effort  made  to  draw  to  the  attention  of 
the  members  of  the  Legislature,  and  to  the 
members  of  the  public,  discrepancies,  errors, 
and  sometimes  worse,  in  regard  to  the 
handling  of  the  public  moneys  of  the  Province 
of  Ontario. 

One  of  the  real  criticisms  that  was  set  out— 
and  we  are  all  familiar  with  it— was  the  recital 
of  the  fact  of  the  use  of  aeroplanes  by  various 
members  of  government.  That  certainly  had  a 
salutary  effect.  Even  the  Premier  ( Mr.  Davis ) 
decided  that  the  time  had  come  when  he 
should  switch  from  using  government  planes 
at  government  expense  and  resort  to  commer- 
cial airlines  when  he  was  going  off  on  personal 
business  together  with  his  family. 

Mr.  Groom  seemed  to  have  made  a  note- 
worthy debut  and  we  were  quite  pleased 
that  this  kind  of  investigation  was  going  to 
be  carried  on  and  pursued  with  some  zeal 
and  some  vigour.  Unfortunately,  Mr.  Speaker, 
a  tragic  accident  took  place  in  July,  1973;  Mr. 
Groom  was  killed  as  the  result  of  a  motor 
vehicle  collision,  and  a  vacancy  was  created 
in  the  position  of  Provincial  Auditor. 

This  vacancy  continued  to  exist  for  some 
seven  months,  despite  the  criticism  in  the 
Legislature  and  outside  by  myself  and  others 
to  the  effect  the  government,  in  allowing  the 
vacancy  to  continue,  and  the  office  to  be 
carried  by  Mr.  Scott  as  acting  Provincial 
Auditor,  was  creating  a  system  whereby  the 
acting  incumbent  was  being  denied  the  secur- 
ity of  tenure  and  independence  guaranteed 
the  Provincial  Auditor  by  statute,  and  that  it 
was  possible  that  any  person  in  that  position 
would  be  somewhat  less  than  brave  in  hi.s 
criticism  of  government  before  he  was  made 
secure  in  his  position.  This  was  referred  to 
in  some  detail  in  an  article  written  by  Bob 
Miller  in  the  Star  after  he  and  I  had  discussed 
this  very  point. 


840 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Unfortunately,  Mr.  Speaker,  my  worst  fears 
were  confirmed.  The  auditor's  report  for  the 
fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1973,  is  dated 
and  was  signed  by  Mr.  F.  N.  Scott  on  Nov. 
30,  1973,  and  was  tabled  in  the  Legislature 
on  March  6,  1974. 

Mr.  Scott  was  formally  appointed  Provin- 
cial Auditor  and  given  his  security  of  tenure 
for  the  first  time  in  February,  1974,  some 
seven  months  after  the  signing  of  his  report, 
so  the  report  was  signed  while  he  was  still 
acting.  While  I  don't  want  to  attribute  mo- 
tives or  fears  or  lack  of  courage  to  anyone, 
I  think  it  is  very  sad  that  this  hiatus  period 
of  some  seven  months  did  in  fact  take  place 
and  that  the  government  did  not  see  fit  to 
put  forward  the  nomination  of  an  alternative 
Provincial  Auditor  during  that  lengthy  period 
of  time.  And  I  point  out,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
during  that  hiatus  period,  the  report  of  the 
auditor  was  signed  on  Nov.  30,  and  that  re- 
port  obviously   had   some   glaring  omissions. 

We  now  have,  as  detailed  in  the  Globe 
and  Mail  stories  of  Saturday,  April  6,  and 
Monday,  April  8,  in  copyright  articles  written 
by  Gerald  McAuliffe,  a  series  of  sordid  events 
surrounding  the  affairs  of  the  Ontario  North- 
land Transportation  Commission  and  involv- 
ing Star  Transfer  Ltd.,  a  subsidiary  of  the 
Ontario  Northland  Transportation  Commis- 
sion. Strangely,  it  appears  that  even  though 
two  investigations  into  the  affairs  of  this  com- 
mission and  Star  Transfer  were  conducted— 
one  by  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications,  whose  report  was  submitted 
to  the  members  of  the  Ontario  Northland 
Transportation  Commission  on  Dec.  17  and 
18,  1973,  and  the  other  by  the  staff  of  the 
Provincial  Auditor,  which  commenced  in  Jan- 
uary, 1973— neither  of  these  investigations 
were  reported  to  the  Legislature,  as  there 
was  an  obvious  public  duty  so  to  do. 

Mr.  McAuliffe  has  stated  that  even  though 
the  government  was  aware  of  the  serious 
shortcomings  for  some  time,  neither  the  gov- 
ernment nor  the  ONTC  has  firmly  laid  down 
policies  and  guidelines  for  management  to 
follow.  The  commissioners  have  met  only  once 
—and  their  one-time  meeting  seemed  to  be 
awfully  well  paid;  I'll  deal  with  that  in  a 
moment— in  the  last  three  months  and  the 
matter  of  guidelines  was  not  even  on  the 
agenda. 

The  following  points  are  made  in  these 
articles:  No  full  inventory  of  railway  assets 
and  holdings  has  been  taken;  inventory  pro- 
cedures are  lacking;  accounting  practices  are 
deficient. 


The  member  for  Fort  William  (Mr.  Jessi- 
man),  the  chairman  of  the  commission,  char- 
tered a  private  plane  to  fly  to  a  meeting  in 
North  Bay.  The  plane  waited  for  him  and 
returned  to  Toronto.  The  cost  to  the  tax- 
payers of  the  Province  of  Ontario  was  some 
$400;  by  comparison,  the  commercial  econ- 
omy fare  for  that  return  trip  is  $52. 

The  member  for  Fort  William  charged  the 
Ontario  Northland  Transportation  Commission 
for  air  travel  between  Toronto  and  Florida 
and  for  a  number  of  trips  between  Thunder 
Bay  and  Toronto. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Like  old  times. 

Mr.  Singer:  There  is  no  written  policy  on 
what  types  of  travel  or  entertainment  ex- 
penses should  be  charged;  and  there  was  not 
always  a  requirement  that  those  claiming 
reimbursements  give  information  to  establish 
that  expenses  were  properly  incurred. 

One  instance  indicates  that  an  executive 
of  the  commission  billed  his  airline  ticket  on 
Air  Canada  and  then  charged  the  fare  to  his 
expense  account,  that  both  the  billing  and 
the  expense  account  were  paid,  and  that 
apparently  this  executive  was  paid  twice  for 
one  trip. 

The  chairman  of  the  Ontario  Northland 
Transportation  Commission,  the  member  for 
Fort  William,  is  paid  some  $7,000  as  a  director 
of  the  commission;  and  this,  of  course,  is  in 
addition  to  his  legislative  indemnity  and  his 
expense  allowance.  The  vice-chairman,  a 
gentleman  named  Gaston  Demers,  whom  some 
of  us  will  remember,  a  defeated  Tory  candi- 
date formerly  representing  the  riding  of  Nickel 
Belt,  is  paid  some  $5,000.  A  gentleman  named 
Allister  Johnston,  whom  many  of  us  know,  is 
also  a  commissioner;  he  is  paid  some  $3,000. 
The  other  commissioners  are  John  A.  Kennedy 
of  North  Bay— and  I  am  going  to  mention  him 
again  in  a  moment;  Ian  Hollingsworth  of  the 
Soo;  Mike  Palangio  of  Cochrane,  W.  Roy 
Thompson  of  Kirkland  Lake,  and  C.  P.  Gird- 
wood  of  South  Porcupine.  Gossip  in  the  north 
has  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  political  loyalties 
of  these  gentlemen  are  readily  identifiable, 
and  they  are  neither  NDP  supporters  nor 
Liberal  supporters. 

In  addition,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  find  it  very 
fascinating  that  when  Star  Transfer  was  taken 
over  by  the  Ontario  Northland  Transportation 
Commission  and  came  under  the  ownership  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  lo  and  behold,  these 
bold  and  brave  commissioners  became  the 
directors  of  Star  Transfer  and  decided  that 
since  they  were  doing  so  much  extra  work— 
and  I  pointed  out  to  you  a  moment  or  two 


APRIL  8,  1974 


841 


ago,  that  they  met  once  in  three  months  up 
to  December  of  last  year— they  decided  they 
weren't  getting  quite  enough  money,  so  they 
voteil  themselves  another  $9,6()0  in  additional 
fees  as  directors  of  Star  Transfer. 

The  member  for  Fort  William's  secretary  at 
Queen's  Park  somehow  got  herself  on  to  the 
payroll  of  the  Ontario  Northland  Transporta- 
tion Commission  and  received,  in  addition  to 
her  regidar  salary,  what  is  variously  referred 
to  as  $20  a  week  or  $32  a  week.  It  seems 
strange,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  with  all  the  facil- 
ities of  the  Ontario  Northland  Transportation 
Commission,  it  was  necessary  to  bill  them  for 
additional  dollars  for  a  member's  secretary 
here  at  Queen's  Park. 

The  Ontario  Northland  Transportation 
Commission  holds  frequent  meetings  at  Pine- 
wood  Lodge  and  pays  substantial  amounts 
for  services.  Pinewood  Lodge,  believe  it  or 
not,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  owned  by  J.  A.  Kennedy, 
who  happens  to  be  the  same  J.  A.  Kennedy 
who  is  one  of  the  commissioners  of  the  On- 
tario Northland  Transportation  Commission. 

There  is,  of  course,  the  executive  railcar. 
It's  a  most  comfortable  and  elaborate  railway 
car.  It  has  dining  room  facilities;  comfortable 
beds;  ample  and  adequate— perhaps  luxurious 
—service.  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  apparently 
is  no  detailed  accounting  of  its  cost  and  use. 
There  are  no  records  of  liquor  expenses  or 
other  hospitality  expenses.  Apparently  it  is 
used  by  people  in  business  and  in  government 
to  take  dieir  families  on  trips  to  Moosonee. 

'The  financial  affairs  of  the  commission  are 
so  efficient  that  they  were  late  in  paying  their 
sales  tax.  And  they  had  to  pay  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  some  $8,000  by  way  of 
penalty.  Some  $40,000  in  legal  fees  were  paid 
to  a  prominent  Thunder  Bay  lawyer  for  nego- 
tiations to  buy  Lakehead  Freightways  Ltd. 
The  talked-about  price  was  some  $2.5  million. 
The  owner  of  Lakehead  Freightways  was  one 
Harvey  Smith  who  is  a  prominent  Progressive 
Conservative  supporter.  The  deal  was  never 
consummated  but,  nevertheless,  this  very  large 
amount  in  legal  fees  apparently  was  paid. 

Moosonee  Lodge  owned  by  the  Ontario 
Northland  Transportation  Commission  had 
spent  on  its  behalf  some  $8,000  in  1970  to 
prepare  plans  for  renovations  and  the  plans 
were  never,  in  fact,  used.  In  1972,  Mr. 
Speaker,  some  $35,000  was  paid  to  a  Toronto 
contractor  to  do  some  work  on  Moosonee 
Lodge.  There  were  no  tenders.  There  were  no 
working  drawings  and  no  detailed  invoices  to 
support  the  expenditures.  Apparently  some  of 
the  employees  of  the  ONTC  draw  two  pay 
cheques.  Some  also  work  under  contract  as 
janitors  in  addition  to  their  regular  employ- 


ment. If  it  happens  to  take  them  away  from 
their  janitorial  obligations,  they  are  able  to 
arrange  to  have  their  work  done  by  their 
wivc«  and  their  children. 

Apparently  over  $100,000  was  paid  to  a 
small  C^ochrane  grocer  for  food  use<l  in  Moo- 
sonee Lodge  and  on  dining  cars.  Tlie  prices 
were  over-the-counter  prices.  There  was  no 
benefit  of  wholesale  rates.  A  food  consultant 
was  hired  some  three  years  ago.  I  haven't  got 
the  amount  that  was  paid  to  him  for  handling 
the  food.  The  commission  received  the  report 
and  never,  in  fact,  u.sed  it. 

The  Ontario  Northland  Transportatioi 
Commission  owns  a  ship  called  the  Chief 
Commanda.  It's  a  cruise  ship.  This  ship  has 
lost  money  every  year  for  seven  years.  Pres- 
ently there  is  being  spent  some  $50,000  to 
refurbish  it  for  one  year  and  make  it  sea- 
worthy because  the  federal  authorities  have 
said  it's  a  danger.  However,  the  refurbishing 
at  the  cost  of  $50,000  for  this  money-losing 
operation  is  pending  the  delivery  of  a  new 
ship^  in  1975.  There  are  no  logs  kept  of  the 
ship's  movements  and  no  purchase  orders  to 
support  $10,000  a  year  in  food  purchases. 
Apparently,  in  relation  to  the  ship,  a  cleaning 
contract  involving  some  $300  a  month  is  pay- 
able to  Metropolitan  Cleaning  Services,  wnich 
is  a  firm  owned  by  two  Ontario  Northland 
Transportation  Commission  employees. 

Apparently  there  were  1,000  used  railway 
ties  which  normally  sell  for  75  cents  each  on 
site,  shipped  from  Noranda,  Que.,  and  donated 
to  the  North  Bay  Golf  and  Country  Club. 
Senior  executives  of  the  Ontario  Northland 
Transportation  Commission  are  members  of 
this  golf  club  and  the  Ontario  Northland 
Transportation  Commission  holds  shares  in 
the  club. 

The  government  of  Ontario  lent  Ontario 
Northland  some  $30  million  some  20  years 
ago,  and  despite  the  fact  that  it  had  profits 
during  several  years  none  of  this  amount  has 
ever  been  repaid  to  the  Ontario  Treasur\'. 

One  Kenneth  Passmore  was  given  $25,000 
so  he  would  leave,  quietly,  his  job  iLs  man- 
aging director  of  Star  Transfer.  Tlicre  is  a 
long  and  detailed  account  in  this  morning's 
Gl{>be  and  Mail  which  says  there  was  sud- 
stantial  mismanagement  and  perhaps  worse 
in  Star  Transfer  during  the  time  Kenneth 
Passmore  was  there.  Examinations  were  made 
by  auditors,  by  the  auditor's  office  and  by 
Transportation  and  Communications,  and 
again  no  reports  about  these  events  were 
ever  made  to  the  Legislature,  nor  was  any 
reference  to  these  irregularities  made  in  the 
auditor's  report.  The  auditor's  report  has 
some  200  words  relating  to  Star  Transfer  this 


842 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


year;   the  reference  is  brief  and  it  is  vague 
and  it  is  certainly  far  from  condemnatory. 

Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  dealt,  rather 
briefly,  with  some  of  the  charges  that  were 
made.  Now  let  me  put  forward  my  sugges- 
tions in  regard  to  them. 

First  of  all,  there  must  be  an  immediate 
explanation  by  the  Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications  (Mr.  Rhodes)  as  to 
why  no  report  has  been  made  to  the  Legis- 
lature about  these  sordid  events  and  why 
there  has  been  no  major  reorganization  of  the 
Ontario  Northland  Transportation  Commis- 
sion. Is  there  any  justification  for  the  further 
continuance  of  this  organization  as  a  body 
separate  and  apart  from  the  government  of 
Ontario,  or  should  it  not  be  taken  back  into 
government  and  made  accountable  directly 
to  the  Legislature  through  the  Minister  of 
Transportation    and    Communications? 

If  it  is  argued  there  is  some  validity  to  its 
continuation  as  an  independent  body,  then 
surely,  as  Camp  recommends,  the  government 
should  get  the  politicians  off  the  commis- 
sion, get  the  Tory  hacks  off  the  commission; 
get  rid  of  the  hon.  member  for  Fort  William 
and  get  rid  of  the  former  member  for  Nickel 
Belt  and  get  rid  of  the  former  member  for 
Parry  Sound;  get  rid  of  the  Tory  hacks  and 
put  in  some  businessmen  who  know  how  to 
run  a  commission  and  who  will  deal  with  the 
affairs  of  handling  public  money  in  a  reason- 
able, proper  and  fair  way. 
Second,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  There 
is  a  man  in  the  wings  who  hopes  to  get  on 
next,  the  hon.  member  for  Timiskaming. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  I  am  not 
that  hungry  for  power.  The  member  for  York 
South  may  be  but  I  am  not. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  auditor  must  be  imme- 
diately questioned  by  the  public  accounts 
committee  and  asked  to  show  cause  why  these 
matters  were  not  in  his  report;  and  if  in  fact 
the  facts  are  as  they  appear,  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  they  are  not,  the  auditors 
should  at  least  be  reprimanded. 

I  do  have  a  little  sympathy  for  him,  be- 
cause his  unfortunate  position  was  partly  the 
creation  of  government,  partly  the  fault  of 
government  neglect  and  partly  the  fault  of 
the  Premier's  lack  of  decisive  progress  in 
filling  that  position  as  soon  as  it  became 
vacant.  As  I  said  at  the  beginning  of  my 
remarks,  it  was  most  unfair  to  put  Mr.  Scott 
in  the  position  of  acting  as  Provincial  Audi- 
tor after  the  tragic  death  of  Mr.  Groom,  not 
giving  him  the  security  he  had  to  have  to  do 


his  job  properly  and  expect  him  to  fearlessly 
report  on  matters  that  were  discovered.  In 
so  doing  the  public  of  Ontario  has  been  badly 
served  and  the  substantial  fault  lies  at  the 
door  of  the  Premier  and  his  colleagues  for 
fearing  to  fill  this  appointment;  although 
again  that  is  no  excuse  for  Mr.  Scott,  who 
apparently  had  knowledge  of  these  events, 
not  making  some  report  about  them  in  his 
last  audit  report. 

Third,  surely  there  has  been  enough  about 
the  misuse  of  planes  already.  The  public 
accounts  committee  has  had  a  lot  of  sessions 
in  regard  to  this,  and  that  information  should 
have  permeated  at  least  as  far  as  Fort  Wil- 
liam and  probably  could  have  been  a  beacon 
in  front  of  the  hon.  member  for  Fort  Wil- 
liam. When  the  Premier  will  take  commercial 
air  lines  for  his  own  personal  use,  one  must 
wonder  at  the  nerve  or  the  callousness  of  the 
hon.  member  for  Fort  William. 

I  would  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  fourth,  that 
there  must  be  an  investigation  by  the  police 
and,  if  necessary,  by  the  law  officers  of  the 
Crown  or  the  Attorney  General's  department 
concerning  the  allegation  that  an  official  was 
paid  twice  by  the  ONTC  for  an  air  flight.  We 
must  remember  that  three  aldermen  from  the 
Metropolitan  Toronto  area  are  presently  fac- 
ing criminal  charges  for  alleged  offences  that 
seem  to  be  of  the  same  calibre. 

Fifth,  I  can't  understand,  as  I  once  more 
read  about  the  awarding  of  contracts,  whv 
Ontario  does  not  have  some  strictly  laid- 
down,  perhaps  statutory  provision  that  there 
must  be  compulsory  tendering  on  all  contracts 
that  involve  the  use  of  public  money.  I  note 
that  even  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick, 
just  a  few  days  ago,  gave  third  reading  to  a 
statute  that  requires  public  tendering  for  all 
contracts  involving  the  purchase  of  goods 
over  $750.  Since  there  seems  to  be  constant 
abuse  and  certainly  blatant  suspicion  about 
our  tendering  procedures— and  many  more 
examples  are  contained  in  the  stories  con- 
cerning Ontario  Northland—hasn't  the  time 
come  when  we  should  have  a  public  statute 
setting  out  in  clear  and  unmistakable  lan- 
guage what  the  tendering  procedure  should 
be?' 

Sixth,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  there  should  be 
an  immediate  investigation  by  the  law  officers 
of  the  Crown  as  to  whether  or  not  there  was 
sufficient  cause  to  dispense  with  the  services 
of  Kenneth  Passmore  for  cause.  That's  a  legal 
phrase,  and  if  you  find  that  you  can  dismiss 
somebody  for  cause,  then  you  don't  have  to 
give  him  pay  in  lieu  of  notice.  It  would  seem 
that  Mr.  Passmore  received  some  $25,000,  and 
it   would   also  seem    that   there   might   have 


APRIL  8,  1974 


843 


been  su£Bcient  cause  to  dismiss  Mr.  Passmore 
without  the  payment  of  that  $25,000. 

There  should  be,  seventh,  Mr.  Speaker,  an 
immediate  and  detailed  report  to  the  public 
accounts  committee  and  to  the  Legislature  as 
to  what  steps  have  been  taken  to  clean  up 
this  mess.  The  public  and  the  Legislature  are 
entitled  to  assurances  that  the  mess  is  cleaned 
up  once  and  for  all  and  that  it  is  unlikely 
there  will  be  loopholes  and  doors  left  open 
that  -will  allow  this  kind  of  abuse  to  continue 
any  longer. 

Eighth,  there  should  be  a  report  to  the 
public  accounts  committee  and  to  the  Legisla- 
ture as  to  who  has  used  the  private  car,  say 
over  the  past  three  years,  how  long  it  has 
been  used  by  such  people,  for  what  public 
purpose  and  at  whose  expense.  Who  were 
the  businessmen  who  used  that  private  car? 
Did  they  travel  with  their  families?  Were 
there  members  of  the  Legislature  who  had 
exclusive  use  of  that  private  car?  Did  they 
travel  with  their  families?  And  what  was  the 
purpose  of  that  kind  of  expenditure? 

Ninth,  there  should  be  a  report  from  the 
government  as  to  what  justification  there  is  to 
charge  directors'  fees— to  my  mind,  it's  ab- 
solutely inexcusable— to  Star  Transfer  in  the 
amount  of  $9,600  in  addition  to  what  the 
commissioners  are  already  paid.  That  practice 
should  certainly  be  stopped  immediately. 

Tenth,  I  would  suggest  there  be  a  taxation 
of  the  $40,000  legal  bill.  It  seems  very  large 
to  me.  It  may  be  justified,  but  I  think  that 
bill  should  be  taxed  before  the  taxing  oflRcer 
so  that  we  can  find  out  whether  or  not  that 
bill  was  a  proper  and  adequate  bill  and 
whether  or  not  it  should  have  been  paid. 

Remember,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill  was  in 
relation  to  negotiation  and  advice  for  a  deal 
that  was  never  in  fact  consummated.  And 
$40,000  for  a  $2.5  million  deal  is  not  a  small 
fee,  but  when  the  deal  doesn't  go  through, 
it  might  very  well  be  a  very  large  fee  and 
much  too  large. 

These  are  only; some  of  the  more  obvious 
matters.  There  are  many  more  matters  that 
should  be  raised,  and  I  am  sure  the  public 
accounts  committee  is  going  to  go  into  each 
and  every  one  of  the  charges,  each  one  of 
which  must  be  investigated,  and  full  reports 
and  action  recommended  by  the  public  ac- 
counts committee,  by  the  Legislature  and  by 
the  ministry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  High  Park. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  ( High  Park ) :  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  number  of  serious  matters  that  I 
would  like  to  discuss  in  this  Throne  debate. 


but  before  I  come  to  them,  I  mmy  just  tftke 
a  very  few  moments  for  one  that  is  not  quite 
so  serious.  I  think  perhaps  I  have  involved 
our  province  in  a  war,  and  I  thought  I  should 
let  members  know  alx)ut  it.  Before  I  bcgin^  I 
think  we  all  must  have  solidarity  in  here.  We 
have  our  diflFerences,  but  when  one  of  our 
members  is  in  trouble,  I  think  we  must  all 
stick  together  to  help  him  out  because  the 
one  who  is  in  trouble  is  me. 

The  situation  is  that  some  eight  yean  ago 
I  wrote  a  book  which  caused  some  surprise 
to  the  publisher  and  myself  in  that  it  sold 
remarkably  well.  There  is  an  organization  in 
Washington  called  the  Securities  and  Ex- 
change Commission.  Two  months  ago  they 
discovered  I  had  written  this  book  and  they 
sent  me  a  very  ofiBcial  letter  in  which  they 
say  that  they  have  just  discovered  my  activ- 
ities. Although  normally  they  do  not  insist  on 
taking  into  their  fold  foreigners  who  write  a 
single  book  on  the  market,  to  quote  them 
they  say:  "Your  activities  seem  to  clearly 
involve  you  in  being  in  the  business  of 
advising  others  for  compensation  through 
publications  as  to  the  advisability  of  investing 
in  securities."  The  letter  finishes  off:  "Would 
you  please  inform  us  in  writing  of  your  inten- 
tions with  regard  to  registration."  It's  signed 
Allan  Rosenblat,  chief  counsel  of  the  Secur- 
ities and  Exchange  Commission,  Washington, 
DC. 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  ( Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  It's  about  time 
they  caught  up  with  the  member. 

Hon.  A.  Crossman  ( Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  The  member  gets 
the  message. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Right,  that's  the  way  I  felt 
about  it.  Well,  I  was  terribly  flattered.  I 
mean  if  the  US  government  thinks  that  I  am 
an  investment  adviser,  I  thought  that  would 
he  very  nice  and  that  I  would  put  that  after 
my  name— Morton  Shulman,  MD,  MPP,  lA 
for  investment  adviser.  So  I  wrote  them  back 
and  I  said:  "Thanks  very  much,  that's  really 
great." 

One  thing  that  puzzled  me:  I  received  the 
letter  on  Feb.  26,  1974,  and  it  was  dated 
Jan.  8,  1973.  I  couldn't  figure  whether  the 
mails  had  really  slowed  down  there,  or  wheth- 
er they  were  confused  which  year  it  was, 
but  I  finally  figured  out  they  didn't  know 
which  year  it  was.  The  other  thing  that 
bothered  me  was  that  it  was  addressed  to 
Dr.    Morton   Shulman,   care   of  the  Book  of 


844 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  Month  Club,  Camp  Hill,  Pa.  That  may 
have  had  something  to  do  with  the  delay  in 
getting  to  me. 

But,  anyway,  I  wrote  them  back  and  said: 
"Gee,  thanks,  fellows,  that's  great.  If  you 
think  I'm  an  investment  adviser,  I'd  be  de- 
lighted to  register  and  have  those  initial's 
after  my  name.  Send  me  the  forms." 

Well,  that  was  all  very  well  until  the  forms 
arrived.  There  was  a  25-page  form  to  fill  out, 
and  the  first  question  was,  "What  are  your 
qualifications  as  an  investment  adviser?"  Well, 
I  really  have  no  formal  qualifications,  so  I 
wrote  down  "none."  That's  right,  Mr.  Speaker, 
you  have  to  tell  the  truth  when  you  are 
dealing  wdth  a  government  agency. 

I  filled  out  this  25-page  form  and  then  I 
thought,  gee,  before  I  send  this  down  to  the 
American  government  maybe  I  should  have 
some  lawyer  see  it.  He  said,  "Gee,  Morty, 
you  had  better  not  send  it  down  because  as 
soon  as  they  see  your  first  answer  'none',  they 
are  going  to  refuse  you  registration  as  an 
investment  adviser  and  then  you  will  be  a 
failed  investment  adviser,  and  as  a  failed  in- 
vestment adviser  they'll  be  able  to  get  the 
US  courts  to  stop  you  selling  books  in  the 
States  and  that  would  be  bad." 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  wrote  back  to  them  and 
said,  "Look,  under  these  regulations  it  says 
I  don't  have  to  register  if  I  have  less  than  15 
clients.  I  only  really  give  advice  to  one  per- 
son. That's  my  wife,  and  she  doesn't  follt>w 
it  anyway,  so  I  don't  think  that  counts. 

"The  second  thing  is  that  you  are  exempt 
if  you  have  less  than  15  clients  and  you  do 
not  generally  hold  yourself  out  as  an  invest- 
ment adviser.  I  really  don't  hold  myself  out 
as  an  investment  adviser.  I  generally  hold 
myself  out  as  a  statesman.  Would  you  advise 
me  what  I  should  do?" 

That  all  seemed  very  well  until  on  my 
birthday  they  sent  me  this  letter,  and  I 
thought  it  was  in  very  bad  form  really.  Any- 
way, it  was  dated  April  2,  1974,  and  it's  from 
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission, 
Washington,  DC.  It  is  no  longer  addressed 
"Dear  Dr.  Shulman,"  it's  addressed  "Dear  Mr. 
Shulman." 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  took  a  couple  of 
initials  away. 

Mr.  Shulman:  It  starts  oflF:  "Compliance 
with  the  federal  securities  law  is  no  laughing 
matter."  They  then  proceed  to  lay  out  the 
various  horrendous  penalties  that  can  happen 
to  me  if  I  don't  co-operate  with  them.  Ap- 


parendy  huge  fines  are  possible  and— what 
else?— 20  years  in  jail  for  each  book  that's 
sold. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  next  thing  is 
they'll  take  the  member  away  and  give  him 
a  number. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Well,  I  felt  that  this  was  a 
hostile  act,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  wrote  back  to  the 
securities  commission  in  the  United  States 
and  I  said:  "I  feel  that  you're  carrying  out  a 
hostile  act.  I'm  not  quite  sure  how  we're 
going  to  carry  out  all  these  things,  short  of 
sending  in  the  Marines.  I  know  what  Ameri- 
can strategy  is  and—" 

Hon.     Mr.     Grossman:     We     don't     have 


Mr.  Shulman:  "—unfortunately,  my  prov- 
ince has  very  little  military  capability."  But 
I've  been  in  touch  with  the  Minister  of  Na- 
tural Resources  (Mr.  Bemier)  and  he  has  some 
45  planes  he  uses  for  fighting  fires.  I  have 
requested  him  to  do  a  pre-emptive  water 
bombing  strike  on  the  SEC  building  in  Wash- 
ington. One  of  the  planes  has  a  loudspeaker, 
and  it's  my  plan,  if  members  all  agree,  that 
we'll  hover  over  the  building,  and  using  a 
loudspeaker,  we'll  yell'  down,  "Mr.  Rosen- 
blat."  When  he  sticks  his  head  out  the  win- 
dow, then,  plop,  we'll  let  him  have  it! 

Anyway  that  is  my  current  situation  with 
the  securities  commission  in  the  United  States. 
I  hope  I'll  have  the  unanimous  support  of  this 
House  if  it  does  come  to  war. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Except  don't  tr>'  to 
make  any  trips  to  the  States  now. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  has  o£Fered  his  help 
already. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  We  can  take  his  On- 
tario licence  away  from  him. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Well,  with  that  minor  prob- 
lem hanging  over  us— and  I'm  sure  that  we'll 
come  to  some  solution— there's  another  matter 
I  want  to  deal  with,  and  this  is  the  budget 
which  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  is  bringing 
down  tomorrow. 

There  has  fallen  into  my  hands  this  morn- 
ing a  certain  book.  I  wasn't  going  to  talk 
about  the  budget  today,  let  me  say.  I  usually 
would  save  that  for  my  budget  debate  speech, 
but  under  the  circumstances  I  couldn't  help 
reading  this  book,  which  was  given  to  me 
this  morning.  And  I  must  say  that  I  am 
bitterly  disappointed  with  the  contents.  Actu- 
ally  I'm   not  really  the   financial   expert    for 


APRIL  8,  1974 


845 


this  iMirty.  This  may  surprise  members.  It  is 
the  hon.  member  for  Yoric  South,  who  will 
speak  next. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Now  why 
would  that  be  a  surprise? 

Mr.  Shuhnan:  I'm  going  to  pass  this  vcdume 
on  to  him.  He  will  deal  with  it  in  detail  in 
his  speech,  but  I  just  want  to  make  one  com- 
ment about  it.  Im  resJly  very  upset  about 
one  of  the  taxes  the  Treasurer  is  bringing  in 
here— a  tax  on  raw  land  speculation—because 
it  isn't  going  to  work.  Although  it  is  a  very 
sizable  tax,  it  isn't  going  to  woric,  because  it's 
going  to  freeze  up  all  the  land  on  the  market 
and  people  just  aren't  going  to  sell.  But  any- 
way I  won't  deal  with  that  myself;  Hi  leave 
it  for  the  hon.  member  for  York  South,  and 
Tm  sure  that  he  will  handle  it. 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer  and  Minister  of 
Intergovernmental  AflFairs ) :  Well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
on  a  point  of  order,  I  had  my  picture  taken 
with  that  dmnmy  this  morning. 

Mr.  Deans:  Which  one? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Does  the  Treasiu-er  mean 
there  are  two  dummies? 

Hod.  Mr.  White:  I  mean  the  document  and 
not  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Two  dummies  in  the 
same  picture? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  When  I  showed  it  to 
some  of  the  oflBcials  here  earlier  today,  they 
were  intrigued  with  the  design,  and  more 
particularly,  I  think,  with  the  gorgeous  Tory 
blue. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  date? 

Mr.  Deans:  Not  with  the  picture. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  gave  the  document, 
which  in  fact  contains  3ie  1973  budget,  to 
the  hon.  member  in  the  hope  and  expectation 
that  he  would  read  my  budget  statement  from 
a  year  ago,  instead  oi  punishing  us  with  his 
Throne  debate  speech  containing,  I  have  no 
doubt,  all  kinds  of  misinformation  and  incor- 
rect ^legations. 

Mr.  Shuhnan:  He's  right,  I  confess.  I  had 
intended  to  read  that,  but  something  about  it 
seemed  vagudy  familiar,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I 
decided  under  the  circumstances  I'd  let  the 
hon.  member  for  York  South  read  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  like  most  budget 
speeches;  it  sounds  like  the  previous  year  all 
the  time. 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  When  my  dear  friend 
reads  that  hell  find  out  we  were  ri^  on  in 
every  respect. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Ah,  the  Treasurer  is 
going  to  point  to  the  same  villains  as  last 
year. 

Mr.  Shulman:  If  I  may  turn  to  a  somewhat 

more  serious  matter- 
Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy   (Peel  South):    How 

about  a  scandal? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Which  does  he  choose 
from? 

Mr.  Shulman:  —I  would  like  to  follow  up 
the  remarks  made  by  the  previous  speaker 
from  Downsview,  in  which  he  was  kind 
enough  to  read  the  front  page  of  the  Gbbe 
and  Mail  for  the  last  two  editions.  There  are 
just  one  or  two  brief  comments  I  would  like 
to  midce. 

Fm  not  too  upset  by  the  fact  that  there  arc 
one  or  two  crooks  on  the  Tory  side  of  the 
House.  We  know  it  and  they  know  it.  There 
are  probably  one  or  two  crooks  on  this  side 
of  the  House,  too.  When  there  are  people 
who  have  a  chance  to  dip  their  hands  into 
public  funds,  they  will  do  it.  Ultimately  it 
always  comes  out  and  when  election  time 
comes  those  people  will  be  punished. 

That  isn't  what  upsets  me.  What  does  upset 
me  far  more  is  the  fact  that  the  House  cannot 
depend  on  the  auditor.  I  think  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Downsview  was  far  too  mild  in  his 
comments  about  the  auditor.  We  expect  the 
worst  from  the  Tories.  We  search  for  it  all 
the  time  and  when  we  find  it  we  expose  it. 
The  public  ultimately  will  render  its  verdict 
on  their  behaviour. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  And  the  member  is  never 
able  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  auditor  does  not  depend 
on  the  public.  He  does  not  go  for  re-election. 
His  behaviour  is  essential  to  the  Legislature. 
He  is  responsible  to  us,  and  I  cannot  see  how 
the  present  auditor  can  continue  in  his 
present  position. 

There  are  only  two  possible  courses  of  ac- 
tion that  can  be  followed.  He  will  come  up 
with  a  denial  of  the  allegations  in  the  Globe 
and  Mail  story,  and  that  seems  impossible 
from  the  detail  that  has  been  developed  by 
Gerald  McAuKflFe.  If  he  is  unable  to  come 
up  with  a  detailed  denial,  the  fact  remains 
that  he  has  withheld  essential  informatimi 
from  the  House.  How  can  the  House  ever,  in 
future,  trust  him?  How  can  members  believe 


846 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  what  he  is  telling  is  the  truth?  How  can 
they  believe  that  what  he  is  telling  is  the 
complete  truth? 

If  he  is  unable  to  deny  the  allegations  in 
this  story  he  must  be  replaced.  Honour  says 
he  must  resign.  If  he  does  not  resign  he 
must  be  replaced.  I  don't  want  to  belabour 
this.  It's  all  spelled  out  in  the  Globe.  There  is 
no  use  my  repeating  everything  that  has  been 
written  by  the  Globe  and  has  been  repeated 
this  morning  by  the  member  for  Downsview. 
But  surely,  the  brunt  of  this  must  lie  on  the 
shoulders  of  the  auditor  and  his  head  must 
roll.  It's  as  simple  as  that.  He  must  go. 

The  major  subject  I  wish  to  talk  about  to- 
day—there is  one  aspect  involving  organized 
crime  which  I'll  save  until  the  end— is  some- 
thing which  has  not  been  dealt  with  either 
in  the  Legislature  or,  to  my  knowledge,  in  the 
press  before.  Primarily  I  want  to  talk  about 
the  Liquor  Licence  Board  because  this  is  a 
major  scandal.  It's  a  major  scandal'  which  has 
been  going  on  for  several  years.  It  has  not 
been  given  any  public  exposure  except  for  a 
few  articles  written  in  an  obscure  Toronto 
journal.  In  effect,  there  has  been  nothing  said 
of  it  either  here  in  this  Legislature  or,  for 
that  matter,  in  the  greater  public  media. 

The  Liquor  Licence  Board  is  governed  by 
the  Liquor  Licence  Act.  There  is  a  great  deal 
of  confusion  in  the  public  mind  and,  to  my 
surprise,  in  the  professional  mind  between  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  and  the  Liquor  Con- 
trol Board.  I  am  not  today  talking  about  the 
Liquor  Control  Board.  Much  can  be  said 
about  that  place  but  I  want  to  make  it  quite 
clear  I'm  talking  about  the  Liquor  Licence 
Board,  the  one  that  controls  the  licences 
given  out  to  the  establishments  in  this  prov- 
ince which  serve  liquor.  It  is  governed  by 
the  Liquor  Licence  Act;  it  is  also  governed 
by  certain  regulations  which  have  been 
brought  in  by  this  Legislature.  At  least,  it's 
supposed  to  be  governed  by  the  Liquor  Li- 
cence Act  and  it's  supposed  to  be  governed 
by  these  regulations  but  it  is  not. 

There  are  11  sins  committed  by  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  and  let  me  just  itemize  them. 

1.  They  exercise  blatant  discrimination  in 
the  administration  of  the  law.  2.  They  harass 
those  establishments  and  persons  which  dis- 
please them  by  making  up  special  rules  for 
one  establishment  and  not  another.  3.  They 
have  set  themselves  up  as  advertising  censors, 
advertising  censors  of  some  establishments  but 
not  of  others.  Some  are  immune  to  these  rules. 
4.  They  make  up  arbitrary  rules  which  are 
not  grounded  either  in  law  or  in  legislation. 


5.  They  treat  their  employees  as  guilty  until 
proven  innocent. 

6.  They  give  the  good  jobs  at  the  board  to 
friends  of  the  boss.  In  fact,  I'll  come  to  that 
in  detail.  7.  They  have  given  themselves  the 
power  to  act  as  building  inspectors  even 
though  there  is  nothing  in  the  law  which 
gives  them  this  power.  8.  They've  given  them- 
selves the  power  to  act  as  entertainment  cen- 
sors even  though  they  have  no  legal  power 
to  do  this.  9.  They  use  special  occasion  per- 
mits as  a  present  given  or  withheld  depend- 
ing on  whether  they  like  or  dislike  the  person 
making  the  application. 

Up  to  now  I'm  going  to  prove  those  points 
beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  but  on  point 
10  I'm  going  to  fuzz  a  bit.  There  is  evidence 
—it  is  not  conclusive  evidence  as  to  point  10 
—that  they  accept  influence  in  the  granting  of 
licences.  There  is  not  conclusive  evidence  on 
that.  I  have  been  unable  to  get  the  facts  to 
establish  the  evidence,  the  truth  or  not,  be- 
cause they  will  not  allow  me  to  have  those 
facts.  Finally,  11,  and  perhaps  most  serious, 
in  certain  cases  they  have  actually  reversed 
the  law  and  given  instructions  that  legisla- 
tion which  was  passed  here  in  this  House  is 
not  to  be  enforced.  In  fact,  they  threatened 
one  establishment  that  if  it  actually  went  so 
far  as  to  follow  the  law  as  it  is  stated  here  by 
this  Legislature,  it  would  lose  its  licence.  I'll 
come  to  that  in  detail. 

Let's  start  off  with  the  first  point  which  is 
that  they  exercise  blatant  discrimination  in 
the  administration  of  the  law.  I  have  a  num- 
ber of  examples  of  that.  The  first  one  was 
brought  to  my  attention  by  a  reporter  from 
the  CBC  some  months  ago  and  this  is  what 
started  this  investigation.  He  discovered  that, 
for  reasons  which  to  this  day  we  have  not 
been  able  to  determine,  the  Liquor  Licence 
Board  issued  instructions  to  one  restaurant  in 
town,  a  place  called  El  Cid,  that  it  was  not 
to  be  allowed  to  serve  a  drink  called  sangria. 
Sangria  is  a  very  dilute  wine;  it  is  a  com- 
bination of  a  Spanish  wine  and  soda  water. 

Yet  at  the  very  same  time  that  El  Cid  was 
given  this  instruction,  the  other  Spanish 
restaurants  in  town  who  also  sell  sangria  were 
allowed  to  continue,  despite  the  tact  that 
actually  it  appeared  in  the  press  tliat  these 
other  restaurants  were  serving  sangria. 

I  went  to  the  three  restaurants  involved: 
El  Cid,  which  is  not  allowed  to  serve  it;  and 
the  other  two.  Cafe  Madrid,  and  Don  Quixote, 
which  are  allowed  to  serve  it.  I  asked  them 
why  at  El  Cid  and  they  said,  "We  think  we 
insulted  one  of  the  inspectors."  TTiis  was  their 
response.  They  received  a  letter  saying,  "You 
may  not  serve  sangria."  I  asked  the  other  two 


APRIL  8,  1974 


847 


establishments  why  they  were  allowed  to 
serve  sangria,  and  tfiey  said,  "We  have  had  no 
trouble  with  the  board." 

Now  that  is  a  simple  example.  And  let  me 
say  a  word  about  the  minister  now  that  he  is 
here  facing  me.  He  has  done  very  well  his 
first  year.  He  has  received  good  press;  he  has 
good  relations  with  the  members  on  all  sides 
of  the  House— and  he's  done  this  by  being 
fairly  straight.  He  has  a  good  sense  of  humour 
and  this  is  going  to  be  his  downfall,  because 
he  gets  up  ana  replies  with  a  quip  when 
serious  problems  are  brought  to  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  What  does  the  member 
mean  "fairly  straight"? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Fairly  straight.  Now,  when  I 
brought  in  the  problem  of  this  sangria,  sir, 
nothing  happened  to  the  restaurants  involved; 
but  the  minister  replied,  "Who  wants  to  drink 
that  cheap  Spanish  vdne?"  No,  it  is  not  good 
enough  to  jolce  about  these  matters,  because 
the  minister  has  a  scandal  sitting  under  his 
seat  and  it  is  about  to  erupt  on  him. 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  How 
can  the  member  see  the  minister's  feet  under 
the  desk? 

Mr.  Shulman:  So,  I  presented  these  facts  to 
the  Liquor  Licence  Board  and  I  said  to  Chief 
Mackey,  "Would  you  please  explain  to  me 
why  El  Cid  is  not  allowed  to  serve  sangria?" 
He  said:  "It  is  very  simple.  Under  regulation 
563,  item  9,  section  4,  'any  non-Jdcoholic 
liquid  that  is  added  to  hquor  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  a  drink  shall  be  added  in  full  view  of 
the  customer'."  This  is  Mackey's  explanation. 

As  any  member  of  this  House  knows,  you 
can  go  into  any  restaurant  in  town,  any 
licensed  premise  in  town,  and  order  a  Bloody 
Mary— and  when  that  Bloody  Mary  is  brought 
to  you,  it  is  aheady  mixed.  The  non-alcoholic 
liquid,  the  tomato  juice,  does  not  go  in  in  view 
of  the  customer. 

So  I  wrote  back  to  Mackey  and  I  said: 
"What  land  of  nonsense  is  this?  Why  is  El 
Cid  the  only  one  who  is  forced  to  follow  this 
regulation  and  nobody  else  is?"  He  said: 
"Well,  it  is  true  that  you  don't  actually  see 
the  tomato  juice  being  added  to  the  vodka, 
but  you  could  see  it  if  you  went  up  to  the 
bar.  And  it  is  my  information  that  El  Cid 
was  mixing  its  sangria  the  night  before,  so  no 
one  was  there  and  could  see  it." 

So  I  went  up  to  El  Cid  again  and  said,  "Do 
you  mix  yoiu*  sangria  the  night  before?"  They 
said  "No,  we  mix  it  at  the  time."  But  that 
doesn't  matter,  the  people  sitting  at  the  table 
couldn't  see  this  mix  taking  place. 


So  here  is  a  regulation  in  the  Act  that  is 
quite  clear— all  mixes  must  take  place  in  fuU 
view  of  the  customer.  But  Maclcey  has  de- 
cided to  ignore  that  except  for  one  restaurant, 
which  for  some  unknown  reason  has  dis- 
pleased someone  at  the  Liquor  Licence  Board. 

That's  not  an  isolated  example.  There  are 
dozens  and  dozens  of  them. 

Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  just  ask  you  if  we  go 
to  12  or  12:30? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Until  12. 

Mr.  Shulman:  There  is  a  restaurant  called 
the  New  Windsor  at  the  comer  of  Richmond 
and  Church  streets.  It  wasn't  advertised  at  all, 
but  it  had  a  thing  called  a  "happy  hour,"  and 
this  was  an  arrangement  whereby  during  cer- 
tain hours  the  patrons  could  get  two  oeers 
for  the  price  on  1%  and  two  drinks  with  a 
mix  for  $1.50  instead  of  $2.  Well,  at  noon  on 
Friday,  March  20,  I  beheve  it  was,  an  in- 
spector came  to  their  door  and  ordered  them 
to  cease  this  practise  forthwith  or  be  closed 
for  six  days. 

The  people  who  owned  the  establishment 
said  "Why,  it  is  done  all  over  the  city."  The 
inspector  replied:  "We  are  not  discussing  the 
rest  of  the  city,  we  are  discussing  you.  Now 
if  this  'happy  hour'  continues  after  today, 
six  days  suspension." 

It  didn't  make  any  sense  because  not  only 
were  they  being  singled  out,  but  there  is 
another  establishment  called  the  Friar's  Tav- 
ern, just  a  few  blocks  away,  which  has  been 
running  an  ad  since  October.  I'm  going  to 
read  it  in  full— it  is  a  very  brief  ad: 

The  Drawing  Room.  Delightful.  Jerry 
Adams  nightly  from  9.  After  theatre  menu. 
A  great  place  to  meet  for  the  "happy 
hour."  Lunch  and  buffet  $2.50.  Dancing. 
No  cover.  The  Friar's,  283  Yonge  at  Dun- 
das  Square,  362-6693. 

We  phoned  down  to  the  Liquor  Licence 
Board  and  asked,  "How  come  one  establish- 
ment is  told  it  can't  have  a  Tiappy  hour/ 
which  is  apparentiy  bad,  and  another  estab- 
lishment has  been  running  this  same  ad  daily 
for  six  months?"  Well,  the  gentleman  I  spoke 
to  at  the  Liquor  Licence  Board  agreed  and 
said  it  did  seem  strange.  They  responded  im- 
mediately. 

Last  Friday,  two  inspectors  arrived  at  the 
Friar's  and  said,  "You  may  not  use  the  word 
'happy'  in  your  ads  any  more."  And  he  said, 
"why  can't  we  use  the  word  "happy'  in  our 
ads  any  more?"  He  said,  "Damned  if  I  know, 
but  those  are  the  instructions  I've  been  told 
to  give  you." 


848 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  phoned  down  to  my  contact  at  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  and  said,  "Why  can't 
they  use  the  word  'happy'  in  the  ad?'  They 
said,  "The  orders  from  Chief  Mackey  are  as 
follows:  'No  words  are  to  be  used  in  adver- 
tisements that  indicate  that  patrons  may  be 
having  pleasure.' "  Just  stop  and  think  about 
that  one- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  They  haven't  seen  TV 
beer  ads  for  a  while. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Just  stop  and  think  about 
that  one  for  a  minute.  We've  got  a  man  in 
charge  of  the  Liquor  Licence  Board  who  is  a 
teetotaller.  He's  straight;  he  is  really  straight. 
He's  an  ex-policeman,  a  good  policeman.  He 
was  the  best  chief  of  police  this  city  has  ever 
seen.  He  kept  Toronto  clean.  The  fact  that  he 
was  a  good  chief  of  police  does  not  mean  he 
is  going  to  be  good  in  another  job,  and  he 
is  very  bad  in  this  job.  And.  the  reason  is, 
unfortunately,  his  own  personal  background. 

As  a  teetotaller  he  believes  that  there  are 
a  lot  of  weak  people  in  this  country  who 
feel  they  have  to  drink,  and  if  they  must  be 
allowed  to  drink,  we  will  allow  them  to 
drink  under  the  law,  but  they  are  not  to  be 
allowed  to  enjoy  themselves.  Ads  that  use 
the  word  "happy,"  ads  that  use  any  word 
that  suggests  people  are  doing  more  than 
getting  over  this  terrible,  horrible  sin  of 
drinking  must  be  outlawed. 

To  give  you  another  example  in  the  same 
field,  Mr.  Speaker,  two  months  ago  his  in- 
spectors descended  on  all  of  the  restaurants 
in  this  city  that  have  piano  bars.  Now,  what's 
a  piano  bar?  It  is  a  piano  where  someone 
plays,  and  there  are  stools  around  it  where 
the  patrons  can  come  and  sit  down  and  have 
a  drink  and  listen  to  the  music. 

Well,  Chief  Mackey  discovered  that  strang- 
ers were  talking  to  each  other.  People  of 
different  sex,  men  and  women  who  actually 
didn't  know  each  other,  were  coming  into 
these  piano  bars,  having  a  drink  and  talking 
to  each  other.  This  upset  him  mightily,  and 
the  order  went  dovm  immediately:  "All  piano 
bars  are  to  be  outlawed  at  once."  And  they 
went  into  each  and  every  establishment  in 
this  city  that  had  a  piano  bar  and  said,  "Out!" 
Well,  almost  each  and  every  establishment. 
One  or  two  were  immune  for  some  reason- 
but  they  cleaned  out  the  Oyster  Bar,  La 
Strada,  AJ's.  Why?  Because  we  have  got  a 
very  strange  man  at  the  head  of  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board,  a  man  who  does  not  approve 
of  people  enjoying  themselves. 

And  what  has  he  done  with  that  rule? 
He  has  put  all  sorts  of  musicians,  fine  musi- 


cians, out  of  work— people  like  John  Arpin— 
the  type  of  good  musician  who  made  a  tour 
of  these  bars,  which  have  all  been  closed 
down.  It  just  doesn't  make  any  sense;  it  just 
isn't  fair. 

I  went  again  to  the  minister  involved;  I 
appealed  to  him.  But  apparendy  he  doesn't 
have  too  much  influence;  he  hasn't  been  able 
to  do  anything  about  it. 

Well,  what  other  discrimination  is  there  in 
the  way  he  runs  things?  What  else  does  he 
do?  There  is  a  restaurant  called  Tanaka  of 
Tokyo,  just  a  few  blocks  from  here,  at  the 
comer  of  Bloor  and  Bay.  It  is  a  typical 
Japanese  restaurant  that  serves  multi-course 
meals,  and  95  per  cent  of  its  business  is  done 
at  night.  They  were  told  that,  according  to 
the  regulations,  they  had  to  stay  open  at 
lunch.  They  wrote  a  letter  to  Chief  Mackey 
and  said,  "Look,  we  have  no  business  at 
lunch.  Do  you  mind  if  we  close?"  He  wrote 
back,  "No,  you  may  not  close  at  lunch."  And 
no  reason  given. 

I  wTote  to  him  and  said,  "Chief  Mackey, 
why  do  they  have  to  stay  open  at  lunch?"  He 
wrote  back:  "Section  34(c)  of  regulation  563 
reads  that  in  every  dining  lounge  or  dining 
room,  lunch  must  be  served."  WeU,  that's 
fine;  if  that's  the  law,  it  must  be  followed. 

I  wrote  to  him  again  and  said,  "Chief 
Mackey,  how  come  Barberian's,  just  a  few 
blocks  from  Tanaka  of  Tokyo,  is  allowed  to 
close  at  lunch?  Don't  they  have  to  follow  the 
same  regulation?  They  have  the  same  licence." 
And  he  wrote  back  to  me  again— andi  I  don't 
want  to  be  unfair;  let  me  quote  him  exactly— 
and  said,  "They  have  always  closed  at  limch. 
The  board  gave  them  permission  back  in  1962 
to  close  at  lunch,  so  since  they  have  always 
had  the  permission,  why  should  we  change 
it  now?"  That's  what  he  said. 

It  didn't  make  much  sense  to  me.  It's  like 
a  chief  of  police  who  sees  two  people  speed- 
ing at  50  miles  an  hom-  through  a  30-mile- 
an-hour  zone  and  stops  one  and  let's  the 
other  go.  And  the  one  fellow  whom  he  stops 
says,  '  Why  didn't  you  stop  him?"  "Oh,  he's 
always  sp>ed  through  here,  even  before  the 
speed  limit  vras  30-miles-an-hour."  There's 
no  sense,  no  logic;  it's  blatant,  open  discrim- 
ination. 

Another  example— loimge  hcences.  There 
hasn't  been  a  lounge  licence  given  in  this 
province  for  years  because  Mackey  does  not 
approve  of  lounge  licences.  But  there  was  an 
exception  made.  The  rule  is  no  lounge  li- 
cences, but  when  Ontario  Place  opened  the 
people  there  had  very  good,  very  close  con- 
tacts with  the  government  and  suddenly  we 


APRIL  8,  1974 


849 


ha\  f  lounge  licences  given  to  Ontario  Place. 
Nobody  else  can  get  a  lounge  licence  but  {dl 
the  restaurants  at  Ontario  Place— those  private 
restaurants,  not  the  government-run  ones- 
were  given  lounge  licences.  I  said  how  come? 
He  said  he  thought  that  Ontario  Place  was  a 
special  situation  so  he  should  make  an  excep- 
tion in  that  case. 

That's  how  it  is  all  the  way  through; 
special  situations  for  everything. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Which  private  oper- 
ator got  a  lounge  licence  in  Ontario  Place? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Pardon? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Which  places  in  On- 
tario Place  got  lounge  licences? 

Mr.  Shulman:  There  are  four  of  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  have  dining 
room  licences. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Thev  also  have  lounge  li- 
cences. I  can  quote  from  Mackey's  letter,  if 
the  minister  likes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  a  different  ball 
game. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Let  me  read  his  letters  if 
there  is  some  doubt. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  didn't  say  there  was 
doubt  about  them  having  them.  They  have 
two  hcences. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Yes,  they  have  two  licences. 
They  have  a  lounge  licence  and  a  dining 
room  licence.  But  no  one  else  can  get  a  lounge 
licence.  There  are  all  sorts  of  dining  rooms 
which  would  like  to  get  lounge  licences  but 
thcN-  can't  get  them. 

Let  me  give  another  example  of  the  sort 
of  thing  he  does,  coming  back  for  a  minute 
to  the  piano  bar.  There  is  a  fellow  by  the 
name  of  Hy  Eisenstadt  who  owns  some 
$25  million  worth  of  restaurants  across  this 
province.  He's  terrified  of  Mackey.  He'll  be 
ver\'  upset  that  I  mentioned  his  name  here 
in  the  House  but  I  mention  it  for  a  very 
important  purpose.  Before  he  built  a  restaur- 
ant in  Yorkville,  which  just  opened  a  few 
months  ago,  he  submitted  his  plans  and  got 
approval.  One  of  the  things  on  those  plans 
was  a  piano  bar  and  that  Ls  marked  "approved 
by  the  Liquor  Licence  Board."  But  the  day 
after  he  opened  they  came  down  and  said, 
"We  have  changed  our  minds.  Take  it  out." 
He  asked  for  a  lounge  Ucence.  "No."  It's  run 
bv  whim! 


The  next  point  is  the  harassment  of  thoce 
establishments  and  persons  which  displease. 
Let's  take  the  regulation  that  says  there  nuy 
not  be  any  partitions  in  places  whidi  have 
restaurant  licences.  There  is  such  a  regula- 
tion. What  the  regulation  actually  says  ii  a 
patron  in  any  part  of  the  room  must  oe  able 
to  see  all  of  the  other  patrons  in  the  rest  of 
the  room.  This  is  a  regulation  they  brought 
in.  I  don't  quite  understand  the  point  of  that 
regulation  but,  anyway,  that  is  the  regulation 
—but  it  doesn't  apply  to  everyone.  It  only 
applies  to  some  people. 

Thus  there  are  places  like  Ed's  Warehouse 
which  has  these  beautiful  little  courting 
parlours  where  vou  can  go  in  and  nobody 
can  see  you  and  you  can  t  see  anyone  else. 
It's  quite  nice.  It's  very  attractive  and  they 
serve  drinks  there.  I  cannot  see  the  world 
coming  to  an  end  because  Ed's  Warehouse 
does  that. 

But  in  another  establishment  a  friend  of 
mine,  Marika  Sereny,  is  attempting  to  get  a 
licence.  She  won't  get  it.  He  has  oecided  he 
doesn't  like  Marika  Sereny.  She  is  attempting 
to  get  a  licence  for  Cafe  Marika,  just  here  on 
Bloor  and  Bay.  They  came  in  and  said  "My 
God,  you've  got  partitions.  Those  partitions 
will  all  have  to  come  out."  They  are  not  en- 
closing partitions  but  just  simple  partitions 
between  each  booth  such  as  one  sees  in  many 
of  the  restaurants  in  town. 

She  said,  "But  how  come  Nicchl  [and  she 
mentioned  a  number  of  other  restaurants! 
have  partitions  and  you  don't  bother  them?" 
He  replied,  "We  are  not  discussing  Nicdil 
and  we're  not  discussing  Ed's  Warehouse.  We 
are  discussing  you.  And  unless  all  these  parti- 
ticMis  come  out  there  will  be  no  licence. 

It's  straight,  plain,  ordinary  harassment  I 
have  a  letter  here  from  the  board  of  directors 
of  the  German-Canadian  Business  and  Pro- 
fessional Men's  Association  complaining  of  the 
way  they  harassed  Oktoberfest.  I'm  not  going 
to  go  through  this— it's  fairly  lengthy  and  the 
minister  has  already  seen  it  and  replied  to  it. 
This  was  not  isolated.  They  sent  in  a  troop  of 
inspectors  and  the  instructions  of  the  in- 
spectors were  to  look  for  infractions  because 
the  whole  idea  of  Oktoberfest  upset  James 
Mackey  mightily.  People  were  actually  putting 
up  signs  with  a  beer  bottle  on  them.  This 
really  upset  him  and  the  regulation  went 
down,  "Get  those  signs  do\Mi  or  else  we  close 
down  the  whole  Olrtoberfest." 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  Grey  Cup  festival  is 
certainl)'  doomed. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Thev  took  down  all  the  signs. 
And   there   is   still   harassment   and   shutting 


850 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


down  of  establishments.  It  isn't  just  Oktober- 
fest.  The  leader  of  the  House  told  me  yester- 
day—I hope  I  don't  embarrass  him  by  repeat- 
ing this— that  up  his  way  in  Grey  North— is 
it?— they  have  a  thing  called  apple  blossom— 

An  hon.  member:  Grey  South. 

Mr.  Shulman:  —Grey  South;  they  have 
apple  blossom  festival  and  again  it  is  a  similar 
thing  to  Oktoberfest.  This  year  their  apphca- 
tion  for  liquor  licences,  which  they  have  had 
every  year,  were  turned  down.  They  came  to 
the  leader  of  the  House  and  said,  "Can  you 
do  anything?"  and  he  is  not  sure  whether  he 
can  or  not.  He  is  not  sure  if  he  has  enough 
influence.  They  will  have  to  wait  and  see. 

Well,  what  else  do  they  do,  this  Liquor 
Licence  Board  of  yours— if  it  is  yours,  I'm  not 
sure? 

Point  three.  They  have  set  themselves  up  as 
advertising  censors.  They  decide  what  adver- 
tisements may  be  run  in  the  public  press  and 
what  may  not.  But  again,  they  do  not  set  up 
the  same  rules  for  everyone.  Some  people 
have  one  rule  and  other  people  have  another 
rule. 

iHere,  for  example,  is  a  book  called  Key  to 
Toronto.  I  don't  know  if  any  of  the  members 
have  seen  it  but  it  is  distributed  through  all 
of  the  hotels  and  it  is  meant  for  tourists  who 
come  to  Toronto  who  want  to  know  what  is 
on  and  where  they  can  go  to  dine.  Well,  there 
was  an  ad  a  couple  of  months  ago  by  Max- 
well's Plum  and  the  horrible  word  in  this  ad 
is  apparently  "drink."  It  says:  "Early  dine  and 
dance.  All  you  can  eat  and  drink.  Gourmet 
bu^et  dinner." 

Well,  they  summoned  the  owner  of  Max- 
well's Plum  down  for  a  personal  appear^ce 
in  front  of  James  Mackey  and  Mackey's  con- 
versation with  him  went  as  follows:  "How 
long  have  you  been  in  the  restaurant  busi- 
ness?" And  he  said,  "Twenty-^four  years." 
"Well,  by  now  you  should  know  that  you  are 
in  the  business  to  sell  food  and  not  liquor 
and  if  that  word,  that  bad  five-letter  word 
'drink'  appears  again  in  any  ad  that  you  run, 
you  will  lose  your  licence." 

The  owner  of  Maxwell's  Plum  was  a  little 
upset  because  in  the  very  same  issue  here  is 
a  full-page  ad  for  the  Old  Spaghetti  Factory. 
Now,  the  Old  Spaghetti  Factory  ad  admitted- 
ly does  not  use  the  word  "drink."  In  their 
ad  they  use  the  word,  "cocktails."  They  say: 
"Dinner  for  two  with  wine  for  less  than  $6." 
This  ad  is  okay.  Figure  that  one  out. 

To  make  things  even  worse,  to'  make  things 
even  more  ridiculous  on  Friday  night  I  went 
to  the  Royal  Alex  to  see  Gypsy  and  they  give 


you  a  htde  programme.  I  opened  the  pro- 
gramme and  on  page  5  is  an  ad  for  another 
restaurant— another  favoured  restaurant— by 
the  name  of  Shakespeare's.  Here  in  Shake- 
spear's  ad  it  says:  "$1.75  to  $4.15  after- 
theatre  drinks."  Now,  apparentiy  the  word 
"drink"  is  no  good  but  "drinks"  is  allowed. 
That  is  Mackey's  rule. 

Well,  do  you  think  that  is  the  ultimate  of 
ridiculousness,  Mr.  Speaker?  I  have  here  a 
letter  from  the  people  who  ran  the  Brazilian 
Carnival  Ball  for  Cardinal  Leger's  work  in 
Africa.  That  happened  just  two  weeks  ago 
and  let  me  just  read  this  because  it  is  the 
most  incredible— well,  if  it  wasn't  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  you  would  think  it  incredible, 
but  being  the  Liquor  Licence  Board  it  is  par 
for  the  course.  The  letter  says: 

The  Brazilian  Carnival  Ball  was  held  at 
the  Imperial  Room  at  the  Royal  York  on 
Monday,  March  25.  It  was  a  costume  ball 
and  was  well  covered  by  all  the  Toronto 
newspapers.  It  was  a  great  success.  This 
year  the  proceeds  of  the  ball  went  to  Car- 
dinal Leger's  works  in  Africa. 

We  thought  the  television  coverage  would 
be  a  natural  for  this  event  and  it  might 
help   to   establish   the  ball   as   an   ongoing 
charitable   affair.    Heaven   knows   this   city 
can  always  use  another  charity.  But  after 
TV    arrangements    had    been    made    the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  said:  "No  television 
cameras   allowed  in  the   Imperial   Room." 
I  phoned  chairman  Mackey  but  he  was 
away,  so  I  spoke  to  Mr.  T.  Gilday,  who 
is  a  member  of  the  board,  and  I  asked  him 
why.  He  said  he'  was  a  little  embarrassed 
but  the  board  did  not  want  pictures  taken 
of  people  drinking.  I  replied,  "But  w^  are 
not  going  to  take  any  pictures  of  anyone 
drinking,  we  are  just  going  to  take  pictures 
of  the  costumes."  Mr.  Gilday  was  very  em- 
barrassed and  said,  "Our  rule  now  is  that 
television  pictures  may  not  be  taken  in  any 
licensed  premises,  whether  or  not  the  peo- 
ple are  drinking." 
Well,  this  is  rather  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker, 
because    what   this   means   is   that   a   speech 
given   by   the   Premier   at  the   Four  Seasons 
just  a  few  weeks  ago  will  no  longer  be  able 
to  be  repeated.  In  the  next  election  campaign 
—or  for  that  matter  at  any  other  time— all  of 
us  who  happen  to  get  television  coverage  or 
all  of  the  government  ministers,  people  like 
the  Premier,  even  people  like  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development,  people 
like  Pierre  Elliott  Trudeau  will  not  be  allow- 
ed    to    have    television    coverage    of    their 


APRIL  8.  1974 


851 


speeches  if  the  speech  is  given  in  any  place 
that  has  a  Hcence,  whether  or  not  liquor  is 
present. 

It's  insane;  it's  plain  ordinary  insane. 
There  is  no  thought  given  to  it.  It's  a  rule 
brought  down  at  the  whim  of  the  moment. 
Obviously,  they  are  not  going  to  descend  on 
the  Premier  and  say,  "You  may  not  have  tele- 
vision coverage;  so  what  they  do  is  they  ex- 
ercise their  rules  as  they  see  fit. 

Here's  a  write-up  I  took  out  of  the  Globe 
and  Mail  business  section  of  Thursday,  March 
28,  1974.  It  shows  the  president  of  Carling 
O'Keefe  Ltd.  sitting  with  workers  in  the 
lunchroom  at  the  Carlingview  Dr.  plant.  With 
Mr.  Tennyson  are  several  workers  and,  be- 
lieve it  or  not,  there's  a  picture  of  them 
drinking  beer.  Now,  there  are  several  laws 
being  broken  here.  First  of  all,  of  course, 
there  is  no  licence  to  drink  beer  in  the  lunch- 
room at  Carling  O'Keefe.  Secondly,  it  seems 
a  picture  has  been  taken  of  the  drinkers  but 
they  are  not  being  bothered,  because  Jim 
Mackey  picks  and  chooses  his  targets  very 
carefully.  We  pick  on  the  weak  and  ignore 
the  strong.  It  is  as  simple  as  that. 

Well,  let's  go  on  to  the  next  point— arbi- 
trary rulings,  rulings  that  they  make  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment.  Here  is  a  letter,  on  the 
letterhead  of  the  Liquor  Licence  Board  of 
Ontario,  which  was  sent  out  to  a  friend  of 
mine  who  got  a  licence  after  going  through 
certain  routines  which  I  will  tell  the  House 
about.  Down  near  the  bottom  of  the  rules, 
after  he  got  his  licence,  there  is  a  rule  that 
reads  as  follows:  "The  licensee  will  not  dis- 
pose of  the  premises  for  a  period  of  three 
years  from  the  date  of  the  issue  of  the  li- 
cence." 

There  is  nothing  in  the  regulations  to  give 
them  the  right  to  say  someone  cannot  sell 
his  business.  You  know,  things  happen.  Peo- 
ple run  into  financial  difficulties.  People  get 
sick.  People  have  to  move.  Yet  because  of 
the  arbitrary  rule,  no  one  may  sell  his  busi- 
ness within  three  years  of  getting  a  licence. 

I  wrote  to  the  board  and  said,  "Would  you 
please  explain  to  me  under  what  rule  or 
what  regulation  you  have  the  power  to  do 
this?"  And  they  wrote  back  to  me  that  "it's 
done  under  the  rule  of  board  policy."  So  I 
wrote  them  again;  I  said,  "Would  you  mind 
sending  me  a  copy  of  board  policy,  because 
this  intrigues  me,  and  I  would  like  to  know 
what  policy  is."  Chairman  Mackey  wrote  me 
back,  saying: 


Dear  Mr.  Shulman: 

I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  asking  for 
information  on  l)oard  policy,  I  would  sug- 
gest that  if  you  have  some  particular  deci- 
sion of  the  board  in  mind,  I  would  be 
pleased  to  supply  the  information  on  that 
particular  decision. 

Yours  sincerely, 
James  Mackey. 

Well,  the  reason  is  that  he  couldn't  give  me 
something  he  doesn't  have.  Board  policy  has 
never  been  written  down.  This  is  something 
that  changes  from  day  to  day.  It  depends  on 
the  whim  of  the  chief.  It  doesn't  apply  to 
everyone— that's  why  they  don't  write  it  down. 
It  applies  to  some  establishments  and  not  to 
others.  It  is  an  arbitrary  exercise  of  power 
for  the  sake  of  the  exercise  of  power. 

I  will  go  on  to  the  next  point.  How  do 
they  treat  their  employees?  Well,  in  this 
country,  we  are  supposed  to  have  the  belief 
that  people  are  innocent  until  proven  guilty 
—and  so  they  are,  in  our  courts,  in  govern- 
ment, everywhere  in  the  province,  but  not  at 
the  Liquor  Licence  Board.  If  someone  is  ac- 
cused of  wrong-doing  at  the  Liquor  Licence 
Board,  they  will  be  suspended  without  pay. 

A  few  weeks  ago,  one  of  the  inspectors  of 
the  Liquor  Licence  Board  was  charged  in 
the  courts  with  certain  offences.  I  don't  want 
to  discuss  that  because  it's  before  the  courts, 
but  immediately  that  this  happened.  Chief 
Mackey  suspended  the  man  witnout  pay.  So 
I  wrote  Mackey  and  said,  "Chief  Mackey, 
how  can  you  do  this?  You  know  we  have 
the  presumption  of  innocence  until  proved 
guilty?  If  you  feel  he  should  be  suspended 
until  the  matter  is  cleared  up,  that  is  your 
prerogative.  But  surely  he  should  be  sus- 
pended with  pay  and  if,  subsequendy,  he  is 
found  innocent,  he  will  not  have  been 
punished  unfairly  and  improperly." 

That  letter  was  written  some  weeks  ago 
but  there  has  been  no  response  to  it  at  all, 
and  the  man  is  still  suspended  without  pay. 
And  I  have  here,  sitting  in  the  galler\-,  a 
representative  of  the  employees  at  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board;  their  morale  is  so  low  it's 
incredible,  because  of  arbitrary  acts  of  this 
nature.  I  have  had  the  opportunity  to  meet  a 
number  of  employees  from  the  board.  They 
feel  that  they  are  trod  upon. 

I  will  give  you  an  example  of  what  goes 
on  there.  Two  months  ago  regional  govern- 
ment was  coming  to  Oshawa  and  the  chief  of 
police  of  Oshawa,  a  fellow  named  Pilkington 
—who  is  an  old  acquaintance  of  Chief  Mackey 
—was  going  to  lose  his  job  as  chief  of  police; 
he  was  going  to  have  to  become  a  sergeant. 


852 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


He  called  his  old  friend  up  and  said,  "Buddy, 
can  you  help  me  out?"  Mackey  said,  "No 
problem,  we  will  make  you  an  assistant  chief 
inspector."  And  he  did. 

They  didn't  advertise  the  post.  They  didn't 
offer  the  post  to  any  of  the  employees  who 
had  been  licence  inspectors  for  many  years. 
One  of  them  came  to  my  oflBce  and  said,  "I 
feel  so  low  about  this  I  hate  to  go  into  the 
ofiBce."  When  an  important  post  comes  up 
they  don't  advertise  it;  they  just  give  it  to 
whom  they  want  to. 

I  went  to  the  minister  again  and  I  said, 
"What  about  this?"  He  said  they  are  not 
required  to  advertise.  He  then  replied  with 
his  usual  quip.  He  said:  "First  we  give  the 
jobs  to  the  relatives,  then  to  friends,  then  to 
members  of  the  Tory  party,  and  then  if  we 
can't  fill  them,  we  advertise."  Well,  he  said 
it  with  a  joke  and  vdth  a  smile.  All  very 
well. 

Then  he  said  seriously  to  me:  "We  really 
have  no  control  over  that."  But  then  he  added 
the  kicker.  He  said  the  employees  agreed  to 
that— the  employees'  association  agreed  to 
that.  So  I  got  in  touch  with  the  employees' 
association  and  it  is  not  true.  They  don't 
agree  to  it;  they  are  very  upset  about  it. 
They  don't  like  that  place  being  run  as  a 
private  fiefdom. 

Men  who  have  worked  there  15  years  have 
no  chance  of  promotion  because  James 
Mackey  has  a  long  list  of  friends  he  wants  to 
bring  in.  He  has  brought  in  somewhere  be- 
tween 15  and  20  cops.  There  is  nothing  wrong 
with  having  policemen  working  for  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board— but  the  jobs  should  be  adver- 
tised; promotion  wherever  possible  should  be 
within  the  board.  And  just  because  you  are 
not  a  friend  of  Jim  Mackey  should  not  pre- 
clude you  from  advancement. 

I  was  curious  as  to  what  pay  was  given  to 
the  assistant  chief  inspectors,  so  I  phoned 
down  and  I  got  a  person  in  the  chief  in- 
spector's oflBce  on  the  phone  on  Thursday.  I 
said:  "What  is  the  pay  range  for  chief  in- 
spectors?" He  said  "I  am  sorry,  I  can't  give 
you  that  information."  I  said,  "Is  it  a  secret?" 
And  he  said,  "No,  I  have  been  instructed  by 
Chief  Mackey  that  any  inquiries  are  to  be  for- 
warded to  him."  I  said,  "But  I  understand  he 
is  away."  He  said,  "Yes,  that's  a  shame."  I 
said,  "Well,  does  that  mean  that  while  he  is 
away  the  board  shuts  down?"  He  said, 
"Maybe  you  should  phone  the  registrar.  I  have 
been  given  instructions  I  am  not  to  say  any- 
thing." 

I  phoned  the  registrar,  Mr.  Brovm,  and  his 
secretary  came  on  the  phone  and  said,  "Who 
is  this?"  I  said,  "Morton  Shulman."  She  said, 


"Just  a  moment,"  and  she  came  back  and 
said,  "What  is  it  you  want  to  know?"  I  said, 
"I  just  want  to  know  the  salary  range  for 
assistant  chief  inspectors."  She  said,  "Just  a 
moment  please,"  and  she  came  back  and  said, 
"Mr.  Brown  just  went  into  a  meeting  and 
can't  take  the  call." 

So  I  said,  "Who  is  Mr.  Brown's  assistant?" 
She  said,  "They  all  just  went  into  a  meeting 
and  they  can't  take  the  call." 

I  said,  "Would  you  mind  having  one  of 
them  phone  me  back?  All  I  want  to  know  is 
the  salary  range  for  assistant  chief  inspectors." 

I  never  got  a  phone  call  back.  However,  I 
did  get  a  phone  call  back  from  the  minister's 
deputy.  He  said  the  salary  range  for  assistant 
chief  inspectors'  is  $13,500  to  $16,500,  or 
something  like  that.  I  said,  "How  come  you 
are  phoning  me  back?"  He  said,  "The  registrar 
was  so  frightened  he  didn't  know  what  to  do 
because  Mackey  was  away  so  he  phoned'  us 
and  asked  if  he  should  give  out  any  informa- 
tion. So  I  am  phoning  you  to  tell  you." 

The  morale  there  right  up  to  the  very  top, 
including  two  of  the  three  board  members,  is 
low.  It  is  fear;  they  are  frightened.  They  are 
frightened  of  publicity,  they  are  frightened  of 
Mackey,  they  are  fearful  for  their  j<x)s.  A  very 
strange  way  to  run  a  government  department. 

(Well,  Chief  Mackey  has  ambitions.  It  isn't 
enough  just  to  dispense  liquor  licences  and 
overlook  little  things  like  that.  He  wants  to 
be  a  building  inspector.  So  this  I'ast  year  and 
a  half  he  has  expanded  the  functions.  Now,  if 
a  place  applies  for  a  licence,  it  isn't  enough 
to  comply  with  all  the  regulations  that  this 
government  brings  in.  It  isn't  enough  to 
comply  with  the  Act.  It  isn't  enough  to 
comply  with  board  policy.  Now  he  has  set 
up  his  own  building  regulations. 

An  establishment  on  Bloor  St.  applied'  for 
a  restaurant  licence.  They  got  their  restaurant 
licence.  The  building  was  inspected  by  the 
building  department  of  the  city  of  Toronto 
and  was  passed.  It  is  a  brand  new  oflBce  build- 
ing. Then  they  applied  for  a  liquor  licence 
and  Mackey 's  troopers  came  down  and  said, 
"No,  we  can't  give  you  a  licence  unless  you 
put  in  another  exit.  You  have  got  two  exits; 
you  have  to  have  three  exits." 

They  said,  "You  know  it  is  a  brand  new 
oflBce  building  and  there  is  no  way  you  can 
put  another  exit;  we  would  have  to  blast  the 
wall  out.  It  is  not  our  building,  we  are  just 
renting  the  premises."  They  said,  "Well,  that's 
too  bad,  we  can't  give  you  a  licence  unless 
you  have  another  exit." 

I  couldn't  understand  this,  because  there  is 
nothing  in  the  Act  that  gives  them  the  power 
to  do  this.  I  wrote  to  Jim  Mackey  and  said: 


APRIL  8,  1974 


853 


It  is  my  understanding  or  perhaps  mis- 
understanding that  vour  board's  respon- 
isibilities  are  confined  to  liquor,  and  that 
building  inspection  was  a  responsibili^  of 
the  building  inspectors  and  the  Metro 
Licensing  Commission.  Under  what  author- 
ity have  you  assumed  these  added  powers? 

He  wrote  back  to  me: 

You  ask  under  what  authority  the  board 
has  assumed  these  added  powers.  It's  under 
section  24,  subsection  4,  of  the  Liquor 
Licence  Act  which  reads  as  follows:  '  The 
board  may  restrict  the  scope  or  eflFect  of 
any  licence  and  may  issue  a  licence  upon 
such  terms  and  subject  to  such  further 
conditions  as  it  prescribes." 

He  took  that  innocuous  section  and  has  now 
misread  it  to  say  it  ^ives  him  the  power  to 
set  up  building  staiK^trds.  He  exercises  that 
power  and  anyone  who  doesn't  go  along  with 
it  doesn't  get  a  licence.  And  anyone  who  com- 
plains is  in  danger  of  losing  his  licence. 

He  doesn't  act  just  as  a  building  inspector. 
B\  the  way,  the  interesting  thing  about  that 
building  inspector  is  that  these  particular 
premises  which  have  been  refused  a  licence 
unless  there  is  another  exit  are  on  the  same 
site— exactly  the  same  site— as  another  estab- 
lishment which  was  called  the  Sandpan  Tav- 
ern. It  had  the  same  number  of  exits  and  it 
was  given  a  licence.  It  went  broke,  the  place 
closed  down  and  was  bought  by  a  new  estab- 
lishment which  was  refused  a  licence.  Ex- 
actly the  same  number  of  exits;  exactly  the 
same  physical  plant. 

I  said  to  him,  "How  can  that  be?"  He  said, 
"Until  last  year  we  used  to  accept  the  Metro 
licensing  requirements  but  we've  changed  it 
now.  Now,  we  follow  the  National  Building 
Code."  Arbitrarily.  Who  decided?  Jim  Mac- 
key  decided. 

What  else  have  they  done?  They've  set 
themselves  up  as  censors.  Mackey  has  decided 
there  are  certain  things,  certain  entertain- 
ments, that  people  shoiJd  be  allowed  to  see 
and  certain  entertainments  they  shouldn't  be 
allowed  to  see.  What  brought  this  on?  Ap- 
parently a  young  girl  danced  in  one  of  the 
licensed  establishments  with  very  little  cloth- 
ing on,  perhaps  with  no  clothing  on;  I  think 
she  was  wearing  a  G-string.  She  covered  her- 
self with  whipped  cream,  of  all  things,  and 
she  circulated  through  the  audience,  inviting 
members  of  the  audience  to  lick  it  oflF. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members, 

Mr.  Shulman:  Admittedly,  Mr.  Speaker, 
this  showed  a  certain  lack  of  feeling  for  the 


weight  problems  of  the  guests  and,  perhaps, 
a  certain  lack  of  taste. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Shulman:  In  any  case  the  police  came 
in  and  decided  this  was  a  lewd  performance. 
They  laid  charges  against  her,  quite  properly; 
it  came  to  court  and  was  dismissed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  A  waste  of  good  food! 

Mr.  Shulman:  Right.  The  case  was  dismiss- 
ed and  in  the  meanwhile  the  young  lady  has 
disappeared  somewhere  down  in  the  United 
States  where,  presumably,  she  is  plying  her 
trade.  But  Mackey  was  so  upset  about  this 
case  being  dismissed  that  three  days  after  this 
ruling  came  down  from  the  courts,  he  issued 
instructions  to  all  of  his  inspectors.  This  has 
to  be  cleaned  up.  No  more  naked  breasts." 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  On  a  point  of  order, 
Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  the  hon.  member  is  not 
aware  that  while  a  criminal  charge  was  laid 
against  the  young  lady  to  which  he  refers 
and  has,  in  fact,  been  dealt  with,  the  other 
charges  against  the  proprietor  are  still  out- 
standing. Perhaps  it  might  be  in  the  best  in- 
terests of  justice  for  it  not  to  be  discussed 
any  further. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  no  intention  of  dis- 
cussing the  charges  against  the  proprietor. 
What  I  want  to  discuss  is  Mackey 's  ruling 
which  the  minister  had  to  reverse.  He  decid- 
ed that  naked  breasts  were  a  terrible  thing 
and  that  as  of  that  day— there  was  no  warn- 
ing—every  licensed  establishment  in  the  prov- 
ince was  given  notice  that  as  of  that  night  it 
must  cease  such  entertairunent  on  pain  of 
losing  its  licence.  The  minister  was  embar- 
rassed, quite  rightly  so. 

Whether  or  not  he  or  I  wish  to  go  to  such 
entertairunent  is  a  matter  of  choice  but  Mac- 
key  is  not  a  censor.  This  government  has  the 
power  to  set  itself  up  as  a  censor  if  it  wishes. 
The  courts  have  the  power  to  punish  those 
who  break  the  law.  James  Mackey  is  not  the 
censor  for  this  province  and  someone  should 
tell  him  so.  He  is  not  the  building  inspector; 
he  is  not  the  ad  examiner;  he  is  supposed  to 
be  in  charge  of  liquor  licences.  That  was  so 
bad  the  minister  had  to  reverse  that  rule. 

Let's  look  at  another  aspect  of  his  mis- 
management, if  we  can  use  a  kind  word,  of 
the  special  permit.  Here  is  a  major  scandal 
which  no  one  has  even  discussed  at  this  point. 
Special  occasion  permits  are  given  out  by  the 
thousand  for  every  possible  occasion  for  every 
possible  reason  except,  and  unless,  you  get  on 
ci  certain  blacklist  that  is  made  up  and  held 


854 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


by  the  board.  If  your  name  gets  on  that  list, 
goodbye. 

One  of  the  men  whose  name  is  on  that  list 
is  Roger  Eraser.  The  story  of  Roger  Eraser 
is  quite  a  fascinating  one  because  it's  a  case 
example  of  how  Mackey  runs  the  liquor  board. 
Eraser  owns  a  place  called  the  Cupid  Com- 
puter Dating  Service  and  he  has  some  sort 
of  a  machine  where  ladies  and  gentlemen 
who  wish  to  meet  people  have  their  various 
physical  and  emotional  needs  fed  into  the 
machine  and  then  names  come  out  the  other 
end  and  you  phone  them  up  and  you  meet 
them  and  you  go  on  a  date. 

I'm  not  exactly  sure  of  the  great  virtues  of 
the  computer  in  affairs  of  the  heart  but,  for 
whatever  reason,  Mr.  Eraser  has  had  this  busi- 
ness going  for  some  years  and  he  has  had  a 
number  of  parties  which  he  has  held,  where 
the  people  come  to  meet  and  where  he  has 
received  special  occasion  permits. 

All  went  along  very  well  until  this  year 
when  someone  else,  no  relationship  to  Eraser 
whatsoever,  held  a  singles  fest  down  at  the 
Eour  Seasons  which  turned  out  to  be  a  dis- 
aster as  far  as  the  liquor  board  was  concerned. 
It  was  overcrowded  and  all  sorts  of  strangers 
came  and  met  and  went  home  together.  Mac- 
key  was  very  upset.  He  cancelled  the  Eour 
Seasons  licence  for  a  week  as  a  result  of  it, 
and  he  issued  the  rule,  no  more  singles  fests. 

The  unfortunate  thing  is,  poor  Roger  Eraser 
didn't  realize  this.  He  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  singles  fest  but  he  read  in  the  paper  about 
it,  and  said:  "Look,  I'll  run  a  proper  singles 
fest  and  I  won't  let  it  get  overcrowded.  We'll 
follow  all  the  rules  and  it  will  be  a  great 
thing  for  people."  So  he  applied  and,  of 
course,  got  turned  down  because  there  were 
no  more  singles  fests  to  be  allowed,  regard- 
less. This  is  understandable. 

Unfortunately,  his  name  now  got  on  the 
list,  so  the  Cupid  Computer  Dating  Service, 
which  he  had  been  getting  licences  for  for 
some  years,  suddenly  no  longer  could  have 
its  parties.  He  didn't  know  this.  He  applied 
for  the  regular  Christmas  party  for  the  Cupid 
Computer  Dating  Service  and,  bang,  they 
turned  him  down,  of  course,  because  he  was 
now  on  the  list.  He  couldn't  understand  why, 
so  he  asked  why  but  they  wouldn't  give  him 
a  reason.  They  don't  have  to  give  reasons. 

So  he  came  to  me  and  I  asked  why  and 
they  gave  me  a  reason.  Let  me  read  the 
members  the  reason.  It's  very  interesting.  It's 
from  James  Mackey.  I  quote: 


The  reason  this  permit  was  refused  is 
that  the  applicant  was  applying  for  a  per- 
mit to  serve  liquor  to  the  public  and  was 
a  business  operation  for  the  purpose  of 
making  a  profit. 

He  said  one  is  not  allowed  to  make  a  profit 
when  one  runs  this  type  of  affair.  So  I  wrote 
him  back  and  said:  "This  doesn't  make  sense. 
You've  been  giving  him  licences  right  along." 
He  wrote  back:  "No,  we  haven't.  He  has 
never  had  a  licence  before." 

So,  two  weeks  ago  I  got  five  of  his  old 
special  occasion  permits  which  I  have  here 
and  I  phoned  down  to  the  man  in  charge  of 
the  special  occasion  permits  department,  a 
fellow  by  the  name  of  Gertley,  and  I  said: 
"This  whole  correspondence  doesn't  make 
any  sense.  Eirst  of  all,  you  say  he's  never 
applied  for  one  before  and  now  you're  not 
going  to  give  him  one  because  he  wants  to 
make  a  profit.  He's  been  running  the  same 
thing  for  years."  He  said:  "What  are  the 
numbers  on  the  permits?"  I  read  the  permit 
numbers  to  him  and  he  said:  "I'll  give  that 
information  to  Chief  Mackey." 

I  said:  "That's  all  very  well,  but  how  about 
giving  me  some  information.  What's  going 
on?"  He  said:  "My  instructions  are  that  I'm 
not  to  give  out  any  information.  You'll  have 
to  speak  to  Chief  Mackey."  I  said,  "Well, 
that's  fine.  Will  you  ask  Chief  Mackey  to  let 
me  know  what  the  hell  you  people  are  do- 
ing?" That  was  two  weeks  ago  and  I  guess 
Chief  Mackey  decided  it  was  time  for  a 
vacation  because  I've  heard  no  more  on  that 
subject. 

However,  that's  not  the  end  of  this  story. 
Here,  I  have  this  letter  from  Mackey  saying 
that  the  Cupid  Computer  Dating  Service  may 
not  have  a  special  permit  because  they  want 
to  make  a  profit.  But  I  have  another  letter 
from  Mackey,  sent  to  someone  else,  which  is 
quite  interesting.  On  this  he  asks:  "After  you 
have  your  special  occasion  permit,  please  file 
a  financial  statement  indicating  costs,  total 
sales,  and  profits."  Some  people  can  make  a 
profit  and  some  people  can't  make  a  profit. 
That's  the  way  it  works, 

I  got  in  touch  with  the  board  again.  I  said: 
"Look,  the  Cupid  Computer  Dating  Service 
would  really  like  to  have  this  afi^air.  If  you 
feel  they  shouldn't  be  allowed  to  make  a 
profit  they're  willing  to  call  in  a  charity  to 
run  the  bar.  They'll  have  nothing  to  do  with 
it  whatsoever,  so  they  won't  make  any  profit. 
Whatever  profits  come  in,  the  charity  will 
take  it  in.  Eraser  won't  go  anywhere  near 
the  money."  They  said:  "No,  the  Cupid  Com- 
puter Dating  Service  may  not  have  a  licence 
whether  or  not  they  make  a  profit." 


APRIL  8.  1974 


855 


It  isn't  just  myself  who  is  upset  about  the 
way  they  run  the  Liquor  Licence  Board.  You 
don't  get  complaints  within  the  industry  bo- 
cause  they're  nrightened.  I  hope  the  members 
will  all  go  to  different  licensed  establish- 
ments in  the  next  few  days  and  ask  any  one 
of  them  about  the  Liquor  Licence  Board. 
They  will  all  pour  out  a  tale  of  woe  on  con- 
ditions that  tne  member  doesn't  use  their 
names,  because  they  are  all  frightened  of 
reprisals. 

One  multi-millionaire  said  to  me  when  I 
asked  him  if  I  could  use  his  story:  "I  want 
to  open  up  new  premises  in  Ontario,  but  HI 
never  get  the  licence.  They'll  keep  harassing 
me.  Don't  use  my  name  whatever  you  do. 
There  is  fear  in  that  industry. 

I  have  a  letter  here  from  the  St.  Cath- 
arines city  council,  which  has  been  endorsed 
by  the  Toronto  city  council,  saying:  "The 
whole  way  they  run  the  special  occasion 
permits  is  nutty  and  something  should  be 
done  about  it."  That  was  sent  to  the  minister. 
I  won't  go  through  all  that,  there  is  enough 
of  it  here. 

What  about  the  question  of  influence  in 
the  granting  of  licences?  Just  a  moment,  be- 
fore I  leave  this  special  occasion  permit,  they 
do  something  else.  I  have  a  special  occasion 
permit  that  was  granted  to  a  certain  chari- 
table organization,  or  at  least  it  was  granted 
to  an  individual  to  raise  money  for  a  chari- 
table organization,  and  he  paid  the  $15.  I've 
got  the  receipt  here  for  the  $15  he  paid. 
But  they  have  another  gimmick  at  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board,  which  I  can't  find  in  the  law 
anywhere.  Maybe  the  minister  can  help  me. 

On  any  liquors  that  are  sold  for  the  purpose 
of  charities,  in  other  words  through  these  spe- 
cial occasion  permits,  they  charge  a  special 
extra  tax,  a  tax  of  17  per  cent.  In  other  words, 
when  you  go  to  buy  that  liquor  at  the  liquor 
board,  where  you  and  I  are  going  to  pay  $5, 
they'll  charge  them  another  17  jper  cent  on 
top.  Why?  Is  it  to  punish  the  charities?  I 
haven't  been  able  to  get  an  answer  to  that 
one.  Nobody  seems  to  know  the  answer  for 
that  special  tax.  Maybe  the  minister  knows. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Ontario  retail  sales  tax. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Seventeen  per  cent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  One  dollar  a  small 
bottle. 

Mr.  Shulman:  But  this  was  on  the  total. 
The  total  bill  here  is  $850  and  they  put  on 
17  per  cent  tax.  Figure  that  one  out.  Nobody 
at  the  board  can  figure  it  out.  They  said, 
'•Well,  that's  the  way  it  is.  That's  the  way  it 


Well,  what  about  the  question  of  influence? 
Rmnours  have  gone  arouitd  for  a  lone  time 
that  if  you  go  to  the  right  lawyer— and  there 
are  two  specific  lawyers  in  this  town  who, 
rumour  has  it,  will  solve  all  your  problems.  I 
don't  want  to  mention  the  two  lawyers,  be- 
cause one  of  them  at  one  time  was  a  colleague 
of  ours  and  the  other  is  my  boss  in  one  of 
my  arrangements,  so  perluips  I  shouldn't 
mention  their  names.  In  any  case,  there  is  a 
rumour  in  the  city-I  underline  the  word 
"rumour"— that  if  you  go  to  one  of  those  two 
gendemen  or  to  their  firms,  your  problems 
will  be  solved. 

I  thought  it  was  rather  important  to  find 
out  whether  this  was  true  or  not,  so  I  went 
around  and  looked  at  some  of  the  new  estab- 
lishments. I  went  to  a  place  called  The 
Cossacks.  It  is  a  new  restaurant  that  opened 
up  last  year  down  on  Queen  and  University. 
It  was  run  by  experienced  people,  all  of 
whom  had  had  experience.  The  owner,  the 
chap  who  took  it  over  and  who  opened  it 
had  been  the  maitre  d'  at  Captain  John's. 
There  was  no  question  that  they  knew  how  to 
run  a  restaurant. 

He  applied  for  a  licence  back  on  Feb.  8, 
1973,  well  before  he  opened.  There  were 
some  problems  getting  a  licence.  There  was 
nothing  wrong,  he  had  carried  out  all  the 
rules.  He  didn't  have  any  partitions.  He  had 
all  the  exits  they  asked  for.  He  did  everything 
they  asked,  but  somehow  there  was  a  long 
delay,  months  and  months  of  delay.  He  had 
to  wait  some  seven  months  after  he  was  open 
before  he  got  the  licence. 

There  was  another  restaurant  opened  at  the 
same  time,  Femando's  Restaurant  over  here 
on  Prince  Arthur  Ave.  Fernando  is  an  interest- 
ing person.  Actually  his  licence  was  approved 
before  he  opened.  His  licence  was  approved 
four  weeks  before  he  opened.  They  opened 
on  Boxing  Day  and  a  few  weeks  later  they 
had  put  the  liquor  in  the  bar  and  they  were 
serving  the  liquor.  No  long  wait  there,  and  I 
was  curious. 

I  went  to  lunch  at  Femando's,  and  I  took  a 
couple  of  witnesses  along  just  in  case,  you 
never  know  what  people  are  going  to  say  on 
the  spur  of  the  moment.  I  said  to  Fernando, 
"Congratulations  on  your  beautiful  new  res- 
taurant. It  is  wonderful  food.  How  did  you 
manage  to  get  your  licence  so  quickly?  You 
didn't  have  to  wait  the  way  L'Escargot  had 
to  wait,  five  years,  and  The  Cossacks  had  to 
wait,  seven  months.  Marika's  can't  get  it  at 
all.  They've  been  waiting  a  year  and  a  half." 
He  replied— and  we  wrote  it  down— I  quote: 


856 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


"I  was  a  good  boy  and  I  don't  belong  to 
your  political  party."  That's  Femando's  ex- 
planation. 

Well  all  right,  that  is  still  no  proof.  So  I 
thought,  well  there  is  a  very  simple  way  to 
establish  the  truth  of  this.  Let's  get  a  list  of 
all  the  establishments  in  town  that  got  a 
licence  in  1973,  let's  see  how  long  they  had 
to  wait  for  their  licence  and  let's  see  who  the 
lawyer  was.  Simple.  It's  funny  that  nobody 
has  ever  done  that  before. 

So  I  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Shirley  who  is 
in  charge  of  that  particular  branch.  I  didn't 
get  a  reply.  I  waited  a  week  or  so,  and  still 
no  reply.  So  I  phoned  Mr.  Shirley  tod  I 
said  to  Mr.  Shirley:  "How  about  that  infor- 
mation about  the  lawyers?"  And  we  thought 
we  better  get  this  on  record.  Mr.  Shirley 
replied:  "I  passed  your  letter  on  to  the  chair- 
man for  his  decision,  because  I  was  concerned 
about  the  names  of  the  lawyers  being  made 
public." 

Okay,  that's  fine.  So  I  said:  "When  is 
the  chairman  going  to  make  his  decision?" 
He  said:  "He  will  be  in  touch  with  you." 
Well,  the  very  next  d'ay-we  had  very  good 
service  from  the  chairman-the  very  next  day 
he  phoned  down  and  he  said: 

"Dr.  Shulman,  there  is  a  lot  of  work  in- 
volved in  getting  that  together.  We  can  do 
it  for  you,  of  course,  but  we  are  preparing 
our  annual  report  right  now  and  our  files 
are  scattered  all  over  the  ofiice.  We  won't  be 
able  to  get  you  the  infomation  until  after 
April  1." 

I  said,  "That's  fine.  Chief  Mackey,  that's 
just  fine,  m  be  quite  happy  to  have  it  after 
May  1."  Then  he  said  something  else.  He  said, 
"Why  do  you  want  that  information?  Lay  it 
right  on  the  line."  I  said,  "Well,  I'll  be 
perfectly  frank  with  you.  I  have  the  sus- 
picion that  if  you  go  to  a  certain  lawyer  you'll 
get  your  licence  without  a  wait,  and  if  you 
don't  use  the  right  lawyer,  you  are  going  to 
have  a  long,  long  wait."  And  he  replied  to 
me  "That's  nonsense.  I  don't  even  know  who 
the  lawyers  are."  I  said,  "Well,  thank  you 
very  much.  I'll  look  forward  to  receiving  the 
information." 

The  very  next  day  I  got  a  letter  from 
Mackey  saying  he  had  changed  his  mind  and 
he  wasn't  going  to  give  me  the  information. 
He  said  that  there  was  too  much  work  in- 
volved. Well,  if  there  is  suspicion,  he  is  nur- 
turing it.  And  if  there  is  nothing  wrong,  why 
do  some  have  to  wait  for  years,  some  have 
to  wait  for  a  month  and  some  get  their 
licences  the  very  day  they  apply? 


I  have  another  letter  from  James  Mackey. 
I  want  to  read  you  this  one.  The  very  day 
that  Fernando  was  getting  his  licence,  the 
day  it  was  approved,  four  weeks  before  he 
opened,  Mackey  sent  out  a  letter  to  another 
restaurant  that  had  already  been  open  for 
months.  It  reads  as  follows: 

The  board  feels  that  your  application 
is  premature.  We  suggest  your  dining  room 
be  in  operation  for  a  reasonable  period  of 
time  before  making  another  application. 

How    can    you    possibly    explain    that,    Mr. 
Speaker? 

It  isn't  just  that.  They  don't  just  make  up 
their  own  rules.  They  don't  just  use  discrim- 
ination. They  don't  just  ride  roughshod  over 
those  people  in  their  power,  and  the  licence 
holders  are  in  their  power.  They  do  some- 
thing else.  They  have  contempt  for  the 
Legislature,  and  they  have  contempt  for  our 
rules.  It  doesn't  matter  what  we  say.  The 
minister  says,  "Don't  worry.  In  May  I  am 
going  to  bring  in  a  new  Act  and  I  am  going 
to  change  things.  We  are  going  to  clean  it  all 
up."  It  doesn't  matter  what  he  puts  in  the 
Act;  it's  what  Jim  Mackey  decides. 

Let  me  tell  you  another  story.  When  I  had 
this  funny  story  about  Barberian's  not  ser\ing 
lunch— and  it's  in  the  Act  to  have  to  serve 
lunch— I  thought  I'd  better  look  up  the  Act 
and  see  what  it  actually  says.  The  regulation 
doesn't  just  say  that.  What  the  regulation 
actually  says,  and  I  quote: 

In  every  dining  lounge  or  dining  room, 
meals  for  which  adequate  menus  shall  be 
provided,  shall  be  served  at  regular  break- 
fast, luncheon,  dinner  or  supper  hours. 

Not  just  luncheon,  but  also  breakfast.  I 
thought,  that's  strange;  the  law  says  they 
have  to  serve  breakfast.  I  phoned  Welling- 
ton's and  said,  "I  want  to  make  a  reservation 
for  breakfast  for  tomorrow  morning."  The 
girl  had  a  great  laugh,  and  said,  "We  don't 
serve  brealdast."  I  said,  "But  the  law  says 
you  have  to  serve  breakfast."  She  said,  "Don't 
be  ridiculous.  The  law  doesn't  say  we  have 
to  serve  breakfast." 

I  wrote  Mackey  and  I  said,  "The  law  says 
they  have  to  serve  breakfast,  and  I  want  to 
have  breakfast  at  Wellington's."  And  he  wrote 
me  back  saying,  "No,  we  don't  enforce  that 
law."  And  he  gave  me  several  reasons.  First 
of  all,  it  was  poor  economics.  It  was  a  great 
hardship  for  the  licensees. 

He  said,  "In  the  three  and  one-half  )-ears 
I  have  been  here,  yours  is  the  first  com- 
plaint." Well,  that  seemed  reasonable,  but 
there  was  one  thing  that  worried  me.  I  wrote 
him  back  again  and  I  said: 


APRIL  8,  1974 


857 


Dear  Chairman  Mackey: 

Thank  you  for  your  letter.  I  am  writing 
again  to  ensure  that  there  is  no  misunder- 
standing. As  I  understand  the  situation, 

1.  The  Legislature  in  its  wisdom,  or  lack 
of  same,  has  passed  a  law  requiring  that 
meals  be  served  at  breakfast  in  our  dining 
lounges. 

2.  The  Liquor  Licence  Board  for  various 
reasons,  for  economics,  hardships  to  licens- 
ees, lack  of  public  complaint,  has  decided 
this  particular  legislation  should  not  be 
enforced.  The  implications  to  me  are  stag- 
gering and  I  invite  your  reconsideration 
of  the  matter. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Mackey  wrote  me  back  I  think  perhaps  the 
most  significant  letter  in  this  whole  series- 
just  a  one  liner: 

Dear  Mr.  Shulman: 

I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  in  which 
you  ask  that  I  reconsider  the  matter  of  the 
issuance  of  licences  to  owners  of  dining 
lounges  that  do  not  provide  a  breakfast  or 
luncheon  service.  I  think  you  are  quite 
right  with  regard  to  the  enforcement  of 
the  legislation.  This  matter  is  now  being 
studied. 

Yours  sincerely, 
James  Mackey. 

Just  think  about  that  one.  He  says  I  am 
right.  They  are  now  studying  whetiier  or  not 
they'll  enforce  it. 

That  isn't  the  end  of  it.  There  is  a  place 
called  the  Cambridge  Club  down  at  the 
Four  Seasons,  an  all-male  club  where  people 
go  for  exercise.  There's  a  swimming  pool  and 
a  sauna  and  things  like  that  there,  and  they 
can  play  squash.  They  have  always  served 
breakfast  there.  Recently  they  received  their 
liquor  licence.  Three  weeks  ago  one  of  the 
inspectors,  a  Vem  Colby,  walked  into  the 
establishment  and  said,  "My  God,  you  are 
serving  breakfast.  We  don't  want  you  to  serve 
breakfast.  You  must  stop  serving  breakfast. 
It's  against  our  policy." 

This  is  not  like  a  restaurant.  This  is  where 
people  come  in  the  morning  to  work  out  and 
after  they  work  out  they  like  to  have  a  bite 
of  breakfast.  But  he  said,  "If  you  don't  stop 
serving  breakfast  we'll  take  your  licence 
away."  They  stopped  serving  breakfast  and 
they  got  in  touch  with  me  and  said,  "What 
in  hell  is  going  on?  The  Legislature  says  we 
have  to  serve  breakfast.  Mackey  says  we 
mustn't  serve  breakfast."  I  got  in  touch  again 


with  the  board  and  I  said,  "What  in  hell  are 
you  people  doing  down  there?"  They  said, 
"It's  board  policy—" 

Hon.  Mr.  Crossman:  They  are  carrying  on 
correspondence  with  the  member.  They  don't 
have  any  time  to  do  anything  else. 

Mr.  Shulman:  That's  about  the  only  thing 
they  are  doing.  They  said,  "It's  board  polic>' 
that  breakfast  not  be  served  by  our  licensed 
establishments."  I  said,  "The  Legislature  is 
supposed  to  have  something  to  do  with  this 
province.  It  says  breakfast  must  be  served." 
The  man  on  the  phone  said,  "It's  board  policy 
they  do  not  serve  it  or  they  lose  their 
licence.  Orders  from  Mackey." 

What  does  it  matter  what  law  the  govern- 
ment brings  in?  What  does  it  matter  what  Act 
it  brings  in?  He  doesn't  pay  attention.  It's 
Jim  (I  am  the  law)  Mackey.  The  minister 
doesn't  count.  What  does  it  matter  what  he 
says  to  him?  We  don't  count.  What  does  it 
matter  what  legislation  we  pass?  There  is 
nothing  in  here  that  governs  the  things  he  is 
doing. 

We've  got  a  teetotaller,  who  believes  that 
drinking  liquor  is  sin,  in  charge  of  the  licence 
board.  He  has  become  obsessed  with  his  posi- 
tion. He  has  become  obsessed  with  exercising 
the  power  which  he  became  used  to  as  the 
chief  of  police.  The  minister  is  never  going  to 
clean  up  the  mess  unless  he  gets  rid  of  that 
man. 

Let  the  minister  do  what  he  wants  Nvith 
him.  Make  him  the  head  of  the  OPP.  Put  him 
in  charge  of  the  Police  Commission.  He'll  do 
all  those  things  well,  but  get  him  out  of  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board.  Because  it  is  not  just 
all  these  stupid  things— it's  permeating 
through.  The  public  is  becoming  aware  of  it 
and  it's  not  just  here  in  Toronto.  It's  in  Kit- 
chener and  it's  in  Grey  South  and  it's  all 
across  the  province,  everywhere  dicre  are 
licensed  establishments. 

Those  inspectors  are  going  around  and  I 
can't  blame  the  inspectors.  Each  day  they  are 
given  a  certain  set  of  instructions  and  the  in- 
structions are  maddening.  They  are  told, 
"You  see  such-and-such  a  regulation?  Co 
down  hard  on  that  one.  See  the  other  regula- 
tion? Ignore  that  one."  What  are  the  inspec- 
tors to  do?  If  they  don't  go  along  theyll 
lose  their  jobs.  And  the  instructions  are  com- 
ing down,  "You  will  do  what  I  say." 

Mr.  Speaker,  surely  we  cannot  continue  to 
allow  this  man  to  be  the  law  in  this  prov- 
ince? We  cannot  allow  him  to  continue  to  do 
all  of  these  things  which  are  improper,  il- 
legal, not  based  in  law.  The  morale  of  the 


858 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


employees— I  wish  the  minister,  before  he 
leaves  today,  would  go  and  speak  to  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  employees.  He's  here.  There 
was  a  whole  delegation  of  them  the  other 
day  but  unfortunately  I  couldn't  get  on  and 
they  are  working  today.  There  is  a  representa- 
tive here  who  is  not  afraid  to  speak.  They 
have  been  afraid  for  so  long.  Go  and.  speak 
to  him.  Find  out  what  the  truth  is  down 
there.  They  are  all  frightened.  They  all  hate 
going  to  work  there.  It's  Mackey's  fault  and 
it's  the  minister's  fault  and  his  predecessor's 
fault  for  not  exercising  control. 

All  right.  I  won't  belabour  it  any  further. 
I  think  it's  quite  clear  what  the  minister  has 
to  do  and  a  Kttle  facelifting,  a  new  bill,  isn't 
going  to  solve  his  problem.  He  has  to  revamp 
the  board;  he  has  to  get  rid  of  all  three  of 
them,  I  think,  because  the  other  two  are  just 
rubber  stamps.  He  has  to  put  in  someone 
who  is  going  to  be  responsive  (a)  to  the  Legis- 
lature and  (b)  to  the  public. 

Now  I  just  want  to  say  a  word  about 
organized  crime.  As  members  know,  we  were 
talking  about  laundering  the  other  day  and 
I  said  I  would  prepare  a  bill.  That  bill  has 
now  been  prepared  and  I  gave  the  first  draft 
of  it  to  the  minister.  I  have  a  second  draft 
prepared  here  which  is  a  slight  improvement 
on  that  and  I  am  going  to  pass  that  on  to  the 
minister  also.  I'm  not  introducing  it  until  he 
has  had  time  for  his  experts  to  go  over  it  but 
I  hope  that  problem  will  be  under  control. 
I  want  to  talk  about  a  different  problem  in 
the  field  of  organized  crime,  one  which  has 
never  been  discussed  in  this  House.  As  far  as 
I  know,  it  has  never  been  discussed  in  the 
public  press.  It's  a  growing  type  of  organized 
crime  and  a  highly  profitable  one  which  now 
ranks  second  only  to  bookmaking  in  its  finan- 
cial importance.  That  is  scamming. 

It's  a  whole  new  way  of  raising  money  for 
organized  crime  and  it's  in  the  form  of 
criminal  bankruptcies.  It  works  very  simply.  A 
legitimate  business  will  be  bought  by  a  front. 
They  often  come  from  out  of  the  province  or 
from  the  United  States.  They  will  often  do  it 
through  a  lawyer.  There  is  one  particular 
lawyer  who  specializes  in  that  in  this  city. 

What  happens  is  that  they  buy  a  firm  with 
a  good  credit  rating,  and  the  new  owners  then 
purchase  large  volumes  of  merchandise  on 
credit  and  get  rid  of  this  merchandise  by  sell- 
ing it  at  a  quick  sale.  Sometimes  they  sell  it 
to  the  public.  Sometimes  they  sell  it  to  other 
stores.  Sometimes  they  sell  it  to  wholesalers 
who  are  aware  of  what  is  going  on.  They 
deal  in  goods  which  are  diflBcult  to  trace,  like 
appliances,  jewellery,  furs,  meat,  toys,  ftimi- 
ture  and  clothing. 


What  happens  is  that  they  buy  as  much  as 
they  can  on  credit,  60-  or  90-day  credit,  fill 
the  stores,  and  sell  it  as  fast  as  they  can. 
And  as  soon  as  the  material  is  sold,  they  close 
the  doors  and  never  open  again  and  declare 
bankruptcy. 

According  to  Henry  Jensen,  who  is  the 
RCMP  superintendent  whom  I  am  quoting 
here: 

The  business  closes  its  doors  silently  and 
then  fails  to  reopen.  Often  financial  records 
are  missing  or  destroyed.  False  financial 
'statements  are  prepared  to  dupe  suppliers 
into  granting  credit  on  favourable  terms. 
Credit  is  the  key  to  success  in  this  criminal 
venture. 

According  to  Supt.  Jensen,  there  were  some- 
where over  $200  m:Qlion  worth  of  fraudlJent 
bankruptcies  in  this  country,  most  of  them  in 
this  province,  in  this  past  year.  This  is  big, 
big  money.  It  is  an  unfortunate  thing  that  no 
attempt  has  been  made  by  our  OPP,  the 
Police  Commission  or  the  Metro  police  to 
tackle  the  subject.  Perhaps  they  are  not  ca- 
pable of  tackling  it.  Their  basic  problem  is 
that  they  do  not  have  accountants;  they  don't 
have  the  university  graduates  that  we  need  to 
fight  these  highly  sophisticated  thieves. 

I  have  the  details  here  on  one  man  who 
has  been  carrying  out  fake  bankruptcies— he 
has  been  doing  most  of  them  in  the  construc- 
tion field— and  in  one  year  he  had  had  28  of 
these  phoney  bankruptcies  right  here  in  this 
city.  TTie  police  are  aware  of  his  activities,  yet 
they  can't  seem  to  do  anything  about  it. 

Obviously  my  making  a  speech  here  is  not 
going  to  affect  the  matter  one  iota.  I  am 
directing  this  to  the  Solicitor  General  (Mr. 
Kerr)  and  I  hope  the  word  will  get  to  him. 
We  have  to  have  something  more  done  on  the 
intelligence  squad  of  the  OPP.  We  have  to 
have  trained  men  brought  in— accoimtants, 
lawyers,  miiversity  graduates,  people  who  can 
understand  a  balance  sheet  just  as  well  as 
these  criminals  can.  It  isn't  good  enough  to 
promote  a  cop  up  out  of  the  ranks  and  say, 
"Go  after  them."  He  doesn't  know  what  to  do 
and  he  doesn't  understand  what  he  sees  when 
he  gets  into  these  places. 

It  is  absolutely  essential  that  a  proper  in- 
telligence squad  be  formed  in  the  OPP.  This 
has  been  the  complaint  I  have  had  now  for 
some  years.  For  many  years  they  didn't  have 
a  single  university  graduate  on  the  intelli- 
gence squad.  I  believe  they  now  have  one. 
While  they  are  very  fine  in  handling  things 
hke  the  wiretapping,  gangbusters  and  bank 
robberies,  they  are  not  competent  to  handle 


APRIL  8,  1974 


850 


this  type  of  white-colfer  crime,  which  is  be- 
ing taken  over  very  rapidly  by  organized 
crime. 

I  don't  want  to  belabour  the  point,  but  it 
is  very  important  that  the  Solicitor  General 
move  in  this  field.  I  am  very  phrased  with  the 
Solicitor  General— for  the  nrst  time  in  manv 
years  we  have  a  Solicitor  General  who  is  will- 
ing to  listen,  who  is  willing  to  move  and  who 
is  willing  to  act.  I  hope  that  this  energy  will 
continue  and  he  will  be  allowed  to  remain 
at  his  post  for  a  reasonable  length  of  time. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want  to  say  one  other 
word,  then  I  will  quit,  and  it  has  to  do  with 
the  budget  that  is  coming  down  tomorrow. 
This  is  a  more  serious  word  than  the  one  I 
had  before.  I  am  terribly  upset  by  the  inflation 
that  is  stalking  us,  and  I  am  terribly  upset  by 
governmental  policies  which  are  feeding  that 
inflation— not  just  this  government,  but  gov- 
ernments right  across  this  country,  perhaps 
right  around  the  world. 

I  have  here  a  copy  of  the  Wall  Street 
Journal  of  last  Wednesday,  and  the  headline 
is:  "Painful  prospect.  Big  New  Price  Rises  on 
Retail  Products  Expected  in  the  Fall."  They 
say  by  fall,  for  example,  that  silverware  sell- 
ing today  for  $63  will  sell  at  $120;  draperies 
that  sell  at  $10  will  sell  at  $12;  sheets  that 
sell  at  $4  will  sell  at  $5;  and  so  on  right  down 
the  line.  Everything  in  the  clothing  field,  in 
the  textile  field,  in  the  metal  field  is  going  to 
show  a  tremendous  jump  in  price.  What 
bothers  me  is  that  government  is  doing  noth- 
ing about  it. 

I  am  sorry  the  Treasurer  isn't  here.  I  don't 
know  what's  in  his  budget  but  I  fear  it's  going 
to  include  very  much  of  the  same  mistake 
that  has  been  made  in  Ottawa  and  which  has 
been  made  in  Washington  for  so  many  years 
which  is:  "Put  off  the  evil  day.  We  will 
tamper  with  it.  We  will  give  more  money  to 
the  people  who  are  most  disadvantaged  to 
help  them  solve  the  problem."  But,  of  course, 
by  giving  more  money,  you  must  print  more 
money  and  that  in  fact  aggravates  the  prob- 
lem. 

All  that  does  is  tinker  with  it  and  some- 
where along  the  line— and  this  is  not  going 
to  make  me  popular  with  any  member  of  this 
House  but  I  think  somebody  has  got  to  say 
it— somewhere  along  the  line,  sanity  must 
come  back  to  government  and  we  must  live 
within  our  means  and  this  is  basically  what 
the  problem  is. 

In  Ottawa,  Queen's  Park,  in  Washington, 
no  one  bothers  to  balance  the  budget  any 
more.  It  doesn't  matter.  Nobody  cares.  "Keep 
priming  the  pump,  because  if  we  don't,  we 


are  going  to  become  unpopular  at  the  ptJls." 
You  can  keep  postponing  the  evil  day,  Mr. 
Speaker.  You  can  postpone  it  for  some  years, 
but  now  we  are  into  two-digit  inflation— it  is 
up  over  10  per  cent.  By  fall  wc  are  going  to 
be  at  16  per  cent  inflation  in  this  city  and 
the  things  we  are  doing  now,  if  we  keep 
doing  them,  have  to  l>e  done  even  faster. 

It  is  like  a  treadmill,  Mr.  Speaker.  The 
faster  you  go,  the  faster  it  goes  and  you  can't 
catch  up  this  way.  Somewhere  we  are  going 
to  have  to  pay  the  price,  come  to  reason  and 
live  within  our  means.  The  longer  we  wait  for 
that,  the  worse  is  going  to  be  the  crash  that 
comes  at  that  time. 

I  very  much  fear  if  the  financial,  economic 
and  fiscal  policies  that  are  being  followed  in 
our  economy  are  continued  for  another  three 
or  four  years,  we  will  be  in  the  situation 
Germany  was  in  1923  when  people  had  to 
use  wheelbarrows  full  of  money  to  go  to  a 
restaurant  to  buy  a  meal. 

The  situation  that  came  to  Chfle  just  a 
year  ago— that's  what  brought  Allende  down, 
not  the  other  things.  It  was  the  fact  that 
finally  the  ordinary  man  in  the  street  couldn't 
buy  the  necessities  of  life  for  his  family.  He 
couldn't  pay  the  rent.  He  couldn't  pay  for 
food. 

And  there  is  a  great  temptation  in  govern- 
ment to  tinker.  We  will  put  in  price  controls 
in  one  place.  We  will  put  in  90-day  price 
controls.  Well,  it  has  been  tried  in  so  manv 
nations  and  it  doesn't  work.  It  doesn't  work 
for  a  very  simple  reason.  We  are  not  self- 
sufficient  and  we  have  to  import  so  many  of 
the  things  we  use.  If  we  put  price  controk 
on  certain  things,  the  things  that  continue  to 
come  in  will  continue  to  go  up  in  price  and 
the  things  we  produce  here  that  are  selUng 
too  cheaply  will  slip  out  of  the  country. 
They'll  be  exported  because  we  can  get  more 
money  elsewhere.  That's  why  that  doesn't 
work. 

In  order  to  make  that  work  you  have  to 
put  in  border  controls,  Mr.  Speaker.  You 
mustn't  allow  the  goods  out.  People  then  find 
ways  of  getting  the  goods  out  and  you  have 
to  have  police  to  punish  thorn  and  you  have 
to  have  severe  punishments,  because  the 
profits  become  tremendously  high  vcr\' 
quickly. 

It's  that  whole  scheme  of  things,  price  and 
wage  controls,  border  controls,  punishments— 
it'll  only  work  if  you  are  prepared  to  do  one 
thing  and  that's  kill  people.  The  only  time 
it  ever  works  is  in  an  absolute  dictatorship 
when  people  wlx)  break  the  rules  are  taken 
out  and  shot.  You  can't  do  it.  That  road  is 


860 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


a  bad  road  and  I  hope  that  Bob  Stanfield 
doesn't  go  down  that  road,  because  it  leads 
to  bad  places. 

But  the  other  scheme,  what  we're  doing 
now,  is  equally  bad.  This  is  the  horror.  We 
keep  printing  the  money,  more  and  more 
paper  money,  and  the  public  is  waking  up. 
They  recognize  now  that  buying  government 
bonds  is  a  fool's  game.  They  recognize  now 
there  is  no  use  buying  a  Canada  Savings 
Bond  that  gives  you  seven  per  cent  or  eight 
per  cent  when  inflation  takes  that  much  and 
more  away  from  you  as  fast  as  you  draw  the 
interest.  They  recognize  there's  no  point  in 
putting  your  money  in  the  bank.  They  recog- 
nize there's  no  point  in  buying  government 
annuities.  They  recognize  there's  no  point  in 
having  pension  plans.  Our  pension  plan  in 
here  is  a  joke.  So  is  every  other  pension  plan. 
By  the  time  we  draw  it  it's  not  going  to  mean 
anything. 

The  whole  economy  is  being  ruined  be- 
cause the  dollar  is  being  ruined.  We've 
fooled  the  public  for  a  long  time,  but  the 
public  is  waking  up  as  more  and  more  recog- 
nize that  paper  money  doesn't  mean  anything, 
that  a  piece  of  paper  is  nothing  more  than 
that,  whether  it  is  coloured  green  and  has  the 
Queen's  picture  on  it.  As  the  flight  from 
money  continues,  as  the  people  rush  out  to 
buy  goods,  to  buy  real  estate,  to  buy  metals, 
to  buy  commodities,  there  is  going  to  be  a 
financial  panic  and  there's  going  to  be  a 
financial  collapse  in  this  country  and  it's  not 
too  late  to  stop. 

I  feel  like  I'm  baying  at  the  moon.  Nobody 
listens.  Nobody  pays  attention.  And  when  you 
do  say  this,  the  papers  criticize  you.  I  made 
the  mistake  of  giving  a  speech  like  this  once 
before  and  the  Star  ran  a  series  of  letters 
saying:  "That  man  must  be  silenced.  He's 
going  to  frighten  the  people.  What  we  want 
are  politicians  who  have  the  cures.  We  don't 
want  people  coming  out  and  scaring  people. 
We  want  Trudeaus  and  Lewises  and  Stan- 
fields— people  who  would  say:  T  know  what 
to  do.  You  follow  me  and  everything  is  going 
to  be  okay.  Well  just  print  more  money'." 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  They're 
buying  the  gold. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Same  thing.  There's  a  flight 
from  paper  money  and  it  has  to  be  stopped 
and  the  only  way  it  can  be  stopped  is  by 
sanity  in  government. 

I  hope  when  the  Treasurer  brings  down  his 
budget  tomorrow  he  won't  follow  the  tempta- 
tion which  so  many  others  have  followed  of 
trying  to  put  a  Band- Aid  on  here  and  there; 
he  has  to  cut  back  his  expenditures. 


And  the  Premier  was  right  when  he  said 
that  the  other  day.  But  you  see,  the  Premier 
did  not  quote  correctly  what  I  said  the  other 
day.  He  said,  "You  should  support  the  ceil- 
ings; this  is  a  way  of  holding  it  back." 

*But  there's  no  point  in  holding  it  back  in 
one  spot  if  you  don't  hold  it  back  all  over. 
All  government  expenditures  must  be  re- 
strained—all government  expenditures.  And, 
unless  we  do  that,  we  are  going  to  have  a 
most  unhappy  situation  for  everyone  in  this 
country. 

I  hope  my  contribution  has  been  of  some 
benefit.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  York  West. 

Mr.  J.  P.  MacBeth  (York  West):  Thank  you 
very  much,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  A  hard  act  to  follow. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  I  will  limit  my  act  and  I 
think  I  can  be  through  by  12:05,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  you  might  go  that  long. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  plan  on  rising  at  12. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  I  thought  if  I  could  go  a  few 
minutes  over,  you  can  be  through  with  me 
and  the  next  speaker  can  be  one  from  the 
opposition  party. 

However,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  you  know  it's 
customary  for  the  members  of  this  House  to 
deal  with  many  matters  when  it  comes  to  the 
Throne  debate.  I  thought  this  afternoon  or 
this  morning  that  I  would  limit  mine  to  one 
matter  only  and  that  is  the  distribution  of 
power  under  the  British  North  America  Act. 
As  some  of  the  members  know,  I  have  been 
concerned  from  time  to  time  with  the  en- 
croachment of  the  federal  authority  into  pro- 
vincial powers. 

I  have  been  noticing  something  in  recent 
days  that  has  filled  me  with  a  great  deal  of 
wonderment.  I  see,  sir,  that  the  federal  Min- 
ister of  Health  has  indicated  what  type  of 
football  he  will  permit  us  as  Canadians  to 
attend. 

Now,  sir,  I  am  not  sure  under  what  section 
of  the  British  North  America  Act  he  purports 
to  acquire  his  authority,  but  I  suppose  it  is 
under  that  first  general  heading  of  "Peace, 
order  and  good  government." 

Now,  I  see  this,  sir,  as  a  very  brave  step, 
because  a  less  daring  minister  could  possibly 
conceive  it  as  a  matter  of  property  and  civil 
rights— particularly  in  view  of  the  number  of 
dollars  rumoured  to  be  involved— and  there- 
fore conclude  it  was  a  matter  of  provincial 
jurisdiction. 


APRIL  8,  1974 


861 


But  not  so  this  brave  minister.  And  I  say 
what  a  fortunate  happenstance  for  this  coun- 
try that  such  a  far-sightecl  minister  could  se<* 
the  insidious  threat  that  American  football 
would  pose  for  the  ^ood  government  of  this 
<:ountry,  of  the  tnie  north,  strong  and  free— 
and  to  nip  this  invasion  of  American  culture 
in  the  bua. 

One  can  hardly  imagine  the  threat  to  the 
x-ulture  of  this  country  if  its  sports  enthusiasts 
—and  1  must  say,  sir,  in  my  mind  the  sports 
enthusiasts  are  one  of  the  most  basic  forms  of 
culture  we  have,  even  though  perhaps  they 
are  a  most  primitive  form  of  Canadian  culture. 

So,  I  say  it's  a  good  thing  that  we  are  to  be 
protected  from  this  foreign  abuse,  and  are 
censored  from  a  perverse  desire  to  indulge  in 
this  adulterated  species  of  this  sport. 

I  am  not  generally  regarded  as  a  great 
sports  enthusiast  myself.  So  why  am  I  con- 
cerned? In  brief,  I  see  it  as  a  constitutional 
issue.  Is  there  any  more  pressing  problem  for 
the  Canadian  people  at  this  point  of  time  in 
our  history'  than  this  invasion  of  American  cul- 
ture? Surely  it  is  time  for  a  strong  federal 
government  to  recognize  that  the  Fathers  of 
Confederation  may  have  erred  in  giving  such 
matters  of  culture  as  education  into  the  hands 
of  the  provinces.  This  has  resulted  in  many 
regional  differences  and  permitted  Canadian 
youth  to  be  stamped  in  more  than  one 
common  mold. 

Now  is  the  time  to  save  the  purity  of  Cana- 
dian football.  One  game,  one  set  of  rules  from 
coast-to-coast,  with  the  players  completely 
interchangeable  and  fluently  bilingual.  Now 
is  the  time  to  fortify  our  Canadian  culture. 
Great  harm  could  ensue  if  each  province  is 
allowed  to  go  it  alone. 


L<K)k  at  what  happentxl  in  Quel>ec  some 
years  ago  when  that  province  attenipted  to 
establish  cultural  tits  with  Franc-e.  It  sh(X)k 
Confederation  to  its  very  foundation.  Let's 
look  at  our  sister  province  to  the  far  west- 
British  Columbia.  It  is  noted  for  its  flirtations 
with  innovative  labour  demands.  I  am  in- 
formed, perhaps  by  errmjeous  foreign  pul)lifa- 
tions,  that  if  US  labour  has  a  new  idea  it  will 
try  it  on  for  si7.c  in  British  C^olumbia.  Think 
how  important  it  is  for  the  peace,  order  and 
good  government  of  C>anada  that  federal  legis- 
lation should  be  forthcoming  to  siop  that 
dangerous  practice,  that  pre<liIection  and 
j>eculiarity  of  the  citizens  of  British  Columbia. 

On  Saturday  afternoon  I  was  travelling  in 
midtown  Toronto  when  I  noticed  a  show 
advertising  an  Italian  film.  It  didn't  even  sug- 
gest that  there  would  be  English  subtitles. 
The  people,  sir,  were  lined  up  to  get  into 
that  film  and  nearby  was  another  theatre 
showing  a  Canadian  picture  but  it  was  almost 
deserted.  Surely,  that  second  theatre  nuist  1)€ 
headed  for  financial  failure.  Now  with  this 
new  brand  of  federal  censorship  our  Canadian 
film  industry  could  be  saved. 

(Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  matter  of  entertain- 
ment, whether  in  sports  or  culture,  we  Cana- 
dians need  to  be  protected  from  ourselves. 
Surely,  the  provincial  prerogatives  of  prop- 
erty and  civil  rights  and  education  cannot  be 
allowed  to  stand  in  the  way  of  national  unity. 
Is  this  not  a  most  commendable  erosion  of 
provincial  rights?  When  the  federal  Minister 
of  Health  is  protecting  us,  sir,  from  -American 
footbaU  I  hope  he  will  not  overlook  those  T\^ 
reams  of  the  Shirley  Temple  films. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

It  being  12  o'clock  noon,  the  House  took 
recess. 


862  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 


Monday,  April  8,  1974 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Shulman, 

Mr.  MacBeth 839 

Recess,  12  o'clock  noon  861 


Na22 


&df* 


Ontario 


Hegisilature  of  (j^ntario 


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


Monday,  April  8,  1974 

Afternoon  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


865 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Mr.  L.  M.  Reilly  (Eglinton):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I'm  sure  that  you  and  the  members  of  this 
Legislature  would  like  to  join  with  me  and 
welcome  the  students  here  today  from  Law- 
rence Park  Collegiate,  along  with  their  teacher, 
Mr.  Skeoch. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  What  riding 
is  that? 

Mr.  R.  Cisbom  (Hamilton  East):  North 
York. 


Monday,  April  8,  1974 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  Tlie 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  can  hand  it  out,  but 
he  can't  take  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  what  prattle! 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, to  put  before  the  House  the  specific  fig- 
ures that  are  in  question.  The  government  of 
Ontario  spent  80  per  cent  more  on  tourist 
promotion  within  Canada  in  1971,  an  election 
year,  than  it  did  in  1972.— 


Mr.  Reilly:  The  great  riding  of  Eglinton.  Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.  R.  Newman  (Windsor- Walkerville):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  35  or  so  students  from  the 
High  School  of  Commerce  from  the  city  of 
Windsor,  Ont.,  up  in  the  east  gallery.  They 
are  accompanied  by  their  teachers,  a  Mrs. 
Lange  and  a  Mr.  Maynard.  I'm  sure  that  you 
and  the  members  of  the  Legislature  extend 
to  them  a  most  cordial  welcome. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm 
sure  you  will  join  with  me  in  welcoming  a 
very  fine  group  of  grade  7  students  from  St. 
Raphael's  School  in  North  York,  vwfth  their 
teacher,  Mr.  Nastasiuk.  I'm  sure  all  of  us 
agree  that  we  are  delighted  to  see  them  here 
today  and  give  them  a  real  welcome. 


POINT  OF  PERSONAL  PRIVILEGE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  personal' 
privilege,  I  want  to  rise  in  my  place  at  the 
first  public  opportunity  to  respond  to  the  Pre- 
mier's statement  on  Saturday— 

An  hon.  member:  He'd  better  retract. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  -that  figures  that  I  put 
forward  were  incorrect- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —and,  in  fact,  one  report 
said  he  called  me  a  liar. 

An  hon.  member:  A  liar? 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  just  have  two  sentences, 
Mr.  Speaker.  In  fact,  the  Ministry  of  Industry 
and  Tourism  spent  $311,865  for  advertising 
in  Canadian  media,  including  newspapers, 
magazines,  radio  and  television,  during  the 
calendar  year  1971.  During  the  calendar  year 
1972,  advertising  expenditures  within  Can- 
ada, by  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism, 
dropped  to  $173,051.  The  1971  expenditure 
was  therefore  80.215  per  cent  higher  than 
the  1972  expenditure,  and  this  is  what  I 
stated  on  Friday.  The  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  is, 
as  usual,  misinformed  and  irresponsible  in  his 
statements. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Hullbrook  (Samia):  Not  only 
that,  he's  not  here. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer,  Minister  of  Eco- 
nomics and  Intergovernmental  AflFairs):  The 
member  is  corrupting  himself  and  his  party. 
Why  didn't  he  advise  him? 

Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon:    Give   him    advice?   It 
sounds  like  the  Treasurer's  advice.  He  is  talk- 
ing through  his  hat- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order  please. 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  The  hon.  Lead- 
er of  the  Opposition  has  raised  two  points, 
one  of  which  has  to  do  with  the  apparent 
mis-statement  of  figures.  I  did  read  certain 
figures  and  percentages  in  the  morning  paper. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Of   course,    I   have   no   way   of   determining 
which  figures  are  right  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  In  your  heart  you  know. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  been  told  I'm  heartless 
sometimes.  The  other  point  by  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  to  do  with  the 
alleged  words  of  the  Premier  of  the  province, 
in  that  he  was  a  liar.  I  am  not  aware  of  that. 
I  will  certainly  check  into  it  and,  in  any 
event,  in  the  absence  of  the  Premier  I  think 
no  response  can  be  made  and  the  Premier 
should  be  given  the  opportunity  to  respond 
before  any  such  ruling  should  be  made. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet);  Powerless. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Look  who  is  talking. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  He  waits  until  those 
members  are  out  of  town. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  There  were  only  13  days. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Speaker:   Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Well, 
for  heaven's  sake,  are  these  the  right  figures? 


PETROCHEMICAL  COMPLEX 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my  pleasure  to 
announce  to  the  House  a  world-scale  petro- 
chemical complex  commitment  in  Ontario. 
The  four  member  companies  involved  in  the 
Samia  olefins  and  aromatics  project,  better 
known  as  SOAP,  today  jointly  announced  the 
formation  of  a  new  company,  Petrosar  Ltd. 

Partners  in  the  new  company  are  Polysar 
Ltd.  with  a  51  per  cent  interest  which  makes 
it  a  major  holding  for  Canada;  Dupont  of 
Canada;  Koch  Canada  Fuels  Ltd.;  and  Union 
Carbide  Canada  Ltd.,  each  with  a  16%  per 
cent  interest. 

Petrosar  has  been  authorized  to  proceed 
with  the  construction  of  the  world-scale 
petrochemical  plant  once  confirmation  of  the 
by-law  to  rezone  the  necessary  land  for  in- 
dustrial use  has  been  received  from  the 
Ontario  Municipal  Board.  The  proposed  loca- 
tion for  the  Petrosar  facility  is  in  the  Moore 
township  community  of  Conmna,  just  south 
of  Samia.  Petrosar  will  continue  to  work 
closely  with  the  elected  and  appointed  offi- 
cials in  the  community  to  ensure  maximum 
benefits  to  the  industrial  base  and  future 
plans  of  the  area. 


In  the  aimouncement,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
president  of  Petrosar  pointed  out  it  will  be 
a  major  step  in  Canadian  achievement  of 
petrochemical  prominency.  The  proposed 
plant,  along  with  the  opportunities  for  petro- 
chemical production  that  currently  exist  in 
Alberta  and  the  previously  announced  Quebec 
expansion  in  this  field  will  help  Canada  be- 
come world  competitive  in  these  products. 

The  petrochemical  opportunities  for  Canada 
are  bright.  It  is  noteworthy  that  when  Petro- 
sar is  working,  the  needs  of  the  partners  for 
raw  materials  will  still  require  them  to  seek 
further  supplies  from  other  sources.  The 
partners  added  that  improved  economic 
conditions  contributed  significantly  to  their 
decision  to  proceed  with  the  project.  They 
noted  that  the  current  corporate  tax  rates  put 
Canada  on  a  comparable  footing  with  pro- 
dticers  in  other  countries  and  that  faster 
depreciation  allowances  help  ofiFset  the  risks 
associated  with  today's  rapidly  escalating  con- 
struction costs. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  The 
Tories  are  in  bed  with  the  Liberals. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Getting  crowded 
over  there. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  these  issues  the  Tories 
are  there  and  we  are  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  F.  C.  Rush,  president  of 
Polysar,  is  chairman  of  the  new  company. 
The  president  and  chief  executive  officer  is 
Silas  T.  Smith,  formerly  senior  vice-president 
of  the  chemical  and  plastics  division  of  Union 
Carbide  Corp.  Mr.  Smith  has  extensive  back- 
ground in  the  planning  and  start-up  of  world- 
scale petrochemical  complexes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  project  is  extremely  sig- 
nificant in  a  Canadian  and  Ontario  context. 
It  will  develop  a  Canadian  self-sufficiency  and 
reduce  our  current  $250  million  per  year 
trade  imbalance  in  these  products.  The  re- 
finery and  downstream  operations  are  ex- 
pected to  provide  at  least  1,800  new  jobs 
with  many  of  them  of  a  highly  advanced 
technological  nature.  It  will  establish  a  base 
for  additional  growth  in  the  1980s  after  com- 
ing onstream  in  early  1977. 

In  addition,  it  will  assist  in  developing  for 
Ontario  a  balance  in  our  energy  requirements 
from  domestic  sources.  And  it  will  achieve 
a  great  deal  in  our  efforts  to  obtain  the 
optimum  upgrading  of  Canadian  resources. 
The  overall  investment,  refinery  and  down- 
stream, will  exceed  $1.25  billion. 


APRIL  8,  1974 


867 


Mr.  Speaker,  this  project  would  not  have 
been  possible  without  the  thousands  of  man- 
hours  put  in  by  the  staflF  of  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  and  the  Ministry  of 
Energy.  I  would  like,  at  this  time  to  recognize 
the  energies  of  the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr. 
McKeough)  who  has  been  most  helpful  in 
co-operating  with  my  ministry  and  the  prin- 
cipals involved  in  this  project. 

If  I  may  be  permitted,  I  would  like  to 
point  out  one  individual  in  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Tourism,  Mr.  Frank  Plumb,  for 
the  hours  he  spent  in  co-ordinating  the  efforts 
of  this  organization. 

The  commitment  of  the  member  companies 
of  Petrosar  to  this  project  is  warmly  wel- 
comed in  Ontario  and  we  believe  it  will 
greatly  benefit  our  citizens  and  our  economy. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  What's  the  matter 
with  the  NDP? 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  It 
sounds  a  little  bit  too  fulsome. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  We  will  wait 
until  we  see  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  Minister  of 
the  Environment. 

Mr.  Bullbroi^:  We've  known  about  it- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


PRIVATE  SEWAGE  SYSTEMS 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment): Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
government  to  proclaim  part  VII  of  the 
Environmental  Protection  Act  on  Monday, 
April  15,  bringing  into  force  regulations  es- 
tablishing uniform  provincial  standards  for 
private  sewage  disposal  systems  and  placing 
the  responsibility  for  inspection  and  contr(3 
with  my  ministry. 

As  the  hon.  members  are  probably  aware, 
there  are  widely  differing  standards  being  ap- 
plied at  present  across  the  province  by  the 
local  medical  officers  of  health.  With  the  proc- 
lamation of  part  VII,  this  condition  will  be 
rectified. 

Before  going  further,  I  would  like  to  em- 
phasize that  these  changes  will  have  no  effect 
on  systems  already  installed  and  operating. 
This  measure  covers  proposed  installations  of 
this  type  following  the  day  of  proclamation. 

Initially  this  new  approval  and  inspection 
programme  will  be  carried  out  in  three  ways. 
One,  where  possible  staff  of  the  Ministry  of 


the  Environment  will  perform  this  function. 
Secondly,  in  some  cases,  due  to  shortages  of 
trained  staff,  the  ministry  will  enter  into 
a^eements  with  local  authorities  to  continue 
this  programme  on  its  behalf.  This  will  be  a 
temporary  measure  until  the  number  of  min- 
istry inspectors  is  sufficient  to  perform  this 
service.  We  see  the  maximum  length  of  such 
agreements  being  three  years. 

Thirdly,  in  areas  where  there  are  regional 
governments,  we  plan  to  enter  into  an  agree- 
ment with  the  MOH  to  carry  on  this  function 
until  such  time  as  the  regional  government 
can  acquire  the  necessary  people.  It  is  our 
intention  that  these  inspections  and  approvals 
would  be  handled  by  the  regional  govern- 
ments concerned. 

In  each  of  these  cases  where  the  approvals 
are  delegated,  it  would  be  the  uniform,  prov- 
ince-wide standards  set  by  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  that  would  be  enforced  by  the 
local  health  units  and  the  regional  govern- 
ments. 

Regardtess  of  which  of  these  three— En- 
vironment Ontario,  the  MOH,  or  regicwaal 
government— administers  this  programme,  the 
procedure  would  be  as  follows:  A  certificate 
of  approval  would  be  required  before  con- 
struction could  begin  on  a  new  private  sew- 
age disposal  system  or  any  building  to  be 
served  by  such  a  system.  After  construction 
the  system  would  be  inspected  to  ensure  it 
complied  with  the  plans  originally  approved 
and  a  use  permit  issued. 

There  would  be  a  fee  of  $15  involved  in 
processing  this  application  for  a  certificate  of 
approval.  This  would  include  the  subsequent 
inspections  and  issuance  of  a  use  permit 

Also,  under  part  VII  and  the  accompanying 
regulations  will  be  provision  for  the  ministry 
to  evaluate  the  suitability  of  land  proposed 
for  subdivision  where  this  land  would  be 
served  by  private  sewage  systems.  There 
would  be  a  fee  of  $10  per  lot  for  this  assess- 
ment and  evaluation. 

At  present,  both  the  Ministry  of  the  En- 
vironment and  the  health  units  are  responsi- 
ble for  various  aspects  of  approval,  main- 
tenance and  upgrading  of  private  sewage 
disposal  installations.  As  of  April  15  these 
duties  will  be  supervised  by  one  agency,  part 
of  the  consolidation  of  environmental  pro- 
tection services  under  one  roof  that  began 
with  the  formation  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  two  years  ago.  The  health  units 
have  performed  admirably  in  these  inspections 
and  approvals  in  the  past  and  we  will  be 
drawing  on  their  experience  and  expertise  in 
the  initial  change-over  period. 


868 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


ONTARIO  NORTHLAND 
TRANSPORTATION  COMMISSION 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications. 

Is  he  now  prepared  to  dismiss  the  board  of 
the  Ontario  Northland  Transportation  Com- 
mission and  replace  them  with  people  who 
are  able  to  set  guidehnes  for  an  administra- 
tion with  that  particular  function  that  would 
be  in  the  best  interests  of  the  taxpayers  of 
the  province,  and  particularly  the  people  of 
that  part  of  the  province  who  have  not  been 
well  served  in  the  past  years  under  the  pres- 
ent administration? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  prepared  to  dismiss  the  board  nor  am  I 
prepared  to  accept  the  criticism  that  has  been 
levelled  by  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
which  he  bases  almost  entirely  on  newspaper 
reports  that  are  not  necessarily  factual. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Because  the  minister  has 

not  made  the  reports  public. 

A   supplementary:   Will  the  minister  then 

explain  to  the  House  why  the  special  audit 

that  was  required  of  the  Ontario  Northland 

Transportation  Commission- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Havrot:  Prove  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —by  his  predecessor  was 
never  made  public,  and  if  in  fact  the  special 
auditors  from  the  Ministry  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  were  working  with  the 
audit  carried  out  by  the  Provincial  Auditor  in 
this  special  review  of  the  business  of  the  On- 
tario Northland  Railway  and  Star  Transport? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  audit 
was  an  internal  audit;  the  information  was 
made  available  to  the  ministry  for  its  consid- 
eration. I  think  all  of  the  information  has 
l^een  communicated  to  the  Provincial  Auditor, 
and  as  I  understand  it  the  Provincial  Auditor 
is  prepared  to  appear  before  the  public  ac- 
counts committee  tomorrow  to  make  a  state- 
ment. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  I  would  hope  he 
would  be. 

Supplementary:  Can  the  minister  then  re- 
fute the  statements  made  in  the  two  articles 


by  Mr.  McAuliffe  in  the  Globe  and  Mail  and 
indicate  that  they  are  not  based  on  facts, 
since  he  himself  is  the  only  one  that  we  are 
aware  of  who  has  access  to  the  special  audits, 
the  secret  audits,  that  were  carried  out  by 
the  Provincial  Auditor  and  by  his  own  min- 
istry? Nobody  else  has  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all, 
these  have  not  been  secret  audits  as  has  been 
indicated  both  in  the  press  and  by  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition.  These  audits  are  internal 
matters  that  have  been  dealt  with  as  they 
have  been  in  many  other  ministries  and  as 
will  continue  to  be  done.  I  would  be  quite 
prepared  to  answer  the  particular  question 
as  to  the  contents  of  the  article.  However,  I 
don't  think  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
would  like  me  to  take  the  necessary  time- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Oh  yes,  we  would. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —to  deal  with  it  point 
by  point.  If  that  is  so,  I'll  take  the  time  right 
now. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  do  it  right  now. 

By  way  of  supplementary,  does  the  min- 
ister not  think  he  owes  it  to  the  House,  or 
at  least  to  his  colleagues  sitting  behind  him, 
that  he  set  out  for  the  Legislature  where  the 
government  disagrees  with  the  copyrighted 
stories,  and  that  indeed  he  should  have  done 
that  before  the  orders  of  the  day  by  way  of 
ministerial  statement? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  He  shouldn't  waste  our 
time.  Mdke  it  a  statement  of  privtiege. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
be  quite  happy  to  take  the  individual  points 
and  deal  with  them.  I  may  not  follow  them 
in— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order.  We  do  want  the  information.  Could 
it  be  possible,  sir,  that  we  could  revert  to 
statements  and  hear  the  minister's  views  in 
this  important  matter? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  Right.  That's  what  he 
should  have  done  in  the  first  place. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  would  like  a  com- 
plete and  detailed  statement,  I  have  not  had 
adequate  time  to  prepare  a  complete  and 
detailed  statement  as  he  has  requested.  I 
would  be  pleased  to  prepare  that  and  present 
it  in  the  form  of  a  statement.  If  he  wishes  me 
to  deal  with  them  point  by  point,  I  have  had 
an   opportunity   to    make   some   contacts,    to 


APRIL  8,  1974 


discuss  some  of  these  problems  that  have 
been  brought  forth  in  the  Globe  and  Mail, 
and  I  will  be  happy  to  deal  with  them  point 
by  point  at  this  time  if  he  wishes  as  a  ques- 
tion or  a  statement  later. 

Mr.    Lewis:    The   Speaker   can   apply   the 

appropriate  rule. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  does  seem  to  me  that  the 
oral  question  period  is  a  period  in  which  the 
hon.  members  may  direct  questions  to  the 
ministry.  They  should  be  questions  of  urgent 
current  public  importance,  I  believe.  There  is 
a  provision  in  our  standing  orders  that  lengthy 
replies,  of  course,  should  be  given  as  a  min- 
isterial statement,  prior  to  the  oral  question 
period. 

This  is  precisely  I  believe  what  the  hon. 
minister  has  undertaken  to  do.  It  seems  to  me 
that  to  answer  the  numerous  items  in  the 
article  would  be  a  misuse  of  the  question 
period,  that  it  would  be  a  repetition  of  the 
same  topic  and  would  occupy  a  great  deal  of 
the  time  in  this  question  period. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Revert  to  statements. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the 
hon.  minister  is  not  ready  to  make  a  complete 
statement,  he  should  be  given  the  opportunity 
to  do  so  tomorrow. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
other  minister  responds  to  your  comments,  I 
would  like  to  point  out  that,  while  the  Pro- 
vincial Auditor  is  included  in  the  estimates 
of  the  Treasury  ministry,  the  fact  is  the 
Provincial  Auditor  is  a  servant  of  this  Legisla- 
ture and  reports  to  this  Legislature.  The  only 
vehicle  he  has  for  reporting  to  the  Legislature 
is  through  the  pufblic  accounts  committee. 
Quite  obviously,  he  cannot  be  questioned 
here.  He  cannot  have  an  opportunity  to  refute 
the  very  serious  allegations  in  the  morning 
paper.  My  suggestion  is,  sir,  that  those  allega- 
tions should  be  clarified  in  the  public  accounts 
committee  meeting  tomorrow- 
Mr.  Renwick:  The  allegations  aren't  against 
the  ministry. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —where  he  and  his 
lieutenants  will  have  an  opportunity  to  meet 
the  criticism,  overt  and  covert,  contained  in 
that  document. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  you  are  aware,  I  am  sure,  although 
the  Treasurer  may  not  be,  that  there  was  a 
special  audit  under  the  jurisdiction  directly  of 
the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communi- 


cations, and  it  is  the  report  of  that  audit  we 
have  asked  for  specifically  here. 

Might  I  say,  sir,  in  your  own  words,  that 
you  said  the  question  period  was  to  deal 
with  matters  of  direct  and  immediate  im- 
portance, which  obviously  this  matter  Is,  since 
it  is  the  first  time  it  has  come  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  general  membership  of  the  Legis- 
lature. For  that  reason,  sir,  I  would  like  you 
to  ask  the  House  if  we  could  revert  to  state- 
ments. That  permission  may  be  denied,  al- 
though it  is  usually  given  from  this  side  when 
the  government  asks  for  it.  On  the  other 
hand— 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Not  always. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  a  cover-up  again. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Government  members  will  give 
it  today  or  they  will  never  give  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —if  the  minister  is  pre- 
pared to  give  specific  answers,  then  we  should 
hear  them  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Well,  sir,  I  think  what- 
ever questioning  may  take  place  here  now 
should  not  attempt  to  clarify  the  responsi- 
bilities and  the  %vay  in  which  those  responsi- 
bilities have  been  fulfilled  by  the  Provincial 
Auditor,  who  quite  obviously  must  be  given 
his  opportunity  to  respond  to  these  charges 
on  his  own,  in  that  he  is  not  responsible  to 
this  House  through  either  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  or 
through  me.  Therefore,  whatever  questioning 
takes  place  here  should  not  impinge  upon 
the  Provincial  Auditors  opportimities  to  de- 
fend himself  in  the  public  accounts  committee 
tomorrow. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order,  it  is  however  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  through  whom 
the  ONTC  reports,  and  therefore  he  is  the 
responsible  minister.  And  one  does  not  leave 
it  yet  another  dav  if  it  can  be  avoided.  You 
have  often,  Mr.  Speaker,  applied  a  rule  that 
says  that  after  four  or  five  minutes  of  re- 
sponse to  questions  you  deduct  the  time  from 
the  question  period,  and  I  think  the  minister 
should  at  least  endeavour  to  clear  up  some 
of  the  matters  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  adding  to  the  com- 
ments that  I  had  originally  made,  it  seems 
to  me  that  to  take  the  report,  which  is  rather 
a  lengthy  report,  and  to  deal  with  it  in  the 
words  of  the  hon.  minister,  item  by  item, 
would  probably  entail  a  great  part  of  the 
time  for  oral  questions. 


870 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  have  no  objections  to  the  hon.  members 
directing  a  few  questions  to  the  minister, 
those  of  the  greatest  importance  in  their 
minds,  as  long  as  the  matter  does  not  de- 
velop into  a  full-scale  debate. 

If  the  minister  is  agreed  and  he  is  pre- 
pared to  answer  some  of  these  questions,  I 
certainly  have  no  objections  to  some  questions 
being  directed  to  him;  but  I  should  point  out 
to  the  hon.  members  that  I  will  be  advised 
to  cut  it  oflF  when  it  does  constitute  a  debate. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  in  furtherance  to 
your  ruling,  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  the  hon. 
minister  could  tell  the  House  specifically 
where  the  reports  were  wrong.  It  did  cover 
the  report  in  the  Globe;  two  columns  did 
cover  a  wide-ranging  survey  of  activities  and 
serious  charges  of  maladministration,  and  I 
would  like  to  hear  the  minister's  defence  of 
those  areas  where  he  believes  the  conclusions 
were  incorrect. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  am  sorry;  where  the 
conclusions  were  believed  to  be  incorrect? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  well 
I  will  not  necessarily  follow  in  the  order  in 
which  they  have  appeared  in  the  articles. 

Mr.  Speaker,  one  of  the  items  that  was 
commented  on  was  that  a  fee  of  $40,000  had 
been  paid  to  a  legal  firm.  The  fee,  in  fact, 
was  $3,541.69  and  was  paid  to  a  firm  known 
as  Cheadle,  Bryan  and  Mitchell  from  Thun- 
der Bay.  I  believe  Mr.  David  Cheadle  is  very 
well  known  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Does  that  mean  he  is  a 
Liberal?  I  don't  know;  I  haven't  got  my  list 
here. 

Hod.  Mr.  Rhodes:  It  was  Ontario  North- 
land's intent  to  purchase  or  subsidize  this 
company  in  order  to  reduce  freight  rates— 
that  is  the  Lakehead  freight  rates— but  the 
fee  was  $30,541.69  and  not  the  $40,000  as 
referred  to  in  the  article. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Did  the  minister  say  $30,- 
000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  It  was  $3,541.69. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  first  time  the  minister 
said  $3,500  and  the  second  time  $30,000. 
Which  is  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  My  apologies.  It  is  $3,- 
541.69. 


Mr.  Bullbrook:  All  right.  That  is  one 
mistake.  He  is  right. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  On  the  question  of  failure 
to  pay  sales  tax  to  the  Province  of  Ontario, 
there  were  interest  charges  of  $7,291  that 
were  levied  against  the  ONR.  That  was  the 
result  of  a  challenge  of  the  sales  tax  charges 
against  various  items.  It  was  the  opinion  of 
the  ONR  that  they  should  not  have  been  paid. 
They  challenged  it  and  they  were  not  success- 
ful and  as  a  result  they  were  required  to  pay 
the  taxes  and  the  interest  charges. 

I  point  out  that  the  same  type  of  approach 
was  done  with  the  question  of  passenger  fees, 
and  they  dealt  with  the  federal  government 
in  that  area. 

There  was  $8,000  referred  to  as  being  spent 
on  plans  for  a  new  100- unit  complex  to  be 
staged  over  a  four-  to  five-year  period.  That 
is  correct;  there  was  $8,000  spent.  However, 
those  plans  are  still  in  the  possession  of  the 
Ontario  Northland  Railway.  It  is  intended 
they  will  be  used.  They  were  paid  for  and 
they  have  them.  The  proposal  was  just  too 
rich  for  them  to  go  ahead  and  develop  that. 

There  was  $35,000  spent,  and  that  was  on 
a  renovation  programme  to  the  Moosonee 
Lodge— and  that  was  very,  very  much  needed. 
It  is  a  very  old  facility.  I  am  sure  some 
members  have  been  there  and  will  recognize 
that  these  renovations  were  needed.  The 
renovations  were  carried  out  by  a  contractor 
here  in  Toronto.  In  fact  no  tenders  were 
called,  but  I  think  many  of  you  would  appre- 
ciate, again,  that  to  get  firms  to  go  into  the 
Moosonee  area  is  not  an  easy  chore.  This  par- 
ticular firm  was  already  doing  work  in  the 
area  and  the  price  was  very,  very  reasonable. 

It  was  suggested  that  the  Ontario  North- 
land Railway  was  operating  the  ship  Chief 
Commanda  in  an  unseaworOiy  condition.  In 
fact,  there  is  a  certificate  of  seaworthiness  that 
has  been  issued  by  the  federal  Ministry'  of 
Transport.  Therefore,  to  the  best  of  our 
knowledge  the  ship  meets  the  qualifications 
as  far  as  the  federal  ministry  is  concerned. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  don't  trust  the 
federal  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Never  at  any  time  was 
it  stated  that  there  would  be  $50,000  spent 
on  the  vessel  to  refurbish  the  ship  for  one 
year's  operation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  just  don't  trust 
the  federal  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  We  know  that  there  is  a 
new  ship  coming.  If  that  new  ship  had  not 


APRIL  8,  1974 


871 


been  coming,  then  there  would  have  been  a 
substantial  outlay  of  funds,  approximately  in 
the  area  of  $50,000,  to  keep  the  ship  operat- 
ing, but  with  the  fact  that  a  new  one  is  com- 
ing that  monev  was  not  to  be  spent.  That  was 
an  estimate  tnat  had  been  brought  forth  if, 
in  fact,  they  wanted  to  keep  the  ship  oper- 
ating in  place  of  another. 

May  I  comment,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  ques- 
tion of  railway  ties  that  had  been  donated  to 
the  North  Bay  Golf  Club?  Normally  there  is 
no  sale  value  for  used  rail  ties.  In  fact,  in  the 
years  1971  and  1972  there  had  been  a  request 
by  the  Ontario  Northland  for  ties  to  be  given 
to  various  organizations.  These  were  not  avail- 
able, but  through  the  good  oflBces  of  the  ONR 
contacts  were  made  with  other  railroads  which 
did  in  fact  supply  ties  free  of  charge  to 
various  organizations  in  the  area  served  by 
ONR  which  had  made  the  request.  In  1973 
there  was  a  limited  market  for  3,300  ties  to 
a  firm,  I  understand,  in  Whitby  and  they  did 
purchase  them  at  75  cents  per  ti'e.  One  thou- 
sand ties  were  donated  to  the  North  Bay  Golf 
Chib.  The  remaining  1,700  ties  were  made 
available  to  other  interestedi  parties.  For  ex- 
ample, the  Knights  of  Columbus,  which 
wanted  ties  to  help  repair  their  docks  at  their 
boys'  camp. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  They  were  made  avail- 
able to  the  crippled  children's  association  and 
quite  a  nimtiber  of  other  organizations  in  the 
North  Bay  area  and  in  the  area  served  by 
the  Ontario  Northland  Railway.  Now,  if  any- 
one objects  to  that,  please  stand  up  and  say 
so.  There  were  1,000  ties  to  the  North  Bay 
club.  It  was  suggested  in  the  article  that 
members  of  the  executive  of  the  Ontario 
Northland  Railway  belonged  to  the  North  Bay 
club.  That  is  correct.  Three  of  the  senior 
executive  of  the  ONR  belong  to  the  North 
Bay  Golf  Club.  I  would  also  point  out  that 
a  great  many  members  of  that  club  are  em- 
ployees of  the  ONR  and  are  members  of  the 
union  and  members  of  the  labouring  force. 
They  belong  to  it  and  I  am  sure  members 
would  agree  that  if  anything  could  be  done  to 
help  that  club,  it  would  be  helping  those 
individuals  as  well. 

I  would  like  to  take  a  moment,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  comment  on  the  insinuations  as  to 
the  irregularities  of  the  travel  of  the  chair- 
man. I  am  sure  that,  if  necessary,  he  can 
reply  more  competently  than  I,  but  he  did 
make  a  number  of  personal  trips  on  Ontario 
Northland  Railway  business.  It  averaged 
about  one  and  a  half  trips  per  month  during 
the   period  of  Januarv,    1973,   to   March   (S 


1974,  between  Thunder  Bay,  Toronto  and 
North  Bay,  plus  a  Jan.  7  trip  from  Fort 
Lauderdale  to  Toronto.  That  was  to  attend 
a  management  board  meeting  called  on  Jan. 
8. 

There  were  chartered  trips:  April  30  to 
Timmins  for  a  commission  meeting;  May  29 
to  North  Bay  for  a  commission  meeting;  and 
Oct.  10  to  Timmins  for  a  meeting  to  deal 
with  the  relocation  of  the  rail  in  that  com- 
munity. At  no  time  has  there  been  any 
question  as  to  the  regularity  of  these  trips, 
and  it  is  my  understanding  that  at  no  time 
were  they  ever  questioned  either  by  the  com- 
mission or  by  the  audit  that  was  done  of  the 
particular  books. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It's 
about  time  they  were. 

Mr.  Deans:  They  are  being  questioned  now, 
I  will  tell  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  One  other  point  I  would 
like  to  make  too,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  there 
was  reference  made  to  a  fee  of  $9,000  being 
paid  to  the  Automotive  Transport  Association 
as  dues  by  Star  Transfer.  That  is  not  correct. 
The  fee  paid  is  $1,300.  That's  an  annual  fee 
of  the  firm  to  belong  to  that  association. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Before  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opi)osition  asks  further  supple- 
mentaries,  I  might  say  that  this  answer  took 
precisely  6%  minutes,  which  was  a  little 
longer  than  an  ordinary  reply.  I  will  therefore 
add  four  minutes  to  the  question  period. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Rather 
than  use  up  the  time,  Mr.  SpejJcer,  under 
your  former  direction,  in  asking  more  specific 
matters  that  came  out  in  the  report,  must  we 
assume  then  that  the  things  that  the  minister 
has  not  referred  to  directly  are  in  fact  at 
least  parallel  with  the  facts  and  that  he  is 
not  prepared  to  say  that  the  conclusions  were 
wrong?  For  example,  in  the  payments  to  the 
resort  facilities  owned  by  Mr.  Kennedy,  I 
believe,  a  member  of  the  board. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  cor- 
rect. There  were  payments  made  for  the  use 
of  Pinewood  Lodge.  I  believe  the  incident  re- 
ferred to  in  the  press  was  a  result  of  a  meeting 
that  was  held  in  that  lodge  when  the  oflBce 
facilities  of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway 
were  under  repair  and  there  was  no  area  for 
them  to  meet  in.  They  then  went  to  the 
Pinewood  Lodge  to  hold  their  meeting  there. 


872 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Just  a  supplementary:  For 
the  procedure  on  this  matter,  is  it  the  min- 
ister's understanding  that  he  and  the  chairman 
of  the  ONR  will  be  available  for  meetings  of 
the  public  accounts  committee,  presumably 
along  with  the  auditor,  to  clarify  this  matter 
and  get  the  facts  public?  And  secondly,  is  the 
minister  prepared  to  table  the  audit  reports 
that  are  under  his  jurisdiction  so  that  all  of 
the  information  will  be  available  to  the  mem- 
bers of  this  House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  not 
make  a  commitment  that  I  will  table  that 
audit  report  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Why  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  will  not  either  neces- 
sarily make  a  commitment  as  to  when  I  would 
be  prepared  to  appear  before  the  public  ac- 
counts committee  until  such  time  as  the  Pro- 
vincial Auditor  has  made  his  statement. 

May  I  take  a  moment,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  clear 
up  one  point  for  fear  that  it  might  be  con- 
sidered that  I  thought  it  was  correct?  It  had 
been  mentioned  in  the  press  reports  that 
$100,000  had  been  paid  to  a  grocer  in  Coch- 
rane prices  for  groceries  at  over-the-counter. 
This  is  not  correct;  the  fee  is  $59,000-the 
total  amount  is  $59,000— and  that  price  to 
the  Ontario  Northland  is  five  per  cent  over 
the  grocer's  invoice. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  What's  right  about  it? 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary  if  I  could,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Now  that  all  of  the  material  has 
emerged  and  there  are  some  conflicts— pre- 
sumably the  Provincial  Auditor  will  clear  up 
his  audit  before  the  public  accounts  commit- 
tee, why  would  the  minister  not  make  his 
internal  audit  public  now  since  it  is  a  con- 
tentious matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
referred  to  the  internal  audit;  I  have  referred 
only  to  material  that  I  have  been  able  to 
gather  that  touched  on  items  that  were  dis- 
cussed in  these  two  articles  that  appeared  in 
the  press- 
Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  It  could 
be  wrong  then? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —one  on  Saturday  and 
one  again  today.  I  would  be  quite  happy  to 
give  that  consideration  after  the  Provincial 
Auditor  has  appeared  before  the  public  ac- 
counts committee. 


Mr.  MacDonald:  A  supplementary  question, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Did  I  imderstand  the  minister 
earlier  to  state  that  all  of  the  internal  audit 
material  had  been  turned  over  to  the  Pro- 
vincial Auditor?  And  if  that  is  the  case  then 
would  it  not  be  available  to  the  public  ac- 
counts committee  through  the  Provincial  Au- 
ditor? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't  re- 
ply to  that.  My  information  is  that  the  internal 
audit  material  has  been  turned  over  to  the 
Provincial  Auditor  for  his  consideration. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position has  further  questions? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary,  if  you'll 
permit:  Have  all  of  the  auditor's  findings  been 
turned  over  on  a  regular  basis  to  the  Ministry 
of  Transportation  and  Communications?  That 
is,  was  there  a  sharing  of  information  both 
ways  on  this  supposedly  independent  double 
audit? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot 
accurately  answer  that;  as  you  can  appreciate 
I  came  into  this  matter  early  this  morning 
and  I  have  been  working  diligently  to  get 
information  that  I  could  have  available  for 
our  members  opposite  at  this  time.  There  are 
some  points  I  just  haven't  been  able  to  get 
into  in  detail. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 


DEEP  WELL  POLLUTION 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  the  Etiviroimient  if  a  study  of 
Innisfil  township  just  south  of  Barrie  has  been 
recently  made  available  to  him,  or  made  pub- 
lic, which  indicates  that  there  is  a  consider- 
able amount— in  fact  a  frightening  amount— 
of  deep  well  pollution  rapidly  growing  in  that 
area  around  Lake  Simcoe,  amounting  to— de- 
pending upon  the  community— pollution  of  65 
to  80  per  cent  of  the  wells  in  that  area  which 
could  become  a  serious  public  matter,  particu- 
larly when  the  weather  warms  up  in  the  holi- 
day season  when  it  gets  into  full  swing  this 
summer? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  through 
you  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  I  will 
look  into  this  matter  and  report  back  to  the 
member. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Is  the  minister  aware  of 
such  a  report? 


APRIL  8,  1974 


873 


Hon.  W.  Newman:  No. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  is  not  aware? 


LAKESHORE  PSYCHIATRIC 
HOSPITAL  GRANTS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Health  if  the  reports  that  have 
been  circulating  that  the  grants  to  the  Lake- 
shore  Psychiatric  Hospital,  although  they  are 
only  slightly  reduced  in  the  upcoming  year, 
will,  in  fact,  interfere  with  the  expanding 
facilities  that  had  been  planned  for  that  hos- 
pital, which  cares  for  the  mental  illness  in  a 
very  large  segment  of  Ontario's  population? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health)  No, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't  specifically  answer  that 
question.  I  know  the  whole  role  of  Lakeshore 
Psychiatric  Hospital  has  been  under  review 
by  the  ministry  over  the  past  year.  It  is  one 
of  the  two  hospitals  in  the  province  that  has 
an  advisory  board  from  the  community  to  as- 
sist it  in  that  review. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Can 
the  minister  dispel  any  fears  that  have  been 
stated  by  some  people  associated  with  the 
Lakeshore  Hospital  that  the  decision  may 
have  been  made  to  phase  it  out  and  repfece 
it  with  other  facilities,  or  is  that  in  fact  the 
intention  of  the  ministry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  The  decision  to  phase 
out  Lakeshore  Psychiatric  Hospital  as  a  psy- 
chiatric facility  certainly  has  not  been  made. 
To  say  that  there  has  not  been  some  consid- 
eration of  that  possibility  would  not  neces- 
sarily be  correct. 

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


ACTIVITY  OF  MULTI-MALLS  NEAR 
TILLSONBURG 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Transportation  and  Communications, 
Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  rather  different  matter,  if  I 
may.  Does  the  minister  recall  the  Multi-Malls 
development  outside  Tillsonburg  which  is 
being  fought  assiduously  by  the  provincial 
Treasurer?  And  is  he  aware  that  Multi-Malls 
requires  approval  by  the  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  for  road  access 
before  that  shopping  centre  can  proceed? 

Mr.  Rhodes:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Lewis:  All  right,  a  further  supple- 
mentary:   Why  has   the  minister   apparently 


given  Multi- Malls— which  is,  as  you  know,  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  subsidiary  of  the  CNA  investors 
group— approval  in  principle,  although  not  yet 
in  writing,  for  the  shopping  centre,  when  his 
colleague  has,  pretty  bitterly  and  publicly, 
climbed  aboard  them  for  their  efforts  to  set 
up  a  shopping  centre  directly  in  competition 
with  the  redevelopment  plans  designed  for 
Tillsonburg? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  best 
of  my  knowledge  I  have  not  given  any  sort 
of  approval,  in  principle  or  otherwise,  to  an 
entrance  to  this  particular  development. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fine.  By  way  of  supplementary, 
since  Multi-Malls  must  also  have  a  building 
permit  from  the  Ministry  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  under  section  31(2)(d)  of 
the  Highway  Improvement  Act,  can  the  mim's- 
ter  indicate  to  the  House  now  and  to  the 
people  of  the  area,  who  would  be  immensely 
relieved,  that  he  will  join  with  his  colleague, 
the  Treasurer,  in  saying  "no"  to  Multi-Malls 
in  that  area,  thereby  killing  that  particular 
project  in  its  place? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  far 
as  I'm  concerned,  if  all  of  the  requirements 
of  any  particular  company,  be  it  Multi-Malls 
or  any  other,  can  meet  the  necessary  criteria 
to  qualify  for  an  entrance,  I  don't  believe  the 
ministry  has  the  right  to  deny  them  access  if 
they  legally  are  entitled  to  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  are  they  clapping 

for? 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  when 

the  Treasurer- 
Mr.    MacDonald:    iTiose   boys    are   really 

quite  mindless  in  their  reactions. 

Mr.  Lewis:  -talks  about  Multi-Malls  as  a 
developer  who  thwarts  the  plans  and  inten- 
tions of  town  councils  bv  building  shopping 
centres  just  outside  town  boundaries;  when  he 
says,  "I  can  think  of  far  worse  things  to  say 
about  the  developers  who  build  shopping 
centres  just  outside  the  boundaries  of  urban 
municipalities";  when  he  says,  "If  our  pro- 
gramme of  persuasion  does  not  bring  about 
3ie  necessary  results,  we  will  have  to  examine 
other  measures,"  etc.,  why  would  the  minister 
approve  the  location  of  Multi-Malls  outside 
Tillsonburg,  directly  contrary  to  the  expressed 
opinion  of  the  Treasurer,  when  it  is  entirely 
within  the  minister's  prerogative  to  say  to 
them,  "no"? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  assume  that  if  there  are  actions  to  be 


874 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


taken  by  other  ministries  of  this  government 
that  would  not  permit  the  development  to 
take  place,  then  of  course  it  would  behove 
the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Commun- 
ications not  to  issue  a  permit  for  an  access. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He's  already  taken  those  actions. 
He  tried  to  stop  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  My  only  answer  to  the 
hon.  gentleman  is  that  we  have  not  issued 
such  a  permit.  We  have  not  permitted  access 
and,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  we  have 
no  intention  to  do  so  at  this  time.  But  I  re- 
peat, if  there  is  no  legal  way  that  the  minis- 
try can  deny  access- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  there  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  If  there  is,  Mr.  Speaker, 
then  I'm  sure  we'll  look  at  it  in  that  light. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Maybe  the  minister  should 
put  it  on  the  cabinet  agenda  and  discuss  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Surely  the 
minister  is  aware  that  his  predecessor  gave 
the  same  kind  of  access  to  precisely  the  same 
company  just  outside  of  Chatham,  which  is  in 
the  backyard  of  the  former  chief  planner- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  That's  right. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —and  presently  major 
spokesman  for  the  government  in  most  areas? 
The  same  land  of  access  in  the  same  county 
was  given  to  Multi-Malls,  the  same  company, 
just  to  the  east  of  Woodstock,  off  Highway 
2.  And  while  it  may  have  gone  against  what 
the  Treasiurer  says  he  believes,  certainly  it 
didn't  go  against— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  this  a  question? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —the  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Well,  it  may  be,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  Treasurer  and  I  get  along 
better. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  may  be  that  they  should  get 
along  at  all! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Discuss  it  in  the  cabinet. 

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


MINAKI  LODGE 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism. 

There  was  a  report  from  the  Canadian  Press 
which  indicated  that  once  the  Minaki  Lodge 


facility  becomes  a  successful  operation,  when 
the  government  has  bailed  it  out  and  re- 
instituted  it,  that  it  is  then  the  minister's 
intention  to  sell  it  back  to  private  enterprise. 
Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
made  that  remark  on  behalf  of  cabinet  that 
we  are  putting  some  heavy  capital  invest- 
ments into  Minaki.  Once  it's  successful,  it 
would  be  our  intention  to  make  sure  that  it 
goes  back  into  private  enterprise  Canadian 
ownersh^. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  He's  going  to  recycle  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  how 
much  public  money  is  being  spent  to  bail  out 
the  ODC  loan,  then  to  pay  off  the  other  loans 
and  to  get  the  company  back  into  operation? 
Why  can't  we  leave  it  as  a  Crown  corporation 
instead  of  selling  it  off  to  private  enterprise 
again,  which  failed  us  once? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Because  we're  not  So- 
cialists. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  come  on.  It  doesn't  take 
socialism  to  come  to  one's  senses! 

Mr.  Deans:  What  right  has  the  government 
to  use  taxpayers'  money  to  bail  out  the  private 
sector? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Exactly. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  They're  just  going  to  re- 
cycle it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  not  socialism;  that's  just 
common  sense. 

Mr.  Deans:  It's  a  kind  of  Robin  Hood 
theory— only  it's  robbing  the  people. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  NDP  would  like  to 
be  Robin  Hoodl 

iMr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Supple- 
mentary: What  assurance  can  the  minister 
give  the  entreprenem^  in  northern  Ontario 
who  have  pretty  well  paddled  their  own 
canoes  that  they  won't  be  competing  against 
an  entrepreneur  who  has  been  almost  totally 
subsidized  by  the  taxpayers  of  this  province? 

Mr.  Dean:  Who  does  the  minister  have  in 
mind,  and  when  is  he  retiring? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
government  decided  to  move  in  and  take  over 
the  operation  of  Minaki  Lodge  we  had  a  great 
number  of  talks  with  people  in  private  oper- 


APRIL  8.  1974 


875 


ations  in  that  part  of  the  province,  including 
the  chambers  of  commerce,  the  elected  oflB- 
cials,  and  people  in  the  private  resort  business. 
It  was  obvious  from  our  discussions  with  them 
that  it  was  most  important  that  Minaki  be 
retained  as  a  prime  resort  area  in  that  part 
of  northwestern  Ontario,  and  that  without  it 
there  would  not  be  a  catalyst  that  would  help 
to  draw  the  business  into  that  part  of  the 
province. 

Mr.  Deans:  Those  private  entrepreneurs 
weren't  prepared  to  do  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  If  the  member  would 
listen.  Obviously,  with  his— 

Mr.  Deans:  I  am  listening  and  I  can  hardly 
believe  what  I  heard. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Sometimes  we  have 
trouble  believing  it  when  he  is  up,  too. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  went  over  the  situation 
with  the  private  people  and  we  were  very 
concerned  along  with  them  that  if  Minaki 
was  not  retained  it  could  have  a  very  great 
detrimental  eflFect  on  the  balance  of  their  in- 
dustry. After  long  discussions  with  them  and 
after  reviewing  it  with  various  people,  it  was 
the  decision  of  government  that  we  should 
move  in  and  retain  Minaki  and  build  it  up,  to 
be  the  catalyst  to  develop  the  tourist  industry 
even  further  in  northwestern  Ontario,  and  we 
sincerely  believe  it  will  succeed  in  doing 
just  that  for  that  part  of  the  province. 

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


ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment,  if  I  may:  Is  the 
minister  prepared  to  table  the  reix)rt  of  the 
inquiry  officer  under  the  hearing  of  necessity, 
the  Expropriation  Procedures  Act,  applied  on 
Jan.  23  to,  I  think,  five  or  six  Crown  proper- 
ties in  the  area  of  the  Amprior  dam  project? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  That's  a  very  good 
question.  At  this  point  in  time  I  can't  say 
whether  there  are  legal  ramifications  or 
whether  I  can  or  cannot  table  the  report,  but 
I  will  look  into  it  and  let  the  member  know 
tomorrow. 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  a  supplementary? 
Has  the  minister  turned  the  inquiry  officer's 
reports  over  to  the  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
Welch)  as  yet? 


Hon.  W.  Newman:  Not  at  this  point  in 
time. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementarv,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  aware  that  he  is  meant  to 
give  approval  to  further  expropriations  in  the 
area,  and  if  he  is  aware,  has  he  in  fact  done 
so,  as  required  under  the  Expropriations  Act? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  will  give  an  answer  to 
all  of  that  tomorrow,  okay? 

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

Mr.  Cassidy:  May  I  ask  a  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker?  In  view  of  the  intention  of  the 
Expropriation  Procedures  Act,  does  the  min- 
ister not  consider  that  it  is  at  least  undesirable 
that  work  on  the  dam  now  proceeding  wiH 
flood  land  on  which  no  expropriation  orders 
have  been  taken  out?  What  pressure  has  he 
put  on  Ontario  Hydro  to  get  them  to  bring 
down  the  expropriation  orders  on  land  whidfi 
they  now  intend  to  flood? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  think  any  pressure  on 
Ontario  Hydro  should  come  from  the  Minister 
of  Energy  and  I  would  discuss  the  matter 
with  him. 


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Housing,  Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  minister  aware 
that  the  cost  per  home  on  the  average  in 
Metro  Toronto  jumped  last  month  to  $50,340, 
the  single  biggest  jump  in  a  monthlv  period 
in  some  considerable  time,  and  tnat  that 
means  it  will  now  cost  the  average  pur- 
chaser over  the  lifetime  of  the  home  some- 
thing in  the  vicinity  of  $159,563  at  current 
interest  rates?  Can  he,  therefore,  indicate  to 
the  House  whether  there  is  a  single  specific 
policy,  either  by  way  of  niunbers  of  lots  or 
planned  homes  over  the  next  period  of  time, 
to  do  something  about  the  accelerating  prices? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  have  to  trust  the 
hon.  membCT  s  mathematics  because  I  haven't 
had  an  opportimity  to  check  them  out.  I  am 
aware  that  the  average  price,  not  the  cost,  of 
single  family  homes  in  the  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto area  did  increase  by  approximately  the 
amount  stated,  which  is  also  a  reflection  of 
the  very  heavy  demand  for  homes.  Appar- 
ently people  seem  to  have  the  money  to  Duy 
them  and  the  builders  are  charging  those 
prices. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Who  are  they?  But  some 
are  speculators,  using  laimdered  money. 


876 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  announced  from  time  to  time  a  number 
of  programmes.  There  is  no  one  single  pro- 
gramme which  is  going  to  solve  the  prob- 
lem. I  never  pretended  that  there  was. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  the  minister  give  us  a 
specific? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  There  are  a  number 
of  programmes  such  as  LIP,  RAP,  OHAP, 
HOME.  All  of  these,  Mr.  Speaker,  taken  in 
the  aggregate  will  have  an  effect  on  home 
prices.  If  the  hon.  member  vdll  just  be 
patient,  I  believe  in  a  matter  of  a  week  or 
two  weeks  or  three  weeks  I  will  be  able  to 
actually  specify  a  number  of  lots  which  are 
being  accelerated,  the  amoimt  of  money  that 
that  means  to  the  consumers  of  Ontario  and 
the  areas  in  which  those  lots  wall  be  located. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  was  up  first  with  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Wouldn't  the 
minister  agree  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
high  cost  of  housing  is  because  it  takes  two 
years  to  get  a  plan  through  all  the  bureauc- 
racy? Would  the  minister  agree  with  that? 

Mr.  Huston:  Three  years  in  most  cases. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Does  the  minister  know  that 
in  the  United  States  the  FHA  programme 
guarantees  complete  project  approval  in  90 
days?  Why  can't  he  adapt  a  programme  like 
that  here  in  this  province?  Send  a  crash 
organization  down  there  to  find  out  what  is 
going  on  and  bring  it  up  here  and  let's  do 
something. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
is  no  question  that  some  of  the  problems 
which  have  occurred  in  latter  years  are  the 
result  of  demand  by  the  public  for  a  much 
stricter  planning  process,  protection  of  the 
environment,  road  planning  and  all  of  the 
various  infrastructure  planning  processes 
which  must  take  place.  It  is  quite  obvious. 

Mr.  Sargent:  They  have  all  those  things 
in  the  States  too. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  think  we  have 
gone  quite  a  bit  farther  in  accommodating 
the  feeling  of  the  people  in  that  respect  than 
most  other  jurisdictions.  We  recognize  the 
counterproductive  effect  this  has  had  on  hous- 
ing and  we  are  doing  everything  possible  to 
speed  up  the  process.  The  hon.  member  for 


Kent  (Mr.  Spence)  asked  the  other  day  about 
the  number  of  official  plans  which  have  been 
brought  before  the  ministry  and  which  he 
felt  were  being  unduly  delayed.  In  fact,  since 
Oct.  1,  1973,  there  have  been  37  official  plans 
brought  before  my  ministry,  and  I'm  pleased 
to  announce  that  since  that  date  there  have 
been  40  new  official  plans  approved. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  If  any  member  has 

any  specific- 
Mr.  Lewis:  The  Treasurer  could  not.  He 

cannot  run   a  peanut  stand   without  public 

money. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  If  any  member  has 
any  specific  plan  which  he  feels  is  being 
unduly  delayed  I  would  be  pleased  to  look 
into  it: 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  must  point  out  to  the  hon. 
members- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  should  point  out  to  the 
hon.  members  that  there  are  only  10  minutes 
remaining  in  the  normal  question  period.  No 
minister,  as  yet,  has  had  the  opportunity  to 
give  replies  to  previous  questions.  No  mem- 
bers other  than  leaders  have  asked  any  ques- 
tions. Does  the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough 
West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  further  supplementary  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'll  permit  one  more. 

Mr.  Sargent:  To  summarize  this,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, if  I  fly  the  minister  down  there,  wall  he 
come  dovm  and  have  a  look  at  it?  Will  he? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  it's  a 
policy  in  my  ministry  not  to  go  on  unauthor- 
ized trips. 

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


RESTRUCTURING  OF 
RENFREW  COUNTY 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  Friday, 
the  hon.  leader  of  the  official  opposition,  not 
to  be  confused  with  the  leader  of  the  real 


APRIL  8,  1974 


877 


opposition,  raised  a  question  about  some  con- 
cerns of  the  mayor  of  the  town  of  Renfrew. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Treasurer  should  just  cut 
that  out. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Did  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  rise  on  a  point  of  privi- 
lege? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Ruston:  You  fellows  have  been  together 
for  a  long  time. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  NDP  always  supports 
the  government. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Is  that  one  of  those  28-cent 
ties? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I'll  tell  the  House,  if  the 
member  for  Brant  (Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon)  doesn't 
ruin  the  Liberal  Party  here  nobody  can. 

Mr.  Ruston:  We  didn't  know  the  Treasurer 
cared. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Well,  sir,  I  now  have  had 
an  opportunity  to  read  the  letter  from  the 
mayor  of  Renfrew. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  I  think  the 
Treasurer  has  got  them  on  the  run;  I  think 
he's  got  them  on  the  run, 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Although  it  must  be  said 
he  has  got  a  lot  of  helpers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Yes,  he's  not  alone  over 
there. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Is  the  Treasurer  trying  to 
take  all  the  10  minutes? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  have  now  read  the  cor- 
respondence from  the  mayor  of  Renfrew.  He 
has  sent  me  three  letters,  two  very  recendy. 
Some  time  ago  I  answered  the  first  one,  not- 
withstanding the  allegations,  and  today  I  sent 
out  responses  to  his  two  more  recent  letters. 

The  mayor  apparently  believes  that  I've 
struck  a  committee  to  set  terms  of  reference 
for  a  study.  In  fact,  I  have  not.  In  late 
January  the  county  and  the  city  of  Pembroke 
approached   me    and   asked   that   I   consider 


assisting  them  in  a  study.  I  aereed  to,  pro- 
vided the  c-ounty  council,  which  includes 
representatives  from  all  municipalities  In  the 
county  except  Pembroke,  and  the  dty  council 
of  Pembroke  passed  a  resolution  requesting  a 
studv.  The  county  has  since  sent  me  such  a 
resolution  but  I  haven't  received  one  from  the 
city. 

The  understanding  I  had  with  the  repre*- 
sentatives  with  whom  I  met  was  that  I  would 
have  a  member  of  my  staff  meet  with  which- 
ever members  of  their  staff  they  nominated, 
once  these  two  resolutions  were  received.  The 
staff  would  then  submit  to  the  council  a 
suggested  study  approach.  At  that  time  Ren- 
frew coimty  would  follow  whatever  course  it 
felt  was  appropriate  in  considering  die  study 
outline.  If  it  chose  to  seek  the  opinion  of 
each  of  the  municipalities  in  the  county,  that 
would  be  its  choice. 

The  county  system  is  the  system  of  local 
government  we  have  and  I  intend  to  respect 
it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  This  is  a  speech,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  it  is  an  abuse  of  the  question  period, 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  will  not  interfere  with 
the  prerogative  of  the  coimty  council  to  make 
decisions  on  how  to  consult  its  member 
municipalities, 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing has  the  answer  to  questions  asked  pre- 
viously. 

HOUSING  IN  WINDSOR  AREA 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Thank  you,  Mr, 
Speaker,  The  hon.  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville  asked  a  question  concern- 
ing senior  citizen  and  family  dwellings 
in  the  Windsor  area.  The  corporation  has  just 
signed  a  contract  for  300  senior  citizen  units 
on  Riverside  Dr,  which  will  conmience 
shordy.  The  design  is  being  finalized  for  130 
more  units  which  will  be  located  on  a  Mill  St 
site  and  a  call  for  tenders  will  be  issued  in 
April,  that  is,  this  month.  As  well,  negotiations 
are  under  way  for  the  acquisition  of  addi- 
tional senior  citizen  sites. 

In  respect  to  the  family  housing  require- 
ments, OHC  has  satisfied  all  municipal  reso- 
lutions to  date.  About  30  to  50  family  units 
are  vacated  each  month  and  the  Windsor 
Housing  Authority  is  satisfied  that  this  turn- 
over is  suflBcient  to  service  the  current  wait- 
ing list. 

Mr,  Speaker,  while  I  am  on  my  feet  I 
would  like  to  answer  similar  questions. 


878 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  If  that  was  the  completion 
of  one  answer,  a  supplementary  will  be  per- 
mitted. The  hon.  member  for  Windsor- 
WaUcerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Yes.  Is  the  minister  aware 
that  the  request  for  senior  citizen  housing 
has  kept  increasing  since  approximately  July 
of  last  year,  and  mat  at  the  rate  that  it  con- 
tinues to  increase  there  is  very  little  chance 
that  the  ministry  will  ever  meet  the  continuing 
demand? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  These  are  great  pro- 
grammes by  this  government.  More  people 
are  living  long. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:   It  just  seems  that  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
aware  of  the  fact  that  the  supply  of  senior 
citizen  housing  is  running  slightly  behind 
demand,  though  not  all  that  critically.  As 
of  February,  there  were  1,000— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Stop  trying  to  pretend  there 
is  no  problem.  There  is  a  problem  out  there. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  cannot  snap  his 
fingers  and  make  it  go  away. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  We  are  not  snap- 
ping our  fingers,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Cassidy:   It  seems  that  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  There  are  slightly 
under  1,000  applicants  on  the  waiting  list 
for  senior  citizen  housing  in  Windsor. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Under  1,000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Under  1,000;  yes, 
that's  the  figure  I  have,  slightly  under  1,000. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  It  is  over  1,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  It  has  been  our 
experience,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  number 
of  applicants  do  not  always  correspond  to 
the  supply.  In  other  words,  we  will  not  build 
senior  citizen  housing  equal  to  the  number 
of  applicants  because  in  most  cases  we 
would  have  an  oversupply. 

Mr.  Deans:  Supplementary. 

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

Mr.  Deans:  Isn't  the  minister  aware  that 
the  number  of  applicants  is  small,  because 
the  people  know  there  is  no  point  in  apply- 
ing because  the  ministry  is  not  building  a 
sufficient  number  of  houses? 


Interjections  by  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  Isn't  he  aware  that  there  are 
five  times  as  many  people  looking  for  them 
as  there  are  applicants,  because  they  know 
there  is  no  point  in  applying? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  hon.  minister  going  to 
reply  to  that  statement? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No  reply. 

Mr.  Deans:  It's  true. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West  was  next. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  On 
the  question  of  family  housing  in  the  Wind- 
sor area  that  the  minister  mentioned,  is  he 
aware  that  there  are  over  300  applications 
for  two  bedroom  accommodations,  that  there 
are  very  few  units  of  two-bedroom  accom- 
modations in  Windsor  at  the  moment  and 
that  any  amount  of  turnover  will  not  meet 
the  demand  for  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
only  thing  I  can  say  about  family  housing 
is  that  we've  responded  to  every  resolution 
of  municipal  council.  I  might  suggest  to 
the  hon.  member  that  he  may  wish  to  discuss 
this  further  with  the  acting  chairman  of  the 
Windsor  Housing  Authority  which  submits 
requests  to  the  ministry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  incredible.  He 
won't  last.  He  is  a  nice  fellow,  but  he  won't 
last. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  minister  have 
further  answers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur  (Mr.  Foulds) 
isn't  here.  He  asked  about  OHC. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  hon.  members 
agree  to  having  the  answer  given  in  the 
absence  of  the  member? 

Some  hon.  members:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Then  the  hon.  minister  will 
withhold  the  answer.  The  hon.  member  for 
Waterloo  North. 


ALLEGED  SALE  OF  FARMLAND 
TO  JAPANESE  INTERESTS 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Thank 
you  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food. 

Has  the  minister  heard  any  reports  con- 
cerning the  alleged  story  that  Japanese  in- 


APRIL  8,  1974 


879 


terests  are  trying  to  assemble  50,000  acres 
of  agricultural  land  in  southern  Ontario 
between  Toronto  and  Windsor?  If  he  is  not 
aware  of  it,  would  he  make  an  effort  to  find 
out  if  that  is  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  aware. 

Mr.  Good:  Supplementary:  Could  we  have 
the  minister's  assurance  that  he  will  look 
into  it,  and  if  it  is  correct,  would  he  be 
concerned  about  this  and  what  could  be 
done? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  does 
the  hon.  member  expect  me  to  contact  every 
farmer  in  Ontario  and  ask  if  he  has  sold  his 
farm  recently  to  some  agricultural  repre- 
sentative from  Japan?  What  a  senseless 
question  to  ask  in  the  first  place!  Of  course, 
we  are  interested. 

Mr.  BulIbrocJc:  The  minister  is  in  one  of 
his  venomous  moods  today. 

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


ESTABLISHMENT  OF  COUNCILS 
IN  UNORGANIZED  MUNICIPALITIES 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  without  Portfolio,  responsible  for 
municipal  affairs. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Thunder  Bay  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Could  the  minister  indicate 
when  the  promise  contained  in  the  Throne 
Speech  with  regard  to  the  setting  up  of  coun- 
cils in  unorganized  communities  mi^t  be 
introduced  in  the  Legislature? 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  considering  this 
matter  very  fully.  I  would  expect  to  introduce 
legislation  in  the  next  few  weeks.  I  would  say 
before  the  end  of  this  session,  but  I  can't  give 
him  a  definite  time. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Has  the  minister  any  advice 
for  some  of  these  unorganized  municipalities 
which  might  set  the  wheels  in  motion  to 
organizing  themselves  into  coimcils  so  they 
can  take  advantage  of  this  programme? 


Hon.  Mr.  Irvine:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  would 
be  pleased  to  hear  from  them.  If  they  have 
any  ideas  that  they  wish  to  relate  to  us,  I 
would  be  happy  to  meet  with  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Well- 
ington South  was  attempting  to  get  the  floor 
previously. 


GUELPH  CORRECTIONAL  CENTRE 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (WeUington  South):  A 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Correctional  Serv- 
ices: Have  the  recommendations  of  the  group 
studying  the  working  conditions  at  the  Guelph 
Correctional  Centre  last  year  been  imple- 
mented as  yet? 

Hon.  R.  T.  Potter  ( Minister  of  Correctional 
Services):  I  haven't  heard  about  that 

Mr.  Worton:  Doesn't  the  minister  know 
about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Well,  I  don't  know  what 
study  the  member  is  talking  about. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  our  man. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Worton:  Mr.  Speaker,  last  year  there 
were  some  goings-on  at  the  centre  that  were 
investigated  and  the  ministry  set  up  a  com- 
mittee to  study  them;  I  want  to  know  if  they 
have  been  implemented. 

An  hon.  member:  Here  we  go  again. 

An  hon.  member:  D6j£i  vu— 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  would  assume  so,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  was  in  Guelph  at  the  correctional 
centre  just  last  week,  and  there  were  no  par- 
ticular problems  at  that  time- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  —and  the  superintendent 
of  the  institution  took  me  around  and  showed 
me  the  changes  that  are  being  made.  I  would 
exi)ect  these  are  the  ones  that  the  hon.  mem- 
ber is  referring  to.  Certainly  there  have  been 
many  changes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  big  problem  is 
that  once  they  are  in,  they  stiH  want  to  get 
out. 

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

Mr.  Worton:  Could  we  have  a  report  on 
that? 


880 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


AMBULANCE  SERVICES 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health.  Will  the  minister 
require  those  in  his  ministry  responsible  for 
provision  of  ambulance  service  to  meet  with 
the  city  of  Biu-lington— 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  All 
that's  being  done. 

Mr.  Deans:  —the  Halton-Peel  county  coun- 
cil, or  regional  council,  and  citizens  who  have 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  —a  grave  concern  over  the  in- 
adequacy of  the  ambulance  service?  And  will 
the  minister- 
Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds   (Port  Arthur):   Getting 
no  action  from  the— 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Attend  the  meeting  tomor- 
row at  1  o'clock. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  wish  the  minister  would  be 
quiet.  When  I  have  a  question  for  him,  I'll 
ask  him.  There  is  nothing  to  ask  the  minister; 
he  doesn't  do  anything. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  just  terrible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Does  that  upset  the 
hon.  member? 

Mr.  Deans:  And  will  the  minister  make 
known  whether  or  not  there  is  in  fact  a 
deficiency  in  the  services  currently  available, 
recognizing  there  is  only  one  ambulance  in 
Burlington? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  no  matter  what  problems  we  may  face 
with  ambulances  from  time  to  time  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario,  we  should  be  very  proud 
of  the  fact  that  we  have  the  best  ambulance 
system  in  North  America.  That's  a  fact. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  Did  the  minister  rehearse  that? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  there's  a  machine 
up  here  and  I  just  had  to  plug  the  right 
digit. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  minister  always 
makes  the  same  answer:  "The  best  in  the 
western  world." 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  we  can't  help  it  if 
we  excel  in  everything. 


An  hon.  member:  We  can't  improve. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  minister  doesn't 
have  to  apologize. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  period  has  just 
about  expired. 

An  hon.   member:   So  has  the  minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller.  Well,  he  is  helping  me. 
I  would  be  glad  to  look  into  the  specific 
problem  on  the  member's  behalf,  because 
I  want  to  have  good  ambulance  service  in 
any  part  of  the  province  as  important  as 
Burlington. 

Interjections  by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Why  didn't  the  minister 
say   that   in  the  first  place? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  minister 
will  recall  last  week  I  asked  him  about  the 
plan  to  tender  for  ambulance  service  across 
Ontario.  He  didn't  know  anything  about 
that.  Well,  now  he  is  doing  it  in  another 
area.  What's  going  on? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  to 
say  the  member  is  wrong  unfortunately.  We 
are  not  tendering  for  ambulance  services 
anywhere  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  We 
have  not  sent  out  letters  of  that  nature.  I 
think  he  should  specifically  look  at  that  let- 
er  that  is  supposed  to  be  a  tender.  If,  in 
fact,  I  have  been  given  the  wrong  informa- 
tion, bring  it  to  me,  because  we  are  just  not 
doing  it. 

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

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary:  What  does 
the  minister  mean  he's  been  given  the  wrong 
information? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  said  the  member  has. 

Interjections  by   hon.   members. 

An  hon.  member:  How  about  a  little  order? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
know  what's  going  on? 

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


MTC  RENTS  FOR  FARMLAND 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  A  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food. 
In   view   of   the   minister's   justified   concern 


APRIL  8.  1974 


881 


about  the  pressures  that  are  driving  fanners 
off  the  land  in  Ontario,  will  the  minister 
request  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  to  cancel  the  ministry's  pro- 
gramme of  increasing  rent  by  30  to  50  per 
cent  on  lands  owned  by  that  ministry  be- 
tween Woodstock  and  Cobourg,  as  some 
farmers  are  unable  to  pay  these  increased 
rents  and  are  going  to  move  off  the  farms? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  it's  the 
first  I've  heard  of  this.  I'll  be  glad  to  dis- 
cuss it  with  my  hon.  friend. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Atta  boy. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 

An  hon.  member:   Way  to  go. 


THERAPY  WORKSHOPS  PAY  RATES 

Mr.  Bounsall:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker.  Is  the  going  indus- 
trial rate  paid  by  those  industrial  companies 
who  are  using  the  industrial  therapy  work- 
shops to  produce  some  of  their  materials  in 
our  psychiatric  hospitals,  or— this  is  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Health  before  he- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Health, 
please.  A  question  is  being  directed  to  him. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  is  getting  the  an- 
swer. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Or  is  the  10  to  20  cents  an 
hour  paid  by  the  psychiatric  hospitals  to  the 
workers  within  those  industrial  workshops  in 
fact  a  saving  to  the  companies  which  are 
having  work  performed  therein? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  being 
sidetracked  there  for  part  of  the  time  and 
I'm  afraid  I  need  to  ask  for  the  question  to 
be  repeated. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Is  the  going  industrial  rate 

being  paid  by  those  companies  which  have 
work  performed  for  them  by  the  inmates  of 
the  industrial  therapy  workshops  in  our  psy- 
chiatric hospitals? 

Mr.  J.  R.  Smith  (Hamilton  Mountain):  In- 
mates? Patients.  Patients. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Or  is  the  10  to  20  cents  an 
hour  paid  to  those  patients,  in  fact,  a  sub- 
sidy to  those  companies  which  are  getting 
the  work  done? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
think  in  all   fairness   we   could  categorically 


say  it  is  not  a  subsidy  toward  the  industries. 
In  fact,  I  think  we  owe  a  vote  of  thanks  to 
companies  that  will,  in  some  cases,  spend 
more  money  to  allow  us  to  have  program- 
mes within  the  psychiatric  hospitals  that  will 
help  our  patients.  It's  very  important  that 
these  people  carry  out  duties  of  some  type 
in   the  rehabilitation  process, 

I've  personally  been  involved,  and  when 
you  realize  the  amount  of  material  handling 
alone  that's  involved  in  moving  the  goods  to 
these  patients  so  that  they  may  perform  the 
duties  within  the  hospital  grounds,  you  realize 
that  we're  not  doing  it  simply  on  the  basis 
of  the  economics.  It's  very  critical  in  the 
rehabilitative  process  that  such  work  be 
available.  So  its  not  a  question  of  the  mini- 
mum wage  being  got  around  by  a  devious 
means,  its  a  question  of  giving  these  people 
a  sense  of  accomplishment,  treatment  and 
some  money  all  at  once. 

Mr.    Speaker:    Question    period    has    now 

been  completed. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  from  to- 
morrow this  House  may  resolve  itself  into 
committee  of  supply. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.   Speaker:    Introduction  of  bills. 


WELLINGTON  COUNTY  BOARD 
OF  EDUCATION  ACT 

Mr.  Worton  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  respecting  the  Wellington 
County  Board  of  Education. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  KITCHENER  ACT 

Mr.  Breithaupt  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Kitchener. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


CITY  OF  OTTAWA  ACT 

Mr.  Villeneuve,  in  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Morrow,  moves  first  reading  of  bill  intituled, 
An  Act  respecting  the  City  of  Ottawa. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 


882 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


SAVINGS  AND  INVESTMENT 
TRUSTS  ACT 

Mr.  Villeneuve,  in  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Morrow,  moves  first  reading  of  bill  intituled, 
An  Act  respecting  Savings  and  Investment 
Trusts. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  hon.  members 
agree  to  revert  to  the  order,  presentation  of 
reports?  One  of  the  hon.  ministers,  the  Min- 
ister of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations, 
has  overlooked  presenting  reports.  Would  the 
hon.  members  agree  to  that? 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  the  hon.  members  of  the  oppo- 
sition for  their  courtesy. 

In  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  sub- 
section 2  of  section  20  of  the  Securities  Act, 
I  am  tabling  a  copy  of  the  Ontario  Securities 
Commission  order  and  summary  of  facts  in 
connection  with  the  Canada  Development 
Corp.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker  and  members 
of  the  House. 

Mr.  Lewis:  For  the  minister,  almost  any- 
thing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Pardon? 

Mr.  Lewis:  For  the  minister,  almost  any- 
thing. For  the  others  very  little. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 


POINT  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  to  state  a  point  of  privilege. 
My  point  is  that  during  the  Throne  Speech 
debate  I  was  denied  the  opportunity  to  com- 
municate with  my  constituents  under  my 
privilege  of  immunity  because  no  one  in  the 
chamber  except  members  is  permitted  to  take 
notes,  use  recorders  or  use  cine  cameras. 
While  the  precedent  of  ignoring  note-taking 
by  the  members  of  the  press  gallery  was 
observed,  this  same  ignoring  was  not  ex- 
tended to  either  recorders  or  cine  cameras 
in  the  gallery.  To  communicate  electronically 
with  my  constituents  I  would  have  had  to 
waive  my  immunity.  I  submit  that  such  a 
compulsory  waiver  is  an  infringement  of  my 
privilege  as  a  member  as  defined  in  May's, 
chapter  5,  page  64,  particularly  the  lines 
dealing  with  unimpeded  services  of  members. 


In  the  outline  of  collective  and  individual 
privileges,  page  65,  chapter  5  of  May's,  it  is 
quite  specific  that  freedom  of  speech  belongs 
primarily  to  individual  members.  While  his- 
torically, privilege  belongs  solely  to  Mr. 
Speaker,  since  1554  the  privileges  of  freedom 
of  speech,  freedom  from  arrest  and  freedom 
of  access,  have  belonged  to  the  members.  I 
would  also  call  attention  to— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  If  the  hon. 
member  has  a  long  resume  of  some  excerpts 
from  May  or  other  parliamentary'  authority  I 
think  he  should  first  clearly  state  his  point 
of  privilege. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  point  of  privilege  I  was 
raising,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that,  as  the  privilege 
of  an  individual  member,  had  I  been  per- 
mitted to  state  my  privilege  last  Friday,  I 
would  have  asked  that  I  be  allowed  the  use 
of  television  cameras  in  the  chamber  while 
delivering  my  reply  to  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne.  I  would  like  to  state  the  remainder 
of  it,  sir. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  the  member  talking 
about? 

Mr.  Drea:  What  am  I  talking  about? 

Mr.  Deans:  We  don't  understand.  We 
would  like  to  help  him  if  he  would  tell  us. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That  is  a  good  point.  Let's 
find  out. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  can  I  elaborate  or 
would  you  prefer  me  to  read  this? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  trying  ver\-  desperately 
to  follow  the  hon.  member  to  determine  if  he 
has  a  point  of  privilege.  If  I  recall  correctly, 
on  Friday  the  hon.  member  intimated  that 
the  Speaker  had  arbitrarily  made  a  ruling 
which  prevented  him  from  exercising  his 
privilege.  I  am  waiting  to  hear  what  that 
privilege  is. 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  due  respect, 
sir,  I  stated  it  just  a  moment  ago,  perhaps 
somewhat  ambiguously,  but  I  will  state  it 
very  clearly.  It  is  my  position,  in  raising 
the  point  of  privilege,  that  I  should  be  en- 
titled as  a  member  to  have  televised  the  por- 
tion of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne  in  which  I  am  speaking. 

Mr.  Deans:  Who  would  watch  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  hon. 
member  will  please  observe  the  rules  of 
this  House.  There  is  no  such  privilege  which 
has  been  extended  to  any  hon.  member  in 


APRIL  8.  1974 


883 


this  House  at  any  time.  I  do  not  say  that 
it  should  not  be  or  will  not  be,  but  the  hon. 
member  certainly  does  not  have  any  right  to 
raise  this  as  a  point  of  privilege.  There  is 
certainly  no  point  of  privilege  that  has  been 
denied  the  hon.  member. 

If  he  wishes  this  sort  of  procedure  to  take 
place,  there  are  ways  and  means  by  which 
he  might  pursue  that;  but  certainly  there 
has  been  no  ruling  on  the  part  of  this  Speak- 
er, or  any  previous  Speaker  to  my  knowl- 
edge. It  simply  has  not  been  permitted  under 
the  rules  of  the  House  and  I  do  rule  there 
is  no  point  of  privilege. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order,  if  you  were  willing  to  have  the 
speeches  of  the  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre  televised,  we  would  pay  for  the  cost, 
sir. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  be  glad  to  take  that 
under  consideration. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  we  can  allow 
the  media  to  televise  the  budget  speech,  why 
hasn't  this  member  got  the  same  rights  as 
the  Treasurer. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  I  don't  think  it's  in- 
cumbent upon  the  Speaker  to  deal  with  this 
at  all.  I  would  explain  to  the  hon.  member 
that  there  have  been  arrangements  made, 
and  agreements  indeed,  amongst  the  parties 
that  the  budget  will  be  televised.  There 
ne\'er  has  been  any  arrangement  otherwise 
for  the  hon.  members.  I  think  if  the  hon. 
member  will  deal  with  the  matter  through 
his  party  he  would  get  a  httle  bit  more  in- 
formation. If  he  wishes  I  will  be  glad  to 
speak  to  him  privately  on  it. 

Mr.  Drea:  Just  a  point- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  made  a  ruling  on  the  hon. 
member's  alleged  point  of  privilege.  Now  if 
the  point  of  order  has  to  do  with  my  ruling, 
it  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Drea:  No,  it  does  not. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  am  not  going  to  question  your 
ruling,  sir,  I  just  want  to  raise  the  question 
that  twice  members  have  been  allowed  this 
privilege,  sir.  Maybe  it's  a  matter  of  seman- 
tics, but  in  my  memory  I  have  seen  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  make  the  reply 
and  I  have  seen  the  former  leader  of  the 
NDP  (Mr.  MacDonald)  make  the  reply  on 
television. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  By  unanimous  consent; 
and  we  would  consent  to  the  member  going 


on.  Bring  in  a  resolution  and  we  will  sup- 
port it. 

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 
Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the 
opening  of  the  session. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, may  I  first  add  my  voice  to  all  those  who 
have  spoken  before  me  in  expressing  our 
pleasure  that  you  have  regained  your  health 
and  are  enabled  to  carry  on  your  duties.  I 
would  hope  that  they  would  not  be  onerous, 
Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  am  afraid  that  you  can- 
not count  on  that. 

When  I  have  considered  the  government 
programmes  and  proposals,  I  have  varied  in 
my  feelings,  first  from  being  heartsick,  to 
being  tremendously  angry;  and  Mr.  Speaker 
anyone  who  knows  me,  including  my  caucus 
members,  would  recognize  how  diflBcult  it  is 
indeed  to  anger  me. 

However,  I  realized  later  I  had  no  right  to 
be  angry,  and  for  these  reasons:  St.  Paul  was 
never  one  of  my  favourite  saints,  for  obvious 
reasons,  but  for  the  first  time  I  understood  and 
recognized  in  this  government  the  loss  of  that 
quality  without  which  it  is  but  a  sounding 
brass  and  a  tinkling  cymbal,  and  if  it  were  not 
for  the  effect  upon  the  people  of  Ontario  I 
would  be  filled  only  with  pity  for  such  a 
government. 

It  is  true  they  have  finally  discovered  the 
north;  and  I  am  sure  that  the  roads  will  be 
built,  because  after  30  years  of  Tory  rule  the 
north  was  ready  to  secede,  and  that  was  in- 
deed an  achievement.  I  trust,  however,  that 
they  will  not  expect  to  set  aside  a  holiday  in 
honour  of  a  great  discoverer,  since  much  of 
the  programme  consists  of  feasibility  studies 
which,  if  I  remember  correctly,  were  also 
imdertaken  by  the  government  under  the  late 
Premier  Frost. 

The  measure  of  a  civilization  is  the  way  in 
which  it  treats  its  children.  Let  us  look  at 
this  government's  record  with  that  in  mind. 

The  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Welch),  in  a 
daring  statement,  announced  that  this  gov- 
ernment would  delete  from  all  its  legislation 
all  reference  to  illegitimacy;  and  this,  again 
daringly,  without  the  necessity  of  a  task  force 
on  the  subject.  Truly,  it  is  moving  into  the 
19th  century. 


884 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  had  hoped  that  by  now  we  would  have 
had  a  statement  of  policy  from  this  govern- 
ment with  reference  to  the  protection  of 
awards  for  handicapped,  poor  children.  Let 
me  give  you  some  examples,  Mr.  Speaker.  We 
drew  to  the  attention  of  the  appropriate  min- 
isters the  story  of  a  little  girl  who,  as  a  re- 
sult of  a  motor  vehicle  accident,  lost  her  leg. 
There  was  an  award  paid  into  court,  in  the 
amount  of  $2,000;  and  immediately  this  gen- 
erous government,  so  concerned  with  the  tax- 
payers of  the  province,  began  harassing  that 
mother,  advising  that  she  would  have  to  go 
to  court  on  an  application  to  have  paid  out 
$1,000  of  that  $2,000  or  she  would,  with  her 
family,  be  cut  off  welfare. 

In  another  case  of  a  small  boy,  who  suf- 
fered permanent  lung  damage  in  a  similar 
case,  this  government  harassed  that  mother 
and  said:  "You  will  apply  to  remove  from 
that  award  of  that  child  $4,000  of  the  $5,000 
which  was  available  to  that  child." 

It  is  true  that  since  drawing  the  govern- 
ment's attention  to  those  two  cases  from  my 
own  riding,  together  with  a  third  case  from 
the  riding  of  Parry  Sound,  I  received  a  letter 
from  one  of  the  mothers  who  said  that  she 
was  most  grateful  for  my  intervention,  that 
mothers'  allowance  people  are  not  going  to 
take  away  the  moneys.  My  worker  said:  "You 
should  consider  yourself  lucky  that  they're 
not." 

This  is  what  frightens  me,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Are  those  three  cases  the  only  ones  that  are 
not  going  to  be  harassed?  Or  is  there  going 
to  be  a  policy  to  state  that  we  do  not  need 
to  save  tax  dollars  at  the  expense  of  poor 
handicapped  children  in  this  province? 

And  I  may  say  that  since  I  have  brought 
this  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  taxpayers 
both  in  the  cities  and  in  the  rural  areas,  the 
government  really  isn't  going  to  have  to  set 
up  a  task  force  on  this  one  either,  because  the 
taxpayers  believe  that  these  children  should 
be  protected.  If  it's  only  a  matter  of  saving 
money,  which  is,  perhaps  all  that  concerns 
the  government,  perhaps  if  this  money  is  Iteft 
to  the  credit  of  these  children,  they  will  be 
enabled  to  have  the  kinds  of  things  that  can 
eventually  help  them  to  break  the  poverty 
cycle.  I  would  urge,  therefore,  that  some- 
where along  the  line  this  government  take 
some  responsibility. 

Again,  I  was  interested  to  note  that  the 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 
(Mr.  Brunelle)— as  a  result,  I  would  suggest, 
of  the  consistent  prodding  of  the  opposi- 
tion—has made  a  statement  that  policy  now 
is  going  to  be  changed.  Whereas,  in  the  past. 


once  a  young  physically  handicapped  person 
attained  the  age  of  19  years,  if  that  child 
could  not  live  in  the  community  and  if  the 
community  did  not  have  other  facilities  avail- 
able, that  child  could  have  no  other  alterna- 
tive than  to  be  relegated  to  a  home  for  the 
aged.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  welcome  the  spe- 
cifics of  the  minister's  proposal  since  he  spoke 
only  generally  in  answer  to  a  question  on  the 
legislation  pertaining  to  the  mental  retarda- 
tion programmes. 

Again,  there  has  been  an  announced  policy 
that  training  schools  shall  be  close  to  the 
homes.  This,  Mr.  Speaker,  raises  a  great  many 
questions.  Does  this  indicate  that  the  Oak- 
ville  Assessment  Centre  has  failed?  I  would 
not  think  it  had  been  in  operation  long 
enough  for  that  to  happen.  Yet  it  was  set  up 
to  assess  the  needs  of  the  child.  Does  this 
indicate  that  the  DARE  programme  has 
failed?  We  don't  seem  to  have  heard  too  much 
about  that  lately.  Incidentally,  it  would  be 
interesting  to  know  whether  it  ever  did  ex- 
pand as  a  programme  to  include  girls. 

What  of  the  policy  itself?  It  has  that  public 
relations-oriented  ring.  There  is  no  question 
that  for  some  it  could  be  a  ver\'  worthy  policy 
but  if  a  child  lives  in  the  heart  of  a  large  city 
and  if  the  environment  in  that  city  around 
the  home  of  that  child  is  such  that  an\'  re- 
turn to  the  home  or  any  close  proximity  to 
the  home  during  this  period  could  only  con- 
tinue the  unfortunate  activities  which  brought 
the  child  before  the  courts  in  the  first  place, 
perhaps  it  would  be  better  if  children  in  such 
a  downtown  area  were  able  to  find  their  way 
into  care  in  the  vicinity,  for  example,  of  the 
Kawarthas.  There  they  could  learn  something 
of  this  magnificent  province  and  of  its  beauty 
and  something  of  what  ought  to  be  the  herit- 
age of  all  Canadian  children.  Living  near 
home,  in  a  training  school  near  home,  could 
be  a  disaster. 

Incidentally,  I  do  hope  the  new  Minister  of 
Correctional  Services  (Mr.  Potter)  will  make 
an  announcement  soon.  Is  there  going  to  be 
any  plan  to  remove  training  schools  from  his 
ministry  into  the  Ministry  of  Community  and 
Social  Services?  While  there  is  a  dearth  of 
imaginative  ideas  in  the  latter  ministry,  it 
could  be  that  with  the  $13  million  then  forth- 
coming from  the  federal  government  we  might 
catch  up  on  programmes  to  assist  these  )Oung 
people. 

Nor  is  there  any  commitment,  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  ensuring  that  children  shall  have  an  abso- 
lute right  to  be  represented  before  the  courts 
when  their  rights  are  involved.  There  is  no 
statement  that  they  shall  no  longer  be  par- 


APRIL  8,  1974 


885 


ceUed  out  with  the  furniture,  in  sudi  matters 
as  divorce  and  custody,  without  adequate 
representation. 

When  is  this  government  going  to  recog- 
nize the  fact  that  a  child  who  is  the  victim 
of  a  criminal  act,  such  as  in  contributing, 
may  well  need  financial  support?  Why  should 
such  a  child  not  have  a  rignt  to  apply  to  the 
fund  as  the  victim  of  a  criminal  act,  and  why 
should  the  fund  not  be  expanded  to  cover 
adequate  assistance  to  such  a  child? 

When  a  child  is  placed  on  probation  what 
happens  in  our  coiu-ts?  I  have  to  express  my 
appreciation  to  the  efforts  of  the  former  Min- 
ister of  Correctional  Services  (Mr.  Apps)  in 
that  he  did  try  to  bring  some  equity  to  bear 
in  the  probation  services.  Mr.  Speaker,  when 
you  have  children  before  the  courts,  you 
should  indeed  ensiu-e  that  those  who  are 
trained  probation  oflBcers  are  persons  who 
understand  the  culture  and  the  language  of 
both  the  child  and  the  parents.  I  can  recall 
very  well  a  case  when  a  yoimg  Portuguese 
boy  was  in  serious  trouble.  Because  I  was 
new  in  the  courts,  in  my  order  of  probation 
I  directed  that  he  have  a  Portuguese  proba- 
tion oflBcer.  Subsequently,  the  child  was 
brought  back  before  the  courts  and  the  proba- 
tion oflBcer  said:  "Your  honour,  I  think  I  have 
been  chosen  because  I  once  flew  over  Portu- 
gal." 

A  probation  oflBcer  is  a  very  important  per- 
son in  the  family  court.  He  or  she  is  not  just 
an  oflBcial  to  whom  a  child  reports  but  a 
person  who  helps  to  bridge  a  gap  between  the 
child  and  the  family,  and  once  the  child  is 
in  trouble  before  the  courts  there  is  usually 
that  kind  of  a  gap.  If  that  oflScer  can't  speak 
the  language  of  the  parents,  then  he  or  she 
becomes  relatively  ineflFective  in  that  impor- 
tant area. 

Lastly,  it  is  important  that  our  children 
have  an  education.  We  have  seen  the  way 
in  which  education  in  this  province  has 
deteriorated,  causing  parents  great  concern. 
I  am  certain  that  the  public  school  system 
as  it  is  today  is  doomed  unless  steps  are 
taken  to  reassure  those  parents  who  are 
removing  ihek  children  from  the  public 
schools  and  placing  them  in  separate,  private 
schools  or  in  a  tutorial  system.  This,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  the  result  of  the  chaos  into  which 
this  government  has  placed  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  education.  Let  us  also  level  with  our 
students  and  ensure  that  we  do  not  com- 
pletely alienate  them  by  providing  extensive 
and  costly  training  without  trying  to  ensure 
that  jobs  will  be  available  on  graduation  or 
that  they  know  the  situation  before  they 
start. 


Then  we  come  to  those  gjiib  phrases  deal- 
ing with  the  status  of  women.  It  would  ap- 
pear that  what  has  happened  is  that  this 
government  again  is  tying  up  this  matter  in 
a  complex  property  law  reform  situation  or 
a  tortuous  reform  of  family  court. 

Let  us  look  at  what  has  been  done  to  dale. 
This  government  set  up  the  Women's  Bureau 
with  limited  funds  and  it  disappeared.  Then 
the  council  was  set  up  under  the  able  chair- 
manship of  Laura  Sabia,  but  to  date  with 
inadequate  funding.  Now  we  have  set  up 
another  group  dealing  with  Crown  em- 
ployees. Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  hope  there  will 
be  enough  money  there  to  purchase  enough 
Meccano  sets  so  that  these  women  may 
achieve  a  promotion. 

On  this  subject,  I  would  like  to  say  that 
wherever  I  have  gone  I  have  advised  people 
that  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  of  this  prov- 
ince has  stated  that  playing  with  Meccano 
sets  appears  to  be  the  criterion  for  getting 
ahead  in  this  government.  Therefore,  I  have 
suggested  that  parents  ensure  that  all  of 
their  children,  both  male  and  female,  be- 
come accomplished  in  this  activity. 

I  am  so  afraid,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  Mr. 
Moog  may  now  require  further  challenges 
and  that  a  public  relations  team  would  sell 
the  Premier  on  the  idea  of  the  Taj  Mahal 
to  indicate  his  dedication,  not  to  one  \voman 
but  to  the  cause  of  women.  But  please 
remember,  the  Taj  Mahal  is  nonetheless  a 
tomb. 

What  is  lacking  is  any  statement  of  this 
government  on  this  subject.  What  does  it 
have  to  reply  to  what  has  been  said  by 
Dr.  Pearson,  who  is  I  believe  the  dean  of 
science  at  the  University  of  Waterloo?  He 
states  that  he  has  never,  as  he  was  accused 
of  doing,  said  that  he  would  ensure  that  no 
married  woman  professor  would  be  given 
tenure  in  his  faculty,  and  in  fairness  to  him 
that  should  be  stated.  He  goes  on  to  say: 
"If  a  woman's  other  commitments  in  life 
tend  to  make  this  system  work  to  her  dis- 
advantage, then  I  think  we  should  recopu'ze 
this  forthwith." 

Of  course  it  does  work  to  her  disadvan- 
tage; but  I  thought,  and  most  people  thought, 
that  there  was  indicated  in  the  law  a  state- 
men  that  marital  status  should  not  l>e  con- 
sidered in  hirin;;  under  the  Human  Rights 
Code.   Apparently,   we   don't  believe   it. 

If  this  government  really  is  concerned 
about  the  matter  of  the  status  of  women  it 
can  take  the  first  step  forward  and  advise 
the  colleges  and  universities  that  it  is  not 
prepared  to  continue  funding  these  institu- 
tions when  they  are,  in  themselves,  guilt>-  of 


886 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


discrimination  against  women,  both  in  their 
hiring  or  in  granting  tenures  and  in  the 
salaries  which  range  in  various  colleges,  as 
I  have  it,  from  between  $1,800  to  $4,000  a 
year  less  than  for  men  in  equivalent 
positions. 

And  what  about  the  often-given  promises 
that  this  government  would  indeed  look 
into  the  whole  matter  of  pensions  over 
which  it  has  control? 

Then  we  come  to  the  total  welfare  field 
and  the  commitment  of  this  government.  The 
Ontario  Economic  Council  Report  No.  3, 
"The  Evolution  of  Policy  in  Contemporary 
Ontario,"  at  page  49  states: 

Provincial  gross  expenditure  in  the  area 
of  welfare  was  far  behind.  But  that  makes 
the  fact  the  direct  federal  expenditiu-e 
in  various  income  transfers  to  Ontario  resi- 
dents was  nearly  $1.3  billion  in  1971,  an 
amount  which  at  that  time  exceeded  gross 
Ontario  government  expenditures  either  on 
health  or  on  primary  and  secondary  edu- 
cation. 

And  the  welfare  maintenance  for  social  serv- 
ices has  gone  from  0.3  in  1946  to  0.9  in  1971. 

This  government  has  consistently  and  sys- 
tematically attacked  groups  in  our  commim- 
ity  to  mask  the  inadequacies  of  its  own  pro- 
grammes and  used  tax  dollars  to  advertise  its 
position.  Nowhere  has  this  been  more  true 
than  in  the  fields  of  welfare  and  health,  al- 
though teachers  have  seen  some  of  this  thrust. 

We  have  heard  the  new  Provincial  Secre- 
tary for  Social  Development  (Mrs.  Birch) 
speak  of  LIP  grants  and,  unlike  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  (Mr.  Martel)  I  would  admit 
that  I  believe  there  were  some  LIP  grants 
that  I  would  not  have  funded,  some  LIP 
grants  that  may  not  have  been  significant. 
Because  if  we  do  anything,  we  are  bound  to 
do  something  wrong  occasionally;  it  is  only 
when  we  do  nothing  that  we  usually  dont 
make  too  many  mistakes. 

Frankly,  I  was  bitterly  disappointed  that 
the  new  provincial  secretary  should  have 
made  such  insipid  statements,  particularly,  I 
suppose,  since  I  had  hoped  that  as  a  woman 
she  might  have  made  some  more  significant 
contribution  in  the  field  of  social  reform. 
What  does  she  say?  She  says: 

From  the  first  we  have  said  clearly  that 
the  government  of  Ontario  was  willing  to 
provide  support  and  assistance  to  LIP- 
initiated  projects  within  our  existing  pro- 
grammes and  priorities. 

Of  course,  that  is  the  rub.  Because  these  pro- 
grammes were  providing  some  service  to  that 


sieve-like  quality  of  maintenance  in  the  wel- 
fare field,  and  of  course  filling  gaps  that  are 
not  covered  by  existing  programmes. 
She  says  too: 

That  in  order  to  reassure  you  that  this 
is  a  matter  of  major  concern  to  us  [that  is, 
the  multi-service  approach],  we  are  ap- 
pointing a  committee  to  study  the  potential 
of  the  multi-service  centre. 

Why  doesn't  she  just  read  the  reports  oi 
those  very  substantial  people  who  have  been 
concerned  in  this  field  under  the  LIP  grant 
legislation?  Why  another  committee?  Well, 
if  it  is  for  the  good  of  people,  it  is  a  good 
time  to  stall  or  to  get  task  forces  or  to  do 
something. 

Then  on  page  two  of  her  statement  she 
says: 

In  the  matter  of  community  immigra- 
tion services  and  information  centres,  both 
these  areas  are  already  marked,  particu- 
larly in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  by  a  large 
degree  of  duplication  of  service. 

There  are  at  least  two  reports  outstanding 
which  clearly  indicate  that  is  not  true. 

Then  we  come  to  the  statement  of  the 
work  group,  which  while  it  is  a  Metro  work 
group  does  in  fact  speak  with  the  same 
sense  of  feeling  that  all  of  these  people  across 
the  province  feel- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): That's  right. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  —in  dealing  with  this  par- 
ticular programme  and  policy. 

This  is  what  these  people  say.  These  are 
young  people  and  one  can  make  a  great  deal 
of  impact  on  the  public  by  what  this  min- 
ister did  in  trying  to  decry  them,  trying  to 
denigrate  them  and  trying  to  say  that  these 
young  people  were  rather  shiftless  people 
who  made  a  habit  of  trying  to  work  their 
way  into  this  kind  of  a  job.  One  has  to  bear 
in  mind  that  in  this  particular  group  one  has 
the  support  of  the  conventional  agencies,  the 
social  planning  coimcils,  the  United  Way 
and  labour.  All  of  these  people  have  now 
realized  from  what  they  have  seen  that  they 
are  filling  a  very  great  gap  in  services. 

Young  people  who  are  making  or  taking 
home  $85  a  week,  I  believe,  without  any 
kind  of  benefits— highly  trained  and  highly 
skilled  and  highly  dedicated— make  this  re- 
ply: "We  are  deeply  disappointed  at  the 
inadequacy  of  Ontario  policy  in  many  areas, 
which  not  only  affects  emerging  services  but 
the    entire    community   social    service    field." 


APRIL  8,  1974 


887 


There  is  no  policy  or  special  funding  for 
information  centres  after  three  years  of  study; 
no  policy  or  special  funding  for  immigrant 
services.  I  suppose  w-e  should  exempt  the 
welcome  wagon  that  the  government  has 
taken  on.  There  is  no  special  funding  of 
community  managed  multiservice  centres. 
This  area  is  to  be  studied  further,  as  the 
minister  has  explained. 

There  is  limited  financing  of  Bill  160  for 
daycare  co-ops  but  regulations  are  still  not 
available  after  being  promised  10  months  ago. 
There  is  limited  special  assistance  for  com- 
munity senior  citizens'  services— when  one 
thinks  of  the  spending  we  are  talking  about  in 
this  House,  $150,000  for  the  whole  of  Ontariol 
There  is  no  significant  provision  for  increases 
in  funding  of  elderly  persons'  centres  nor  in 
reviewing  obstacles  in  the  current  EPC  fund- 
ing. There  are  no  increased  uses  of  the 
Canada  Assistance  Plan  by  Ontario  to  acquire 
more  federal  dollars  for  preventive  services  in 
the  community. 

So  they  go.  Finally,  in  refusing  to  change 
its  pattern  of  neglect  the  province  places  the 
full  fimding  burden  on  the  more  limited 
revenue  bases  of  municipalities  and  the  vol- 
untary sector.  Both  these  sectors  are  currently 
stretched  to  their  financial  limits  in  support 
of  community  social  services.  If  this  crisis  is 
not  met  head-on  by  the  province,  many 
emerging  services  will  die  and  established 
services  will  be  forced  to  curtail  their  work 
drastically.  One  of  the  interesting  things  is 
that  under  this  work  group  there  have  been 
programmes  of  assistance  to  older  people  and 
handicapped  people.  Because  of  this  kind  of 
a  programme  these  people  have  been  able  to 
continue  to  live  in  their  own  homes,  and  this 
is  what  they  want  to  do  as  long  as  they  can. 

Again,  I  would  think  that  if  you  are  only 
trying  to  save  money  in  this  area  it's  worth 
thinking  about  because  you  probably  won't 
pay  as  much  money  to  keep  this  kind  of  a 
programme  going  as  you  will  pay  to  take 
these  reluctant  people  and  place  them  in  nurs- 
ing homes. 

Why  can  we  not  learn  from  countries  other 
than  the  United  *States?  Sweden  has  looked 
into  this  principle  and  it  has  seen  that  you 
should  have  a  multiplicity  of  services.  But  I 
am  beginning  to  see  that  this  government,  by 
its  niggardly  approach,  is  very  anxious  to 
show  people,  you  see,  we  give  this  money  and 
it  doesn't  change  anything,  we  still  have  these 
people  on  welfare.  Well,  let  me  say  that  in 
my  opinion,  from  what  I  have  seen  in  Metro- 
politan Toronto,  this  can  change  if  there  is  a 


sincere   desire    to    assist    people    to    get    oflF 
welfare. 

I  will  not  support  what  the  member  for 
Sudburv  East  had  to  say  about  the  support 
for  ballet,  symphony,  the  opera  and  so  forth. 
Indeed,  I  would  institute  programmes  to  alk)w 
the  poor  to  be  a  part  of  the  symphony,  the 
ballet  and  the  opera. 

I  can  recall  some  years  ago  when,  with  the 
wonderful  support  of  Mr.  Russell,  with 
whom— as  the  director  of,  I  believe,  ballet  and 
opera,  I'm  not  sure  about  that— we  worked  out 
an  arrangement  where  tickets  from  O'Keefe 
Centre  were  available  to  the  people  in  Cab- 
bagetown.  I  recall  my  concern  on  one  occa- 
sion, Mr.  Speaker,  when  Mr.  Russell  phoned 
and  said:  '*We've  got  a  group  of  children 
coming  down  to  the  ballet  and,  Margaret, 
they  are  almost  all  boys."  I  was  a  little 
frightened  about  what  might  happen.  How- 
ever, they  went  and  I  learned  and  WalK' 
Russell  learned  and  a  lot  of  other  people 
learned  these  children  were  eager  for  this  kind 
of  an  experience. 

However,  there  is  never  enough  room  and 
there  are  never  enough  tickets  available.  But 
surely  if  we  can  support  these  major  arts  pro- 
grammes we  could  find  a  little  money  avail- 
able for  Smile,  the  Inner  City  Angels  and 
those  groups  who  spend  their  time  trying  to 
give  something  to  the  poor  and  the  handi- 
capped in  this  province. 

Surely  it  is  still  as  true  as  it  ever  was  that 
man  does  not  live  by  bread  alone,  and  that 
it  is  important  that  the  spirit  be  enriched  at 
the  same  time  as  we  look  at  the  physical  and 
housing  needs  of  the  poor. 

Incidentally,  there  is  an  organization  which 
has  come  to  my  attention  which  is  called 
PARD.  I  do  hope  there  will  be  an  eagerness 
in  this  government  to  support  it.  It  is  a  unique 
organization  in  the  whole  North  American 
continent.  A  group  of  people  interested  in 
riding,  of  all  things,  have  set  up  a  riding  pro- 
gramme and  they  take  our  handicapped 
people— the  blind,  the  spinabifidas,  and  others 
—out  to  ride.  They  have  doctors  and  para- 
medicals  there,  to  ensiure  their  safet)-.  But 
think  of  what  it  must  do  to  somebody  to 
have  a  sense  of  freedom  of  mobility  just  at 
Ifeast  once  in  awhile. 

I  would  like  to  refer  to  a  couple  of  items 
in  Health.  As  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
consistently  spoken  of  the  hcwtne-care  pro- 
gramme as  a  do-it-yourself  medical  treatment 
plan  and  I  shall  continue  to  do  so  until  I  see 
something  done  about  it. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


During  his  estimates,  the  former  Minister 
of  Health  (Mr.  Potter)  referred  to  his  meals- 
on-wheels  programme.  Frankly,  I  thought  this 
was  something  new,  but  it  wasn't.  Most 
people  in  Ontario,  and  I  guess  we  are  lucky 
to  this  extent,  have  learned  to  eat  daily. 
They  don't  budget  it  out.  They  try  to  eat 
once  a  day.  It  may  not  seem  necessary  to  the 
government,  but  that  is  the  habit  the  people 
afford. 

I  think  of  a  woman  in  her  eighties  who  had 
broken  both  hips,  but  she  was  no  longer 
forced  to  be  bedridden;  she  had  a  Victorian 
Order  nurse  and  she  had  a  physiotherapist, 
and  then  she  had  meals  on  wheels.  It  hap- 
pened that  I  saw  her  last  July.  She  said:  "You 
know,  I  am  a  little  concerned  about  one  thing. 
During  the  winter  I  get  one  meal  a  day  four 
days  in  the  week,  and  because  that  meal  is 
a  pretty  substantial  meal  I  can  make  it  spread 
to  two.  But  now  they  tell  me  that  during  the 
summer  they  are  going  to  cut  the  meals  to  one 
to  two  days  and  I  am  not  quite  sure  how  I 
am  going  to  manage." 

What  kind  of  provision  is  made  in  a  city 
this  size  for  special  diets?  I  was  up  in  Orillia 
recently  and  I  understand  that  there  the  hos- 
pitals run  this  programme  and  they  do  pro- 
vide, in  this  type  of  dietary  concern,  for 
individual  idiosyncrasies.  But  that  isn't  being 
done  here. 

'While  I  am  speaking  about  the  programme 
I  do  want  to  express  my  deep  appreciation 
for  those  who  give  of  their  time  and  talent  to 
make  the  programme  work  to  the  extent  that 
it  does  work.  Without  them  I  don't  know 
what  would  happen  to  these  people. 

The  other  matter  which  I  wish  to  speak  to 
briefly  is  the  matter  of  the  nursing  home  care. 
We  have  heard  today  a  question  and  an 
answer  involving  the  possible  closing  down 
of  a  psychiatric  facility.  Granted  it  was  stated 
it  had  been  considered  and  no  decision  had 
been  made,  but  we  do  know  that  people  are 
being  removed  from  active  treatment  hos- 
pitals. 

Why  does  this  government  not  look  at  the 
situation  which  exists,  for  example  in  Alberta? 
There  is  recognition  given  there  of  the  phas- 
ing of  need  in  nursing  care.  They  recognize 
the  fact  that  people  should  be  able  to  stay  in 
their  homes.  That  is  covered.  Then  they  recog- 
nize a  1.5  programme  where  most  of  the 
patients  are  ambulatory  and  largely  indepen- 
dent but  who  require  some  assistance.  They 
look  at  the  situation  of  the  nursing  home  care 
between  the  1.5  and  the  2.5  where  obviously 
more  assistance  is  needed. 

Why  have  we  not  looked  into  the  standard 
of  care  in  nursing  homes?  We  have  heard 


criticism  about  it,  but  why  haven't  we  done 
anything  about  it?  Could  it  be  that  this  gov- 
ernment has  basically  set  them  up  at  2.5,  and 
then  without  provision  of  alternatives  expects 
them  to  provide,  at  additional  cost  to  them 
but  not  to  the  government,  care  of  those  who 
require  up  to  4.6  or  five  hours  of  nursing 
care  per  day? 

Is  it  a  fact  that  this  government  is  remov- 
ing patients  from  hospitals,  including  psy- 
chiatric hospitals,  to  nursing  homes,  muring 
homes  ill  prepared  or  equipped  to  receive 
them,  to  save  money  in  the  cost  of  the  de- 
livery of  health  services?  These  questions 
surely  must  be  answered  since  many  of  the 
nursing  homes  are  taking  the  position  they 
have  patients  who  require  up  to  five  hours 
care  and  they  cannot  get  beds  for  them  in 
the  facihties  which  have  to  be  available  for 
that  purpose. 

Lastly,  I  would  like  to  look  for  a  few 
moments  in  time  to  the  matter  of  housing.  I 
have  said  that  this  government  has  sys- 
tematically attacked  groups  to  mask  its  own 
inadequacy.  In  this  particular  case,  I  won- 
der with  horror  whether  this  government  is 
taking  on  all  of  the  people  of  Ontario  to 
serve  its  ends  in  a  federal  election. 

The  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  has  stated  that 
this  government  can  do  nothing  to  curb  in- 
flation and  that  only  the  election  of  Mr.  Stan- 
field  can  achieve  this.  I  believe  that  this  gov- 
ernment can  do  nothing  because  it  does  not 
choose  to  do  anything.  Is  it  perhaps  actively 
promoting   inflation?   Let  the  record   show. 

This  government  purchased  lands  in  Mal- 
vern some  years  ago,  one  property  at  $800 
an  acre  and  another  at  something  over  $1,000 
an  acre.  The  cost  of  servicing  was  $25,000, 
according  to  any  figures  I  can  get. 

Incidentally,  on  that  question,  I  would  like 
an  answer  as  to  why  our  costs  are  the  highest 
in  the  whofe  of  Canada.  Even  in  Halifax, 
where  they  are  blasting  rock,  they  don't  have 
the  figures  that  we  have  in  this  cost. 

However,  I  am  informed  that  at  the  present 
time  this  government  is  now  engaged  in  sell- 
ing those  lots  at  current  prices.  If  this  is  so, 
would  the  government  explain  why  this  is  not 
adding  to  the  problem  of  inflation? 

According  to  figures  which  have  been  giv- 
en to  Metropolitan  Toronto,  it  is  indicated 
that  for  all  classes  in  1971,  16.6  per  cent 
had  a  family  income  of  over  $15,000  and 
under  $25,000;  3.4  per  cent  had  over  $25,000. 
So,  a  total  of  20  per  cent  of  the  population 
had  an  income  of  over  $15,000  per  annum. 
In  Metro,  22.8  per  cent  were  over  $15,000, 


APRIL  8,  1974 


but  we  see  that  63.2  per  cent  of  families 
have  an  income  under  $12,000. 

How  have  these  figures  affected  the  hous- 
ing costs  across  the  province— that  is  the  fig- 
ures which  I  have  given  about  the  govern- 
ment's dealing  in  land— as  it  relates  to  the 
incomes  of  people  in  this  province  and  their 
iibilit>'  to  purchase,  or  indeed  to  rent  hous- 
ing? 

When  answering  a  question  of  my  leader 
(Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon)  the  other  day  concerning  the 
3,000-acre  purchase  in  the  Kitchener-Water- 
loo area  and  the  servicing  thereof,  the  min- 
ister stated  that  that  question  should  be  ad- 
dressed to  the  municipality,  although  he 
admitted  that  the  purchase  had  been  made 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  municipality  or 
their  co-operation  in  future  planning.  So  there 
is  nothing  new  at  all  so  far  in  the  policy  for 
servicing  lots,  notwithstanding  the  statements 
that  are  repeatedly  made  that  in  the  fulhiess 
of  time  there  will  be  such  a  statement  coming 
forth. 

The  same  minister  is  reported  earlier  to 
have  said  that  developers  would  not  be  al- 
lowed to  let  farmland  fall  out  of  production, 
thus  increasing  the  cost  of  food.  Well  why 
not,  when  the  government  consistently  follows 
this  policy?  How  much  more  farmland  must 
be  taken  off  the  market  before  the  people 
realize  that  this  has  inflated  food  prices  and 
that  it  has  been  a  deliberate  policy? 

During  the  Sixties  we  saw  developers  un- 
conscionably block-busting  neighbourhoods 
in  our  cities  to  satisfy  their  own  himger  and 
thirst  for  profit.  This  was  a  frightful!  practice. 
How  much  more  so  when  that  block-busting 
technique  in  the  rural  areas  destroys  the  food 
production;  and  how  much  worse  is  it  when 
these  tactics  are  employed  by  the  government 
itself? 

Together  with  this,  what  is  the  land  policy 
of  this  government?  Last  year,  a  property  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto  was  purchased  for 
$300,000  and  sold  two  weeks  ago  to  a  for- 
eign investor  for  $1.3  million— a  cruel  $1- 
million  profit  on  land  which  our  people  can't 
afford  to  buy  for  homes  to  live  in. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Shame 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Surely  there  is  no  other 
country  in  the  world  which  allows  substantial 
portions  of  its  land  to  go  completely  into  for- 
eign control.  When  are  we  going  to  face  up 
to  what  is  happening  under  our  government 
policies  in  this  area? 

Mr.  Gaunt:  It's  going  to  be  left  to  the 
Liberals  to  do  it. 


Mrs.  Campbell:  And  that's  going  to  be  the 
problem;  by  that  time  it  may  be  irreversible 
they've  had  so  much  going  on  it 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Itll  be  a 
busy  time. 

Mr.  J.  Riddel!  (Huron):  Nothing's  too  big 
for  the  Liberals  this  afternoon.  Well  tackle  it 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  The 
hon.  member  doesn't  believe  that,  does  he? 

Mrs.  Campbell:  In  a  report  called  "The 
Rent  Race,"  which  waji  presented  to  Metro- 
politan Toronto  and  commissioned  by  the 
Social  Planning  Council— and  I'm  sure  some 
hon.  members  have  at  least  seen  it— they 
say,  on  page  1: 

Tens  of  thousands  of  families  living  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto  today  are  caught  up 
in  what  might  well  be  termed  "the  rent 
race."  Most  of  these  people  have  middle 
incomes  that  at  one  time  might  have  af- 
forded a  clearly  adequate  style  of  living 
but  that  are  precariously  low  in  a  time 
of  rampant  inflation.  Still  others  have  low 
incomes  that  allow  little  or  no  room  for 
increased  allocation  to  housing.  Both 
groups  are  hard-pressed  by  the  realities  of 
the  housing  market.  Most  know  that  they 
will  never  be  able  to  afford  the  security 
of  owning  their  own  home. 

And  it  goes  on  to  paint  a  very  dismal  pic- 
ture of  the  situation  here.  On  page  3: 

Most  of  the  losers  in  the  rent  race  are 
beaten  before  they  start  because  of  low 
retirement  incomes,  low  wages,  uneven 
employment,  disability  and  other  reasons. 

As  you  must  be  aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  any- 
one reads  the  Toronto  newspapers— and  I 
think  there  are  a  few  here  who  do— Metro- 
politan Toronto  council  was  so  concerned 
about  this  report  that  it  set  aside  an  addi- 
tional $2  million  to  assist  those  who  were  on 
municipal  welfare,  because  the  report  makes 
it  abundantly  clear  that  these  people  haven't 
a  hope. 

But,  as  you  read  the  report,  Mr.  Speaker, 
just  add  in  all  those  groups  right  up  to  mid- 
dle income,  because  this  report  talks  about 
people  doubling  up.  Well  let  me  tell  you, 
sir,  they're  doubling  up  like  mad  because 
they  can't  afford  apartment  accommodation. 

And  we  have  some  people  who  come  out 
in  the  press  and  say  those  who  wanted  to 
stop  apartments  are  the  ones  responsible  for 
the  housing  shortage.  I  say  this  is  just 
balderdash.  You  don't  have  to  destroy  every- 
thing to  provide  housing.  But  unfortunately. 


890 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


again  this  government,  awaiting  the  initia- 
tives of  the  federal  government,  came  into 
a  NIP,  RAP,  and  vi^hatever  other  initial  pro- 
gramme, certainly  at  a  time  when  in  this 
area,  as  I  see  it,  it  is  already  too  late. 

When  you  look  at  those  pockets  of  blight 
we  used  to  talk  about,  such  as  Trefann  Court 
and  the  cost  of  housing  there  today,  you 
have  to  know  there  is  no  room  for  the  poor 
in  areas  where  they  used  to  find  some  shel- 
ter. 

In  the  population  figures  of  this  report  it 
states: 

This  study  focuses  on  social  assistance 
families  receiving  major  or  supplementary 
benefits  from  the  municipalit>'  of  Metro- 
politan Toronto.  In  October  of  1973  this 
population  comprised  approximately  15,600 
families  and  individuals  receiving  general 
welfare  assistance  and  15,800  families  and 
individuals  in  receipt  of  family  benefits. 

And  of  course  you  have  to  know  that  Metro- 
politan Toronto  is  not  prepared  to  give  sub- 
sidies to  those  on  family  benefits.  Their 
position  is  if  the  province  isn't  concerned 
we  can't  pay  the  money  for  the  people  who 
should  be  in  their  concern. 

There  is  a  devastating  description  in  this 
report  of  substandard  housing  the  people 
are  forced  to  live  in  for  lack  of  anything 
else.  In  the  report  they  say: 

The  reader  should  be  alert  to  the  fol- 
lowing cautions: 

1.  The  assessment  of  housing  adequacy 
is  aimed  only  toward  providing  a  general 
review  of  the  adequacy  of  housing  ob- 
tained by  social  assistance  recipients.  It 
is  not,  for  example,  to  be  confused  with 
analyses  that  might  be  used  to  project 
housing  stock  requirements. 

2.  Only  when  we  present  our  composite 
index,  which  combines  most  of  these  data, 
can  a  clear  judgement  be  made  as  to  the 
housing  quality  faced  by  social  assistance 
recipients.  The  details  presented  here  are 
illimiinating  none  the  less. 

I  am  not  going  to  go  on  into  this  report, 
much  as  I  have  been  tempted  to  do  so,  and 
as  you  will  see  I  clearly  came  prepared  to 
read  further  excerpts.  I  just  trust  that  some- 
one over  there  is  going  to  read  very  care- 
fully what  that  report  has  to  say. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  normally  a  person 
who  cries  out  in  dramatic  terms.  I  wish  I 
had  that  sort  of  flair  sometimes,  but  I  hon- 
estly and  sincerely  believe  that  at  this  time 
when  our  middle  income  group  is  now  be- 
coming   the    disadvantaged    poor,    housing- 


wise,  or  is  joining  the  disadvantaged  housing 
poor,  we  may  well  think  in  terms  of  what 
Willy  Brandt  had  to  say  about  the  future 
of  our  democracy  and  this  kind  of  chaos. 
These  sorts  of  statements,  the  sounding 
brass  and  the  tinkling  cymbal,  are  not  going 
to  satisfy  the  people  of  this  province  any 
longer  and  we  can  no  longer  permit  the 
waste  of  our  land  and  the  waste  of  the 
talents  of  our  people. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  entering  this  debate,  it  is  my 
intention  to  deal  with  a  few  variations  on  a 
single  theme,  that  of  the  cost  of  living. 

There  is  rather  an  interesting  contrast 
in  this  country  at  the  present  time.  In 
Ottawa,  the  Conservative  Party  poses  as  one 
deeply,  almost  exclusively,  preoccupied 
with  the  cost  of  living.  It  has  presented 
a  rather  simplistic  programme  but  nobody 
is  persuaded  of  its  validity  except  itself  and 
in  most  countries  where  it  has  been  at- 
tempted it  has  failed.  The  public  image  is 
that  of  a  party  which  is  concerned  and  if  it 
only  had  the  power,  if  it  hadn't  been  cheated 
of  power,  it  would  be  doing  something 
about  it.  Let's  leave  Ottawa  to  itself. 

Down  here  we  have  a  Conservative  Party 
in  power.  The  Tories  have  the  power  and 
what  are  they  doing  about  it,  Mr.  Speaker? 
The  simple  answer  is  they're  doing  virtually 
nothing.  In  addition  to  all  of  these  specific 
instances  that  might  be  cited  and  which  the 
hon,  member  who  has  just  taken  her  seat  did 
cite  in  reference  to  housing— where  govern- 
ment policy  has  been  a  thrust  to  the  in- 
flationary spiral— I  have  been  rather  in- 
terested in  the  last  few  days  in  the  reaction 
of  the  government.  Periodically,  when  the 
issue  of  inflation  and  its  importance  has 
come  before  the  House,  the  Premier  has 
risen  and  verbally  browbeaten  Ottawa  for 
not  doing  anything  and  then  indicated  that 
down  here  this  government  is  doing  some- 
thing. In  a  mindless  sort  of  way,  sponta- 
neously, there  would  break  out  applause  from 
all  the  backbenches  on  the  government  side 
of  the  House. 

It  was  rather  interesting  that  on  two  oc- 
casions the  Premier  deigned  to  indicate  to 
us  what  he  thought  this  government  was 
doing.  In  so  doing,  he  borrowed  from  the 
comments  of  the  member  for  High  Park  (Mr. 
Shulman)  whom  he  has  seen  on  TV  on  some 
occasions  stating,  I  assume,  essentially  what 
the  member  said  in  the  House  this  morning 


APRIL  8,  1974 


891 


—namely  that  one  of  the  major  thrusts  to 
inflation  in  this  country  is  the  excessive  and 
growing  expenditures  of  government.  By 
implication,  the  Premier  was  suggesting  that 
this  government  has  not  been  contributing 
to  inflation  by  excessive  expenditure.  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  don't  know  whether  wittingly 
or  imwittingly  the  Premier  is  trying  to  de- 
ceive the  public  or  if  he  is  operating  on  the 
assumption  the  bigger  the  lie  the  more  likely 
it  is  to  be  believed,  because  just  for  one 
moment  let  us  pause  and  consider  what  has 
happened  during  the  years  of  this  Premier's 
administration.  LeTs  not  go  back  any 
further. 

In  the  year  1970,  the  budget  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario  was  $5,216  million.  In 
the  year  1971,  it  was  $6,027  million.  In  the 
year  1972  it  was  $6,509  million.  In  the  year 
1973,  it  was  $7,269  million;  and  I  predict 
that  when  the  budget  comes  down  tomorrow 
the  budget  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  will 
be  close  to,  if  not  in  excess  of  $8  billion. 

What  does  that  mean,  Mr.  Speaker?  It 
simply  means  that  in  the  last  three  years- 
three  years  of  this  administration  (n  the 
1970s— the  budget  in  the  Province  of  On- 
tario has  gone  up  in  excess  of  $2  billion. 
Do  you  know  what  is  interesting,  to  throw 
that  into  perspective,  Mr.  Speaker?  The 
proxincial  budget  in  1967  was  just  a  shade 
under  $2  billion.  In  other  words,  it  took  us 
100  years  to  build  a  budget  of  $2  billion 
in  this  province  and  in  three  years  of  this 
government  we've  added  that  amount  to  it 
within  the  Province   of  Ontario. 

Mr.  R.  Gisbom  (Hamilton  East):  They 
bought  their  way  into  power  with  our 
money. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Look,  our  government 
expenditures  are  going  up  and  I'm  not  so 
much  decrying  it  as  calling  on  the  govern- 
ment and  upon  the  Premier  to  cut  out  the 
blatant  deception  and  suggestion  to  the 
people  of  Ontario  that  this  government  has 
been  playing  its  role— presumably  in  this 
way  only— to  check  inflation  by  not  spending 
excessively,  when  in  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
government  has  boosted  its  budgets  in  a 
fashion  that  would  match  if  not  exceed 
those  of  virtually  any  government  you  want 
to  point  to. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  What's  a 
billion? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  if 
there  was  any  doubt  there  was  a  vaccum  in 
government  policy  in  this  important  issue  all 


you  have  to  do  is  take  a  look  at  the  Throne 
Speech,  which  we  are  now  debating. 

Tliat  TTirone  Speech  had  one  fleeting  para- 
graph. Let  me  read  that  paragraph  into  the 
record  again.  The  leader  of  t^  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  (Mr.  Lewis)  did  so  in  the  initial 
response  on  behalf  of  this  party;  but  I  want 
to  read  it  in  again  and  then  I  want  to  take 
a  good  detafled  look  at  it.  It  read  as  follows: 
While  my  government  will  employ  all 
practical  means  at  its  disposal  to  alleviate 
the  causes  and  effects  of  inflation,  never- 
theless it  bears  repeating  that  the  problem 
can  only  be  deak  with  in  a  national  con- 
text, with  all  governments  co-operating. 

In  short,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  this  government 
is  guihy  of  is  an  almost  total  100  per  cent 
cop-out.  It  has  two  sections  in  that  paragraph. 
The  second  one  is  in  effect  saying  that  noth- 
ing can  be  dcHie  at  the  provincial  level  if  the 
federal  government  isn't  willing  to  co-operate. 
Look,  obviously  there  has  got  to  be  co- 
operation between  provincial  and  the  federal 
government.  Quite  frankly,  the  federal  govern- 
ment is  doing  more  than  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment, primarily  because  of  pressure  from 
the   opposition— on   occasion   even   from   the 
Tories  but  mainly  from  the  NDP-so  they  are 
doing  something.  But  this  government  is  do- 
ing nothing;  and  they  are  doing  nothing  be- 
cause they  are  in  effect  suggesting  that  it  isn't 
a  provincial  responsibility.  I'm  going  to  give 
specific   cases   later   in   aealing  with  certain 
themes.  The  government  simply  cops  out  and 
says  "that's  a  federal  responsibility, '  let's  just 
pause,  Mr.  Speaker,  and'  deal  with  this  issue 
of  what  is  the  constitutional  responsibility  of 
a  province  in  this  country  with  regard  to  price 
controls  and  the  inflation  that  flows  from  it. 
I  want  to  quote,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  it 
does  it  so  very  succinctly,  one  paragraph  from 
an    article    tnat    appeared    in    the    Queen's 
Quarterly,  winter  edition,  1973,  on  the  con- 
stitutional implications  of  price  control  legis- 
lation by  Terrence  Morley.  It  reads  as  follows: 
The    provinces,    of   course,    can   impose 
price  controls  within  their  own  boundaries. 
The  British  Colurabia  case  of  Home  Oil 
Distributors   Ltd.   vs.  Attorney  General  of 
British    Columbia    in    1940,    SCR   444,    in 
which  it  was  held  that  a  province  could 
pass  legislation  fixing  the  wholesale  and  re- 
tail prices  of  fuel  oil  and  gasoline,  clearly 
implies  similar  provincial  powers  over  other 
commodities.  It  is  equallv  clear,  however, 
•diat  the  imposition  of  different  levels  of 
price  controls  over  different  commodities  by 
some,  but  not  all  provinces,  would  led  to 
economic  chaos  and  to  the  dismemberment 
of  the  nation. 


892 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Moreover,  in  the  final  analysis  provincial 
price  controls  might  well  be  found  to  be 
ultra  vires,  since  mey  cotJd  be  said  to  con- 
stitute internal  trade  barriers  which  the 
Supreme  Court  recently  struck  down  in 
Attorney  General  for  Manitoba  vs  the 
Manitoba  Egg  Marketing  Board  of  1971, 
SCR  689. 

That's  the  end  of  the  quotation. 

Now  I  agree,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  you  can't 
move  in  any  great  distance  within  one  prov- 
ince in  terms  of  price  controls  because  you 
get  out  of  step  with  all  of  the  other  provinces. 
As  Mr.  Morlfey  states,  that  would  create  eco- 
nomic chaos;  everybody  concedes  this. 

But  that's  no  excuse  for  doing  nothing  at 
all,  and  that's  what  this  government  is  doing. 
I  agree  that  the  lawyers  argue  that  if  the 
province  were  to  get  into  the  field  that  then 
ultimately,  by  getting  into  the  field,  it  might 
be  interpreted  that  they  were  intervening  in 
interprovincial  trade  and  violating  the  con- 
stitution and  the  BNA  Act. 

That's  a  possibihty,  and  on  rare  occasions 
it  has  happened.  But  to  use  that  ultimate 
possibility,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  an  excuse  for  not 
doing  anything  at  all,  and  then  by  not  doing 
anything  at  all  adt)pting  a  posture  which  is 
almost  excksively  one  of  verbal  browbeating 
of  Ottawa,  means  to  cop-out  totally  as  far  as 
the  Province  of  Ontario  is  concerned. 

I  want  to  suggest  that  on  this  business  of 
blaming  Ottawa  and  saying  you  have  no  re- 
sponsibility, there  simply  is  no  justification 
for  it.  The  province  has  the  constitutional 
power.  There  may  be  limitations  upon  which 
it  can  exercise  that  power,  because  of  the 
intervention  on  interprovincial  trade  and  be- 
cause of  price  variations  that  would  create 
economic  chaos;  but  they  have  the  power,  and 
if  they  want  Ottawa  to  move,  surely  they  are 
going  to  put  the  pressure  on  Ottawa  to  move 
when  they  prove  willingness  on  their  part  to 
start  the  whole  process,  to  go  half  way,  to 
assume  their  responsibihty.  Then  they  will  be 
on  firm  ground  in  shouting  and  screaming 
politically  at  Ottawa  to  do  a  bit  more  if  we 
really  want  to  come  to  grips  with  this  im- 
portant problem  of  inflation. 

So  there  is  the  one  aspect  of  this  sort  of 
cop-out.  However,  let  me  deal  with  the 
second  aspect,  because  it  is  even  more  im- 
portant. That  was  where,  in  the  first  part 
of  that  paragraph  in  the  Throne  Speech,  it 
said:  "While  my  government  will  employ  all 
practical  means  at  its  disposal  to  alleviate 
the  causes  and  eff^ects  of  inflation." 

"All  practical  means  at  its  disposal  to 
alleviate  the  causes  and  the  effects  of  infla- 


tion." Well  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
just  unmitigated  rot. 

I  want  to  proceed  with  a  few  instances  to 
show  just  how  this  government  is  doing  vir- 
tually nothing;  and  secondly  how  it  is  ignor- 
ing other  practical  means  that  are  at  its 
disposal,  that  other  provinces  across  this 
country  are  resorting  to  with  ever  greater 
frequency. 

Let  me  begin  by  going  back  to  the  sum- 
mary that  the  leader  of  the  Ne\\-  Democratic 
Party  made  of  the  efforts  of  one  minister— 
this  is  my  first  point— the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Cle- 
ment) after  he  got  into  this  whole  exercise 
about  last  August  or  September  when  there 
was  a  great  public  furor  burst  upon  this 
nation  because  of  rising  prices.  Indeed  the 
questions,  rather  embarrassing  questions,  were 
put  to  the  Premier  when  he  was  down  in 
Charlottetown  at  the  Premiers'  conference, 
and  he  said  he  was  going  to  speak  to  the 
minister. 

The  minister  said  he  was  going  to  call  in 
the  top  brass  of  the  supermarkets,  and  one 
got  the  impression  that,  boy  the  show  was 
really  on  the  road.  But  what  we  got,  as  usual 
from  this  government,  was  a  conference,  a 
food  conference  to  look  into  conflicts. 

No,  there  were  no  prayers  about  it  at  all, 
may  I  say,  to  the  hon.  member  for  Victoria- 
Haliburton  (Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson)  I  think  it  is. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  it  had  been  prayers  it 
might  have  been  more  useful  than  what  did 
go  on  at  the  conference.  Because  out  of  the 
conference  emerged  a  lot  of  promises  and 
suggestions  about  what  the  ministry'  was 
going  to  do. 

As  I  said,  the  hon.  member  for  Scarbor- 
ough West  (Mr.  Lewis),  the  New  Democratic 
leader,  referred  to  these.  Just  let  me  recall 
them  to  the  House.  The  minister  promised  a 
business  practices  Act  to  prohibit  unfair  and 
deceptive  practices.  Where  is  it?  We  haven't 
seen  it  yet. 

He  promised  that  the  courts  would  be 
given  power  to  rule  on  what  were  uncon- 
scionable profits.  Well  where  is  it?  We've 
had  no  legislation  on  that  level. 

Third,  he  would  explore  cease  and  desist 
orders  in  case  of  unconscionable  prices.  Well 
where  is  the  legislation?  This  is  an  urgent 
problem.  Eight  months  have  gone  by.  The 
minister  is  ruminating.  Nothing  is  happening. 
We  have  no  legislation. 

Fourth,  he  would  arm  the  government 
with  authority  to  act  against  food  hoarding, 
speculating,  profiteering  and  fraud.  Oh  boy, 
he  was  huflBng  and  puffing  those  days.   He 


APRIL  8,  1974 


893 


was  really  going  to  scare  every  wolf  out  of 
the  free-enterprise  patch,  so  to  speak. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Hal iburton): 
He  was  reading  the  member's  old  speeches. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  But  there  was  nothing 
done  and  there  has  been  nothing  done.  It's 
huffing  and  puffing  and  nothing  more. 

Finally,  he  was  going  to  monitor  regional 
price  disparities.  He  was  going  to  find  out 
why  you  had  these  price  disparities  and  he 
was  going  to  document  them,  and  indeed  as 
of  about  two  weeks  ago  he  said  the  report 
was  going  to  come  into  the  House.  He  told 
us  a  week  ago  Friday  that  it  was  going  to 
be  in  this  past  week. 

I  sent  a  note  over  to  him  last  Monday 
saying:  "When  will  it  be  in?"  He  said: 
"Thursday."  Well  Thursday  has  gone  and 
Friday  has  gone  and  the  weekend  has  gone. 
We  are  back  to  Monday  and  we  still  haven't 
got  the  report.  In  other  words,  we  have  had 
an  absolute  blank.  A  great  deal  of  bluffing 
and  a  great  deal  of  bluster,  but  we  have  had 
nothing  from  this  whole  ministry,  which  pre- 
sumably is  the  ministry  within  this  govern- 
ment which  is  designed  to  protect  the  con- 
sumer. 

I  was  hoping  I  was  going  to  have  his 
report  on  some  examination  of  pricing  pro- 
cedures in  the  supermarkets  so  that  I  might 
be  able  to  deal  with  it.  In  the  absence  of 
the  report  I  want  to  make  a  few  comments 
to  the  minister  and  to  the  House.  With  regard 
to  this  very  difficult  problem  of  how  one 
copes  with  pricing  in  the  supermarkets  and 
so  on. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  has  been  a  tendency, 
and  quite  frankly  I  think  maybe  in  the  New 
Democratic  Party  we  are  guilty  of  it  too,  to 
speak  too  exclusively— 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  That's  for  sure. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  member  doesn't  even 
k-now  what  I'm  talking  about.  He  mindlessly 
started  supporting  the  Premier  when  he  said 
nothing.  He  supports  me  before  Fve  spoken. 


Mr.    R.    G.    Hodgson:    I 

member. 


with   the 


Mr.  MacDonald:  Well  it's  ill  advised;  just 
wait  till  I  speak. 

Mr.    R.    G.    Hodgson:    Sure,    when   he   is 
wrong. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Just  wait  till  I  speak. 

Mr.    E.    M.   Havrot   (Timiskaming):    Don't 
trust  him. 


Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Is  the 
meml)er  for  Vic-toria-Haliburton  still  waiting 
on  the  call  for  parliamentary  assistant? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  No,  I  am  not. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  I  was  going  to  say, 
Mr.  Speaker,  was  there  has  perhaps  been  un- 
due attention  focused  on  the  profits  of  the 
supermarkets.  The  profits  of  the  supermaHcets 
aren't  inconsequential.  The  very  fact  that  they 
got  away  from  what  is  the  normal  and  the 
legitimate  standards  of  measuring  profits, 
namely  the  profit  one  has  based  on  the  equity 
capital  one  puts  into  it  and  have  now  come 
up  with  this  gimmick  that  their  profits  are  a 
cent  or  a  cent  and  a  quarter  or  three-quarters 
of  a  cent  on  each  dollar  of  the  turnover  when 
they've  got  such  a  massive  turnover,  is  an 
indication  they  are  trying  to  camouflage  the 
size  of  their  profits. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  important  thing  about  the 
operation  of  modem  supermarket  retailing 
isn't  just  the  profits.  It  is,  firstly,  the  amount 
of  money  the  consumer  pays  to  engage  in  this 
rather  futile,  uneconomic,  wasteful  exercise  of 
advertising  for  a  purpose  which  is  completely 
diflFerent  from  advertising  in  days  gone  by. 
And  I'll  deal  with  that  in  a  bit  more  detail 
in  a  moment. 

And  secondly,  there  is  the  amount  of  the 
consmner  dollar  that  is  spent  in  all  manner 
of  gimmickry  and  excessively  plush,  affluent 
kinds  of  facilities  for  which  the  consumer  is 
paying. 

Those  three  ingredients,  not  just  profits, 
represent  the  kind  of  gouging  by  the  super- 
market which  also  serves  their  other  purposes, 
namely  to  kill  oflF  virtually  all  other  competi- 
tion, particularly  the  independent. 

I  don't  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  whether  you 
have  had  a  chance  to  read  two  of  the  articles 
on  the  cost  of  food  in  the  current  issue  of 
Maclean's  Magazine,  the  April,  1974,  issue  of 
Maclean's  Magazine.  There  is  one  article  by 
Walter  Stewart  in  which  he  traces  the  fascina- 
ting history  of  the  development  of  Safeway 's 
in  western  Canada.  Incidentallv,  before  I  ^o 
any  further,  he  points  out  that  Safeway  s, 
which  has  even  cleaned  out  many  other  super- 
markets in  western  Canada,  is  moving  into 
northwestern  Ontario  with  about  16  outlets 
and  is  gradually  moving  down  this  way.  So 
this  is  going  to  be  our  problem  as  well  as  its 
manifestations  in  western  Canada  already. 

Mr.  C.  E.  Mcllveen  (Oshawa):  They  have 
one  in  Oshawa. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They  have  one  in  Oshawa 
already?  Maybe  that's  one  of  the  16. 


894 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


He  traces  and  studies  the  development  of 
Safeway 's  in  western  Canada  and  how  they 
achieved  their  particular  position.  Mr.  Speak- 
er, let  me  quote  to  give  you  the  flavour  and 
the  substance,  just  two  or  three  paragraphs. 
What  all  this  suggests  for  the  consumer 
is    that    the    cutthroat    competition    which 
supermarkets  so  anxiously  tell  us  about  is 
not  likely  in  the  long  run  to  bring  food 
prices   down.    In   the   shuffle   for   position 
among  the  food  giants,  the  chief  casualties 
are   the   independents.    The   net   result  of 
price  wars  appears  to  be  to  cripple  the  in- 
dependents   and   transfer   the   cost  of  the 
campaign   against  them   on   to   everybody 
else's  grocery  bill. 

Here  is  a  third  quotation.  In  fact,  this  is  a 
quotation  credited  to  Prof.  R.  E.  Owley,  vice- 
president  of  Consumers'  Association  of  Ca- 
nada, who  drew  the  moral.  I  quote: 

Advertising  by  food  chains  and  price 
wars  are  a  sign  of  oligopoly  not  competi- 
tion. These  rivalries  result  in  self-cancelling 
advertising  that  result  in  almost  exclusive 
emphasis  on  very  shiny  war-located  retail 
store  premises  whose  costs  are  borne  by  the 
consumer. 

A  little  earlier  in  this  article  Walter  Stewart 
quotes  Eric  Blackman,  who  is  Safeway's  mer- 
chandising chief,  and  Blackman  wanted  to 
make  one  thing  perfectly  clear.  I  quote: 
"What  they  were  charging  us  with— "—I 
should  intervene,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  say  that  this 
quote  is  made  in  the  context  of  the  Federal 
Combines  Commission  having  laid  a  charge 
and  taken  the  store  to  court  for  being  in  the 
combine.  He  said,  "What  they  were  charging 
us  with  was  standard  business  practice  and 
nothing  immoral  or  illegal." 

In  other  words  what  we  have  in  the  in- 
stance of  Safeway,  Mr.  Speaker— and  the 
history  is  there  to  be  seen  and  the  conse- 
quences are  there  to  be  seen  in  western 
Canada— is  the  operations  of  a  company  oper- 
ating not  in  violation  of  the  tenets  of  free 
enterprise  but  untrammelled  free  enterprise; 
which  stomped  on  the  opposition,  which  in- 
dulged in  cutthroat  procedures  until  it  got  rid 
of  the  opposition  and  then  would  increase  its 
prices. 

When,  for  example,  studies  were  made  and 
they  found  that  Safeway  was  charging  more 
in  those  areas  which  were  the  poor  areas  of 
some  of  the  western  cities  in  Canada,  they 
didn't  deny  it.  They  said  they  weren't  charg- 
ing more  because  they  happened  to  be  the 
poor  areas;  they  were  charging  more  because 


there  was  no  competition  there  and  therefore 
the  market  was  free  to  be  gouged. 

Fewer  stores  will  go  into  the  poorer  areas. 
Safeway  goes  in  because  it  knows  it  will  have 
less  competition.  It  doesn't  even  have  to  spend 
money  to  kill  the  competition.  It  just  gouges 
the  market  and  the  fact  that  it  happens  to  be 
the  poorer  people  of  the  city  is  of  no  particu- 
lar concern  to  them. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  am  telling  you  is  not 
new.  I  have  here  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  the 
report  of  the  royal  commission  on  consumer 
problems  in  inflation  which  was  conducted 
and  reported  on  in  1968  for  the  Provinces 
of  Manitoba,  Saskatchewan  and  Alberta.  In 
that  there  is  documentation  of  the  operation 
and  the  consequences  of  the  operation,  in 
terms  of  higher  cost  to  the  consumers,  of  re- 
tailing in  western  Canada. 

I  repeat,  Mr.  Speaker,  those  retailers  who 
dominated  the  scene  in  western  Canada  are 
now  moving  into  Ontario.  If  the  Tories  want, 
let  me  borrow  that  phrase  again,  "practical 
means  to  alleviate  the  causes  and  effects  of 
inflation,"  they  have  a  prescription  of  prac- 
tical means  in  that  particular  area.  AM  they 
have  to  do  is  to  apply  it  to  the  conditions  in 
Ontario;  and  indeed  if  they  don't  apply  it 
Safeway  and  some  of  the  boys  are  going  to 
apply  it  and  give  them  an  fllustration  of  it 
right  there. 

However,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  only  part  of 
the  story- 
Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Are  they  leaving  those 
NDP  provinces  already? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Pardon? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  They  are  not  leaving 
those  NDP  provinces  already,  are  they? 

Mr.  Havrot:  They  sure  are. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  member  should  wait 
until  they  have  a  chance  to  do  something 
about  it  out  there,  which  they  are  proceeding 
with  now. 

Mr.  Havrot:  They're  leaving  Saskatchewan 
and  Manitoba. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  member  shouldn't 
hold  his  breath.  However  I  want  to  come 
back  home. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Like  rats  on  a  sinking  ship. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  have  in  my  hand  a 
document  which  I  have  referred  to  with  in- 
creasing frequency  during  the  past  year  be- 
cause it  is  an  Ontario  document.  It  is  a  docu- 


APRIL  8,  1974 


ment,  research  report  No.  14,  of  the  special 
committee  on  farm  incomes,  which  was,  if  I 
recall  correctly,  The  Challenge  of  Abundance, 
tabled  in  January,  1969  or  1970.  This  re- 
search report  deals  with  wholesaling  and  re- 
tailing of  food  in  Ontario.  It  was  done  by 
William  Janssen,  who  by  no  strange  coin- 
cidence has  since  risen  and  is  now  a  Deputy 
Minister  of  Agriculture  in  Manitoba.  It  was 
also  done  by  a  man  by  the  name  of  Harry 
Weijs— I  don't  know  the  correct  pronunciation 
—who  liappens  to  be  today  one  of  the  top 
partners  in  Topecon,  agricultural  consultants 
here  in  the  city  of  Toronto.  I  will  come  back 
to  him  a  minute  or  so  later. 

Let  me  give  you  some  very  brief  quota- 
tions out  of  this,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  show  you 
what  I  am  drawing  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister,  who  is  going  to  bring  down  a  re- 
port which  I  am  almost  dead  certain  in  ad- 
vance will  be  a  vacuous  report  of  certain 
discrepancies  that  he  can't  do  anything  about. 
He  can't  do  anything  about  it,  because  he 
isn't  willing  and  able  to  make  a  fundamental 
attack  and  recognize  that  this  is  a  very  bizarre 
operation— the  free  enterprise  system  at  its 
very  worst. 

What  has  got  to  be  done  is  to  have  govern- 
ments move  in  and  civilize  them,  because  free 
enterprisers  without  some  regulations  are  the 
most  uncivilized  and  ruthless  characters  in  the 
world.  That's  the  way  the  system  operates. 

Okay,  one  or  two  quotations  from  this  re- 
port of  1969,  prepared  as  a  study  paper  for  a 
report  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  here  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  On  page  11:  "Competition  among 
supermarkets  has  taken  on  a  form  that  is  es- 
sentiallv  diflFerent  from  price  competition."  On 
page  12,  and  this  is  a  quotation,  interestingly 
enough,  from  the  Canadian  Grocer  of  June, 
1968,  by  O.  E.  Olley,  "Inflation  of  Frills  Has 
Brought  Constant  Public  Scrutiny."  The  para- 
PTaph  that  is  quoted  from  his  article  in  the 
Canadian  Grocer  is  this: 

For  large-scale  advertising  to  work,  the 
buyer  must  be  only  partially  informed  about 
the  nature  of  what  he  is  buying  and  the 
products  must  be  complex  enough  so  that 
the  precise  evaluation  is  not  possible.  These 
conditions  are  perfectly  met  by  grocery  re- 
tailing. 

Just  let  me  pause  and  paraphrase,  Mr.  Speak- 
er. What  in  effect  he  is  saying  is  that  the 
purpose  of  advertising  isn't  to  inform  the 
prospective  consumer  or  purchaser,  rather  is 
is  to  partially  inform  him  so  that  he  can't 
evaluate   precisely   the   product.    It  is   a  de- 


liberate and  calculated  confusing  a£  the  issue 

rather  than  the  clarification  of  it 
I  go  on  to  the  next  page: 

In  essence,  variable-price  merchandis- 
ing involves  the  simultaneous  and  sequen- 
tial manipulation  of  selected  prices  up- 
wards and  downwards  in  order  to  draw 
attention  to  the  market  offerings  of  the 
firm  and  to  differentiate  them  from  those 
of  the  competitors. 

In  other  words,  Mr.   Speaker,  what  the  ad- 
vertising is  doing  is  deliberately  manipulating 
prices  up  and  down  and  then  trying  to  per- 
suade the  public  by  partial   information— by 
deception— that    they    have    got    a    bargain. 
But  they  can't  assess  it  in  any  precise  way, 
because  the  purpose  of  the  advertising  is  that 
they  shall  not  be  able  to  assess  it.  I  continue: 
It  is  commonly  accepted  that  the  price 
of  an  item  bears  some  definite  relationship 
to  its  cost,  as  it  would  if  a  standard  mark- 
up were  employed.  This  is  no  longer  valid 
for   items   sold    in   the   supermarkets.    The 
advantages  to  the  supermarkets  of  this  tvpe 
of  pricing  policy  are  quite  clear.   If  they 
were  to  operate  with  set  price  lists,  con- 
sumers would  have  the  opportunity  of  mak- 
ing comparisons  over  extended  periods  of 
time  and  of  discovering  the  stores  which, 
for     their    particular    needs,     were     most 
economical. 
But   you   see,    Mr.    Speaker,   that's   precisely 
what  the  supermarkets  don't  want— that  the 
public  can  find   out  what  they  are  offering 
at  a  price  and  come  to  a  conclusion.  So  they 
come  to  a  conclusion  in  this  study: 

The  best  price  mix  for  the  store  would 
be  a  minimum  of  strategic  items  at  lower 
prices  to  attract  the  customers,  and  a  maxi- 
mum of  higher-priced  items  to  increase  the 
profits. 
The  point  I  am  making,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  this. 
If  this  government  or  any  government,  in- 
cluding the  NDP  governments  out  in  western 
Canada,  is  going  to  do  anything  about  what 
has  now  been  documented  quite  a  number  of 
times-that  the  net  effect  of  the  operation  of 
the  supermarkets  in  their  pursuit  of  the  so- 
called  free  enterprise  approach  is  to  establish 
a  monopoly  or  at  least  an  oligolopy,  to  des- 
troy their  competitors,  and  to  do  it  by  cut- 
throat procedures  and  advertising  and  gim- 
mickry, all  of  which  is  taken  out  of  the 
consumer's  dollar,  and  then  when  it's  ended, 
they  are  in  a  position  to  charge  what  they 
please— if  the  government  is  going  to  clean 
up  that  kind  of  situation,  it  has  got  to  have 
the  courage  to  make  a  fresh,  new  start. 


896 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


And  the  government  is  not  going  to  be 
able  to  do  it  within  the  legalities  of  the 
Combines  Act;  it  may  be  able  to  make  some 
measure  of  progress  but  not  too  much,  as 
events  have  already  proven,  because  all  one 
has  got  to  do  is  get,  really,  a  rather  mediocre 
lawyer  and  one  can  tie  that  up  in  trying  to 
match  reality  with  the  law. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  Maybe  they 
should  change  the  Act. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  is  right. 
And  I  noticed  with  what  alacrity  and  detail 
the  Tories  did  it  when  Diefenbaker  was  in 
power.  And  I  notice  with  what  alacrity  and 
detail  the  Liberals  are  doing  it  now  that  they 
are  in  power. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  How  far  back  does 
the  member  want  to  go  in  history? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That  is  far  enough.  I've 
got  both  parties  in  the  same  bag  at  the  same 
time— and  it's  the  right  bag  for  both  of  them 
on  this  issue.  They  won't  change  it. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Where  they 
rightfully  belong. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Right. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  What  bag? 

Mr.  Deans:  It  wouldn't  even  require  a  large 
bag  to  get  them  in,  they  are  so  close  to- 
gether. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  per- 
haps before  we  can  move  to  get  legislation— 
and  I  look  forward  with  great  interest  to  what 
this  minister  is  going  to  bring  in  now  that 
he  has  had  all  this  eight  months  of  study; 
that's  a  long  enough  gestation  period  for 
production.  We  will  see  what  he  produces. 
My  guess  is  the  mountain  is  going  to  produce 
a  mouse,  but  let  me  not  prejudge  it. 

All  I  am  saying  is  that  before  the  govern- 
ment is  able  to  move  it  may  have  to  get  some 
more  facts  about  the  conditions  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  And  that  brings  us  back 
to  the  basics  as  far  as  our  policy  in  the  New 
Democratic  Party  is  concerned  in  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario.  The  only  way  we  are  going 
to  get  the  basics  is  to  set  up  some  kind  of 
prices  review  board;  and  not  a  strait  jacket 
that  is  going  to  impose  price  and  wage  con- 
trols for  an  alleged  90-day  period— that  kind 
of  simplistic  nonsense  nobody,  including 
many  who  are  promoting  it,  will  believe.  We 
need  a  prices  review  board  that  can  zero  in 
on   the    obvious    cases    of  exorbitant   pricing. 


smoke  them  out,  get  the  facts,  provide  them 
to  the  public  and,  where  necessary,  have  the 
legislative  power  to  impose  rollbacks. 

That,  I  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the 
phraseology  of  the  Throne  Speech,  is  a  prac- 
tical means  at  the  disposal  of  this  government 
to  alleviate  some  of  both  the  causes  and  the 
effects  of  inflation.  And  that's  point  one, 
which  I  draw  to  the  attention  of  the  minister, 
where  the  government  has  copped  out  com- 
pletely. 

Let  me  move  to  the  second  point,  which  is 
is  in  the  field  of  agriculture.  I  was  very 
interested  early  in  March,  when  the  Legis- 
lature resumed,  to  draw  to  the  attention  of 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  that  the 
four  western  Premiers  had  met  and  decided, 
at  the  end  of  their  conference,  that  they  were 
going  to  establish  a  prices  review  mechanism 
to  look  into  the  pricing  procedures  of  two  of 
the  major  farm  inputs,  namely  fertilizer  and 
farm  machinery. 

I  had  to  remind  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food,  because  he  had  momentarily  for- 
gotten, that  while  the  Premiers  of  three  of 
those  provinces  in  western  Canada  are  NDP 
—and  therefore  it's  not  surprising  that  they 
are  moving— the  fourth  one,  who  presumably 
is  moving  with  equal  enthusiasm,  happens  to 
be  Peter  Lougheed,  who  is  a  Tory;  and  each 
of  these  governments  is  now  moving  to  estab- 
lish a  prices  review  mechanism. 

The  minister  here  said  they  had  an  alterna- 
tive approach;  they  were  going  to  call  a  con- 
ference down  at  the  Four  Seasons  Hotel,  and 
it  was  held  the  following  week.  Well,  Mr. 
Speaker,  of  all  the  futile  exercises,  that  con- 
ference took  the  cake.  All  it  did  was  to  prove 
what  everybody  knew  before  the  conference 
was  held,  namely  that  there  is  a  desperate 
and  growing  shortage  of  fertilizer  and  that 
the  companies  are  using  that  shortage  to 
boost  prices  and  to  rip  off  farmers,  even  those 
who  aren't  able  to  get  a  portion  of  the 
fertilizer  they  need. 

So  when  I  pursued  this  once  again  with 
the  minister,  and  asked;  "What  are  you  going 
to  do  about  it?"  he  said  in  effect  that  he 
didn't  know  what  could  be  done  about  it; 
in  short  this  government  is  going  to  do  no- 
thing. Well,  again  for  the  benefit  of  the 
minister— in  fact,  before  I  get  into  that,  let 
me  draw  to  the  attention  of  the  House  the 
comments  of  Farm  and  Country'  magazine. 
Now  Farm  and  Country  is  perhaps  the  most- 
Mr.  Deans:  Most  Socialist  magazine. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  —the  most  well-read  and 
perhaps   the   most   authoritative   farm    maga- 


APRIL  8.  1974 


897 


zine  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  I  wish  on 
occasion  it  wouldn't  operate  as  though  it  were 
a  sort  of  company  sheet  of  the  government— 
a  sort  of  in-plant  sheet,  so  to  speak— but  on 
this  occasion  when  it  is  as  critical  as  this,  one 
can  come  to  the  conclusion  the  criticism  is 
really  doubly  valid. 

On  the  front  page  of  the  March  26  issue, 
they  refer  to  this  conference  that  was  held 
under    the    sponsorship— at    what    cost,    who 
knows?— of  the  Ontario   Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food.  Let  me  read  four  paragraphs: 
Edward  Thompson,  a  Guelph  area  cash 
cropper,  fertilizer  dealer  and  active  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  member,  broke 
up  the  recent  National  Fertilizer  Confer- 
ence with  his  accusation  that  the  meeting 
was   a   whitewash.    The   speakers   had   re- 
peatedly told  the  180  delegates  present  that 
farmers  everywhere  will  have  serious  prob- 
lems finding  enough  fertilizer  for  the  next 
three  years.    No   farmer  organization   was 
asked  to  present  a  brief  or  even  comment 
on     the     speakers'     statements.     Question 
periods  were  minimal. 

"There's  no  fertilizer  crisis  in  Canada," 
Thompson  explained.  "I  sat  at  the  meeting 
for  a  day  and  a  half  and  listened  to  26 
speakers  all  from  the  government  and  the 
fertilizer  industry,  while  they  justified  their 
positions!" 

After  Thompson  slammed  the  meeting 
for  making  no  real  effort  to  solve  the 
fertilizer  supply  situation,  he  was  sup- 
ported by  OF  A  president,  Gordon  Hill, 
National  Farmers'  Union  vice  president, 
Walter  Miller,  and  Christian  Farmers' 
Federation  president  Martin  Verkuyl. 

Well,  there  you  have  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  All 
farm  organizations  in  effect  saying  that  it  was 
a  whitewash  and  a  useless  gesture.  And 
what's  going  to  happen?  The  government  isn't 
going  to  do  anything. 

Well,  again  by  way  of  suggesting  that  may- 
be this  is  a  practical  means  at  their  disposal, 
may  I  draw  to  your  attention,  Mr.  Speaker, 
another  study  that  is  being  done  in  western 
Canada.  Fertilizer  Marketing,  Manitoba,  came 
out  about  three  weeks  ago.  It  happens  to  be 
a  study  done  by  that  company  I  referred  to 
earlier,  Topecon,  which  is  a  Toronto-based 
company. 

The  major  person  involved  in  the  study, 
which  was  really  a  royal  commission,  was  that 
Harry  Weijs  I  referred  to  who  happened 
to  be  a  co-author  with  William  Janssen  in  the 
earlier  document,  that  special  study  on 
wholesaling  and  retailing  food  prices  in  On- 
tario.   In   short,   he   knows    Ontario   and    he 


knows  the  agricultural  industry.  But  he  was 
asked  to  do  a  special  study  of  the  situation 
in  Manitoba. 

And  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  know 
to  what  extent  those  conditions  out  there 
apply  here  in  Ontario,  but  I  have  a  hcrtdthy 
suspicion,  which  I  will  insist  in  sticking  to 
until  I  have  some  evidence  that  they  don't 
apply  in  Ontario.  And  what  were  the  con- 
ditions in  western  Canada? 

First,  they  confessed  they  were  guilty  of 
price  manipulation.  I'm  sorry,  I  should  have 
mentioned  that  the  major  focus  was  not  only 
on  Cominco  and  one  or  two  other  major 
manufacturers  of  fertilizer,  but  on  Simplot, 
a  plant  in  Brandon,  Manitoba,  which  is  a 
subsidiary  of  an  American  plant  making 
fertilizer.  It  was  a  plant,  incidentally,  which 
was  built  through  the  Manitoba  Develop- 
ment Corp.  providing  $23  million  in  loans 
and  the  federal  government  providing  $5  mil- 
lion in  grants  in  order  to  provide  Manitoba 
with  an  adequate  supply  of  fertilizer  at 
reasonable  prices.  That's  the  bit  of  back- 
ground that  I  should  have  given  members 
so  they  might  grasp  the  significance  of  the 
royal  commission  conclusions. 

Simplot  conceded  they  were  guilty  of  price 
manipulation.  They  conceded  they  engaged 
in  price  discrimination.  They  admitted  what 
had  really  provoked  the  study  in  the  first 
place;  namely  that  they  were  selling  Manitoba 
manufactured  fertilizer  cheaper  in  the  United 
States  than  they  were  to  Canadians,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  the  plant  was  built  with 
$28  million  in  Canadian  public  funds  or 
grants. 

They  gave  no  valid  explanation  for  the 
fact  that  one  of  the  stipulations  in  that  agree- 
ment that  the  Manitoba  Development  Corp. 
had  signed  with  Simplot  was  that  the  parent 
company  in  the  United  States  would  have 
available  an  assured  supply  of  phosphoric 
acid  and  other  necessary  ingredients  for  mak- 
ing phosphate  fertilizer.  In  1971  the  plant 
in  the  United  States  cut  off  these  supplies  to 
the  Canadian  plant,  and  as  the  report  said, 
they  got  rather  fuzzy  and  vague  explanations 
as  to  why. 

But  finally,  and  most  important,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, this  plant,  Simplot  —  privately  owned 
ostensibly,  but  built  with  such  a  chunk  of 
the  public  funds— along  with  all  of  the  three 
or  four  other  plants  in  western  Canada  that 
are  privately  owned,  in  the  private  sector, 
are  all  part  of  a  marketing  zone  that  includes 
American  fertilizer  plants  in  the  states  just 
south  of  the  border  below  the  three  western 
provinces.  They  document  in  this  report  the 


898 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


price  manipulation,  the  price  discrimination, 
the  selling  at  lower  prices  to  Americans  of 
Canadian-produced  fertilizer  —  all  of  these 
practices  within  a  zone  that  takes  in  Canada 
and  the  adjoining  northern  part  of  the  United 
States. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  can  you  assure  me  that 
kind  of  thing  isn't  going  on  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario?  Of  course  you  can't.  In  fact  the 
odds  that  it  is  are  very  high.  The  boundary 
is  invisible  as  far  as  these  boys  are  con- 
cerned. They  may  be  an  American  company 
ostensibly  and  a  Canadian  company  osten- 
sibly, but  they  will  get  together  and  they 
will  carve  out  a  zone  that  spans  the  border 
and  in  which  they  are  manipulating  and  en- 
gaging in  discriminatory  pricing  practices.  I 
am  convinced  it  is  going  on  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario. 

And  if  this  government  wants— I  cite  as  a 
second  case— a  practical  means  of  prevention 
at  its  disposal,  let  it  follow  the  example  of 
the  four  western  provinces  and  move  in  with 
some  kind  of  a  price  review  mechanism,  at 
least  on  these  isolated  two  mafor  farm  inputs 
that  contribute  so  much  to  farm  costs.  Let 
them  get  out  the  facts,  and  then  when  they 
have  got  the  facts  perhaps  even  they  will 
screw  up  their  courage  suflBciently  that  they 
will  pass  legislation  to  roll  back  prices  and 
to  call  a  halt  to  the  unconscionable  gouging 
that  is  going  on. 

That's  the  second  point.  Let  me  move  on 
to  the  third. 

The  role  of  the  energy  board- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  I  should  point  out 
to  the  hon.  member  that  it  is  my  understand- 
ing that  there  is  going  to  be  a  private  mem- 
bers' hour  at  5  o'clock.  This  might  be  an 
appropriate  place  for  the  hon.  member  to 
move  adjournment. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  to  state  that  I  have  another  commit- 
ment outside  the  House.  I  can't  get  away; 
I  have  to  speak  to  the  farmers  of  Oxford 
county,  and  I  know  my  hon.  friend  there 
would  be  deeply  hurt  if  I  didn't  go  out  there. 
I  have  given  you  a  taste  of  what  can  be  given 
and  I  shall  have  to  leave  the  remainder  of 
it  for  a  later  date. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  have 
further  comments? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  have  many  further 
comments,  but  I  shall  not  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  give  them. 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Let  him  send  them 
over  to  me  and  I  will  make  them  for  tiie 
hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  Perhaps  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre  would  allow  him  to  continue 
for  another  15  minutes? 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  he  needs  four  or  five  minutes 
more  he  can  cut  into  my  time  if  he  wishes. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  No,  I  can't  do  it  in  four 
or  five  minutes. 

Look,  I  don't  want  to  impose  on  the  rules 
of  the  House,  if  the  rules  of  the  House  are 
such.  All  I  have  done  is  begin  to  document 
what  is  a  yawning  case  of  this  government's 
inaction  in  the  field  where  there  are  a  lot  of 
practical  things  that  can  be  done. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Then  do  I  understand  the 
hon.  member  for  York  South  correctly  that 
he  would  have  further  remarks  but  that  he 
cannot  make  them  in  view  of  other  commit- 
ments after  the  conclusion? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  You  understand,  with 
your  normal  perception  and  precision,  sir. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman  moves  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

PRIVATE  MEMBERS'  HOUR: 
RIGHTS  OF  LABOUR  ACT 

Mr.  Drea  moves  second  reading  of  Bill  15, 
An  Act  respecting  the  Rights  of  Labour. 

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

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  it  is  with  some  degree  of  sadness 
that  I  introduce  this  bill  because  it  repre- 
sents, unfortimately,  a  rather  complex  time 
in  our  heritage  of  industrial  democracy.  By 
the  very  introduction  of  this  bill  it  is  ap- 
parent that  the  traditional  role  of  the  free 
trade  union  in  our  society  has  been  unable 
to  cope  with  some  of  the  recent  innovations 
in  that  industrial  society  and  that  is,  to  wit, 
the  crook. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  that  I  did  not  have  to 
introduce  a  bill  called  An  Act  respecting  the 
Rights  of  Labour.  I  would  prefer  that  the 
labour  movement  collectively  could  deal  with 
the  abuses  by  the  minority  of  that  move- 
ment by  its  own  action.  If  I  thought  that 
the  ethical  practices  committee  of  the  Cana- 


APRIL  8,  1974 


dian  Labour  Congress  could  deal  with  cer- 
tain situations,  I  would  not  introduce  this 
bill.  Unfortunately,  by  default  they  have 
shown  that  they  cannot.  If  I  thought  that 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour,  through 
internal  discipline,  could  deal  with  the  tyi>e 
of  situation  that  I  am  concerned  about,  then 
once  again  I  would  not  have  introduced  this 
bill. 

Perhaps  it  is  expecting  too  much  for  or- 
ganizations that  are  essentially  voluntary,  for 
organizations  that  have  had  a  difficult  and 
occasionally  insurmountable  struggle,  to 
achieve  respectability.  By  respectabiUty,  I 
mean  the  right  to  carry  on  their  affairs  with- 
out harassment  from  a  law  and  order  society. 
I  suppose  it  might  be  asking  a  bit  too  much 
of  them  now  to  have  the  type  of  stringent 
internal  discipline  that  would  enable  them 
to  clean  up  the  minority. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  very  many  fine 
unions  in  this  province.  In  fact,  I  would  say 
to  you,  sir,  that  at  least  95  per  cent  of  the 
people  who  are  engaged  in  full-time  or  vol- 
untary union  activity  in  this  province  are  the 
type  of  people  that  you  and  I  would  be  very 
proud  to  take  home  to  dinner  on  Sunday. 

Unfortunately,  and  particularly  in  the  last 
few  years,  there  has  evolved  a  new  concept 
of  unionism,  albeit  by  a  minority,  that  union- 
ism is  a  business. 

We  have  seen  the  rise  of  such  business 
unionists  as  the  unlamented  Hal  Chamber- 
lain Banks.  We  have  seen,  in  our  own  area 
of  southern  Ontario,  the  rise  of  a  great  num- 
ber of  people  into  the  labour  movement. 
Unfortunately,  they  have  not  gone  into  the 
labour  movement  for  the  same  things  that 
motivated  people  a  generation  or  so  ago. 
We  have  seen  in  our  own  construction  in- 
dustry, here  in  southern  Ontario,  a  rather 
sordid  parade  of  so-called  imion  leaders 
whose  only  goal  was  to  enrich  themselves  at 
the  expense  of  the  people  they  were  sworn 
to  protect. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  you  that  the  type 
of  legislation  I  am  proposing  here  today  is 
more  necessary  today  than  ever  before,  be- 
cause we  in  this  country,  and  particularly  in 
Ontario,  have  virtually  an  open  door  for 
immigration.  Many  of  the  abuses  concern 
labour  organizations  that  deal  almost  exclu- 
sively, when  it  comes  to  membership,  vdth 
people  who  have  one  thing  in  common;  that 
is,  their  inability  to  speak  English  or  to  know 
the  laws  and  the  rights  of  this  province. 

I  think  it  is  particularly  wilful  of  a  person 
who  takes  advantage  of  a  name  and  a  herit- 
age as  honourable  as  that  of  the  trade  union 


movement  and  then  uses  it  to  line  his  own 
pockets  while  denying  any  form  of  justice  to 
those  who  are  compelled  to  belong  to  his 
organization  as  the  price  of  keeping  Uieir  job. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  last  few  years  in  this 
Legislature  we  have  heard  about  violence. 
We  have  heard  about  union  leaders  whose 
biggest  asset  is  the  number  of  b(xlyguards 
they  have.  We  have  heard  about  loans  to 
union  officers  from  companies  they  were  deal- 
ing with.  We  have  heard  about  loans  to  union 
officials  from  unions  and  from  their  own 
treasuries.  We  have  heard  about  special 
favours.  We  have  heard  about  special  vaca- 
tions. We  have  heard  about  a  great  number 
of  irregularities. 

In  short,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  now  have  a 
problem  in  industrial  society  in  Ontario 
where  there  is  a  desperate  need  for  regulation 
of  the  minority  that  is  threatening  to  erode 
all  the  decent  concepts  of  trade  unionism  in 
this  province.  I  say  to  you  if  there  was  only 
one  man  or  so  who  was  taking  a  bribe,  be- 
cause that  is  what  all  of  those  loans  and 
favours  and  vacations  and  trips  and  houses 
and  what  have  you  are,  if  there  was  only 
one  or  two  taking  a  bribe  and  it  was  roundly 
condemned  by  the  rest  of  the  movement, 
then,  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  a  bill  or  some 
type  of  enforcement  would  not  be  necessary. 

It  pains  me  a  great  deal  that  this  type  of 
thing  goes  on  and  the  criticism  does  not  come 
publicly  from  within  the  labour  movement— 
not  that  the  majority  of  men  and  women  in 
the  labour  movement  in  this  province  are  any- 
thing but  honest  and  honourable.  I  suggest  to 
you,  sir,  the  system  has  tied  them  so  much 
hand  and  foot  that  they  are  unable  to 
criticize  others.  By  the  very  fact  that  that 
system  denies  them  the  right  to  discipline  the 
bad  apples,  the  crooks,  the  hangers-on  and 
those  who  would  exploit  a  man  or  a  woman 
who  cannot  understand  English  so  that  they 
might  have  a  better  position  in  society  them- 
selves, I  suggest  to  you  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
time  has  come  to  look  very  inwardly  into  that 
type  of  system. 

I  remember  the  former  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Justice,  Mr.  A.  F.  Lawrence,  and  the 
dreadful  dilemma  he  was  in.  As  the  law  en- 
forcement officer  for  the  province,  did  he 
send  the  police  out  fully  equipped,  and  I'm 
not  talking  in  terms  of  revolvers  or  billy  clubs 
or  anything  like  that— and  enable  them  to 
use  all  of  the  tools  at  their  disposal  to  find 
out  those  who  were  using  unions  as  a  racket 
base?  The  dreadful  dilemma,  Mr.  Speaker,  is 
that  in  a  free  society  what  happens  when 
you    send   the   police    out   into  the    internal 


900 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


operations  of  one  of  the  integral  parts  of 
industrial  democracy,  is  that  when  you  get 
to  that  point  you  are  getting  perilously  close 
to  trade  unionism  as  it  exists  from  the  Rio 
Grande  down  through  South  America.  You 
can  understand  the  very  painful  position  that 
the  police  have.  When  bribes  and  so  forth 
are  reported  to  them,  how  far  can  they  go? 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  very  content  of  this  bill  is 
to  recognize  that  these  are  not,  at  least  in  the 
first  instance,  a  matter  of  police  responsibility. 
Rather  I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  they 
are  a  matter  for  the  particular  branch  of 
government  that  is  most  concerned  with 
working  people,  and  that  is  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  in  this  province. 

You  will  note  that  in  this  Act  there  is  a 
preamble.  That  is  by  deliberate  design  for, 
after  all,  the  Labour  Relations  Act  of  this 
province  contains  a  preamble,  and  so  does 
much  of  the  labour  legislation  that  we  pass 
in  this  province.  I  suggest  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  it  is  there  for  a  reason,  because 
this  government  is  very  cognizant  of  the 
rights  of  working  people.  When  we  are  going 
to  change  or  alter  those  rights- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Why  is 
the  member  for  Scarborough  Centre  bringing 
the  bill  in  instead  of  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Guindon)? 

Mr.  Drea:  What  is  the  member  for  Rainy 
River's  problem  today? 

Mr.  Reid:  Why  is  the  member  bringing 
in  the  bill  instead  of  the  Minister  of  Labour? 
Is  he  at  all  concerned  about  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:   Order,  please. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  That  is  a 
very  good  question. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  really  still  haven't  followed 
all  of  that,  but  we'll  get  around  to  it. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  will,  if  I  could  understand 
the  question  and  members  give  the  time  on 
this.  What  is  the  question? 

Mr.  Reid:  The  member  is  saying  that  the 
government  is  so  concerned  about  these 
things.  Why  then  isn't  the  Minister  of  La- 
bour bringing  in  the  bill? 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member  might  be  very 
surprised  about  what  the  Minister  of  Labour 
does  with  this  bill. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  The 
member  is   just  jumping  the  gun. 


Mr.  Reid:  I'd  be  surprised  if  he  did  any- 
thing. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  the  hon.  member  has 
the  floor. 

Mr.  Drea:  Coming  from  the  party  the 
members  do,  I  can  understand  their  surprise 
at  any  kind  of  action  at  all,  other  than  quot- 
ing inaccurate  figures. 

Mr.    Speaker,   as   I   was   saying  about  the 
preamble   to    this,    this    government    is    very 
cognizant  of  the  rights  of  working  people- 
Mr.   Lawlor:   That   remark  wasn't  worthy 
of  the  member. 

Mr.  Drea:  —unlike  certain  other  parties, 
which  have  attempted  over  the  years  to 
rather  ruthlessly  deny  it,  even  to  the  point 
of  using  tanks.  And  that  is  why  the  pre- 
amble, Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  you  that  the 
principle  of  part  I,  the  principle  of  the  defi- 
nition of  an  associate,  is  very  essential  to 
any  kind  of  unravelling  of  the  insider  opera- 
tions, because  after  all,  if  one  is  to  become 
a  labour  racketeer,  it  is  like  becoming  any 
other  type  of  racketeer;  one  does  not  go  out 
and  t^e  up  a  billboard  and  disclose  how 
they  are  getting  their  finances. 

Mr.  R.  Gisbom  (Hamilton  East):  That's 
good  old  Toryism— good  old  Toryism. 

Mr.  Drea:  It  is  concealed,  it  is  hidden 
through  sons  or  daughters,  wives,  bank  ac- 
counts in  other  communities,  relatives,  and 
so  on  and  so  forth. 

I  think  that  one  of  the  questions  that  has 
been  raised  in  the  past  is  the  inability  of 
anyone  to  define  the  particular  kind  of  in- 
sider relationship  that  exists  within  those 
who  have  adopted  the  occupation  of  labour 
racketeer  or  labour  gangster.  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
suggest  to  you  the  definition  in  part  I  that 
fits  insider  trading  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Ontario  Securities  Act  certainly  should  be 
sufficient  for  any  type  of  insider  operation 
within  a  trade  union. 

I  very  seldom  agree  with  the  member  for 
High  Park  (Mr.  Shulman),  but  about  a  year 
ago  he  said  something.  He  said  there  are 
crooked  unions  and  there  are  good  unions  in 
this  province;  the  crooked  ones  need  regula- 
tion. There  are  crooked  companies  and  there 
are  good  companies  in  this  province;  the 
crooked  companies  need  regulation.  That  is 
what  I  have  attempted  to  do  in  this  particular 
bill. 


APRIL  8,  1974 


901 


I  have  attempted  to  make  it  a  balance. 
Because,  1  suggest  to  you,  in  industrial  rela- 
tions, for  every  union  racketeer  there  is  a 
management  racketeer,  although,  unfortu- 
nately the  management  racketeer  hides  him- 
self behind  the  name  of  consultant,  or  what 
have  you,  and  somehow  his  activities  never 
generate  either  the  pubhcity  or  the  revulsion 
that  arc  associated  with  those  of  the  union 
gangster. 

I  think  there  is  good  reason  for  that.  I 
think,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  must  recognize 
that  people  expect  more  of  their  union  repre- 
sentatives than  they  do  of  the  boss,  and  while 
the\-  are  perfectly  prepared  to  admit  that  the 
boss  may  hire  a  never-ending  series  of  rather 
peculiar  people  of  dubious  reputation,  they 
do  not  expect  their  union  leaders  to  behave 
in  that  way.  After  all,  there  is  a  fundamental 
difference  between  the  two.  A  union  o£5cial 
is  elected,  or  at  least  should  be  elected,  and 
perhaps  later  in  this  session,  Mr.  Speaker, 
since  I  have  another  train  of  thought  con- 
cerning union  elections,  we  might  very  well 
get  into  how  some  of  these  people  are  elect- 
ed and  how  they  seem  to  stay  in  office. 

It's  rather  a  remarkable  thing,  Mr.  Speaker, 
there  are  some  very  good  union  leaders  who 
I  have  known  who  have  not  been  able  to 
stay  in  ofiBce,  or  they  have  been  defeated 
after  one  term  or  two,  and  I  thought  they 
did  a  pretty  good  job.  Yet  I  see  people  who 
have  negotiated  wage  cuts  for  five,  six  or 
seven  years  in  a  row,  and  somehow  they  stay 
in  oflRce;  and  perhaps  later  in  the  session, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  may  have  something  to  bring 
bear  upon  that  situation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  passing  on  to  the  principle  of 
part  III,  this,  I  suggest  to  you,  comes  to  the 
very  cnix  of  the  matter,  I  believe  that  the  full 
glare  of  public  opinion  is  the  one  area  where 
we  can  focus  the  maximum  amount  of  scrutiny 
upon  this  type  of  thing,  short  of  bringing  us 
back  to  the  old  police  days  when  there  were 
massive  dossiers  and  so  forth  on  virtually 
every  union  leader  and  every  type  of  person 
in  the  field  of  labour  relations  in  this  prov- 
ince. I  don't  want  that.  That  is  why  I  have 
gone  to  some  lengths  to  try  and  produce  an 
effort  whereby  these  things  will  be  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  Minister  of  Labour, 

The  Minister  of  Labour  will  have  powers 
to  act,  and  the  availability  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour  wdll  have  powers  to  act,  and  the 
availability  of  the  Minister  of  Labour  will 
be  open  to  the  indi\'idual  trade  union  mem- 
ber. Furthermore,  there  will  be  a  lot  more 
than  the  basic  protection  we  have  now  be- 
cause the  only  protection  we  have  now  is 
that   upon   request   an   audited   statement  of 


the  union's  activities  will  be  presented  to 
the  member. 

The  mind  boggles  at  the  prospect  of  a 
man  or  a  woman  who  has  been  in  this  coun- 
try a  couple  of  years  being  told  his  or  her 
basic  protection  against  the  kind  of  person 
I  am  talking  about  is  an  audited  statement. 
The  audited  statement  hasn't  l)een  a  protec- 
tion for  many  shareholders  over  the  years 
until  we  brought  in  some  rather  rigid  com- 
pany laws.  The  audited  statement  isn't  much 
of  a  protection  unless  there  is  very  tough 
regulation. 

The  section  on  disclosure  and  reporting, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  a  very  simple  chronology  of 
all  the  things  involving  finances  which  the 
labour  organization  or,  more  particularly,  the 
full-time  person  in  a  labour  organization  is 
doing  including  what  I  suggest  might  be  the 
most  important  one  which  is  No.  13,  the 
issuance  of  work  permits.  Why  is  it  that  in 
Toronto  so  many  people  who  can't  speak 
English  have  only  a  work  permit  which  is 
non-renewable?  Why  is  it  so  many  people 
who  speak  English  seem  to  have  a  full-time 
competency  card?  Mr.  Speaker,  why  is  it 
that  in  the  Province  of  Quebec,  when  they 
get  into  the  James  Bay  problem,  they  are 
going  to  find  out  about  the  issuance  of  work 
permits— who  got  them,  who  paid  for  them, 
and  a  lot  of  other  things  that  nobody  wants  to 
admit  are  behind  some  of  the  things  which 
took  place? 

One  doesn't  send  muscle  into  a  place  un- 
less there  is  a  need  for  it  and  unless  the 
financial  concerns  warrant  it.  I  suggest  right 
now  that  muscle  for  unions  is  coming  at  a 
pretty  high  premium. 

I  don't  think  that  disclosure  by  those  in  a 
trade  union  is  enough.  I  think  there  is  an 
onus  upon  management,  particularly  the  kind 
of  management  which  would  betray  the 
Minister  of  Labour  in  this  province,  the  kind 
of  management  there  is  at  Artistic  Wood- 
work. Artistic  Woodwork  didn't  tell  the 
Minister  of  Labour  in  this  province  that  it 
had  a  company  spy  on  the  other  side.  Artistic 
Woodwork  didn't  say  exactly  what  that  man 
was  doing. 

Supposedly  it  came  to  the  Minister  of 
Labour  in  this  province  with  clean  hands 
and  said,  "Settle  our  strike.  We  are  a^  the 
mercy  of  the  union  and  the  picket  line."  But 
it  didn't  say  it  had  a  man  on  the  picket  line. 
In  retrospect,  how  much  longer  did  he  keep 
that  picket  line  operative  than  if  he  had  not 
been  there? 

Mr.  Reid:  What  about  the  man  from  the 
labour  union? 


902 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  think  one 
can  come  to  terms  with  the  rise  of  the  private 
detective  industry  in  this  province,  particu- 
larly as  regards  labour  relations,  by  trying 
to  legislate  them  away  from  the  strike. 

I  think  a  far  simpler  way  is  we  say  to 
management  that  when  it  hires  a  consultant 
or  a  private  detective  or  a  special  person 
who  has  anything  to  do  with  the  collective 
bargaining  process— and  collective  bargain- 
ing, one  will  notice  in  the  definition,  is  not 
from  the  time  of  the  first  contract  but  from 
the  time  the  first  card  is  signed— if  he  has 
anything  to  do  with  the  operations  of  the 
union  during  any  or  all  of  that  time,  man- 
agement files  with  the  Minister  of  Labour 
his  name,  his  salary  and  what  he  is  supposed 
to  be  doing. 

Then  we  shall  see  how  many  of  these 
people  are  down  on  picket  lines  and  how 
many  of  them  are  in  the  restaurant  when 
people  start  to  sign  cards- 
Mr.  Gisbom:  What  does  one  do  with  the 
information  when  the  minister  has  got  it? 
Let  everybody  have  a  look  at  it? 

Mr.  Drea:  Yes. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Why  not  for- 
bid it? 

Mr.  Drea:  Because  I  don't  think  by  for- 
bidding it  we  come  to  the  roots  of  the  prob- 
lem. I  think  we  get  too  tied  up  in  property 
rights  and  an  awful  lot  of  other  things  which 
perhaps  the  member  and  I  don't  find  very 
important  but  which  somehow  come  to  an 
impasse  in  law.  I  say  to  my  friend,  who  is 
from  Hamilton  East  and  has  had  a  lot  more 
experience  than  I  have,  I  think  having  it  in 
the  newspapers  that  so-and-so  has  hired  four 
people  to  break  up  the  union,  and  the  total 
aggregate  salary  is  $40,000  a  year  will,  I 
suggest  to  you,  sir,  have  more  value  than 
a  blanket  prohibition. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  point  out  to 
you  that  I  have  tried  to  balance  this.  I 
realize  that  we  are  into  a  complex,  com- 
plicated and  frankly  often  peculiar  time  of 
industrial  relations  in  this  province.  I  think, 
Mr.  Speaker,  to  weight  the  scales  too  much 
on  one  side  or  attempt  to  remedy  so  much 
that  everything  came  over,  I  don't  think  that 
that  is  the  answer. 

Neither,  sir,  do  I  think  that  a  patchwork 
piece  of  legislation  that  tries  to  attack  a 
single  problem  is  the  answer.  I  suggest  to 
you  that  the  outline  of  regulations  and  the 
vast  new  powers  for  the  Minister  of  Labour 


are  far  more  preferable  than  having  an  anti- 
labour   racketeering   police    squad. 

I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  finally  and 
in  all  sincerity  that  there  are  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  people  out  there  who  are  not  for- 
tunate enough  to  belong  to  organizations  like 
the  Steelworkers  or  the  Auto  Workers.  Un- 
fortunately, the  system  within  the  labour 
movement  often  consigns  them  to  unions 
they  want  nothing  to  do  with  and  there  is 
nothing  that  you  or  I  could  do  about  it 
because  that  is  the  labour  union  set  up  in 
this  country. 

I  suggest  to  you,  sir,  that  the\-  are  looking 
for  someone  who  will  at  least  champion  their 
cause;  for  someone  who  will  at  least  give 
them  some  of  the  weapons  thev  need  to  com- 
bat the  inroads  of  labour  racketeering  that 
now  mean  that  instead  of  a  union  that  will 
be  a  benefit  to  them,  it  is  a  union  that  is  a 
benefit  to  someone  who  can  put  down  on 
an  application  form:  Last  occupation,  union 
gangster. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
land  South. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
The  bill  being  debated  this  afternoon,  a  pri- 
vate members  bill  sponsored  by  the  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  Centre,  has  indi- 
cated that  not  all  is  well  within  labour  in 
Ontario.  Certain  unions  have  not  been  above 
board.  I  suppose  the  intent  of  the  bill,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  to  provide  the  necessary  steps  to 
eliminate  or  prevent  improper  practices  on 
the  part  of  labour  organizations  or  activities 
in  Ontario. 

As  I  go  deeper  into  the  bill,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  find  that  it  is  perhaps  drafted  rather 
hastily.  It  doesn't  cover  ever\i:hing,  but  I 
suppose  it  follows  the  principle  of  the  La- 
bour Management  Reporting  and  Disclosure 
Act  passed  by  the  United  States  government 
in  1959.  That  Act,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  to: 

Provide  for  the  reporting  and  disclosure 
of  certain  financial  transactions  or  adminis- 
trative practices  of  labour  organizations 
and  employees  to  prevent  abuses  in  the 
administration  by  trustees  of  labour  or- 
ganizations and  to  provide  with  respect  to 
the  election  of  officers  in  labour  organiza- 
tions and  for  other  purposes. 

Now,  I  suppose  if  one  looks  at  the  principle 
of  the  bill  here  and  goes  into  detail  in  the 
bill  this  afternoon,  Bill  15,  in  comparison  the 
American  bill  provides:  Title  one:  The  bill 
of  rights  of  a  member  of  labour  organization. 
Title  two:    Reporting  by  labour  organization 


APRIL  8.  1974 


903 


oflBcers  and  employees  of  labour  organiza- 
tions and  employees.  Title  three:  Trusteeship. 
Title  four:  Elections.  Title  four:  Safeguards 
for  labour  organizations.  Title  five:  Miscel- 
laneous provisions. 

I  think  I  can  quite  agree  with  the  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  Centre  that  there  is 
corruption  and  illegal  practices  within  the 
unions  themselves.  I  speak  not  perhaps  as  a 
member  of  that  particular  union,  but  I  am 
talking  about  a  particular  trade  union,  the 
AFL  trades.  I  was  a  member  of  the  CIO- 
AFL,  if  you  want  to  put  it  that  way,  but  it 
was  the  United  Steelworkers  of  America. 

I  can  recall  many  instances  in  my  working 
days  when  we  would  walk  into  a  certain 
plant  to  do  a  particular  job  of  construction, 
either  putting  up  the  building  or  putting  up 
pipelines— you  just  name  it,  it  was  there— but 
I  know  in  certain  instances  that  because  we 
didn't  belong  to  this  union,  we  were  denied 
the  right  of  employment.  I  have  seen  in- 
stances where  plants  have  been  shut  down 
because  we  didn't  belong  to  the  particular 
union,  or  the  threat  was  there  that  "if  you 
don't  pull  this  group  of  men  out  the  plant 
will  shut  down  and  we  will  put  up  a  picket 
line"  and  so  forth. 

I  believe,  looking  at  it  from  a  union  angle, 
that  the  union  member  himself  can  do  more 
than  the  union  agent  or  his  organization;  and 
if  they  attended  the  union  meetings,  they 
wouldn't  have  these  kinds  of  corruption  and 
malpractices  in  the  labour  field.  The  simple 
reason  may  be— and  the  hon.  member  made 
a  good  point— that  those  of  ethnic  origin, 
through  some  problem  of  speech,  perhaps 
can't  understand  some  of  the  rules.  I  quite 
agree  with  him  on  that;  it  is  quite  true  that 
this  does  happen  in  the  industry.  I  think  the 
fault  again  lies  with  the  Minister  of  Labour, 
who  perhaps  should  produce  some  type  of 
information  or  literature  to  inform  those 
persons  of  their  rights. 

The  bill  itself,  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  jumps 
the  gun.  We  know  that  hearings  have  been 
held  on  organized  crime  in  labour  in  Ontario, 
and  I  believe  that  much  of  the  intent  of  this 
bill  is  to  perhaps  jump  in  right  off  the  bat 
and  perhaps  is  guessing  what  this  report  will 
bring  down.  I  am  sure  it  is  going  to  bring 
dovm  some  recommendations,  and  perhaps 
they  will  be  along  the  lines  of  the  labour 
bill  that  was  passed  in  the  United  States  in 
1959. 

I  know  that  there  is  a  certain  amount  of 
blacklisting  going  on  in  the  hiring  halls  of 
unions  today.  I  have  had  persons  come  to 
my  place  and  tell  me  this,  and  I  have  said, 
"Well,  put  it  in  writing."  And  they  have  said, 


"If  I  put  it  in  writing,  111  never  get  a  job 
again.  I  know  of  cases  where  persons  have 
been  asked  to  pay  a  substantiaJ  amount  of 
money  to  get  a  job. 

In  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  read 
a  letter  here.  I  won't  give  the  name  of  the 
person,  but  he  came  to  my  office  here  back 
in  December.  He  is  a  little  Italian  fellow 
who  was  concerned  about  the  crime  hearings 
being  held  here  in  Ontario.  He  came  into  my 
office  a  couple  of  times;  I  know  he  went 
around  to  other  members,  who  perhaps  didn't 
listen  to  him— but  I  listened  to  him.  I  thought 
that  what  he  told  me  had  quite  a  bit  of  truth 
in  it. 

What  he  told  me  was  happening  at  the 
union  halls  was  that  if  he  got  up  and  said 
anything  at  the  union  hall,  he  would  be 
slapped  dowTi  if  he  wasn't  going  along  with 
what  the  agent  had  said.  He  informed  me 
that  if  he  wanted  a  job,  it  cost  him  $100 
every  time  they  sent  him  out  to  get  a  differ- 
ent job.  And  it  was  reported  from  one  of  the 
crime  hearings— and  I  can't  recall  his  name- 
that  one  union  agent  had  some  $17,000  that 
he  couldn't  account  for.  This  fellow  who 
came  to  my  office  told  me,  "The  agent  has 
got  some  of  my  $100  bills  in  the  $17,000  that 
he  couldn't  account  for." 

He  went  on  to  tell  me  that  job  after  job 
had  cost  him  $100,  and  he  had  complained 
about  it  at  a  union  meeting.  Do  you  know 
what  happened  to  this  gentleman,  Mr. 
Speaker?  For  some  unknown  reason,  he  had 
an  industrial  accident.  He  told  me,  "I  know 
somebody  was  on  this  scaffold  with  me.  I 
was  bending  dowTi,  finishing  my  work  [he's 
a  cement  finisher],  and  I  felt  the  person  on 
the  scaffold.  When  I  stood  up,  the  safety 
chain  at  the  back  was  gone,  and  he  was  gone 
too."  When  he  came  into  mv  office  he  was 
crippled  on  one  side  and  could  hardly  speak. 
This  is  the  kind  of  activity  that  is  going  on 
in  many  of  these  unions  today.  But  I  loiow 
there  is  a  sledge-hammer  being  held  over 
their  heads  and  thev  are  forced  to  go  along 
with  this.  I  think  the  member  has  also  said 
this,  but  again  I  think  we  have  to  look  back 
and  see  what  the  unions  have  done  for  the 
labourers  throughout  Canada.  They  play  an 
important  role  in  our  society.  We  wouldn't 
have  the  health  and  wealth,  particularly  the 
wealth,  that  this  nation  has  today,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  changes  the  unions  have  brought. 

I  can  recall  some  number  of  years  ago  in 
certain  industries  in  the  city  of  Port  Colbome 
that  there  were  some  illegal  hiring  practices 
going  on.  This  was  30  or  40  years  ago  - 
before  my  time-but  I  often  heard  my  dad 
talk   to   me   about   this.   He   told  me   that   if 


904 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


you  wanted  a  job  in  a  certain  industry,  you 
had  to  pay  the  foreman.  Well,  unions  came 
along  and  changed  that.  But  for  some  reason 
the  unions  today  have  slipped  back  to  this 
type  of  payola  to  hold  and  maintain  a  job. 
I  think  these  are  the  things  that  perhaps  the 
member  is  trying  to  get  through  to  us  here 
this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Young:  Did  the  member  say  all 
unions? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  didn't  say  all  unions,  no, 
not  all  the  unions.  There  are  certain  ones 
there.  These  are  some  of  the  things  that  I'm 
concerned  about. 

Before  I  would  consider  endorsing  this  bill, 
I  would  like  to  see  the  report  from  the  hear- 
ings on  the  organized  crime  in  labour  in 
Ontario.  As  I  said  before,  the  bill  is  a  little 
bit  scanty  as  to  what  the  intent  is. 

I  think  if  we  brought  in  a  bill  similar  to 
the  one  they  have  in  the  United  States,  the 
Labour  Management  Reporting  and  Dis- 
closure Act,  I  think  this  party  perhaps  might 
go  along  with  such  proposals.  I'm  sure  that 
bill  did  remove  the  unscrupulous  problems 
that  unions  had  over  employees  or  over  the 
hiring  halls  in  the  United  States  and  it  did 
correct  them  to  some  extent.  Whether  it 
would  do  it  here  or  not  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario,  I'm  not  quite  sure.  But  I  think  again 
it's  worthwhile  looking  into. 

I  know  it's  taken  quite  a  bit  of  courage 
for  the  hon.  member  to  introduce  this  bill 
this  afternoon.  I  think  it's  going  to  take  quite 
a  bit  of  encouragement  from  any  of  us  to 
speak  on  it,  because  sometimes  they  say  that 
the  minute  you  stand  up  here  you  re  against 
labour.  No,  I'm  not  against  labour,  but  there's 
much  that  can  be  improved  in  labour  rela- 
tions in  the  Province  of  Ontario  which  is  not 
covered   by   the    Labour   Relations   Act. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Nor 
in  this  bill. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  what  he  said,  too. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  think  this  is  where  some 
of  these  persons  have  been  blacklisted  and 
blackballed  in  hiring  throughout  different 
unions  in  the  Province  of  Ontario-not  all 
unions,  but  certain  ones.  When  you  find  out 
particularly,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  these  unions 
originated  in  the  United  States  and  that  the 
constitutions  of  these  unions  overnile  any- 
thing that  goes  on  in  the  Labour  Relations 
Act  in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  that  is  what's 
wrong  with  it.  If  we're  going  to  control  our 
unions  and  bring  in  justice  in  the  Province 


of  Ontario,  then  it  must  be  contained  and 
controlled  by  Canadian  employees  in  the  in- 
dustry in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
In  rising  to  speak  to  this  bill.  An  Act  respect- 
ing the  Rights  of  Labour,  what  disturbs  me 
is  the  whole  flavour  of  this  bill.  It's  trying 
to  knock  down  open  doors  and  trying  to  do 
with  legislation  what  the  vast  majority  of 
unions  in  this  province  and  in  this  country 
already  do.  Before  I  get  into  the  meat  of  my 
remarks,  let  me  make  a  few  comments  on 
remarks  already  made. 

A  hell  of  a  lot  more  employers  have  been 
caught  taking  funds  from  or  cheating  their 
employees  than  unions  have  ever  been.  It's 
a  factor  upon  factor  greater.  It  is  ridiculous 
to  imply  in  a  bill  like  this,  which  has  a  very 
restrictive,  discriminatory  flavour  to  it,  that 
unions  engage  in  this  as  a  matter  of  course, 
or  even  that  more  than  a  very,  very  small 
percentage  ever  do  this,  which  is  what  the 
whole   field   of   this   bill   is   about. 

This  Tory  party  or  this  government  or  any 
of  its  backbenchers  over  there  have  nothing 
to  teach  the  unions  about  ethics,  morals  or 
participatory  democracy. 

Mr.  Drea:  Ho!  Ho!  Let  the  member  speak 
for  himself. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  We've  seen  enough  of  it  and 
heard  enough  of  it  in  the  last  couple  of  years 
to  know  that  that  is  true, 

Mr.  Drea:  How  about  the  promises  made 
about  the  Canadian  unions? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  One  of  the  things  that  every 
union  that  belongs  to  the  Canadian  Labour 
Congress  must  subscribe  to,  Mr.  Speaker,  is 
the  code  of  ethical  practices.  In  the  preambte 
to  that  code,  the  Canadian  Labour  Congress 
recognizes  that  the  record  of  union  democ- 
racy, like  our  own  country's  democracy,  is 
not  perfect.  Nevertheless,  there's  a  set  of 
principles  to  which  all  members  of  that  Cana- 
dian Labour  Congress  must  subscribe.  There 
are  a  few  unions  that  don't  belong;  they've 
been  kicked  out  of  it  because  they  haven't 
subscribed  to  it. 

Mr.  Drea:  A  few  which  belong  don't  sub- 
scribe, too. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre  has  had  his  say.  Don't  try  to  get 
another  10  minutes. 


APRIL  8,  1974 


906 


Mr.  Drea:  I  wouldn't  need  10  with  the 
member  for  Windsor  West. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  ones  that  have  been 
kicked  out  are,  by  and  large,  those  very  na- 
tionalistic friends  which  our  party  to  the 
right  over  here  likes  to  talk  about— Kent  Row- 
ley's boys,  Pat  Murphy's  boys  and  so  on— are 
not  in  the  Canadian  Labour  Congress  be- 
cause of  their  non-ethical  practices. 

Mr.  Drea:  A  few  weeks  ago  the  member 
loved  Rowley.  During  the  Artistic  strike  he 
was  his  hero.  Now  he  is  a  crook. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  code  of  ethical  prac- 
tices is  this: 

The  Canadian  Labour  Congress  and  each 
of  its  affiliated  unions  shall  undertake  the 
obligation  to  appropriate  constitutional  or 
administrative  measures  in  orderly  proce- 
dure to  ensure  that  any  person  who  exer- 
cises a  corrupt  influence  or  who  engages 
in  corrupt  practices  shall  not  hold  oflBce  of 
any  kind  in  any  such  trade  unions  or  or- 
ganizations. 

No  person  shall  hold  or  retain  oflBce  or 
appointed  position  in  the  CLC,  or  any  of 
its  aflBliated  national  or  international  unions 
or  subordinate  bodies  thereof,  who  has 
been  proven  guilty  through  union  proce- 
dures or  courts  of  law  of  preying  on  the 
labour  movement  and  its  good  name  for 
corrupt  purposes. 

Each  member  of  a  union  shall  have  the 
right  to  full  and  free  participation  in  union 
self-government.  This  shall  include  the 
right: 

(a)  To  vote  periodically  for  his  local, 
national  and/or  international  oflBcers,  either 
direcdy  by  referendum  vote,  or  through 
delegate  bodies; 

(b)  To  honest  elections; 

(c)  To  stand  for  and  hold  oflBce  subject 
only  to  fair  qualifications  uniformly  im- 
posed; and 

(d)  To  voice  his  views  as  to  the  method 
in  which  the  union's  aflFairs  should  be  con- 
ducted. 

It  goes  on  and  on. 

Those  are  three  points  out  of  14,  all  of 
which  are  very  tough  and  clear,  and  to 
which,  if  you  wish  to  retain  membership  in 
the  Canadian  Labour  Congress,  Mr.  Speaker, 
you  must  subscribe.  If  you  pick  up  the  con- 
stitution of  virtually  any  of  the  unions  aflBli- 
ated to  the  Canadian  Labour  Congress  and 
turn  to  its  section— and  they  are  all  there; 
they  all  have  them— on  ethical  practices  codes, 


youll  find  these  general  statements  contained 
here  spelled  out  in  much  more  detail.  I  am 
looking  at  one  now,  under  democratic 
practices: 

1.  Each  union  member  shall  be  entitled 

to  a  full  share  in   union  self-government. 

Each   member   shall    have   full    freedom 

of  speech  and  the  right  to  participate  in 

the  democratic  decisions  of  the  union. 

Each  member  shall  have  the  right  to  run 
for  oflBce,  to  nominate  and  to  vote  in  free, 
fair  and  honest  elections,  and  shall  have  the 
right  to  criticize  the  policies  and  person- 
alities of  union  oflBcials  [and  so  on  and  so 
forth] . 

There  is  a  strong  section  on  financial  practices 
and  a  strong  section  on  the  health,  welfare 
and  retirement  fund,  which  says: 

No  oflBcial  who  exercises  responsibilities 
or  influence  in  the  administration  of  health, 
welfare  and  retirement  programmes  or  the 
placement  of  insurance  contracts  shall  have 
any  compromising  personal  ties,  direct  or 
indirect,  with  outside  agencies  such  as  in- 
surance carriers,  brokers  or  consultants 
doing  business  with  the  health,  welfare 
and  retirement  fund. 

I   am   just   giving  them   very  briefly  here.   I 

am  not  putting  in  nearly  all  of  the  points  that 

are  outlined  in  detail. 

Under  business  and  financial   activities  of 

union  oflBcials— a  very  strong  section— it  says: 
Every  oflBcer  and  representative  must 
avoid  any  outside  transaction  which  even 
gives  the  appearance  of  a  conflict  of 
interest.  The  mailing  lists  of  the  union  are 
valuable  assets  and  they  cannot  be  in  any 
sense  turned  over  to  any  outsider  for  use 
in  the  promotion  or  sale  of  any  goods  or 
services. 

No  oflBcer  or  representative  shall  have 
a  personal  or  financial  interest  which  con- 
flicts with  his  union  duties  [and  so  on]. 

It  is  very  finely  typed,  consisting  of  four  or 
five  pages  of  ethical  practices  which  appear 
in  most  unions,  and  all  of  those  unions  which 
are  members  of  the  Canadian  Labour  Con- 
gress. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  want  to  ha\e  a  bill 
that  deals  with  the  rights  of  labour  and  what 
it  should  have,  it  should  really  be  a  useful 
bill  that  would  adequately  protect  an  em- 
ployee from  the  difficulties  he  encounters  in 
the  workplace.  We  should  be  talking  about 
what  should  be  done  with  our  present  labour 
legislation.  The  right  to  organize  and  bargain 
collectively  should  he  available  to  all  em- 
ployees.  That  is  the  type  of  bill  we  would 


906 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


like  to  see  in  this  House,  one  that  covers 
teachers,  agricultural  workers,  plant  guards 
and  even  managerial  employees. 

The  decision  as  to  whether  or  not  to  join 
a  union  should  be  made  by  the  employees. 
The  right,  therefore,  of  the  company  to 
appear  before  the  Labour  Relations  Board 
to  challenge  this  right  should  be  removed. 
It  takes  months  to  get  hearings  before  the 
board.  The  administrative  procedures  of  that 
board  must  be  streamlined  to  avoid  legalism 
and  undue  delay.  This  is  the  kind  of  bill 
on  the  rights  of  labour  we  should  be  having 
before  this  House,  rather  than  the  one  we 
have. 

Current  provisions  are  wholly  inadequate 
to  prevent  employers'  discrimination  against 
employees  for  union  activities.  The  discharged 
employee  is  the  injured  party  and  the  onus 
should  be  on  the  employer  to  show  that  the 
employer's  action  was  proper  in  the  dis- 
charge—not the  way  it  works  now,  which  is 
the  other  way  around. 

Evidence  of  50  per  cent  of  the  membership 
should  be  sufficient  for  automatic  certification, 
and  since  the  union  is  required  to  represent 
all  members  at  the  bargaining  table,  and  be- 
cause it  must  represent  them  all  fairly  and 
can  be  charged  with  not  representing  them 
properly  if  it  doesn't,  certification  should 
carry  with  it  the  automatic  right  to  a  dues 
check-off. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member  has 
reached  his  time  limit. 

Mr,  Bounsall:  That's  the  type  of  legisla- 
tion which  would  be  useful  in  this  House, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Just  let  me  end  up  by  saying  this.  There's 
so  much  that  isn't  covered  in  this  bill  that 
would  be  of  use  to  labour  in  this  province. 
The  whole  flavour  of  this  bill  is  so  discrimi- 
natory against  labour  that  this  bill  in  itself 
should  ensure  permanent  relegation  to  the 
backbench  forever,  if  there  was  any  doubt 
about  that,  for  the  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Algoma. 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I'd  like  to  participate  in  this  discussion  on 
Bill  15,  the  private  member's  bill  introduced 
by  the  member  for  Scarborough  Centre. 
Many  of  the  members  will  probably  wonder, 
"What's  this  back-bencher  from  Algoma 
going  to  say  about  it?" 

Mr.    Gisborn:    The   member   is    so   right. 


Mr.  Reid:  We're  waiting  with  bated 
breath. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  The  mem- 
ber for  Algoma  and  the  member  for  Wei  land 
(Mr.  Morningstar)  we  think  of  as  front- 
benchers. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  You  never  know.  That's 
right;  I  shouldn't  say  "that  back-bencher" 
any  more  because  I  am  in  the  front  bench. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  That's  right.  The  member  has 
graduated. 

An  hon.  member:  And  he's  on  the  far 
left  too. 

Mr.  Renwick:  And  he  is  at  the  far  left. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Say,  that's  true  isn't  it,  eh? 
Then  it's  very  appropriate  that  I  participate 
in  this  particular  debate. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  As  long  as  the  member  doesn't 
agree  wholeheartedly  with  the  bill. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I'm  not  that  familiar  with 
it  but  I've  looked  over  parts  of  it.  I  might 
say  that  as  an  employer,  although  I've  had 
men  working  for  me  for  perhaps  25  years, 
and  all  the  government  departments  know  it 
—Workmen's  Compensation,  the  tax  diepart- 
ment  and  everybody;  they  come  around  and 
they  assess,  they  come  and  audit  your  books 
from  time  to  time— I've  always  had  a  very 
legitimate  operation  and  I've  always  had,  I 
would  say,  reasonably  good  relations  with  my 
employees.  I  never  had  any  occasion  where 
a  union  came  along  to  try  to  get  my  men  to— 

Mr.  Renwick:  Disrupt  the  small  happy 
family  that  the  member  has. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —organize  and  disrupt  the 
small  happy  family.  But  I  think  there  is  room 
for  this  type  of  legislation  that  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Scarborough  Centre  is  introducing. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  member  even  thinks  there 
may  be  room  for  trade  unions. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  As  I  understand  it,  it's  very 
seldom  that  a  private  member's  bill  ever  be- 
comes legislation. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Thank  God  about  this  one. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I  take  it  that  some  of  the 
opposition  members  are  not  wholly  in  favour 
of  this  particul'ar  bill.  I  wonder  if  there's  any 
part  of  it  that  they  feel  is  all  right.  I'm  sure 
that  the  reason  the  member  felt  the  need  to 
introduce  a  bill  like  this  is  for  the  simple 
reason— I  can  give  the  members  a  few  reasons. 


APRIL  8.  1974 


907 


Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Is  the  mem- 
ber for  Algoma  in  labour? 

Mr.  Cflbertson:  "Contractors  Cheated  Men 
of  $3,000  a  Week,  Probe  Told."  This  is  from 
the  Toronto  Star.  Then  there  are  others. 
Here's  a  gentleman  —  perhaps  most  of  the 
members  know  him  better  than  I  do— by  the 
name  of  Edward  Thompson.  He  saia:  "I 
couldn't  put  up  with  that  sort  of  thing."  He 
speaks  or  kangaroo  courts  and  all  that.  He 
just  gave  up.  He  just  couldn't  put  up  with 
all  that. 

Another  one  here— let's  see  this  one— "Lath 
Contractor  Appears  In  Court  On  Perjury 
Charges." 

I'm  not  reading  oflF  all  this  because  I'm 
against  unions,  sir.  I  think  unions  are  some- 
thing which  is  needed  and  most  of  them  are 
very  legitimate  and  do  a  good  job,  but  I'm 
sure  the  purpose  of  introducing  this  bill  is 
on  account  of  those  which  do  not  perform 
well.  All  this  proves  it.  Of  course,  one  can't 
beheve  everything  one  reads  in  the  news 
media  but  at  least  these  are  headlines  here— 
"Lath  Contractor  Appears  In  Court  on  Per- 
jury Charges." 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Does  the 
member  believe  that? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  I'll  let  the  member  be 
judge  of  this  and  whether  or  not  he  believes 
it.  "Unionist  Says  He  Tried  To  Pay  For  Gift 
Car."  All  these  things  are  what  I  call  skul- 
duggery, which  goes  on  within  the  bad 
unions.  "Two  Builders  Deny  Awarding  Con- 
tracts In  Return  For  Cash."  These  are  some 
of  the  reasons  for  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre  implementing  this  bill. 

Here  is  another  one.  This  is  the  Toronto 
Star,  Nov.  7,  1973:  "Probe  Witness  Says  He 
Cannot  Recall  $1,000  Gift  To  Wife."  Things 
like  that  no  doubt  induced  this  member  to— 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Is  the  member  against  giving 
gifts  to  wives? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  No,  I  don't  think  any  of  us 
are,  if  it  is  done  in  the  proper  manner. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  My  wife  wouldn't  recall  it. 

Mr.  Gabertson:  Nov.  1,  1973:  "Pile  Asso- 
ciation Director  Says  Money  Was  Goodwill." 
All  these  things- 
Mr.   E.   P.   Momingstar  (Welland):   Good- 
wiU? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  -just  don't  smell  right  for 
some  reason. 


Mr.  Renwick:  Has  Judge  Waisberg's  report 
come  in  yet?  Has  the  member  seen  it? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  October,  1973,  "Builder 
Says  He  Bribed  Union  Men  To  Get  Jobs." 

Mr.  Young:  Who  was  doing  the  bribing 
here? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  It  savs  "Builder  Says  He 
Bribed  Union  Men."  The  member  can  read 
the  article  if  he  wants. 

Mr.  Yoimg:  Was  it  the  union  or  the  em- 
ployer? 

Mr.  Momingstar:  Let  him  read  it  after. 

Mr.  Young:  Who  was  doing  the  bribing? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  It  says  here  "Builder  Says 
He  Bribed  Union  Men  To  Get  Jobs." 

Mr.  Young:  Was  it  the  imion  or  the  em- 
ployer? 

Mr.  Renwidc:  Who  was  doing  the  bribing? 

Mr.  Young:  Who  was  doing  the  bribing? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Here's  another  one:  "Police 
Hold  Hammer  To  My  Head."  This  is  Oct. 
18,  1973.  "Family  Terrorized,  Tearful  Union- 
ist Tells  Building  Probe."  "Builders  Say  They 
Gave  $1,000  Each  To  Unionists".  Builders- 
it  probably  didn't  give  the  names  here;  these 
are  excerpts  from  the  Toronto  Star. 

Mr.  Drea:  Who  was  taking  the  bribe? 

Mr.  Young:  Who  was  giving  the  bribe? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  One  can't  trust  anyone. 

Mr.  Young:  Is  the  member  saying  that  the 
legislation  should  be  to  curb  the  builders 
here? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  "Builder  Justifies  Union 
Costs  In  $500,000  Contract".  "Hired  By 
Union,  As  Bodyguard,  Ex-fighter  Says." 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Those  builders  intimidate 
them  as  well  as  bribe  them. 

Mr.  Gflbertson:  These  are  the  bad  ones. 
"Contractor  Says  Union  Payoff  Went  Astray." 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Tliey  can't  even  find  the 
right  address,  those  builders. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  "His  Family  Terrorized, 
Unionist  Tells  Inquiry." 

Mr.  Reid:  Is  the  member's  time  up? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Time,  time. 


908 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  No,  the  member  has  about 
two  minutes. 

Mr.  Young:  Let  him  keep  going;  he  is 
doing  a  good  job. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  in 
looking  over  this  bill  I  would  have  to  say 
that- 

Mr.  Reid:  Has  he  read  it? 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  —if  I  didn't  endorse  it  fully 
I'm  certainly  in  favour  of  a  lot  of  things  in 
it.  I  think  they  are  good  and  I  want  to  com- 
pliment the  member  for  Scarborough  Centre 
for  his  efforts  in  implementing  this  bill  and 
bringing  it  before  the  House. 

Mr.  Young:  He  is  gone. 

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

Mr.  Reid:  I'm  sorry  to  wake  the  member 
up.  Mr.  Speaker,  in  rising  to  speak  on  this 
bill  I  do  so  as  the  only  Liberal-Labour  mem- 
ber of  the  Ontario  Legislature.  Of  course,  I 
am  personally,  vitally  interested  in  matters 
relating  to  labour. 

I'd  like  to  commend  the  member  who  has 
introduced  this  bill,  in  a  way.  It's  one  of  his 
more  lucid  and  rational  attempts  at  a  private 
member's  bill.  I  think  that  I  can  agree  with 
the  principle  that  he  was  trying  to  get  at, 
and  that  is  that  there  should  be  public  dis- 
closure of  matters  affecting  the  trusteeship  of 
the  money  that  the  unions  hold  in  trust  for 
their  union  members  and  that  the  various 
other  business  deahngs  of  the  unions  should 
be  available. 

I  say  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  I  have  had 
some  personal  experience  in  this  line,  in  that 
I  have  had  union  members  come  to  me  and 
ask  if  I  could  find  out  about  certain  trans- 
actions that  had  taken  place  within  their 
union,  the  circmnstances  surrounding  which 
they  had  not  been  able  to  find  out  on  their 
own.  So  I  can  understand  and  I  approve  of 
the  principle  of  the  bill. 

However,  it  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  member,  in  eulogizing  his  efforts  in  this 
regard,  told  us  at  some  length  about  the  great 
concern  that  the  present  government  of  the 
province  has  concerning  the  labouring  per- 
son, and  I  can  hardly  agree  with  that  state- 
ment. If  it  is  so  concerned,  then  the  govern- 
ment itself,  through  the  Minister  of  Labour, 
should  bring  in  legislation.  I  would  suggest, 
as  my  colleague  from  Welland  South  has  al- 
ready done,  that  it  be  based  perhaps  on  the 
bill  that  was  presented  in  the  American  Con- 
gress in  regard  to  this  matter,  a  bill  that  pro- 


tected not  only  the  rights  of  the  working 
man,  but  also  the  rights  of  the  public  and 
also  the  rights  of  management. 

So  it  seems  to  me  odd  that  the  member 
would  go  on  at  great  length  when  his  govern- 
ment, or  the  government  of  which  he  is  a 
member,  is  not  prepared  to  introduce  such 
legislation.  I  would  suggest  that  higher  on 
the  list  of  priorities,  Mr.  Speaker,  should  be 
matters  relating  to  ex-parte  injunctions  and 
matters  dealing  with  picket  lines  and  inter- 
national and  Canadian  unionism.  This  is 
important- 
Mr.  Drea:  The  member's  party  is  in  favour 
of  Canadian  unionism? 

Mr.  Reid:  Pardon  me? 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member  is  asking  for  it— 
his  party  and  Canadian  unionism?  Go  ahead. 

An  hon.  member:  He  says  the  member  for 
Rainy    River    is    fighting    against    Canadian 


Mr.  Reid:  No,  I  am  not  fighting.  I  am 
speaking  to  the  Speaker;  he  at  least  can 
understand  me.  Sorry,  I  don't— 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  At  least  he  has  to 
pretend  he  does. 

Mr.  Reid:  That's  right;  but  at  least  he 
doesn't  interrupt  me  with  ridiculbus  state- 
ments. 

Mr.  Drea:  It  is  not  a  matter  of  interrupt- 
ing- 

Mr.  Reid:  In  any  case,  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
are  matters,  I  think,  that  are  very  pressing, 
that  this  government  should  bring  in  in  re- 
gard to  labour  relations  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  One  of  the  things,  quite  frankly,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  appealed  to  me  was  the  call  in 
the  bill  for  secret  ballots. 

I  have  been  involved  in  a  number  of 
strikes— wildcat  and  otherwise— and  I  have 
been  in  union  meetings  where  I  have  seen 
the  kind  of  pressure  that  is  put  on  the  indi- 
vidual union  member  when  it  comes  to  a  vote 
on  whether  to  go  back  to  work  or  not  and 
when  a  secret  ballot  is  not  held.  I  would 
agree  with  the  member  for  Windsor  West 
when  he  says  that  most  of  these  matters  are 
well  handlted  by  the  unions.  But  there  is  the 
odd  one,  and  there  are  always  some  bad 
apples  in  the  barrel  who  are  slightly  less  than 
taken  with  the  democratic  approach,  and 
subsequently    the    rights    of    the    individual 


APRIL  8.  1974 


900 


worker  are  trampled  on.  So  there  is  need  for 
some  kind  of  legislation  along  these  lines. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  wind  up  because  I 
know  there  are  others  who  want  to  partici- 
pate in  the  debate,  and  say  that  I  can  approve 
of  the  principle  of  the  bill.  I  don't  agree  with 
the  entire  bill  but  I  think  it  is  an  important 
matter  and  it  should  have  been  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  chamber.  I  would  hope 
to  see  legislation  dealing  with  matters  raised 
in  this  bill.  And  as  well,  the  legislation  to 
ban  ex-parte  injunctions  to  regulate  more 
closely  the  activities  on  picket  lines— and 
other  matters  that  are  perhaps  as  oppressing 
in  regard  to  labour  reliati(Mis  in  the  province. 

Mr.  Gisbom:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  make 
it  very  clear  that  I  wouldn't  support  such  a 
hill  as  this  one  is  written  under  any  circum- 
stances. The  insider  provisions  and  imposi- 
tions in  this  bill  are  more  iniquitous  than 
anything  I  have  ever  heard  of,  either  in  terms 
of  the  stock  exchange  or  any  kind  of  legisla- 
tion that  tends  to  keep  the  finger  on  people 
who  have  a  responsible  position. 

You  know,  we  even  talk  about  the  associ- 
ate, his  spouse,  his  son-in-law,  his  son,  the 
daughter  and  his  connections  with  the  trade 
union  movement  through  the  whole  insider 
provision. 

There  are  some  striking  clauses  in  the  bill, 
and  of  course  we  can't  deal  with  them  sec- 
tion by  section  because  we  are  supposed  to 
be  dealing  with  the  principle  of  the  bill;  but 
it's  a  long  bill  and  has  a  lot  of  very  pertinent 
clauses  in  it.  They  are  the  important  sections 
of  this  kind  of  a  document. 

The  originator  of  the  bill  says  on  page  2 
—and  I  guess  it's  in  the  interpretations,  in 
the  last  section: 

Trade  union  means  an  organization  of 
employees  formed  for  purposes  that  in- 
clude the  regulation  of  relations  between 
employees  and  employers. 

Well,  that  kind  of  an  interpretation  says  a 
lot  to  me,  because  the  trade  union  movement 
in  my  history  includes  reading  and  partici- 
pating in  the  introduction  of  the  Ontario 
provincial  government's  Labour  Relations  Act 
from  1944,  which  was  just  that  kind  of  a  bill 
to  provide  for  the  regulations  of  procedures 
between  unions  and  employers. 

But  the  unions  accepted  it  reluctantly  be- 
cause of  the  war  issue  and  the  coming  into 
Canada  of  the  industrial  unions.  They  said 
yes,  they  would  accept  that  kind  of  an  Act, 
which  did  lay  out  a  method  of  procedure, 
certain  terms  of  collectixe  bargaining,  con- 
ciliation and  provisions  for   arbitration,   and 


so  on.  That  was  a  bill  imposed  upon  the 
trade  union  movement  because  they  had  no 
Act  when  they  really  got  their  foothold. 
They  got  it  through  sheer  slugging,  wanting 
to  improve  their  benefits  and  their  condi- 
tions across  the  province. 

And  in  saying  that,  I  agree  with  a  lot  of 
the  things  that  are  the  concerns  of  the  mem- 
ber for  Scarborough  Centre  and  which  he 
has  presented.  But  this  is  not  the  solution 
to  some  of  the  concern  in  the  unions  today; 
that  is,  the  bad  parts  of  some  of  the  unions. 
But  we  must  remember  that  the  bad  things 
that  are  happening  in  unions  today  affect 
only  a  fraction  of  one  per  cent  of  member- 
ship. 

I  think  we  need  a  publicity  programme. 
If  the  member  for  Wei  land  has  that  kind 
of  a  problem  in  Welland,  he  should  speak 
out  and  go  to  the  public.  Come  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Labour  with  the  kinds  of  problems 
we  find  and  get  him  to  do  the  job. 

When  you  read  the  whole  bill  and  get 
to  the  end,  it  makes  me  think  that  the  author 
has  plagiarized  the  thoughts  and  the  writings 
of  the  John  Birch  Society  and  William  Buck- 
ley, all  at  one  time,  and  certainly  we  can't 
have  any  part  of  that. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Cisborn:  I'll  bet  you  Senator  Ray 
Lawson  would  just  love  to  have  this  bill  in 
front  of  him  to  send  back  to  some  of  his 
colleagues  in  the  Teamsters'  Union.  But  I 
don't  know  what  the  thinking  was  as  you 
go  through  the  bill.  It  just  doesn't  add  up  to 
any  kind  of  sense  at  all.  The  other  members 
have  expressed  what  should  be  in  a  bill  of 
rights  for  labour,  and  we  have  presented  it. 

The  concerns  are  well  taken  but  surely  the 
member  could  have  done  better  than  that?  I 
hope  that  sometime  other  spokesmen  for 
the  government  will  inform  this  party  that 
this  kind  of  legislation  is  not  part  of  the 
thinking  of  the  Conservative  Party  because 
we  will  want  to  know  before  the  next  elec- 
tion, as  we  will  about  two  or  three  other 
bills  the  member  has  brought  in  which  are 
very  useful  to  the  opposition  and  which  are 
just  as  iniquitous  as  this  bill  is  as  far  as  the 
unions  are  concerned. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  NDP  pays  the  piper. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  completes  the  private 
members'  hour.  I  believe  it  is  the  intention 
to  sit  through  the  supper  hour. 

The  hon.   member  for   Huron  is  next. 


910 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 
(concluded) 

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  might  say  I  am  pleased  to  have 
the  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne  but  before  doing  so  I  would 
like  to  echo  the  sentiments  of  previous 
speakers  in  welcoming  you  back  after  your 
brief  illness  and  to  say  how  pleased  we 
are  to  see  you  resume  your  responsibilities 
as  Speaker  of  the  House.  We  trust  you  will 
continue  to  conduct  the  business  of  the 
House  in  a  fair  and  orderly  manner  and  that 
in  maintaining  order  you  will  use  the  services 
of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  as  sparingly  as  pos- 
sible. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Don't  forget 
that,  in  the  gallery. 

Mr.  Riddell:  The  reason  I  say  this,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  I  was  deeply  annoyed  when 
I  entered  the  House  the  other  day  and  while 
in  the  process  of  directing  my  wife  to  her 
seat  in  the  section  here  under  the  Speaker's 
gallery  I  was  confronted  by  the  Sergeant  and 
told  to  take  a  seat  immediately  or  leave 
the  House. 

An  hon.  member:  Who  said  that? 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville): 
The  Gestapo. 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  am  sure  the  Sergeant 
thought  he  was  talking  to  a  visitor,  Mr. 
Speaker,  which  added  insult  to  injury  for  I 
pride  myself  on  having  a  relatively  good 
attendance  record  in  the  House.  Having  oc- 
cupied my  seat  for  over  a  year  now,  I  would 
think  that  the  Sergeant  would  surely  recog- 
nize a  familiar  face. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  I  may  say  to  the  hon. 
member  I  observed  the  incident  and  I  think 
he  will  agree  that  I  did  apologize  on  behalf 
of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms. 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  accepted  those  apologies, 
sir,  I  am  coming  to  that.  I  would  suggest 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  you  request  the  Sergeant 
to  relax  his  rigidity  of  composure  and  take 
the  time  at  his  disposal  to  look  around  him 
occasionally  if  for  no  other  reason  than  to  try 
to  identify  the  members  of  the  Legislature. 
However,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased  that 
you  immediately  recognized  the  folly  of  the 
Sergeant.  You  expressed  your  apologies  and 
I  trust  you  have  cautioned  the  Sergeant 
against  further  activities  in  this  regard. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  mentioned  that  I  have  com- 
pleted one  year  of  service  as  a  member  of 
the  Ontario  Legislature. 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  A  good  year. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Correspondingly,  I  have  had 
a  year  to  observe  the  functioning  of  go\em- 
ment  which  to  me  has  been  an  invaluable 
experience  and  quite  gratifying  but  certaintly 
not  without  its  many  frustrations.  Ignorance 
is  bliss,  so  the  saying  goes,  and  I  suppose  I 
was  much  more  content  with  our  system  of 
government  as  an  outsider  looking  in  than 
I  am  as  one  who  has  had  a  chance  to  observe 
government  in   action   from   the   inside. 

I  could  elaborate  on  the  many  follies  and 
inefficiencies  of  the  present  government  as  I 
see  them  but  I  think  these  have  been  ade- 
quately reported  to  the  pubhc  through  the 
news  media,  particularly  within  the  last  year 
or  two.  I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  on  this  matter. 

However,  I  would  like  to  comment  on  one 
routine  in  the  House  which  I  personally  be- 
lieve should  be  changed.  In  my  opinion,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  time  wasted  by  cabinet  ministers 
during  each  day's  question  and  answer  period 
in  answering  previous  days'  questions  is  com- 
pletely inexcusable.  The  ministers  very  cun- 
ningly give  nothing  short  of  ministerial  state- 
ments in  answering  questions  from  the 
previous  day  or  the  previous  week,  knowing 
full  well  they  use  up  time  which  could  be 
better  spent  for  further  questioning  by  mem- 
bers in  the  interest  of  urgent  public  concern. 
I  would  like  to  recommend,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
answers  to  previous  days'  questions  precede 
the  daily  question  and  answer  period  but 
are  not  included  in  the  time  allotment  for 
this  particular  order  of  business. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Good  idea. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Has  the  House  leader  (Mr. 
Winkler)  got  this? 

Mr.  Riddell:  If  the  cabinet  ministers  are 
fulfilling  their  responsibilities  they  should  be 
able  to  field  the  questions  with  some  degree 
of  knowledge  at  the  time  or  relinquish  their 
positions  to  someone  who  can. 

Reflecting  on  my  maiden  speech  of  last 
spring,  I  predicted  that  many  government 
members  would  be  thinking  seriously  of  re- 
linquishing their  positions  in  government 
because  of  the  government's  loss  of  credibil- 
ity under  the  leadership  of  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis).  I  firmly  believe  that  my  predictions 
are  bearing  fruit.  The  recent  cabinet  shuffle, 
without  a  doubt,  has  caused  dissensions  in 
the  ranks.  We  see  the  Conservative  caucus 
losing  its  solidarity.  We  read  in  here  of 
government  members'  intentions  to  retire  at 
the  end  of  this  session. 

I  am  not  suggesting,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
this   loss   will  present  serious   problems,   but 


APRIL  8,  1974 


911 


I  will  say  I  was  disappointed  to  learn  that 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Mr. 
Stewart)  is  yearning  to  make  his  departure 
from  public  life.  I  say  I  am  disappointed, 
Mr.  Speaker,  for  I  personally  believe  that 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  has 
served  his  porfolio  well,  and  he  will  be 
missed  by  the  government  as  one  of  the  more 
capable  ministers,  as  a  knowledgeable  agri- 
culturalist and  as  a  hard  core  politician. 
Apart  from  my  disappointment  in  seeing  the 
portfolio  vacated,  I  am  equally  alarmed  as 
to  the  affect  it  might  have  on  the  agricultural 
industry  in  Ontario.  I  cannot  see  a  suitable 
replacement  for  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  under  our  present  government 
structure,  as  both  ability  and  experience  in 
this  most  important  industry  are  lacking 
within  the  Conservative  caucus. 

Mr.  Sargent:  They  have  somebody  lined 
up. 

Mr.  Riddell:  However,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sure  the  people  of  Ontario  will  take  this 
matter  in  hand  during  the  next  election, 
recognizing  the  great  potential  of  the  hon. 
member  for  Huron-Bruce  (Mr.  Gaunt),  who 
has  been  involved  in  agriculture  all  his  life 
and  who  has  been  very  effective  as  the  agri- 
cultural  critic  for  the  Liberal   caucus. 

An  hon.  member:  So  has  the  member  for 
Huron. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Speaking  of  the  hon.  member 
for  Huron-Bruce,  I  listened  carefully  to  his 
remarks  during  the  debate  on  the  Throne 
Speech  and  I  would  heartily  endorse  the 
criticism  that  he  levelled  at  Ontario  Hydro 
in  its  dealings  with  the  land  owners  of  land 
to  be  acquired  for  the  proposed  power  corri- 
dor from  Douglas  Point  to  Bradley  junction 
and  thence  to  Georgetown  and  Seaforth. 

I  am  equally  concerned  about  the  nuclear 
expansion  programme  announced  by  Ontario 
Hydro,  and  needless  to  say  my  concern  is 
shared  by  many  people  in  the  Huron  riding 
and  more  particularly  by  a  group  of  citizens 
who  formed  an  organization  known  as 
"Cantdu"  which  was  estabhshed  to  investigate 
the  potential  danger  of  nuclear  energy  which 
Ontario  Hydro  is  reluctant  to  reveal  to  the 
public. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be  commenting  on  the 
findings  of  this  organization  and  I  will  be 
using  direct  quotes  from  the  reports  which 
have  been  written  in  an  attempt  to  point 
out  the  potential  dangers  of  further  nuclear 
expansion  at  this  time.  While  we  are  all 
aware  of  our  energy  needs  and  the  desire  of 
Ontario  toward  independence  in  energy  pro- 


duction, I  am  sure  we  would  all  agree  that 
much  more  needs  to  be  known  about  the 
potential  hazards  of  this  source  of  energy 
and  more  research  needs  to  be  done  on  alter- 
nate  sources  of  energy  before  the  nuclear 
programme  is  accelerated.  There  remain  too 
many  uncertainties  in  the  nuclear  programme. 
Arguments  advanced  in  defence  of  nudear 
power  are  short-sighted  and  inconclusive,  and 
reliance  on  nuclear  power  now  will  keep  us 
from  really  solving  our  energy  problems. 

One  outstanding  uncertainty  is  the  storage 
of  atomic  waste.  Those  working  in  atomic 
energy  and  a  few  informed  laymen  know  and 
admit  that  we  are  storing  plutonium  waste 
that  will  remain  radioactive  for  generations 
in  storage  facilities  that  will  be  too  long  out- 
lived by  the  plutonium.  Proponents  claim  the 
storage  programme  is  reasonable  because  it 
is  managed  and  as  long  as  it  is  managed  it 
is  safe.  Environmentalists  believe  that  because 
the  storage  programme  must  be  managed, 
and  managed  by  people  yet  unborn  in  a 
society  which  may  be  vastly  different  from 
ours,  it  is  clearly  unsafe.  As  long  as  the 
nuclear  power  programme  necessarily  com- 
mits the  management  of  atomic  waste  to  not 
only  our  generation  but  also  to  future  genera- 
tions, who  are  consulted  on  neither  the  ways 
we  produce  our  energy  nor  on  the  ways  we 
use  it,  the  storage  problem  is  clearly  unsolved. 

The  claim  that  more  is  known  about 
nuclear  power  than  about  most  of  society's 
previous  energy  ventures  is  misleading. 
Studies  of  projected  safety  are  contradictory, 
with  opponents  of  nuclear  power  crying, 
"Unsafe ';  and  proponents  crying,  "The  clean- 
est thing  yet."  In  any  case,  that  safetv  can 
only  be  projected.  We  do  not  have  suflBcient 
history  in  nuclear  power  production  to  make 
real  conclusions  on  safety.  We  have  not  been 
in  the  business  long  enough,  and  although 
our  knowledge  of  the  atom  and  its  potential 
and  efiFects  has  exploded  in  relatively  recent 
years,  science  is  still  exploring  the  effects  of 
radiation. 

To  quote  Dr.  Schumacher  in  his  Desvoeux 
memorial  lecture  in  England  in   1967: 

Of  all  the  changes  introduced  by  man 
into  the  household  of  nature,  large-scale 
nuclear  fission  is  undoubtedly  the  most 
dangerous  and  profound.  As  a  result,  ioniz- 
ing radiation  has  become  the  most  serious 
agent  of  pollution  of  the  environment  and 
the  greatest  threat  to  man's  survival  on 
earth. 

There  has  been  much  learned  about  radiation 
in  relatively  recent  years.  Scientists  know  that 


912 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


low-level  radioactive  materials  are  found  in 
varying  quantities  in  all  natural  environments. 

A  very  definite  correlation  has  been  estab- 
lished between  the  incidence  of  such  diseases 
as  leukaemia,  cancer,  etc.,  and  the  level  of 
natural  radiation  to  which  the  inhabitants  of 
an  area  are  habitually  exposed.  These  studies 
established  that  naturally  occurring  ionizing 
radiation  though  unavoidable,  is  harmful. 

Radioactive  materials  are  also  artificially 
produced.  A  nuclear  reactor  produces  about 
100  tons  of  various  types  of  radioactive  iso- 
topes a  year.  About  one  per  cent  of  these 
are  released  and  over  99  per  cent  are  stored. 
During  its  operation,  the  reactor  continually 
releases  into  the  environment  small,  but  none- 
theless significant  quantities  of  radioactive 
products.  These  are  released  through  ventila- 
tion stacks,  cooling  fluids  and  other  systems. 

It  appears  to  be  technically  impractical 
and  certainly  uneconomical  to  eliminate  the 
escape  of  a  very  small  fraction  of  the  total 
radioactive  output  of  the  reactor.  The  policy 
has  been  to  set  up  permissible  levels  of  radio- 
active pollution.  These  are  usually  compared 
to  natural  background  radiation,  the  implica- 
tion being  that  what  is  natural  therefore  must 
be  safe  or  harmless. 

Atomic  Energy  of  Canada's  claim  that 
present  releases  of  radioactive  material  into 
the  environment  do  not  exceed  one  per  cent 
of  the  permissible  level,  should  be  considered 
in  conjunction  with  another  prediction  made 
by  them  that  by  the  year  2000  the  installed 
and  operating  nuclear  generating  capacity 
will  have  increased  by  a  thousand-fold  over 
the  1970  capacity.  An  even  greater  expansion 
is  predicted  in  the  United  States. 

Considerable  increases  in  the  release  of 
radioactive  materials  may  also  be  expected  in 
such  fields  as  medicine,  industry,  research, 
etc.,  not  to  mention  war  weapons  testing  and 
the  increasing  probability  of  nuclear  acci- 
dents. 

Perhaps  it  would  be  worth  considering 
some  of  the  radioactive  pollutants  at  this 
time.  Tritium  2  is  a  radioactive  isotope  of 
hydrogen  with  a  half-life  of  12  years.  It  is 
briefly  described  here  as  an  example  of  a 
new  man-made,  odourless,  invisible  poison 
released  into  the  environment  in  significant 
quantities  by  reactors,  both  in  their  vented 
gases  and  coolants. 

In  the  CANDU  heavy  water  reactor  the 
output  of  this  pollutant  is  expected  to  in- 
crease tenfold  as  the  reactor  matures,  thus 
tritium  releases  monitored  at  Pickering  and 
publicized  are  obviously  misleading,  despite 
the  fact  that  officials  admit  that  present  re- 


leases of  tritium  are  a  little  high  and  the 
matter  is  being  given  attention. 

The  tritium  molecule  is  so  small  that  it 
will  readily  diffuse  through  solid  barriers  of 
aluminum  and  stainless  steel.  The  problems 
of  storing  and  containing  this  toxic  and  very 
soluble  gas  are  not  difficult  to  appreciate. 

Each  nuclear  reactor  must  also  dispose  of 
over  100  cubic  yards  of  radioactive  garbage 
each  year,  such  as  contaminated  paper,  piping, 
failed  components,  and  especially  spent  ion 
exchange  columns,  the  devices  that  attempt 
to  remove  contamination  from  gases  and 
fluids  to  be  returned  to  the  environment. 
This  material  is  ultimately  buried  in  dispos- 
ables' areas  set  aside  for  this  purpose. 

The  vast  bulk  of  the  radioactive  materials 
produced  by  a  reactor  remains  in  the  form 
of  spent  fuel.  As  it  leaves  the  reactor,  this 
spent  fuel  is  highly  radioactive  and  very  hot. 
Some  of  the  fission  products  it  contains  in- 
clude caesium  137,  strontium  90,  plutonium 
239,  which  have  half-lives  of  30.2,  28.9  and 
24,400  years  respectively.  This  means  the  first 
two  will  take  approximately  1,000  years  to 
decay  to  a  point  where  they  will  no  longer 
have  to  be  isolated.  The  plutonium  239  will 
take  at  least  800,000  years  to  return  to  the 
radioactive  level  of  raw  uranimn.  After  300 
years  the  spent  fuel  is  still  generating  heat. 

The  amounts  of  radioactive  waste  further 
magnify  the  problem.  As  previously  men- 
tioned. Atomic  Energy  of  Canada  predicts 
that  by  the  year  2000,  total  nuclear  generating 
capacity  will  be  1,000  times  that  of  1970  and 
will  have  produced  in  excess  of  100,000  tons 
of  spent  fuel.  When  we  stop  to  analyse  the 
situation  we  find  the  waste  will  have  to  be 
moved  continually  as  storage  facilities  wear 
out,  for  at  least  800,000  years.  Atomic  Energy 
of  Canada,  does  not  consider  permanent  dis^ 
posal  acceptable  but  is  leaving  to  future 
generations  the  burden  of  continual  monitor- 
ing and  transfer  of  deadly  radioactive  mate- 
rials. 

Apparently  Atomic  Energy  of  Canada  con- 
siders this  to  be  an  acceptable  sollition  to  the 
waste  problem  but  it  is  really  an  act  of  de- 
ferring responsibility  and  determining  that 
acceptability  by  future  generations  will  natur- 
ally follow. 

A  second  fallacy  is  the  assumption  of  stable 
social  and  geological  conditions  over  the  next 
one  million  years.  While  all  the  electrical 
generating  facihties  produce  large  quantities 
of  unusable  waste  heat,  nuclear  power  plants 
produce  from  50  to  60  per  cent  more  than 
JFossil-fuelled  power  stations  of  equal  electrical 
output.  Only  some  29  per  cent  of  the  vast 
quantities  of  heat  generated  by  the  reactor 


APRIL  8,  1974 


913 


can  economically  be  converted  into  electrical 
energy.  The  rest  is  released  into  nearby  bodies 
of  water  in  the  form  o£  wanned  cooling 
water. 

The  Pickering  nuclear  power  plant  with  an 
output  of  2,160  million  watts  returns  to  the 
environment  the  equivalent  of  6,480  million 
watts  of  energy  in  the  form  of  heat,  mostly 
in  the  cooling  water.  Using  the  factor  watts 
times  Btu  per  hour,  this  quantity  of  wasted 
energy  would  be  equivalent  to  over  22,000 
Btu  per  hour  or  sufficient  heat  to  raise  the 
temperature  of  over  14.5  million  gal.  of 
water  from  60  degrees  Fahrenheit  to  Doiling 
point  each  hour. 

With  present  serious  energy  shortages,  the 
dumping  of  this  vast  amount  of  heat  to  the 
obvious  detriment  of  the  environment  can 
only  be  described  as  a  major  defeat  of  mod- 
em technology.  If  calculations  such  as  these 
are  superimposed  on  projected  expansions  of 
nuclear  power  plants  along  both  the  United 
States  and  Canadian  shores  of  the  Great 
Lakes  system,  significant  changes  in  the  tem- 
peratures of  these  lakes  are  inevitable.  Add 
to  this  the  probable  increase  in  nutrients  from 
various  sources  and  we  may  expect  to  see 
some  profound  changes  in  the  ecology  of  the 
upper  lakes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  anticipate  the  question 
by  those  proponents  of  nuclear  energy  — 
namely,  what  alternatives  do  I  propose  to  re- 
place nuclear  energy?  In  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion I  may  say  that  in  the  years  prior  to  1973 
the  headlong  rush  to  keep  pace  with  increas- 
ing energy  demands  was  an  elementary  fact 
of  pouring  more  fuel  or  more  electricity  into 
the  multitude  of  existing  industries,  businesses 
and  homes. 

iSuddenly,  a  crunch  occurred.  Hitherto  re- 
liable and  inexhaustible  supplies  of  fossil  fuel 
were  in  critically  short  supply.  The  search 
for  alternatives  has  been  intensified  and  it  has 
taken  two  basic  directions.  The  foremost  of 
these  has  been  the  spontaneous  expansion  of 
nuclear  power  developments. 

Throughout  the  western  world  nation  after 
nation  plunged  forward  on  the  premise  that 
nuclear  power  was  the  answer.  Unlike 
Sweden,  which  in  1973  curtailed  its  nuclear 
plants  in  the  light  of  new  information,  Can- 
ada remains  among  those  countries  providing 
economic  answers  to  the  energy  question  in 
terms  of  nuclear  power. 

The  second  search  is  played  down  and 
often  behttled,  yet  its  ultimate  results  will  be 
far  more  dramatic  and  conclusively  more  in- 
finite in  scope.  The  alternatives  in  this  lesser 
research  receive  little  or  any  government  sup- 
port. Public  funds  have  not  been  made  avail- 


able to  assist  the  pioneers  in  the  search  for 
clean  energy  sources. 

Such  alternatives  include  solar  energy,  wind 
energy,  methane  from  organic  waste,  hydro- 
gen as  a  primary  fuel,  geo-thermal  power, 
sea-thermal  power,  electronic  power  boosters, 
tidal  power  and  the  biosphere  concept. 

Not  only  is  their  government  support  mini- 
mal, but  politicians  have  refused  to  give 
serious  consideration  to  the  many  feasibility 
studies  which  indicate  the  economic  viability 
of  such  power  systems.  Solar  energy  as  a 
source  for  man's  power  needs  has  generally 
been  ridiculed.  The  Hansard  from  Queen's 
Park  will  verify  the  non-answers  of  govern- 
ment ministers  when  questioned  in  these  mat- 
ters. Yet  it  is  generally  agreed  that  the  earth 
intercepts  173  to  the  power  of  15  watts  of 
thermal  power  from  the  sun  every  24  hours. 
This  figure  represents  100,000  times  more 
than  the  entire  world's  present  electrical 
power  capacity. 

It  has  further  been  stated  that  the  average 
daily  amount  of  solar  energy  that  falls  on 
Lake  Erie  exceeds  the  total  consumption 
figure  for  our  neighbour  the  United  States 
from  all  energy  sources  combined  during  the 
same  time  period.  The  astounding  point  to  be 
made  is  that  this  energy  is  not  only  clean 
but  in  rather  weighty  economic  terms  it  is 
free.  A  sampling  of  examples  in  which  the 
application  of  solar  energy  is  the  key  to  solu- 
tion of  energy  problems  would  include  such 
items  as  heat  concentration,  direct  conversion 
and  the  biosphere  concept.  Sunlight  in  the 
form  of  solar  heat  is  collected,  used  to  boil 
water  or  some  other  liquid,  which  in  turn  is 
used  in  the  conventional  manner  to  produce 
electricity. 

The  Meinel  plan  at  the  University  of  Ari- 
zona is  the  most  technically  advanced  system 
in  North  America  at  this  time.  Solar  farms 
are  envisioned  for  the  southwestern  deserts 
that  will  collect  heat,  generate  steam  and 
operate  electrical  turbines.  By  using  solid 
state  electronics  a  Meinel  associate.  Dr.  B. 
O.  Seraphin,  also  of  the  University  of  Arizona, 
has  developed  interference  stacks  as  heat  con- 
centrators, which  will  not  only  reduce  the 
ultimate  size  of  such  solar  farm  collectors,  btit 
also  bring  such  proposal  within  the  realm  of 
the  present  economic  criteria  for  developing 
such  proposals. 

The  second  proposal  for  using  solar  power 
is  more  versatile  and  would  provide  power 
where  it  is  needed,  thus  eliminating  costly 
and  offensive  powerline  systems.  The  Arthur 
D.  Little  Co.,  a  research  firm  in  Massachu- 
setts has  proposed  space  screens  for  the  direct 


914 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


conversion  of  sunlight  into  electricity,  coup- 
led with  a  laser  projection  system  to  beam 
power  directly  to  the  location  of  need,  to 
the  industrial  hearts  in  the  northeast  of  this 
continent. 

The  sun  can  also  be  used  as  a  power  source 
on  an  independent  household  basis.  In  some 
instances,  the  roof  becomes  a  solar  collector 
and  supplies  an  individual  home  with  energy 
needs.  Coupled  with  a  storage  system,  such 
independent  systems  are  now  in  use  in  the 
United  States. 

The  biosphere  is  an  integrated  approach.  It 
combines  a  living  area,  a  greenhouse,  a  solar 
heater  and  a  solar  still.  Proponents  claim 
several  power  functions  can  be  operated  in- 
dependently from  any  public  utility  at  a  lower 
cost  than  conventional  sources  for  heat,  water 
and  waste  disposal. 

Systems  to  harness  the  wind  have  been 
operating  on  a  small  scale  for  many  years. 
In  the  production  of  electricity  conventional 
windmill  systems  producing  power  for  inde- 
pendent household  use  have  been  available 
since  1938.  Several  firms  presently  offer  such 
systems  with  capacities  up  to  12,000  watts. 
Canadian  scientists  have  recently  developed 
radically  new  concepts  for  wind  generating 
systems.  It  is  hoped  to  bring  this  approach 
into  operation  in  the  Canadian  Arctic. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  in  Ontario 
in  the  last  few  months  on  the  topic  of  pro- 
ducing methane  gas  from  organic  waste.  The 
Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  has  been 
urging  the  government  of  Ontario  to  take  a 
serious  look  at  the  possibilities  in  this  area. 
They  would  be  well  advised  to  direct  their 
attention  to  the  work  of  the  Gobar  Gas  re- 
search station  in  India  and  the  work  of  Ram 
Bux  Singh  over  the  last  20  years. 

The  engineering  firm  of  J.  Hilbert  Ander- 
son, of  Pennsylvania,  has  produced  a  system 
of  heat  difference  conversion  using  the  oceans 
as  the  power  source.  The  system  operates  on 
the  principle  of  heat  differences  between  two 
water  sources,  such  as  the  45  deg.  difference 
in  surface  Gulf  Stream  temperatures  com- 
pared to  temperatures  several  thousand  feet 
below  the  surface.  A  floating  power  station 
provides  the  additional  benefit  of  using  waste 
heat  to  desalinate  water. 

The  preceding  sampling  of  alternatives  is 
not  intended  to  be  exhaustive.  The  main  pur- 
pose is  to  demonstrate  that  work  is  progress- 
ing. Each  activity,  however,  shares  the  same 
financial  problem.  Development  depends  en- 
tirely on  funds  for  engineering  schemes  to 
bring  existing  proposals  into  reality.  Unlike 
nuclear  fusion,  which  has  been  much  dis- 
cussed but  not  yet  invented,  the  second  set  of 


alternatives  rests  within  the  limits  of  man's 
present  technical  knowledge.  The  successful 
development  of  such  power  projects  will  be 
diflBcult,  however,  and  environmental  prob- 
lems with  some  of  them  would  be  unreason- 
able to  deny. 

Yet  the  problems  seem  slight  when  com- 
pared to  the  unique  danger  and  unknown 
imphcations  of  nuclear  power.  Our  search  for 
energy  need  not  be  a  desperate,  unthinking 
plunge.  All  that  is  required  is  the  decision  of 
government  agencies  to  provide  the  much- 
needed  funds. 

The  proponents  of  nuclear  energy,  Mr. 
Speaker,  have  misled  the  public  into  believing 
that  nuclear  power  is  the  safest  and  cleanest 
form  of  energy.  The  problem  of  radioactive 
waste  and  the  potential  hazards  of  such  waste 
are  completely  ignored. 

At  the  same  time  that  misleading  informa- 
tion has  discouraged  responsible  choice  it  has 
encouraged  the  demand.  If  an  energy  source 
is  widely  broadcast  as  safe  and  if  it  is  rela- 
tively inconvenient  and  seen  as  unnecessary 
to  obtain  in-dfepth  information,  why  not  con- 
tinue unquestionably  to  demand  the  energy? 
Why  not  go  along  with  an  acceleration  of 
the  demand,  a  doubling  every  10  years?  If  it 
is  there  and  if  it  is  clean,  why  not  use  it? 

In  spite  of  reference  lately,  to  using  energy 
wisely,  the  very  use  of  the  term  "demand" 
encourages  the  demand  itself;  or  at  least 
discourages  critical  evaluation  of  demand 
priorities.  By  calling  current  and  predicted 
uses  of  electricity  "demands,"  we  are  encour- 
aged in  seeing  our  need  for  electricity  not  as 
something  society  is  responsible  for  or  has  any 
measure  of  control'  over,  but  as  something 
divorced  from  us  that  is  absolute  and  not 
relative  to  other  considerations. 

We  nourish  an  atmosphere  that  is  afraid  to 
look  at  whether  the  sources  are  really  safe 
and  that  is  afraid  to  take  time  to  explore  safer 
alternatives;  and  we  are  apt  then  to  allow 
actions  to  be  taken  to  meet  that  demand 
which  would  seem  preposterous  to  a  more 
objective  observer.  We  are  all  participants  in 
our  culture  and  co-operate  in  the  use  and  mis- 
use of  energy,  but  the  public  cannot  be  held 
responsible  for  nuclear  power  because  the 
public  has  not  been  allowed  really  to  examine 
and  respond  to  the  issues. 

The  economics  of  nuclear  power  can  also 
be  questioned,  Mr.  Speaker.  Because  of  the 
very  large  but  obscure  investment  of  both 
federal  and  provincial  government  funds,  the 
comparison  of  costs  between  nuclear  and 
fossil-powered  generating  plants  can  be  quite 
misleading.  The  much  higher  capital  invest- 
ment of  a  nuclear  station  has  to  be  regarded 


APRIL  8,  1974 


915 


as  a  total  write-off  at  the  end  of  30  years,  the 
estimated  h'fe  of  the  reactor.  Due  to  radio- 
active contamination,  it  is  improbable  that 
much  of  value  vsdll  be  economically  recycled. 

Loss  of  land  and  caretaldnc  of  abandoned 
nuclear  power  stations  should  be  charged 
against  their  productive  lives.  On-site  gener- 
ating costs  constitute  only  a  small  fraction  of 
the  cost  of  electrical  energy  delivered  to  the 
consumer.  Because  of  the  policy  of  locating 
nuclear  power  stations  at  points  remote  from 
the  areas  of  major  consumption,  transmission 
costs  will  be  high.  Power  corridors  cormecting 
nuclear  generating  stations  to  the  grid  system 
and  modifications  of  the  grid  to  carry  the 
extra  load  should  be  charged  to  nuclear 
power. 

I  fail  to  understand,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
policy  of  locating  nuclear  power  stations  at 
points  remote  from  the  area  of  major  con- 
sumption, for  such  plants  could  logically  be 
established  in  areas  of  the  Canadian  shield 
where  water  is  plentiful  and  where  land  does 
not  lend  itself  to  agricultural  production. 
Suitable  sites  in  the  Canadian  shield  are  also 
much  closer  to  the  large  urban  centres  such 
as  Toronto  than  is  Douglas  Point. 

There  is  talk  about  the  construction  of 
another  nuclear  plant  in  Huron  county  south 
of  Goderich  where  over  80  per  cent  of  the 
land  is  prime  agricultural  land.  Such  a  plant 
would  be  situated  in  the  heart  of  cash-crop 
country.  I  think  you  can  appreciate,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  such  crops  as  white  beans  are 
subject  to  a  disease  known  as  bronzing  on 
which  the  pollutants  in  the  atmosphere  have  a 
direct  bearing. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Not  only  will  the  nuclear 
station  in  the  power  corridors  connecting  this 
station  to  the  grid  system  use  up  good  agri- 
cultural land,  but  the  waste  products  of 
energy  production  will  interfere  with  crop 
production  and  it  can  only  lead  to  more 
serious  food  shortages  and  higher  costs  to  the 
consumer. 

We  can't  afford  to  lose  another  acre  of 
prime  agricultural  land.  How  completely  ir- 
responsible it  is  to  sacrifice  essential  energy 
from  food  to  nuclear  energy  which  could  well 
prove  to  be  the  greatest  threat  to  man's 
survival  on  earth. 

I  would  like  to  turn  briefly  to  another  mat- 
ter, Mr.  Speaker,  and  by  way  of  introduction 
I  would  like  to  read  part  of  an  editorial  which 
appeared  recently  in  the  London  Free  Press. 
The  editorial  was  entitled: 


Metro— Ontario's  Weu'are  Case 
Taxpayers  elsewhere  in  Ontario  should 
flinch   whenever  they   look   at   Metro  To- 
ronto. That  is  their  money  disappearing  into 
Metro's  maw. 

By  its  very  size  and  the  nature  of  urban 
problems,  Metro  commands  the  greatest 
share  of  provincial  funds,  but  how  much  is 
enough?  Or  to  put  it  another  way,  how 
much  is  disproportionately  at  the  expense  of 
the  rest  of  the  province? 

To  what  degree,  for  example,  should  tax- 
payers outside  Metro  be  responsible  for 
cushioning  Metro's  welfare  families  from 
high  shelter  costs  by  subsidizing  rents  paid 
to  private  landlords?  Rents  in  Metro  are 
doubtless  the  highest  in  the  province  and 
some  allowance  should  be  made  for  re- 
gional variations  in  living  costs,  but  there 
should  be  a  uniform  policy  stressing  the 
use  of  public  housing,  not  an  ad  hoc  system 
of  providing  provincial  assistance  to  the 
urban  community  raising  the  most  clamour 
and  thereby  monopolizing  provincial  atten- 
tion. 

It  invariably  seems  a  lot  easier  for  Metro 
Toronto  to  gain  provincial  sympathy  than 
for  a  small  community  like  Centralia  or 
Clinton,  say,  to  provoke  provincial  re- 
sponse to  a  social  problem  such  as  a  fac- 
tory closing  whose  local  impact  is  equally 
severe. 

That's  the  end  of  the  article. 

I  would  like  to  pause  here  for  a  minute, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  to  reflect  on  the  govern- 
ment's complete  irresponsibility  and  insensi- 
tivity  in  the  past  year  to  two  problems  which 
had  very  serious  social  implications. 

The  only  packing  plant  which  existed  be- 
tween Kitchener  and  Windsor,  the  heart  of 
concentrated  livestock  production,  went  bank- 
rupt because  of  internal  famfly-management 
problems  resulting  in  financial  diflBculties 
which  could  not  be  considered  exorbitant.  The 
Ontario  government,  through  the  ODC  pro- 
gramme, could  have  helped  interested  con- 
cerns to  reactivate  the  plant  in  the  interest  of 
the  agricultural  industry  in  southwestern 
Ontario  but  chose  rather  to  turn  a  deaf  ear 
to  the  pleas  and  calls  of  those  who  expressed 
their  concern. 

I  was  somewhat  surprised  at  the  attitude 
of  the  government  in  this  matter,  considering 
that  Middlesex  county  both  north  and  south, 
is  represented  by  Conservative  members,  as 
is  the  city  of  London. 

Failure  by  the  government  to  assist  the 
packing  plant  in  reactivating  its  operation  has 


916 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


resulted  in  the  loss  of  another  buyer  of  agri- 
cultural produce  and  a  supplier  of  consumer 
food. 

Hog  and  beef  producers  rely  on  open 
competition  for  the  sale  of  their  livestock, 
and  the  Coleman  Packing  Co.  had  a  good 
reputation  for  dealing  fairly  with  the  farmers 
and  doing  an  excellent  job  of  processing  the 
meat  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  consumer. 

A  similar  situation,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  one 
that  is  closer  to  home  and  one  in  which  I 
became  directly  involved  was  the  closing  of 
the  Hall  Lamp  Co.  at  Huron  Park.  Huron 
Park  was  taken  over  by  the  Ontario  Develbp- 
ment  Corp.  after  the  air  force  base  was 
phased  out.  The  houses  on  the  base  were 
rented  and  industry  was  encouraged  through 
both  forgivable  and  unforgivable  loans  to 
make  use  of  the  existing  buildings.  Hall  Lamp 
was  a  subsidiary  of  an  American  concern  but 
it  was  one  part  of  the  overall  business  that 
continued  to  show  a  net  profit  each  year. 
Needless  to  say,  the  profits  were  used  for 
business  ventures  in  the  United  States  by  the 
American  owners,  but  the  Hall  Lamp  Co. 
did  provide  jobs  for  400  people,  most  of 
whom  resided  in  Huron  county. 

The  business  went  into  receivership  because 
of  the  non-profitable  business  ventures  in  the 
United  States  and  then  later  went  into  trus- 
teeship. The  former  managerial  staff  of  Hall 
Lamp  was  prepared  to  purchase  the  assets 
from  Hall  Lamp  and  to  continue  it  opera- 
tions, provided  it  received  assistance  from  the 
Ontario  Development  Corp.  as  well  as  from 
other  lending  agencies. 

We  arranged  a  meeting  with  the  Minister 
of  Labour  (Mr.  Guindon)  and  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Bennett)  to 
discuss  the  financial  obligations  of  the  former 
company  to  its  employees,  and  to  seek  out 
support  from  the  Ontario  Development  Corp, 
for  the  purchase  of  the  assets  and  the  opera- 
tion of  the  plant  divorced  of  any  American 
interest.  The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism was  supposedly  occupied  with  promoting 
Canadian  sales  abroad  so  we  were  forced  to 
discuss  the  matter  with  the  managing  director 
of  ODC,  Mr.  Etchen. 

Mr.  Etchen  was  good  enough  to  send  two 
of  his  staff  to  Huron  Park  to  work  with  the 
former  managerial  staff  of  Hall  Lamp  in  pre- 
paring a  bid  which  would  be  reasonable  to 
submit  to  the  receiver.  Everything  seemed  to 
be  moving  along  quite  nicely,  but  for  some 
reason,  at  the  last  minute,  the  Ontario  De- 
velopment Corp.  withdrew  its  support  and, 
as  a  result,  the  plant  ceased  to  function.  The 
majority  of  the  former  employees  are  still 
without  work. 


The  business  is  now  in  trusteeship.  When 
the  trustee  gets  possession  of  the  assets  from 
the  receiver  he  will  advertise  for  bids.  Failing 
the  acceptance  of  a  bid  for  the  assets  as  a 
whole,  he  will  advertise  for  bids  partial  in  an 
attempt  to  sell  the  business  in  part.  The  last 
resort  will  be  the  selling  of  the  assets  by 
auction. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my  contention  that  once 
again  the  Ontario  government  could  have 
come  to  the  rescue  and  saved  an  industry 
which  was  so  important  in  this  part  of 
Ontario,  having  such  limited  industrial  de- 
velopment. There  are  problems  outside  of 
Toronto,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  require  the  On- 
tario government's  consideration.  It's  time  the 
Ontario  government  realized  that  it  is  not 
the  duty  of  the  rest  of  the  province  to  cater 
inexhaustibly  to  Metro's  wishes. 

I  might  just  say  here,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  closing  of  Hall  Lamp  jeopardized  the 
continued  operations  of  many  satellite  com- 
panies operating  in  the  area.  Once  again,  the 
government  seems  insensitive  to  the  needs  of 
small  business. 

Another  matter  which  gravely  concerns  the 
people  in  southwestern  Ontario  is  the  con- 
tinued centralizing  tendencies  of  the  Ontario 
government.  The  government's  attempt  at 
achieving  economies  of  scale  by  centralizing 
municipal  decisions  has  backfired,  and  the 
dramatic  increases  in  regional  government 
costs  are  now  adding  to  the  inflationary  pres- 
sure in  our  economy.  The  cost  of  services 
assumed  by  regional  municipalities  has  in- 
creased from  36  per  cent  in  some  municipali- 
ties to  120  per  cent  in  others. 

Residents  in  some  regional  municipalities 
are  faced  this  year  with  tax  increases  of  500 
per  cent— or  more  specifically  a  man  who  paid 
municipal  taxes  of  $106  last  year  wall  pay 
$496  on  the  same  property  this  year.  Suffice 
to  say  at  this  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
provincial  government's  programme  of  impos- 
ing regional  government  throughout  Ontario 
must  be  stopped. 

To  add  fuel  to  the  fire,  the  Premier's  an- 
nouncement on  Feb.  14,  1974,  of  a  12- 
member  Ontario  Hydro  board  means  that  the 
government,  in  effect,  is  taking  over  the 
assets  of  a  system  it  does  not  own.  Really, 
what  it  boils  down  to  is  that  the  Ontario 
government  is  on  the  verge  of  administrating 
$800,000  right  out  of  existence.  The  12  mem- 
bers of  the  Ontario  Hydro  board  include  only 
two  representatives  of  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Electric  Association.  The  government  fails  to 
recollect  that  municipalities  founded  the  sys- 
tem more  than  60  years  ago,  and  through 
their  electric  commissions  have  built  an  invest- 


APRIL  8,  1974 


917 


ment  in  it  worth  about  $800  million.  The 
Ontario  Municipal  Electric  Association  repre- 
sents more  than  two  million  electricity  con- 
sumers, and  its  member  commissions  own 
about  70  per  cent  of  the  electrical  supply 
system. 

The  government's  proposal  of  restructuring, 
whether  it  be  municipalities  or  public  utili- 
ties, should  be  only  for  the  purpose  of  making 
municipalities  stronger  and  more  meaningful^ 
and  to  transfer  responsibilities  from  Queen's 
Park  to  the  municipalities  and  not  from  the 
municipalities  to  Queen's  Park. 

Local  public  utility  commissions  are  con- 
cerned about  the  report  of  the  government 
committee  on  restructuring  of  public  utilities 
in  Ontario,  and  their  main  concern  is  the 
danger  of  losing  local  autonomy.  Many  local 
utilities  are  completely  self-sufficient  and  do 
not  contract  work  to  private  companies  or  to 
Ontario  Hydro.  They  do,  however,  perform 
work  for  utihties  in  adjoining  municipalities 
when  requested  to  do  so. 

Local  utilities  are  suggesting  that  a  num- 
ber of  items  be  considered  when  rationaliza- 
tion studies  are  being  taken  into  account. 
Rationalization  of  utilities  should  only  be 
considered  after  studies  are  completed  that 
lead  to  the  reorganization  of  municipalities 
in  the  counties  or  regions  considering  re- 
structuring. This  action  will  allow  more  op- 
portunities for  existing  self-sustaining  utilities 
to  expand,  to  take  the  responsibilities  of  a 
restructured  and  a  larger  municipality.  If  a 
regional  electrical  utility  is  not  viable,  and 
where  there  exists  one  or  more  electrical 
utilities  within  areas  of  a  region  or  re- 
structured county,  local  option  should  deter- 
mine whether  the  existing  utility  or  utilities 
will  assume  responsibility  for  electricity  with- 
in the  new  area  municipality. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  That's  the 
way  it  is  done. 

Mr.   Riddell:   A  predetermined  population 

count- 
Mr.    W.    Hodgson:    What    is    he    talking 

about? 

Mr.  Riddell:  —should  not  be  a  deciding 
factor,  but  the  criterion  should  be  whether 
an  existing  utility  should  be  expanded  to 
take  care  of  the  new  area  municipality.  The 
whole  concept  of  regionalization  or  restruc- 
turing is  to  expand  the  municipalities  in  order 
that  they  can  operate  more  of  their  services 
on  the  regional  or  lower  level.  Every  eflFort 
should  be  made  to  operate  the  distribution 
system  as  an  electrical  utility  controlled  by  a 
commission.  To  eliminate  utilities  that  could 


be  expanded  and  to  give  the  responsibility 
to  the  power  district  would  be  contrary  to 
the  whole  concept  of  restructuring,  which 
in  our  understanding  is  to  give  more  author- 
ity to  local  government.  The  liaison  between 
the  utility- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  That  is  not  what  the 
member's  deputy  leader  says.  He  wants  to 
take  it  away  from  the  trustees;  he  wants  to 
give  it  to  the  regional  government. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce);  Oh  no,  that's 
another  story. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Thai's  right.  He  wants 
to  take  it  away  from  the  York  commission 
so  he  can  give  it  to  the  government. 

Mr.  Riddell:  The  liaison  between  the  utility 
and  the  municipal  council  in  most  cases  is 
quite  compatible,  as  a  public  utility  takes 
a  prominent  part  in  the  community  life  of 
any  municipality  and  is  sensitive  to  com- 
munity and  municipal  council's  requirements. 

When  studies  regarding  restructuring  take 
place,  distance,  as  well  as  the  weather  c(mi- 
ditions  at  the  respected  areas,  should  be 
considered.  Areas  in  the  snowbelt  are  often 
isolated  by  snow  for  periods  of  several  hours, 
and  in  some  cases  for  several  days.  During 
this  time  of  adverse  weather  conditions,  the 
temperatures  are  usually  below  normal  and 
the  overhead  clamp  is  susceptible  to  damage. 
The  importance  of  readily  available  ser\ice 
crews  during  these  periods  must  be  a  prime 
consideration. 

If  as  a  last  resort  a  utility  must  be  ab- 
sorbed by  the  power  district,  every  effort 
should  be  made  to  absorb  the  work  force  of 
the  utility.  The  report  on  restructuring  did 
not  mention  employees  moving  from  a  utilit>' 
to  Ontario  Hydro.  These  benefits  and  posi- 
tions should  be  protected  in  the  same  manner 
as  they  are  for  Ontario  Hydro  employees 
who  move  to  a  utility. 

I  do  not  want  to  dwell  on  this  subject 
any  longer,  Mr.  Speaker,  other  than  to  say 
that  in  my  opinion  the  municipal  utilities  own 
the  electrical  systems  and  that  fair  and  last- 
ing representation  of  municipalities  on  the 
Ontario  Hydro  board  is  essential  to  protect 
the  basic  rights  of  Ontario  citizens  to  high- 
quality  electricity  service  at  a  reasonable  cost. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  listened  to  a  number 
of  members  debate  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne  and  criticize  the  government  for  its 
lack  of  policy  to  curb  inflation.  The  high 
cost  of  food  is  mentioned  time  and  time 
again,  and  inevitably  the  former  is  labelled 
as  being  the  culprit. 


918 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.    J.    A.    Renwick    (Riverdale):    No. 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  am  concerned,  Mr.  Speaker, 
about  the  misunderstanding  between  the 
farmer  who  produces  our  food  and  the  con- 
sumer. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  a  straw  man;  that  is 
not  true. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Many  consumers  beHeve  that 
the  cost  of  food  has  risen  too  quickly,  and 
that  the  farmers  are  getting  a  higher  than 
necessary  share  of  the  consumers'  dollar. 
Farmers,  on  the  other  hand,  feel  that  the 
prices  they  receive  for  their  products  have 
not  increased  in  proportion  with  the  prices 
they  must  pay  for  the  goods  and  services 
which  they  buy. 

Farmers  need  and  deserve  increased  in- 
come. I  think  you  will  agree  with  me,  Mr. 
Speaker,  when  I  say  that  a  thriving  agricul- 
tural industry  is  essential  to  a  strong  and 
growing  Canadian  eonomy. 

The  Canadian  farmers  are  second  to  none 
in  their  ability  to  produce  food  of  the  quality 
and  quantity  desired  by  Canadian  consumers. 
Farmer  producers  are  justified  in  expecting 
a  fair  price  for  their  product,  and  a  reason- 
able profit  from  their  eflForts. 

Inflation  seems  to  be  a  central  theme  in 
many  of  the  debates  that  I  have  listened  to 
in  this  session  of  the  Legislature,  and  I 
would  like  to  try  to  bring  the  whole  matter 
of  food  costs  into  persepective. 

Food  prices  in  Canada  rose  by  17  per  cent 
in  1973,  and  will  probably  rise  another  10 
per  cent  this  year.  Food  prices  have  caught 
up  to  general  wage  gains.  The  portion  of 
disposable  income  Canadians  spent  on  food, 
after  declining  for  a  number  of  years  to 
about  18  per  cent,  will  rise  in  ihe  next 
two  years  to  20  to  21  per  cent. 

Although  Canadians  are  better  off  than 
most  nations,  the  sharp  increases  threaten  us 
all  and  particularly  those  on  low  and  fixed 
incomes.  On  the  one  hand  we  have  the 
poor  families  oaught  in  the  price  spiral,  but 
on  the  other  hand  there  are  those  who  have 
been  beneficiaries. 

Farm  incomes  have  risen  from  disastrously 
low  levels  to  more  reasonable  ones.  Whole- 
sale prices  of  farm  products,  which  dropped 
despite  increasing  costs  to  the  farmer  during 
1970  and  1971,  rose  23.4  per  cent  in  the 
period  January  to  July,  1973,  enough  to  cover 
rising  costs  of  11.6  per  cent  and  more. 
Farmers  have  improved  their  poor  position. 

Processers  and  retailers  who  were  already 
doing  very  well,  that  is  10.8  per  cent  on 
e\'er\-   dollar  invested  in   1970  for  the  food 


manufacturers  and  11  per  cent  for  the  re- 
tailers, are  for  the  most  part  making  hand- 
some profits.  Average  corporate  profits  rose 
34  per  cent  in  the  first  half  of  1973,  while 
the  food  processing  companies  were  up  56 
per  cent  over  1972, 

In  a  time  of  rapidly  rising  food  prices  most 
of  us  are  inclined  to  think  that  someone 
in  the  industry  is  making  extraordinary  profit 
at  the  consumer's  expense.  The  leader  of  the 
NDP  (Mr.  Lewis)  is  inclined  to  blame  the 
supermarkets,  and  to  some  extent  the  middle- 
man; but  I'm  pleased  to  see  that  he  did  not 
levy  the  blame  on  the  farmers. 

In  the  complex  food  industry  it  is  very 
diflBcult  to  obtain  reliable  cost  and  profit 
figures.  Individual  variables  can  be  so  im- 
portant. And  if  I  may  use  an  example,  an 
eflBcient  farmer  might  be  able  to  turn  a 
profit  where  a  not  so  eflBcient  farmer  cannot. 
Some  commodities  are  sold  in  two  ways— by 
spot  purchase  or  by  contract— making  it  diflB- 
cult to  determine  average  prices  from  one 
week  to  the  next.  Growing  seasons  vary 
across  the  country,  as  do  freight  charges 
and  distribution  costs. 

Retailers'  prices  are  subject  to  the  vagaries 
of  supply  and  demand  and  to  changing  mar- 
ket strategy.  Profits  can  turn  into  losses 
quicker  than  one  can  bat  an  eye.  Despite 
these  diflBculties,  advisers  in  the  food  indus- 
try have  been  able  to  prepare— from  the  most 
reliable  information  possible— the  cost  and 
profits    involved   in   certain   food   items. 

This  review  of  cost  and  profit  was  reported 
in  the  latest  edition  of  Maclean's  Magazine 
and  I  believe  certain  figures  are  worth  men- 
tioning at  this  time. 

A  typical  Canadian  meal  was  used  as  an 
example  to  show  how  the  consumer's  price 
is  derived.  A  food  item  such  as  peas  returned 
the  farmers  a  profit  of  two  cents  a  pound, 
the  processor  a  profit  of  seven  cents  a  pound 
and  the  retailer  a  profit  of  ten  cents  a  pound. 
The  farmer  sold  the  peas  for  six  cents  a 
pound,  and  the  consumer  pays  43  cents  a 
pound  in  the  supermarket. 

Milk  made  the  farmer  a  profit  of  three 
cents  a  quart,  the  processor  a  profit  of  two 
cents  a  quart  and  the  retailer  lost  3,5  cents 
for  every  quart  of  milk  sold.  A  pint  of  ice 
cream  made  from  six  ounces  of  industrial 
milk  made  the  farmer  a  profit  of  two-tenths 
of  a  cent  for  the  milk,  the  processor  of  three 
cents  for  the  milk  and  the  retailer  a  profit 
of  12.3  cents  for  the  milk.  The  milk  sold 
to  make  three  ounces  of  butter  made  the 
farmer  a  profit  of  six-tenths  of  a  cent,  the 
processor  a  profit  of  six-tenths  of  a  cent  and 


APRIL  8,  1974 


919 


the  retailer  had  a  net  loss  of  seven-tenths  of 
P        a   cent   when   he   sold   the   butter. 

Two  pounds  of  potatoes  made  the  farmer 
a  profit  of  two  cents,  the  processor  a  profit 
of  two  cents  and  the  retailer  a  profit  of  2.2 
cents.  The  tomatoes  u.sed  to  make  four 
ounces  of  tomato  juice  made  the  farmer  a 
profit  of  1.6  cents,  the  processor  two  cents 
and  the  retailer  one-tenth  of  a  cent.  A  three 
pound  chicken  made  the  farmer  a  profit  of 
15  cents,  the  processor  a  profit  of  nine  cents 
and    the    retailer   a    profit    of   six    cents. 

The  final  cost  of  the  meal,  including  the 
items  which  I  have  just  mentioned,  was  $3.76. 
It  cost  the  farmer  a  total  of  $1.28  to  produce 
the  commodity  and  his  share  of  the  final 
profits  was  24  cents.  The  processors*  cost  was 
$2.63  and  they  made  a  total  profit  of  26 
cents.  The  costs  were  highest  at  the  retail 
level,  $3.49,  and  the  profits  were  27  cents. 

(Walter  Stewart's  article  on  Canada  Safe- 
way Ltd.  suggests  that  supermarket  giants  are 
rurming  up  our  grocery  bills,  not  because  of 
any  excess  profits  which  they  make  but  be- 
cause of  the  marketing  methods  they  use  to 
lure  us  into  their  stores.  While  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  retail  stores  are  making  an 
excessive  profit,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
competition  in  the  food  industry  has  been 
greatly  diminished  as  the  independents  have 
been  bought  out  by  a  few  large  grocery 
chains.  The  cutthroat  competition  that  super- 
markets so  anxiously  tell  us  about  is  not  likely 
in  the  long  run  to  bring  food  prices  down.  In 
the  shuffle  for  position  among  the  food  giants, 
the  chief  casualties  are  the  independents. 

The  grocery  chains  spend  a  lot  of  money 
battling  each  other.  They  do  this  through  ex- 
tensive promotions.  They  build  more  stores 
than  they  need  and  install  fancier  equipment 
than  we  want  and  tag  on  free  parking,  dieap 
credit  and  a  host  of  other  extras.  In  the  end 
most  of  these  campaigns  tend  to  be  self- 
cancelling.  As  soon  as  one  chain  does  it 
another  follows  and  no  advantage  accrues  to 
anyone.  Advertising  by  food  chains  and  price 
wars  are  a  sign  of  oligopoly,  not  competition. 
These  rivalries  result  in  self-cancelling  adver- 
tising. The  result  is  an  exclusive  emphasis  on 
very  shiny,  well  located,  retail  store  premises 
whose  costs  are  borne  by  the  consumer. 

In  1962  independent  stores  accounted  for 
54.8  per  cent  of  the  market  and  chains  for 
45.2  per  cent.  By  1972  their  positions  were 
reversed.  The  chains  had  54.5  per  cent  and 
the  independents  45.5  per  cent.  The  trend  is 
continuing  and  before  long  the  independents 

twill  be  cmly  a  minor  force  in  the  market.  If 
prices  have  come  down  as  a  result  of  this  in- 
crease   in    chain   dominance,    word   has    not 


reached  the  c<msuiners  yet.  The  net  retult, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  price  wars  appear  to 
cripple  the  independent  and  transfer  me  cost 
of  the  campaign  against  them  onto  eveiyone 
else's  grocery  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  give  you  an  example 
of  what  nas  happened  to  the  food  jproceasine 
industry  over  the  years.  Canada  Safeway  Lto. 
is  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of  Safeway 
Stores  Inc.  of  Oakland,  Calif.,  the  second 
largest  food  retail  chain  in  the  United  States. 
Canada  Safeway  was  set  up  in  1929  in  west- 
em  Canada  and  inunediately  began  to  grow, 
mainly  by  purchasing  not  onKr  other  retail 
stores  but  wholesalers  and  fooci  processors. 

With  this  running  start,  Safeway  grew  to  a 
huge,  fully-integrated  grocery  business  with 
control  not  only  over  its  own  supermarkets 
but  over  its  suppliers  as  well.  Its  wholly- 
owned  subsidiary,  Macdonald's  Consolidated, 
operates  a  wholesale  grocery  business,  bakery, 
a  fruit  and  vegetable  plant,  a  coffee  roasting 
factory  and  a  jam  and  jelly  plant.  Safeway 
has  its  own  canners,  its  own  frozen  food  oper- 
ation, its  own  fluid  milk  plant,  ice  cream  fac- 
tory, tea  packing  firm,  cneese-cutting  opera- 
tion and  its  own  beverages  and  egg  suppliers. 

It  even  has  a  company,  Wingate  Equipment 
Lessors  Ltd.,  which  owns  and  leases  the  fur- 
niture, machinery  and  appliances  used  in 
Safeway  stores  and  warehouses.  Safeway's 
policy  has  been  to  take  control  of  the  market, 
and  one  can  assume  this  has  led  to  monopoly 
pricing.  I  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  it  boils 
down  to  is  that  we  need  more  adequate  legis- 
lation in  order  to  protect  Canadian  consimiers 
against  soaring  food  prices,  which  in  my 
opinion  are  a  direct  result  of  the  monopoly 
situation  of  a  few  large  chain  stores. 

To  conclude,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  firmly  believe 
that  if  there  is  a  villain  in  the  marketplace, 
then  the  finger  must  be  pointed  at  govern- 
ment, and  both  the  provincial  and  federal 
governments  must  share  the  responsibility. 
What  effective  legislation  has  government 
passed,  or  indeed  if  such  legislation  does 
exist,  what  action  has  the  government  taken 
to  curtail  vertical  integration,  which  we  know 
to  be  the  cause  and  effect  of  monopoly 
pricing  and  consumer  gouging?  What  steps 
has  government  taken  in  recent  times  to  cur- 
tail dfeficit  spending,  which  we  know  con- 
tributes to  inflation?  What  programmes  have 
government  introduced  to  assist  the  small 
entrepreneur  in  either  establishing  a  business 
or  continuing  a  viable  operation,  which  per- 
mits free  and  open  competition  to  operate 
effectively  in  the  marketplace? 

I  will  admit,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  programmes 
have  been  im'tiated  to  protect  the  small  family 


920 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


farm.  But  government  has  completely  lost 
sight  of  the  need  to  protect  the  small  family 
farm.  This  government  is  disillusioned  in  its 
conception  that  everything  that  is  big  is  also 
good.  It  is  time  this  government  realized 
there  is  merit  in  competition,  there  is  a 
place  in  our  economy  for  the  small  business- 
man and  there  is  a  need  in  our  democratic 
process  for  local  autonomy. 

Mr.  Speaker,  much  could  be  and  has  been 
said  about  other  causes  of  inflation  and  about 
the  housing  crisis  that  looms  large  in  Ontario 
at  the  present  time.  I  do  not  intend  to  re- 
iterate what  already  has  been  said  about  this 
very  great  problem.  I  do  hope,  however,  that 
the  views,  criticisms  and  suggestions  of  my 
leader  in  his  amendments  to  the  Throne 
Speech,  will  be  seriously  considered  by  this 
government  in  its  attempt  to  formulate  policy 
and  propose  legislation  which  will  be  for  the 
good  of  all  people  and  not  just  for  a  choice 
few. 

Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Haliburton): 
Mr.  Speaker,  one  could  say,  "Thank  God  for 
Maclean's  magazine"— otherwise  both  opposi- 
tion parties  wouldn't  have  any  research.  One 
can  appreciate  their  research  efforts  by  read- 
ing Maclean's  magazine  and  listen  to  them 
quoting  the  articles,  as  was  done  by  the 
member  who  just  spoke  and  by  the  member 
for  York  Centre  (Mr.  Deacon),  because  they 
use  Maclean's  magazine  extensively  for  the 
subjects  of  their  speeches. 

Mr.  Riddel! :  It's  a  good  thing  somebody 
does  some  research. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  was  also  struck  by 
the  fact  that  the  member  for  Downsview  (Mr. 
Singer),  in  one  part  of  his  speech  today, 
referred  to  his  discussion  vnih  a  reporter  in 
the  press  gallery.  He  then  referred  to  the 
article  the  reporter  had  written  and  quoted  it 
as  gospel  and  as  substantiation  of  what  he 
was  saying. 

It  sounds  very  good.  But  I  do  think  there 
is  more  to  the  media  and  more  to  research, 
and  there's  more  to  understanding  some  of 
the  problems  today.  One  of  the  best  places 
to  get  that  sort  of  information  is  by  talking 
to  the  person  on  the  street  and  understanding 
what  that  person  is  going  through. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Or  go 
to  the  barbershop. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Well,  one  can  get  a 
lot  of  information  in  the  barbershop. 


Mr.  Renwick:  Is  that  barber  still  around  in 
Lindsay. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  He  could  be,  but  per- 
haps he  is  somewhat  like  the  NDP.  I  mean, 
the  hon.  member  who  just  finished  speaking 
was  talking  about  a  machine  to  make  energy 
from  the  wind.  Well  if  it  runs  like  the  official 
opposition  party,  I  would  hate  to  see  how 
efficient  it  would  be,  because  it  would  have 
very  much  the  same  amount  of  stops  and 
starts- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  -and  it  would  certainly 
not  be  acceptable  as  an  alternative.  The  New 
Democratic  Party,  of  course  have  great 
memories  of  those  old-timers  who  tried  to 
produce  a  perpetual  motion  machine.  So  far 
they  have  developed  it  very  well  with  their 
hinges  on  their  jaws— but  that's  as  far  as  it 
has  gone. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  a  joke.  That's  a  real 
joke. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Now  I  would  hke  to 
mention,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  in  our  Throne 
Speech  there  is  a  reference  to  making  seat 
belts  mandatory.  I  would  like  to  say  at  the 
outset  that  I'm  against  such  legislation. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Why? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Well,  I  will  tell  the 
hon.  member  some  of  the  reasons. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Come  on  over  here. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  happen  to  be  one  of 
the  few  people  in  Ontario  who  had  their 
lives  saved  by  a  hard  hat— that's  safety  equip- 
ment. I  happen  to  be  one  of  the  few  mem- 
bers of  this  Legislature,  I  think,  who  had  his 
life  saved  by  a  hardhat.  I  happen  to  be  one 
of  the  few  members  of  this  Legislature  who 
is  a  director  of  a  safety  association,  one  of 
the  seven  in  Ontario,  and  I  have  devoted  time 
to  their  work.  I  also  am  an  honorary  director 
of  a  safety  association  of  Ontario,  in  recog- 
nition of  some  of  the  work  I  have  done  in 
safety. 

Mr.  B.  Cilbertson  (Algoma):  The  member 
has  done  a  good  job,  too. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  have  to  say  to  the 
members  that  there  is  quite  a  difference 
between  a  hardhat  or  safety  protection  equip- 
ment, and  mandatory  wearing  of  a  seatbelt 
by  law.  I  have  quite  a  few  letters  from 
people  who  have  had  their  sons'  and  daugh- 
ters' lives  saved  by  not  wearing  a  seatbelt. 


APRIL  8,  1974 


021 


I  have  so  far  only  two  who  have  had  their 
lives  supposedly  saved  by  wearing  a  seatbelt. 
My  father's  life  was  saved  by  not  wearing  a 
seatbelt.  My  colleague  from  Glengarry  (Mr. 
Villeneuve),  who  sits  on  my  right,  had  his  life 
sa\ed  recently  by  not  wearing  a  seatbelt. 

Mr.  Renwick:  How  does  the  member  know? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Because  he  has  the 
OPP  and  other  people  who  observed  the 
scene  of  the  accident  who  are  willing  to 
swear  that  if  he  had  been  wearing  a  seatbelt 
he  would  not  be  here  today. 

A  very  personal  friend  of  mine  last  Novem- 
ber lost  his  life  by  wearing  a  seatbelt— in  the 
opinion  of  experts  and  officers  who  came  to 
the  scene  of  the  accident. 

So  I  have  to  say  to  the  members  that  I 
think  this  is  one  thing  that  should  not  be 
mandatory  in  law,  not  only  for  all  the  reasons 
regarding  the  fact  that  the  law  can't  be  en- 
forced, and  a  law  that  can't  be  enforced  is  a 
poor  law.  I  think  there  are  other  reasons.  I 
think  that  when  we  hear  the  statistics  about 
Australia,  we  have  to  compare  the  Australian 
scene  with  conditions  in  this  country— such  as 
the  speed  limits. 

We  have  noticed  that  in  the  United  States 
the  accident  ratio  has  come  down  drastically 
because  of  the  lowering  of  the  speed  limit. 
We  have  to  look  at  that. 

There  are  a  lot  of  things  that  I  don't  think 
have  very  much  merit  with  regard  to  making 
seatbelts  mandatory,  I  think  it  is  quite  a  dif- 
ferent thing  if  one  is  talking  about  the  pas- 
sengers in  a  car,  rather  than  the  driver.  I 
think  there  are  two  different  situations  here. 

I  think,  first  of  all,  if  one  looks  at  many 
wrecks  in  wrecking  yards,  he  will  notice  that 
the  passenger's  head  has  often  broken  the 
windshield.  Therefore  I  think  there  is  some 
merit,  perhaps,  in  a  passenger  in  a  car  wear- 
ing a  seatbelt.  In  the  case  of  the  driver,  the 
seatbelt  often  locks  the  driver  in  so  he  can't 
move  to  get  away  from  the  impact  of  the 
steering  wheel  or  he  can't  be  thrown  aside. 
Since  he  is  on  the  side  closest  to  the  ap- 
proaching car  in  most  cases,  he  is  going  to 
take  the  full  impact  of  the  accident. 

So  I  think  there  is  much  to  be  looked  at 
here  and  much  assessment  needed  before  any 
government  considers  making  mandatory  the 
wearing  of  seatbelts  in  a  car  by  everyone  in 
the  car.  I  think  passengers  and  drivers  are 
two  different  kettles  of  fish.  I  think  you  have 
two  different  situations,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
the\-  should  be  looked  at  carefully  before 
such  things  are  undertaken. 


Mr.  Gaunt:  Is  the  member  going  to  vote 

against  it? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Yes,  I  will.  If  the 
government  brings  it  in,  insists  on  bringing  it 
in,  I  will  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  Renwick:  What  about  the  courts?  They 
are  taking  that  into  account  when  they  are 
awarding  damages  now. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Does  the  member  al- 
ways consider  that  justice  is  levied  by  courts? 

Mr.  Renwick:  No,  I  am  asking  a  question, 
what  about  the  courts? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  My  hon.  friend  from 
Riverdale  talks  about  the  courts.  I  say  to  him, 
what  is  going  to  be  the  damage  situation  with 
regard  to  insurance  after  there  is  a  law  to 
wear  a  seatbelt  and  we  have  a  person  who 
has  undergone  an  accident  in  violation  of  the 
law  because  he  wasn't  wearing  a  seatbelt  and 
lost  his  life?  Is  his  insurance  company  going 
to  carry  that  out  and  pay  full  fees?  I  doubt 
it  very  much.  I  think  the  kwyers  will  have 
another  very  lucrative  base  to  work  on. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Two  things  bother  me.  One 
is  that  the  courts  take  into  account  whether 
the  victim  has  been  wearing  a  seatbelt  or  not, 
and  the  other  is  that  the  motor  vehicle  acci- 
dent reports  of  the  police  force  of  the  Metro- 
politan Toronto  area  ascertain  as  one  of  the 
facts  in  their  reports  whether  a  seatbelt  was 
being  worn. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Yes,  but  I  think  the 
member  also  has  to  look  at  aH  the  accident 
reports  of  the  province.  There  are  some  times 
of  the  year  when,  if  a  driver  drove  into  a 
ditch— for  instance  now— and  the  ditch  was 
full  of  water  and  he  was  locked  in  by  a  seat- 
belt,  he  very  likely  would  be  drowned  as  a 
result  of  wearing  one.  If  one  has  a  situation 
where  the  front  seat  of  one's  car  is  torn 
loose  and  one  is  dumped  down  into  the 
front,  underneath  the  steering  wheel,  one 
could  lose  one's  life  because  the  car  rolls  on. 

There  are  a  lot  of  things  that  I  think  one 
has  to  take  into  consideration  here. 

There  is  no  substantiation,  in  my  opinion, 
for  making  the  driver  of  a  car  wear  a  seat- 
belt;  I  think  there  is  more  hazard  to  that 
driver  wearing  a  seltbelt  than  there  is  safety 
in  his  wearing  one.  I  simply  say  I  think 
there   is   a   drastic   difference   here. 

However,  I  want  to  talk  for  a  moment 
about  Ontario's  natural  resources,  especially 
in  regard  to  timber  and  trees.  Northern  On- 
tario is  a  very  slow  growth  area   as  far  as 


922 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


trees  are  concened,  and  it  has  always  seemed 
to  me  that  while  it  is  being  done,  there  should 
be  even  more  trees  planted  in  the  north  and 
there  should  be  more  done  than  there  is  now. 

I  might  say  that  if  a  government  or  a 
country  was  thinking  about  a  full  return 
for  the  dollar,  middle  Ontario  has  a  very 
rapid,  high  growth  rate  for  trees.  We  have 
a  relatively  small  amount  of  trees  being 
planted  today.  I  am  particularly  struck  by 
this,  because  some  articles  I  read  recently 
about  the  United  States  caused  me  great 
caution  and  made  me  pause  to  consider  the 
future  of  the  forest  industry  in  Ontario; 
what  is  it  going  to  be  30  years  from  now? 

First  of  all,  they  have  developed  a  species 
of  tree  that  matures  in  30  years.  In  30 
years  they  are  going  to  have,  perhaps,  a 
very  great  forest  resource;  but  at  the  rate 
Ontario  is  planting  trees  and  doing  forest 
improvement  work,  I  doubt  if  in  30  years 
we  shall  have  as  much  timber  resource  as 
we  have  today.  Yet  we'll  have  more  people 
and  we'll  have  more  demand  on  that  resource. 

Mr.  Renwick:  A  damning  indictment  of  the 
government. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  don't  doubt  that  for 
a  minute.  I  think  it  is  a  damning  indict- 
ment of  any  government  which  has  allowed 
a  situation  like  this  to  exist. 

Mr.   Renwick:    Thirty  years   of  Tory  rule. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  simply  say  it  is  bad 
practice  to  not  plant  more  trees  than  we  cut. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  Not 
too  much  order. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Especially  when  much 
of  our  wealth,  much  of  our  employment, 
much  of  our  house  building  and  home  build- 
ing—all these  things— depend  on  our  resources 
of  timber  in  Ontario.  I  worry  about  this 
because  I  can  see  what's  happening. 

We  do  not  have  enough  programme  money 
for  forest  improvement  in  hardwood  areas, 
in  the  hardwood  band  of  Ontario.  It  will 
take  money  to  thin  the  trees,  to  upgrade 
the  trees  and  this  sort  of  thing  if  we  are 
going  to  have  a  hardwood  forest  in  our 
future.  My  lady's  high  heels  may  be  passing 
fancy  but  when  one  realizes  that  most  of 
them  are  made  from  maple  today,  we  might 
not  have  them  in  existence  in  any  quantity 
in  a  few  years. 

I    have   two    counties   on   whose   behalf   I 


have  resisted  the  legislative  action  of  this 
government  with  regard  to  cutting  off  the 
wolf  bounty.  I  accepted  the  idea  of  a  better 
predator  control  programme;  I'm  still  waiting 
for  it.  Much  of  Ontario  is  still  waiting  for 
it,  most  especially  the  counties  and  districts 
surrounding  Algonquin  Park- 
Mr.  Gilbertson:  Algoma  is  in  the  same 
predicament. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  -that  protected  area 
of  Ontario  under  the  complete  control  and 
supervision  of  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Re- 
sources. Wildlife  is  not  interfered  with  there 
by  the  hunter,  by  the  trapper  or  by  any 
individual;  it  is  protected  in  many  thousands 
of  acres.  Predaors  are  also  protected  but 
many  species  of  wildlife  are  in  dire  straits, 
almost  disappearing  from  Algonquin  Park.  As 
a  result  the  predators  have  moved  on,  they've 
moved  into  our  area.  They've  moved  on 
through  our  area  into  other  sections  of 
Ontario  and  a  predator  control  programme 
which  does  not  manage  predators  in  connec- 
tion with  wildlife  does  tremendous  harm  to 
the  future  of  this  country. 

New  Zealand  exports  venison  and  so  do 
many  other  countries  of  the  world,  but  they 
manage  their  predators.  In  the  neighbouring 
states,  hunting  licences  allow  one  to  take 
as  many  as  two  dear  and  so  on,  because  they 
have  managed  their  predators.  Some  of  the 
finest  speckled  trout  fishing  in  the  world  is 
in  Newfoundland,  where  they  don't  have  a 
predator  on  speckled  trout. 

Yet  it  seems  to  me  the  policy  of  the 
Natural  Resources  people  in  the  biology  field 
here  in  Ontario  is  to  protect  the  predator  and 
destroy  the  game— animal,  fish  what  have  you 
—by  not  protecting  yet  by  supervising  the 
predators.  It  is  a  poor  policy,  I  think.  I  have 
seen  speckled  trout  lakes  ruined  by  perch 
and  other  predators. 

I  have  noticed  one  big  improvement,  and 
it  gives  me  a  great  satisfaction,  and  that  is 
the  increase  in  the  price  of  coon  fur  this 
year.  I  feel  that  back  will  come  some  of  the 
ducks  in  our  area,  back  will  come  some  of 
the  loons,  because  these  are  the  predators  on 
the  loon  and  the  duck  eggs  in  my  particular 
section  of  Ontario.  So  the  high  price  for 
that  fur,  I  think,  will  have  a  beneficial  effect 
on  most  wildlife  and  birds  in  my  area. 

It  will  be  interesting  to  see.  It  happened 
in  the  Thirties  where  we  had  a  tremendous 
increase  in  the  wild  fowl  by  elimination  of 
predators  because  of  the  high  fur  rates  for 
those  and  the  subsequent  drop  off. 

I  would  like  to  say  a  bit  about  uranium. 
The  province  recently  announced  that  we  are 


APRIL  8,  1974 


823 


hoping  to  expand  our  uranium  mines  and  our 
production.  I  have  part  of  the  Bancroft  min- 
ing camp  in  my  riding,  that  section  where 
licences  were  taken  away  several  years  ago 
to  the  then  Prime  Minister  of  Canada's  riding; 
taken  from  ours  and  taken  up  there.  They 
closed  the  mines  in  my  riding  by  such  a 
method. 

There  is  going  to  be  an  expansion  of  the 
uranium  mines  in  Ontario.  I  would  like  to  see 
our  area  thought  about  in  this  connection. 
I  would  like  to  suggest  that  the  government 
of  Ontario  should  be  fully  involved,  because 
the  idea  that  we  would  again  have  a  mining 
bust  and  boom  sort  of  situation,  in  my  riding 
in  particular,  would  be  against  my  wishes. 
I  think  the  Ontario  government  could  man- 
age the  uranium  mining  camp  and  it  might 
take  into  consideration  the  development  of  a 
mining  process  in  connection  with  the  prov- 
ince or  with  the  federal  government  in  co- 
operation. 

Mr.  Renwidc:  Public  ownership  of  the 
uranium  industry  this  year  is  essential. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  don't  think  they  have 
to.  I  think  they  can  produce  the  ore  and 
bring  it  to  a  central  mining  processing  plant 
that  may  well  be  owned  by  the  province. 
I  think  there  is  place  for  both  free  enterprise 
and  the  province  to  be  involved  in  the  com- 
mon enterprise  in  producing  uranium  ore. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Not  in  our  major  source  of 
fuel. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  In  my  area  at  the 
moment  Imperial  Oil  is  doing  a  lot  of  pros- 
pecting for  uranium.  There  is  Faraday,  which 
is  mainly  owned  by  American  interests.  There 
are  several  other  very  good  deposits  of  uran- 
ium and  to  my  way  of  thinking  we  could 
have  a  30  or  40  year  production  there.  But 
if  high-grading  is  allowed  we  may  have  10 
years  of  boom  and  20  or  30  years  of  bust 
again,  and  I  don't  think  that  would  serve 
anybody;  because  in  the  village  of  Bancroft, 
for  instance,  in  the  last  uranium  boom  we 
had  as  many  as  three  or  four  banks,  and 
today  we  have  one  or  two.  Stores  went  out 
of  business  and  people  lost  money  through 
investments  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  I  think 
that  there  is  a  better  way,  especially  when 
uranium  is  under  the  control  of  governments 
and  can  be  continued  that  way. 

I  would  like  to  suggest  one  other  thing. 
Much  of  Ontario  has  a  very  high-cost  educa- 
tion plant  in  existence  today  because  of  the 
requirements  of  the  HS-I.  It  seems  to  me 
there   is   discussion   and   rumour   today   that 


we  are  goine  to  start  high  schoob  od  a 

ters  basis.  If  we  do  this  nobody,  but  nobody, 

can  manage  the  cost  of  education. 

Just  think  of  a  high  school  that  has  planned 
its  teaching  staff  and  its  school  rooms  at  the 
start  of  a  school  year  in  September,  with 
everything  going,  and  say  200  of  your  pupils 
take  off  for  community  college  or  university 
in  December.  Where  does  it  leave  your 
Where  will  it  leave  the  cost  of  education? 

And  this  is  what  some  of  the  rumours  are 
in  education  today.  It  seems  to  me  that  if 
we  got  back  to  a  few  mandatory  courses, 
rather  than  some  of  the  permissive  stuff  we 
have,  it  would  become  a  lot  cheaper  and  a 
better  and  sounder  educational  system  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario. 

Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Let  me 
first  thank  you  for  the  many  courtesies  afford- 
ed to  me  in  the  Legislature.  I  am  extremely 
pleased  to  see  that  you  have  recovered  from 
overexposure  to  the  workload  of  the  last 
session.  I  know  at  times  there  were  hectic 
moments  in  many  of  the  debates  of  the  last 
session.  I  am  sure  all  members  of  the  House 
will  agree  that  we  are  extremely  impressed 
with  the  manner  in  which  you  accept  the 
daily  challenge,  and  particularly  pleased  with 
your  impartiality  in  this  Legislature. 

I  have  noticed  on  several  occasions,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  you  have  been  annoyed  by 
some  members,  perhaps  under  strain,  who 
have  caused  disruption  of  the  proceedings  in 
this  assembly;  members  who  have  been  noisy 
in  character.  Sometimes  I  wish  you  would 
crack  the  whip  and  be  a  little  more  firm, 
particularly  during  the  shouting  match  by 
members  in  the  question  period.  And  perhaps 
I  raise  this,  at  this  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  because 
many  of  the  members  of  this  House,  particu- 
larly in  the  back  rows,  have  very  little  oppor- 
tunity afforded  them  to  ask  or  raise  their 
questions  in  the  assembly.  Sometimes  they 
are  rather  important  questions  to  the  back- 
benchers in  this  assembly,  and  I  wish  per- 
haps more  consideration  could  be  given  to 
some  of  us  in  the  back  rows. 

But  above  all,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  wish 
you  continued  good  health,  and  hope  that  all 
members  will  share  in  your  patience  and 
respect  for  the  important  office  you  hold. 

I  might  add  at  this  time  too,  Nfr.  Speaker, 
that  I  wish  to  convey  my  best  to  the  Deputy 
Speakers  of  this  assembly.  I  feel  they  have 
treated  all  members  fairly  well. 


924 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  this  is  the  seventh 
Throne  Speech  debate  in  which  I  have  had 
the  pleasure  to  participate.  I  want  to  con- 
gratulate the  hon.  member  for  Brantford  (Mr. 
Beckett)  for  moving  the  address  to  his  Honour 
the  Lieutenant  Governor,  and  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Timiskaming  (Mr.  Havrot)  for  second- 
ing this  motion. 

I  was  interested  in  what  they  had  to  say 
in  their  reply  to  the  Throne  Speech.  Both 
members  agreed  to  support  the  proposal  for 
a  prescription  drug  plan  for  senior  citizens 
and  stated  that  previous  assistance  was  out- 
dated. This  party  has  been  clear  and  forceful 
on  many  occasions  in  advocating  policy 
changes  to  assist  senior  citizens  in  a  compre- 
hensive drug  plan. 

I  ask  the  government  to  give  further  con- 
sideration to  the  Throne  Speech  and  to 
consider  those  persons  who  are  in  the  grey 
area  and  who  need  special  medical  care— 
those  who  are  not  65  years  old  but  who 
require  special  services;  and  particularly  those 
persons  between  the  ages  of  55  and  65  who 
have  very  little  assistance  to  maintain  a  pro- 
per living  standard  in  the  Province  of  Ontario, 
those  people  who  do  not  receive  old  age 
security  cheques. 

The  member  for  Timiskaming  has  sug- 
gested the  need  for  younger  and  more  vigor- 
ous commissioners  for  the  Ontario  Northland 
Railway  and  the  appointment  of  a  commis- 
sioner to  represent  labour.  Well  that  is  a 
Tory  switch,  and  I  am  sure  all  members  of 
the  opposition  agree  to  these  two  proposals.  I 
wish  this  member  well  in  moving  the  govern- 
ment in  this  direction;  and  of  course  if  one 
has  read  the  Globe  and  Mail  in  the  past 
couple  of  days,  I  hope  that  they  move  in  this 
direction  much  more  quickly  than  he  has 
suggested. 

We  in  the  official  opposition  can  also  agree 
and  support  the  suggestion  of  issuing  credit 
cards  for  the  health  services  programme  in 
Ontario.  I  can  recall  that  this  is  not  the  first 
instance  of  which  this  suggestion  has  been 
place  1  before  the  House.  I  believe  it  was  the 
hon.  member  for  Nipissing  (Mr.  R.  S.  Smith), 
who  as  this  party's  health  critic  a  few  years 
ago  suggested  this  was  one  step  in  the  right 
direction  to  reduce  the  red  tape  and  confu- 
sion that  existed  in  the  early  stages  of  the 
Ontario  health  insurance  plan.  It  would  also 
provide  a  clear  cut  picture  of  services  ren- 
dered by  the  medical  profession  to  the  patient 
and  no  doubt  speed  up  payments  to  the 
medical  doctors. 

Mr.  Speaker,  during  the  Throne  Speech 
members  can  well  appreciate  the  considera- 


tion that  the  government  has  finally  taken  to 
improve  the  standard  of  living  for  citizens  in 
remote  areas  of  northern  Ontario.  I  have  also 
noted  that  the  federal  government  will  be 
sharing  in  expansion  programmes  in  northern 
Ontario.  The  programme  is  long  overdue  and 
will  be  supported  by  members  on  this  side 
of  the  House.  The  establishments  of  local 
councils  in  unorganized  territories  will  no 
doubt  be  welcomed  by  many  citizens  in 
northern  Ontario.  The  first  decentralization  of 
power  from  Queen's  Park  in  itself  is  a  major 
step.  This  will  allow  citizens  a  voice  and 
participation  in  local  issues,  so  that  they  will 
be  able  to  make  their  own  decisions  in  the 
best  interest  and  welfare  of  their  communi- 
ties. I  commend  the  government  for  this  pro- 
posal. 

The  question  of  mandatory  use  of  seatbelts 
has  not  been  well  received  by  Ontario  motor- 
ists. The  old  saying  "Speed  kills,"  promoted 
by  safety  crusaders,  is  well  substantiated  by 
the  recent  drop  in  traffic  fatalities  in  the 
United  States.  Speed  limits  were  reduced  as 
a  fuel-saving  measure  in  the  oil  crisis  that 
hit  the  United  States  and  there  was  a  notice- 
able decrease  in  the  total  number  of  acci- 
dents. The  government  of  Ontario  should  give 
consideration  to  reducing  the  speed  limits  on 
our  highways  in  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  the  weakest  point 
raised  in  the  Throne  Speech  dealt  with  a 
paragraph  concerning  inflation.  Quoting: 

My  government  will  employ  all  practical 
means  at  its  disposal  to  alleviate  the 
causes  of  and  effects  of  inflation.  Neverthe- 
less, it  bears  repeating  that  the  problem 
can  only  be  dealt  with  in  a  national  con- 
text, with  all  governments  co-operating. 

Surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  government  has  a 
great  responsibility  in  the  problem  of  inflation. 
Approximately  one-third  of  the  population  of 
Canada  lives  in  Ontario.  We  in  Ontario  have 
the  highest  average  weekly  wages  and  salaries 
of  any  province  in  Canada  at  almost  $170  a 
week.  It  is  a  province  with  vast  resources, 
minerals,  precious  metals,  forest  products  and 
an  excellent  fanning  industry  and  sufficient 
energy,  in  fact  we  export  energy. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Throne  Speech  clearly 
indicates  that  this  government  is  not  con^ 
cemed  with  the  continued  growth  rate  of  in- 
flation and  has  no  intention  of  grappling  with 
the  causes  of  inflation.  It  is  most  degrading 
or  dishonest  for  the  government  of  the  day  to 
allow  inflation  to  continue  to  rise  day  after 
day,  destroying  family  incomes. 

The  average  hourly  earnings  are  substan- 
tially less   than  the  increase  in   the   cost  of 


APRIL  8,  1974 


925 


living.  Those  employees  working  in  industry 
who  negotiated  agreements  some  two  or  three 
years  ago  have  been  hit  the  hardest.  We've 
all  seen  the  food  prices  in  this  coimtry  in- 
creased by  approximately  17  per  cent  in  1973. 
I  believe,  as  other  members  do,  that  the 
farmer  is  not  the  one  to  be  blamed  for  these 
increases. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  often  taken  for  granted 
that  unions  and  their  members,  and  I  should 
also  include  farmers,  are  responsible  for  in- 
flation. But  let  us  now  take  a  look  at  the 
Globe  and  Mail  of  Wednesday,  March  20, 
1974.  This  is  in  the  Report  on  Business: 

Base  Metals  Hold  Lead  is  Profit 
Performance  for  Third  Successive  Year 

The  base  metals  group,  aided  by  higher 
prices  and  production,  turned  in  the  best 
profit  performance  in  the  Report  on  Busi- 
ness sampling  of  the  final  fourth  quarter 
after-tax  prcHBts  of  Canadian  companies. 
This  is  the  third  time  in  succession  that 
group  has  topped  the  list. 

Following  the  base  metals  were  the  in- 
dustrial mines  group,  the  paper  and  forest 
products,  real  estate  companies,  and  golds. 
At  the  other  end  of  the  scale  were  miscel- 
laneous financial  companies,  trust  and  loan 
companies,  and  pipelines. 

Referring  particularly  to  the  trust  and  loan 
companies,  I  believe  that  they  perhaps  have 
reached  one  of  the  highest  profits  in  all  of 
Canadian  history  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
When  we  look  at  the  profits  that  some  of 
these  trust  and  loan  companies  make,  maybe 
we  should  come  in  with  some  legislation  to 
control  the  cost  of  borrowing,  particularly  to 
the  loan  companies.  I  believe  it  is  almost— 
what  is  it?— 24  per  cent  as  set  out  by  statute. 
I  think  this  is  away  too  high. 

I  was  asked  to  be  present  one  night  when 
a  chap  had  to  go  into  a  finance  company  to 
pay  off  his  final  debt.  He  came  back  out  and 
I  told  him  what  I  thought  he  should  do— ask 
for  a  complete  statement.  He  came  back  out 
and  said  a  statement  wasn't  available.  I  said: 
"Don't  go  back  and  pay  anything  imtil  they 
can  produce  a  statement."  In  a  period  of 
about  three  years  he  almost  paid  double  what 
he  borrowed.  Of  course,  there  were  other  hid- 
den clauses  in  there  that  raised  the  actual 
costs  of  borrowing  to  him. 

I  believe  there  should  be  some  restrictions 
brought  in,  because  24  per  cent  is  too  high 
at  this  time— or  at  any  time  I  should  say. 
Banks:  For  the  first  time  in  a  profit  sur- 
vey, balance  of  revenue  after  provision  for 
'income   taxes   has   been   reported   for   the 
banks.  Previously,  the  balance  of  revenue 


before  income  taxes  was  included  in  the 
surveys.  The  changeover  allows  a  better 
<:omparison  of  bank  profits  with  those  of 
other  groups. 

In  the  fourth  quarter  the  balance  of 
revenue  for  banks  rose  by  26.2  per  cent  to 
$93.8  million  from  $74.3  million  [in  com- 
parison with  the  similar  quarter  of  19731. 

Steel:  Exceptionally  strong  world  and 
domestic  demand  for  steel  pushed  produc- 
tion, sales  and  in  some  cases  profit  levels  of 
steelmakers  to  record  levels.  Raw  steel  pro- 
duction by  Algoma  Steel  Ltd.  of  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  rose  to  2,650,000  tons  from  2,426,000 
in  1972  and  steel  product  shipments  in- 
creased to  1,920,000  tons  from  1,740,000 
tons.  The  profit  of  $2.45  a  share  in  1973 
was  up  sharply  from  the  year  earlier  $1.37 
a  share.  .  .  . 

I  might  add  that  I  have  made  some  inquires 
to  local  industries  in  my  area  in  the  past  two 
or  three  weeks.  I  specifically  inquired  about 
the  price  of  steel,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  was 
amazed  to  learn  that  the  so-called  shortage  of 
steel,  which  might  have  been  manufactured 
or  created  by  the  steel  industry,  means  that 
the  fabricators  cannot  buy  the  type  of  steel 
they  want.  There  is  one  catch,  however.  They 
can  buy  it  if  they  want  to  pay  the  price.  Ana 
if  they  want  quick  delivery,  they  pay  the 
price  and  they  will  get  it,  although  tne  price 
perhaps  will  be  far  above  the  price  that  is 
usually  quoted  in  estimates. 

I  imagine,  with  the  commercial  develop- 
ments that  are  taking  place  in  downtown  To- 
ronto and  the  highrise  buildings  that  are 
going  up  here,  that  it  is  going  to  be  pretty 
hard  in  the  coming  year  for  a  contractor  to 
make  a  decent  estimate  on  the  cost  of  a 
building.  I  don't  know  how  he  is  going  to 
stay  in  business,  because  he  can't  get  a 
commitment  from  any  of  these  companies,  say 
a  six  month  commitment,  that  the  price  of 
steel  will'  remain  at  that  level.  This  again  is 
going  to  cause  inflation  in  the  cost  of  build- 
ing in  the  Province  of  Ontario, 

Food  processing:  Profit  of  12  food  pro- 
cessing companies  rose  by  81.1  per  cent 
in  the  fourth  quarter  and  59.6  per  cent  for 
the  year.  Maple  Leaf  Mills  Limited  of 
Toronto  one  of  the  larger  companies  in- 
cluded in  the  group,  had  a  profit  before 
extraordinary  items  of  $7,859,000  in  1973, 
compared  with  $3,150,000  in  1972.  George 
Weston  Ltd.,  of  Toronto  showed  a 
$34,629,000  profit  in  1973  .... 

I  believe  the  member  for  Huron  stated  that 
he  thought  one  of  the  problems  with  the 
food  chains  stores  in  the  Province  of  Ontario 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


was  that  perhaps  they  were  adding  extra 
profits  and  the  consumer  again  is  paying  for 
it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  as  Canadians  do  agree 
that  corporations  must  maintain  a  fair  margin 
in  profits  to  remain  competitive  and  to  pre- 
serve a  strong  labour  force.  There  are  many 
Canadians,  and  I  am  one  of  those,  who  are 
concerned  about  the  high  cost  of  food. 

We  can  readily  see  the  profiteering  at  a 
time  when  there  is  supposed  to  be  national 
crisis  of  oil  in  Canada.  There  was  an  increase 
in  windfall  profits  on  an  average  of  more  than 
46  per  cent  that  applies  to  four  or  five  of  the 
major  national  oil  companies  Ibcated  in  Can- 
ada, and  perhaps  I  should  name  a  few- 
Imperial  Oil,  Shell  Oil,  Gulf  Oil  and  BP,  as 
well  as  Exxon  and  Texaco. 

Most  of  these  companies  are  related  or 
partners  in  perhaps  the  world's  largest  oil 
syndicate,  namely  Aramco— Arabian-American 
Oil  Co.  Look  at  the  Royal  Dutch-Shell  group 
1973  profits— $1.71  billion,  as  compared  with 
$675.4  million. 

Mr.    Speaker,    I    said,    and    perhaps    it    is 
worth  repeating  again,  that  the  oil  crisis  was 
manufactured  or  created  by  a  consortium  of 
multinational  corporations  with  one  goal:  to 
increase  their  profits  well  above  any  reason- 
able  profit  year,   thereby   adding  further  to 
inflationary  costs  perhaps  to  a  breaking  point 
that   many   countries   will   not   survive.    This 
unnecessary  impact  is  gouging  the  consumer. 
I  have  another  report  here  that  I  thought 
I  should  read  into  the  record,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Perhaps  it  will  back  up  some  of  the  argu- 
ments I  have  put  forth  so  far.  This  is  from 
the    monthly    letter    of   the    Royal    Bank    of 
Canada,  which  has  its  head  oflRce  in  Montreal: 
Applying  to  business  this  principle  of  the 
basic  need  to  survive,  the  deputy  chairman 
and  executive  vice-president  of  this  bank 
said  to  Canada-United  Kingdom  Chamber 
of  Commerce  in  London  in  May:  "Profit  is 
an  essential  condition  for  the  survival  and 
growth  of  an  enterprise.  Profit  is  also,  of 
course,  the  required  incentive  and  reward 
to  the  providers  of  capital.  Profit  is  also  the 
most  efi^ective  measure   of  an  enterprise's 
operation." 

Then  he  went  on  to  speak  of  the  second 
obligation:  "If  corporations  are  not  seen  to 
act,  and  do  not  in  fact  act,  in  a  socially 
responsible  manner,  their  long-term  survival 
could  be  threatened." 

I  believe  that  is  a  warning.  That  is  a  warn- 
ing at  this  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  situa- 
tion is  perhaps  not  too  healthy  in  many 
countries  throughout  the  world. 


Much  of  the  manufactured  increase  of 
crude  oil  prices  originated  in  the  United 
States  by  a  consortium  of  oil  magnates  solely 
for  their  personal  capital  gains.  At  present, 
Senate  hearings  being  held  in  the  United 
States  have  indicated  and  lead  one  to  believe 
that  it  is  the  world's  largest  swindle.  It  is 
even  cropping  up  in  the  Watergate  hearings. 

In  the  past,  the  United  States  government 
has  given  certain  tax  concessions,  as  well  as 
imposing  an  embargo,  on  crude  oil  coming 
into  the  United  States,  supposedly  to  encour- 
age further  development  of  oil  resources.  This 
has  failed  for  the  simple  reason  that  the 
companies  have  not  used  the  tax  credits  for 
exploration  in  the  United  States,  but  in  some 
small  instances  in  other  areas  throughout  the 
world. 

The  question  of  higher  prices  to  the  oil 
companies,  as  announced  this  past  week  by 
all  smiling  Premiers  of  this  great  Dominion, 
is  no  guarantee  of  increased  exploration  and 
development  here  in  Canada. 

With  the  tax  concessions  already  present, 
such  as  depreciation  allowance,  reports  indi- 
cate that  they  will  pay  less  than  six  per 
cent  on  their  book  profits. 

It  is  my  hope  that  Canadian  ownership 
and  control  of  our  vast  resources  in  Ontario 
and  throughout  Canada  remain  totally  in  the 
hands  of  Canadians.  Also  that  the  revenue 
developed  by  the  two-price  system  for  oil 
be  used  directly  by  truly  Canadian-owned 
corporations  as  announced  by  the  federal  gov- 
ernment in  creating  a  national  petroleum 
corporation  with  investments  and  control  of 
production  in  Canada,  in  particular  of  the 
Athabaska  tar  sands. 

I  say  to  members  of  this  House  and  to 
all  Canadians,  we  have  been  taken  by  the 
multinational  corporations.  We  have  allowed 
corporate  profiteers  to  pile  up  windfall  profits 
at  the  expense  of  the  people  of  this  great 
Dominion,  and  in  particular  that  of  the  peo- 
ple of  this  Province  of  Ontario.  The  govern- 
ment of  Canada  and  the  provincial  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  should  have  initiated  a 
fullscale  public  investigation  of  oil  profits 
before  there  was  any  agreement  to  allow 
an  increase  in  the  price  of  crude  oil,  which 
in  the  long  run  will  be  paid  to  the  oil 
companies. 

In  the  recent  investigation  into  oil  profits 
by  a  United  States  Senate  committee  it  was 
revealed  that  four  or  more  oil  companies 
were  reaping  windfall  profits.  As  members 
of  this  Legislature  we  have  all  read  reports 
of  substantial  increases  in  profits  of  mining 
corporations.  In  some  instances,  it  is  well 
over    200    per    cent.    Perhaps    I    should    go 


APRIL  8.  1974 


927 


back  to  that  article  of  the  Globe  and  Mail, 
if  I  can  find  it  here. 

Well,  for  example,  base  metals.  In  1973, 
their  profits  had  increased  by  358.5  per  cent. 
Industrial  mines  increased  by  160.5  in 
profits.  So  members  can  see  there's  been  a 
substantial  increase  to  the  minining  industry 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

This  indicates  corporation  profits,  as  a 
share  of  the  gross  national  product,  increased 
in  1973  while  Canadian  workers'  share  of  the 
gross  national  product  actually  declined. 

And  perhaps,  Mr.  Speaker,  I'll  go  back 
to  the  Royal  Bank  of  Canada  monthly  news- 
letter, to  sum  it  up  as  the  deputy  chairman 
and  executive  vice-president  of  the  Royal 
Bank  summed  it  up  when  he  said: 

We  are  fast  reaching  the  point  where 
the  social  and  political  climate  almost 
everywhere  in  the  world  will  make  it  in- 
creasingly necessary  for  businesses  to 
justify  their  existence  on  grounds  other 
than  purely  economic  success  as  expressed 
in  terms  of  profit  to  shareholders. 

Again  he  picks  it  out  and  it's  another  warn- 
ing to  the  corporations  in  Canada,  particular- 
ly in  Ontario,  that  there  is  no  need  for 
some  of  the  high  increases  in  profits  without 
returning  some  of  it  to  those  persons  who 
supply  the  labour  to  produce  the  profits  for 
them. 

Mr.  Speaker,  one  solution  to  this  problem 
of  inflationary  costs  to  the  consumer,  to  ease 
some  of  the  struggle  to  keep  the  family  head 
above  water,  is  to  bring  in  legislation  which 
will  allow  a  cost  of  living  factor  to  apply  to 
every  wage  earner  in  Ontario.  Of  course,  this 
might  be  too  easy  a  solution  to  the  problem. 
The  registered  pension  plans  should  also  be 
required  to  include  a  cost  of  living  escalator 
provision  in  their  agreements. 

Or  the  government  can  move  in  another 
simple  direction  by  making  use  of  already 
existing  legislation,  be  it  federal  or  provin- 
cial, the  Combines  Investigations  Act.  I  am 
sure  if  this  government  was  concerned  about 
inflation  it  would  move  in  this  direction.  No 
doubt  it  would  open  up  a  can  of  worms  in 
price  fixing.  Present  governments,  federal 
and  provincial,  today  well  need  to  come  to 
grips  with  excess  profits,  the  pros  and  cons 
of  large  increases  in  profits;  I  am  sure  they 
must  agree  to  tax  windfall  and  excess  profits 
in  order  to  assure  the  Canadian  public  that 
in  our  tax  system  there  is  justice. 

The  question  is  what  is  the  government 
going  to  do?  If  one  follows  the  statement  of 
the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Mr.  Ber- 
nier),  he's  going  to  do  many  things.  Ontario 


plans  changes  in  mining  legislation  to  brine 
about  an  acreage  tax  increase  which  would 
develop  approximately  $13.5  milkon.  We  on 
this  side  would  agree  to  that  proposal,  pro- 
viding the  revenue  was  returned  to  the  pres- 
ent mining  municipalities  and  the  proposed 
new  local  governments,  as  proposed  in  the 
Throne  Speech,  for  their  own  use  based  upon 
municipal  land  assessment  for  tax  purposes.  I 
hope  this  would  give  them  the  additional 
revenue  required  to  provide  the  needs  of  and 
services  for  those  communities. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  also  interested  in  read- 
ing in  the  Globe  and  Mail  on  March  9  that 
another  programme  for  mining  support  would 
be  introduced  in  the  budget  proposals,  wiA 
tax  incentives  or  tax  write-off^s  for  mining  ex- 
ploration. Surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  one  has  to 
auestion  the  government's  further  moving  in 
le  direction  of  tax  concessions  to  corpora- 
tions in  the  mining  industries  in  Ontario.  The 
government  continuously  gives  additional  tax 
credits  and  I  believe  it  has  been  well  docu- 
mented in  the  House  by  previous  speakers 
that  at  present  the  mining  industries  in  On- 
tario pay  far  less  than  the  average  taxpayer 
in  Ontario  pays  in  personal  income  tax. 

I  believe  it  has  been  stated  that  corpora- 
tions pay  an  average  of  5.2  per  cent  in  taxes. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  the  audi- 
tor's reports  for  1972  and  1973,  revenue 
and  expenditure  for  the  fiscal  year  ended 
March  31,  1973,  for  natural  resources,  revenue 
amounted  to  $55,161,863;  expenditures  were 
$138,797,387,  an  imbalance  of  approximately 
$84  million. 

Surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  vdth  these  vast  re- 
sources of  forests  and  minerals  in  Ontario  this 
is  one  department  of  the  government  that 
should  generate  a  surplus  of  income  for  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  This  has  been  mentioned 
before  by  previous  speakers.  If  the  govern- 
ment is  going  to  control  inflation,  this  is  <Mie 
place  where  it  should  start. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Where's  that? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  That  is  from  the  Provincial 
Auditor's  report;  a  very  important  reoort.  1 
suggest  that  all  members  should  be  reaoing  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  It's  a  lot  better  than  the 
Sun  which  his  leader  has  been  reading  for 
tomorrow's  question  period. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  point  I  raise  Tiere,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  with— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): I'm  finding  a  job  for  the  minister  in  Ae 
want  ads. 


928 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Haggerty:  —all  the  resources  which 
are  available  in  the  mining  industry  and  in 
the  forest  industry  in  the  Province  of  Ontario, 
surely  there  should  be  enough  profit  gener- 
ated from  them  to  pay  for  the  operations  of 
that  department.  In  other  words,  what  I  am 
saying  is  it's  a  giveaway  now  to  the  mining 
corporations  and  to  the  forest  industries  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario.  The  members  know 
and  I  know  that  not  enough  revenue  is  gen- 
erated to  pay  for  the  reforestation  programme, 
for  example.  It's  the  Province  of  Ontario 
which  pays  for  it,  not  the  forest  industry. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  right.  The  member  for 
Victoria-Haliburton  was  saying  so  too. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  also  interesting  to  have 
read  the  article  in  the  Globe  and  Mail  vdth 
the  headline,  "Base  Metals  Hold  Lead."  There 
is  no  use  repeating  myself,  but  the  point  I 
want  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  House, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  Falconbridge  Nickel 
Mines  Ltd.  revenue  was  recorded  at  $438.2 
million  last  year,  up  from  $274.6  million  in 
1972.  This  was  after  the  concession  for  de- 

Eletion   and   depreciation   costs    and   tax   re- 
ates. 

I  was  interested  last  year  during  the  esti- 
mates of  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources, 
when  the  member  for  Sudbury  East  (Mr. 
Martel)  brought  up  the  working  conditions, 
particularly  at  Falconbridge  in  the  Sudbury 
basin.  I  believe  at  that  time  the  minister's 
staff  had  stated  that  the  conditions  were  not 
favourable  for  any  person  to  be  working  in 
that  type  of  industry.  I  was  just  wondering, 
with  profits  as  enormous  as  that,  surely  this 
government  can  move  in  some  direction  to 
give  those  workers  in  that  industry  good, 
clean  working  conditions.  I  suggest  the  gov- 
ernment take  a  good  hard  look  at  this  and 
see  that  something  is  done  for  those  workers 
up  in  that  industry. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  not  a  day  goes  by 
without  notice  that  the  public  is  being  in- 
formed of  the  large  revenue  increases  by  cor- 
porations, such  as  oil,  mining,  banks  and  trust 
companies.  Many  others  have  piled  up  incre- 
dibly high  profits.  Prices  are  increasing  day 
after  day  and  the  purchasing  power  of  the 
lower-income  families  is  the  one  that  suflFers 
the  most  in  the  inflationary  squeeze. 

The  matter  of  excess  profits,  includes  land 
speculations  by  foreign  interests,  again  at  the 
sacrifice  of  Canadians.  This  must  also  be 
controlled  by  the  government.  Again  I  under- 
stand through  federal  legislation  there  are 
certain  tax  concessions  given  to  foreign  capi- 
tal that  comes  in  here  to  buy  land.  I  suppose 
that  if  you  wanted  to  deal  with  the  facts,  Mr. 


Speaker,  you  only  have  to  go  down  to  the 
Niagara  region  to  find  the  amount  of  land 
bought  by  foreign  money  in  the  area.  I  sup- 
pose it  is  even  evident  here  in  Toronto  when 
you  go  to  look  at  it. 

An  hon.  member:  It  is  only  the  beginning. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  only  the  beginning; 
that's  right.  Here  again  this  government  has 
failed  to  control  the  present  cost  to  a  pur- 
chaser of  a  home  in  Ontario,  which  far  out- 
distances ability  to  produce  an  income  cap- 
able of  financing  a  home.  The  present  Minis- 
ter of  Housing  (Mr.  Handleman)  has  stated 
that  if  the  family  is  going  to  be  able  to  pur- 
chase a  new  home  his  income,  or  both,  will 
have  to  exceed  $18,000  per  year.  How  on 
earth  can  a  family  man  in  Ontario,  earning 
an  average  income  of  around  $9,000  per  year, 
ever  hope  to  find  better  living  quarters  under 
the  present  housing  programme  in  Ontario? 
Under  existing  conditions  speculators  are 
encouraged  to  hoard  land  by  the  present  sys- 
tem of  government  land  controls. 

Present  planning  regulations  are  not  geared 
to  an  individual,  but  for  developers  who  in 
many  instances  have  reaped*a  good  return  for 
their  investment,  adding  further  to  the  infla- 
donary  cost  in  home  ownership.  It  is  rather 
disappointing  that  the  province  finds  itself 
in  this  predicament  and  disheartening  to  a 
number  of  prospective  home  buyers  here  in 
Ontario.  If  citizens  in  this  province  ever  hope 
to  own  a  home,  then  the  government  must 
move  in  the  direction  of  a  source  of  better 
income  for  Canadian  workers,  or  seriously 
take  a  hard  look  at  the  housing  industry  in 
Ontario. 

All  I've  seen  so  far  in  the  last  month  or  so 
since  we  have  a  new  Minister  of  Housing  is 
that  we  have  NIP  and  RAP.  I  remember  the 
member  for  Downsview  speaking  on  it  here 
on  Friday  morning.  I  think  I  shouted  across 
to  him:  "Yes,  it  is  nothing  but  a  paper  hous- 
ing programme.'* 

An  hon.  member:  That  was  in  my  headline. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Is  the  minister  looking  at 
the  want  ads? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  To  continue,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  we  should  have  control  over  land  specu- 
lators; remove  some  of  the  planning  delays 
caused  by  bureaucratic  decisions  made  here 
at  Queen's  Park;  provide  the  financial  re- 
sources to  supply  essential  services  for  land 
development,  such  as  sewer  and  water  sys- 
tems; bring  in  lower  interest  rates  for  financ- 
ing family  housing,  and  remove  the  provin- 
cial sales  tax  on  residential  housing  in  Ontario. 


APRIL  8.  1974 


929 


It  was  also  interesting  to  read  the  news 
release  on  March  25  from  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  about  a  two-week  long 
export  mission  to  Italy  and  Spain  sponsored 
by  the  minister's  trade  division.  One  of  the 
important  products  for  sale  overseas  is  the 
pre-fab  wooden  home.  Surely  this  Minister 
of  Housing  is  not  going  along  with  this  export 
programme  when  a  housing  crisis  exists  in 
this  province?  Has  not  the  minister  a  respon- 
sibility to  establish  Ontario  priorities  first?  It 
would  also  be  interesting  to  Icnow  what  these 
homes  cost  to  manufacture  in  Ontario  and 
what  the  export  price  is. 

I  have  also  been  informed  that  the  houses 
in  the  United  States  sell  for  far  less  com- 
pared with  the  price  of  such  a  home  here 
in  Ontario.  Yet  large  quantities  of  Ontario 
forest  products  are  exported  to  the  United 
States.  Is  it  not  now  time  for  a  two-price 
system  for  lumber  in  Ontario?  Why  not  estab- 
lish Ontario  priorities  first? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Perhaps,  Mr.  Speaker,  one 
other  important  item  that  is  missing  from  the 
Throne  Speech  is  the  lack  of  any  farm  policy 
for  the  Province  of  Ontario.  The  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  in  the  past  has  done 
an  excellent  job  for  the  farmers  of  Ontario, 
but  I  think  he  is  tired  and  he  wants  to  be 
replaced.  We  can  see  that  very  little  has  been 
done  in  the  past  year,  or  is  being  done  now, 
for  the  farmers  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
In  fact,  he  has  done  nothing  in  control  of 
the  farmlands  to  see  that  they  are  maintained 
as  workable  farmlands. 

I  am  going  to  say  this  to  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications:  we  have 
cultivated  more  farmlands  for  highways  and 
hydro  towers  in  the  province  than  has  actu- 
ally been  brought  into  new  production. 

I  Mr.  Gaunt:  Some  of  us  haven't  got  any 

faith  left. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  And  for  example,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, if  you  read  the  recent  study  that  is  going 
to  come  out  in  the  Niagara  region  now  on 
highway  proposals  in  that  area,  the  minister 
is  going  to  build  a  four-lane  expressway  on 
top  of  the  Niagara  Escarpment,  cut  across 
down  through  the  town  of  Pelham  which  has 
some  of  the  best  fruitlands  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario;  he  is  going  to  destroy  all  of  that  if 
he  creates  this  new  road.  It  is  not  needed. 

I  suggest  the  minister  goes   and  talks  to 

Prof.    Pleva    at    the    University    of   Western 

Ontario,  a  man  who  is  knowledgeable  on  land 

r      control.    You    know   what   he   suggests,    Mr. 


Speaker?  He  said  some  15  years  ago  that  the 
government  is  wasting  taxpayers'  money. 
When  you  have  roadways  already  there— the 
right  oi  way  is  there,  much  of  the  roads  are 
built  up,  the  stone  is  on,  the  gravel  is  on, 
some  are  even  paved— why  go  and  build  a 
four-lane  road?  He  says  the  simplest  way  to 
do  it  is  make  a  one-way  road  here,  go  over  to 
the  next  concession  and  make  another  one- 
way road  the  other  way.  You  have  one-way 
streets  in  the  city  of  Toronto;  there  is  no 
traflSc  congestion.  People  are  used  to  it,  and 
accommodate  to  it.  Perhaps  the  minister 
should  be  looking  at  this. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Would  the  member  sup- 
port that? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  You  bet  I  would. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  woidd  sup- 
port that? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  would  support  that,  that's 
why  I  am  saying  this  to  the  minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  is  saying 
that  because  he  knows  hell  never  have  to  do 
it— so  he  supports  it. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  has  merits. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  What  does 
the  minister  mean,  we'll  never  have  to  do  it? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  has  merit. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Okay.  That's- 

Mr.  Haggerty:  You  don't  cut  a  road  diag- 
onally across  a  municipality  and  destroy  the 
whole  social— 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  No,  no.  I  want  to  know, 

will  the  member  support  plans- 
Mr.  B.  Newman:  Is  the  minister  going  to 

stop  them  in  the  cities  now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  -for  a  highway  east- 
boimd  here;  and  a  mile  away  one  westbound? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  roads  are  set  only  about 
five-eighths  of  a  mile  or  half  a  mile  apart, 
not  a  mile  away. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Wdl,  even  half  a  mile. 
Does  the  member  support  that? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  has  merit  and  in  some 
cases  it  can  work.  For  example,  let's  take  the 
Nanticoke  development.  The  minister  is  talk- 
ing about  a  four-lane  expressway  there,  isn't 
he?  It's  in  one  of  his  proposals.  Could  it  not 
be  worked  there? 


930 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Does  the  minister  mean  to  tell  me  that  he's 
going  to  go  600  ft  or  700  ft  from  another 
highway  and  construct  a  brand-new  fom--lane 
expressway— that  he  cannot  improve  some  of 
the  existing  roadways?  Many  of  the  people 
don't  want  it.  I  think  the  minister's  got  the 
measure  already. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Maybe  they  won't  need 
it. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Pardon? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Maybe  it  won't  be  there. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  But  I  think  it's  worthwhile 
looking  at.  I  suggest  he  sends  some  of  his 
high-priced  help  to  Western  University  to 
talk  to  this  man. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  What's  his  name? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Pleva. 

An  hon.  member:  P-1-e-v-a. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  heard  him  20  years 
ago. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Never  heard  of  him,  eh? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Oh  yes. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Where— 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Never  listen  to  him. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Welland 
South  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  This  is  good,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  am  getting  some  of  his  ideas.  I  want  to 
know  what's  going  to  take  place  in  the  Nia- 
gara region. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  haven't  time  for  repartee. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Perhaps  the  minister  should 
be  moving  to  more  rapid  transportation  pro- 
grammes in  certain  areas.  While  we  are  into 
tnis  discussion  across  the  floor  I  suggested 
that  the  minister  should  be  looking  at  this 
instead  of  Highway  406  in  the  Niagara  region, 
instead  of  going  through  there,  cutting  up 
city  property  and  taking  homes  away.  There 
is  an  old  existing  railroad  right  of  way  that 
used  to  carry  people  years  ago  by  trolley 
from  the  city  of  Port  Colbome  to  Port  Dal- 
housie.  Of  course  20  years  ago  I  guess  the 
government  at  that  time  said  it  was  outdated. 
It  is  like  the  horse  and  buggy  days,  it  is  out- 
dated. But  today  this  is  the  way  to  move 
masses  of  people. 


I  suggest  before  the  government  really  gets 
into  setting  out  a  route  for  Highway  406— 
and  has  problems  with  it— it  looks  at  the  rapid 
transit  system.  Eventually  the  cities  of  Port 
Colbome,  Welland  and  St.  Catharines  will  be 
one  urbanized  area  right  across  the  peninsula, 
right  across  the  corridor.  Maybe  the  govern- 
ment should  be  providing  us  with  hovercraft 
so  we  could  use  the  canal.  Maybe  that  would 
be  the  simplest  way  yet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  hope  the  member's 
local  press  is  gobbling  all  this  up  for  the 
member. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  local  press  said  this— 
this  is  where  I  am  getting  it. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  The  release  has  al- 
ready gone  out- 
Mr.  Haggerty:  But  they  are  not  listening  to 
them.  So  I  hope  that  the  minister  does. 

I  was  interested  in  the  proposals  of  the 
federal  government  that  it  is  coming  in  with 
an  agricultural  policy.  I  have  to  give  credit  to 
the  federal  Minister  of  Agriculture.  In  the 
short  time  he  has  been  in  there,  less  than  a 
year,  he  has  done  more  for  the  farmers  in 
Canada  and  in  Ontario  than  our  provincial 
minister  who  has  been  in  the  portfolio,  for 
some  10  years  I  guess  it  is. 

An  hon.  member:  Almost  12. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  In  his  short  span  in  oflBce, 
the  federal  minister  has  done  more  for  the 
farmers  in  Canada  and  in  Ontario. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  Well,  he  is  a  good  Essex 
county  product.  He  comes  from  the  sunshine 
parlour,  that  is  why. 

ilnterjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Eugene  who? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Whelan,  just  Gene. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  He  wotddn't  know  him. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  But  I  will  tell  you  this 
much,  Mr.  Speaker,  he  is  concerned  about 
the  loss  of  milk  production  in  Canada,  in 
Ontario.  I  beheve  it  has  dropped  4.7  per  cent. 

An  hon.  member:  A  shortfall  of  over  five 
per  cent  now. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Over  five  per  cent?  It  is 
rather  a  serious  problem  here  in  the  Province 


APRIL  8,  1974 


031 


of  Ontario.  One  of  the  hardest  things  about 
it  is  that  farmers  who  want  to  increase  the 
production  of  milk  have  a  hard  time  in  try- 
ing to  get  a  loan.  I  don't  blame  this  on  the 
provincial  govermnent  but— 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  It  is  the  only  thing  the 
member  hasn't. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  province 
at  one  time  had  the  junior  farmers'  loan 
programme. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  believe  the  minister  stated 
at  that  time  this  was  a  duplication  of  a 
federal  loan  programme  and  removed  it  from 
the  Province  of  Ontario.  I  suggest  that  the 
minister  should  get  back  into  it  again. 

An  hon.  member:  He  is  doing  a  great  job. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  There  are  many  young 
farmers  who  perhaps  aren't  qualified  for  loans, 
in  some  instances  through  family  ties,  and  I 
suggest  that  perhaps  we  should  be  moving 
back  into  the  junior  farmer  credit  loan  pro- 
gramme in  the  province.  I  am  sure  that  we 
could  get  a  lot  of  these  youngsters  back  in 
the  farming  industry  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario. 

I  would  like  to  read  what  the  federal 
Minister  of  Agricultural  is  going  to  do: 

To  complement  this  progranmie  the 
federal  government  will  extend  its  assist- 
ance programme  for  the  construction  of 
new  storage  facilities.  In  many  regions 
storage  facilities  are  not  adequate  today, 
while  in  other  regions  storage  is  outdated 
and  better  facilities  should  be  constructed. 

Storage  construction  assistance  is  now 
being  provided  for  specialized  fruit  and 
vegetable  stores  and  this  programme  will  be 
continued  and  extended  to  other  suitable 
crops. 

The  farmers  of  Canada  will  benefit 
through  better  market  places  and  con- 
sumers will  benefit  from  the  increased  sup- 
plies throughout  the  year  through  better 
quality  food  kept  in  the  top-notch  storage 
facilities.  Our  research  group  have  proved 
that  some  commodities  can  be  placed  in 
proper  storage  and  then  taken  out  in  just 
as  good  a  condition  as  when  they  went  in, 
or  in  some  instances  even  better.  This  will 
provide  the  consumer  with  more  stable 
prices  and  more  even  prices  for  the  pro- 
ducer. 


I  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  last  year  in  the 
Throne  Speech  debate  I  had  suggested  some- 
thing; similar  to  this;  that  we  should  have 
more  storage  facilities  for  farm  commodities 
or  farm  produce  in  Canada— and  this  is  one 
of  the  problems  right  now.  The  c-onsumer  is 
paying  a  high  price  for  the  food  because  we 
have  to  have  it  imported  or  it's  just  not 
available.  That's  one  of  the  reasons  why  it's 
not  available. 

I  suggested  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  at  that  time  that  in  the  Niagara 
Peninsula  he  should  be  moving  into  the  tender 
fruit  business  in  that  area,  and  putting  in  a 
fast-frozen  food  plant.  Much  of  the  crop 
there  is  wasted.  It's  not  being  picked  end 
there  just  aren't  facilities  for  storing  it.  The 
canners  are  filled  up  with  what  they  want 
and  the  rest  of  it  goes  to  waste. 

I  suggest  that  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  should  be  looking  at  this,  perhaps 
through  some  joint  programme  with  the 
federal  Minister  of  Agriculture,  so  that  we 
could  get  into  a  good  food  storage  programme 
in  Ontario.  The  adverse  weather  conditions 
are  one  of  the  other  reasons  that  we  should 
have  a  food  storage  facility. 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  They  want  to  sell  it  to 
their  developer  friends. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Yes,  that's  what  they  are 
doing— or  moving  in  with  highways  or  some- 
thing like  that,  trying  to  cultivate  asphalt  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario. 

These  are  some  of  the  things  I'm  con- 
cerned about,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  perhaps  the 
government  would  take  note  of  what  I've  said 
tonight.  I  do  want  to  suppOTt  my  leader  and 
his  motion  that  he  put  forward  here  in  the 
Throne  debate.  Perhaps  it's  worthwhile  read- 
ing it  into  the  record  again.  Perhaps  some  of 
the  members  have  forgotten. 

Mr.  Nixon  moves,  seconded  by  Mr.  Brei- 
thaupt,  that  the  following  urords  be  added 
to  the  motion: 

For  its  failure  to  establish  a  prices  re- 
view committee  of  the  Legislature,  which 
together  with  a  reduction  in  provincial  defi- 
cit spending,  would  exert  control  on  infla- 
tion; 

For  its  inadequate  land-use  policy  which 
continues  to  permit  the  unreasonable  loss 
of  farmland  to  government  and  private 
development,  and  the  unnatural  inflationary 
pressures  of  foreign  land  purchases  without 
safeguarding  Canadian  ownership  and  in- 
terest; 


932 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


For  its  failure  to  establish  planning  and 
land  servicing  programmes  without  which 
serviced-lot  costs  have  escalated  housing 
out  of  the  financial  reach  of  our  residents. 

With  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  sit  down  and 
let  the  next  speaker  take  the  floor, 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Thunder 
Bay. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I'm  pleased  to  see  the  member  for  St. 
Andrew-St.  Patrick  (Mr.  Grossman)  who  has 
taken  on  the  new  responsibility  as  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development.  I  had 
hoped  that  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 
(Mr.  Bemier)  would  have  been  in  the  cham- 
ber tonight  so  I  could  exchange  a  few  views 
with  him  with  regard  to  recent  developments 
in  the  resource  industries,  but  since  he  is  not 
here  and  his  new- 
Mr.  Gilbertson:  He  wiU  be  in. 

Mr.  Stokes:  —parliamentary  assistant  isn't 
here,  perhaps  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Re- 
sources Development  can  pass  on  some  of  my 
concerns  and  apprehensions  about  recent 
developments. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  will  take  the  mes- 
sage for  him. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  report 
to  the  Legislature  that  a  lot  of  the  jargon 
that  has  been  used  by  the  former  Department 
of  Lands  and  Forests,  and  now  the  new 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources,  is  no  longer 
valid.  It  was  the  conventional  wisdom  in  this 
Legislature  and  in  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  that  we  were  fairly  well  up  on 
allowable  cuts  and  sustained!  yields,  that  we 
had  a  very  accurate  inventory  of  what  our 
resource  was,  that  we  had  a  fairly  good  idea 
of  what  the  age  classes  were  and  what  the 
availability  of  wood  fibre  in  the  various 
species  was. 

It's  just  slowly  coming  home  now  to  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources  and  his  min- 
istry that  they  really  don't  know  what  end 
is  up.  They  haven't  got  a  clue  as  to  what 
the  sustained  yield  is  in  the  boreal  forest  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario.  They  have  no  idea 
what  the  allowable  cut  should  be. 

We  have  been  contracting  wood  fibre  out 
in  large  quantities  to  companies  like  Anglo- 
Canadian,  where  they  have  announced  an 
expansion  of  a  quarter  of  a  billion  dollars  in 
the  Dryden,  Ear  Falls,  Red  Lake  area.  We 
have  got  a  recent  expansion  of  $120  million 
by  Great  Lakes  in  Thunder  Bay.  We  have 
another    expansion    in    the    city    of    Thunder 


Bay  by  MacMillan  Bloedel,  which  is  going 
to  be  operated  by  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary 
of  theirs,  Laidlaw  Lumber  Co.  We  have  an 
expansion  that  was  to  take  place  by  Domtar, 
at  theii-  mill  at  Red  Rock,  of  anywhere  from 
$70  million  to  $90  million-and  lo  and  be- 
hold, Mr.  Speaker,  we  get  an  announcement 
within  the  last  two  weeks  from  Domtar  that 
unless  additional  wood  fibre  is  made  avail- 
able to  them  they  won't  be  able  to  go  ahead 
with  their  proposed  expansion.  We  are  led 
to  believe  that  unless  there's  some  kind  of 
rationalization  in  the  forest  industry  with 
regard  to  the  allocation  of  timber  we  are  in 
real  diflBculty. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  vice  president  of 
Domtar  only  two  weeks  ago  said  that  par- 
ticular company  was  going  to  be  in  trouble 
if  it  couldn't  get  in  and  cut  timber  within 
the  confines  of  Quetico  Park.  Now,  Domtar 
is  a  company  that  operates  in  northwestern 
Ontario,  that  geographically  speaking  has 
one  of  the  largest  timber  limits  in  all  of 
Ontario,  and  yet  we  are  led  to  believe  by 
this  company  that  unless  it  can  have  addi- 
tional supplies  of  wood,  it  doesn't  know 
whether  it  can  keep  existing  mills  open,  let 
alone  carry  out  a  planned  expansion  to  main- 
tain its  relative  position  in  the  marketplace. 

Domtar  is  a  company  that,  as  recently  as 
four  or  five  years  ago— we  were  told  by  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources— had  a  sus- 
tained yield  on  an  allowable  cut  of  600,000 
cords  a  year.  Domtar  at  the  present  time  is 
harvesting  about  130,000  to  150,000  cords  a 
year.  Where's  the  other  450,000  to  500,000 
cords  a  year  they  were  supposed  to  have  on 
their   limits   on   a   sustained  yield  basis? 

When  I  asked  the  timber  branch  of  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources,  they  said: 
"Well,  we  were  out  a  little  bit.  We  thought 
they  had  this  kind  of  timber  on  their  limits 
but  we  find  out  that  it  just  isn't  there." 

Domtar  is  a  company  that  has  timber  limits 
stretching  from  Lake  Superior  right  up 
beyond  the  northern  line  of  the  Canadian 
National  Railways  and  right  up  to  the  Ogoki 
reservoir.  The  town  of  Armstrong  has  been 
having  a  particularly  difficult  time  since  the 
federal  Department  of  National  Defence  de- 
cided to  phase  out  a  radar  base,  so  we 
naturally  look  to  the  forest  industry  to  pro- 
vide an  alternative  to  lend  some  viability 
to  a  community  such  as  Armstrong. 

We  asked  Domtar  if  they  would  go  in 
and  utilize  some  of  the  wood  on  their  limits 
that  has  been  going  to  waste  and  over- 
maturity  over  the  last  35  years,  and  they  say 
there  isn't  enough  timber.  We  asked  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  what  the  in- 


APRIL  8,  1974 


833 


ventory  is  in  that  block  that  has  been  allo- 
cated to  Domtar  over  the  last  35  years. 
Domtar  doesn't  know  what's  on  the  limit. 
The  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  doesn't 
know  what's  on  the  limit.  A  third  party  who 
wants  to  go  in  tells  me  there  could  be  as 
much  as  three  million  cords  of  mature  and 
over-mature  timber  but  they  can't  get  at  it. 
We  have  had  two  assessments  made  of  that 
timber  limit  in  the  past  six  months.  Domtar 
has  engaged  in  another  assessment  of  what 
the  inventory  is  and  what  is  the  allowable 
cut  and  we  still  don't  know  what  it  is.  I've 
had  assessments  of  from  450,000  cords  on 
that  particular  block  to  three  million  cords, 
depending  on   who   one   listens   to. 

The  reason  I  bring  it  to  the  attention  of 
the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  De- 
velopment is  because  I  fear  that  unless  some- 
body starts  asking  some  pretty  pertinent 
questions  we  are  going  to  allow  that  timber 
to  become  over-mature,  to  go  down  the  drain 
and  be  lost  to  the  economy  of  this  province 
and  lost  to  the  people  of  Armstrong  who 
so  badly  need  it. 

Going  back  over  the  last  four  or  five  years 
we  were  led  to  believe  by  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  that  every  cunit,  that  is 
every  100  cu.  ft  of  wood  we  cut,  provided 
over  $100  of  new  wealth  to  the  economy  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario. 

E\en  if  there  are  only  450,000  cords  of 
saw  log  material  upon  which  to  start  a  saw 
log  industry,  multiply  that  by  100  and  that 
will  give  members  some  idea  of  the  new 
wealth  which  will  be  created  if  we  utilize 
that  resource  which  is  in  a  mature  and  an 
over-mature  state  at  the  present  time.  That's 
the  rock  bottom— 450,000  cords  going  unhar- 
vested  at  the  present  time.  It  could  be  as 
much  as  1%  million  or  it  could  be  as  much 
at  2%  million  cords. 

Because  of  all  the  contracts  this  government 
has  been  entering  into  recently  for  greater 
utilization— and  I'm  not  against  greater  utili- 
zation as  long  as  we  know  the  values  we  are 
talking  about— but  if  we  are  going  to  get 
involved  in  allocating  timber  the  value  of 
which  we  don't  know  and  the  quantity  of 
which  we  don't  know,  we  are  going  to  be  in 
real  trouble  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  We 
heard  the  member  for  Victoria-Haliburton  say 
how  far  behind  we  were  with  regard  to  our 
regeneration,  our  silviculture  and  our  re- 
forestation programme  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  when  we  compare  that  with  other 
jurisdictions  such  as  Scandinavia  and  the 
United  States. 

I  don't  know  what  the  allowable  cut  is  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario.  I  thought  I  knew. 


I  have  made  a  study  of  It  ever  since  fv©  been 
in  this  Legislature,  taking  the  word  of  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  and  taking  the 
word  ot  the  former  Department  of  Lands  and 
Forests;  but  they  were  selling  me  a  bill  of 
goods.  They  are  just  coming  to  admit  right 
now  that  we  don't  know  what  the  inventory 
is  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  with  regard  to 
species,  with  regard  to  age  classes  and  with 
regard  to  the  availability  on  specific  timber 
limits.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  can  no  longer 
leave  it  to  guesswork  or  the  veiy  imprecise 
way  we  have  had  in  the  past  of  saying  we 
have  all  kinds  of  it  so  we  really  don't  nave 
to  worry  too  much. 

When  we  get  a  well-established  company 
like  Domtar  coming  to  this  government  and 
saying:  "We  think  we  are  in  real  trouble," 
I  think  it  is  high  time  that  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  and  the  resources  policy 
field  got  those  people  from  the  timber  brancn 
off  their  fannies  and  out  into  the  field  instead 
of  acting  as  administrators.  As  I  go  through 
the  province  and  I  talk  to  the  foresters  vtathin 
the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources,  they  tell 
me  they  are  so  busy  acting  as  administrators 
and  oflBce  boys  that  they  never  get  out.  They 
never  get  a  chance  to  get  out  into  the  field 
and  find  out  what  the  proper  timber  inven- 
tory should  be. 

Wherever  I  go,  I  get  the  people  who  are 
really  concerned,  the  concerned  foresters, 
who  say:  "I  just  wish  I  knew  what  the  situa- 
tion was,  but  I'm  so  busy  tied  down  to  this 
desk  doing  administrative  work  that  I  can't 
get  out  and  do  the  job  I  was  hired  to  do;  and 
that  is  proper  management  of  our  forest  re- 
sources. 


Mr.  Speaker,  when  you  heard  the  present 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 
(Mr.  Brunelle)  talking  about  allowable  cuts 
and  sustained  yields  in  the  past,  when  you 
heard  me  talking  about  it,  and  when  you 
heard  the  now  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 
talking  about  sustained  yields  and  allowable 
cuts  and  all  of  this;  it  was  all  a  bunch  of 
malarky,  because  we  were  sold  a  bill  of 
goods. 

I'm  sure  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  and  the  hon.  member  for 
Cochrane  North  can  verify  what  I'm  going  to 
say.  He  represents  an  area  of  this  province 
where  the  economy  depends  almost  entirely 
upon  our  ability  to  manage  our  forest  re- 
sources. Mr.  Speaker,  you  talk  about  what 
happens  in  Cochrane  with  a  waferboard  mill 
or  a  chipboard  mill.  You  talk  about  the  saw 
log  industry  in  Hearst  that  he's  vitally  inter- 
ested in.  Go  and  ask  those  people  whether 
they  have  an  assured  supply  of  timber  over 


934 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  next  10  to  15  years,  and  they  will  start  to 
scratch  their  heads  because  they  don't  know 
where  it's  coming  from.  They  just  don't  know, 
because  you  cant  believe  what  the  Ministry 
of  Natural  Resources  tells  you  any  more  with 
regard  to  the  allocation  of  timber  and  the 
availability  of  timber  over  whatever  length 
of  time  it's  going  to  take  to  recover  a  $100 
million  or  $150  million  expansion  investment. 

We're  in  real  trouble  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  with  regard  to  the  allocation  of 
timber,  if  we  don't  get  off  our  fannies,  find 
out  what  the  allowable  cut  is,  what  the  sus- 
tained yield  is,  and  whether  we're  going  to 
allocate  a  suflBcient  number  of  dollars  for 
reforestation,  and  regeneration  so  that  10, 
15,  20,  30,  40  or  50  years  from  now  we  can 
come  back  and  say:  yes,  we've  still  got  a 
viable  pulp  and  paper  industry;  we've  got  a 
viable  saw  log  industry;  we've  got  a  viable 
plywood  industry. 

It's  not  going  to  happen  by  itself.  I  think 
this  House  should  know  that  unless  we  get 
our  foresters  into  the  bush  and  get  them 
managing  our  forests,  and  unless  we're  going 
to  get  the  kind  of  dollars  from  the  industry 
to  pay  for  the  kind  of  management  that's 
been  so  sadly  lacking  over  the  years,  we're 
not  going  to  have  a  viable  pulp  and  paper 
industry  very  long  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Don't  take  my  word  for  it.  Ask  the  ques- 
tions that  I  have  been  asking  of  the  timber 
branch. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Don't  worry;  we  won't. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Don't  take  my  word  for  it.  Go 
and  ask  the  timber  branch  what  the  allow- 
able cut  is  on  Great  Lakes  limits.  Go  and 
ask  them  what  the  allowable  cut  is  on  Dom- 
tar  limits.  Ask  them  what  the  allowable  cut 
is  on  Kimberly-Clark  limits. 

They  won't  be  able  to  tell  you,  because 
a  lot  of  the  data  we  thought  was  valid  is 
20  years  out  of  date.  You  have  a  Canadian 
company  like  Domtar  scratching  for  wood 
to  sustain  a  mild  expansion  in  their  mill  at 
Red  Rock.  You  get  a  company  like  MacMillan 
Bloedel,  that  just  set  up  on  the  outskirts 
of  Thunder  Bay,  and  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  saying  to  everybody  who  cuts  a 
stick  of  birch  or  poplar  on  Crown  land  that 
it  must  go  to  MacMillan  Bloedel  and  they 
can't  sell  it  any  place  else.  If  you  cut  it  on 
Crown  land  it  must  be  sold  to  MacMillan 
Bloedel,  Mr.  Speaker. 

They've  got  capitve  buyers.  You  can  cut 
all  of  the  wood  you  want  on  Crown  land, 
but  if  it's  of  that  species  it  must  go  to  that 
one    company.    That    gives    you    some    idea 


about  where  we  are  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  today,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I'm  not  saying  that  the  industry  is  going 
to  cave  in;  what  I'm  saying  is  that  the  kind 
of  information  that  we've  been  going  along 
with  for  the  last  20  years  in  this  province, 
we  find  out  is  not  accurate  and  is  not  reliable. 
I  think  it's  time  we  took  a  good  hard  look  at 
where  we  are  going  with  regard  to  an  indus- 
try that  is  so  vitally  important,  not  only  to 
northern  Ontario  that  I  represent  but  to  the 
economy  of  the  entire  province. 

I  do  hope  the  minister  will  take  it  serious- 
ly. I'm  not  usually  this  forceful  in  my 
criticism  of  a  ministry,  but  I  think  in  this 
particular  case  it  is  justified  and  I  think  the 
government  is  going  to  have  to  get  after 
the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  for  a 
more  accurate  allocation  of  timber  on  the 
basis  of  need. 

We  have  companies  that  can  never  hope 
to  use  all  of  the  wood  that  is  under  licence 
to  them.  I  could  take  members  to  stands  of 
timber  that  are  130  to  150  years  of  age  that 
have  never  been  touched.  The  wood  is  fall- 
ing over  and  it  is  rotting,  when  others 
are  crying  for  the  timber  to  keep  their  mills 
open. 

Why?  It  is  because  of  our  present  licensing 
system.  There  are  a  good  many  jurisdictions 
where  they  don't  hand  out  licences  to  large 
feudal  domains.  They'll  say:  "We  will  assure 
you  wood  on  a  volume  agreement."  But  we 
don't  do  it  that  way,  with  very  few  ex- 
ceptions; I  suppose  we  have  one  or  two 
volume  agreements  across  the  province. 

What  we  have  been  doing  is  saying:  "Okay, 
we'll  carve  up  the  province  and  we'll  give 
this  block  to  company  A,  we'll  give  this  block 
to  company  B,  we'll  give  this  block  to  com- 
pany C  and  so  on  down  the  line. 

Let's  assume  company  A  has  this  block  and 
builds  its  mill  here.  What  they  do  is,  from 
the  time  they  start  operating  the  mill,  they 
start  high-grading  around  the  mill. 

What  happens  over  here?  When  they  were 
issued  the  licence  there  was  over-mature 
wood  here.  Maybe  30  years  have  passed  in 
the  interim  and  of  course  they  haven't  even 
been  concerned  about  this  wood.  So  now  they 
have  stands  away  up  here  in  the  northern 
part  of  their  limits  that  are  mature  and  over- 
mature by  30  years. 

That's  just  like  saying  to  the  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food:  "We'll  plant  a  crop 
and  because  there  is  lots  to  satisfy  us  within 
40  acres  of  the  bam,  we  won't  bother  harvest- 
ing that." 

You  just  don't  do  things  that  way;  that  isn't 
the  way  to  manage  a  renewable  resource.  You 


APRIL  8,  1974 


935 


look  at  the  total  package  and  you  say:  "Okay, 
in  this  year,  1965,  there  is  a  block  of  timber 
that  is  mature  and  it's  at  its  maximum.  We 
will  go  in  there  and  we  will  cut  that."  They 
didn't  do  things  that  way;  they  aren't  doing 
things  like  that  today. 

They  are  high-grading— wherever  they  can 
get  the  cheapest  wood  within  closest  proxim- 
ity to  the  mill,  or  where  they  are  aoout  to 
use  it;  they  couldn't  care  less  about  what  is 
over-maturing  and  falling  down  and  being 
lost  to  the  economy.  That's  why  we  have 
tremendous  stands  of  timber  that  have  gone 
unused  in  the  past,  that  are  falling  over  and 
that  are  rotting. 

As  I  suggest  to  the  House,  it  is  coming 
back  to  haunt  us.  We  can  no  longer  afford 
to  let  these  prime  licence-holders  high-grade 
these  timber  limits.  They  must  manage  the 
entire  limit,  not  just  high-grade  within  close 
proximity  to  the  mill.  TThat^s  the  reason  why 
millions  of  cords  are  being  lost  to  the  econ- 
omy and  that's  why,  unless  there  is  some 
rationalization  in  timber  limits  and  unless 
there  is  good  management  of  the  resource,  we 
are  going  to  continue  to  get  this  waste  and 
it's  going  to  come  back  to  haunt  us.  If  we 
let  this  stuff  that  is  mature  now  sit  there  for 
even  another  five  years,  the  values  will  be  so 
low  that  it  wouldn't  be  worth  whilte  to  go  in 
to  cut  it  and  it  will  just  lie  there  and  rot. 

I  suggest  we  can't  allow  that  to  happen, 
because  between  now  and  1980  to  1985  the 
need  for  wood  fibre  in  North  America  is 
going  to  double.  We  are  told  that  between 
the  year  2000  and  2010  it  is  going  to  quad- 
ruple. Where  is  it  going  to  come  from,  imless 
we  make  up  our  minck  right  here  and  now 
that  we  are  going  to  manage  our  timber  re- 
sources in  a  way  that  maximum  benefit  will 
accrue  to  people  living  in  this  province.  We 
want  to  make  sure  when  we  do  make  an  in- 
ventory that  it  is  based  on  reliable  informa- 
tion and  that  we  are,  in  effect,  harvesting  it 
on  an  allowable  cut  basis  and  on  a  sustained 
yield  basis;  which  isn't  happening  at  the 
present  time. 

There  is  one  other  topic  I  want  to  get  into, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  that  is  this  commitment  in 
the  Throne  Speech: 

Northern  communities  in  unorganized 
territories  will,  through  enabling  legislation, 
ihave  the  opportunity  to  establish  local  com- 
munity coimcils.  Fire  protection,  water, 
roads  and  other  such  services  will  become 
the  responsibility  of  these  community  coim- 
cils. Implementation  of  this  plan  will  follow 
full  consultation  with  residents  of  c(Mn- 
munities  that  wish  to  participate. 


I  asked  the  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Mr. 
Irvine)  who  is  responsible  for  the  introduction 
of  this  covering  legislation  about  it.  He  didn't 
know  what  form  it  was  to  take.  He  didn't 
know  just  when  it  would  be  brought  in. 

This  is  one  of  the  things  that  I  have  been 
harping  about  ever  since  I  have  had  the 
pleasure  to  represent  Thunder  Bay  riding  in 
this  Legislature.  I  don't  know  whether  I  luive 
got  more  unorganized  communities  than  any- 
body else  in  this  Legislature,  but  I  know  the 
problems  confronting  those  unorganized  com- 
munities seem  to  be  greater  than  in  those 
communities  represented  by  other  members. 
I  welcome  this  and  I  just  hope  that  when 
they  do  bring  in  the  legislation  there  will  be 
a  transfer  of  funds  or  there  will  be  sufficient 
funds  made  available  for  water,  sewage  sys- 
tems, fire  protection  and  all  of  the  kinds  of 
services  that  people  have  come  to  expect  to- 
day but  which  people  in  unorganized  com- 
munities will  never  aspire  to  without  some 
kind  of  financial  assistance. 

I  do  hope  that  when  the  legislation  is 
introduced  there  will  be  a  commitment  to 
enable  the  Ontario  government  to  finance  the 
kind  of  programme  that  will  make  this  kind 
of  legislation  meaningful  and  of  worth^\^e 
assistance  to  these  unorganized  territories. 

There  is  one  other  brief  topic  that  I 
wanted  to  talk  about  tonight,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  I  am  sorry  that  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  feft,  because 
it  concerns  an  announcement  that  was  made 
in  the  Throne  Speech  about  a  commitment 
to  assist  people  in  far  northern  communities 
with  regard  to  the  high  cost  of  transportation. 
In  a  seminar  that  was  held  here  about  two 
weeks  ago,  a  commitment  was  made,  and  I 
quote: 

A  study  of  new  ways  to  lower  the  cost 

of  food  and  essential  services  for  remote 

Indian  bands  will  be  made  by  the  Ontario 

Ministry   of  Natiu-al   Resources,   according 

to  an  announcement  made  by  the  Hon.  Leo 

Bemier  in  a  meeting  in  Toronto  with  more 

than  70  members  of  Treaty  9  Indian  bands. 

There  was  a  mention  made  that  they  had 

spent  over  $4  million  thus  far  in  the  highway- 

in-the-sky    programme.    That    is,    they    had 

established  airstrips— places  like  Sandy  Lake, 

places  like  Big  Trout  Lake,  places  like  Fort 

Albany,  Fort  Severn— and  in  total  they  had 

spent  in  excess  of  $4  million  and  they  had 

come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  had  better 

take  another  look  at  the  various  and  diflFerent 

modes    of   transportation    in    order   to    bring 

down  the  unit  cost  of  goods  and  services  to 

many  remote  areas  of  northern  Ontario.  The 

minister  said: 


936 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


In  recent  years,  the  government  has  in- 
stituted a  highway-in-the-sky  programme 
to  provide  our  Indian  people  with  year- 
round  air  transport.  It  was  envisaged  that 
these  air  strips  would  reduce  the  cost  of 
food  in  the  north  by  permitting  larger  air- 
craft, such  as  DC-3s,  to  service  the  com- 
munity on  regular  scheduled  service.  But 
the  experience  to  date  indicates  that  this 
programme  is  not  yet  having  the  desired 
effect  of  reducing  costs. 

Well,  how  did  the  minister  expect  it  was 
going  to  reduce  costs  unless  he  said  to  the  air 
carrier:  "You  will  pass  any  inherent  cost  or 
any  saving  on  to  the  consumer  using  those 
new  facilities  in  those  remote  communities." 

I  know  that  when  I  travel  to  Big  Trout 
Lake  and  when  I  travel  to  Fort  Severn,  I 
don't  see  any  air  carriers  lowering  the  cost 
just  because  they  were  able  to  ship  food- 
stuffs by  DC-3  as  opposed  to  a  Cessna  180. 

I  am  sure  that  my  friend  the  minister,  the 
member  for  Cochrane  North— as  he  travels  the 
northern  part  of  his  riding—is  not  aware  of 
Hudson's  Bay  stores  or  anybody  like  that 
lowering  the  unit  cost  of  a  Ibaf  of  bread  or  a 
pound  of  butter  just  because  somebody  flew 
in  a  load  in  a  DC-3  as  opposed  to  a  Cessna 
180. 

If  the  government  is  going  to  spend  in  ex- 
cess of  $4  million— as  it  has  done— to  provide 
an  airstrip,  it  is  going  to  have  to  say:  "Sure, 
we  collectively  as  a  government  will  provide 
the  facility  but  we  expect,  as  a  matter  of  fact 
we  demand,  that  you  pass  any  additional  sav- 
ing on  to  the  consumer,  because  that's  the 
intent  of  the  programme." 

The  government  could  provide  a  facility 
that  would  allow  it  to  drop  a  DC-9  or  a  747 
in  there  and  it  would  really  lower  the  unit 
cost  of  transporting  goods  and  services  to  the 
north,  but  unless  the  government  tells  the 
people  that  are  going  to  use  them  that  any 
enhanced  saving  is  to  be  passed  on  to  the 
consumer,  it's  just  not  going  to  happen. 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  We  are  experimenting 
with  winter  roads. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Pardon? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  We  are  experimenting 
with  winter  roads. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Well,  sure  the  government  is 
going  to  experiment  with  winter  roads,  but 
when  Andy  Rickert,  who  is  the  president  of 
Treaty  No.  3—1  wasn't  invited  to  this  con- 
ference and  I  understand  the  minister  wasn't 
either;    at  least   he   wasn't  there.    I   know  I 


wasn't  invited  to  it,  and  I  would  have  dearly 
loved  to  have  gone  down  to  that  conference 
and  heard  what  went  on.  But  I  heard  about 
the  confrontation. 

Andy  Rickert  said:  "Let's  put  our  eggs  in 
one  basket  and  let's  talk  about  winter  roads." 

The  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  said: 
"No,  we  aren't  sold  on  the  validity  of  all- 
winter  roads.  Sure,  we  will  give  you  an  ex- 
periment. We  will  start  with  Moosonee  and 
we  will'  go  up  to  Albany  and  Attawapiskat." 

And  then  they  started  in  my  riding  and 
they  said: 

"We  will  give  you  another  pilot  project 
where  we  will  go  from  Pickle  Lake  to  Round 
Lake  to  some  place  else."  But  he  didn't  ac- 
cept holus-bolus  that  concept  of  winter  roads. 

Sure  I  agree  that  maybe  it's  going  to  take  a 
combination  of  several  things  in  order  to 
bring  down  the  unit  cost,  but  the  former 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions (Mr.  Carton)  did  not. 

The  minister  will  recall  last  summer  when 
we  were  both  travelling  in  the  far  north— I 
to  places  like  Fort  Severn  and  he  to  places 
like  Attawapiskat,  Fort  Albany  and  Winisk  in 
his  own  riding— where  we  know  that  the  unit 
cost  of  shipping  things  in  by  barge  is  much 
less  than  flying  things  in  by  air.  So  I  asked 
and  the  minister  supported  the  concept  that 
we  should  get  more  barge  runs  going  during 
the  shipping  season  along  the  north  coast  to 
bring  down  the  unit  cost.  And,  of  course,  the 
former  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications said:  "No,  I  don't  see  that  as  a 
valid  alternative  and  it's  not  our  intention  to 
get  into  bargeing." 

Now,  for  whatever  it's  worth— 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  This  will  be  done. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Yes,  sure.  For  whatever  it's 
worth,  the  Hudson's  Bay  Co.  has  been  barge- 
ing ever  since  living  memory  in  the  Hudson 
Bay  and  James  Bay  areas.  They  didn't  just 
happen  upon  it  because  there  was  nothing 
else.  They  could  have  flown  things  in.  They 
happen  to  think  that  it's  the  cheapest  way  to 
move  things  in  the  north  during  the  shipping 
season.  So  there's  another  alternative  the 
government  should  get  into. 

But  all  I  want  to  say  to  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development,  be- 
cause transportation  too  falls  within  his  pur- 
view and  it's  something  that  if  he  hasn't 
already  got  on  his  plate,  he  is  going  to  have 
it  on  his  plate  very  very  shortly,  is  to  suggest 
that  unless  we  opt  for  a  mode  of  transporta- 
tion where  we  can  transmit  the  saving  to  the 
consumer,   nothing  is   going   to  happen,   be- 


APRIL  8,  1974 


937 


cause  no  matter  who  the  carrier  is^  whether 
it  is  bargeing,  a  winter  roads  setup  or  an 
expansion  of  the  high  way  s-in-the-sky  pro- 
gramme; unless  there  is  a  commitment  that 
the  enhanced  saving  is  passed  on  to  the  con- 
sumer, the  programme  isn't  even  going  to 
come  close  to  doing  what  it  was  designed 
to  do. 

There  is  no  one  person  who  has  all  of  the 
answers  about  the  high  cost  of  transportation 
in  the  north.  What  I  am  saying  is,  though, 
that  this  government  has  spent  over  $4 
million  on  a  highways-in-the-sky  programme, 
which  obviously  hasn't  worked.  I  am  sure 
that  benefits  have  accrued,  but  I  suspect 
that  the  benefits  have  accrued  to  the  air 
carriers  as  opposed  to  the  native  people,  on 
whose  behalf  this  project  was  undertaken. 

I  have  many  other  matters  that  I  would 
have  liked  to  have  raised,  but  I  know  that 
we  do  have  some  time  constraints  and  I 
will  reserve  any  further  comment  for  the 
budget  debate,  Mr.  Speaker.  But  I  do  hope 
that  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources 
Development  will  heed  my  words  about  the 
problems  that  we  are  having  in  the  rational- 
ization of  timber  limits.  I  also  hope  that 
he  will  relay  some  of  my  questions  to  the 
timber  branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  and  see  what  kind  of  answers  he 
gets  from  them,  because  I  want  to  assure 
him  that  I  am  not  getting  the  kinds  of 
answers  that  are  satisfactory.  And  I  am  sure 
there  are  a  good  many  people  in  the  in- 
dustry who  would  like  to  know  in  what 
direction  they  are  going  and  what  the  future 
holds  for  the  timber,  pulp  and  paper  and 
plywood  industries  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario. 

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

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Speaker.  My 
first  words  should  be  to  say  how  pleased  I 
am  to  see  you  in  fighting  trim  and  once  again 
assuming  your  responsibilities  in  the  chair, 
as  you  have  so  ably  done  in  the  past.  It  is 
nice  to  see  you  conducting  the  affairs  of  this 
House  in  the  able  manner  in  which  you  have 
conducted  them  during  the  past  few  years. 

Likewise,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
extend  my  congratulations  to  all  of  those 
in  the  House  on  the  government  benches  who 
assumed  additional  responsibilities.  Mayl^e  I 
should  also  congratulate  those  who  have  left 
that  added  burden  to  become  back-benchers 
once  again  and  able  to  enjoy  some  of  the 
pleasures  of  the  House. 


I  would  like  to  extend  congratulations  to 
the  new  parliamentary  assistants,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, but  if  there  is  one  more  round  of  appoint- 
ments, there  won't  be  anyone  on  that  side 
of  the  House  to  put  in  as  parliamentary 
assistants.  If  the  Premier  can't  find  them  over 
there,  he  needn't  hesitate  to  come  over  here. 
There  are  a  lot  of  extremely  capable  mem- 
bers sitting  on  this  side  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker,  probably  the  first  item  of 
major  importance  in  this  House  is  that  of  the 
issue  of  inflation.  One  would  have  no  diflB- 
culty  bringing  to  the  attention  of  the  House 
the  serious  effects  of  inflation,  not  only  on 
the  residents  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  but 
also  on  residents  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  Canada;  I  could  even  go  beyond 
the  bounds  of  our  own  country  and  say 
throughout  the  world. 

What  concerns  me  most,  Mr.  Speaker,  are 
the  effects  of  inflation  on  the  low  wage 
earner,  the  working  poor,  the  pensioner,  the 
handicapped,  those  on  government  assistance 
programmes,  and  indeed,  on  those  who  prob- 
ably are  affected  most  adversely  by  it,  the 
elderly. 

We  in  this  House  can't  appreciate  the 
effects  of  inflation  on  the  individual  because 
we  are  not  personally  affected  by  it  to  any 
great  extent.  My  comments  concerning  infla- 
tion will  terminate  at  this  point  because  when 
the  budget  is  brought  down  tomorrow,  we 
will  have  another  opportunity  to  speak  in  the 
budget  debate,  and  bring  to  the  attention  of 
this  government  the  serious  effects  that  infla- 
tion and  the  government's  lack  of  action  are 
having. 

It  is  funny,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  leader  of 
the  Conservative  Party  in  Canada  looks  upon 
it  as  being  a  topic  of  greatest  importance  yet 
this  government  which  controls  40  per  cent 
of  the  manufacturing  in  Canada  and  the 
greatest  percentage  of  other  types  of  private 
enterprise  does  little  or  next  to  nothing  to 
overcome  the  effects  of  inflation.  We  can  see 
that  the  Tory  party,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  on  both 
sides  of  the  fence. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  As  usual. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  my— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon;  Hypocritical,  that's  what 
they  are. 

Mr.  B.  Newnian:  Very  much  so.  My  leader 
certainly  has  pointed  out  to  you  most  ably, 
Mr.  Speaker,  now  hypocritical  the  members 
opposite  and  their  government  happen  to  be 
on  the  issue  of  inflation.  They  are  not  con- 
cerned with  inflation;  they  talk  a  lot  but  they 
do  nothing. 


938 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  With  all 
that  hot  air  over  there,  there's  lots  of  inflation. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  first  com- 
ments on  anything  other  than  to  do  with  this 
House  should  be  to  thank  the  many  con- 
cerned citizens  of  the  city  of  Windsor  who 
rushed  to  the  scene  of  the  disaster  or  the  mis- 
fortune that  took  place  on  Wednesday,  April 
3,  in  the  city  of  Windsor  when  a  tornado 
struck  the  Chrysler  plant,  bounced  over  three 
or  four  blocks  of  homes  and  hit  the  Windsor 
Curling  Club.  As  a  result  of  that,  and  we 
are  all  aware  of  this,  eight  people,  seven  fine 
men  and  one  fine  lady,  lost  their  lives. 

It  was  very  nice  to  see  how  the  community 
responded  to  this  serious  emergency;  how 
workers  from  the  Chrysler  plant,  plus  others 
at  the  French-Canadian  centre  which  was 
right  across  from  the  Windsor  Curling  Club, 
pitched  in  to  assist  in  not  only  removing  the 
rubble  which  was  the  result  of  the  tornado 
striking  the  curling  club  but  also  to  assist 
the  doctors,  the  ambulance  attendants  and  so 
forth  in  seeing  that  those  who  did  survive  got 
the  best  possible  treatment  at  the  time. 

My  commendations  certainly  do  go  out  to 
all  of  those  who  contributed  their  services 
above  and  beyond  the  call  of  duty  when  their 
fellow  man  was  confronted  with  such  a  seri- 
ous disaster. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  first  real  topic  I  intend 
to  introduce  is  the  need  for  housing  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  Rather  than  go  into  the 
provincial  aspect,  I'll  be  a  little  more 
parochial  and  refer  to  it  in  relation  to  my 
own  community  and  that  is  the  city  of 
Windsor.  The  new  minister  is  simply  repeat- 
ing what  we  have  heard  in  this  House  now 
for  some  15  or  16  years.  We  have  had 
housing  by  headline  ever  since  I  have  been 
in  this  House  and  I  don't  think  this  govern- 
ment intends  to  build  any  more  houses  other 
than  through  the  headline  fashion. 

Were  the  government  as  concerned  as  it 
maintains  and  claims  it  is,  we  would  not  be 
confronted  with  the  situations  we  have 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  Ontario. 
I  can  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  practically  every 
year  I  have  had  the  opportunity  of  speaking 
in  this  House,  bringing  to  the  attention  of 
the  government  the  serious  need  for  housing 
in  the  Windsor  area,  especially  in  relation  to 
the  senior  citizens. 

I  have  brought  out  statistics  showing  how 
the  government,  in  its  attempt  to  resolve  the 
problem,  wasn't  coming  close  to  the  resolu- 
tion. The  need  for  housing  continues  to  rise, 
then  fall  slightly  and  then  rise  substantially 
and  unless  this  government  becomes  extreme- 


ly serious  about  the  housing  situation,  we  are 
not  going  to  accommodate  many  of  those 
senior  citizens  whose  days  are  numbered  and 
whose  one  dream  is  to  be  able  to  spend  the 
golden  years  of  their  lives  in  accommodation 
of  which  they  are  rightfully  deserving. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  government  certainly  does 
not  look  upon  the  needs  of  the  senior  citizens 
in  the  light  by  which  it  should  be  looking 
on  them.  I  have  presented  to  it  alternatives 
to  the  construction  of  highrise  and  other 
senior  citizen  accommodation. 

Many  of  the  senior  citizens  are  satisfied 
with  the  accommodations  in  which  they  hap- 
pen to  live.  But  they  can't  aflFord  the  rentals, 
and  government  could  very  easily  have  ac- 
commodated them  by  picking  up  the  tab  oi 
by  subsidizing  their  rental  payments  in  the 
accommodations  in  which  they  live.  A  rent 
subsidy  programme,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  first 
espoused  in  1966.  Government  has  been  much 
too  reticent,  much  too  slow  in  picking  up 
the  idea. 

It  claims  that  it  has  diflficulty  in  getting  land- 
lords who  are  willing  to  go  into  the  rental 
subsidy  scheme,  to  lease  tneir  properties  to 
the  government  of  Ontario.  I  think  that  is 
hollow  talk,  Mr.  Speaker.  They  could  ap- 
proach the  many  senior  citizens  who  live  in 
satisfactory  accommodations  but  can't  afford 
them  because  of  the  high  rental.  They  could 
approach  those  landlords  and  I'm  positive 
they  could  come  to  some  accommodation 
so  that  the  senior  citizen  would  stay  in  those 
accommodations,  be  satisfied,  and  government 
in  turn  may  not  have  to  accelerate  a  senior 
citizen  housing  programme. 

I  make  mention  of  senior  citizens;  I  could 
likewise  make  mention,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
handicapped.  I  think  it  is  time  that  govern- 
ment looked  at  those  who  are  physically  and 
otherwise  handicapped,  and  provided  for 
them,  either  on  a  co-op  basis  or  some  basis, 
accommodations  the  like  of  which  they  need. 
The  government  should  consult  with  them  in 
the  building  programme  so  that  the  accom- 
modations provided  for  the  handicapped  meet 
with  their  approval— and  not  only  meets  with 
their  approval,  but  is  satisfactory  in  terms  of 
easy  access  and  egress. 

Mr.  Speaker,  senior  citizen  accommoda- 
tions in  the  city  of  Windsor  have  at  one  time 
been  as  high  as  1,600.  At  present,  and  these 
are  the  statistics  as  of  April  1  this  year,  1,076 
senior  citizens  have  filed  apphcations  with 
Ontario  Housing  in  the  city  of  Windsor;  613 
families  have  applied  for  housing  accommoda- 
tions; the  total  of  the  two  comes  to  1,689 
families  who  have  asked  for  accommodations 


APRIL  8.  1974 


039 


in  the  dty.  That  figure  does  fluctuate  where 
the  government  has  been  doing  a  more  sub- 
stantial job,  has  been  in  family  rental  or  in 
family  geared-to-income  housing,  but  not  in 
senior  citizen  housing. 

One  of  the  things  that  does  disturb  me  very 
much,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  although  1,076 
senior  citizens  have  applied,  many  have  not 
applied  because  they  know  they  don't  stand  a 
snowball's  chance  in  Hades  of  ever  getting 
accommodation  and  as  a  result  forget  about 
applying.  They  figure  they  won't  be  too  long 
for  this  world  so  why  go  ahead  and  take  an 
added  strain  and  burden  on  their  own  heart 
hoping  that  maybe  they  would  have  their  last 
dream  in  life  come  to  fruition. 

Of  the  1,076  semor  citizens  who  have 
applied,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Windsor  Housing 
Authority  has  not  even  investigated  753  as 
to  whether  their  cases  are  genuine  or  whether 
their  cases  are  extremely  serious.  When  three- 
quarters  of  those  who  have  asked  for  senior 
citizens  housing  do  not  even  have  an  investi- 
gator from  Chitario  Housing,  that  is  the 
Windsor  Housing  Authority  in  the  city,  look 
into  their  problem,  then  you  wonder  what 
this  government  is  doing  concerning  the  needs 
for  mese  individuals.  Tney  certainly  aren't  as 
concerned  as  they  should  be,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  maintain  that  one  of  the  solutions  to  the 
problem  is  by  vastly  expanding  the  rent  sub- 
sidy programme  so  that  many  who  are  satis- 
fied with  the  accommodations  in  which  they 
live  today  could  still'  stay  there  but  have  their 
rentals  subsidized. 

You  know,  it  is  not  fair,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
provide  housing  accommodation  to  some 
people  who,  either  through  politicial  ability  or 
through  other  ways,  are  able  to  get  govern- 
ment geared-to-income  accommodation,  un- 
like others  who  are  timid,  shy,  backward,  or 
who  are  not  as  brazen  as  they  probably  should 
be  in  going  into  Ontario  Housing  and  de- 
manding accommodation.  I  think  we  should 
treat  all  of  them  in  the  same  fashion. 

If  you  provide  geared-to-income  housing 
for  one  so  that  it  has  cost  that  individual  only 
$45  or  $50  a  month,  then  that  senior  citizen 
living  imder  the  same  financial  umbrella,  hav- 
ing the  same  finances  with  which  to  take  care 
of  himself,  should  have  his  rental  subsidized 
to  exactly  that  same  degree.  He  should  not 
be  paying  any  more  than  $45  or  $50  for  hous- 
ing accommodation  whether  he  hves  in 
geared-to-income  housing  or  in  the  commer- 
cial housing  market.  The  government  has  to 
expand  its  programme  on  the  rent  subsidy. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  could  make  extensive  com- 
ments concerning  shoddy  workmanship  in 
home  construction.  I  coiild  make  comments 


concerning  the  need  for  a  warranty  pro- 
granmie  on  all  tvpes  of  construction  so  that 
the  individual  wno  purchases  a  home  knows 
that  he  is  buying  what  he  thought  he  was 
buying  at  the  time  of  purchase. 

<I  can  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  bringing  to  the 
attention  of  the  previous  minister  responsible 
for  housing,  prcxjlems  concerning  Elizabedi 
Gardens  in  the  dty  of  Windsor.  I  don't  intend 
to  repeat  them.  The  problem  still  remains 
there.  The  individuals  who  bought  housing  in 
this  project  were  not  satisfied  with  the  conr 
struction  and  have  had  to  fight  all  the  time 
with  the  builder  to  get  their  problem  resdlved 
—and  the  problem  today  is  stilt  not  reserved. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  They 
haven't  got  their  mortgages  yet. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  That's  right,  they  have 
been  clamouring  and  clamouring  to  get  their 
mortgages  and  mey  are  still  held  up. 

Mr.  Burr:  After  two  years. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  don't  know  whose  fault 
it  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  think  the  Minister  of 
Housing  should  look  into  this  and  see  that 
that  problem  is  resolved  and  resolved  immedi- 
ately. 

One  of  the  problems  in  providing  housing 
accommodation,  Mr.  Speaker,  could  be  re- 
solved if  the  government  accepted  the  resolu- 
tion originally  passed  by  the  dty  of  London 
and  endorsed  by  the  city  of  Windsor  as  re- 
cently as  March  18  of  this  year.  That  would 
enable  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board  to  shorten 
the  interval  of  time  between  the  passing  of  a 
zoning  bylaw  and  the  time  at  which  con- 
struction starts.  If  that  were  taken  care  of, 
Mr.  Speaker,  some  of  the  housing  problems 
could  DC  overcome. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  intentions  of  speaking 
at  quite  some  length  concerning  the  place 
that  mobile  housing  plays  in  resolving  hous- 
ing accommodation  problems.  I  can  recall  in 
1966  mentioning  that  there  would  have  been 
the  need  for  at  least  10,000  mobile  homes  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  so  the  govermnent 
of  the  day  cotild  have  properly  planned  and 
maybe  phased-in  housing  accommodation 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  On- 
tario in  a  programmed  fashion.  The  govern- 
ment was  not  interested  in  the  mobile  hous- 
ing field. 

Yet,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  only  chance  that 
many  residents  in  tfie  Province  of  Ontario 
are  going  to  have  to  own  a  home  of  their 
own,  to  have  a  place  that  they  can  call 
their  castle,  is  by  way  of  purchasing  a 
mobile  home.  Government  has  to  look  into 


940 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  mobile  home  field  more  seriously  than 
it  has  done  in  the  past. 

Mr.  I.  Eteans  (Wentworth):  That's  the 
problem,  most  of  them  don't. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mobile  home  living  is 
not  tincan  living.  It  is  not  trailer  living.  It 
is  nice  accommodation  generally;  the  type 
of  accommodation  that  the  individual  wants, 
at  two  stages  in  life,  either  at  the  retiring 
stage  or  in  the  early  marriage  stage  where 
he  needs  limited  housing  accommodation 
and  not  the  two-  or  three-bedroom  accom- 
modation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  next  topic  that  I  wanted 
to  mention  is  auto  plant  health  hazards  and 
overtime.  Dr.  Sidney  Wolfe,  the  director  of 
Health  Research  Group,  a  group  funded  by 
contributions  to  consumer  advocate  Ralph 
Nader,  had  presented  to  them  a  43-page 
report  of  a  two-year  study. 

This  two-year  study  of  Michigan  auto 
workers  said  that  potentially  fatal  heart  and 
lung  diseases  are  more  likely  to  hit  foundry 
workers,  machinists  and  metal  workers,  who 
are  exposed  to  either  dust,  smoke  and  dirt, 
dangerous  chemicals  or  forklift  exhaust 
fumes. 

The  43-page  report  originally  had  been 
compiled  by  a  Dr.  Janet  Sherman,  a  Detroit 
internist  who  for  some  two  years  studied 
489  Michigan  workers,  459  of  them  being 
auto  industry  workers.  Her  data  were  col- 
lected between  January,  1970,  and  January, 
1972;  so  there  was  a  two-year  study  period. 

The  conclusions  of  the  report  include  five 
that  I  will  bring  to  your  attention,  Mr. 
Speaker.  The  first  is  that  workers  exposed 
to  dirt,  dust  and  smoke  have  about  a  50 
per  cent  greater  chance  of  having  bronchitis 
and  heart  disease  than  workers  not  exposed 
to  these  elements. 

The  second  finding  of  the  health  study  is 
that  workers  exposed  to  fumes  from  sub- 
stances such  as  molten  metal  and  hydraulic 
fluids  face  about  a  40  per  cent  greater  like- 
lihood of  getting  bronchitis  and  heart  dis- 
ease than  those  not  exposed. 

The  third  finding  is  that  foundry  workers 
have  a  14  per  cent  greater  chance  of  hav- 
ing  bronchitis   than   non-foundry   workers. 

The  fourth  is  that  machinists  have  a  30 
per  cent  greater  chance  of  having  heart 
disease   than   non-machinists. 

And  the  last  that  I'll  mention  is  that 
coarse  metal  finishers  have  a  70  per  cent 
greater   chance    of   getting  heart  problems. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  addition,  this  report 
showed    that    persons    exposed    to    exhaust 


fumes  from  forklift  trucks  in  plants  have  a 
15  per  cent  greater  chance  of  getting  heart 
disease. 

I  bring  this  to  your  attention,  Mr.  Speaker, 
because  in  the  past  week  or  so  the  Chrysler 
workers  walked  oflF  their  jobs  as  a  result  of 
what  I  understand  were  some  of  the  safety 
aspects  concerning  the  job,  in  addition  to 
their  demand  for  the  elimination  of  over- 
time. I  have  shown  to  you,  sir,  that  indus- 
trial factory  work  has  greater  health  hazards 
than  is   generally   accepted. 

The  workers  who  walked  out  were  not 
only  concerned  with  their  health,  they  were 
concerned  with  the  excessive  use  of  over- 
time. I  think  that  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Miller)  has  to  look  at  the  overtime 
picture  in  the  auto  industry,  especially  to- 
day, when  there  are  so  many  unemployed 
in  towns  associated  with  the  auto  industry. 

In  the  city  of  Windsor  there  are  over 
3,000  who  are  imemployed  in  the  auto 
industry,  in  addition  to  those  who  would 
be  working  in  feeder  plants.  While  we  have 
a  large  number  of  unemployed— and  I  think 
the  number  is  well  over  7,000  if  we  count 
in  non-auto  workers— while  we  have  as  many 
as  7,000  unemployed  in  the  city,  I  can't 
see  why  there  should  be  the  need  for  the 
use  of  overtime.  In  fact,  there  has  been 
formed  in  the  community  a  committee  on 
full  employment.  This  committee  is  chaired 
by  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Cleveland 
McGee,  a  laid-ofF  Ford  worker;  and  the 
committee's  work  is  being  supported  by  the 
Windsor   and   District   Labour   Council. 

I  happen  to  know  Cleveland  McGee  per- 
sonally, because  in  his  younger  days  he  hap- 
pened to  be  a  gymnast  that  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  coaching,  and  an  extremely  accom- 
plished one  at  that,  who  did  not  further  his 
education  but  preferred  to  serve  his  country 
and  come  back  and  became  an  auto  worker. 
Now  Cleveland  McGee,  the  spark  plug  be- 
hind the  group,  is  extremely  concerned  with 
this  excessive  use  of  overtime,  as  are  not  only 
those  who  are  laid  off  but  also  those  who  are 
working  in  the  plant. 

The  300  people  who  recently  walked  out 
of  the  Chrysler  plant  did  not  walk  out  simply 
because  they  were,  it  was  said,  told  to  walk 
out  by  one  of  their  union  stewards.  They 
were  extremely  concerned.  They  were  con- 
cerned for  their  fellow  worker  who  is  on  the 
unemployed  list  while  the  factory  continu- 
ally asks  the  Ministry  of  Labour  to  issue  over- 
time work  permits. 

I  think  there  has  to  be  some  association  be- 
tween  the   numbers    of   unemployed   in   the 


APRIL  8,  1974 


941 


community  and  the  issuing  of  additional  over- 
time work  permits.  I  think  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  has  to  consult  with  the  union  in- 
volved to  find  out  if  the  union  will  accept 
additional  overtime.  While  we  have  large 
numbers  of  unemployed  in  any  community, 
not  only  in  the  community  from  which  I 
come,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  issuance  of  overtime 
permits  should  be  an  exception  and  not  the 
rule. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  one  of  the  comments  con- 
cerning the  issuing  of  overtime  permits,  a 
fellow  asked,  "How  easy  are  they  to  get?" 
and  here  was  the  reply:  "Apparently  they  are 
easier  to  get  than  a  newspaper."  I  hope  that 
isn't  the  position  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
in  giving  work  permits  while  people  are  walk- 
ing the  lines  seeking  employment  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  community, 
knowing  full  well  that  their  opportunity  or 
their  chance  of  getting  employment  is  ex- 
tremely slim. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  companies  have  a  re- 
sponsibility at  this  time  of  growing  hiyoflFs 
in  the  auto  industry  to  sit  down  with  the 
union  and  to  clearly  define  needs  for  any 
overtime  in  any  case.  The  failure  of  the  com- 
pany to  come  along  and  consult  with  the 
union  and  minimize  its  requests  for  overtime 
and  not  hiring  additional  workers  to  take  up 
this  slack,  I  think  is  only  asking  for  trouble  in 
the  auto  industry.  We  don't  want  to  see  any 
trouble  in  there  but  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  goverrmient  has  to  be  a  little  more  cau- 
tious concerning  the  use  of  overtime  for  the 
auto  worker  in  my  own  community. 

Mr.  Speaker,  while  I'm  talking  concerning 
the  auto  industry,  I  think  it  would  be  only 
fit  and  proper  to  make  mention  that  the  auto 
trade  agreement  needs  some  re-examination. 
I  think  the  re-examination  of  the  agreement 
should  be  in  consultation  with  the  unions, 
who  are  involved,  who  know  the  problem, 
who  point  out  to  government  that  quite  often 
some  of  the  so-called  Canadian  content  that 
is  in  the  manufacture  of  an  automobile  is 
simply  three  holes  punched  in  a  panel  in 
Canada,  with  the  article  coming  in  from  the 
United  States  or  coming  in  from  a  foreign 
country,  slipping  through  one  door  in  a  Cana- 
dian plant,  out  the  other  door  and  then  go- 
ing over  to  the  US  and  being  labelled,  so  I 
am  told,  as  Canadian  content. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  the  need  for  a  com- 
mission on  technological  change  to  monitor 
the  impact  of  technology  on  employment  op- 
portunities and  to  have  the  authority  to  pro- 
tect jobs.  Industry  keeps  promoting  tech- 
nological change  and  the  more  technol'ogical 


change  that  does  take  place  the  fewer  the 
job  opportunities. 

There  is  the  need  for  a  job  security  pro- 
gramme and  you  are  only  going  to  have  this 
if  you  have  some  committee  on  technological 
change  that  has  teeth  in  it  and  can  enforce- 
yes,  can  enforce— a  job  opportunity  pro- 
gramme. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  gone  by  the  day 
where  we  are  going  to  think  always  of  a  bal- 
ance of  payments;  the  fact  that  we  in  Canada 
have  exported  to  the  United  States  or  an- 
other country  $4  billion  worth  of  merchandise 
and  we've  imported  $4  billion  or  $5  billion 
worth  of  merchandise.  I  think  the  dollar  and 
cents  approach  is  pass^. 

We've  got  to  forget  about  it  and  look 
now  on  how  many  jobs  we  have  exported 
and  how  many  jobs  we  have  importea.  You 
can  have  one  massive  part  of  a  Dody  of  an 
automobile,  the  whole  floor  panel  or  the 
whole  roof,  Mr.  Speaker.  It's  a  big  piece,  so 
to  speak.  There  may  be  three  mtoutes  of 
labour  involved  in  the  processing  of  that  in 
an  auto  industry  plant  but  we  can  have  a 
little  thing  like  a  wrist  watch  that  might 
have  hours  of  labour  involved. 

We've  got  to  get  away  from  the  dollar 
and  cents  point  of  view.  We've  got  to  look 
at  how  many  jobs  we  have  imported  and 
how  many  jobs  we  have  exported.  We  have 
to  come  along,  Mr.  Speaker,  through  the 
Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Guindon),  and  know 
exactly  the  job  content  of  every  item  manu- 
factured. Industry  knows  that.  Industry  can 
provide  us  with  the  figures.  Industry  Knows 
how  many  minutes  it  takes  to  manufacture 
one  little  stamping.  In  their  bids  to  have 
suppliers  supply  them  with  the  part,  Aey 
know  to  the  second,  so  to  speak,  how  much 
labour  content  is  involved  in  the  manufactujr- 
ing  of  that  piece,  plus  the  assembling  of  that 
piece  to  make  the  larger  component 

In  an  attempt  to  arive  at  a  balance  in  our 
auto  trade  agreement,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
to  know  how  many  hours  of  labour  have 
been  put  in  in  Canada  on  the  manufacture 
of  the  automobile  and  how  many  hours  of 
labour  have  been  put  in  on  that  same  part 
coming  into  Canada,  either  for  assembly  or 
for  additional  work,  and  then  re-exported  to 
the  United  States  for  assembly  over  there. 
We've  got  to  look  at  the  job  content,  the 
man-hour  content  or  the  hour  content  of 
everything  that  we  manufacture,  so  that  our 
balance  of  payments  between  countries  is  not 
in  dollars  and  cents  only  but  is— in  how  many 
jobs  we  have  exported  when  we  export  the 


942' 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


material  and  how  many  jobs  we  have  im- 
ported when  we  import  the  finished  material. 

Were  we  to  know  the  job  content  we 
would  find  that  our  balance  of  payments,  not 
in  dollars  and  cents  but  in  jobs,  would  be 
really  to  the  detriment  of  the  Canadian 
worker.  We  export  our  raw  materials  but 
we  import  our  finished  product.  How  many 
more  Canadians  and  Ontarians  would  be  em- 
ployed were  we  to  take  the  raw  material  and 
process  it  here  in  Canada,  and,  not  only 
process  through  one  of  the  stages  but  process 
it  through  the  finished  stage.  We  have  to 
look  at  the  auto  trade  agreement,  not  from 
a  dollar  and'  cent  point  of  view,  but  a  labour 
content  point  of  view  so  that  our  export  as 
far  as  labour  is  exactly  the  same  as  our 
import,  or  as  close  as  possible  to  what  we 
would  like  to  see. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  third  topic  that  I  would 
like  to  really  talk  on  is  the  bill  that  I  had 
introduced  last  year  and  that  was  Bill  179, 
An  Act  to  establish  an  Ontario  Waste  Dis- 
posal and  Reclamation  Commission.  This  was 
on  the  order  paper  last  year.  It  got  first 
reading  but  that's  as  far  as  it  got.  I  didn  t 
see  the  ministry  come  along  and  do  anything 
concerning  it.  I  didn't  see  them  refute  or 
attempt  to  refute  the  merits  of  such  a 
proposal.  It's  easy  to  conclude  that  our 
present  method  of  garbage  disposal  represents 
a  destruction  of  resources  accompanied  by 
economic,  environmental  and  possibly  public 
health  damage.  A  new  method  of  garbage 
handling  is  needed  that  is  not  harmful  to  the 
environment  and  that  at  the  same  time  con- 
serves and  recycles  some  of  the  reusable  in- 
gredients of  garbage. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  proposed  last  year  that  the 
province  establish  an  Ontario  waste  disposal 
and  reclamation  commission  that  would 
operate  on  the  same  basis  as  Ontario  Hydro. 
In  other  words,  it  would  become  a  provincial 
authority  or  a  provincial  utility.  This  com- 
mission would  be  responsible  for  all  waste 
disposal  in  the  province  including  sanitary 
landfill  and  incineration.  However,  before  dis- 
posal, the  garbage  would  be  processed  in  a 
plant  for  reclamation  of  paper,  metals  and 
glass,  and  the  commission  then  could  market 
the  reclaimed  materials  to  industry  for  re- 
cycling. 

Mr.  Speaker,  many  municipalities  would 
find  it  extremely  difficult  to  set  up  their  own 
reclamation  plants  because  of  the  great  finan- 
cial burden  involved.  Therefore,  the  province 
should  have  the  responsibility  of  setting  up 
these  plants  on  a  regional  basis.  It's  estimated 
that  processing  200,000  tons  of  waste  annu- 
ally  would   make    the    operation   of   such   a 


plant  economically  feasible.  In  regions  and 
towns  where  waste  collection  procedures  are 
uneconomical  for  local  authorities  the  com- 
mission would  provide  collection  services  as 
well.  In  more  densely  populated  regions  and 
municipalities,  collections  would  continue  to 
be  provided  by  local  authorities  but  disposal 
and  reclamation  would  be  provided  by  the 
commission.  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  has  a  responsi- 
bility to  look  into  this  and  to  act. 

On  Feb.  21,  one  of  the  articles  in  the 
Windsor  Star  said,  "New  Wonder  Fuel- 
Would  You  Believe  It?— Garbage."  Surely  if 
the  ministry  followed  the  suggestion  that  I 
have  made,  not  only  could  they  reclaim  a  lot 
of  material  but  you  could  have  watts  from 
waste.  The  city  manager  in  the  city  of 
Windsor  has  been  looking  forward  to  gold  in 
garbage.  He,  an  extremely  astute  man,  is 
looking  to  the  fact  that  garbage  can  provide 
revenue  to  a  community. 

In  fact,  to  show  the  revenue  it  can  provide, 
on  Jan.  30  in  the  Detroit  Free  Press  a  column 
imder  the  byline  of  Sylvia  Porter,  a  well- 
known  journalist,  talks  about  "Recycling— a 
Way  To  Combat  Shortages."  In  Hempstead, 
Long  Island,  she  vmtes,  where  a  city  ordin- 
ance makes  all  solid  wastes  the  property  of 
the  city,  more  than  $100,000  was  netted  by 
the  community  within  one  year  from  the  col- 
lection and  sale  of  waste  paper  and  other  re- 
cyclable scrap  materials.  In  Fort  Worth,  Tex., 
two  garbage  trucks  make  once-a-week  col- 
lection of  old  newspapers  in  various  neigh- 
bourhoods. It  is  estimated  that  an  income  of 
$250,000  annually  will  be  obtained  from  this 
waste  paper  sale  alone  without  any  addi- 
tional capital  outlay  on  the  city's  part.  This 
is  at  the  price  of  $9.50  a  ton  for  waste  paper, 
and  I  vmderstand  waste  paper  today  is  well 
over  $25  a  ton. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Sixty-five  dollars. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  bring  to 
your  attention  the  amount  of  materials  that 
are  discarded  and  not  reclaimed,  we  find  that 
only  49  per  cent  of  our  aluminmn  scrap  is 
recycled;  42  per  cent  of  our  lead  is  recycled; 
17  per  cent  of  our  textiles;  26  per  cent  of 
our  steel;  61  per  cent  of  our  copper,  but  88 
per  cent  of  our  stainless  steel  and  75  per 
cent  of  our  precious  metals.  You  can  see,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  we've  a  long  way  to  go  in  re- 
claiming and  recycling  many  or  the  materials 
that  have  been  discarded.  In  Wisconsin,  the 
state  Legislature  is  on  the  way  to  passing  a 
law  that  would  create  a  solid  waste  recovery 
authority  to  initiate  and  manage  a  state-wide 
recycling  programme. 


APRIL  8.  1974 


943 


Mr.  Speaker,  how  about  Ontario?  Are  we 
leaders  or  are  we  followers?  And  if  we  are 
followers,  how  far  behind  do  we  fcJlow? 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment): We've  been  leaders  for  a  long  time  in 
the  province  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  beg  the  minister's  par- 
don? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We've  been  leaders  for 
a  long  time  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  and 
the  member  knows  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Leaders  of  the  western 
world. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Leaders  of  the  western 
world.  I  imagine  that  if— 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  If  the  member  is  in- 
terested in  our  programmes  he  can  read  about 
them. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  If  the  government  is  a 
leader,  it  is  leader  of  the  gjS),  but  as  far  as 
action  is  concerned,  there  is  little  action  over 
there. 

An  hon.  member:  How  about  the  housing 
programme?  This  government  builds  by  head- 
lines, that's  all. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  The  government  members 
aren't  even  interested  in  coming  into  the 
House  to  get  educated  and  to  learn  some- 
thing as  to  what  other  jurisdictions  are  doing. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Well,  we'll  see  what  the 
government  will  do  concerning  pollution,  Mr. 
Speaker.  We'll  see  how  quicldy  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  will  take  care  of  the 
transboimdary  pollution,  whether  he  will  put 
a  monitor  next  to  the  Ford  Motor  Co.  foundry 
in  the  city  of  Windsor  to  give  the  true  read- 
ing to  the  people  who  live  in  that  area— not 
a  fictitious  reading,  saying  regarding  the 
pollution  in  that  area  that,  '  Welf  we'll  aver- 
age it  out  for  the  whole  city."  If  the  minister 
lived  behind  the  foundry  and  saw  the  amount 
of  pollution  that  has  been  coming  from  there, 
then  he  would  talk  with  a  difFerent  tone. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Is  that  where  the 
member  lives? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  The  minister  is  so  bloom- 
ing new  to  the  game- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Hell  de- 
liver everything  in  Ontario  South. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I'll  say  to  the  minister, 
through  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  he  has  a  long 


way  to  eo.  He  has  got  the  right  name;  he 
has  got  the  right  last  name. 

An  hon.  member:  A  new  man. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Don't  pull  that  o!d 
gag- 
Mr.  B.  Newman:  And  we  hope  that  he  will 
be  just  as  his  name  implies— a  new  man,  a 
new  individual  concerned  with  the  environ- 
ment and  hoping  to  resolve  the  problem. 
Let's  get  at  the  recycling  of  waste  products. 
Let's  get  at  the  reclamation  of  these  waste 
products.  Ontario  is  ahead  of  the  game.  If 
you  look  at  it  from  the  other  end  they  are 
at  the  head,  but  you  have  got  to  go  to  the 
back  end  to  find  that,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  wanted  tx)  bring  up  a  few  minor  tc^ics— I 
shouldn't  say  minor  topics,  but  topics  at 
which  I  won't  spend  much  time.  First,  I  am 
waiting  for  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  to  come  through  with  a 
bus  colour  proposal,  as  well  as  regulations 
concerning  the  number  of  people  who  can  be 
accommo<£ited  in  a  bus,  especially  when  it 
comes  to  school  buses.  Surely  after  the  one 
year  that  the  ministry  has  had  the  proposal, 
the  minister  should  by  now  have  been  able  to 
introduce  legislation  controlling  the  colours 
of  buses. 

We  have  school  buses  that  are  sold  to 
construction  companies.  The  construction 
companies  don't  bother  changing  the  colour. 
They  are  driving  along  our  highways;  stu- 
dents are  waiting  at  the  comer,  assuming 
that  that  is  the  school  bus;  they  walk  into 
the  road  thinking  the  bus  is  going  to  stop 
for  them  and  that  they  are  going  to  get 
on  the  bus.  Lo  and  behold,  too  late  they 
find  out  that  this  is  a  construction  company 
bus,  it  is  not  a  school  bus.  They  have  been 
misled  by  the  colour.  As  a  result  unfortu- 
nate mishaps  have  taken  place  in  the  prov- 
ince. I  can  recall  one  where  a  young  stu- 
dent was  killed;  that  was  in  the  Essex 
county  area. 

I  think  it  is  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
chrome  yellow  colour  is  used  exclusively  for 
school  buses.  When  school  buses  are  sold, 
they  should  not  be  allowed  to  be  used  by 
any  concern  or  organization  before  the 
colour  has  been  changed.  The  colour  must 
be  (ianged  before  die  ministry  issues  a 
permit  to  use  that  bus  to  the  purchaser. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if  the  Ministry  of 
the  Environment  has  looked  into  the  dump- 
ing of  mercury-contaminated  lake  sludge  on 
to  an  island  in  the  St.  Clair  River.  It's  an 
American  island,  not  a  Canadian  island;  we 


944 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


have  no  jurisdiction  over  it.  But  perhaps  the 
dumping  of  that  mercury  contaminated 
sludge  is  going  to  a£Fect  water  quality  along 
the  Lake  St.  Clair  and  the  Detroit  River 
where  water  intake  pipes  are  located  for 
many  of  the  cities  or  towns  in  the  area.  If 
that  is  going  to  adversely  aifect  our  water 
supplies,  then  I  think  the  ministry  should 
have  its  people  look  into  this  and  should 
make  strong  objections  to  what  is  taking 
place. 

Hon.   W.  Newman:  We  already  have. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  commend  the  minister 
for  it  if  he  has;  I  hope  it  was  after  I 
brought  it  to  his  attention.  Well,  I  am 
pleased  that  he  has  because  I  think  he  has 
clone  the  right  thing  there. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  could  come  along  and 
talk  on  a  whole  series  of  other  topics,  but 
there  are  others  who  would  like  to  speak. 
I  would  like  at  this  time  simply  to  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  awfully  pleased  to  see  you 
in  the  chair.  We  hope  that  this  will  be  a 
permanent  appointment.  We  will  see  to  it 
that  if  you  aren't  there  after  the  next  elec- 
tion, you  will  be  along  the  front  benches 
anyway  when  we  do  form  the  government. 
At  this  time  I  would  like  to  say,  Mr, 
Speaker,  I  will  make  the  balance  of  my 
comments  in  the  budget  debate.  Thank  you 
very  much. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Madam 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  say  that  the  three- 
cornered  hat  wouldn't  look  good  on  you  in 
that  chair.  I  do  want  to  say  to  you  that 
you  have  become  the  chair.  In  this  oppor- 
tunity I  have  to  speak  in  the  Throne  de- 
bate- 
Mr.  Deans:  The  member  has  become  the 
Speaker.  I  am  not  sure  about  becoming  the 
chair. 

Mr.  Stokes:  One  could  say  the  chair  be- 
comes the  Speaker. 

Mr.  Sargent:  It  is  a  matter  of  opinion, 
and  how  one  says  it.  I  do  want  to  say  I 
welcome  the  chance  to  add  my  remarks  to 
the  kind  remarks  all  members  have  made 
about  the  Speaker.  I  believe  every  one  of 
the  speakers  here  has  sincerely  conveyed 
his  warm  feelings  for  our  referee  and'  we  are 
glad  he  is  back. 

One  time  I  sent  a  note  across  the  House 
to  John  Robarts  about  his  pending  oper- 
ation. In  a  note  he  said:  "I  don't  think  I 
ever  told  you  that  when  I  was  in  the  hos- 
pital three  or  four  years  ago  I  received  a 
letter  saying,  'Dear  Mr.  Robarts,  I  hope 
your  illness  is  not  trivial'/* 


I  am  glad  the  Speaker  is  back  in  good 
health.  In  view  of  our  di£Ferences  from 
time  to  time  I  will  say  that  I  tip  my  hat  to 
him  as  a  politician  and  I  tip  my  heart  to 
him  as  a  friend.  I  do  mean  that.  I  think  we 
all  feel  that  way  toward  him.  I  think  he  is 
one  hell  of  a  guy  to  put  up  with  the  things 
he  does  in  this  House. 

Also,  if  I  may,  Madam  Speaker,  I  want  to 
convey  my  best  wishes  to  the  member  for 
Nipissing  (Mr.  R.  S.  Smith),  who  is  in  the 
House  tonight.  I  am  glad  to  see  him  back 
in  good  form. 

Usually  a  speaker  starts  his  speech  by 
saying  that  he  is  glad  to  be  here.  Well,  after 
what  has  happened  to  me  in  the  past  year, 
I  am  glad  to  be  anywhere.  Getting  on  to 
my  speech  here,  I  would  like  to  say  at  the 
outset  that  I  am  going  to  forego  the  fact  of 
being  non-political  tonight.  I  think  I  Willi 
be  a  bit  biased  in  my  remarks. 

Mr.  Deans:  No! 

Mr.  C.  E.  Mcllveen  (Oshawa):  Shame! 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  am  going  to  talk  about  some 
of  the  things  members  know  about  and  some 
of  the  things  they  don't  know  about  and  some 
of  the  things  people  in  this  province  are 
thinking  and  talking  about. 

The  other  day  I  was  in  Chicago  and  I 
picked  up  the  Chicago  Tribune,  the  news- 
paper there,  and  the  masthead  says: 

This  newspaper  is  an  institution  develop- 
ed by  modern  civilization  to  present  the 
news  of  the  day,  to  foster  commerce  and 
industry,  to  inform  and  lead  public  opin- 
ion and  to  furnish  that  check  upon  gov- 
ernment which  no  constitution  has  ever 
been  able  to  provide. 

Gentlemen,  more  and  more  in  Ontario  this 
check  is  needed  on  government  today.  The 
press,  believe  me,  is  the  sole  auditor  of  ex- 
penditures and  performance  in  this  province. 
It  is  the  sole  auditor.  I  pay  tribute  as  an  in- 
dividual, as  a  citizen,  to  the  Globe  and  Mail 
and  Norman  Webster  for  their  objective  re- 
porting, to  seek  out  corruption  in  this  organiz- 
ed crime  we  have  here  in  Queen's  Park. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  And  Gerald 
McAuliffe,  the  reporter. 

Mr.  L.  Maeck  (Parry  Sound):  That  used  to 
be  the  opposition. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  think,  getting  down  to  busi- 
ness here,  we  might  as  well  get  a  few  pre- 
liminary things  out  of  the  way  such  as  giving 
the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  a  bit  of  advice.  For 


APRIL  8,  1974 


945 


instance,  he  should  have,  in  tfie  Throne 
Speech,  named  Gerhard  Moog  aa  the  most 
vahiable  player  of  the  year. 

Mr.  McUveen:  He  always  spoke  well  of  the 
member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  suggest  it  is  things  like  this 
which  have  prompted  the  Premier  to  go  about 
the  province  making  speeches  such  as  he  has 
made.  The  three-column  headline  in  the  Kit- 
chener paper  says,  "Davis  Pleads  For  The 
Defeat  of  Unruly  Eddie  Sargent."  He  says  he 
is  going  to  spare  no  money  or  nothing  to  win 
Grey-Bruce.  In  support  of  that  a  month  ago 
he  brought  down  to  Queen's  Park  a  very 
good  friend  of  mine,  my  step-brother,  and 
he,  along  with  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  and  Mr.  DeGeer, 
ofiFered  this  step-brother  of  mine  the  post  of 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  a  blank 
cheque— 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Come  off  it.  That's  wrong, 
and  the  member  knows  it. 

Mr.  Sargent:  All  right.  I  am  glad  the  min- 
ister said  that,  because  that's  what  he  told 
me.  We  are  off  and  running  now.  Here  we 
go. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Step-brother  is  really 
hitting  below  the  belt. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Well,  this  is  the  way  we  oper- 
ate. He  has  a  blank  cheque  and  he  has  the 
post  of  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  if  he 
wins  Grey-Bruce.  Well,  I  don't  think  the 
name  of  Davis  is  going  to  help  him  very 
much  up  there. 

An  hon.  member:  There's  no  way  he'll  win. 

Mr.  Worton:  Heaven  knows  it  isn't  going 
to  help  any. 

Nfr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Maybe  the  Premier  will 
go  up  and  help  him. 

Mr.  Sargent:  This  may  be  the  last  speech 
in  the  Throne  Speech  debate  that  anyone  of 
this  House  will  make  in  this  province- 
Mr.  Shulman:  I  hope  so. 

Mr.   Sargent:   I  am  sorry  it  is  the  last  by 
the  member  for  High  Park  if  he  means  that. 
I  really  mean  it.  I  am  sorry- 
Mr.  Shulman:  The  member  for  Grey-Bruce 

may  be  here  next  year. 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  is  a  credit  to  the  Legisla- 
ture; I  say  that  kindly. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Thank  you  very  much. 


Mr.  Sargentt  We  need  people  like  him  in 
government,  because  God  knows  tfatt  mett 
over  there  needs  somebody  feariett  to  take 
a  poke  at  it- 
Mr.  McDveen:  We  are  all  right  here.  We 
always  speak  well  of  the  Liberals. 

Mr.  Sargent:  But  I  suggest  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  in  view  of  tne  thrust  of  the 
Liberal  Party  today  and  the  way  that  otir 
leader  is  scoring  across  the  province  as  well 
as  our  deputy  leader  and  our  House  leader 
—we  have  a  new  team  here- the  Premiei 
doesn't  want  this  to  get  into  full  gear.  And  I 

f)roject   and   prophesy  for   the   press,   which 
oves  to  hear  it,  that  there  will  be  an  election 
in  June  in  Ontario- 
Mr.  McUveen:  When  did  the  member  make 
up  with  his  leader? 

Mr.  Sargent:  —so  the  doctor  can  start  doing 
his  homework. 

Last  Friday,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  objected  to  the 
do-nothing  policy  of  this  government  insofar 
as  it  concerns  all  the  truclcing  companies  in 
this  province  writing  a  blank  cheque  for 
freight  rates.  Every  trucking  company  in  this 
province  writes  its  own  ticket.  We  in  the 
Grey-Bruce  area  have  no  railroads,  so  we  are 
dependent  on  the  trucking  business.  And  all 
of  these  lines  that  have  monopoly  routes 
write  their  own  freight  rates  and  naturally, 
as  we  all  know  across  the  province,  this  re- 
flects in  the  cost  of  living.  It  is  a  shocking 
thing  that  this  government  will  not  take  the 
steps  to  right  this  wrong. 

On  top  of  this  we  have  the  situation  of 
monopoly  routes,  exclusive  routes  across  the 
province.  No  one  can  get  excited  about 
this,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  this  is  a  billion-dollar 
business— and  this  is  probably  costing  everv 
consumer  of  this  province  hundreds  of  dol- 
lars a  year  in  extra  costs  because  of  trucking 
rates.  They  should  be  brought  into  line  ana 
the  prices  reviewed  like  every  other  com- 
modity, because  transportation  is  a  basic  com- 
modity. 

An  hon.  member:  A  hundred  miles  is  100 
miles. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Right  I  questioned  the  ethics 
of  the  former  Highways  Minister,  Mr.  Mac- 
Naughton,  sitting  as  a  director  of  Laidlaw 
Transport  and  appearing  before  the  High- 
way Transport  Board,  or  which  he  was  for- 
merly the  head.  I  questioned  the  ethics  of 
former  Premier  Robarts  appearing  as  a  coun- 
sel for  Dominion  Consolidated  before  the 
Highway    Transport    Board.     The    Premier 


946 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


didn't  know  how  to  answer  me,  so  he  said, 
"I  suggest  that  the  member  check  his  own 
ethics. ' 

Well,  one  thing  I  am  sure  of  is  that  the 
people  in  my  area  know  that  my  ethics  in 
politics  are  pretty  good. 

Mr.  Mcllveen:  He  hasn't  got  any. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  am  not  here  being  a  good 
guy,  but  I  can  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I 
will  stack  mine  against  the  Premier's  any 
time,  especially  in  view  of  what  I  am  going 
to  bring  before  you. 

Mr.  Mcllveen:  Don't  ask  us  to  vote  on  it. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Let's  look  at  this  man  who 
questions  my  ethics.  I  have  thought  for  the 
past  few  months  that  the  goings-on  in  this 
Legislature  and  in  this  province  could  be  the 
basis  of  a  movie  or  a  TV  series. 

Mr.  Shulman:  We  could  call  it  "Wojeck." 

Mr.  Sargent:  Well,  we  could;  we  could 
have  a  fearless  guy  like  Wojeck— but  it  is  a 
story  on  organized  crime  in  Queen's  Park. 
The  simple  facts  are  so  incredible  the 
people  wouldn't  believe  them.  We  should 
put  on  film  all  the  factual  knowledge  we  have 
here,  even  the  "Hydrogate"  inquiry— reveal 
all  the  facts  there. 

The  series  could  open  with  our  hero,  the 
head  of  the  state  here,  who  makes  a  com- 
plete shambles  of  our  educational  system,  cost- 
ing us  God  knows  how  much— maybe  $500 
million  in  school  consolidation  programmes. 
He  inherits  the  political  machine  from  a 
former  premier,  and  he  starts  to  shake  down 
government  contracts  to  his  bagmen,  to  cor- 
porations who  have  or  want  government 
contracts.  He  has  a  real  pork  barrel  fund, 
about  $5  million  we  are  told.  And  here  in  an 
upcoming  election  he  does  a  saturation  TV 
campaign,  and  sweeps  to  power  again  and 
again. 

After  looking  after  the  well-oiled  machine, 
which  he  keeps  greased  with  money  from 
sales  of  government  contracts,  an  unknown 
firm  called  Fidinam,  which  couldn't  pay  a 
$1,500  account,  a  Swiss  firm,  all  of  a  sudden 
gets  a  $10  million  loan  and  a  $20  million 
contract  to  build  the  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion Board  building.  This  happens  because 
they  pay  their  bagman  $50,000.  When  asked 
about  this,  the  president  of  the  company 
said,  "No  way.  It's  not  true."  But  when 
they  produced  the  cheque  he  admitted  it  was 
true. 

Here  we  have  the  party  which  runs  this 
province  engaged  in  a  criminal  act,  for  which, 


if  under  American  law,  the  leader  would  be 
impeached.  But  the  Premier  immediately 
starts  to  guard  this  thing  ofiP.  As  a  citizen— 
I'll  interrupt  this  in  the  scenario  here— I 
spent  about  $700  in  legal  fees  trying  to  take 
an  injunction  against  the  Workmen's  Com- 
pensation Board  to  block  the  loan  of  $10 
million  to  Fidinam.  The  Premier,  seeing 
that  this  was  going  to  be  a  hot  issue  in  the 
opening  of  the  House,  decided  to  do  some- 
thing about  it. 

I  got  up  in  the  House  at  the  opening  of 
the  House  and  tried  to  forego  the  hearings 
of  the  sittings  of  the  House  to  ask  for  a 
special  inquiry  into  Fidinam.  I  was  booted 
out  by  the  good  Sergeant-at-Arms,  rightfully 
so  I  guess,  if  the  government's  going  to  carry 
on  with  this.  The  Premier  immediately  brings 
in  a  conflict-of-interest  bill.  In  no  way  would 
that  conflict-of-interest  bill  ever  have  appear- 
ed here  if  Fidinam  hadn't  happened. 

We  now  have  him  lily  pure  again.  He  is 
going  to  stop  all  this  hanky-panky  and  smell- 
ing of  corruption.  Now  he's  a  good  guy 
again. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South):  He's 
clean  again. 

Mr.  Sargent:  He's  clean  again.  But  he  still 
has  the  $50,000.  I  already  bet  him  $50,000 
if  he  would  reveal  where  he  got  the  $5  mil- 
lion—that if  any  one  of  those  government 
contracts  being  held  by  people  who  supply 
money  to  the  party  were  announced  there 
I  would  give  him  $50,000,  but  he  wouldn't 
even  listen  to  that. 

We  have  the  Premier  whose  legal  firm 
acts  as  counsel  for  Mr.  Moog.  Here's  where 
this  television  thing  comes  in  great.  This 
Mr  Moog  is  a  former  U-boat  commander,  a 
romantic  figure.  The  Premier  and  he  decide 
to  go  to  Europe  to  raise  some  money  for 
the  Hydro  building.  It's  going  to  be  a 
$44  million  deal;  it's  a  big  deal.  They  don't 
worry  about  the  calling  of  tenders.  They 
end  up  in  Switzerland;  they  get  into  a  few 
bottles  of  wine  according  to  the  hearing  and 
they  decide  to  race  down  to  their  interview 
at  the  bank  to  get  the  money.  They  have  a 
flat  tire,  and  in  fixing  it  they  get  their 
clothes  soiled  a  bit.  They  race  to  keep  their 
appointment  and  they  have  trouble  getting 
into  the  bank  because  of  their  appearance, 
but  finally  they  get  into  the  inner  sanctum 
of  the  bank,  and  the  rest  of  the  episode  is 
well  known. 

The  Premier  didn't  want  to  stay  at  the 
other  end  of  the  room,  he  stayed  at  this 
end  of  the  room,  and  they  talked  German 
down    there    when    they    talked    about    the 


APRIL  8.  1974 


047 


financing.  Anyway,  the  big  project  gets 
under  way  and  no  one  else  has  a  shot  at  the 
tenders. 

Now,  I  think  that  this  would  make  a 
beautiful  television  series.  Some  of  us  should 
get  into  the  act  and  produce  that,  because 
it  would  have  top  TV  ratings,  I  believe. 

Mr.   Haggerty:   The  National  Dream. 

Mr.  Shulman:  We  will  form  a  company. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Well,  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre  wanted  to  be  televised 
during  his  part  of  the  Throne  Speech  de- 
bate. Now,  that  is  one  thing  I  wouldn't 
want,  because  I  don't  come  across  very 
well.  But  if  the  people  in  Ontario  could  see 
what  the  hell  goes  on  in  this  place,  that 
gang  wouldn't  be  there  very  long,  I'll  tell 
you  that. 

Mr.  Shulman:  "Laugh- In"  would  be  out 
of  business. 

Mr.  Maeck:  Don't  forget  that— 

Mr.  Sargent:  So  you  see  what  I  am  try- 
ing to  say  is  that  if  ever  there  was  a  time 
when  the  people  needed  a  new  deal  in  this 
province,  it  is  now. 

An  hon.  member:   Right.  Right  on. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  believe  that  people  of  this 
province   have   had   enough,   enough. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  member  would  give 
them  the  fast  shuffle,  wouldn't  he? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Now,  with  President  Nixon 
and  Watergate,  we  have  a  very  close  pal  of 
Premier  Davis  and  his  "Hydrogate."  Let's 
have  a  look  at  President  Nixon  and  his 
position. 

Interjection   by   an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  believe  if  there  is  an 
evidence  of  an  impeachable  oflFence  the 
Congress  will  impeach,  if  not,  they  will 
exonerate.  I  think  we  all  agree  that  impeach- 
ment is  a  cumbersome  thing  and  much  as 
I  feel  that  he  is  a  disgrace  to  his  office,  I 
hope  for  the  sake  of  the  American  people 
that    they   do  not   impeach  him. 

But  I  believe  that  in  this  province  the 
people  have  made  in  their  own  minds  a 
political  judgment.  We  don't  want  a  run- 
away process.  In  the  USA  and  Ontario  the 
people  have  received  a  great  education  in 
the  past  year.  People  in  their  own  minds 
can  render  a  judgement.  As  with  President 


Nixon,  Premier  Davis  is  fast  losing  his 
credibility.  I  believe  sincerely  that  there  is 
an  intuitive  reaction  on  the  part  of  people 
that  things  are  not  right,  that  there  is  uid 
has  been  corruption. 

I  want  to  say  right  now  I  don't  for  one 
moment  think  there  is  a  crooked  lx)ne  in 
the  Premier's  body,  but  I  think  the  machine 
is  corrupt— at  least  part  of  the  machine.  If 
anyone  had  said  a  year  ago  that  President 
Nixon,  with  his  landslide  victory,  would  lie 
up  for  impeachment,  that  he  would  go  on 
television  and  say  "I  am  not  a  crook;"  if 
anyone  had  prophesied  that  one  year  ago, 
he  would've  been  called  a  lunatic. 

But  here  we  have  two  leaders  who  place 
themselves  above  government,  above  the  law; 
there  is  complete  abuse  of  power.  And  what 
we  lack  in  our  process  here  is  a  method  to 
bring  these  people  to  heel,  because  in  every 
election  the  combined  forces  of  the  Liberals 
and  the  NDP  defeat  each  other.  And  they 
will  continue  to  do  so.  If  we  ever  heard  of 
a  banana  republic  in  South  America  having 
35  years  of  solid  government,  we  wouldnt 
believe  it,  but  it's  happened  right  here  in 
this  province. 

Certainly  the  Premier  is  the  sole  authority 
on  what  will  be  investigated  and  what  will 
not  be  investigated.  A  case  in  point,  the 
Fidinam  affair.  We  have  ample  evidence  of 
criminal  activity  and  criminal  procedures 
which  should  be  handled  by  the  political  pro- 
cess. We  have  ample  evidence  or  the  Premier 
holidaying  in  Muskoka,  hohdayir»g  in  Florida, 
cruising  on  Mr.  Moog's  yacht,  going  to 
Europe  to  raise  a  loan,  and  so  on,  as  I  men- 
tioned before. 

But  I  suggest  to  you  the  big  ball  game  now 
is  not  the  $44  million  that  Mr.  Moog  and 
the  Premier  were  involved  in.  The  big  ball 
game  now  is  the  $15  billion  nuclear  pro- 
gramme and  the  vested  interests  the  govern- 
ment is  working  with  now  on  Hydro. 

We  have  100  people  working  in  the 
Premier's  office,  more  than  Mr.  Trudeau  has. 
His  office  costs  more  than  that  of  the  Prime 
Minister  of  Canada.  Who  does  he  think  he 
is?  What  right  does  he  have  to  spend  our 
money  Hke  this? 

The  Globe  and  Mail  carried  a  story  this 
week  on  what's  going  on  in  Ontario  spending. 
There  has  been  a  jump  of  37  per  cent  in 
government  payrolls  for  ministries,  for  those 
people  who  have  the  power  to  sign  these 
documents.  They  increase  their  expenditure 
of  moneys  37  per  cent.  It  isn't  their  money, 
it  belongs  to  the  taxpayers. 


948 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Haggerty:  The  Minister  of  Labour 
hasn't  an  assistant  yet. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  think  there  are  here,  in 
this  summary,  four  people  making  more  than 
$50,000  a  year,  plus  expenses,  and  there  are 
hundreds  making  more  than  $30,000  a  year. 
And  to  save  time  I  will  not  read  the  amounts 
here. 

But  I  want  to  say,  in  summary  of  this  point 
I've  been  on  now,  of  these  things  I've  talked 
about,  Mr.  Speaker,  regardless  of  the  verdict, 
the  whitewash  in  the  Hydrogate  hearing,  the 
people  know  exactly  what  is  going  on. 

A  summary  in  the  Sun  some  time  ago  by 
Brian  Vallee  was  talking  about  the  vacuum 
cleaner  that  the  Premier  had  working  here. 
It  says:  "Bill  Davis  brought  out  his  vacuum 
cleaner  yesterday,  but  he  missed  part  of  the 
dirt." 

It  goes  on  to  show  how  he  went  through 
the  cabinet  and  how  he  cleaned  out  all  the 
skulduggery,  the  conflicts  of  interest,  and 
mentions  about  10  or  12  ministers  who  went 
down  the  pipe  here.  Then  he  says,  at  the 
final  paragraph:  "One  wondes  if  Davis  him- 
self would  have  been  sucked  into  the  vacuum 
cleaner  if  he  wasn't  the  one  who  was  oper- 
ating it." 

Well,  you  can  believe  that  one.  He  would 
have  been  the  first  one  to  go! 

We  are  talking  now  in  this  country  about 
the  gas  and  oil  shortage.  What  a  bunch  of 
baloney  this  is.  I  was  coming  back  from  New 
York,  first  class,  American,  about  a  month 
ago,  and  I  sat  with  the  vice  president  of  one 
of  the  four  major  oil  companies  in  Canada. 
He  confided  to  me  that  there  was  no  oil  short- 
age, no  gas  shortage.  In  efi^ect  he  said:  "iTie 
ball  is  in  oiu:  court  now.  The  oil  companies 
are  all  on  strike  against  the  public,  and  we're 
going  to  get  ours  first.  All  of  our  rdBneries 
are  full,  all  the  ships  are  full,  all  the  cars 
are  full.  There  is  no  oil  shortage."  And  I 
think  it's  a  shocking  thing— here  he  comes, 
well  oiledl 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  The  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  Centre  (Mr.  Drea) 
has  arrived. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  think  it's  a  shocking  thing 
that  we  have  the  power  in  this  government 
—pardon  me? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  was  talking  about  oil,  so 
it's  all  right.  We  have  the  power,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  this  government  to  control  prices. 


To  me  it  is  a  scandalous  diing  when  these 
companies- 
Mr.  Havrot:  Come  on,  the  member  doesn't 
believe  that. 

Mr.  Sargent:  —experiencing  the  largest 
profits  in'  history— from  45  per  cent  to  70  per 
cent  increase  in  profits  over  last  year— can 
be  given  the  right  to  increase  their  prices  by 
six  to  10  cents  a  gallon.  This  is  a  shocking 
situation.  I  believe  that  Trudeau  is  right,  that 
we  do  need  a  national  oil  company.  We  do 
need  some  stake  in  this  great  commodity  if 
transportation  is  to  continue  in  this  country. 

Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  risk  of  being  on  the 
wrong  side  of  the  fence  once  again,  to  me 
it  is  shocking  that  this  govermnent  of  Ontario 
is  hell  bent  in  a  nuclear  development  pro- 
gramme. Committed  as  we  are  to  and  in- 
volved in  a  $16  billion  programme,  we  are 
shooting  craps  with  destiny. 

Today,  the  member  for  Huron  made  a 
splendid  address  on  the  dangers  of  nuclear 
power,  and  I  wish  that  those  fellows  had 
been  here  to  hear  it.  I  know  you  can't  be 
everyplace.  But  I  was  talking  to  the  member 
for  Ottawa  West  (Mr.  Morrow)  today,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  back  in  the  House  a  few  years 
ago,  when  a  member  got  up  to  speak,  the 
House  was  here  to  hear  him.  When  you  made 
a  speech  in  the  Legislature  it  meant  some- 
thing- 
Mr.  J.  R.  Smith  (Hamilton  Mountain): 
We're  listening  to  the  member  though. 

Mr.  Sargent:  —because  you  had  rapport 
with  the  press.  But  the  only  things  that  get 
in  the  press  today  are  these  sensational  things, 
the  things  that  count.  You  may  criticize  us 
backbenchers  for  talking  so  long,  but  we  have 
something  to  say.  We  are  in  here  to  speak 
for  our  people,  and  that's  why  we  speak. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Well,  say  it! 

Mr.  Deans:  Come  on,  he's  getting  to  the 
member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  We're  in  a  programme  for  de- 
velopment of  energy,  in  which,  Mr.  Speaker, 
no  insurance  company  in  North  America  will 
insure  anyone,  any  place,  or  any  property,  or 
anything  against  radiation  damage. 

Now  this  is  a  fact.  The  insurance  com- 
panies here  watched  the  growth  and  bur- 
geoning of  the  nuclear  power,  and  have  lost 
no  time  in  taking  steps  to  protect  their  in- 
dustry. They  have,  Mr.  Speaker,  specifically 
planned  to  protect  the  insurance  industry 
against    the    nuclear   power    industry.    I    ask 


APRIL  8,  1974 


948 


anyone  in  this  audience,  in  Hansard  and  in 
Ontario  to  check  their  insurance  poh'cies  and 
they  will  see  that  there  is  a  complete  ex- 
clusion from  the  hazards  of  nuclear  power. 
In  Douglas  Point  we  have  had  two  gas 
leaks.  Two  years  ago  they  made  a  $l-million 
mistake  and  they  would  have  covered  it  up 
hut  I  found  out  by  accident  about  this  $1- 
million  mistake.  I  revealed  it  in  the  Legisla- 
ture and  they  denied  it  here,  but  finally  they 
admitted  there  was  a  $l-million  mistake.  They 
are  now  building  huts  to  protect  the  people 
up  there  and  they  are  closing  a  park  because 
of  fallout  and  radiation  and  the  odours  and 
dangers. 

Yet,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  asked  the  Minister  of 
Energy  here  in  the  House  about  the  fact  that 
the  officials  of  Atomic  Energy  of  Canada 
Ltd.  have  refused  to  meet  scientists  on  a  TV 
show  and  let  the  public  know  the  facts  and 
the  hazards.  The  problem  with  nuclear  radio- 
activity is  that  as  much  long-lived  radio- 
activity is  produced  in  one  large  nuclear 
power  plant  every  year  as  there  is  in  the  ex- 
plosion of  about  1,000  Hiroshima  bombs. 
And  when  we  say  long-lived  radioactivity, 
we  mean  long.  Some  kinds  last  for  100  years, 
300  years  and  even  240,000  years  before  de- 
caying fully. 

Get  this,  Mr.  Speaker,  unprotected,  above- 
ground,  nuclear  power  plants,  loaded  with 
radioactivity  in  their  cores,  would  certainly  be 
large  liabilities  if  this  country  were  ever  un- 
der attack.  They  seem  to  make  this  country 
virtually  indefensible.  Quite  aside  from  the 
sabotage,  an  accident  allowing  just  one  per 
cent  of  the  inner  radioactivity  to  escape  from 
one  plant,  would  put  as  much  harmful  con- 
tamination directly  into  the  environment  as 
10  bombs.  It  would  not  be  spread  out  all  over 
the  globe  like  a  bomb's  fallout,  it  would  be  all 
concentrated  in  just  a  few  areas. 

Instead  of  the  government  preventing  this 
extraordinary  possibility,  when  we  observe, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  government  allowed 
harmful  conditions  to  develop  in  our  air  and 
water— for  example,  Lake  Erie's  contamina- 
tion from  other  pollutants— then  it  is  clear 
that  citizens  had  better  not  count  on  the  gov- 
ernment to  prevent  nuclear  pollution  for  them 
either.  It  is  time  that  this  government  told 
the  people  the  truth  of  the  dangers  we  are 
faced  with. 

Above  and  beyond  all  this,  we  are  com- 
mitted to  a  $15-billion  programme.  I'm  not 
talking  $15  million,  I'm  talking  $15  billion. 
The  interest  upon  this,  alone  is  $3  million 
a  day.  Here  we  are.  We  are  now  committed 
to  an  $8-billion  debenture  debt  in  this  prov- 


ince. The  interest  on  this  is  about  $2.50  mil- 
lion a  day.  Now  we  are  going  to  jump  to  an- 
other $3  million  a  day  interest  on  this.  It  is 
no  wonder  the  Minister  of  Energy,  in  his 
offer  to  start  sharing  the  profits  with  his 
friends,  wants  to  share  some  of  the  load  here. 

On  April  Fool's  Day,  last  Monday,  the 
Minister  of  Energy  said  in  the  Toronto  Star 
that  he  wants  a  consortium  between  Union 
Gas,  Consumers'  Gas,  GE,  Acres— all  of  these 
firms  now  feeding  at  the  public  trough  fairly 
handsomely— he  wants  to  give  them  a  piece 
of  the  action.  Isn't  that  just  dandy? 

In  the  first  column  he  says:  "It's  good 
Tory  philosophy."  Good  Tory  philosophy. 
On  the  drunken  spending  spree  that  they 
are  now  on  he  admits:  "Although  we  aren't 
broke,  our  credit  is  going  to  be  drained." 

Let  me  tell  the  minister  something.  He 
can  get  these  corporations  into  the  act  and 
they  will  raise  the  hydro  rates  across  this 
province  pronto.  But  this  is  a  public  com- 
modity and  I  say  he  should  leave  it  alone. 

Since  Adam  Beck  was  in  the  act  68  years 
ago- 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  Ask 
the  Minister  of  Goverrmient  Services  (Mr. 
Snow)  how  much  it  cost  to  have  his  restaur- 
ant. 

Mr.  Sargent:  —we've  spent  hundreds  of 
millions  of  dollars  of  hard-earned  taxpayers' 
money  to  create  Ontario  Hydro  and  an 
arrogant  wheeler-dealer  like  the  Energy  Min- 
ister wants  to  share  this  package  with  his 
friends,  the  big  boys,  in  the  corporate  group. 

I  was  on  the  Hydro  commission  for  15 
years  in  Owen  Sound. 

Mr.  Drea:  Why  doesn't  the  member  ask 
how  much  it  cost  to  have  the  power  line 
to  his  restaurant? 

Mr.  Sargent:  What's  the  member's  prob- 
lem? 

Mr.  Drea:  Wiiy  doesn't  the  member  ask 
the  minister  how  much  it  cost  to  have  the 
power  line  through  to  his  restaurant?  With 
that  question,  don't  ask  him. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  on  the 
Hydro  commission  for  15  years  and  I  saw 
how  firms  like  GE  and  Westinghouse  took 
the  people  of  this  province  by  their  price- 
fixing.  We'll  have  no  more  of  it  as  far  as 
I'm  concerned. 

To  say  the  least,  this  story  of  the  Minister 
of  Energy— with  a  picture  there— saying  that 
he  is  going  to  open  the  doors  of  Hydro  to 
private    business,    is      I    think    a   scandalous 


950 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


admission.  It's  scandalous  that  he  says  that 
secret  negotiations  are  now  going  on  with 
these  large  firms  to  share  this  whole  pack- 
age with  private  concerns.  Any  one  of  the 
members,  whether  he  sits  with  the  govern- 
ment or  among  the  opposition,  should  be 
concerned  about  the  unlimited  powers  that 
this  man  has.  As  a  taxpayer  I  think  it's 
time  that  someone  should  take  action  against 
him  to  block  it. 

Mr.  Drea:  Why  doesn't  the  member  ask 
the  Minister  of  Government  Services? 

Mr.  Sargent:  I'm  going  to  try  and  re- 
spect the  time  factor  here. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  The  min- 
ister pretends  he  can't  hear 

Mr.  Sargent:  What's  happening  fn  this 
great  province  of  ours,  the  most  dynamic 
province  of  our  confederation?  We  have  an 
$8  billion  debenture  debt.  BC  and  Alberta 
are  debt-free.  Now  the  Treasurer  is  looking 
for  another  $15  billion.  He's  going  to  have 
another  big  $700  million  deficit  this  year 
probably. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  Treasurer  is  aware  of 
that.  That's  why  he's  going.  He's  packing  it 
in. 

Mr.  Sargent:  We're  paying  about  $2.5  mil- 
lion in  interest  now.  We're  committed  to  a 
$1.5  billion  transit  programme,  a  $1  billion 
land  acquisition  programme  and  no  state  in 
America-and  the  Treasurer  knows  it-is  in 
such  bad  shape  as  this  province  of  Ontario. 

Who's  laughing?  How  can  you  spend  $6 
million  a  day  in  interest  and  not  be  in 
trouble  and  the  Minister  of  Energy  admits 
in  the  Star  that  we're  in  trouble. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member's  got  a  conflict  of 
interest.  He's  got  a  liquor  licence.  Sit  down, 

Mr.  Sargent:  What's  happened  to  this 
province  when  a  farmer  can't  sell  his  own 
land?  He's  paid  taxes  all  his  life  on  it-and 
the  Treasurer  should  know  about  that. 

An  hon.  member:  Tell  him.  Tell  him. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  That's  small  beans  to  a 
man  like  the  Treasurer. 

Mr.  Sargent:  And  what  happens  when  a 
small  businessman  can't  hire  any  help  be- 
cause a  man  can  get  paid  more  money  on 
relief  than  he  can  working  for  a  living? 
What  happens  when  thousands  of  Canadian 
companies  don't  pay  any  income  tax? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 


Mr.  Sargent:  What  happens  when  all  the 
taxation  and  assessments  are  controlled  from 
Queen's  Park?  And  what  happens  when  the 
municipahties  we  are  elected  to  represent  can 
only  spend  15  cents  on  the  dollar?  Centralized 
control  and  we're  in  one  helltiva  mess. 

Mr.  Reid:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  say  it's  time— and  I  have 
said  it  before— that  we  made  this  a  public 
trust  instead  of  a  public  trough  and  that's 
what  it  is  tonight. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  We 
couldn't  eat  out  of  the  public  trust. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Let  the  member  tell  us  about 
the  eight  million  again. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Pardon? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Tell  us  about  the  eight 
million  again;  we  liked  it  the  second  time. 

Mr.  Drea:  A  piece  of  the  action. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  have  a  few  important  things 
to  say  for  us  living  in  the  air  age.  We  do 
need  a  positive  approach  to  air  travel.  We 
heard  today  that  the  government  turned  down 
the  right  to  buy  Tobermory  airport.  It  was 
available  at  a  bargain  price  but  the  govern- 
ment turned  it  down.  There  is  no  airport 
now  in  Tobermory.  We  have  none  in  Owen 
Sound  but  the  little  State  of  Iowa— 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Government 
Services):  I  thought  there  was  one  in  Owen 
Sound? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Come  on;  the  minister  knows 
better  than  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Is  it  only  for  the  member's 
plane? 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  knows  better  than  that. 
The  little  State  of  Iowa  has  a  beautiful  map; 
it  has  63  communities  with  lighted  airports, 
put  in  by  the  legislature,  by  government  pro- 
grammes. Every  state  in  the  United  States 
has  an  air  map  but  we  have  nothing  in  On- 
tario. I  think  Uiere  should  be  a  consciousness 
on  the  part  of  the  government  about  air 
travel.  It  is  talking  about  closing  down  the 
Island  airport. 

Mr.  Drea:  If  there  is  nothing  in'  Ontario  it 
is  because  of  the  member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Last  year  the  Isl'and  airport 
had  a  $300,000  operating  loss  and  they  are 
going  to  close  it.  That,  to  me,  is  the  most 


APRIL  8,  1974 


951 


valuable  asset  the  city  of  Toronto  has  and 
the  minister  should  know  that.  It's  a  shocking 
thing  that  the  city  of  Toronto,  one  of  the 
proudest  cities  on  the  North  American  con- 
tinent, can't  supply  or  aflFord  a  downtown 
airport.  Here  is  the  government  drifting 
along,  going  to  close  it  because  it  had  an 
operating  loss  of  $300,000.  That's  one  of  the 
busiest  airports  in  Canada  and  the  minister 
knows  it.  We  are  doing  nothing  about  it  and 
I  wish  hke  hell  that  somebody  would  do 
something  about  it. 

Mr.  Haggcrty:  Put  in  a  STOL  programme. 

Mr.  Sargent:  We  need  a  positive  pro- 
gramme. 

With  regard  to  housing,  I'll  be  very  brief 
—there's  the  time  factor  here.  As  I've  said 
before,  the  costs  of  housing  are  mainly  be- 
cause of  the  red  tape  and  bureaucracy.  The 
editor  of  the  publication  Canadian  Building 
says  that  a  bureaucratic  conspiracy  is  the 
reason  for  the  scandalous  hidden  costs  in  the 
building  industry.  I  mentioned  today  in  the 
House  that  there  are  formats  for  getting 
project  approval  through  in  90  days  and  I 
suggest  this  government  should  take  a  hard 
look  at  getting  moving  along  this  way. 

I'd  Hke  to  talk  briefly,  in  closing,  about 
money. 

Mr.  Drea:  That  would  be  a  godsend. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  member  is  great;  he  stays 
right  in  there  and  pitches. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  can't  imagine  why  he  would 
want  to  be  on  television.  I  can't  figure  it  out. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  first  time  I'd  get  a  freak- 
out  like  the  member  I'd  be  winning. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  freedom  implies 
a  series  of  choices;  if  one  has  no  options,  one 
is  not  free.  This  is  particularly  relevant  to 
the  management  or  mismanagement  of  money 
in  this  country.  There  are  few  options  when 
one  needs  money  in  a  hurry  and  usually  they 
are  unnecessarily  painful.  Money  is  or  should 
be  just  another  constuner  item  in  our  society 
and  the  manipulation  of  this  economy,  in  a 
credit  society,  can  no  longer  be  successfully 
based  on  making  money  tight. 

When  we  have  money  available  people  are 
paying  10  per  cent  or  10%  per  cent  for  first 
mortgages;  13  to  14  per  cent  for  a  second 
mortgage;  and  trust  companies  are  making 
the  biggest  profits  in  their  histories.  A  $25,000 
mortgage  now  will  cost  $103,000  by  the  time 
it  matures.  And  hundreds  and  thousands  of 


people  in  this  province,  while  waiting  for  a 
better  day,  find  themselves  paying  18  per 
cent  while  trying  to  regain  their  solvency. 
It's  a  dead-end  street. 

Mr.  Drea:  What  is  the  member  charging 
for  a  drink? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Yet  the  largest  bank  in  the 
world  really  owns  nothing.  We  found  that 
out  in  our  aepression;  when  people  took  their 
money  out  of  the  banks,  the  banks  went 
broke.  We  should  use  our  Province  of  On- 
tario Savings  Offices  to  knock  these  Shylodcs 
out  of  business  and  give  the  people  money 
loaned  to  them  at  a  decent  rate.  But  now 
we  are  charging  everybody  18  per  cent  across 
the  board. 

Mr.  Drea:  That's  my  speech. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  feel  I  am 
losing  rapport  with  the  member  for  Scarbor- 
ough Centre. 

Mr.  Drea:  That's  my  speech. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  lost  rapport  with  the  mem- 
ber a  long  time  ago. 

Mr.  Drea:  It's  my  speech.  Give  credit,  eh? 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  would  like  to  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  sorry  you  weren't  here.  I  am 
glad  to  see  you  well  and  hearty.  I  yield  the 
floor  to  my  coUeague  here. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  That,  I  must 
confess,  was  a  bit  of  an  anti-climax.  I  was 
waiting  for  the  end. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  didn't  drop  the 
other  shoe. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  suppose  I  am  the  anti-climax. 
The  leader  for  the  Libera]  Party  says  so,  and 
he  always  is  ri^t,  because  it  dependis  on 
who  one  believes  whether  he  is  always  right 
or  not.  I  notice  the  Premier  doesn't  seem  to 
think  so. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  thought  he  was  the  anti- 
climax for  the  Liberal  Party. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased  to 
have  an  opportunity  to  speak  for  a  few 
moments  in  this  debate.  I  want  first  of  all 
to  say  to  you,  as  other  people  have  said,  I 
am  pleased  to  see  you  back.  I  am  pleased 
to  see  you  back  for  reasons  that  other  perhaps 
won't  understand. 

I  had  moments  of  severe  remorse  in  De- 
cember when,  after  a  confrontation  in  the 


952 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


House,  I  walked  outside  to  give  the  Christmas 
message.  Just  prior  to  standing  up,  I  dis- 
covered you  had  taken  ill  and  had  to  be 
taken  from  the  House.  Frankly  I  wished 
that  we  hadn't  had  quite  the  exchange  we 
had  had  just  immediately  prior  to  that. 

I  say  to  you  now,  as  I  have  said  to  you 
privately,  I  am  delighted  that  you  are  back 
in  the  chair  to  exercise  your  responsibilities 
in  a  way  that  no  other  in  the  House  could, 
and  I  personally  have  no  reservations  about 
saying  how  pleased  I  am  to  have  you  as  a 
Speaker. 

I  can't  say  the  same  about  the  government, 
unfortunately,  that  you  belong  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Try  hard.  Give  it  the 
old  college  try. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  would  like  to  be  able  to  ex- 
tend to  them  the  same  kind  of  feeling,  but 
frankly  I  can't— 

Mr.  Gilbertson:  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Deans:  —because  I  have  come  to  the 
conclusion,  after  watching  for  nearly  seven 
years,  that  the  kind  of  responsibihties  which 
they  exercise  or  which  they  seem  to  feel 
they  ought  to  exercise  are  certainly  not  in 
keeping  with  what  I  believe. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  We  are  unbeatable. 
After  seven  years,  we  are  unbeatable. 

Mr.  Deans:  Before  dealing  with  what  I 
consider  to  be  the  major  issues  in  the  Throne 
Speech,  I  want  to  raise  a  couple  of  matters 
that  are  of  purely  local  concern.  They  are 
matters  which  we  in  the  Hamilton  area  have 
felt  rather  strongly  about  and  which  the 
government  is  going  to  have  to  pay  some 
attention  to  in  the  near  future  or  we  are 
going  to  be  faced  with  some  major  problems. 

The  first  relates  directly  to  the  people  who 
live  on  what  is  known  as  the  Hamilton 
beach  strip.  The  people  who  live  on  the 
beach  strip  have  been  faced  with  a  number 
of  severe  problems  over  the  last  five,  six  or 
seven  years.  Matters  came  to  a  head  last 
year  with  the  extremely  severe  flooding, 
which  caused  many  of  the  septic  systems  in 
the  area  to  cease  functioning  adequately  and 
which  caused  many  of  the  people  to  have 
an  obvious  loss  in  the  value  of  the  properties 
which  they  had  owned  and  kept  up  for  a 
good  length  of  time. 

The  government  has  indicated,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  there  is  the  possibility  that  it 
might  acquire  the  land  on  the  beach  strip  in 
Hamilton  as  a  public  park.  By  making  a 
statement   such   as    that,    it   has    placed   the 


people  who  currently  live  there  in  a  very 
invidious  position.  If  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
government  to  promote  the  development  of  a 
public  park  in  that  area,  then  it  should  state 
it  categorically  now  and  it  should  proceed 
with  the  acquisition  of  the  properties.  The 
people  who  are  currently  living  there  are 
finding  it  extremely  diflBcult  (1)  to  decide 
whether  or  not  it's  worth  their  while  to 
maintain  and  develop  their  properties  and  (2) 
to  decide  whether  or  not  it's  worth  their 
while  financially  to  expend  any  additional 
moneys  on  septic  systems  in  order  that  the 
properties  can  be  used  at  an  adequate  level. 
Thirdly,  people  are  finding  it  virtually  im- 
possible to  acquire  mortgages  in  the  event 
that  they  want  to  sell  the  properties.  Many 
of  those  who  are  currently  in  the  field  of 
providing  mortgage  funds  are  unwilling  to 
provide  additional  funds  for  any  of  the  prop- 
erties on  the  beach  strip  because  the  hiture 
of  the  area  and  of  the  homes  in  the  area  is 
very  uncertain,  and  therefore  the  people  who 
are  living  there  are  gradually  losing  their 
equity  and  investment. 

The  final  point  I  want  to  make  with  re- 
gard to  the  beach  strip  is  this,  that  there 
are  a  small  number  of  businesses  in  that 
area  that  have  served  that  particular  com- 
munity well.  They  have  not  been  what  one 
would  call  excessive  in  their  profit  taking. 
They  have  simply  been  a  comer  store  oper- 
ation that  has  provided  access  for  people  to 
the  kinds  of  day  to  day  foodstuffs  and  other 
commodities  that  they  require,  and  because 
of  the  government's  inactivity  and  because 
there  is  a  gradual  erosion  of  the  nimtibers  of 
people  who  are  currently  on  the  beach  strip 
those  businesses  are  suffering  immeasurably. 

I  think  the  government  has  an  obligation 
now  to  move  into  the  area,  to  make  it  per- 
fectly clear  it  is  its  intention  to  acquire  all 
of  the  properties,  to  sit  down  with  the 
business  people  and  discuss  what,  in  fact,  is 
the  real  worth  of  the  business  and  to  come 
to  some  satisfactory  arrangement  as  to  com- 
pensation. I  think  we  have  waited  long 
enough. 

I  think  the  people  in  the  area  have  been 
extremely  patient  and  I  feel  that  this  gov- 
ernment has  an  obligation  now,  if  it  is  its 
intention  to  involve  itself  in  the  development 
of  a  park  area  in  the  beach  strip  of  the 
Hamilton  area,  to  do  so  with  some  forth- 
right announcement  and  let's  begin  the 
process  and  give  the  people  a  fair  oppor- 
tunity to  return  to  themselves  some  of  the 
equity   and   investment  that  they  have. 

The  second  point  I  want  to  raise,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  is  purely  local,  is  with  regard 


APRIL  8.  1974 


953 


to  regional  government.  If  it  is  the  govern- 
ment's intention  ever  again  to  implement  a 
regional  government,  I  wrant  to  suggest  that 
there  are  some  lessons  to  be  learned  from 
the  implementation  in  the  Hamilton  area. 
The  major  lesson  that  I  see  to  be  learned  is 
that  there  has  to  be  more  lead  time.  If  there 
is  going  to  be  a  regional  government  set  up 
then  I  strongly  suggest  that  there  be  much 
more  lead  time  available  for  the  kind  of 
determination  that  has  to  be  taken  by  the 
regional  municipality  with  regard  to  its 
responsibilities. 

The  regional  government  of  Hamilton- 
Wentworth  is  currently  having  considerable 
difficulty  in  trying  to  determine  what  its 
budget  will  be,  trying  to  determine  the 
scope  of  its  operation,  trying  to  decide  what, 
if  anything,  will  become  solely  regional, 
what  if  an>thing  is  going  to  be  a  shared 
respon  Sibil  it>-  and  how  the  costs  might  be 
distributed  throughout  the  area. 

I  think  that  given  that  there  were  only 
two  months  before  the  actual  implementa- 
tion of  the  region  legally  from  the  time 
that  the  councillors  were  elected,  and  given 
that  during  that  two-month  period  a  great 
number  of  people  had  to  be  hired  who  were 
going  to  make  the  region  operative,  I  can't 
help  feeling  that  it  would  be  a  very  useful 
exercise  if  the  government  were  to  allow 
for  the  election  in  the  spring  of  any  given 
year,  with  the  region  not  to  become  fully 
implemented  until  the  first  of  the  following 
year,  and  allow  at  least  six  months  for  the 
kinds  of  operational  changes  that  have  to 
take  place. 

I  think  that  that  is  one  of  the  major 
problems  with  the  region.  I  think  that  if 
this  is  ever  to  be  done  again,  I  hope  to 
heaven  that  the  government  doesn't  do  it 
the  way  it  did  the  Hamilton  one,  but  if 
it  is  ever  done  again  I  hope  that  it  recog- 
nizes that  it  can't  be  done  in  a  two-month 
period  and  that  there  has  to  be  some  lead 
time  available. 

Anyway,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  Throne 
Speech.  I  want  to  say  to  you,  sir,  that  I 
have  always  believed  the  government  had  a 
responsibility  in  four  basic  areas.  Any  time 
I  have  spoken  in  the  House  I  have  spoken 
about  those  four  basic  areas,  because  I  be- 
lieve that  they  are,  in  fact,  the  primary 
responsibility  of  any  government  worth  its 
salt,    and    they   fall   into   these  categories: 

The  government  has  a  responsibility  to 
ensure  that  people  in  the  community  over 
which  it  has  jurisdiction  are  able  to  acquire 
food  at  a  cost  that  they  can  afford.  The 
government  also  has  a  responsibility  to  en- 


sure that  people  who  live  in  the  community 
over  whidi  it  has  jurisdiction  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  acquire  shelter  at  a  cost  that  they 
can  afford.  The  government  further  has  a 
responsibility  to  ensure  that  people  within 
its  jurisdiction  have  an  opportunity  to 
acquire  health  care  at  a  cost  tiiat  they  can 
afford.  And  finally,  it  has  the  same  kind  of 
responsibility  with  regard  to  the  provision 
of  education. 

I  think  it  fair  to  say  that  if  one  were  to 
analyse  its  actions  over  the  past  10  or  15 
years,  he  would  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  goverimient  has  failed  miserably  if  these 
are  to  be  the  criteria  against  which  it  is 
measured.  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  in 
three  of  the  four  areas  the  government  has 
not  exercised  any  of  its  responsibility  at  all. 
In  the  last  area,  whatever  responsibility  it 
did  exercise,  it  certainly  has  fallen  far  short 
of  what  ought  to  have  been  done. 

I  want  tonight  to  deal  with  three  of  the 
areas:  I  want  to  deal  with  the  cost  of  food 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  and  the  rising  cost 
of  living  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  I  want 
to  deal  briefly  with  the  problems  of  health. 

You  will  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  time 
my  leader  spoke  in  the  Throne  Speech  de- 
bate he  moved  an  amendment.  That  amend- 
ment said,  and  I  want  to  read  it  to  you: 

That  this  government  be  further  condemned  for  its 
failure  to  institute  satisfactory  actions  in  the  foUomng 
areas: 

Under  the  heading  "Inflation  in  the  cost  of 
living,"  he  went  on  to  say  that  the  govern- 
ment had  failed  to  "investigate  increases  in 
profit  to  ensure  no  excess  profit-taking." 

That  the  govenunent  had  failed  to  "estab- 
lish a  price  and  profit  review  tribunal  with 
power  to  investigate  every  aspect  of  price 
increases  and  take  whatever  action  is  neces- 
sary to  ensure  no  unreasonable  increases,  or 
to  have  selected  increases  rolled  back." 

That  the  government  had  failed  "to  estab- 
lish a  consumer  protection  code  extending  not 
only  to  marketplace  transactions  and  com- 
modities, but  to  the  provision  of  services." 

That  the  government  had  failed  "to  insti- 
tute a  province-wide  warranty  for  home  build- 
ing standards." 

That  the  government  had  failed  "to  insti- 
tute a  public  automobile  insurance  pro- 
gramme." 

And  in  the  area  of  northern  development, 
he  went  on  to  say  the  government  had  failed 
"to  establish  economic  growth  in  northern 
Ontario  based  on  the  resource  potential  as  a 
catalyst  for  secondary  development." 


954 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


And  that  the  government  had  failed  "to 
establish  northern  economic  development  and 
employment  based  on  long-term  secondary 
growth  as  a  number  one  priority." 

And  that  the  government  had  failed  "to 
recognize  the  massive  economic  disparity  be- 
tween northern  and  southern  Ontario  and  the 
adverse  effects  of  the  two-price  system  in  this 
province,  and  failure  to  take  appropriate 
measures  to  bring  about  equality." 

And  under  land  use  and  urban  growth,  he 
said  that  the  government  had  failed  "to  move 
immediately  to  acquire  for  the  public  sector 
sufficient  land  to  meet  the  projected  housing 
needs  over  the  next  20  years." 

And  that  the  government  had  failed  "to 
begin  a  house  building  programme  aimed  at 
producing  at  least  250,000  homes,  both  pri- 
vate arnl  public,  within  18  months." 

And  that  the  government  had  failed  "to 
develop  a  land-use  policy  and  overall  de- 
velopment plan  to  meet  recreational  require- 
ments in  all  areas  of  the  province,  with  im- 
mediate emphasis  in  the  'goMen-horseshoe' 
area." 

And  further,  that  the  government  had  failed 
"to  establish  rent  review  and  control 
measures." 

And  under  employer  and  employee  rela- 
tions, my  leader  pointed  out  that  the  govern- 
ment had  failed  "to  amend  the  Labour  Rela- 
tions Act  to  meet  the  legitimate  request  of 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour  as  conveyed 
to  all  members  of  the  Legislature." 

And  the  government  had  failed  to  exercise 
its  responsibility  "by  allowing  conditions  of 
work  and  wages  for  the  hospital  workers  of 
Ontario  to  deteriorate  to  a  substandard  level." 

And  further,  that  the  government  had  fail'- 
ed  to  exercise  its  responsibility  "by  creating  a 
confrontation  with  teachers  in  this  province 
and  then  failing  to  respond  to  the  conse- 
quences" of  its  actions. 

And  that  the  government  had  failed  in  its 
responsibility  "by  inflicting  compulsory  arbi- 
tration on  Crown  employees;"  and  that  finally 
the  government  had  failed  "to  legislate  against 
strike-breaking  in  the  use  of  firms  and  in- 
dividuals  to   disrupt   orderly,    legal    strikes." 

And  under  the  policy  heading  "income 
maintenance,"  my  leader  pointed  out  that  this 
government  had  failed  "to  institute  an  income 
maintenance  programme  to  meet  the  legiti- 
mate needs  of  the  elderly." 

And  that  this  government  had  failed  to 
establish  "adequate  income  levels  for  the  dis- 
abled and  other  disadvantaged  people  in 
Ontario." 


And  under  the  heading  of  "health,"  my 
leader  pointed  out  that  this  government  had 
failed  "to  provide  a  sufficient  range  of  insti- 
tutional facilities  to  ensure  adequate  health 
care  at  the  lowest  possible  cost;"  that  it  had 
failed  "to  institute  dental  and  drug-care  pro- 
grammes;' and  it  had  further  failed  "to  take 
initiatives  which  would  upgrade  the  value 
of  preventive  medicine." 

Mr.  Renwick:  Why  don't  those  ministers 
who  are  here  simply  resign  and  let  somebody 
else  take  over? 

Mr.  Deans:  And  he  then  said  in  conclusion 

to  his  remarks- 
Mr.   F.   Laughren   (Nickel  Belt):   There   is 

nowhere  to  go  but  up. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  is  absolutely  shocking  that 
this  government  can  have  that  litany  of  fail- 
ures and  still  sit  there  complacently  in  their 
places  tonight. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  then  said  in  concluding  his  re- 
marks that  the  government  had  shown  "gross 
negligence  in  its  refusal  to  tax  the  resource 
industries  of  Ontario  at  a  level  which  would 
allow  individuals  and  families  in  this  province 
to  experience  major  relief  from  the  inequita- 
ble and  oppressive  system  of  taxation  presently 
in  eflFect." 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  one  in  this  House 
who  would  deny  the  accuracy  of  that  litany. 
There  is  no  one  in  this  House  who  would 
claim  that  this  government  had,  in  fact,  acted 
properly  in  any  of  those  areas.  There  is  no 
one  in  this  House  who  could  stand  in  his 
place  and  refute  the  statements  made  by  the 
leader  of  the  NDP  at  the  time  that  he  spoke 
in  the  Throne  Speech  debate. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Even  the  Tories  admit  it  by 
acquiescence. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  what  we  are  faced  with  is 
a  government  that  has  brought  in  a  Throne 
Speech  completely  inadequate  to  meet  the 
needs  of  the  people  of  the  Province  of  On- 
tario, a  goveriuuent  that  has  brought  in  a 
Throne  Speech  without  any  of  the  specifics 
which  could  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagination 
be  considered  to  be  the  kinds  of  programmes 
that  we  might  need  to  have  in  order  to 
correct  the  imbalances  which  currently  pre- 
vail right  across  the  spectrum  of  the  people 
of  the  province. 

Mr.  Renwick:  There  are  two  ministers  en- 
gaged in  conversation  and  four  engaged  in 
studied  indifference   to  what  is  being  said. 


APRIL  8.  1974 


OSS 


They  can't  do  their  paper  work  in  their 
oflBces  during  the  day.  They  brine  it  into  the 
Legislature  at  night  and  insult  the  members 
of  the  Legislature.  Why  don't  they  put  down 
their  pencils  and  their  papers  and  listen  to 
what  is  being  said  about  the  government  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Havrot:  We  heard  it  last  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Deans:  It  is  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  member  for  Timiskaming  should  say 
they  had  heard  it  last  vear,  because  little 
does  he  realize  that  that  is  exactly  the 
problem.  To  have  had  to  say  it  year  after 
year  after  year  and  not  get  any  response 
of  any  kind  from  this  government  is  a  clear 
indication  of  the  government's  indiflFerence 
toward  the  needs  of  the  people  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  member  for  Timiskaming 
in  an  attempt  to  be  humorous  and  comical 
obviously  isn't  aware  of  the  responsibilities 
of  government.  I  don't  blame  him.  If  I  were 
to  sit  so  far  from  the  government,  I  doubt 
if  I  would  be  aware  of  it  either. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  was  passed  over 
again. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Don't  worry  about  me. 

Mr.  Laughren:  He  is  after  the  chairman- 
ship of  the  ONR. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  will  be  a  vacancy 
there. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Thank  you  for  your  support. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  want  to  deal  briefly,  Mr. 
Speaker,  with  the  area  of  housing,  with  the 
cost  of  living  and  with  some  problems  of  the 
aged,  and  then  I  intend  to  yield  the  floor. 

I  want,  first,  to  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this 
government's  attitude  toward  housing  is 
atrocious.  The  government  in  1967,  as  my 
colleague  from  Wentworth  North  (Mr.  Ewen) 
will  well  remember  it,  announced  a  great 
housing  project  in  the  Hamilton  area.  That 
housing  project  has  yet  to  yield  a  single 
house.  That  project  was  announced  in  1967 
two  weeks  prior  to  the  election.  To  this  date 
some  seven  years  later,  there  isn't  a  single 
basement,  there  isn't  a  single  house  and  there 
isn't  a  single  thing  that  anyone  could  point 


to  as  being  an  indication  of  the  govenunent't 
conrniitment  toward  housing. 

The  government,  first  of  ail,  doesn't  recog- 
nize that  a  sizable  portion  of  the  people  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario  live  in  rented  accom- 
modation, and  that  within  the  rented  accom- 
modation the  people  who  are  living  there 
are  very  much  at  tne  mercy  of  the  landlords. 
The  landlords  of  the  Province  of  Ontario,  in 
spite  of  what  thev  might  say,  appear  to  be 
in  the  business  of  maximizing  profit  regard- 
less of  the  impact  of  their  actions  on  the 
people  who  currently  rent  from  them. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  government  is  in  a 
shambles. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  city  of  Toronto  has  been 
faced  in  the  last  year- 
Mr.  Renwidc:   Never  has  it  been  in  such 

disarray  as  it  is  tonight. 

Mr.  Deans:  —with  increases  which  average 
25  per  cent  in  the  area  of  apartment  rental. 
The  UDI,  which  represents  or  purports  to 
represent  a  number  of  the  rental  accom- 
modations in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  had 
the  gall  to  suggest  to  its  members  recently 
that  they  should  be  asking  for  a  10  to  12 
per  cent  increase  in  rental  this  year.  One 
wouldn't  mind  too  much,  an  increase  of  10 
to  12  per  cent  if  that  increase  were  justi- 
fied. One  wouldn't  mind  too  much  the  in- 
crease in  the  cost  of  rental  accommodation 
if  the  increase  were,  in  fact,  legitimate.  It 
wouldn't  be  unacceptable  if  the  increase  re- 
flected a  legitimate  and  honest  increase  in 
the  cost  of  providing  the  service  and  the 
accommodation.  But  the  fact  of  the  mattei 
is  that  the  increases  that  are  being  de- 
manded— 

Mr.  Renwick:  Why  doesn't  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  go  back  to  his  office 
and  do  his  work  there? 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  junior  achiever  of  On- 
tario is  not  accomplishing  anything  in  here. 

Mr.  Deans:  —are  not  justified  and  arc  not 
increases  which  reflect  increases  in  cost,  but 
are  rather  an  attempt  by  the  owners  of  apart- 
ments in  the  Province  of  Ontario  to  extract 
the  maximum  amount  of  money  from  their 
tenants  without  any  consideration. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  is  getting  credit  for  the  hiehest 
prices  in  food. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 


956 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Laughren:  The  junior  achiever  of  On- 
tario is  not  accomphshing  anything  in  here. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  increases  that  are  being 
demanded,  Mr,  Speaker,  are  not  justified,  are 
not  increases  which  reflect  increases  in  cost, 
but  rather  are  an  attempt  by  the  owners  of 
apartments  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  to 
extract  the  maximum  amount  of  money  from 
their  tenants  without  any  consideration- 
Mr.  Renwick:  The  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Renwick:  —takes  credit  for  the  highest 
food  prices  that  have  ever  existed  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  people  are  speaking  to 
the  government- 
Mr.  Deans:  —without  any  consideration,  as 
I  say,  for  the  abihty  of  the  people  who  live 
in  the  apartments  to  pay,  or  for  that  matter 
for  the  abihty  of  the  community  as  a  whole 
to  pay. 

I  was  interested  in  speaking  v^dth  people 
at  the  landlord  and  tenant  bureau,  and  I  dis- 
cover that  by  far  the  majority  of  the  com- 
plaints which  they  receive  are  directly  re- 
lated' to  rent  increases;  that  ranging  upwards 
of  100  every  week  are  complaints  from  people 
about  unjustified,  unsubstantiated  rent  in- 
creases in'  apartments  in  which  they  have 
been  tenants  for  a  long  period  of  time.  I  had 
one  brought  to  my  attention  which  I  think 
is  absolutely  atrocious  and  which  this  gov- 
ernment has  to  recognize  as  being  not  the 
exception  but  the  norm  in  the  way  in  which 
apartment  owners  deal  with  tenants. 

An  88-year-old  man  who  is  in  a  position 
of  being  imable  to  move  around  freely  re- 
ceived a  notice  from  his  landlord  that  his 
rent  was  going  from  $190  to  $230  a  month. 
And  it's  not  uncommon  to  find  rent  increases 
from  $150  to  $170,  from  $260  to  $325,  from 
$220  to  $260  vdthout  the  least  bit  of  justifica- 
tion. Throughout  the  rental  accommodation 
business  we  find  that  apartment  owners  are, 
without  any  consideration  for  their  tenants, 
raising  the  rents,  and  the  rents  are  being 
raised  by  25,  30  and  50  per  cent.  It's  time 
that  this  government  exercised  its  respon- 
sibihty  in  the  field  and  moved  in  and  said, 
"No,  not  in  the  Province  of  Ontario."  It's 
time  that  this  government  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  the  Province  of  British  Coluanbia, 
or  perhaps  the  Province  of  Manitoba,  or 
maybe  even  the  city  of  Halifax,  which  have 


all  recognized  that  the  kind  of  rent  gouging 
that  is  going  on  right  across  this  country- 
it's  not  unique  to  the  Province  of  Ontario, 
it's  going  on  right  across  this  country- is  un- 
conscionable and  unacceptable,  and  that  it  is 
not  in  keeping  with  the  best  practices  of 
government  or  the  responsibility  of  govern- 
ment to  allow  this  land  of  thing  to  occur 
within  its  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  even  do  it  in  Quebec. 

Mr.  Deans:  It  is  time  for  this  government 
to  face  up  to  reality,  and  the  reality  is  that 
unless  you  are  prepared  as  a  government  to 
institute  a  tribunal  oef ore  which  those  asking 
for  rent  increases  must  appear  and  justify 
their  rent  increases,  we  are  going  to  see 
people  gouged  and  more  and  more  of  their 
income  taken  in  order  to  provide  just  basic 
shelter. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  want  to  tell  you  the  kind  of 
justification  that  people  get  when  their  rents 
are  increased,  and  HI  read  you  a  letter.  It's 
a  letter  sent  out  by  Hillbrook  Investments  in 
Hamilton  and  it  says: 

Dear  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whoever: 
Please  be  advised  that  the  current  ten- 
ancy agreement  on  the  above  premises  is 
hereby  terminated  by  the  landlord  on  its 
anniversary  date.  Due  to  imprecedented 
inflationary  costs  which  have  aflFected  the 
residential  rental  industry  since  the  rate 
was  last  determined  and  which  show  no 
sign  of  abatement,  the  monthly  rental  on 
the  above  stipulated  premises  beginning 
June  1  will  be  the  amount  of  $130.  [This 
is  an  increase  of  $15  a  month.] 

A  new  tenancy  agreement  may  be  nego- 
tiated on  request.  The  advantages  to  the 
tenant  of  any  contract  during  an  in- 
flationary period  are  clearly  obvious.  How- 
ever, the  contract  offered,  as  you  may 
know,  carries  the  added  advantage  of  a  $5 
discount  for  prompt  payment  of  rent.  This 
'discount  cannot  be  claimed  until  a  tenancy 
'agreement  is  fully  executed.  [And  then 
Icomes  the  crunch  clause,  because  this  really 
aggravates  me.] 

iWhen  rent  increases  occur,  most  cus- 
tomers want  to  know  what  the  extra  dollars 
are  buying.  The  answer,  unfortunately,  is 
next  to  nodiing.  Or  to  put  it  another  way, 
the  building  in  which  you  Hve  would  not 
'be  able  to  operate  at  all'  vcdthout  increas- 
ing the  niunber  of  now  much  smaller 
dollars  you  are  requested  to  pay.  Such  is 
the  unproductive  nature  of  inflation.   We 


APRIL  8.  1974 


057 


have  appreciated  your  tenancy  and  tnut 
you  will  permit  us  to  continue  to  serve 
you. 

I  want  to  say  to  the  government  that  this 
is  not  justification  for  a  rent  increase.  The 
gobbledegook  that's  written  in  there  is  an 
attempt  to  hoodwink  the  people  who  live 
in  the  apartment  building.  It's  an  attempt 
to  justify  a  rent  increase.  It  doesn't  say  that 
the  cost  of  heat  and  taxes  has  gone  up  by 
X  dollars  or  that  they  have  to  absorb  addi- 
tional costs  in  maintenance  or  whatever.  It 
simply  places  the  responsibility  in  an  area 
where  the  people  have  no  opportunity  to 
check  it.  And  that  should  not  be  permitted 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

If  the  government  has  any  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility at  all  toward  the  many  thou- 
sands of  people  right  across  the  province 
who  are  unfortunately  tenants,  then  it  has 
an  obligation  to  institute  a  review  board 
that  will  demand  that  people  like  Hillbrook 
Investments  come  before  that  review  board 
and  open  their  books  and  say,  "These  are 
the  reasons  why  we  have  to  ask  for  a  rent 
increase." 

In  this  time  of  rising  inflation  it  is  true, 
no  doubt,  that  the  costs  of  operating  apart- 
ment buildings  rise,  as  do  the  costs  of  all 
other  things.  But  there  is  no  reason  at  all 
why  tenants  should  not  be  given  the  benefit 
of  the  same  kind  of  information  that  home- 
owners have  when  they  have  to  pay  more 
to  maintain  and  heat  their  properties  and 
to  pay  more  taxes. 

Homeowners  know,  as  they  receive  their 
bills  on  a  day-to-day  basis,  what  it  is  that's 
costing  them  more  and  why  the  cost  of 
providing  themselves  with  accommodation 
is  rising.  Tenants  don't  have  the  benefit 
of  that,  and  it's  time  that  this  province  woke 
up. 

It's  time  that  this  government  woke  up 
and  recognized  that  tenants  are  not  second- 
class  citizens  and  that  they  are  entitled  to 
the  same  kinds  of  privileges  as  everyone  else 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  And  they  should 
be  given  the  kind  of  protection  that  ensures 
that  no  landlord,  whether  he  lives  in  To- 
ronto, Hamilton,  Ottawa  or  any  other  place, 
is  entitled  to  implement  a  rent  increase 
without  first  showing  the  justification  for  it. 

Beyond  that,  it's  time  that  we  had  a 
standard  lease  form  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  A  standard  lease  form  in  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  should  be  brought  out  by 
this  government  and  should  be  in  mandatory 
use  for  all  rental  accommodation.  I  suggest 
that    if    there    is    any    deviation    from    that 


standard  lease  form,  that  deviation  should 
be  marked  clearly  on  the  form  and  it 
should  be  subject  to  the  agreement  of  both 
parties. 

Until  such  time  as  this  government  Is 
prepared  to  take  these  kinds  of  actions,  it 
has  decided  by  itself  to  relegate  the  people 
who  live  in  rented  accomnuxlation  to  the 
status  of  second-class  citizens.  I,  frankly, 
don't  abide  it,  and  no  one  in  this  party 
does.  I  make  the  commitment  that  were  we 
given  the  opportunity,  notwithstanding  the 
difficulties  that  might  be  brought  about,  we 
would  in  fact  institute  the  kinds  of  things 
that  we're  asking  this  government  to  do. 

We're  asking  this  government  further  not 
to  do  things  that  no  one  else  has  ever  done. 
We're  asking  them  simply  to  look  around 
and  recognize  that  other  more  enlightened 
jurisdictions  have  recognized  what  we  have 
been  telling  this  government  for  years,  that 
unless  they  pull  the  landlords  into  line 
they're  going  to  gouge  the  people  of  this 
Province  of  Ontario  to  the  point  where  the 
people  can't  afFord  to  live  in  apartment 
buildings— and  I  don't  know  where  in 
heaven's  name  they're  going  to  go. 

What  we  have  happening  is  that  more  and 
more  of  the  dollars  that  ought  to  be  spent 
on  food,  clothing  and  other  necessities  are 
being  tied  up  in  providing  accommodation. 
And  it's  wrong,  fundamentally  and  basically 
wrong.  This  government  has  an  obligation 
to  move  in  the  field,  and  if  it  doesn't,  I 
suggest  that  at  some  point  the  people  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario  will  rise  up— and  what 
they'll  have  to  say  to  the  government  they'll 
say  at  the  ballot  box. 

I  want  also  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
about  the  increases  in  the  cost  of  accom- 
modation in  the  housing  field.  I  think  we 
have  spoken  more  frequently  in  the  last 
few  weeks  about  housing  than  any  other 
single  topic.  It's  been  one  of  those  areas 
where  the  opposition  has  raised  with  the 
government  a  number  of  basic  problems 
that  have  been  confronting  people  across  the 
province;  and  I  think  the  government  be- 
lieves that  if  it  speaks  long  enough  and 
promises  often  enough,  something  will 
happen. 

I  like  the  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Handle- 
man).  I  sat  with  him  on  a  committee  for  two 
years,  and  we  got  along  well.  But  I'm  going 
to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  if  they  give 
him  enough  rope  he'll  be  walking  on  his  own 
tongue  pretty  soon. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  a  mixed  metaphor. 


958 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Deans:  Well,  it's  true.   If  he's  given 

suflBcient  leeway- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Give  him  enough  rope 

and  he  will  walk  on  his  own  tongue! 

Mr.  Deans:  —he'll  be  walking  on  his  own 
tongue.  He's  making  statements  which  he  is 
unable  to  back  up.  He's  making  statements 
about  the  government's  intentions,  which  he 
knows  full  well  the  government  has  no  in- 
tention of  implementing.  When  the  Minister 
of  Housing  says  that  simply  by  making  it 
known  to  the  speculator  that  the  govern- 
ment may  move  in  will  be  suflBcient  to  dis- 
courage the  speculator  from  getting  into 
the  field,  I  want  to  give  him  the  other  side 
of  that.  By  telling  the  speculator  what  the 
government  might  well  do,  the  speculator  is 
doing  all  in  his  power  to  drive  the  prices  as 
high  as  they  can  go  now  to  make  sure  that 
he  maximizes  profit  today.  Beyond  that  I 
want  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  through 
you  the  government  that  I  am  convinced 
there  isn't  a  land  speculator  anywhere  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario  who  honestly  believes 
that  this  government  will  take  any  action, 
there  isn't  a  land  speculator  anywhere  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario  or  a  housing  speculator 
anywhere  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  who, 
given  the  record  of  this  government  in  land 
speculation  and  action  or  inaction,  believes 
for  one  moment  that  the  government  is  ever 
going  to  move  in  and  put  an  end  to  the 
speculation  in  housing. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Even  the  backbench  specu- 
lators aren't  afraid. 

Mr.  Deans:  My  colleague  from  Hamilton 
Mountain  (Mr.  J,  R.  Smith)  sent  me  a  copy 
of  today's  Hamilton  Spectator  and  he  ob- 
viously didn't  read  it  very  closely  because  in 
the  Spectator  I  noticed  the  conflict  between 
the  Tories  here  at  Queen's  Park  and  the 
Tories  in  Ottawa.  Here  we  have  this  fellow 
Robert  Stanfield  who  is  saying- 
Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Who  is  he? 
Mr.  Havrot:  Great  man. 

Mr.  Deans:  —and  I  quote  from  a  story  in 
the  Spectator,  April  8,  1974,  "PCs  Favour 
House  Price  Controls"— house  price  controls. 
It  says,  "Opposition  Leader  Robert  Stanfield 
says  a  Progressive  Conservative  government 
would  use  price  controls  to  stop  the  shock- 
ing and  shameful  increase  in  house  prices." 

Mr.  Laughren:  Sheer  hypocrisy. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Sure,  look  at  the  record  of 
the  Tory  government  down  here. 


Mr.  Ferrier:  They  don't  go  along  with  Bob 
Stanfield. 

Mr.  Renwick:  This  is  the  group  which  is 
going  to  support  them  all  in  the  next  federal 
election. 

An  hon.  member:  The  gall  of  those  people 
over  there;  the  sheer  gall. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  want  to  tell  members  that 
the  statement  of  the  Premier  on  the  week- 
end when  he  guaranteed  the  Conservatives  in 
Toronto  the  full  support  of  the  Conservative 
government  at  Queen's  Park  to  try  to  win 
the  next  federal  election  was  obviously  a 
farce  when  one  considers  the  lands  of  state- 
ments being  made  by  the  federal  leader  of 
the  Conservative  Party  which  don't  gibe  in 
any  sense  with  what  this  government  is 
doing  here.  There  is  absolutely  no  intention 
on  the  part  of  the  Conservatives  in  Ontario 
to  deal  forthrightly  and  effectively  with  the 
problem  of  the  spiralling  costs  of  housing. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  hon.  member  would 
permit  an  interruption,  I  might  point  out  to 
the  member  that  10:30  is  3ie  adjournment 
hour,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  govern- 
ment motion. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Let's  adjourn,  there  is  no- 
body here  from  the  government.  The  Premier 
isn't  here;  it  is  his  Throne  Speech  debate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  House  sit  be- 
yond the  normal  adjournment  hour  of  10:30. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  motion  cany? 

Mr.  Renwick:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Those  in  favoiu-  of  the  motion 
please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  please  say  "nay." 
In  my  opinion  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth.  I  appreciate  his  courtesy  in  letting  me 
interrupt. 

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you;  it  was  a  very 
appropriate  moment  anyway. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  didn't  think  I  had  a  choice; 
I  suppose  I  did. 

I  want  to  go  on,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  say  to  you 
that  in  looking  back  over  the  record  of  the 
Conservatives  at  Queen's  Park  in  consider- 
ing the  actions  they  have  taken  with  regard 
to  housing  over  the  last   seven  years,   and 


APRIL  8.  1974 


(X» 


recognizing  that  rather  than  being  competitors 
to  the  private  sector,  they  have  been,  in 
fact,  complementing  the  private  sector  in  its 
eflForts  to  drive  the  housing  prices  up,  I  can't 
believe,  not  for  one  moment,  that  the  federal 
Progressive  Conservatives  would  have  the 
support  of  Ontario  in  any  effort  they  might 
undertake  to  impose  restrictions  on  the  in- 
creasing cost  of  housing. 

This  government's  record  in  housing  is 
atrocious.  The  minister  may  stand  up  and 
speak  about  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of 
housing  units  which  have  been  developed  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario  but  this  government 
has  done  absolutely  nothing  in  the  time  I've 
been  here  to  try  to  curb  the  spiralling  costs. 
This  government,  in  fact,  when  it  went  out 
to  build  houses  under  the  HOME  programme, 
checked  in  advance  to  find  out  what  were  the 
current  free-market  prices  for  the  lots  before 
establishing  the  prices  it  would  charge.  Did 
it  charge  less  than  the  free  market  price? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  probably  charged  more. 

Mr.  Deans:  They  charged  the  same  and 
more  than  the  free-market  price.  When  I 
asked  the  question  of  the  minister  in  charge 
at  the  time,  Hon.  Stanley  Randall  in  that 
day,  he  told  me  that  this  government  wasn't 
in  the  business  of  undercutting  the  private 
entrepreneur. 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  had  to  protect  the 
member  for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  Yaremko). 

Mr.  Deans:  Oh  no!  This  government  was  in 
the  business  of  shoring  up  the  private  sector. 
Well,  when  the  government  made  that  state- 
ment back  in  1968,  I  want  to  tell  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  it  was  at  that  point  that  the 
private  sector  decided  that  they  were  going 
to  take  from  the  housing  market  every  single 
cent  that  they  could  get.  And  by  God  they  ve 
taken  every  cent  that  they  can  get.  They  have 
pushed  the  price  of  housing  right  across  the 
Province  of  Ontario  to  a  level  where  all  but 
the  elite  few  of  young  people  coming  into 
the  housing  market  are  unable  to  buy. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  go  and  speak  to  young 
people  in  schools  about  the  future  that  is  out 
there  waiting  for  them.  I  talk  to  them  in  the 
following  way  and  I  ask  anyone  to  disprove 
it,  that  if  any  single  one  of  them  went  out 
from  the  school  and  was  able  to  move  into 
the  job  that  his  father  currently  held,  earn- 
ing the  same  salary  for  the  same  amount  of 
work,  he  couldn't  buy  the  house  they  live  in. 
Do  you  know  that's  true  of  over  80  per  cent 
of  the  population,  Mr.  Speaker?  Do  you  know 
that  over  80  per  cent  of  the  population,  if 
they  were  to  go  out  in  today's  market  with 


the  salaries  that  they  currently  earn  and  try 
to  buy  the  house  they  live  in,  they  couldnt 

do  it. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Shame!  Disgracefull 

Mr.  Deans:  They  don't  earn  enough  to  buy 
the  house  they  live  in.  It's  only  by  the  grace 
of  God  that  they  bought  them  some  yean 
ago  and  are  able  to  meet  the  payments. 

And  this  government  has  sat  back.  It's 
a  measure  of  the  inactivity  and  lack  of  com- 
cem  that  this  government  has  shown  in  the 
housing  field,  because  this  trend  became  ob- 
vious twick  in  the  mid-1960s.  It  became  obvi- 
ous about  1965  that  housing  prices  were  rising 
more  quickly  than  the  ability  of  the  average 
consumer  to  purchase.  It  became  obvious 
about  1965  that,  with  the  ceilings  taken  off 
mortgage  interest  rates,  mortgage  interest 
rates  for  housing  were  going  to  rise  at  a  level 
which  would  make  the  montWy  payments  out- 
side the  realm  of  possibility  for  the  majority 
of  earners  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

It  became  obvious  in  1965  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  the  land  speculator  to  derive 
from  the  land  the  absolute  maximum  amount 
that  could  be  extracted.  Yet  this  government, 
though  it  was  aware  of  those  things,  failed 
to  move  and  to  take  any  action.  What  we 
now  have  is  a  housing  situation  right  across 
the  Province  of  Ontario  which  is  absolutely 
intolerable.  What  we  now  have  are  houses  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto,  that  this  month  aver- 
aged in  price  $50,340.  Do  you  know,  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  a  person  were  to  have  a  house, 
even  a  house  of  $47,000,  and  even  if  they 
were  to  raise  the  $4,700  for  the  downpay- 
ment,  they  would  have  to  amortize  a  mort- 
gage of  $42,300.  Do  you  know  that  the 
monthly  payment  for  that,  just  the  interest 
rate,  if  they  amortized  it  over  25  years,  would 
be  $378.37?  And  do  you  know  that  over  the 
course  of  the  time  they  would  be  paying  for 
that  house  they  would  pay  to  the  mortgagor  a 
sum  of  $113,512.05  to  buy  a  $47,000-house. 

But  let  me  tell  you  something  even  more 
shocking  than  some  of  the  other  figures,  be- 
cause 25-year  mortgages  are  no  longer  com- 
mon in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  People  can't 
afford  to  pay  their  houses  off  in  25  years, 
and  now  35-  and  40-year  mortgages  are  com- 
mon. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Forty  years  from  now. 

Mr.  Deans:  Let  me  tell  you  that  $40,000 
amortized  over  30  years  at  10  per  cent  means 
a  payment  to  the  finance  company,  the  bank, 
the  mortgagor,  whoever  it  may  be,  of  $124,- 
228;  and  $45,000  mortgaged  over  30  year* 


960 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is  nearly  $140,000  out  of  the  earnings  of  the 
average  person  in  the  Province   of  Ontario. 

An  hon.  member:  Don't  buy  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  if  they  go  to  35  years, 
which  is  the  common  thing  today,  you  find 
that  a  $45,000  mortgage  would  cost  $160,000 
to  pay  ofF-$160,000  to  buy  a  house.  That's 
how  much  it  would  cost. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  This  government  stands  con- 
demned for  allowing  this  to  happen  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  This  government  has 
shown  absolutely  no  concern.  And  let  me  just 
tell  you  that  if  you  were  to  take  the  average 
$50,000  sale  in  Metropolitan  Toronto  and 
amortize  it  over  35  years  it  would  cost  $177,- 
292  to  pay  it  oflF. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Shame,  shame! 

Mr.  Deans:  Now  what  working  man  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario  can  afford  to  pay  $178,- 
000  out  just  to  buy  a  house? 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  member  for  Wellington- 
Dufferin  (Mr.  Root). 

Mr.  Deans:  Where  is  the  responsibility  of 
this  government  to  provide  decent  shelter  at 
a  price  that  people  can  afford?  Where  is  the 
action  of  this  government  to  try  to  provide 
housing  for  people  who  work  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario  with  average  earnings  at  around 
$12,000  per  family?  How  can  a  family  earning 
an  average  of  $12,000  ever  hope  to  pay  $180,- 
000  over  35  years  for  a  house?  That  doesn't 
even  include  the  taxes.  That  doesn't  include 
the  upkeep.  The  whole  thing  is  just  so 
ludicrous  that  to  speak  about  it  in  the  House 
and  to  have  everyone  sitting  reading  news- 
papers and  doing  their  homework  is  almost 
too  much  to  bear. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  It's  a 
joke  over  there. 

Mr.  Deans:  Because  the  fact  of  the  matter 
is  that  this  government  doesn't  really  give  a 
damn. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  have  their  finger  in  the 
pie. 

Mr.  Deans:  Let's  take  a  look  at  what  the 
average  person  has  to  pay  out,  Mr.  Speaker, 
because  I  know  that  you  are  interested  though 
nobody  else  on  the  other  side  is. 

Do  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  if  a  per- 
son were  to  purchase  a  $47,000  house  and  if 
he  were  to  pay  10  per  cent  down  and  if  he 


wanted  to  amortize  it  over  25  years— think 
about  the  25  years  for  a  moment;  that  means 
that  that  person,  by  the  time  he  is  35,  would 
have  to  have  been  married  and  have  saved 
sufficient  money  for  a  downpayment  in  order 
to  enter  into  a  25-year  mortgage  if  he  wanted 
to  have  it  paid  off  by  the  time  he  was  60— 
it  would  cost  $378.37  a  month  simply  to 
amortize  the  balance. 

The  taxes  would  cost  approximately  $55  a 
month.  The  insurance  would  be  $6.50  a 
month.  The  heating  would  average  $30  a 
month.  The  maintenance  over  25  years  would 
be  about  $40  a  month.  The  hot  water  would 
average  $5  a  month  and  the  electricity  about 
$20  a  month  and  rising  every  day. 

Mr.  Martel:  Where  is  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Cle- 
ment)? 

Mr.  Deans:  So  it  would  require  a  person 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  just  to  make  his 
house  payments,  to  put  out- 
Mr.    Sargent:    The   member   said   that    10 
minutes  ago. 

Mr.  Deans:  -$534.87  every  month. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  why  they  have  so  many 
parliamentary  assistants  over  there— so  the 
members  can  pay  for  their  housing. 

Mr.  Deans:  That  means  that  for  the  family 
earning  $12,000,  over  half  of  their  income 
would  go  on  house  payments— over  half. 
And  you've  got  to  recognize,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  in  fact  in  1974  less  than  30  per  cent 
of  the  families  in  the  province  earn  over 
$16,000.  That  means  that  in  fact  something 
in  excess  of  70  per  cent  of  the  Province  of 
Ontario  earn  less  than  $16,000,  and  yet  to 
live  in  Metropolitan  Toronto  and  to  buy  a 
house  at  the  average  price,  just  the  aver- 
age price,  would  require  them  to  set  out  in 
excess  of  $6,000  every  single  year  just  to 
meet  their  commitments. 

Yet  this  government  talks  about  its  hous- 
ing initiatives.  This  government  talks  in  the 
Throne  Speech  with  some  pride  about  its 
housing  policies.  This  government  talks 
about  how  it  is  going  to  continue  providing 
housing  at  a  rate  of  about  100,000  a  year. 
I  want  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  not 
nearly  good  enough.  That  is  not  beginning 
to  meet  the  need  in  the  Province  of  On- 
tario. 

If  the  government  is  not  prepared  to  step 
up  this  programme;  if  it  isn't  prepared  to 
move  in  in  competition  with  the  private 
sector   and   to   develop  housing  in  sufficient 


APRIL  8,  1974 


061 


numbers  to  ensure  that  the  kind  of  gouging 
that  is  taking  place  can  no  longer  take 
place;  if  this  government  isn't  prepared  to 
expand  the  operations  of,  say,  the  Savings 
Office  in  order  to  ensure  that  there  are 
mortgages  availalile  at  rates  which  we  {n 
the  Pro\'ince  of  Ontario  can  somehow  have 
some  control  over;  if  this  government  isn't 
prepared  to  land-bank  in  the  areas  where 
the  greatest  need  is  and  to  make  use  of  the 
land  th^t  it  currently  has  to  put  housing  on 
the  market;  if  the  government  isn't  pre- 
pared to  take  advantage  of  the  (nventory 
wfiich  has  already  been  done  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Revenue  and  showing  average  price 
increases  right  across  the  Province  of  On- 
tario and  base  its  policy  on  the  trend  that 
that  shows,  then  it  will  have  failed  to  pro- 
vide housing  for  the  people  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario. 

I  want  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  last 
Friday,  when  we  raised  the  matter  of  the 
decision  of  the  Toronto  Real  Estate  Board 
that  it  wasn't  going  to  make  available  the 
index  which  previously  had  been  yielded 
every  month,  I  had  some  questions  about 
why  the  Toronto  Real  Estate  Board  didn't 
want  to  do  that.  I  think  it  has  become 
fairly  obvious,  with  regard  to  statistics,  that 
the  reason  they  didn't  want  to  do  it  was 
because  they  were  afraid  that  the  govern- 
ment might,  through  some  inadvertence,  be 
forced  to  move  into  the  field  and  put  a  stop 
to  the  kind  of  gouging  that  has  been 
occurring  right  across  Metropolitan  Toronto 
and  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  one  need  only 
look  at  the  statistics  in  housing  to  see 
exactly    where    this    government    Iws    failed. 

In  1969  in  Ontario  the  average  house 
price  was  $25,665;  by  1973  that  had  risen 
to  $36,877.  This  represented  an  increase  of 
26.3  per  cent  from  1972  to  1973  and  an 
increase  of  13.4  from  1969  to  1972. 

To  be  a  little  bit  more  specific  for  my 
colleague,  in  Ottawa  in  1969  the  average 
price  of  a  house  was  $27,292;  by  1973  that 
average  price  had  risen  to  $39,909,  reflecting 
an  increase  from  1972  to  1973  of  23.5  per 
cent. 

In  Hamilton,  where  I  come  from,  in  1969 
the  average  price  was  $23,368;  by  1973  it 
had  risen  to  $33,615,  indicating  an  increase 
in  one  year,  from  1972  to  1973,  of  22.5  per 
cent. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Hamilton  Tories  are  spec- 
ulating,  too. 

Mr.  Deans:  In  Kitchener  the  1969  average 
price  was  $28,176;  by  1973  it  was  $36,982, 


and    there    was    an    increase    from    1972    to 
1973  of  28  per  cent. 

In  Windsor,  represented  by  two  colleagucf 
of  mine  and  by  a  Liberal  member,  in  1969 
the  average  was  $20,866,  and  by  1973  that 
had  risen  to  $28,573.  From  1972  to  1973 
the  rate  of  increase  was  27.2  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  know  how  this  gov- 
ernment has  the  gall  to  bring  in  a  Throne 
Speech  that  doesn't  have  as  its  basis  a 
massive  move  in  the  field  of  housing.  I 
don't  know  how  this  government  has  the 
gall  to  go  before  the  people  of  the  Province 
of  Ontario  to  ask  for  their  continued  sup- 
port on  the  basis  of  the  kinds  of  things  that 
ha\e  happened   in  the  housing  field  alone. 

I  don't  know  how  this  government  even 
has  the  gall  to  come  into  the  House,  and 
ask  its  own  backbenchers,  who  come  from 
many  of  the  areas  that  I  have  spoken  about, 
to  support  them  when  there  is  nothing  in 
the  Throne  Speech  which  indicates  that 
this  government  has  any  intention  at  all  of 
changing  the  trends  that  it  has  not  only 
allowed  but  encouraged  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario. 

Mr.   Laughren:  And  has  benefited  from. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  can  only  suggest  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  if  there  was  orJy  one  reason 
why  I  couldn't  support  the  Throne  Speech, 
that  would  be  reason  enough.  Because  this 
government,  in  spite  of  its  head  lights— and 
I  can  well  remember  when  the  R-ovincial 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development  stood 
up  and  spoke  in  glowing  terms  two  years  ago 
about  the  tremendous  housing  programme  the 
government  was  going  to  undertake  and  how 
the  government  recognized- 
Mrs.  Campbell:  But  he  did  not  say  when. 

Mr.  Deans:  —the  great  problems  in  the 
housing  field  and  how  this  government  was 
going  to  get  under  way  with  a  great  housing 
programme  and  bring  about  a  change.  I 
am  going  to  tell  members  that  if  the  action 
in  the  last  two  years,  which  have  seen  the 
kinds  of  increases  I  have  just  spoken  alxjut, 
is  the  kind  of  action  we  can  expect  from  the 
Tory  government  in  the  field  of  housing  then 
God  relieve  us  from  the  burden  of  having 
them  in  office. 

Mr.  R.  K.  McNeil  (Elgin):  The  member 
has  pretty  feeble  support. 

Mr.  Deans:  He  wouldn't  k-now  it  even  if 
he  heard  it.  Let  me  go  on,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
say  that  it's  not  only  in  the  field  of  housing. 
If   it   were   only   one   field,   maybe  someone 


962 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


could  argue  that  a  government  is  entitled  not 
to  be  good  at  everything  but  I  am  going 
to  tell  you  something— this  government  has 
failed  equally  miserably  in  the  area  of  the 
cost  of  living.  There  is  a  litany  so  long  that 
I  hesitate  to  become  involved  in  that  area 
but  I  am  going  to  tell  members- 
Mr.  Singer:  He  is  going  to  do  it  anyway. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  want  to  say  this.  I  am  going 
to  take  my  lead  from  the  member  for  Downs- 
view  who,  knowing  that  the  things  he  had 
to  say  were  of  vital  importance  to  the  future 
of  the  province,  felt  it  necessary  to  take 
whatever  length  of  time  was  needed  in  order 
to  say  them. 

Mr.  Singer:  Right. 

Mr.  Deans:  In  fact,  I  was  delighted  when 
the  member  decided  he  wanted  to  add  a  little 
to  what  he  had  said  since  he  had  read  the 
paper  and  noticed  something  else.  I  am  not 
going  to  stand  in  his  way;  any  time  he 
wants  to  make  a  speech  he  may  do  so. 

Mr.  Singer:  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Deans:  Let  me  say  to  members  about 
the  cost  of  living- 
Mr.  Singer:  Can  I  make  one  now? 
Mr.  Deans:  He  certainly  may. 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  feels  one  coming  on. 

Mr.  Deans:  Let  me  say  something  about 
the  cost  of  living,  Mr.  Speaker.  You  will  re- 
call that  we  suggested  in  the  amendment  we 
made  that  it  was  time  for  a  review  of  price 
increases,  profit-taking  and  increased  revenue 
in  many  sectors  of  the  economy;  that  it  was 
time  for  the  government  to  exercise  one  of 
its  primary  responsibilities,  that  being  to  en- 
sure that  food  could  be  purchased  by  the 
people  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  at  a  price 
they  could  afford. 

We  said  to  the  government  that  if  it  had 
no  other  obligation  it  certainly  had  an 
obligation  to  institute  a  review  board  which 
could  investigate  what  appeared  on  the  sur- 
face to  be  unconscionable  increases  in  price 
and  profit  and  that  it  had  an  obligation,  if  it 
discovered  there  was  not  the  kind  of  justi- 
fication, to  roll  back  the  price. 

I  want  to  begin  by  saying  we  totally  reject 
that  there's  any  argument  with  regard  to 
constitutionality.  We  believe,  in  this  party, 
that  the  Province  of  Ontario  has  both  the 
constitutional  right  and  the  moral  obligation 
to  move  in  this  field. 


Mr.  Ferrier:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Deans:  We  further  beheve,  in  spite  of 
whatever  difficulties  there  may  be  with  one 
individual  province  moving,  if  the  Province 
of  Ontario  showed  the  initiative  it  would 
have  the  effect  of  reducing  the  cost  of  living 
for  all  right  across  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 
If  the  federal  Liberals  are  unwilhng  to  move- 
Mr.  Laughren:  And  they  are. 

Mr.  Deans:  —I  suggest  that  the  provincial 
Tories  have  an  obligation  to  move.  The  argu- 
ment always  seems  to  develop  that  the  gov- 
ernment doesn't  really  want  to  move  into  the 
private  sector.  What  right  has  it,  after  all, 
to  infringe  on  the  profit-taking  of  its  friends? 
Some  even  argue  that  the  profit  margins  have 
not  been  excessive  over  the  last  few  years. 
It's  simply  a  recovery  of  some  of  the  losses 
which  may  have  occurred. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  put  on  the  record 
a  few  statistics  in  this  regard  and  I  won't  be 
long.  They  cover  the  fourth  quarter  of  last 
year  in  a  number  of  different  sectors— I  am 
going  to  deal  with  them  one  by  one. 

In  the  banking  sector,  in  the  fourth  quarter 
of  last  year,  there  was  an  increase  of  26.2  per 
cent  in  the  profit;  in  base  metals  in  the  fom-th 
quarter  of  last  year  there  was  an  increase  of 
358.5  per  cent  in  profit;  in  beverages  an  in- 
crease of  10  per  cent;  in  chemicals  an  in- 
crease of  54.9  per  cent;  in  communications  an 
increase  of  15.4  per  cent;  in  construction 
materials  an  increase  of  36.5  per  cent;  in  food 
processing— and  this  is  a  key  area— in  the 
fourth  quarter  of  last  year  there  was  an  in- 
crease of  81.1  per  cent  over  the  fourth 
quarter  of  the  previous  year. 

In  general  manufacturing  there  was  an  in- 
crease of  2.1  per  cent;  in  golds  an  increase 
of  92.5  per  cent;  in  industrial  mines  an  in- 
crease of  160.5  per  cent  over  the  fourth 
quarter  of  the  previous  year;  in  merchandis- 
ing an  increase  of  9.5  per  cent— and  on  and 
on. 

In  the  paper  and  forest  industries,  an  in- 
crease of  104  per  cent;  in  real  estate— which 
I  have  just  spoken  about— an  increase  of  96.1 
per  cent  in  profit;  in  steel  an  increase  of  72.6 
per  cent;  in  transportation  an  increase  of 
53.5  per  cent;  and  in  oils  an  increase  of  81.4 
per  cent  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  last  year. 
That's  in  the  profit  in  the  fourth  quarter  of 
last  year  over  the  fourth  quarter  of  the  year 
before. 

You  hear  of  increases  of  these  types  in  real 
estate,  96.1  per  cent;  in  oils,  81.4  per  cent; 
and  then  we  go  and  negotiate  a  further  in- 


APRIL  8,  1974 


963 


crease  in  Ottawa  just  a  week  ago— a  further 
increase. 

And,  if  you  take  a  look  at  the  year-end 
figures,  1973  over  1972,  you'll  find-and  I 
won't  quote  them  all— but  in  base  metals  a 
237.3  per  cent  increase  in  profit  over  the  pre- 
vious year;  in  oils  a  52.1  per  cent  increase 
over  the  previous  year;  in  real  estate  a  115.6 
per  cent  profit  increase  over  the  previous 
year. 

Mr.  Speaker,  those  kinds  of  increases  in 
profit  indicate  to  me  that  there  is  excessive 
profit-taking  in  many  of  the  sectors  in  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  and  in  most  of  the 
sectors  centred  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it's 
time  that  this  government  exercised  its  re- 
sponsibility and  insisted  that  the  justification 
for  that  kind  of  profit-taking  be  laid  before 
the  public  at  a  public  inquiry;  and  that  this 
government  exercise  its  responsibility  and 
make  sure  that  where  those  profits  were  not 
justified  that  there  be  a  rollback;  and  that 
that  rollback  be  in  the  form  of  a  direct  tax 
on  the  profits  that  had  been  made,  and  in 
addition  to  that,  a  rollback  in  the  price  of 
the  commodities  as  they  appear  today. 

I  want  to  tell  you  that  not  only  in  the 
individual  sectors  do  the  profits  show  up  as 
being  extremely  large,  but  in  the  individual 
companies  one  can  pick  and  choose— and  I'm 
not  going  to  pick  and  choose  too  many,  but 
I  could  go  through  them  all. 

Maple  Leaf  Mills,  for  example,  showed  a 
149  per  cent  profit  increase  in  1973  over 
1972;  Massey-Ferguson  showed  a  76  per  cent 
profit  increase  in  1973  over  1972-and  all  the 
way  down  the  line.  Robin  Red  Lake  Mines 
showed  an  increase  from  $430,000  up  to 
$993,000,  over  100  per  cent,  and  on  and  on; 
there  were  so  many  of  them  that  I  hesitate  to 
put  them  on  the  record. 

But  I  bring  them  to  your  attention,  sir, 
because  I  think  they  provide  the  justification 
for  what  we  are  asking  for  in  our  amendment. 
And  what  we  are  asking  for  in  our  amend- 
ment is  this  government  to  move  for  the 
first  time  in  its  history  toward  ensuring  that 
the  people  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  are 
protected  against  the  kind  of  gouging  that 
their  friends  are  undertaking  in  this  province. 
When  Silverwood  Dairies  shows  an  in- 
crease of  72  per  cent,  1973  over  1972,  then 
there  is  something  to  be  asked;  when  in  the 

?  banking  field  you  find  the  Royal  Bank  with 

I  an  increase  of  21.5  per  cent;  the  Bank  of 
Commerce  an  increase  on  20.4  per  cent;  the 
Bank   of   Montreal  an   increase   of   16.2   per 

^  cent;  and  these  are  all  in  profit  after  taxes— 

I        profit  after  taxes. 


When  you  see  the  Toronto-Dominion  Bank 
with  an  increase  of  55.8  per  cent,  it's  not 
difiBcult  to  see  why  the  people  of  this 
province  are  having  extreme  difficulty  in 
meeting  their  commitments  on  the  wages  that 
thev  earn,  because  the  increases  in  salaries 
ana  wages  have  ocrtainly  not  kept  pace  with 
the  increase  in  profits  the  companies  have 
enjoyed. 

The  Becker  Milk  Co.,  an  old  favourite  of 
mine,  showed  an  increase  in  profit  in  1973 
over  1972  of  43  per  cent.  It  has  always  been 
a  pretty  profitable  place,  let  me  tell  you.  I 
don't  want  to  leave  the  impression  that  I 
have  any  particular  grudge  against  Becker; 
I  just  happen  to  think  they  treat  their  em- 
ployees rather  shabbily.  But  they  don't  seem 
to  suffer  as  a  result  when  they  can  show  a 
43  per  cent  increase  in  profit  after  taxes  in 
1973  over  1972. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  am  saying  in  a  nut- 
shell is  that  in  the  area  of  cost  of  living, 
there  is  sufiicient  justification  available  to 
the  government  to  enable  them  to  move  with 
the  full  support  of  the  total  community 
toward  an  investigation  of  the  profit-taking 
of  the  major  producers  of  foodstuffs  and  com- 
modities in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  There  is 
not  only  suflBcient  justification,  there  is  an 
obvious  need.  I  am  suggesting  to  you,  sir, 
that  this  govermnent  has  an  obligation  to 
move  in  that  regard;  and  if  it  doesn't  move 
in  that  regard,  it  has  an  obligation  to  give 
up  the  reins  of  government  because  it  is  not 
exercising  its  responsibilities. 

Let  me  tell  you  one  final  thing,  Mr. 
Speaker,  before  I  close.  Every  year  we  hear 
from  the  senior  citizens  of  the  province,  and 
when  we  talk  of  housing  and  the  cost  of 
living  there  are  few  people  in  the  province 
so  hard-hit  and  who  suffer  to  such  an  extent 
as  do  the  senior  citizens. 

When  we  in  this  party  tried  last  fall  to 
have  this  government  recognize  the  need  to 
establish  a  basic  income  for  senior  citizens, 
this  government  refused.  When  we  suggested 
to  this  government  that  it  could  have  been 
done  both  economically  and  sensibly  well 
within  the  means  of  the  Province  of  Ontario, 
this  government  refused.  When  we  told  the 
government  that  the  senior  citizens  of  the 
province  needed  an  income  of  no  less  than 
$215  a  month,  this  government  refused  to 
act;  and  it  carried  on  with  its  $50  Christmas 
bonus  arrangement  which  we  and  others 
pointed  out  was  totally  inadequate  and  was 
in  fact  a  little  bit  of  political  bribery. 

The  senior  citizens  have  come  forward, 
year  after  year  with  a  well-documented  brief. 


964 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  think  they  are  perhaps  getting  a  httle  up- 
set, and  I  don't  blame  them.  Let  me  tell  you, 
sir,  that  they  have  asked  again  that  educa- 
tion taxes  be  removed  from  residential  prop- 
erties and  that  tenants  be  reimbursed  in  full, 
I  think  that  makes  a  lot  of  sense.  They  have 
also  asked  that  there  be  a  $200  minimum 
income  established  for  old  age  pensioners 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  They  have  further 
asked  that  the  Ontario  government  pay  all 
accounts  in  full  if  proper  receipts  are  pro- 
duced under  the  OHIP  plan.  They  say  that 
one  of  the  difficulties  they  have  is  that  if 
they  travel  out  of  the  province,  the  basis  for 
payment  is  not  the  same  in  other  parts  of 
the  North  American  continent  as  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  They  say  that  they  are 
being  unduly  restricted  and  that  their  in- 
comes won't  stretch  far  enough  to  allow 
them  to  pay  the  difference,  and  I  think  we 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario  can  afford  to 
cover  them. 

They  also  point  out  that  there  is  a  need 
for  housing.  They  point  out  that  there  is  a 
need  for  homes  for  the  aged  and  nursing 
homes.  They  point  out  that  there  is  a  need 
to  extend  drugs,  dentures,  hearing  aids  and 
glasses  to  senior  citizens. 

In  other  words,  what  they  are  really  say- 
ing is  that  there  is  a  need  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario  for  the  establishment  of  an  agency 
to  deal  primarily  with  the  needs  of  those 
who  are  pensioners,  to  deal  forthrightly  with 
the  problems  they  have,  to  make  recom- 
mendations to  government  and  to  implement 
the  recommendations. 

I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that's 
something  this  government  oupjht  to  have 
done  years  ago  and  it  hasn't.  There  is  no 
question  that  for  those  senior  citizens  for- 
tunate enough  to  be  able  to  get  into  rented 
senior  citizens  accommodation  life  is  cer- 
tainly a  bit  better.  But  there  are  so  few 
apartments  available  for  senior  citizens  that 
it  is,  in  fact,  discriminatory.  It  is  a  dis- 
criminatory measure  by  the  government  and 
the  government  should  undertake  to  ensure 
a  supplement  to  senior  citizens  in  order  to 
guarantee  that  their  incomes  are  equalized 
across  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  any  number  of 
other  things  which  ought  to  be  raised. 
There's  the  government's  attittide  toward  the 
north  which  has  been,  to  say  the  least, 
atrocious.  There's  the  attitude  of  this  gov- 
ernment toward  the  people  of  the  north,  an 
attitude  which  is  reflected,  I  might  say,  in 
the  proposal  for  the  development  of  Maple 
Mountain. 


Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  I'm  glad  he  got  back.  I  really 
am.  I  want  to  tell  members  this  about  Maple 
Mountain— I'm  not  about  to  get  involved  in 
a  long  discussion  about  it. 

Mr.  Havrot:  He  doesn't  know  what  he  is 
talking  about.  Get  some  facts. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  The  government  is  going  to 
look   after  its   friends. 

Interjection  by   an  hon.   member. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Is  that  why 
it  is  going  to  pay  $80  million  to  re-elect  the 
member?  It's  going  to  cost  $80  million  to 
re-elect  him. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Why  doesn't  he  get  some 
facts? 

Mr.  Germa:  That's  all  he  is  doing— buying 
his  ticket  back  in. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Let  him  get  some  facts  before 
he  goes  mouthing  off.  That  is  typical  of  him. 

Mr.  Germa:  We  don't  need  that  member. 
He  should  crawl  back  under  his  rock. 

Mr.  Deans:  Let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  government's  attitude  toward  both 
employment  and  the  north  are  very  clearly 
set  out  in  the  Maple  Mountain  proposal. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Why  doesn't  the  member  look 
after  his  own  problems?  Let  him  solve  those 
of  his  own  riding. 

Mr.  Germa:  The  member  should  crawl 
under  his  rock. 

Mr.  Deans:  Without  giving  any  consider- 
ation to  the  merits  of  the  location,  which 
themselves  are  somewhat  suspect,  let  me 
talk  about  the  job-creating  capacity  of  the 
project. 

In  the  submission  placed  before  the  gov- 
ernment, there's  an  indication  there  will  be 
approximately  800  new  jobs  created  by  the 
Maple  Mountain  project.  Unfortunately, 
over  500  of  the  800  jobs  are,  if  one  wants 
to  categorize  them,  of  a  domestic  nature. 

Mr.  Havrot:  It  must  be  good;  the  member 
is  against  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  They're  going  to  be  making 
beds,  waiting  on  tables,  cleaning  up  after 
the  American  tourist  when  he  comes  in— 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  member  is  prejudging 
the  project— what  an  expert! 


APRIL  8.  1974 


965 


Mr.  Deans:  —and  they're  going  to  be  paid 
the  minimum  wage  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Havrot:  How  does  the  member  know? 
How    can  he  prejudge  it? 

Mr.  Ferrier:  One  only  has  to  go  to 
Ontario  Place  to  find  that  out. 

Mr.  HavTot:  They  know  it  all;  that's  the 
whole  trouble  with  them. 

Mr.  Genna:  Every  Tory  only  pays  $2  an 
hour. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Why  doesn't  he  shut  up? 
He  is  just  talking  through  his  ear  as  usual. 

Mr.  Deans:  What  I  want  to  say  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  this:  That  if  this  govern- 
ment is  looking  for  a  way  to  invest  $40  mil- 
lion or  $50  million  in  a  project  in  Ontario- 
Mr.  Havrot:  It's  not  $40  million  or  $50 
million;  get  the  facts. 

Mr.  Deans:  If  the  government  is  looking 
for  a  way  to  invest  $40  million  or  $50  mil- 
lion in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  let  it  at 
least  invest  it  in  something  which  will  be 
substantial,  which  will  provide  something 
called  meaningful  employment  for  the 
area,  employment  which  will  pay  them  a 
decent  living  wage- 
Mr.  Havrot:  Give  us  a  clue. 

Mr.  Deans:  I'll  give  the  member  a  clue; 
I'll  tell  him  what  we'd  do.  Let  me  suggest, 
Mr.  Speaker,  what  could  be  done.  If  this 
eovernment  had  moved  at  the  time  the  Steel 
Co.  of  Canada  and  Dominion  Foundries  and 
Steel  were  in  the  process  of  acquiring  land 
at  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie  and  if  this  gov- 
ernment had  taken  the  money  it's  prepared 
to  invest  in  Maple  Mountain- 
Mr.  Havrot:  That  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the   north. 

Mr.  Deans:  -and  had  put  that  into  the 
development  in  northern  Ontario  of  a  manu- 
facturing process  similar  to  the  one  which  is 
currently  being  proposed— 

Mr.  Havrot:  Like  they  did  in  Saskatchewan 
where  they  all  went  broke? 

Mr.  Deans:  —for  the  Lake  Erie  shoreline, 
we  would  have  had  a  substantial  manufactur- 
ing development  which  in  itself  would  have 
acted  as  a  catalyst;  which  would  have  pro- 
vided at  least  5,000  new  jobs  in  northern 
Ontario;  which  would  have  paid  a  minimum 
of  $4  an  hour  and  which  would  have  been 


the  basis  upon  whidi  the  north  oould  hftve 
been  developed. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  That's  the  kind  of  plmiiing 
we  need. 

Mr.   Deans:   That's  the  kind  of  develop- 
ment that  northern  Ontario  needs. 
Mr.  Speaker,  when  we  speak- 

Mr.  Havrot:  Don't  talk  to  me  about  gov- 
emment-nm  industries,  like  in  Saskatchewan. 
Why  doesn't  the  member  talk  about  shoe  fac- 
tories and  the  fish  hatcheries- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  we  speak 
in  our  amendment  about  northern  develop- 
ment and  say  that  this  government  has  failed 
to  establish  economic  growth  in  nordiem 
Ontario,  ba.sed  on  its  resource  potential,  we 
are  talking  about  just  such  a  project  as  diat. 
And  when  we  say  that  this  government  has 
failed  to  establish  northern  economic  develop- 
ment and  employment,  based  on  long-term 
secondary  growth  as  a  No.  1  priority,  we 
are  talking  about  a  development  just  sudi  as 
that.  And  we  are  saying  to  the  member  for 
Timiskaming  that  if  he  has  nothing  but  a 
small-town  mentality- 
Mr.  Havrot:  That's  what  the  member  has 
got. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  The  member  for  Timiskaming 
hasn't  got  faith  in  the  north;  that's  his 
problem. 

Mr.  Deans:  —if  he  is  unable  to  see  Ae 
tremendous  potential  that  the  resources  of 
the  north  afford  to  the  government  for 
secondary  development,  and  if  the  member 
for  Timiskaming  is  imable  to  see  that  it 
would  be  entirely  possible- 
Mr.  Havrot:  Oh,  the  member  is  so  brilliant! 

Mr.  Deans:  —to  make  better  use  of  the 
many  millions  of  dollars  that  will  be  spent 
by  this  government  in  the  development  of 
Maple  Mountain- 
Mr.  Martcl:  Just  some  secondary  indus- 
tries. 

Mr.  Havrot:  How  long  will  the  natural 
resources  last? 

Mr.  Deans:  —by  producing  the  kind  of 
secondary  development  we  are  talking  about, 
then  obviously  he  is  not  very  farsighted. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  The  member  hasn't  got  fiidi 
in  the  north;  that's  his  problem. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  say,  on  behalf 
of  this  party,  that  this  government  has  failed 
to  win  the  support  of  the  House  by  its  Throne 
Speech.  It  obviously  has  few,  if  any,  pohcies 
aimed  at  reaching  and  combating  the  major 
problems  confronting  the  people  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario,  and  we  will  not  support  the 
motion  on  the  Throne  Speech. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Samia. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  Thank  you 
very  much,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  want  to  begin  by  complimenting  the 
prior  speaker  on  his  contribution  to  this  de- 
bate—with the  exception  of  the  final  remarks 
on  Maple  Mountain;  I  am  not  too  knowledge- 
able about  Maple  Mountain- 
Mr.  Havrot:  Ah,  there  is  an  honest  man. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  member  for  Timis- 
kaming  somewhat  coerced  him  into  that 
diversion. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  anti-labour  member 
who  is  quite  happy  to  see  people  work  for 
the  minimum  wage. 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  member  for  Nickel  Belt 
doesn't  know  what  work  is.  He  never  worked 
a  day  in  his  life,  the  little  pipsqueak, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  dont  the  two  of 
them  step  outside? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  find  the  member  for 
Timiskaming  a  very  unique  individual. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  true. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  He's  the  only  member  I 
know  who  can  stay  in  his  riding  and  still  be 
recorded  in  a  voice  vote  in  this  House. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Doesn't  the  member  vdsh  he 
had  that  talent?  At  least  I  haven't  got  one  of 
the  squeaky  female  voices  like  he  has. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  He  is  running  a  close 
second  by  the  member  for  Middlesex  South 
(Mr.  Eaton),  the  new  parliamentary  assistant 
to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food.  They 
were  going  to  make  him  vice-chairman  of  the 
hog  marketing  board  in  charge  of  colic,  but 
he  couldn't  quite  make  it. 

Mr.  Havrot:  And  the  member  is  going  to  be 
the  head  chairman. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  But  I  want  to  compliment 
the  House  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  for  his  statistical  evaluation  of  the 
problems  of  government.  Sometimes  statistics 
can    be    very    cold,    sometimes    telling    and 


meaningful  and  sometimes  agonizing  li?ngthy. 
But  in  any  event  they  are  recorded  for  pos- 
terity and,  I  recognize,  upon  a  foundation  of 
sincere  regard  for  the  problems  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Ontario  in  the  context  of  the  Throne 
Speech. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  realize  it's  late  in  the 
evening,  but  I  want  to  record  that  Henry 
Aaron,  tonight,  at  about  8:15  by  our  time, 
hit  the  715th  home  run  of  his  career  and 
broke  the  all-time  home-run  record.  I  think 
as  an  aficionado  of  sports,  along  with  my  col- 
league from  Downsview— 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Who 
was  the  pitcher? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  They  are  two  different 
sports,  I'll  tell  you. 

Mr.  Singer:  Jealousy  will  get  the  minister 
nowhere. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —that  we  should  record  our 
respect  for  that  gentleman,  whom  we  know 
as  a  gentle  man,  a  man  with  great  integrity 
of  purpose.  Obviously  the  effort  that  he  has 
put  forward  now  shines  in  the  public  eye, 
much  as  vdll  the  efforts  of  my  leader  in  con- 
nection with  the  integrity  of  purpose  that  he 
has  put  forward. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  He  has  yet  to  hit  his 
first  home  run. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  be  the  last  to  say 
that  was  a  non-sequitur. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  say 
to  you  personally,  and  I'm  most  appreciative 
of  the  fact  that  you  are  in  the  chair  at  the 
present  moment,  that  you  join  with  me  in 
recognizing  that  two  of  our  colleagues  who 
were  taken  by  illness,  my  colleague  in  this 
party,  the  member  for  Nipissing,  and  our  col- 
league the  hon.  member  for  Hamilton  East, 
have  now  rejoined  us  and  we,  with  you,  wel- 
come them  back  for  their  contribution  and 
wdsdom  and  experience  in  connection  with 
the  deliberations  of  this  House. 

But  more  so  I  join  with  the  other  members 
who  have  spoken  previously  in  their  appre- 
ciation and  gratitude  for  your  return  to  the 
House.  I  hadn't  recognized,  until  the  self- 
confession  tonight,  that  it  was  a  speech  by  the 
member  for  Wentworth  that  made  you  sick. 
That  has  happened  to  me  on  several  occasions. 
But  I  think  you  really  take  things  too  seri- 
ously when  you  have  to  be  carried  from  the 
chamber.   Recognizing  that  sometimes  those 


APRIL  8,  1974 


967 


remarks   are  difficult  to  take,  bear  with  us 
and  bear  with  it. 

Sir,  I  want  to  begin  by  digressing.  It  is  not 
my  intention  to  stand  necessarily  as  a  spokes- 
man for  the  Liberal  Party,  nor  is  it  my  in- 
tention to  necessarily  dwell  entirely  upon  the 
Throne  Speech.  That  is  a  vacuous  document 
at  the  best  of  times.  I  want  to  give  some 
thoughts  if  I  may,  even  at  this  late  hour,  in 
connection  with  some  of  the  things  that  have 
crossed  my  attention  in  the  last  year.  The 
first  thing  is  the  enterprise  that  was  under- 
taken by  my  colleague  from  Huron-Bruce  and 
myself  with  respect  to  the  select  committee 
on  Hydro,  and  I  confess  in  this  regard  a 
change  of  attitude  perhaps.  I'm  not  going  to 
talk  about  the  merits  of  the  situation  itself, 
but  I  want  to  record  this:  I  wonder  now 
whether  the  select  committee  is  really  the 
appropriate  vehicle  to  undertake  that  type  of 
investigative  endeavour. 

I  must  say  that  I  was  all  for  the  fact  that 
the  legislative  process  would  be  better  served 
by  having  my  colleagues  and  perhaps  myself 
undertake  this  type  of  responsibility.  I  must 
say  now,  after  having  given  it  great  con- 
sideration, notwithstanding  the  great  assist- 
ance of  many  of  our  colleagues  in  the  House, 
that  I  wonder  if  we  didn't  really  require  the 
direction  as  to  relevance  and  probative  value 
of  somebody  of  more  judicial  training  than 
the  chairman.  Recognizing  again  that  the 
chairman  himself,  under  the  direction  of 
counsel,  did  a  magnificent  job  in  this  regard, 
I  must  say  to  you  that  sometimes  I  feel  that 
perhaps  the  reputation  of  individuals  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario,  without  foundation  in 
fact,  might  have  been  adversely  afiFected,  and 
I  don't  think  we  can  afford  the  luxury  of  that 
type  of  thing. 

So  I  invite  the  Premier  in  his  absence— and 
may  I  say  this  to  you,  sir,  the  very  words  "die 
Premier  in  his  absence,"  leave  me  with  some 
consideration.  It  really  is  an  unfortunate  dr- 
ciunstance— 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer,  Minister  of  Eco- 
nomics and  Intergovernmental  Affairs):  On  a 
point  of  order,  the  Premier  was  to  be  here 
and  is  not  feeling  well  tonight. 

Mr.  BuIIbrook;  An  unfortunate  situation. 
Then  I  will  not  say  that  which  I  was  going 
to  say.  If  the  Premier  is  ill,  we  regret  that. 

An  hon.  member:  The  Premier  is  here  now. 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  I  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  if 
that  minister  were  the  Premier,  Tara  Ex- 
plorations would  have  no  problem  whatso- 
ever, and  that's  a  fact. 


Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  Premier 
is  ill,  one  would  think  that  with  respect  to 
the  winding  up  of  the  address  of  His  Honour 
in  connection  with  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne,  that  more  than  a  scattering  of  cabinet 
ministers  should  have  been  here  to  make  their 
contribution.  We  look  forward  to  the  con- 
tribution on  behalf  of  the  government  party 
by  the  Sohcitor  General  We  recognize  that 
he  will  be  able  to  defend,  in  his  own  inimi- 
table style,  the  path  that  was  put  forward 
and  pressed  upon  the  Lieutenant  Governor, 
on— I  believe  I  can't  recall  the  date. 

By  the  way,  I  often  wonder,  and  I  mean 
this  in  no  disrespect,  if  the  pages  that  were 
left  out  of  that  speech  by  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  were  done  without  deliberate  moti- 
vation. As  I  read  them  in  Hansard,  and  as 
members  have  the  opportimity  to  read  them, 
I  can  understand  that  His  Honour,  as  the 
great  Liberal  that  he  was,  would  have  great 
difficulty  actually  reading  them.  I  think  prob- 
ably there  might  have  been  some  purpose  in 
that.  However,  well  never  know. 

I  wanted  to  say  to  you,  sir,  in  connection 
with  the  establishment  of  that  particular  com- 
mittee, that  I  would  hope  mat  the  Camp 
corrmiission,  rather  than  dwelling  upon  the 
emoluments  of  our  office,  might  now  under- 
take something  with  respect  to  the  respon- 
sibilities that  we  have.  I  think  one  of  the 
things  that  they  might  do  is  look  at  the 
whole  structure  of  the  select  committee,  be- 
cause I  think  we  all  agree  that  some  of  the 
things  that  have  been  done  to  select  com- 
mittees might  well  lead  to  our  own  depriva- 
tion in  connection  with  the  utilization  of 
select  committees. 

I  don't  want  again  to  burden  this  House 
with  respect  to  individuals  who,  I  would 
suggest  vdth  the  greatest  respect,  undertake 
responsibilities  placed  upon  them  without,  I 
think,  a  degree  of  altruism  but  rather  Nvidi  a 
motivation  of  their  own  financial  interest  in 
connection  with  those  responsibihties.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is  that  when  I  was  elected 
to  this  House  in  1967  $200,000  was  spent 
with  respect  to  the  establishment  of  nine 
select  committees.  In  the  fiscal  year  1972- 
1973  $800,000  was  spent  with  respect  to  the 
establishment  of  nine  select  committees  or 
exactly  four  times  the  amoimt.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  propensity  one  individual  committee 
had  to  difiiise  its  largess  in  a  most  OMi- 
centric  fashion  throughout  the  Province  of 
Ontario,  I  think,  with  some  partisan  motiva- 
tion, one  has  to  recognize  that  select  com- 
mittees have  a  purpose  and  an  intent  and  a 
function  and  a  responsibility  with  respect  to 
our  process. 


968 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  through  you  I  invite  all  my 
colleagues  to  press  upon  those  who  regard 
select  committees  as  an  opportunity  to  make 
$50  or  $60  a  day  to  chasten  th^n  and  to 
say  to  them  that  no  longer  will  we  permit 
that  type  of  enterprise.  They  are  not  at  fault 
solely  themselves.  The  Premier,  when  he 
establishes  select  committees  without  defined 
terms  of  reference  and  without  any  terminal 
position,  invites  the  type  of  abuse  that  the 
Provincial  Auditor  has  brought  to  our  atten- 
tion. 

I  have  stood  in  my  place  on  many  occa- 
sions and  said  that  select  committees  have 
a  significant  function  to  play  in  the  life  of 
this  House.  The  problem  is  that  we  must  all 
tonight  consider  what  the  function  of  this 
House  is,  because  one  has  to  wonder 
whether  the  whole  process  is  going  to  con- 
tinue if  the  people  are  going  to  be  told  that 
to  look  into  the  use  of  schools  you  have  to 
travel  to  the  United  Kingdom;  to  look  into 
drainage  you  have  to  travel  to  Florida  and 
to  look  into  snowmobiles  you  have  to  travel 
outside  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

I'm  serious  and  sincere  in  saying  this  to 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  must  be  careful 
that  if  we  continue  on  this  charade  of  our 
own  the  complete  credibility  of  our  process 
is  going  to  be  called  into  question.  If  we 
do  then  what  we  should  do,  if  we  say  we 
lost  four  million  man-hours  of  work  in  the 
last  two  years  because  of  strikes  in  this 
province,  and  we  establish  a  select  commit- 
tee to  look  into  labour  relations  and  to  try 
to  lead  the  world  in  connection  with  the 
resolution  of  those  problems,  they  might 
regard  us  in  the  same  context  and  with  the 
same  integrity  of  enterprise  as  those  people 
on  the  drainage  committee  who  went  on 
those  larks  of  their  own.  We  can't  afford 
that. 

I've  spoken  personally  to  chairmen  of 
select  committees.  No  longer  is  politics  a 
game  that  you  play  for  your  own  advantage. 
That's  all  right  on  county  council,  it's  not 
all  right  here.  We  can't  do  it  any  more.  We 
can't  spend  the  public  funds  this  way  any 
more.  It  isn't  a  game  of  spreading  largess 
to  ourselves  and  those  of  our  confidantes 
and  those  people  whom  we  want  to  give  it 
to  for  partisan  advantage.  None  of  us,  in- 
cluding myself,  can  afford  that  any  more 
because  if  we  do  that  in  the  context  of  what 
I'm  going  to  talk  about  afterwards,  then  you 
must  recognize  that  you're  beginning  to 
fracture   the  system. 

Let's  look  at  our  colleagues  who  d"o  these 
things.  Let's  do  that,  Mr.  Speaker.  Let's  say 
to  ourselves  that  no  longer  can  we  continue 


with  this.  Let's  say  to  the  Premier,  if  we 
can,  please  make  it  a  relevant  enterprise. 

I  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Camp  com- 
mission said  that  select  conmiittees  shouldn't 
be  paid.  I  don't  know  about  that.  I  would 
be  inclined  to  think  that  they  should  not, 
but  I  think  that  human  nature  being  what 
it  is  and  responsibilities  being  what  they 
that  extra  emolument.  I  don't  know;  I 
are  that  perhaps  we  need  the  propulsion  of 
would  hope  not,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think 
that  perhaps  we  do. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  say  to  you,  as 
sincerely  and  with  as  much  devotion  as  I 
can,  that  we  must  be  careful  about  all  the 
institutions  of  this  Legislature,  because  I 
tell  you  people  are  talking  to  me  about  it. 
They  are  saying,  "What  are  you  politicians 
doing?"  And  I  will  talk  about  that  after- 
wards. I  want  to  tell  you  that  basically  the 
framework  of  my  feeling  tonight  is,  "Where 
are  we  going?" 

All  one  has  to  do  is  sit  through  the 
question  period  here— and  you  in  your  labour 
and  responsibility  must  sit  through  it  every 
day— and  recognize  perhaps  the  contest  of 
partisan  advantage  that  goes  on,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  there  are  so  many 
problems  facing  people  today.  One  has  to 
wonder  really— and  one  has  to  hate  to  use 
the  word,  it  has  been  used  so  often— but  one 
wonders  about  the  relevancy  of  the  Trea- 
surer of  Ontario  with  his  magnificent  re- 
sponsibility saying,  "Way  to  go.  Bob."  We'll 
talk  about  the  Treasurer  afterwards  and 
what  his  responsibilities  are— and  I  con- 
tribute myself.  I  am  trying  to  unburden  what 
I  sincerely  feel  tonight. 

If  that  is  going  to  be  the  charade  that 
goes  on  every  day,  if  that  is  what  the  func- 
tion of  select  committees  is,  then  one  has  to 
wonder  whether  the  people  are  right  when 
they  say  "a  plague  on  all  your  houses,"  be- 
cause that  is  really  what  they  are  coming  to 
say.  And  it  is  not  the  poor  any  more  who 
are  coming  to  say  it.  It  is  not  the  rich  who 
are  coming  to  say  it.  It  is  those  in  that  broad 
spectrum  of  society  who  are  taxed  to  death, 
who  carry  the  burden  on  behalf  of  the  rich 
and  the  poor,  and  who  don't  seem  to  really 
have  any  viable  alternative  when  you  look 
at  us  collectively  in  this  House. 

I  want  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
I  wonder  about  government.  I  am  sure  you 
wonder  about  government.  I  have  met  Mr. 
Cronyn,  a  most  sincere  man,  to  try  to  get 
some  education  into  the  whole  new  super- 
structure of  government,  because  I  just  can't 
get  to  it.  It  is  so  malleable  to  me;  I  can't 
grasp  it  at  all. 


APRIL  8.  1974 


969 


I  think  he  tried  to  explain  to  me,  again 
with  sincerity,  what  he  was  attempting  to 
do.  I  tried  to  tell  him  experiences  I  have 
had  in  connection  with  the  superstructure  of 
government,  with  the  creation  of  TEIGA, 
which  I  thought  was  almost  the  rape  of  the 
right  of  people  to  directly  deal  witn  a  min- 
ister who  understood  planning,  who  under- 
stood land  use,  who  had  a  direct  responsi- 
bility to  municipalities. 

I  told  him  experiences  that  I  have  had— 
two  experiences  I  had,  as  one  member  from 
one  riding  dealing  with  two  ministries.  I 
want  to  tell  you  about  them  tonight,  recog- 
nizing the  lateness  of  the  hour. 

I  knew  some  time  ago  that  because  of 
economic  pressures  the  Minister  of  Health 
was  entertaining  the  amalgamation  of  certain 
services  in  city  of  Samia  with  respect  to 
our  hospitals.  As  a  result  on  Jan.  22,  1973, 
I  wrote  a  letter  to  the  then  Provincial  Sec- 
retary for  Social  Development  (Mr.  Welch), 
Parliament  Buildings,  Queen's  Park.  I  want 
to  read  it  into  the  record: 

Re: 

The  amalgamation  of  services,  Samia 
General  Hospital. 

I  wish  to  confirm  my  conversation  with 
you  of  recent  date  when  I  voiced  a  great 
deal  of  displeasure  in  connection  with  the 
general  concept  of  amalgamation  of  ser- 
vices relative  to  our  two  general  hospitals 
in  the  city  of  Samia.  Recognizing  a 
superior  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the 
oflBcials  of  the  Department  of  Health  and 
on  the  part  of  members  of  the  boards  and 
commissions  of  the  two  hospitals  concern- 
ed, I  want  to  reflect  a  significant  degree 
of  displeasure  and  disenchantment  being 
voiced  by  my  constituents  to  me  in  coimec- 
tion  with  the  directions  of  the  govemment. 

While  we  understand  the  need  for  cer- 
tain financial  restraints,  the  attitude  of  many 
of  my  constituents  is  that  both  hospitals 
have  been  considered  general  hospitals  and 
that  the  concept  of  a  general  hospital 
should  be  for  the  delivery  of  general  health 
services  to  the  public  at  large. 

I  want  to  also  point  out  to  you  that  I 
have  had  discussions  with  members  of  the 
medical  profession,  some  of  whom  are  also 
concemed  about  such  amalgamation  of 
services.  One  doctor  in  particular  pointed 
out  to  me  that  the  establishment  in  one 
hospital  alone  of  a  cardiac  care  service 
would,  in  fact,  disentitle  some  people  in 
the  other  hospital  to  the  benefit  of  such 
services  in  an  emergency  situation. 


However,  the  main  purpose  of  mv  tele- 
phone conversation  and  this  particular  let- 
ter is  to  voice  not  only  my  constituents' 
displeasure  but  my  particular  displeasure 
at  the  concept  of  transference  of  obstetrical 
services  to  St.  Joseph's  Hospital. 

After  having  discussed  this  matter  with 
people  concerned  and  knowledgeable  I 
recognize  the  economic  advantage  to  such 
a  move.  You  will  recognize  that  there  are 
certain  ethical  restrictions  placed  upon 
patients  within  St.  Joseph's  Hospital  oe- 
cause  of  the  ethical  standards  established 
by  the  Sisters  of  St.  Joseph  who  administer 
and  operate  the  hosptal. 

I  want  to  make  it  amply  clear  that  I 
do  not  in  any  way  wish  to  fetter  the  Sisters 
of  St.  Joseph  in  their  obvious  right  to 
maintain  such  ethical  standards  as  they 
see  fit.  I  do  not  subscribe  to  some  of  my 
constituents  who  sav  that  since  such  a 
hospital  is  subsidizea  by  public  funds  the 
standards  imposed  by  the  Sisters  of  St. 
Joseph  should  be  waived. 

I  take  the  position  that  on  a  voluntary 
basis  anyone  who  wishes  to  enter  St. 
Joseph's  Hospital  for  the  delivery  of  health 
services  should  abide  by  standards  and 
restrictions  imposed  by  the  administration. 
I  want  to  underline  for  your  consideration 
the  word  "voluntary."  What  concems  me 
now  is  that  to  establish  a  single  obstetrical 
service  at  St.  Joseph's  Hospital  would  force 
many  of  my  constituents  who  do  not  abide 
by  or  believe  in  or  want  to  be  restricted  by 
the  ethical  standards  of  the  Sisters  of  St. 
Joseph  to  be  restricted.  There  is  an  attempt, 
which  I  believe  to  be  a  rationalization, 
that  after  the  normal  obstetrical  service  is 
provided,  many  of  my  consti'tuents  who 
wish  additional  services  outside  the  ethical 
tradition  of  the  Sisters  of  St  Joseph  could 
secure  such  services  at  Samia  General 
Hospital. 

I  believe  that  to  be  fallacious.  I  believe, 
in  point  of  fact,  that  in  medical  terms  it 
would  not  always  be  beneficial  to  the 
patient  so  to  do,  and  I  believe  frankly 
that  if  a  person  goes  into  a  hospital  on  a 
directed  basis  they  should  be  entitled  to 
the  normal  and  general  health  delivery 
services  under  the  law. 

I  have  heard  it  said  that  some  are  at- 
tempting to  distinguish  between  the  de- 
livery of  obstetrical  and  the  delivery  of 
gynaecological  services.  Perhaps  I  am  un- 
able to  understand  fully  the  significance  of 
such  a  distinction,  but  I  must  as  a  lay  per- 
son admit  that  I  can't  see  from  the  p<Mnt 


970 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  view  of  a  benefit  to  the  patient  the  ob- 
ligation of  the  doctor  that  there  is  any  sig- 
nificant distinction  between  the  services 
provided.  I  believe  them  all  to  be  part  of  a 
total  service  to  be  provided  by  the  doctors 
to  the  patient. 

I  want  to  close  this  letter  by  making  it 
amply  clear  that  as  long  as  patients  attend 
at  St.  Joseph's  Hospital'  on  a  voluntary 
basis  they  must  recognize  the  right  of  the 
administration  to  establish  certain  terms  of 
reference  in  connection  with  the  services 
being  provided  by  such  hospital.  The  key 
ingredient  to  my  decision  in  this  connec- 
tion lies  in  the  fact  that  many  of  my  con- 
stituents would  be  forced  into  attending  for 
services  at  St.  Joseph's  Hospital. 

I  want  to  express,  if  I  may,  a  feeling  of 
displeasure  in  the  government  and  your  sec- 
retariat in  not  having  recognized  prior  to 
the  adoption  of  this  type  of  policy  the  col- 
lateral affect  it  might  have  upon  communi- 
ties. In  point  of  fact,  this  type  of  decision 
has  reared  a  narrower  feeling  in  a  segment 
of  our  community  between  sectarian  groups 
than  any  I  have  seen  since  I  was  a  child. 
It  is  indeed  unfortunate  that  your  advisors, 
Mr.  Secretary,  did  not  recognize  this  pos- 
sibility. 

And  that's  the  end  of  the  letter. 

That  begins  a  letter  to  the  Provincial  Sec- 
retary for  Social  Development  in  connection 
with  the  impact  of  an  economic  decision  upon 
the  social  rights  and  traditions,  responsibili- 
ties and  freedoms  of  my  constituents,  directed 
to  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  De- 
velopment. I  read  you  his  response  dated  Jan. 
31,  1973. 

I  would  like  to  acknowledge  and  thank 
you  for  your  articulate  letter  of  Jan.  22 
outlining  some  of  the  difficulties  being  fac- 
ed in  the  Samia  area.  [And  here's  the  tell- 
ing paragraph]  I  forwarded  a  copy  of  your 
letter  to  the  Hon.  Richard  Potter,  Minister 
of  Health,  for  his  careful  consideration  and 
I  appreciate  very  much  the  trouble  you've 
taken  to  outline  the  situation  in  detail. 

I  had  intended,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  read  you  the 
total  voltime  of  correspondence,  but  those 
two  letters  in  essence  give  you  the  problem 
that  I  face.  What  does  the  Provincial  Secre- 
tary for  Social  Development  do  if  he  doesn't 
come  to  grips  with  that  type  of  problem? 
COGP  said  that  the  function  of  the  secre- 
tariat is  to  develop  policies  in  the  context  of 
those  ministries  for  which  they  have  the  tac- 
tile or  direct  responsibility. 


A  letter  was  sent  to  the  secretary  for  social 
development  talking  about  the  impact  on  my 
society  of  an  economic  decision  and  the  re- 
sponse was  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Health 
who  COGP  says  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
establishment  of  that  policy  but  undertakes 
to  administer  the  policy  once  it's  made  mani- 
fest. 

Eventually  in  this  House  in  a  moment  of,  I 
suppose,  less  than  temperance  I  said  to  him 
during  the  course  of  a  debate  that  he  hadn't 
responded  to  me.  I  said  to  the  present  Pro- 
vincial Secretary  for  Justice,  the  present  At- 
torney General  (Mr.  Welch)— which  very 
phrase,  may  I  interject,  should  make  COGP 
gag.  The  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  and 
the  Attorney  General  is  the  very  thing  that 
COGP  said  should  never  take  place.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  development  of  a  secretariat  was 
to  relieve  him  of  those  administrative  respon- 
sibilities. Of  course  it's  long  gone.  When  he 
was  secretary  for  social  development,  they 
made  him  Minister  of  Housing  at  the  same 
time. 

An  hon.  member:  He  had  to  do  something. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  I  said  to  him  that  he  had  not 
responded.  I  got  up  in  my  place,  I  apologized 
to  him  and  I  subsequently  wrote  this  letter 
to  him  and  I  want  to  read  it  into  the  record: 
I   wish   to   acknowledge   your   letter   of 
March    15   and   I   apologize  personally  as 
well  as  I  have  publicly  in  the  House.  You 
certainly  did  answer  my  letters  and  it  was 
obvious  that  I  was  wrong  in  thinking  that 
the  impact  of  the  amalgamation  of  services 
on  the  ethical  tradition  of  the  Sisters  of  St. 
Joseph  would  be  a  matter  for  the  secretary 
for  social  development.  As  you  mentioned, 
you  referred  it  to  the  Minister  of  Health 
I   say,   frankly,    it   gives   one  pause  for 
thought.   If  that  wasn't  a  matter  for  the 
secretary     for    social     development,    then 
surely  there  isn't  anything  that  is  a  matter 
for  the   secretary   for  social  development. 
I   am  pleased   now  that  since  you   are 
Provincial    Secretary   for  Justice   you   will 
have    something    to    do.    My    question    is, 
will  it  be  as  Attorney  General  or  secre- 
tary for  justice? 

I  am  having  lunch  on  Wednesday  with 
John  Cronyn  and  I  will  ask  him. 

Mr.  Havrot:   The  member  is  funny. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  did  ask  Mr.  Cronyn  and 
his  response,  I  believe  not  of  a  confidential 
nature,  was  that  the  success  of  the  redevel- 
opment of  the  structure  of  government  de- 
pended  upon  the   individuals   who  occupied 


APRIL  8,  1974 


971 


the    positions.     One    recognizes    that    from 
start  to  beginning! 

Mr.  Singer:  A  couple  of  them  are  smiling. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  reason  I  bring  this 
up  is  that  the  House  leader  of  the  NDP 
has  talked  about  people  wondering  where 
government  is  going  and  where  our  money 
is  going.  Let  me  tell  members  something 
for  a  moment.  When  we  began  the  super- 
structure of  policy  secretaries,  in  the  first 
year  we  estimated  their  expenditures  at 
$844,717.  Last  year,  including  the  Premier's 
oflBce,  it  got  up  to  $2,372,000. 

That's  why  I  talk  about  it;  a  300  per 
cent  increase  in  two  years  for  people  to  do 
what?  This  is  what  we  ask:  For  people  who 
do  what?  It  might  seem  picayune,  an  eleva- 
tion of  only  $1.6  million,  but  regard  that 
in  the  context  of  all  the  spending  because 
it  isn't  only  the  secretary  for  social  develop- 
ment whom  we  wonder  about. 

I  want  members  to  hearken  bade  to  the 
famous  case  of  the  route  of  the  oil  pipe- 
line. Do  they  remember  that  one?  I  often 
wonder  what  type  of  resource  development 
policy— the  present  secretary  wasn't  there 
but  he  finally  made  the  statement.  Let  me 
synthesize  for  a  moment;  let  me  just  read 
the  headlines  and  a  few  things  which  were 
said,  if  I  can.  These  headlines  are  a  story 
unto  themselves  to  tell  members  about  the 
development  of  policy  with  respect  to  a 
matter  which  had  been  ongoing  for  four 
months  by  the  federal  government  without 
one  tittle  of  intrusion  by  the  provincial 
government— it  is  professed  now  by  both  the 
federal  people  and  the  provincial  govern- 
ment there  was  not  one  tittie  of  intrusion 
as  to  provincial  responsibility.  Let's  see 
what  type  of  policy  had  been  developed 
in  connection  with  this.  The  first  headline 
is:  "Two  Ontario  Cabinet  Ministers  Favour 
Moving  Pipeline  Route  North".  Those  two 
are  those  famous,  famous  liberals,  the  hon. 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  and  the 
Treasurer  of  Ontario. 

Now  the  only  thing  I'm  going  to  say 
about  the  Minister  of  Agriculture,  as  I  said 
in  a  press  release  once,  he  was  only  400 
per  cent  wrong  in  connection  with  his  esti- 
mate. His  original  estimate  was  10,000  acres 
to  be  taken— 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  was  right,  the  mem- 
ber was  wrong. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Ten  thousand  acres  to  be 
taken  and  they  are  taking  about  2,700  by 
the  time  they  are  finished  in  connection  with 
arable  land  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 


Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  That's  not  what  I 
said. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Eaton  (Middlesex  South):  How 
would  the  member  for  Samia  know? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Let  me  read  to  the  mem- 
bers the  telling  quote  by  the  chief  planner. 
This   is   the   chief  planner  of  the  Province 

of  Ontario: 

Mr.  White  said  that  from  previous  ex- 
perience Ontario  had  a  close  to  zero 
"chance  of  persuading  Ottawa  to  change 
the  route.  Bumping  this  line  out  of  the 
agricultural  land  in  southern  Ontario  into 
the  north  will  be  better  accomplished  by 
the  Federation  of  Agriculture  making 
representations." 

Now  there  is  the  chief  planner,  the  man 
knowledgeable  about  the  use  of  land  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario,  saying  that  well  never 
get  that  line  moved  north  ourselves,  and 
not  knowing  that  the  line  from  Samia  to 
Burlington  was  already  there.  The  line  was 
there.   The  right  of  way  was  there. 

Mr.  Eaton:  Does  the  member  think  they 
want  it  on  the  other  line? 

Mr.  BulIbro<^:  Not  one  hectare  of  addi- 
tional land  would  they  take;  and  there's  the 
chief  planner  for  Ontario  saying,  "we  can't 
get  that  moved'  north  because  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  says—" 

Mr.  Eaton:  They  aren't  going  to  build  a 
new  line  on  top  of  the  old  pipe. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Do  a  little  more  squeaking 
over  there. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  "—that  we  can't  have  it 
north."  So  we  begin:  "Two  Ontario  Cabinet 
Ministers  Favour  Moving  The  PipeKne  Route 
North." 

Mr.  Riddell:  This  is  an  example  of  the  next 
Minister  of  Agriculture? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Now  the  second  headiine- 

Mr.  Eaton:  He  wants  it  to  go  dirou^ 
there,  and  the  member  for  Huron  wants  it  to 
eo  through.  I  suppose  he  also  wants  hydro 
fines. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  second  headline  says- 
Would  someone  tell  that  lady  over  there  to 
be  quiet? 

The  second  headline  says:  "London  North 
MPP  Backs  Northern  Oil  Pipeline  Route." 


972 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  third  headline  says:  "Bemier  Stiggests 
Northern  Route  Proper  One." 

An  hon.  member:  A  tight  one  too. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  Then  we  have  the  next 
headline:  "McKeough  Supports  South  Route." 

Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  What 
does  Bullbrook  support? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Let's  have  Anderson. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  An  article  by  Bob  Ander- 
son—I'm  sorry,  Harold  Greer— "Ontario 
Cabinet  Ministers  Ought  To  Talk  To 
McKeough." 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  And  what  about  Bob 
Anderson? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Then  the  next  headline  is: 
"Ministers  Divided  On  Pipeline  Route." 

An  hon.  member:  Well  they  are  consistent. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Then  the  next  editorial 
says:  "Strange  Hiatus  In  Ontario  Politics." 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  haven't  had  one  of 
those  since  Robarts  left. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  And  finally  we  have  the 
pronouncement  ex  cathedra,  which  reads: 
"Davis  Denies  Cabinet  Spht  Over  Route."  As 
I  read  those  headlines  I  recognized  that  if 
the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  De- 
velopment isn't  victim  of  ad  hoc-ery,  nobody 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Having  a  hell  of  a 
time  making  it. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  That  was  the  development 
of  policy,  because  he  had  to  stand  up  in  this 
House  in  his  own  fashion— not  tall,  but  stand 
—and  say,  "We  won't  intervene  in  con- 
nection with  the  application  before  for  the 
National  Energy  Board,  but  we  feel  for  the 
farmers." 

That  had  to  be  really  the  most  ludicrous 
exercise  in  government  futility,  stupidity, 
devisivenness  and  frustration  that  the  minis- 
ter has  ever  had— really. 

I  tell  you,  the  magnificent  aspect  of  it  is 
that  the  Premier  of  Ontario  rids  himself  of 
people  like  the  member  for  Armourdale  (Mr. 
Carton),  the  member  for  York  Mills  (Mr. 
Bales),  and  the  member  for  Carleton  East 
(Mr.  Lawrence),  and  keeps  the  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  the  Treasurer;  those  two  who 
began  the  uphill  fight  that  was  a  slide  down- 
hill before  it  ever  started. 


But  that's  to  be  understood  with  this  par- 
ticular Premier.  Any  person,  of  course,  who 
after  that  particular  charade  that  went  on 
for  10  days  who  would  get  up  and  say 
"Premier  Denies  Cabinet  Rift."  It  was  as  if 
we  had  a  microphone  in  the  cabinet  room. 
We  could  see  them  fighting.  The  poor 
member  for  London  North  (Mr.  Walker)  was 
told  by  the  Treasurer:  "Get  on  the  band- 
wagon or  the  people  of  London  ain't  going 
to  be  with  you."  But  the  tragedy  of  it  all, 
really,  and  through  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture,  he  never  knew  that 
Interprovincial  were  going  to  use  the  right 
of  way  they  had  at  the  time,  did  he?  He 
didn't  know  it  at  all. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Of  course  I  did. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Well,  why  did  the  minister 
talk  about  arable  land  in  southwestern  On- 
tario that  was  already  used? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Will  the  member  permit 
a  question? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Will  the  member  permit  a 
question? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  No. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  just  want  to  ask  why 
IPL  is  negotiating  with  the  farmers  of 
southern  Ontario  today,  because  they  haven't 
sufficient  land  to  accommodate  their  equip- 
ment to  lay  the  new  pipeline. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  the  member 
for  Samia  has  the  floor. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  The  Liberal  Party 
through  the  member  for  Samia  displays  an 
abysmal  lack  of  concern  for  the  farmers  of 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Eaton:  And  the  Liberals  are  all  for  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  is  here.  The  Tories  haven't 
got  any  farmers  over  there. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  I  wonder  if 
the  member  would— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Listen,  the  Minister  of 
Energy  had  his  voice  changed.  Why  don't 
you  see  where  he  got  his  operation? 

I  want  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  in 
connection  with  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food,  we  sometimes  find  him  an  arch 
Tory,  and  that's  to  be  understood,  but  I  say 


APRIL  8,  1974 


973 


to  you,  nobody  works  harder,  in  connection 
with  the  cabinet  of  Ontario,  than  does  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food.  No  one. 
He  works  so  much  overtime  that  he  had  to 
make  an  apphcation  under  the  Employment 
Standards  Act  to  work  overtime,  and  the  two 
criteria  to  get  that  type  of  discretion  exer- 
cised were,  "Are  you  going  to  be  handi- 
capped or  mentally  retarded?"  and  he  quali- 
fied on  both  counts. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  The  member  for  Samia 
is  a  very  smart  lad. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  There  is  the  Chairman  of 
the  Management  Board.  There  is  a  talent, 
really. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Bullbrook:   Eleven  of  us  made  a  list 
of  those  cabinet  ministers  who  would  go.  He 
was  unique- 
Mr.   Speaker:   Order,  please.   I  wonder  if 
the  member  would  speak  to  the  chair. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  certainly  will.  He  was 
unique  and  he  led  every  list,  the  Chairman 
of  the   Management  Board. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Tell  the  Speaker  not  to 
scream,  eh. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  member  for  Timis- 
kaming  says  don't  scream. 

Mr.  Havrot:  He  has  just  broken  my 
record.  They  can  hear  him  in  his  riding,  too. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  think  I  will  give  some 
example,  if  I  may,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the  type 
of  waste  that  has  been  perpetuated  by  this 
particular  government. 

For  example,  today  you  have  the  estab- 
lishment of  four  additional  parliamentary 
assistants.  They  might  be  needed,  I  think, 
to  prop  up  some  of  the  cabinet  ministers. 
They  each  need  two  assistants.  I'm  not  cer- 
tain of  it,  but  I  doubt  if  there  are  six  people 
on  the  government  side  now  who  don't  have 
some  type  of  extra  emolument  to  their  office 
that  would  benefit  them  in  the  long  run 
from  a  pension  point  of  view. 

I  don't  think  there  are  six;  there  might  be. 
We  have  taken  care  of  the  past,  we  are 
taking  care  of  the  present,  and  we  hope  like 
hell  that  they  can  take  care  of  the  future. 
That's  exactly  the  way  they  feel  at  the 
present  time. 

But  we  are  not  worried  so  much  about 
the  future  of  the  members  on  the  govern- 
ment  side,    because   we   feel   that's   limited. 


Our  present  purpose  is  to  worry  about  the 
present  of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Now  I  don't  intend  to  take  too  much 
time  in  connection  with  reiteration  of  those 
things  put  forth  so  vigorously  and  well,  with 
respect  to  our  amendment  to  His  Honour's 
address,  by  my  leader. 

I  want  to  say  this  to  you,  there  are  two 
things  that  our  people  are  concerned  with, 
because  we  are  all  concerned  with  them; 
the  first  is  housing.  I  don't  have  any  great 
statistical  evaluation  to  give  you.  I  want  to 
say  this  to  you,  that  I  don't  want  to  put  it 
in  the  context  of  statistics.  I  want  to  put  it 
in  the  context  of  people.  I  want  to  say  this 
to  you,  that  in  my  city  the  problems  that  we 
face  are  developers  coming  in  and  buying 
a  lot,  perhaps  for  $2,000,  and  attempting 
to  put  the  plan  through,  as  my  oolleague 
from  Grey-Bruce  questioned  about  today, 
finding  themselves,  at  every  turn,  resisted 
by  levels  of  government;  paying  prime  bank 
interest  at  a  usurious  rate  of  11  i>er  cent; 
called  upon  to  dedicate  five  per  cent  to  the 
government  for  public  purposes;  in  most 
municipalities  called  upon  to  pay  $700  to 
$1000  for  impost  for  future  main  lervice 
charges,  eventually  finding  themselves  when 
they  build  a  house  put  to  the  test  by  both 
the  federal  and  provincial  government  of 
something  in  the  neighborhood  of  18  per 
cent  tax  on  building  materials;  then  called 
upon  to  pay  a  real  estate  commission  for 
resale  of  five  per  cent;  looking  at  lawyers* 
fees  at  a  basic  rate  of  1^4  per  cent;  paying 
a  one  per  cent  charge  to  CMHC  in  connec- 
tion with  possible  defalcation,  and  as  a 
matter  of  interest  in  that  respect,  their  de- 
fault rate  is  less  than  one  per  cent  and  they 
have  got  a  fund  built  up  of  something  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  $300  million;  paying  a 
1%  percentage  fee  in  connection  with 
Mice  loans,  high  ratio  loans,  again  for 
things  that  basically  in  the  context  of  our 
law  require  no  risk  at  all;  charged  exorbitant 
rates  of  interest,  having  regard  to  the  risk 
incurred  by  the  lending  institution,  and  find- 
ing, after  that,  that  they  spent  years  of  their 
lives  to  acquire  a  down  payment  on  a 
hcrnie— 

Mr.  Eaton:  The  member  forgot  the  law- 
yer's fee  on  all  that. 

Mr.  Huston:  That  shows  that  the  member 
doesn't  listen. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —that  the  House  leader  of 
the  NDP  statistically  catalogued  in  connec- 
tion vdth  this  problem  as  to  how  long  they 
pay  it  out. 


974 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  want  to  say  this  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  a  couple  in  my  riding  who  are  exem- 
plary of  the  situation  that  faces  society  today 
and  if  I  seem  melodramatic  I  apologize  to 
you.  There  was  a  time  in  the  life  of  the 
senior  members  of  this  assembly  when  the 
first  child  to  be  bom  to  a  married  couple, 
when  the  understanding  that  the  child  was 
on  the  way  was  a  time  for  happiness.  Do  you 
realize  with  young  people  today  who  are 
attempting  to  buy  a  home,  or  who  have 
bought  a  home  and  saddled  themselves  on 
the  dependency  of  a  double  income,  in  the 
context  of  the  requirements  of  society  today 
and  the  amount  of  money  they  must  put 
down  and  their  obligations  for  carrying  it, 
that  the  annoimcement  of  a  first  child  is  a 
tragedy? 

I  think  that's  what  is  really  happening  to 
society,  and  those  are  the  things  that  I  think 
we  should  be  coming  to  grips  with.  And  you 
can't  really  say  that  a  Throne  Speech  of  that 
nature  comes  to  grips  at  all  with  that  type 
of  problem. 

The  thing  is,  we  have  tried  time  and  time 
again— and  I  think  with  sincerity  on  the  other 
side  you  have  attempted— to  come  together 
and  try  to  work  out  some  method.  What  is 
the  method?  I  don't  know,  but  surely  the 
method  can't  be  the  way  things  are  being  run 
now.  I  wonder  what  the  answer  is?  I  wonder 
if  people  can  continue  to  bear  the  burden 
of  cost  and  inflation  that  they  do? 

There  is  nothing  Socialist  about  this.  One 
has  to  shave  in  the  morning  and  look  at  him- 
self and  say,  "I  wonder  what  we  are  doing 
on  behalf  of  the  people?'*  If  we  come  down 
here  and  have  a  responsibility  other  than  to 
yak  back  and  forth  at  each  other,  then  we 
have  to  say,  "Where  are  we  going?" 

Where  are  we  going  in  a  society  that  in- 
creased the  profit  ratio  of  corporations  in 
1973  by  37  per  cent,  to  a  total  of  $14.8 
bilh'on,  so  that  corporate  profits  became  10.5 
per  cent  of  the  gross  national  profit.  This  isn't 
a  Socialist  ripoff.  It  is  not  a  Socialist  ripoff 
at  all.  What  it  is,  I  think,  is  a  recognition  by 
all  of  us,  and  it  should  be  a  recognition  by 
all  of  us,  of  a  need  for  equitability  in  oiur 
tax  structure.  Believe  me,  I  sincerely  believe 
this,  something  has  gone  awry.  The  federal 
Liberals  have  gone  awry  in  this  respect— and 
I  speak  personally  in  this  respect— I  don't 
think  there  is  any  doubt.  How  can  you  pos- 
sibly rationalize  the  building  of  the  Toronto 
Dominion  Centre  and  the  continuing  of  an 
unrealistic  capital  cost  allowance  that  says 
that  they  can  efi^ectively  vmte  off  that  struc- 
ture in  20  years?  You  can't  when  you  know 


the  life  of  the  building  has  to  be  50  years  at 
least. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  How  does  the  member 
rate  that— 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Less  than  50  years  if  you 
would  like  to  get  into  the  20  per  cent  rate. 
Effectively  write  that  type  of  thing  oflF  in  50 
years;  you  can't  possibly  rationalize  that. 

I  was  telling  some  of  my  colleagues  one 
time  about  a  progranmie  I  had  seen  several 
weeks  ago  where  Frank  Magee  was  talking 
to  the  president  of  Exxon  and  he  said  to  him: 
"Do  you  recognize,  Mr.  President,  that  you 
pay  a  lesser  tax  rate  on  your  corporate  profits 
than  a  janitor  does  who  sweeps  the  office?" 
He  said  he  didn't  know  that.  And  he  pointed 
out  that  the  janitors'  effective  rate  in  the 
United  States  was  something  like  15.4  per 
cent  on  his  earnings.  And  Exxon,  on  profits 
of  $2.2  billion,  had  paid  an  effective  rate  of 
5.2  per  cent.  That's  not  Socialist,  but  may 
I  say  that's  got  to  stop. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Wait  until  the  Treasurer- 
Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  One  has  to 
be  an  executive. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  middle-income  people 
of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  are  not  going  to 
tolerate  that  to  continue.  We  live  and  I  live 
in  the  context  of  a  free  society,  a  free  enter- 
prise, wherein  an  individual  or  a  collection 
of  individuals  are  entitled,  under  our  system, 
to  flourish.  But  I  for  one,  Mr.  Speaker,  say 
to  my  colleagues,  through  you,  that  we're 
not  going  to  flourish  in  that  type  of  tax 
structure. 

1  say  to  you,  sir,  that  I  for  one  opt  away 
from  these  types  of  tax  concessions.  I  want 
to  say  that  I  for  one  don't  buy  the  rationale 
of  the  federal  Minister  of  Finance,  and  the 
rationale  we're  goinc  to  get  again  tomorrow 
in  connection  with  me  budget  speech- 
Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  The  member  has  been 
talking  to  the  member  for  High  Park,  has 
he? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —which  says  that  we  must 
have  this  type  of  profit  ratio  to  develop  capital 
for  increased  employment.  I  don't  believe  that 
for  a  moment.  It's  the  same  rationale  that  the 
government  gives  in  connection  with  Inter- 
national Nickel— the  same  pap  again,  all  the 
time.  What  the  government  does  is  it  lets 
them  write  off  their  expense  for  exploration 
against  their  current  profits,  and  then,  by 
some  circumlocution  of  logic,  it  says  that  they 
can  then  deplete  the  resource  itself  against 


APRIL  8.  1974 


975 


their  gross  income.  As  if  the  resource  was 
theirs  to  deplete! 

We  rive  it  to  them  twice,  and  we  sit  back, 
as  the  Fat  cats  that  they  are  and  I  am,  and  we 
say  to  the  people  who  earn  $15,000  and 
$16,000  a  year  and  are  raising  three  or  four 
children,  that  they  go  forwawl  and  pay  an 
eflFective  rate  of  22  per  cent,  in  some  cases  28 
per  cent,  on  that  type  of  revenue. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  It's  known  as  the  corporate 
ripofiF. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  It's  the  lawyer  ripoflFl 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  May  I  say  to  my  friend  that 
it  might  ha^'e  been  coined  as  a  corporate  rip- 
oflF- 

Mr.  Jessiman:  Is  the  member  talking  about 
legal  aid? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  don't  for  one  say  that 
it  might  not  be  a  corporate  ripoflF.  I  say,  for 
myself— 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  It  has  involved  thousands 
of  dollars  over  10  years. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —that  no  longer  can  society 
as  a  whole  tolerate  that  type  or  infrastructure 
of  inequitable  taxation.  They  just  cannot  do  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
move  over  there? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  don't  have  to  move  any- 
where. I'm  quite  happy  where  I  ami 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  He  can't  be;  the  member 
for  Downsview  doesn't  agree  with  him.  Move 


Mr.  Bullbrook:  Say  to  the  Toronto- 
Dominion  Bank:  "We  appreciate  very  much 
the  infusion  of  that  capital  into  the  building 
industry".  And  say  to  them,  realistically— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —realistically:  "Write  that 
building  oflF." 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Look  who's  talkingl 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  should 
move  over  and  take  the  member  for  St. 
George  with  him.  Move  overl 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  "Write  that  building  oflF." 
There  is  nothing  wrong  with  that. 

The  concept  of  giving  them  a  capital  cost 
allowance  is  a  true  concept  in  our  society,  but 


the  concept  of  giving  them  a  write-oflF  well 
short  of  the  life  of  the  asset  is  in  itself  a 
ripoff  and  always  will  be  a  ripoff. 

These  are  the  things  I  think  people  are 
talking  about  today.  They're  saying  to  thcm- 
selves— I  know  they're  saying  these  things  to 
me— and  I  think  we  all,  collectively,  no  matter 
whether  we're  Conservative,  Liberal  or  NDP, 
we  had  better  have  a  look  at  these  things. 
Perhaps  that's  the  beginning  of  a  select  com- 
mittee that  we  might  look  at— to  look  at  the 
equitabihty  of  taxation  in  the  Province  of  On- 
ario;  we  can  lead  the  way  there  because  we 
are  the  richest  province.  But  one  wouldn't 
know  it  in  the  Throne  Speech. 

What  has  the  Throne  Speech  said?  It  hasn't 
said  anything  about  that.  But  I  tell  you  what 
the  budget  will  say  tomorrow,  Mr.  Speaker. 
It  will  say  less  than  nothing  in  connection 
with  the  restructuring  of  equitable  taxation. 
It'll  say  nothing  at  all  about  it  because  this 
government  is  hand  in  glove  with  those 
people.  All  that  the  government  wants  is 
their  advantage,  but  not  the  advantage  of  the 
normal  and  ordinary  taxpayer  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario.  The  Throne  Speech  said  nothing; 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  don't  want  to  dwell  on 
the  Throne  Speech  at  this  late  hour. 

I  want  to  say  there's  one  thing  in  the 
Throne  Speech  that  we  agreed  with,  one  thing 
that  was  said  in  that  Throne  Speech  where, 
I  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  government  did 
come  to  grips,  and  they're  to  be  complimented 
in  coming  to  grips,  with  a  problem.  That  was 
when  they  said:  "May  Divine  Providence 
guide  you  in  your  deliberations  and  assist  you 
in  your  responsibilities,"  because  that  trans- 
lates itself  into  "God  help  us."  If  we  continue 
with  the  type  of  initiative  that  worries  about 
the  environment  in  the  context  of  billboards, 
then  God  do  help  us. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Solicitor  General. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  Solicitor  General 
is  lucky,  he  just  lost  the  hon.  member  for 
Downsview. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  1  would  like  to  join  with  other  mem- 
bers of  the  House  in  saying  how  happy  and 
pleased  I  am  that  the  member  for  Waterloo 
South  continues  to  occupy  the  chair  and,  as 
the  member  for  Grey-Bruce  has  said,  still 
wears  that  three-cornered  hat.  The  Speidcer, 
as  everybody  knows  in  the  House,  presides 
over  this  House  in  a  fair  and  eflBcient  manner 
and  he  is  a  credit  to  the  Legislature.  May 
he  continue  to  preside  over  us  for  many  years 
to  come. 


976 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  the  Throne  Speech  debate 
gives  members  an  opportunity  to  air  their 
views  on  various  matters  of  concern.  The 
recent  Throne  Speech  dealt  with  several  major 
themes.  Tonight  I  should  like  to  single  out 
five  of  these  for  the  members'  attention. 

They  are,  first  of  all,  inflation  in  the  econ- 
omy, then,  land  management,  law  reform, 
housing  and  northern  development. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Five  more? 

Mr.  Laughren:  In  that  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Last  year,  Ontario  had  an 
increase  in  real  growth  of  7.2  per  cent  over 
1972  and  ended  the  year  with  a  reduced 
unemployment  average  of  just  over  four  per 
cent.  The  outlook  for  this  year  is  closely 
linked  to  the  world-wide  energy  situation 
and,  relative  to  other  countries,  Ontario  and 
Canada,  in  my  opinion,  are  well  placed.  But 
Canada  must  squarely  face  the  continuing 
and  debilitating  effects  of  inflation  which 
cannot  and  must  not  be  ignored.  If  we 
don't,  the  benefits  of  our  relatively  strong 
energy  position  will  be  lost. 

Toward  the  end  of  last  year,  the  10th 
annual  review  of  the  Economic  Council  of 
Canada,  in  reviewing  the  growth  of  the 
government  sector  in  Canada,  stressed  the 
need  for  co-ordination  between  the  federal 
government  and  the  provinces  of  their  res- 
pective economic  fvolicies.  Here  in  Ontario, 
Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  been  urging  a  com- 
plete revision  of  federal-provincial  economic 
responsibilities.  It  is  our  firm  belief  that 
righting  the  existing  fiscal  imbalances  will 
go  a  long  way  to  solving  the  problem  we 
face. 

Six  months  ago  our  Premier  appealed  to 
the  Prime  Minister  of  Canada  for  the  federal 
government  to  meet  with  the  provinces  to 
consider  practical  measures  to  control  in- 
flation. The  federal  government  has  ignored 
this  appeal.  The  present  economic  situation 
must  be  confronted  by  governments  at  the 
highest  level.  Ontario  has  in  the  past  co- 
operated with  the  provinces  and  the  federal 
government  to  seek  national  solutions  to 
economic  and  other  problems.  We  will  con- 
tinue to  do  so  in  the  future  in  any  and  all 
matters  of  import  to  the  province  and  to  the 
nation  as  a  whole. 

With  respect  to  land  management,  govern- 
ments   everywhere    these    days    find    them- 
selves facing  shifting  priorities- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  Is  that  the  best  the  minister 
can  do  with  inflation? 


Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —and  increasing  conflict 
between  the  traditional  rights  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  the  rights  or  expectations  of  the 
community.  This  government  has  faced  up 
to  the  challenge  and  has  dealt  with  these 
two  forces  on  the  basis  of  merit  and  priority. 
The  overriding  criterion  has  been,  is  it  best 
for  our  society  and  our  province  and,  where 
larger  issues  are  involved,  is  it  best  for 
Canada? 

Land  use  is  a  good  example  of  such  con- 
flicting objectives.  When  regulations  con- 
cerning the  use  of  land,  our  own  land,  walk 
in  the  door,  the  notion  of  the  collective  good 
often  flies  out  the  window.  It's  generally 
agreed  today  that  something  has  to  be 
done  and  a  government  has  the  responsi- 
bility of  exploring  every  possible  means  of 
resolving  the  issue  as  equitably  as  possible. 

It  is  not  easy.  The  political  decisions  are 
frequently  tough.  It  would  be  far  easier 
to  do  nothing  or,  as  in  the  case  of  one 
political  party  in  this  province,  to  roll  back 
the  clock,  hypocritically  suggesting  to  people 
that  things  can  be  as  they  were  10  or  20 
years  ago. 

This,  I  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  to  ignore 
reality.  It's  the  politically  motivated  fabri- 
cation of  a  dream  world  and  the  people  see 
it  for  precisely  what  it  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Sounds  like  the 
Liberal  Party. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Who  wrote  that?  Did  the 
minister  write  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Certainly  we  have  tackled 
tough  issues  head  on. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Did  he  write  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  We  have  dealt  with  the 
escarpment,  the  parkway  and  regional 
governments. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  am  sure  the  mem- 
ber opposite  didn't  write  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  We  have  placed  ceilings 
on  the  growth  rate  of  secondary  and  ele- 
mentary educational  expenditures.  The 
Ministry  of  Health  has  contained  its  expen- 
ditures within  reasonable  levels.  I  think  the 
worst  thing  a  government  can  do  today  is 
to  be  dishonest  with  the  people  and  say 
everything  is  all  right  and  that  it  will  main- 
tain the  status  quo  and  nothing  needs  to  be 
done.  That  may  be  the  most  politically  at- 
tractive approach  to  take,  Mr.  Speaker,  but 
it  cannot  be  the  approach  of  any  responsible 
government  in  the  1970s. 


APRIL  8,  1974 


9T7 


We  have  taken  action  to  chedc  and  control 
urban  sprawl  and  its  attendant  problems. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Is  he  going  to  make  a  clean 
breast  of  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  government  introduced 
a  new  Ontario  Planning  and  Development  Act, 
the  Niagara  Escarpment  Act  and  the  Parkway 
Belt  Act  to  provide  development  planning  to 
achieve  this  goal.  The  government  has  tiucen 
steps  to  meet  the  growth  problems  in  central 
Ontario  by  legislating  a  development  plan  for 
approximately  1.3  million  acres  of  land  in  the 
Niagara  Escarpment  and  by  establishing  a 
broadly  representative  commission  to  be  re- 
sponsible for  future  planning  in  that  area. 

Land-use  regulations  introduced  for  a  park- 
way belt  system  from  Dundas  to  Markham 
and  ultimately  to  Oshawa— 

Mr.  Lawlor:  That's  the  Hydro  corridor,  isn't 
it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —recognize  an  urgent  need 
for  the  channelling  of  utilized— yes- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  The  minister  is  telling  me. 

Hod.  Mr.  Kerr:  -and  for  ensuring  that  un- 
bridled urban  sprawl  does  not  destroy  neigh- 
bourhood and  community  identities. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Where  is  the  parkway? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  government,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  also  determined  to  ensure  that 
farmers  are  given  every  assistance  in  retain- 
ing good  lands  in  agricultural  production. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  We've  now— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  cannot  get  his  mind 
oflF  the  pipeline.  Let's  go  over  that  pipeline 
again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  We  have  now  received  a 
report  of  the  farm  classification  advisory  com- 
mittee which  was  created  last  year- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  Why  did  he  talk  about  honesty 
a  few  moments  ago? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Its  recommendations  on 
our  initiatives  to  ensure  continued  agricultural 
production  on  lands  being  held  for  future 
development  oflFer  a  positive  course  of  action 
for  farming  and  food  production  in  Ontario. 

The  quality  of  life,  Mr.  Speaker,  which  we 
enjoy  in  this  province  owes  much  to  the 
stability  of  our  courts,  law  enforcement  asd 
public  safety  programmes. 


My  colleague,  the  Attorney  Geneiml  (Mr. 
Welch),  recently  tabled  in  the  Legislature  the 
Ontario  Law  Reform  Commissions  report  on 
family  law.  It  is  the  government's  intention 
to  introduce  legislation  during  this  session 
which  will  guard  against  a  Murdoch  case 
happening  in  Ontario.  We  propose  to  intro- 
duce provisions  to  protect  the  individual 
rights  of  both  spouses  during  marriage,  to 
ensure  equitable  property  rights,  to  remove 
all  discrimination  against  chil£-en  bom  out  of 
wedlock  and  to  strengthen  and  unify  our 
family  court  system  so  that  it  can  be  more 
eflFective. 

One  of  the  most  important  priorities  of  the 
Ministry  of  the  Sohcitor  General  is  the  recog- 
nized need  for  a  close  relationship  between 
the  public  and  our  law  enforcement  agencies. 
The  report  of  the  task  force  on  policing  was 
recently  submitted  and  much  of  its  content 
promises  to  be  an  extremely  significant  docu- 
ment in  influencing  the  future  of  improved 
police  relations  here. 

The  task  force  report  produced  170  indivi- 
dual recommendations.  Many  of  the  recom- 
mendations concern  the  improvement  of  the 
standards  of  police  training  and  place  greater 
emphasis  on  humanitarianism  in  law  enforce- 
ment. We  must  ensure  that  our  police  are 
professionally  trained  and  are  equipped  with 
modem  methods  of  detection  and  solution. 
Toward  this  goal,  constmction  will  commence 
on  a  new  police  training  college  at  Aylmer 
next  month. 

A  broad  programme  of  innovative  training 
and  of  new  standards  of  professionalism  rec- 
ommended by  the  task  force  is  being  closely 
studied. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  report  raised  such 
questions  as  the  need  for  more  women  and 
more  ethnic  representation  in  our  police  ranks 
and  the  adoption  of  a  constable-centred  man- 
agement style. 

We  intend,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  enlist  and  trafai 
more  and  more  native  people  in  policing  their 
own  reserves.  After  exhaustive  negotiations,  it 
is  hoped  that  an  agreement  with  the  federal 
government  will  be  reached  on  such  policing 
during  the  next  few  weeks.  It  is  also  my  hope 
that  at  least  some  of  the  task  f<m*  recom- 
mendations will  be  implemented  in  legislation 
during  this  current  session. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  realize  that  land  suitid^e 
and  appropriate  for  housing  is  of  immediate 
and  pressing  concern  and  that  this  type  of 
land-use  should  not  completely  override  other 
desirable  objectives.  We  must  ccmtinue  to  be 


978 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


concerned  for  the  population  densities  and  for 
well  planned  communities.  In  short,  while  we 
must  concentrate  on  quantity,  quality  must 
not  be  ignored. 

For  the  second  consecutive  year,  dwelling 
starts  in  Ontario  have  exceeded  100,000  units, 
a  rate  of  construction  which  is  consistent  with 
the  government's  overall  objective  of  one  mil- 
lion new  dwelhng  units  in  10  years,  A  number 
of  new  housing  programmes  have  been  intro- 
duced to  increase  and  upgrade  the  total  hous- 
ing stock.  For  example,  the  Ministry  of  Hous- 
ing has  introduced  a  programme  of  assistance 
to  community  groups  in  developing  and  man- 
aging their  own  housing  projects.  This  com- 
munity-sponsored housing  programme  will 
promote  co-operative  and  non-profit  housing 
generally. 

This  is  another  means  of  producing  a  com- 
bination for  modem  income  earners  and 
establishing  another  method  of  integrating 
public  housing  units  in  the  community.  The 
community  groups  to  be  assisted  will  include 
people  of  many  income  levels  and  with  a  wide 
variety  of  special  interests  and  goals,  such 
organizations  as  service  clubs,  charitable 
bodies,  and  those  dedicated  to  aiding  the 
elderly  and  the  disabled. 

The  programme  wiU  complement  and  add 
to  federal  programmes  in  three  ways.  It  will 
provide  grants  of  up  to  10  per  cent  of  the 
value  of  the  housing  projects  to  be  paid  over 
a  15-year  period  to  reduce  the  mortgage  pay- 
ments. It  will  financially  help  in  the  rent 
payments  of  those  in  the  lower  and  moderate 
income  groups  through  the  rent-supplement 
programme.  In  return  for  the  grants,  the  com- 
munity-sponsored groups  will  provide  gen- 
erally up  to  25  per  cent  of  their  units  for 
use  under  the  rent-supplement  programme. 

It  will  mske  available  ongoing  support  in 
the  form  of  expertise  or  other  assistance  in  the 
areas  of  both  the  development  and  manage- 
ment of  housing  projects.  The  government  is 
also  prepared  to  lease  provincial  lands,  where 
available,  to  community-sponsored  groups  hav- 
ing difiBculty  finding  sites  at  a  reasonable  cost. 

Complementary  to  the  community-sponsor- 
ed housing  programme  is  the  Ontario  home 
renewal  programme.  This  includes  the  recent 
extension  of  the  programme  to  provide  munic- 
ipalities with  provincial  funds  for  housing. 
These  can  then  be  used  as  municipal  grants 
and  low-interest  loans  for  home  improvement 
in  districts  either  inside  or  outside  designated 
neighbourhood  improvement  areas.  Approxi- 
mately $10,000  will  be  made  available  to 
municipalities  for  this  programme  during  this 
fiscal  year. 


Mr.  Lawlor:  How  much? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  It  will  be  $10  million.  Did 
I  say  $10,000?  I  am  sorry,  $10  million. 

The  funds  will  be  allocated  to  municipal- 
ities that  apply  for  them  on  a  per-capita-grant 
basis.  Twenty-five  per  cent  of  this  money,  Mr. 
Speaker,  wiU  be  set  aside  for  municipalities 
with  populations  of  5,000  people  or  less.  This 
will  guarantee  that  the  rural  and  northern 
areas  of  the  province  are  assured  special 
consideration  under  the  programme. 

Mr.  Speaker,  various  items  announced  in 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne  highlight  the 
present  and  future  role  of  the  government  in 
the  development  of  northern  Ontario.  My 
colleague,  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  (Mr.  Rhodes),  recently  an- 
nounced a  major  telecommunications  project 
to  link  the  communities  of  the  remote  northern 
area  of  Ontario  with  one  another  and  the 
outside  world.  This  three-year  project  will 
provide  31  communities  north  of  the  51st 
parallel  with  standard  two-way  telephone  serv- 
ice capable  of  cormecting  with  any  s-witch- 
board  in  the  world.  The  basic  design  of  the 
system  will  allow  for  the  carrying  of  radio 
programmes  for  broadcast  in  the  future. 
Further,  the  Telestat  communications  satellite 
will  also  be  incorporated  into  the  system. 

A  prior  and  addted  advantage  is  that  elec- 
trical power  will  be  required  for  the  com- 
munications equipment.  To  this  end,  Ontario 
will  negotiate  with  the  federal  government 
to  co-ordinate  its  community  electrification 
schedule  with  that  of  the  communications 
programme. 

Mr.  Sargent:  They  can  do  all  these  things, 
but  they  can't  fix  up  Highway  10. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  They  have  got  to  get  a 
good  member  in  there. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  two  major 
development  proposals  for  northwestern 
Ontario— 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Just  wait  until  Harvey 
Davis  gets  in  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —will  create  3,000  new 
jobs  over  the  next  four  years. 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  expansion  plans  an- 
noimced  by  the  Great  Lakes  Paper  Co,  in 
Thunder  Bay  and  the  Anglo-Canadian  Pulp 
and  Paper  Co,  in  Dryden— 


APRIL  8,  1974 


970 


Mr.  Sargent:  It  had  better  be  in  the  bud- 
get tomorrow  or  else  the  government  will 
be  in  trouble. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —constitute  an  investment 
of  some  $450  million  over  the  same  period. 

Today's  technology  has  opened  a  new 
path  for  the  future  use  of  nuclear  energy 
and  its  attendant  dependence  on  uranium. 
Ontario  policy  for  future  uranium  explora- 
tion and  use  was  tabled  in  the  House  just 
in  recent  weeks.  In  this  area  also,  fully 
recognizing  the  importance  of  this  resource, 
we  have  taken  a  broad  naticmal  oudook.  At 
the  same  time,  Ontario  fully  intends  to  en- 
sure that  the  interests  of  the  north  and  the 
province  as  a  whole  are  met. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  gratifying  to  learn  that 
the  Conservation  Coimcil  of  Ontario  con- 
siders that  "public  participation  in  pl&nning 
major  projects  by  the  Ontario  government 
and  its  agencies  has  become  the  norm  rather 
than  the  exception." 

Mr.  Stokes:  They  still  said  the  govern- 
ment had  a  long  way  to  go. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Well,  we  are  making  head- 
way. 

This  government  has  indicated,  through 
its  establishment  of  the  Solandt  commission 
and  its  intention  to  introduce  legislation  for 
an  environmental  assessment  agency,  that  it 
welcomes  public  participation. 

•Regarding  the  issue  of  decentralization, 
the  government  has  restructiued  local  gov- 
ernment so  that  it  can  respond  better  to  the 
stresses  of  urbanization.  Approximately  62 
per  cent  of  Ontario's  population  lives  within 
the  boimdaries  of  a  regional  government, 
with  its  greater  capacity  to  plan  and  govern 
their  own  ajffairs. 

Mr.  Deans:  Those  aren't  the  issues. 

An  Immi.  member:  Ask  them  how  they  like 
it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  As  hon.  members  know, 
the  province  has  increased  substantially  its 
unconditional  grants  to  municipalities,  and 
we  wait  for  tomorrow. 

Also,  contrary  to  the  view  that  many  of 
the  members  opposite  have,  civil  servants 
are  not  all  here  at  Queen's  Park.  The  fact 
is  that  civil  servants  are  located  throughout 
the  province  in  about  the  same  proportion 
as  the  population  of  Ontario.  If  any  differ- 
ence does  exist,  northern  Ontario  has  a 
slight  edge.  More  public  servants  are  located 
there  proportionately  than  in  the  rest  of  the 
province.  There  is  significant  decentraliza- 
tion- 


Mr.  Feniert  Look  how  far  they  have  to 
travel. 

Interjecti(H)8  by  hon.  memben. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It's  not  a  question  of  statis- 
tics. The  government  uses  statistics  for  its 
own  purposes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  It's  true;  there  is  signi- 
ficant decentralization  of  government  expen- 
diture programmes.  School  boards,  hospital 
boards,  universities,  children's  aid  societies 
and  conservation  authorities  receive  the 
largest  share  of  the  provincial  budget.  Local 
decision-making  really  is  the  keystone  of 
such  programmes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  individuals  seeking  assistance 
from  government  are  not  overlooked,  and 
programmes  horn  the  Consumers'  Byline  to 
the  citizens'  inquiry  bureau  are  available  to 
the  public— all  designed  to  assist  individuals 
and  to  complement  the  work  of  a  member 
of  the  Legislature. 

To  touch  briefly  on  one  or  two  other  areas, 
as  members  are  aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
concerns  of  the  government  with  regard  to 
health  care  and  costs  led  to  the  establish- 
ment of  a  health  planning  task  force  under 
the  chairmanship  of  Dr.  Fraser  Mustard 
about  two  years  ago.  The  report  has  now 
been  tabled  and,  following  the  incorporation 
of  recommendations  of  me  Committee  on 
the  Healing  Arts  and  the  McRuer  report  into 
legisfetive  proposals,  the  Health  Disciplines 
Act  has  also  been  introduced.  This  major 
bill  and  the  Mustard  report  will  have  a 
strong  impact  on  future  delivery  of  health 
care  services. 

Mr.  Ruston:  He's  telling  us! 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Income  support  pro- 
grammes mentioned  in  this  year's  Throne 
Speech,  as  well  as  a  prescription  drug  plan, 
will  add  to  the  benefits  received  by  Ontario 
senior  citizens.  Last  year,  a  $100  pensioners' 
tax  credit  was  instituted.  This  benefit,  to- 
gether with  the  provincial  property  tax 
credit  and  the  sales  tax  credit,  for  which  all 
other  citizens  are  eligible,  will  bring  a 
measure  of  relief  to  many  of  our  older 
citizens. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  words  are  a  "measure 
of  relief." 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Well,  what's  a  measure? 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  what's  a  measure? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  govern- 
ment is  moving  and  moving  effectively  in 
the  major  areas  covered  by  the  Speech  from 


980 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the    Throne,    despite   the   criticism   of   some 
members  opposite. 

Mr.  Lawler:  Did  the  minister  write  this 
himself? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  It  is  interesting  to  watch 
the  almost  desperate  efiForts  of  some  of  the 
members  opposite  to  find  evidence  of  failure 
in  these  areas. 

Mr.  Deans:  Evidence  of  desperate  efforts. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Sometimes  it  appears  that 
the  members  opposite  are  almost  praying 
for  failure. 

An  hon.  member:  Well,  of  course  we  are. 

Mr.  Deans:  "Praying  for  failure"— we  don't 
have  to;  this  government  fails  consistently. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  We  are  praying  for  it  just  a 
little. 

Hon.   Mr.  Kerr:   Since  the  rebirth,  really, 
of  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  and  his  frag- 
mented ranks  of  the  Liberal  Party- 
Mr.   Renwick:   I  think  that  this  is  a  par- 
tisan speech. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —he  is  sort  of  putting  his 
programme  together  \vith  scissors  and  paste 
from  the  latest  editorials  of  the  Globe  and 
Mail  and  the  Toronto  Star. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Hold  it  a  minute 
while  the  opposition  heckle  each  other. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  cold  hard  fact  of  the 
matter  is  that  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
and  some  members  opposite— 

An  hon.  member:   Is   this  the  windup?— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  —are  adrift  in  the  sea  of 
political  opportunism. 

An  hon.  member:  Great  stuflF. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  They  know  full  well  that 
no  matter  how  much  they  may  posture  in 
politics  the  real  responsibility,  for  example, 
for  cooling  the  fires  of  inflation  lies  with  the 
Liberal  government  in  Ottawa— and  it  has 
been  the  same  government  that  has  held 
power  for  the  past  decade. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Who  wrote  this  speech? 
Shakespeare? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  And  the  member  for 
Scarborough  West  (Mr.  Lewis)  knows  full 
well   that   he   could  help   to   alleviate   some 


of  the  major  economic  problems  facing  this 
province— 

An  hon.  member:  With  his  father's  help. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  -and  the  nation  by  talk- 
ing to  his  daddy  and  his  friends  in  Ottawa— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  where  he  is 
now,  I  guess. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  has  been  what  has  saved 
the  country  so  far. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  -who  sustained  the  pre- 
sent federal  administration  no  matter  how  it 
might  compromise  party  principles. 

Mr.  Ruston:  I  think  the  minister  had 
better  start  his  windup  speech. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne  provides  a  framework  for 
effective  action  by  a  government- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Now  we  know  why  they 
kept  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources 
Development  around  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  -which  has  demonstrated 
time  and  again  that  it  is  concerned  about 
people  and  their  problems  and  has  the  de- 
termination to  solve  them.  I  hope  that  as 
legislation  is  introduced  in  many  of  these 
areas  in  the  weeks  ahead  this  determination 
will  be  clear  enough  even  for  my  friends 
opposite,  it  says  here. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  what  it  says 
there. 

Inte  jections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  am  glad  he  read  the 
decision. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  urge 
all  members  of  the  House  to  support  the 
motion  moved  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Brantford  (Mr.  Beckett)- 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  was  a  weak  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  -and  seconded  by  the 
hon.  member  for  Timiskaming  without 
amendment. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  minister  is  embarrassed, 
isn't  he? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Throne  debate  now  be- 
ing concluded  I  shall  call  for  the  vote  as 
follows: 

Mr.  Beckett  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Havrot,  that  a  himible  address  be  presented 
to  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
as  follows: 


APRIL  8,  1974 


981 


To  the  Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald, 
PC,  CD,  QC,  LLD,  Lieutenant  Governor 
of  Ontario; 

May  it  please  Your  Honour: 

We,  Her  Majesty's  most  dutiful  and  loyal 
subjects  of  the  legislative  assembly  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario  now  assembled,  beg 
leave  to  thank  Your  Honour  for  the  gracious 
speech  Your  Honour  has  addressed  to  us. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Breithaupt,  that  the  following  words  be 
added  to  the  motion: 

But  this  House  condemns  the  government: 

1.  For  its  chaotic  education  policy  which 
has  led  to  the  inability  of  teachers  and 
school  boards  to  reach  a  reasonable  agree- 
ment and  resulted  in  the  dislocation  of  our 
education  system. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Continuing: 

2.  For  its  failure  to  establish  a  prices 
review  committee  of  the  Legislature  which 
together  with  a  reduction  in  provincial 
deficit  spending  would  exert  control  on  in- 
flation; 

3.  For    its    inadequate    land-use    policy 
which  continues  to  permit  the  unreasonable 
loss  of  farmland  to  government  and  private 
development- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Continuing: 

—and  the  unnatural  inflationary  pressures  of 
foreign  land  purchases  without  safeguarding 
Canadian   ownership   and  interest; 

4.  For  its  failure  to  establish  planning 
and  land  servicing  programmes  without 
which  serviced-lot  costs  have  escalated 
housing  out  of  the  financial  reach  of  our 
residents. 

Mr.    Lewis  moves,   seconded  by   Mr.    Deans 
that  this   government  be  further  condemned 
for  its  failure  to  institute  satisfactory  actions 
in  the  following  policy  areas: 
Inflation  and  the  cost  of  living: 

1.  Failure  to  investigate  increases  in  profits 
to  ensure  no  excess  profit  taking; 

2.  Failure  to  establish  a  price  and  profit 
review  tribunal  with  power  to  investigate 
every  aspect  of  price  increases  and  take  what- 
ever action  is  necessary  to  ensure  no  unreason- 
able increases  or  to  have  selected  increases 
rolled  back; 


3.  Failure  to  establish  a  consumer  protec- 
tion code  extending  not  only  to  marketplace 
transactions  and  commodities  but  to  the  pro- 
vision of  services; 

4.  Failure  to  instittite  a  province-wide  war- 
ranty for  home  building  standards; 

5.  Failure  to  institute  a  public  automobile 
iasurance  programme. 

Northern  development: 

1.  Failure  to  establish  economic  growth  in 
northern  Ontario  based  on  the  resource  poten- 
tial as  a  catalyst  for  secondary  development; 

2.  Failure  to  establish  northern  economic 
development  in  employment  based  on  long- 
term  secondary  growth  as  a  No.  1  priority; 

3.  Failure  to  recognize  the  massive  econ- 
omic disparity  between  northern  and  southern 
Ontario  and  the  adverse  effects  of  the  two- 
price  system  in  this  province,  and  failure  to 
take  appropriate  measures  to  bring  about 
equality. 

Land  use  and  urban  growth: 

1.  Failure  to  move  immediately  to  acquire 
for  the  public  sector  sufficient  land  to  meet 
the  projected  housing  needs  over  the  next  20 
years; 

2.  Failure  to  begin  a  house  building  pro- 
gramme aimed  at  producing  at  least  250,000 
homes,  both  private  and  public,  within  18 
months; 

3.  Failure  to  develop  a  land-use  policy  and 
overall  development  plan  to  meet  recreation 
requirements  in  all  areas  of  the  province  >vith 
immediate  emphasis  on  the  "golden  horse- 
shoe" area: 

4.  Failure  to  establish  rent  review  and  con- 
trol measures. 

Employer-employee  relations: 

1.  Failure  to  amend  the  Ontario  Labour 
Relations  Act  to  meet  the  legitimate  requests 
of  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour  as  con- 
veyed to  all  members  of  the  Legislature; 

2.  By  allowing  conditions  of  work  and 
wages  for  the  hospital  workers  of  Ontario  to 
deteriorate  to  a  substandard  level; 

3.  By  creating  a  confrontation  with  teach- 
ers in  this  province  and  then  failing  to  re- 
spond to  the  consequences  of  this  action; 

4.  By  inflicting  compulsory  arbitration  on 
Crown  employees; 

5.  Failure  to  legislate  against  strike- 
breaking and  the  use  of  firms  and  individuals 
to  disrupt  orderly  legal  strikes. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Income  maintenance: 

1.  By  failing  to  institute  an  income  main- 
tenance programme  to  meet  the  legitimate 
needs  of  the  elderly; 

2.  By  failing  to  establish  adequate  income 
levels  for  the  disabled  and  other  disadvan- 
taged   people    of    Ontario. 

Health: 

1.  Failure  to  provide  a  sufBcient  range  of 
institutional  facilities  to  ensure  adequate 
health  care  at  lowest  costs; 

2.  By  failing  to  institute  a  dental  and 
drug  care  programme; 

3.  By  failing  to  take  initiatives  w^hich 
would  upgrade  the  value  of  preventive  medi- 
cine; 

And,  further,  that  the  government  shows 
gross  negligence  in  its  refusal  to  tax  the 
resources  industry  of  Ontario  at  a  level  which 
would  allow  individuals  and  families  in  this 
province  to  experience  major  relief  from  the 
inequitable  and  oppressive  system  of  taxa- 
tion presently  in  effect. 

We  will  first  vote  on  the  amendment  to 
the  amendment  moved  by  Mr.  Lewis. 

The  House  divided  on  the  amendment  to 
the  amendment  by  Mr.  Lewis,  which  was 
negatived  on  the  following  vote: 


Ayes 

Nays 

Bounsall 

Allan 

Braithwaite 

Auld 

Breithaupt 
Bullbrook 

Beckett 

Bennett 

Burr 

Clement 

Campbell 

Downer 

Davison 

Drea 

Deans 

Dymond 

Ferrier 

Eaton 

Gaunt 

Evans 

Germa 

Ewen 

Givens 

Gilbertson 

Good 

Grossman 

Haggerty 

Guindon 

Laughren 
Lawlor 

Havrot 

Henderson 

Martel 

Hodgson 

Newman 

(Victoria-Haliburton) 

(Windsor- Walkerville)  Irvine 

Nixon  Jessiman 

(Brant)  Kennedy 

Paterson  Kerr 

Renwick  MacBeth 

Riddell  Maeck 

Ruston  Mcllveen 

Sargent  McNeil 

Singer  Meen 

Smith  Miller 

(Nipissing)  Momingstar 


Ayes 

Nays 

Spence 

Morrow 

Stokes 

Newman 

Worton 

(Ontario  South) 

Young-30. 

Nuttall 

Parrott 

Potter 

Reilly 
Rhodes 

Rollins 

Root 

Rowe 

Scrivener 

Smith 

(Simcoe  East) 

Smith 

(Hamilton  Mountain) 

Snow 

Stewart 

Taylor 

Timbrell 

Villeneuve 

Walker 

Wardle 

Welch 

Wells 

White 

Winkler 

Wiseman 

Yaremko-54. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
"ayes"   are  30,   the  "nays"  54. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  declare  the  amendment  to 

the  amendment  lost. 

We  will  now  vote  on  the  amendment 
moved  by  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon.  Is  it  agreeable 
that  the  same  vote  be  accepted? 

Agreed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  declare  the  amendment  lost. 
We  will  now  vote  on  the  motion  moved  by 
Mr.  Beckett.  Will  it  be  agreeable  to  take 
the  same  vote  in  reverse? 

Agreed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  declare  the  motion  carried. 

Resolved:  That  a  humble  address  be 
presented  to  the  Honourable  W.  Ross 
Macdonald,  Lieutenant  Governor  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario: 

May  it  please  Your  Honour:  We,  Her 
Majesty's  most  dutiful  and  loyal  subjects 
of  the  legislative  assembly  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario,  now  assembled,  beg  leave 
to  thank  Your  Honour  for  the  gracious 
speech  which  Your  Honour  hath  addressed 
to  us. 


APRIL  8,  1974 


083 


Hon.    Mr.    Winkler:    (Mr.    Speaker,   before 
I   move  the  adjournment  of  the  House,  to- 
morrow,   prior    to    the    introduction    of    the 
budget,  we  will- 
Mr.  Ren  wick:  The  minister  means  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Today,  thank  you.  If 
time  permits  we  will  deal  with  Bills  20  and 
21. 

Mr.  Renwick:  I'm  glad  to  hear  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  On  Thursday,  I  will 
also  call  further  legislation. 


The  following  week,  on  Tuesday,  we  will 
give  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  an  op- 
portunity to  reply  to  the  budget,  and  Thurs- 
day of  that  week  will  l)e  the  date  assigned 
to  the  leader  of  the  NOP. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The    House    adjourned    at    12:45    o'clock. 


984  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 


Monday,  AprU  8,  1974 

Petrochemical  complex,  statement  by  Mr.  Bennett   866 

Private  sewage  systems,  statement  by  Mr.  W.  Newman  867 

Ontario      Northland      Transportation      Conrmfiission,      questions      of      Mr.      Rhodes: 

'Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Bullbrook,  Mr.  MacDonald 868 

Deep  well  pollution,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  872 

Lakeshore  Psychiatric  Hospital  grants,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  873 

Activity    of    Multi-Malls    near    Tillsonburg,    questions    of    Mr.    Rhodes:    Mr.    Lewis, 

Mr.   R.   F.    Nixon 873 

Minaki  Lodge,  questions  of  Mr.  Beimett:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Stokes  i 874 

Environmental    impact   of  public  works,   questions   of   Mr.   W.   Newman:    Mr.    Lewis, 

Mr.    Cassidy 875 

Housing  programmes,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Sargent  875 

Restructuring  of  Renfrew  county,  question  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  . 876 

Housing  in  Windsor  area,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  B.  Newman,  Mr.  Deans, 

Mr.    Bounsall 877 

Alleged  sale  of  farmland  to  Japanese  interests,  questions  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Good  878 

Establishment    of    councils    in    unorganized    municipalities,    questions    of    Mr.    Irvine: 

Mr.    Stokes , 879 

Guelph  Correctional  Centre,  questions  of  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Worton  879 

Ambulance  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Sargent  880 

MTC  rents  for  farmland,  question  of  Mr.  Stewart:   Mr.  Deacon 880 

Therapy  workshops  pay  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Bounsall  . ...                  881 

Motion  re  committee  of  supply,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  881 

Wellington  County  Board  of  Education  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Worton,  first  reading  ..  881 

City  of  Kitchener  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Breithaupt,  first  reading  , 881 

City  of  Ottawa  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Morrow,  first  reading 881 

Savings  and  Investment  Trusts  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Morrow,  first  reading  882 

Report,  Ontario  Securities  Commission  re  Canada  Development  Corp.,  Mr.  Clement  ....  882 

Resumption     of    the     debate     on    the     Speech    from    the     Throne,    Mrs.     Campbell, 

Mr.    MacDonald ....> 883 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Grossman,  agreed  to  898 

Rights   of   Labour  Act,  bill   respecting,   on  second  reading,   Mr.   Drea,   Mr.   Haggerty, 

'Mr.  Bounsall,  Mr.  Gilbertson,  Mr.  Reid,  Mr.  Gisbom 898 

Conclusion   of  the   debate  on  the   Speech   from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Riddell,  Mr.  R.   G. 
Hodgson,   Mr.   Haggerty,   Mr.   Stokes,   Mr.  B.   Newman,   Mr.   Sargent,  Mr.  Deans, 

Mr.    Bullbrook,    Mr.   Kerr 910 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to   983 


No.  23 


Ontario 


Hegisilature  of  (J^ntario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 

Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Tuesday,  April  9, 1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


987 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Prayers. 

Mr.  J.  N.  Allan  (Haldimand-Norfolk): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  the  members  to 
welcome  a  group  of  70  students  from  the 
senior  public  school  in  Dunnville  who  are 
sitting  in  th^  west  gallery. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  a  group  of  students  from 
Waterford  District  High  School  are  sitting 
in  the  east  gallery. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 


SOLANDT  COMMISSION  REPORT 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  Mr.  Speaker, 
on  March  7,  I  tabled  in  the  Legislature  the 
report  of  the  Solandt  commission  which 
dealt  with  transmission  of  power  between 
Nanticoke  and  Pickering.  The  recommen- 
dations of  the  report  are  being  considered 
by  the  government,  which  intends  to  make 
its  decision  shortly. 

There  has  been  ample  opportunity  for 
public  involvement  on  this  500- kv  line 
through  the  medium  of  approximately  45 
public  meetings  held  by  the  Solandt  com- 
mission and  its  consultant.  Since  the  tabling 
of  the  report,  we  have  received  further  rep- 
resentation from  citizens  who  see  them- 
selves as  most  likely  to  be  aflFected  by  the 
line  should  Dr.  Solandt's  recommendations 
be  accepted. 

This  statement,  therefore,  is  made  to  ad- 
vise any  others  who  may  wish  to  respond 
to  the  report  to  do  so  as  soon  as  possible 
before  May  10,  because  of  the  importance  of 
proceeding  with  this  project  without  too 
much  further  delay. 

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


SOLANDT  COMMISSION  REPORT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  of  the  Provincial  Secre- 


TuESDAY,  April  9,  1974 

tary  for  Resources  Development  further  to 
the  statement  he  just  made.  Is  the  govern- 
ment prepared  to  accept  the  Solandt  recom- 
mendation that  properties  for  the  Hydro 
corridor  will  be  expropriated  without  going 
through  the  requirement  for  a  hearing  of 
necessity  as  is  necessary  under  the  law  of 
the  province?  Is  the  minister  prepared  to 
state  government  policy  in  that  regard  or  is 
he,  on  the  other  hand,  prepared  to  give  to 
those  citizens  directly  concerned  the  ri^ts 
to  have  such  a  hearing  of  necessity? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
whole  purpose  of  setting  the  date  of  May  10 
is  to  make  sure  that  at  a  certain  time  we 
will  have  whatever  conceivable  objections 
some  people  may  have  who  have  not  had  the 
opportunity  or  who  felt  they  had  not  had 
the  opportunity  to  present  their  case,  having 
regard  for  what  the  final  report  of  the 
commission  was.  In  the  meantime,  the 
ministries  involved  have  been  asked  to  let 
us  have  their  views  and  within  a  short  time 
after  May  10  we  will  take  into  consideration 
all  of  those  presentations  which  have  been 
made  on  the  report  of  Dr.  Solandt.  We 
don't  guarantee  that  all  of  his  recommen- 
dations are  going  to  be  accepted.  All  we 
are  doing  at  this  time  is  considering  the  re- 
port and  very  shortly  after  May  10  the 
policy  of  the  government  with  respect  to  all 
of  his  recommendations  will  be  made  known. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  I 
would  also  like  to  ask  the  same  minister  if 
he  is  prepared  to  order  an  environmental 
study  on  the  alignment  of  the  so-called 
Bradley-Georgetown  Hydro  corridor.  Is  he 
avrare  that  the  Minister  of  Diergy  (Mr. 
McKeough)  has  stated— at  least,  is  reported 
to  have  stated— in  western  Ontario  mat  if 
there  is  suflBcient  objections  he,  as  minister, 
is  prepared  to  recommend  an  independent 
environmental  hearing?  What  constitutes 
sufiicient  objection  since  there  have  been 
large  meetings  of  farmers  and  interested 
citizens  involved,  and  I  know  that  I  and 
others  have  received  written  objections  to 
the  corridor  as  it  is  presendy  outlined? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  of 
course  the  recommendations  of  my  colleague, 
the  Minister  of  Energy,  will  be  discussed  and 


988 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  House  may  rest  assured  that  whatever 
needs  to  be  done  will  be  done  to  make  sure 
that  citizens  are  given  whatever  considera- 
tion they  feel  should  be  given  to  their  ob- 
jections; these  matters  will  be  taken  into 
consideration.  Even  though,  as  the  hon. 
member,  I  am  sure,  appreciates,  it's  a  very 
diflRcult  decision  to  arrive  at,  what  I  am 
really  saying  is  that  we  are  going  to  have  to 
wait  until  we  consider  the  whole  matter  of 
the  project,  and  whatever  the  Minister  of 
Energy  is  prepared  to  recommend  to  the 
government  will  be  taken  into  consideration. 
I  can't  say  anything  further  at  this  time 
because  it's  all  under  consideration. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Does 
that  simply  mean  the  minister  is  going  to  do 
what  the  Minister  of  Energy  tells  him  or  is 
there,  in  fact,  some  area  of  overriding  policy 
involving  the  establishment  of  an  environ- 
mental assessment  hearing  because  of  the 
substantial  objections  which  have  been  com- 
ing forward? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  have  said,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  government  will  take  into 
consideration,  of  course,  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  Minister  of  Energy;  indeed,  the 
government  as  a  whole  takes  into  considera- 
tion the  representations  of  each  and  all  of  its 
ministers.  When  the  decision  is  made  this 
House  will  be  advised. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  A  sup- 
plementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  Good:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  Would 
the  minister  assure  the  House,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  environmental  studies  on  the 
Bradley  to  Georgetown  route  were  the  in- 
house  variety  done  by  Hydro  itself,  that  at 
least  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  of  his 
own  government  would  look  at  those  en- 
vironmental studies  to  assure  the  people 
of  Ontario  that  there  has  been  some  external 
input,  even  though  a  commission  of  Dr. 
Solandt's  proportion  is  not  going  to  be  in- 
volved in  those  studies? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  W.  New- 
man) is,  of  course,  studying  all  those  matters 
to  which  the  hon.  member  has  referred. 

Mr.  Good:  He  has  looked  at  them? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Still  in 
trouble  on  that. 


(Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  can  advise  the  hon. 
members,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  a  statement  on 
this  particular  project  will  be  made  shortly. 


PRIVATE  SECTOR  INVOLVEMENT 
IN  NUCLEAR  POWER  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  another  question 
of  the  same  minister.  Still  in  the  absence 
of  the  Minister  of  Energy— but  it  is  a  matter 
of  policy  so  I  think  it  is  correctly  directed— 
can  the  minister  report  to  the  House  the 
status  of  the  negotiations  held  so  far  in 
secret  between  Ontario  Hydro  and  the 
private  sector  on  the  involvement  of  the 
private  sector  in  the  development  of  the 
equipment  and  capability  for  nuclfear  elec- 
tricity plants,  both  for  installation  here  and 
abroad? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
a  question  which  should  be  properly  directed 
to  my  colleague,  the  Minister  of  Energy. 

iMr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Let 
me  just  ask  the  minister  if  as  a  matter  of 
policy  the  government  has  decided,  through 
the  policy  board  that  he  heads,  to  involve  the 
private  sector  in  this  area,  or  is  this  still 
simply  an  exploratory  series  of  conferences 
seeing  what  the  outcome  might  be?  Has  the 
policy  decision  been  made? 

•Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  has 
not  yet  reached  the  cabinet  committee  on  re- 
sources development. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Will  it  ever? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplemen- 
tary: Why  then  does  the  Toronto  Star 
report  that  secret  negotiations  are  going  on 
between  the  consortium- 
Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  The 
member  doesn't  believe  that,  does  he? 

Mr.  Sargent:  —Union  Gas,  Consumers'  Gas, 
GE,  Westinghouse?  Why  does  the  Star  say 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
question  should  properly  be  directed  to  the 
publishers  of  the  Toronto  Star. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 


HEALTH  PLANNING  TASK  FORCE 
REPORT 

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


APRIL  9.  1974 


iMr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'd  like  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Health.  On  his  read- 
ing of  the  Mustard  report  is  he  rejecting 
the  recommendation  that  comes  from  Dr. 
Mustard  and  that  committee  that  the  im- 
plementation of  at  least  certain  aspects  not 
be  delayed,  particularly  the  establishment 
of  what  I  believe  are  called  district  health 
councils,  a  matter  which  Dr.  Mustard  puts 
forward  with  some  urgency?  Does  the 
minister's  statement  that  he  is  going  to  take 
no  action  even  to  appoint  a  committee  to 
deal  with  this  for  four  months  mean  that  he 
is  rejecting  the  urgency  of  those  matters  put 
forward? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  think  that  we  rejected 
the  urgency  of  those  matters.  The  Ministry 
of  Health  has  for  some  time  said  that  district 
health  planning  councils  were  a  vital  part  of 
the  decentralization  of  health  care.  There  are 
some  issues  involved  in  that  programme 
which  we  need  to  study  within  our  ministry 
before  we  make  a  public  statement  on  the 
issue. 

We  have  one  council  functioning  now. 
It's  functioning  in  the  Ottawa-Carleton  area 
and  we  are  observing  it  very  carefully  before 
in  fact  further  steps  are  made. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Did 
the  minister  indicate  then  that  he  is  going 
to  take  no  further  steps  until  the  period  of 
four  months  has  elapsed,  at  which  time  fur- 
ther committee  reviews  will  begin? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  our  statement 
was  very  carefully  worded  to  say  that  we 
wanted  to  get  the  greatest  degree  of  public 
participation  and  response  before  in  effect 
we  tried  to  decide  whether  the  Mustard  re- 
port had  offered  the  correct  solutions  to  the 
correct  issues.  Now,  we  are  in  fact  setting 
up  mechanisms  by  which  to  monitor  these 
replies  at  once.  We'll  be  collating  them  as 
quickly  as  we  can  and  I'm  quite  sure  that 
shortly  we'll  be  able  to  give  the  member 
some  more  information. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  May  I  ask 
a   supplementary,    Mr.    Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  we  should  alternate 
the  supplementaries. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  In  view 
of  the  minister's  statement,  does  this  mean 
that  all  of  the  background  work  that  has 
been  done  concerning  the  formation  of  the 
health  council  in  northwestern  Ontario  will 
be  held  in  abeyance  until  the  minister  sees 


the  results  of  the  only  one  in  existence  at 
the  present  time— that  is  the  one  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
wouldn't  jump  to  that  conclusion  at  this  point 
in  time. 

I  think  that  there  are  a  number  of  issues 
in  that  report,  some  of  them  very  conten- 
tious, some  not  so  contentious.  A  district 
health  planning  council  is  a  concept,  as  the 
members  know,  that  was  not  new.  It  didn't 
suddenly  arise  within  the  report.  The  Min- 
istry or  Health  has  been  encouraging  dis- 
cussion on  and  formation  of  these  throughout 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  but  naturally  we  do 
have  the  desire  to  see  that  they  function 
well,  related  to  other  governmental  bodies. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ot- 
tawa East. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may  ask  a 
question  of  the  minister  relevant  to  the 
Mustard  report  and  the  Health  Disciplines 
Act.  One  of  the  suggestions  in  the  Mustard 
report  was  estabhshment  of  arrangements  for 
sharing  tasks  and  delegation  of  responsibility 
among  the  health  personnel.  This  is  one  of 
the  recommendations  of  the  report  and  in 
view  of  the  minister's  statement  that  he 
wants  to  get  some  public  input  for  about 
four  months,  does  he  still  plan  to  proceed 
with  the  Health  Disciplines  Act  now  in  view 
of  this  particidar  recommendation  about 
sharing  of  responsibilities? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
do  plan  to  proceed  with  the  Health  Discip- 
lines Act  now. 

Mr.  Roy:  Isn't  there  a  contradiction  there? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ot- 
tawa Centre.  A  supplementary. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Roy:  Could  I  ask  my  supplementary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  I  really  think  we 
should  keep  to  the  alternating  programme. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  As  a  supplementary,  I  just 
want  to  ask  the  minister  whether  he  was 
aware  that  the  formation  of  the  health  coun- 
cil in  Ottawa  took  two  years  because  of 
delays  by  the  ministry,  and  does  that  mean 
that  the  further  formation  of  health  councils 
in  the  rest  of  the  province  will  take  another 
two  years,  or  is  there  more  commitment  than 
that? 


990 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  concurrently  with  the  work  being  done 
in  Ottawa,  work  was  being  done  in  other 
areas,  therefore  we  don't  have  a  two-year 
time  lag  for  any  of  the  other  areas. 

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


OHC  ADVERTISING 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask 
the  Minister  of  Housing,  further  to  the  prov- 
ince's advertising  budget,  to  explain  why 
Ontario  Housing  Corp.'s  display  advertise- 
ment for  integrated  community  housing  pro- 
grammes appeared  three  times  in  today's 
Star— exactly  the  same  ad.  Is  he  trying  to  use 
up  his  budget,  or  what  is  the  purpose  of  that 
expenditure? 

Mr.  Roy:  Has  the  minister  got  his  name 
on  it? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  I  haven't  seen  today's 
Star  and  I  will  check  into  it  for  the  hon. 
member. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Once  on  page  8,  twice  on 
page  2. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  will  look  into  it 
and  report  back. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  have  further  questions?  If  not, 
the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West  is 
next. 


ETOBICOKE  HOUSING  SUBDIVISION 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  May  I 
ask  the  Minister  of  Housing,  Mr.  Speaker- 
he  will  know  tbat  die  borough  of  Etobicoke 
has  approved  a  plan  for  subdivision  which 
permits  the  development  of  302  single-family 
dwellings  on  roughly  75  acres  in  the  last 
area  of  development  land  in  Etobicoke— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  For  $100,000  homes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes.  Does  the  minister  intend 
to  make  any  public  comment?  Does  he  in- 
tend, in  fact,  to  meet  with  the  borough  to 
discuss  with  them  whether  the  putting  on 
the  market  of  300  more  homes  whose  costs 
will  be  in  excess  of  $100,000  each  is  con- 
sistent with  his  priorities  in  the  housing  field? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
every  intention  of  meeting  not  only  with 
the    borough    of    Etobicoke,    but    all    odier 


boroughs  in  Metro  or  with  Metro  council  to 
discuss  our  housing  programmes.  From  what 
I  have  read  of  the  particular  subdivision  that 
the  hon.  member  is  raising  at  this  point, 
it  appears  to  me  to  be  a  matter  entirely 
within  the  hands  of  the  borough  and  the 
developer. 

Apparently  there  is  a  market  for  that  type 
of  housing  and  developers  are  prepared  to 
satisfy  that  type  of  market. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  is  even  a  bigger 
market  for  cheaper  houses. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  certainly  don't  be- 
lieve that  it  fits  into  our  progranmie,  nor  do 
I  beheve  our  programme  includes  the  possi- 
bility of  building  houses  in  that  price  plan. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
given  what  surely  must  be  the  priorities  in 
the  minister's  programme— or  so  he  has  re- 
vealed them  occasionally  to  the  House;  the 
alleged  priorities— does  he  not  think  there  is 
an  even  greater  demand  for  low-  and  middle- 
income  housing  and  that  it  would  benefit 
matters  were  he  to  meet  specifically  with  the 
elected  council  of  Etobicoke  and  put  to  them 
the  government's  position  that  low-density 
housing  can  still  be  encompassed  in  this 
acreage,  but  with  homes  at  a  significantly 
reduced  price,  providing  much  more  accom- 
modation for  a  larger  niunber  of  people  who 
might  afford  it?  Does  he  not  agree  that  his 
plans  are  dealt  a  serious  blow  by  this  land  of 
development? 

iHon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  don't  agree  with 
the  latter,  but  on  the  other  hand  the  hon. 
member  has  outlined  exactly  what  our  hous- 
ing action  programme  encompasses,  which 
is  the  building  of  low-cost  housing  for  people 
in  low  and  moderate  income  ranges- 
Mr.  Stokes:  Around  $100,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  That  is  not  our 
programme.  And  it  would  seem  to  me  that 
the  hon.  member  has  given  a  much  better 
description  of  it  than  I  can  here  in  this 
House. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  those  few  lots  that  the 
leader  of  the  NDP  is  referring  to  may  very 
well  be  the  only  lots  approved  in  the  whole 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  this  year  for  single- 
family  dwellings  and  that  you  can't  buy  one 
unless  you  can  cough  up  $100,000  minimum; 
and  if  you  really  want  to  go  for  the  bundle 
they  have  them  also  at  $150,000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
am  not  aware  that  those  are  the  only  single- 


APRIL  9,  1974 


991 


family  lots  that  may  be  approved  in  Metro 
this  year.  It  is  my  understanding  that  Metro 
council  and  the  boroughs  are  working  cm 
accelerating  certain  plans  of  subdivisions. 

\Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  are  only  12  lots 
in  the  first  quarter. 

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

(Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  we  will  see  whether  the 
government's  speculative  land  tax  this  after- 
noon will  do  what  it  wants  it  to  do;  and  we 
will  watch  it. 


LAKE  ERIE  PUBLIC  BEACHES 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  does 
he  intend  to  do  now  about  retrieving  any  of 
the  beaches  of  Lake  Erie  for  public  access, 
given  the  findings  of  the  Supreme  Court  and 
the  decision  which  came  down  some  time 
ago?  I  think  at  the  time  the  minister  indi- 
cated—and the  former  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development  indicated^that 
he  would  want  to  think  about  it  for  a  while 
and  then  suggest  a  government  approach. 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  matter  will 
be  coming  before  the  government  for  dis- 
cussion. It  has  not  at  this  present  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  has  not  been  discussed  as 
yet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  No. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  the  minister— 

'Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Welland  South  has  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  one  supplementary,  if 
I  may.  I  wonder  if  the  hon.  minister  is  aware 
that  as  a  result  of  the  Supreme  Court  de- 
cision, between  the  Peace  Bridge  in  Fort 
Erie  and  Point  Albino- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Abino. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Abino,  I  am  sorry.  To  the 
west  there  exists  about  70,000  ft  of  Lake 
Erie  shoreline  where  the  accessibility  on  a 
per  capita  basis  works  out  to  about  1/100  of 
an  inch  per  person.  That  is  what  is  now 
available  to  the  people  of  Ontario  as  a  result 
of  that  decision  and  the  government's  refusal 
to  amend  the  Beds  of  Navigable  Waters  Act. 
Since  it  has  now  been  reduced  to  the  point 
of  absurdity,  when  does  the  minister  think 


he  will  have  a  policy  to  retrieve  the  public 
beaches? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  I  am  sure,  Mr.  Speaker, 
when  these  matters  come  before  the  govem- 
ment,  all  matters  will  be  fuUy  examined. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
land South  was  up  for  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  just  wanted  to  know  if  the  minis- 
ter was  going  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  change  in 
the  Navigable  Waters  Act  the  description  of 
Crown  property  along  the  lakeshore?  This 
govenmient  has  promised  this,  I  believe,  for 
the  last  25  years.  When  is  the  minister  going 
to  get  off  his  good  intentions  and  do  some- 
thing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  That  is  a  federal  Act 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  member  for  Welland 
South  has  one  before  the  House  now. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  Does  the 
minister  know  he  has  got  a  committee  study- 
ing this?  Does  he  realize  that? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Just  a  secondl  The  Beds 
of  Navigable  Waters  Act  is  not  a  federal 
Act.  That's  not  a  federal  matter.  It  is  in  this 
minister's  ministry. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  The  gov- 
emment  changed  it  in  1921. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  is  not  what 
the  member  for  Welland  South  said. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  no 
wonder  there  are  no  beaches  left  for  public 
use. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  that  a  supplementary 
question? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  Speaker:   I  haven't  detected  it  yet. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  it  any  wonder  that  the 
people  of  Ontario  have  no  public  beaches? 

Mr.  Speaker:   Back  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 


992 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  the 
Beds  of  Navigable  Waters  Act  falls  within 
his  ministry  for  amendment? 

Hod.  Mr.  Bemier:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
am  aware  that  that  particular  Act  falls  with- 
in the  provincial  jurisdiction,  but  I  understood 
the  member  to  say  the  Navigable  Waters 
Act. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Beds  of. 

Mr.  BuIIbrook:  That  is  the  Navigable 
Waters  Protection  Act.  He  said  the  right  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  I  am  sorry,  the  Protec- 
tion Act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  don't  think  any  of  the 
hon.  members  said  "supplementary".  The 
hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 


COINCIDENTAL  TIMING 
OF  HYDRO  PROJECTS 

(Mr.  Lewis:  If  I  may,  I  have  a  last  ques- 
tion, of  the  Premier.  Has  the  Premier  noted 
that  the  decision  on  which  the  Amprior  dam 
has  been  based^the  decision  to  go  ahead  on 
the  Amprior  dam— was  reached  at  exactly  the 
same  period  of  time  as  the  decision  to  build 
the  head  oflBce  building  in  downtown  To- 
ronto, as  the  decision  on  the  original  Hydro 
Pickering-Nanticoke  corridor,  and  as  the 
decision  on  the  western  Ontario  transmission 
corridbr,  all  of  which  decisions  have  sub- 
sequently been  open  to  criticism  of  this 
Legislature,  public  repudiation  or  reversal  by 
the  government?  Does  he  not,  therefore, 
think  that  the  decision  on  the  Amprior  dam 
should  also  be  open  to  an  additional  public 
scmtiny  since  it  involves  some  $80  million 
of  public  funds? 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  That 
was  a  bad  month. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
while  I  don't  have  any  chronological  order 
of  decisions  or  tentative  decisions  made  by 
Ontario  Hydro,  I  question  whether  the  hon. 
member's  mathematics  o»  dates  are  quite 
accurate.  I  can  only  go  back  in  memory. 

The  discussion  initially  of  the  proposed 
Nanticoke  to  Pickering  transmission  line  goes 
back  several  years.  It  was  discussed  in  terms 
of  a  northern  route,  a  route  that  really  isn't 
too  dissimilar  to  the  present  Solandt  recom- 
mendation, which  is  consistent  with  the  park- 
way belt.   If  memory  serves   me   correctly. 


there  was  some  discussion  with  respect  to  a 
middle  route. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state,  and  I  am  not  here 
to  defend  Hydro,  that  to  tr)-  to  relate  all 
of  these  four  matters  to  anyparticular  period 
of  time  is  just  not  correct.  Tke  discussion  on 
a  Nanticoke  to  Pickering  line  goes- 
Mr.  Lewis:  I  think  it  is  the  last  hurrah  of 
George  Gathercole. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  just  tell  the  member 
the  proposal  from  Hydro  on  the  Pickering  to 
Nanticoke  line  goes  back  some  considerable 
period  of  time.  I  would  also  say,  in  fairness 
to  Hydro,  that  their  suggestion  as  to  the 
alignment  of  the  Pickering  to  Nanticoke  line 
certainly  met  with  opposition.  As  I  said  in 
the  House  the  other  day,  while  I  think  per- 
sonally there  are  some  areas  that  I  much 
prefer  in  the  Solandt  commission  recom- 
mendation because  they  are  consistent  with 
the  parkway,  we  would  be  ver\-  foolish  to 
feel  that  everybody  is  going  to  be  content 
with  that  line. 

I  think  to  try  and  relate  all  of  these  in 
any  way  is  really  somewhat  inaccurate  and 
perhaps  even  inappropriate.  I  just  can't  trace 
the  same  degree  of  chronolog)-  that  is  being 
suggested  by  the  hon.  member.  It  just 
doesn't  6xist,  I  think.  Quite  frankly,  I  haven't 
even  looked  at  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Since 
there  is  another  area  of  similarity-,  that  is, 
that  two  of  the  major  projects  were  entered 
into  without  public,  or  adequate,  public 
tendering,  perhaps  the  Premier  would  res- 
pond with  his  experience  in  that  regard  and 
indicate  to  the  House  whether  or  not  he 
feels  that  the  Amprior  situation  should  be  at 
least  halted  pending  further  tendering,  if  not 
a  full  review  of  the  whole  situation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  and  I'm  not  an  expert  in  the  Am- 
prior contract,  the  first  phase  was  negotiated 
and  the  second  phase  has,  in  fact,  been 
tendered. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  But  the  Premier  is  aware 
of  the  circumstances,  that  the  company  that 
got  the  negotiated  part  also  won  the  tender, 
because  they  were  the  only  one  that  had 
any  information? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Because  they  \%'ere  $2 
million  low. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  But  they 
were  on  the  spot  with  their  work  crew  and 


APRIL  9,  1974 


993 


their  machinery;  they  could  underbid  every- 
body. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  The  hen.  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Min- 
ister of  Energy  has  now  reconsidered  his 
suppression  of  information  and  has  released 
the  development  engineering  report  on  this 
dam,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  that  re- 
port reveals  that  on  Oct.  22,  1971,  right 
after  the  election.  Hydro's  public  relations 
people  were  meeting  to  determine  how  they 
would  manipulate  public  opinion  to  favour 
the  dam,  will  the  Premier  now  reconsider 
his  refusal  to  have  a  public  inquiry  into 
that  project? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  going  to  reconsider.  There  has  been 
quite  a  bit  of  discussion  here.  The  hon. 
member  for  Ottawa  and  the  islands  has 
contributed  a  great  deal- 
Mr.  Singer:  Ottawa  and  the  islands?  That 
is  a  new  riding. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  to  cover  both 
his  constituencies— and,  as  I  understand  it, 
he  is  going  to  be  making  some  submissions 
to  the  board  related  to  the  financial  aspects, 
at  which  time  I'm  sure  he  will  have  an  op- 
portunity to  present  his  point  of  view.  But 
I  see  no  purpose,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  having  an 
inquiry.  I  think  the  facts  have  been  pre- 
sented, the  hon.  member  has  had  the  ma- 
terial, and  I  think  that  to  have  an  inquiry 
at  this  stage  would  serve  no  useful  purpose 
whatsoever. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Taken  in  by  a  rotten  Hydro 
decision  again! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  these  supplementaries? 

Mr.  Singer:  No. 

Mr.  Roy:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right.  The  hon.  member 
for  Scarborough  West  has  not  indicated  he 
is  finished  yet. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  he  is. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  further  questions? 
All  right.  The  ministry  has  the  answers  to 
several  questions  asked  previously,  and  I 
think  we  should  deal  with  them  first.  The 
hon.  Minister  of  Revenue  has  the  answer  to 
a  question  asked  previously. 


Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speadcer. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Tfanel 


CORPORATION  INCOME  TAX  PAID 
BY  OIL  COMPANIES  TO  PROVINCE 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  last  Thurs- 
day, the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West 
asked  me  a  question  regarding  corporation 
taxes  paid  by  oil  companies  and  the  amount 
of  taxes  paid.  Specifically,  his  question  was; 
"How  many  of  the  major  oil  companies  with 
operations  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  paid 
a  provincial  corporation  income  tax  last  year 
.  .  .  and  in  what  amount?" 

Perhaps  I  should  say  at  the  begiiming  that 
I  don't  yet  have  the  figures  for  1973,  so  the 
closest  year  I  can  give  anything  for  would 
be  1972.  However,  may  I  go  on? 

As  I  indicated  to  the  hon.  member  on 
the  day  the  question  was  asked,  the  secrecy 
provision  of  the  Corporations  Tax  Act,  1972, 
as  set  out  in  section  166  of  that  Act,  pre- 
cludes communication  of  any  specific  inJFor- 
mation  obtained  under  the  Act.  And  may  I 
quote  section  166  for  the  benefit  of  the  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  West  and  for  the 
benefit  of  the  hon.  member  for  Samia,  who 
injected  himself  into  that  question? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Did  I  really? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It  states: 

No  person  employed  in  the  service  of 
Her  Majesty  shall  communicate,  or  allow 
to  be  communicated  to  any  person  not 
legally  entitled  thereto,  any  information 
obtained  under  this  Act,  or  allow  any  such 
person  to  inspect  or  have  access  to  any 
written  statement  furnished  under  this 
Act. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  It  shouldn't  apply  to  coriK)- 
rations. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  This  restriction  is  similar 
to  one  found  in  the  personal  Income  Tax 
Act.  Such  a  restriction  is  necessary  so  that 
individuals  and  corporations  can  submit  oper- 
ating statements  in  confidence  to  the  author- 
ities of  my  ministry  without  unnecessarily 
jeopardizing  their  personal  privacy  or  com- 
petitive positions. 

In  view  of  these  provisions,  I  must  con- 
firm the  position  I  took  last  Thursday  on 
this  matter  and  decline  to  provide  to  the 
hon.  member  the  particulars  of  corporation 
tax  paid  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  by  major 
oil  companies  here. 


994 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Perhaps  I  might  just  go  on  and  observe 
that  the  petroleum  industry  coded  in  our 
records  as  "extractive,  refining,  pipehne, 
wholesale  and  retail,"  paid  corporation  tax  in 
Ontario  in  1972  on  an  allocation-of-income 
basis  as  provided  for  in  the  Act.  This  allo- 
cation provision  applies  to  companies  having 
operations  in  more  than  one  province,  and 
allows  for  income  allocation  for  tax  pm-- 
poses  to  the  province  where  the  income  arises. 
Ontario's  tax  share  involved  a  total  of  1,361 
corporations,  with  allocations  to  this  province 
ranging  from  a  low  of  18  per  cent  to  a  high 
of  90  per  cent. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
With  respect,  my  question  was  completely 
ignored,  and  I  think  deliberately.  So  I  will 
put  to  the  ministry  by  way  of  supplementary 
—and  I  have  the  Hansard  in  front  of  me— 
which  doesn't  violate  in  any  sense  the  Corpo- 
rations Tax  Act,  as  he  has  indicated. 

I  asked  if  he  knows  how  many  of  the 
major  oil  companies  with  operations  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario  paid  a  provincial  corpo- 
ration income  tax  last  year.  The  minister 
would  not  be  revealing  anything  to  give  us 
the  names  of  the  oil  companies  that  paid  a 
corporation  income  tax  in  the  last  year  for 
which  he  has  figures. 

So,  my  supplementary  is,  will  the  minister 
give  us  the  names  of  those  companies?  Not 
the  amounts,  but  the  names  of  those  com- 
panies? 

I  asked  in  further  suppl'ementaries  if,  he 
was  unable  to  give  us  specific  dollar  figures, 
if  he  would  give  us  the  total  that  the  industry 
paid?  Again,  this  would  not  violate  any  of 
the  specifics  indicated  in  the  Corporation  Tax 
Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  gets  to  be 
a  good  question  as  to  what  is  a  major  oil 
company.  We  have  1,361  corporations  in  these 
various  categories. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Now  if  they  are  talking 
about  retail  sales- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Come  on;  enough  of  this. 

Mr.    I.   Deans   (Went worth):    Why   doesn't 

the  minister  try- 
Mr.   J.   F.   Foulds   (Port  Arthur):   We  will 

settle  for  the  top  seven. 


Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  can  certainly  name  on 
the  fingers  of  one  hand,  plus  one  or  two,  the 
major  oil  companies;  okay? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fine;  tell  us. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  am  not  prepared  to  tell 
the  member  what  they  paid;  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to   tell  him   what  the   total   was,   be- 


Mr.  Lewis:  I  got  that. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  He  knows  that. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  All  the  member  would 
need  to  do  would  be  to  look  at  their  retail 
sales  and  apportion  matters  accordingly;  I 
am  not  in  a  position  to  depart  from  the 
confidence,  imposed  in  my  ministry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Just  how  long  do  these  apologists  and  de- 
fenders of  the  oil  companies  get  away  with 
it  in  this  House? 

Mr.  Havrot:  Quit  grandstanding. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  does  the  minister  deny 
public  information  that  is  clearly  ours  to 
have;  collectively  ours  to  have?  Why  can 
we  not  know  which  of  those  oil  companies 
pay  tax? 

Incidentally,  Mr,  Speaker,  the  Province  of 
Quebec- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  All  right;  on  a  point  of  privilege, 
let  me  say  that  the  Province  of  Quebec  re- 
leased this  information  publicly,  which  as  a 
matter  of  fact  is  why  I  asked  the  question.  If 
it  can  be  done  in  the  Province  of  Quebec, 
by  way  of  an  answer  to  a  question,  why  can 
the  minister  not  do  it  in  Ontario;  and  how 
would  it  impair  the  oil  companies  were  he 
to  tell  us  their  total  revenue?  How  long  can 
the  minister  be  the  bond-holder  of  the  oil 
companies? 

Mr.  Speaker:   Order. 

An  hon.  member:  All  we  have  to  do  is  put 
the- 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  will  we  get  the  informa- 
tion? Will  the  minister  give  us  the  infonna- 
tion? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  we  should  finish  deal- 
ing with  this  one  first. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Will  the  minister  give  us  the 
information?  Will  he  tell  us  which  oil  com- 
panies paid  a  corporation  income  tax? 


APRIL  9,  1974 


996 


Hon.  Mr.  Meeo:  I  can  look  into  the  matter 
of  what  corporations  have  paid  corporation 
income  tax. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  does  he  mean,  "what 
corporations"? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  What  oil  companies  have 
paid  corporation  tax. 

Mr.  Roy:  Don't  strain. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  the 
Environment  has  the  answer  to  a  question 
asked  previously,  two  questions  in  fact. 


DEEP  WELL  POLLUTION 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment): Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  was  asked  by 
the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition  concern- 
ing a  report  to  which  he  made  reference. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  minister  must  have  a 
speech  writer. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  There  was  really  no 
report  on  private  well  contamination  in  Innis^ 
fil  township,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  like  to 
point  out  that  responsibility  for  private  water 
supply  rests  with  the  local  MOH.  My  minis- 
try has  assisted  the  local  medical  officer  of 
health  by  gathering  water  quality  data  in 
the  area  and  has  made  the  information  avail- 
able for  action  and  release  by  the  medical 
officer  of  health. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  has  been  a  problem  in 
this  area  for  some  time  involving  both  private 
water  suppHes  and  private  waste  oisposal 
systems.  In  recognition  of  this  problem,  the 
Simcoe  county  district  health  unit  of  the 
township  of  Innisfil  designated  a  special  policy 
area  in  which  buildings  and  private  waste 
disposal  facilities  were  brought  imder  strict 
regulations. 

The  ministry  is  aw^re  of  the  general  con- 
ditions that  gave  rise  to  the  imposition  of 
these  restrictions  and  has  retained  a  firm  of 
consulting  engineers  from  Collingvwod  to 
prepare  a  conceptual  brief  and  preliminary 
report  on  the  various  methods  of  providing 
water  and  sewer  services  to  all  or  parts  of 
the  problem  area.  This  report  is  now  imder 
preparation.  The  ministry  will  continue  to 
work  with  the  township  and  the  local  medi- 
cal officer  of  health  to  help  solve  the  prob- 
lems in  this  area. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Does  the 
report  indicate  that  60  to  80  per  cent  of  the 
wells  are  contaminated,  depending  upon  the 
area  of  the  tovmship  concerned? 


Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  just  collect  the 
data,  we  don't  have  a  specific  report.  I  don't 
know  of  the  report  that  is  referred  to,  but 
there  is  a  problem  whidi  we  are  working  on 
with  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  bon.  minister  has—sup* 
plementary?  There  are  several  more  answers 
from  the  ministry;  the  hon.  member  for  Kent 
(Mr.  Spence)  will  be  first  when  we  are  fin- 
ished with  them. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainv  River):  He  has  been 
saving  them  up  for  a  Icmg  time. 

Mr.  Roy:  We  waste  a  lot  of  time  with  all 
those  statements. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  re- 
hearse those  things?  Why  doesn't  he  give 
direct  answers  at  the  time  the  questions  are 
asked? 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  doesn't  he  give  us  a  direct 
answer? 


ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  the 
answer  to  questions  directed  to  me  yesterday 
by  the  hon.  members  for  Scarborough  West 
and  Ottawa  Centre. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West 
asked  if  I  would  table  the  inquiry  officer's 
report  on  the  Ontario  Hydro  appHcation  of 
Jan.  23  for  approval  to  expropriate  property 
in  the  area  of  the  Amprior  dam  project  for 
the  relocation  of  the  CPR  line;  and  whether 
I  had  turned  the  inquiry  officer's  reports  over 
to  the  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Welch). 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  not  the  practice  of  this 
ministry,  when  acting  as  approving  authori- 
ties imder  the  Expropriations  Act,  to  make 
public  the  report  or  inquiry  officers.  The 
signed  inquiry  officer's  report  to  which  the 
hon.  member  refers  was  received  in  my  office 
April  2.  This  report  is  now  being  considered 
and  it  is  my  intention  to  make  a  decision 
within  the  QO-day  period  allowed  under  the 
Expropriations  Act. 

When  the  decision  has  been  made,  a^ies 
of  it— together  with  my  reasons— will  be  sent 
to  the  parties  of  the  hearing  and  to  the  chief 
inquiry  officer,  the  Assistant  Deputy  Attorney 
General.  It  is  not  the  practice  to  forward  Ae 
report  of  the  inquiry  officer  to  the  Attorney 
General. 

The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa  Centre- 
Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  a  sup- 
plementary to  that? 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  Is  this  the  same  question? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  was 
a  supplementary,  and  Tm  going  to  answer 
the  supplementary  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary  to  the  origi- 
nal question? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  minister  should 
oomplete  his  reply,  if  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarljorough  West  does  not  want  the  first 
supplementary. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  The  hon.  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre  asked  if  I  was  aware  of  fur- 
ther applications  for  approval  to  expropriate 
in  relation  to  this  project.  I  have  not  yet 
received  further  applications.  I  understand 
that  an  application  will  be  made  shortly  by 
Ontario  Hydro  covering  several  parcels  of 
land,  parts  or  all  of  which  may  be  aflFected 
by  the  project. 

At  the  time  an  expropriation  authority 
makes  an  application  to  an  approving  author- 
ity under  the  Expropriations  Act,  all  the 
registered  owners  ^ected  by  the  application 
are  given  notice  and  notice  to  the  public  is 
published  through  the  local  newspapers. 

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

Mr.  Singer:  Could  the  minister  explain 
how  long  it  took  for  the  usual  practice  not 
to  make  the  reports  of  the  inquiry  oilBce 
available,  how  many  inquiry  officers'  reports 
has  he  received,  how  many  has  he  been  asked 
for,  and  is  this  not  the  first  one  he  has  re- 
fused to  release? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  believe,  since  I  took 
over  this  ministry,  this  is  the  first  one  I've 
received. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes.  And  to  the  minister's 
knowledge  has  his  department  received  any 
other? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Oh,  I  expect  that  they 
have  over  a  period  of  time. 

Mr.  Singer:  When  did  the  practice  grow  up 
and  did  he  find  any  foundation  for  it  in  the 
statute?  I'll  tell  the  minister  there  isn't  any. 
It  wasn't  the  intention  of  those  who  had 
something  to  do  with  the  statute  that  that 
should  be  a  secret  report. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  it's  not  secret  if  he  puts 
it  out. 

Mr.  Singer:  He  doesn't.  He  puts  the  de- 
cision out. 


Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Would  the  minister  confirm 
that  the  inquiry  oflBcer's  report,  in  at  least 
one  of  those  cases,  was  critical  of  the  amount 
of  land  that  Hydro  wished  to  take?  And,  if 
so,  will  he  then  explain  whether  we  will  have 
full  disclosure  of  the  contents  of  that  inquiry 
report  whether  or  not  the  actual  report  is 
tabled? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  When  I  make  my 
report  I  will  give  my  reasons. 

Mr.  Lewis;  A  supplementary:  The  minister 
is  surely  not  saying  that  he  would  deny  a 
copy  of  the  inquiry  officer's  report  to  the 
citizens  whose  land  is  being  expropriated  by 
Hydro? 

Mr.  Singer:  That's  exactly  what  he  said. 
That's  exactly  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  mean,  I  can  see  him  saying 
to  us  in  the  Legislature,  "I'll  not  give  it  to 
you  until  I've  released  it  to  them"— but  he's 
not  going  to  deny  them  a  copy  of  the  report 
of  the  authority  before  whom  they  appeared, 
surely? 

Mr.  Singer:  That's  exactly  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  getting  himself 
into  incredibly  deep  water. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  a  practice  just  established 
this  afternoon. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  This  first  and  foremost 
report  got  on  my  desk  yesterday,  and  I 
haven't  had  a  chance  to  study  it  in  detail. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  minister  doesn't  want  to 
answer  in  detail. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  The  member  got  an 
answer  in  detail.  Yes,  he  did;  and  when  I've 
had  a  chance  to  look  it  over  then  I'll  let  him 
know. 

Mr.  Singer:  First  he  gives  us  the  answer, 
then  he  backs  out. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  is  the  value  of  the  day 
in  court  that  is  being  given  to  people  of  the 
area  when,  in  fact,  the  oflBcer  before  whom 
they  appear  never  publishes  the  report  on 
the  basis  of  the  inquiry?  What  use  is  the 
day  in  court  that  they  get?  It's  a  kangaroo 
court  on  that  basis. 

Mr.  Roy:  He  doesn't  want  to  answer,  Mr. 
Speaker. 


APRIL  9,  1974 


997 


Mr.  Speaker:  There  have  been  four  supple- 
mentaries.  The  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously. 


CROP  INSURANCE 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
The  member  for  Lanark  (Mr.  Wiseman)  asked 
me  a  question  concerning  the  dropping  of 
the  final  seeding  dates  from  crop  insurance 
plans  for  Ontario.  The  answer  is  yes,  the 
commission  has  dropped  the  final  seeding 
dates  because  it  is  of  the  opinion  that  with 
the  inclusion  of  coverage  for  unseeded  acres 
in  the  spring  crop  lands— which  is  now  in- 
clusive in  all  plans  this  year,  Mr.  Speaker— 
the  date  of  the  final  seeding  is  best  left  to 
each  individual  farmer.  I  think  that  makes 
it  much  more  uniform  and,  perhaps,  it  will 
lead  to  better  farm  management  than  we've 
had  in  the  past  with  those  specific  dead- 
lines. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Housing 
also  has  the  answer  to  questions  asked 
previousl\-. 


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker, 
on  March  15  the  member  for  Port  Arthur 
asked:  "Can  the  minister  tell  the  House  if 
OHC  has  alternative  plans  for  providing 
senior  citizen  housing  in  Thunder  Bay  due  to 
cancellation  of  the  project  at  Fort  Wil- 
liam .  .  .  ?" 

In  reply  to  the  hon.  member's  question, 
the  OHC  is  presently  negotiating  for  a  num- 
ber of  cit>'-owned  sites  which  are  suitably 
located  for  senior  citizen  housing.  OHC  is 
also  in  the  process  of  rezoning  its  own 
Donald  St.  site  and  has  appointed  the  archi- 
tectural firm  of  Ranta  and  Tett  to  prepare 
preliminary'  drawings.  It  is  anticipated  that 
about  70  units  may  be  developed  at  that 
location. 

In  addition  OHC  is  interested  in  the  Cum- 
berland St.  community  housing  project.  Con- 
struction has  not  yet  commenced  but  OHC  is 
negotiating  for  a  considerable  percentage  of 
units  in  this  242-unit  development  for  its 
rent  supplement  project.  I'm  informed  that 
more  than  half  the  units  will  be  suitable  for 
senior  citizen  housing. 

Construction  on  the  121-unit  senior  citizen 
building  which  was  halted  because  of  winter 
weather  is  expected  to  resume  in  the  near 


future.  A  contract  has  been  signed  for  101 
units  on  Rowan  Ave.  and  the  builder  is  now 
on  the  site. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Kent  is  next 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Housing. 
Did  the  minister  inform  us  yesterday  that  ^ 
o£Bcial  plans  of  municipalities  have  been  dealt 
with  since  planning  came  under  his  depart- 
ment? Is  he  considering  restoring  the  power 
to  grant  consent  to  those  municipalities  whose 
plans  have  been  approved  by  his  department? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the 
present  time  the  power  to  grant  consents  is 
within  the  ministry.  There  is  a  programme 
and  a  policy  announcement  to  phase  delega- 
tion of  that  type  of  authority  back  to  regions 
and  restructured  counties.  As  far  as  I  know 
that  programme  is  carrying  on.  However,  it 
is  not  anticipated  that  it  would  be  referred 
back  to— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nix(Hi:  Nothing  much  has  hap- 
pened yet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —area  municipalities 
which  are  not  either  regional  or  reconstructed 
counties. 

Mr.  Sargent:  If  a  place  isn't  regional  what 

does  it  do? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Otta\va 
Centre  is  next. 


FIRE  INSURANCE  FOR  ROOMING 
HOUSES 

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

An  hon.  member:  That's  just  the  beginning. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Has  the  minister  examined  the 
fire  insurance  payments  to  rooming  house 
owners,  as  in  the  case  of  fire  damage  or 
destruction  by  recent  fires  in  Ottawa  and 
in  Toronto,  and  is  the  minister  prepared  to 
consider  legislation  which  would  deny  insur- 
ance coverage  to  any  rooming  house  operator 
whose  unit  violated  municipal  bylaws  or 
housing  standards  in  order  to  stop  the  kind 
of  destructive  situation  and  loss  of  life  which 
we've  been  experiencing  in  Ottawa  and  in 
Toronto? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Conunercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
am  not  aware  at  this  moment  whether  die 


998 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


superintendent's  oflBce  has  in  fact  looked  into 
the  matters  touched  upon  by  the  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre.  I  will,  however,  look  into  it 
by  inquiry  and  find  out  if  that  is  the  case 
and  get  back  to  him. 

With  reference  to  the  second  portion  of 
the  question,  no,  I  have  not  considered  that; 
I  have  not  heard  it  advanced.  I  would  feel 
it  might  well  not  serve  the  purpose  for  which 
it  was  intended  in  that  it  may  be  extremely 
discriminatory  against  a  certain  class  of  per- 
son who  can  be  prosecuted  under  other  ave- 
nues of  the  law  for  breaches  of  any  particular 
statutes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Huron 
is  next. 


FARMERS'  CONCERNS  OVER  LOCATION 
OF  NUCLEAR  PLANT 

Mr.  J.  Riddel!  (Huron):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker;  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture. Now  that  the  Ontario  Bean  Producers 
Marketing  Board  has  met  with  him  to  express 
its  concern  over  the  proposed  nuclear  power 
plant  in  Huron,  somewhere  south  of  Goderich, 
what  steps  does  he  intend  to  take  to  meet 
the  board's  requests? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker, 
there  is  no  proposed  nucltear  power  plant 
south  of  Goderich.  There  are  exploratory 
considerations  going  on  by  Ontario  Hydro 
and  I  know  that  location  has  been  suggested 
but  several  sites  have  been  imder  considera- 
tion. To  my  knowledge  there  is  no  site  chosen 
and  to  my  knowledge  there  has  been  no 
decision  made  whether  it  would  be  a  nuclear 
plant  or  a  fossil-fuelled  plant;  no  one  has  any 
idea  about  that  as  yet. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Did  I  hear  the  word  supple- 
mentary? 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  yes.  Why  is 
the  minister  playing  that  game  with  the 
Legislature?  He  knows  that  Ontario  Hydro 
indiscreetly  made  the  mistake  of  letting  it  be 
known  it  is  looking  for  a  site  in  that  im- 
mediate area.  Therefore  is  it  not  now  legiti- 
mate to  indicate  what  he  is  going  to  do  with 
the  groups  of  residents  who  are  extremely 
concerned  about  radioactive  waste;  about 
Inverhuron  Park  happening  elsewhere;  and 
about  all  of  the  things  that  are  generated 
when  the  government  sets  up  a  nuclear  plant? 
Why    does    the    minister   pretend   it    doesn't 


exist  when  things  are  now  proceeding,  accord- 
ing to  Hydro? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
pretending  they  don't  exist.  Obviously  a  state- 
ment had  been  made  that  there  was  con- 
sideration being  given.  After  meeting  with 
the  people  from  Huron  yesterday  and  with 
the  officials  of  Ontario  Hydro,  it  was  made 
abundantly  clear  to  us  that  there  has  been  no 
such  decision.  It  is  purely  in  an  exploratory 
state.  Consideration  is  being  given  as  to  where 
sufficient  power  would  be  developed  that 
would  meet  the  requirements  10  to  15  years 
hence.  There  is  no  positive  statement  at  all'. 
So  I  am  not  in  any  way  misleading  or  play- 
ing any  games  with  the  House.  I  am  as  much 
concerned  as  anyone  would  be  with  any  ill 
effects- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  serious  consideration. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Does  the  minister  support  the 
farmers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  —that  might  emanate 
from  any  such  generating  station,  whatever 
the  type  might  be.  But  until  there  is  some 
indication  that  there  is  going  to  be  such  a 
plant,  then  I  think  it  is  presumptuous  that 
there  will  be,  as  was  indicated  in  the  question 
of  my  friend  from  Huron.  We  are  concerned, 
and  I  can  assure  members  that  our  ministry 
will  be  having  major  inputs  into  any  decisions 
that  are  being  made  regarding  any  possible  ill 
effects  that  would  emanate  to  the  farm  com- 
munity from  such  a  plan. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  only  three  minutes 
remaining,  I  think  perhaps  we  should  restrict 
the  supplementaries.  In  any  event,  the  hon. 
member  for  Port  Arthur  is  next. 


LAKE  SUPERIOR  OUTFLOWS 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  have  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker, 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Envirormient.  Has  the 
minister  been  notified  yet  by  the  federal  gov- 
ernment of  this  country  and  that  an  agree- 
ment in  principle  has  been  reached  between 
Canada  and  the  United  States  regarding  the 
regulation  of  outflows  from  Lake  Superior? 
What  has  his  response  been  to  that  contract? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  am  sorry,  I  didn't  hear 
the  first  part  of  that  question. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Is  the  minister  aware,  and  has 
the  federal  government  through  the  Depart- 


APRIL  9,  1974 


see 


ment  of  External  AfiFairs,  made  representation 
to  him  that  an  ageement  in  principle  has 
been  reached  between  Canada  and  the  US 
through  the  IJC  regarding  Lake  Superior  out- 
flow of  water.  What  is  his  response  to  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  My  response  is  that  at 
the  federal-provincial  conference  in  Ottawa  I 
asked  the  federal  minister  to  bring  this  matter 
up  and  to  deal  with  the  matter. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker; 
Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  the  attorneys 
for  both  sides  last  week  on  April  2  in  Wash- 
ington announced  this  agreement  in  principle 
and  said  that  they  were  awaiting  confirmation 
from  Ontario?  I  think  the  minister  owes  it  to 
the  Province  of  Ontario  to  let  this  Legislature 
know  what  Ontario's  stand  is  on  the  question. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  He  doesn't 
exhibit  a  new  awareness. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  am  certainly  aware  of 
the  outflow  of  all  the  lakes.  I  will  be  glad 
to  bring  the  member  more  detailed  informa- 
tion on  this  particular  item  tomorrow. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  final  supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  we  should  accept  that 

as  a  reasonable  number  in  view  of  the  fact 

that  time  is  iust  about  up. 

The  hon.  member  for  Downsview. 

Mr.  Singer:   Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sorry,  but  I  did  recog- 
nize the  hon.  member  for  Downsview.  I 
think  the  entire  second  row  of  the  Liberal 
Party  was  up  simultaneously.  So  the  hon. 
member  for  Downsview  has  the  floor. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


LAND  TITLES  OFFICE 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations.  Has  he  yet  had  a  chance 
to  look  into  the  situation  at  the  land  tides 
oflBce  at  Toronto,  which  I  discussed  with  him 
a  few  days  ago?  Can  he  tell  me  if  any  steps 
are  being  taken  to  add  to  the  staff  and  to 
make  more  eflBcient  the  operation  in  that 
oflBce,  the  present  situation  being  that  com- 
plete chaos  exists,  particularly  on  the  last 
working  day  of  each  month  and  the  first 
working  day  of  each  successive  month? 


Hon.  Mr.  aeroenti  Yet,  Mr.  SpedoBr,  I 
caused  an  inquiry  to  be  made  ag  a  remit  of 
the  member's  question  directed  to  me  a  week 
or  10  days  ago.  I  was  advised  that  the  de- 
mand on  that  particular  facility  at  the  end 
of  March  was  indeed  particularly  heavy,  and 
in  the  experience  of  the  staff^  at  that  particu- 
lar land  titles  office  it  was  unduly  onerous  in 
terms  of  past  experience. 

As  the  hon.  member  knows,  reeistratioos 
are  up,  I  believe  somewhere  arounolS  to  17 
per  cent.  The  director  of  titles  had,  prior  to 
my  inquiry,  made  arrangements  for  aaditional 
stafi^  in  the  persons  of  summer  students.  They 
have  had  a  programme  of  summer  students 
for  a  number  of  years  but  they  are  increasing 
it.  I  have  certain  other  alternatives  that  I  am 
considering  at  the  present  time  in  an  eflFort  to 
alleviate  it. 

I  should  point  out  that  this  is  not  the  only 
facility  in  the  province  which  has  been 
strained  in  this  fashion,  particularly  on  diose 
popular  closing  dates— the  15th,  1st,  or  end 
of  a  particular  month. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  for  oral  questions 
has  now  been  exhausted. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  could  I  make  a 
motion  to  extend  it  15  minutes? 

Some  hon.  members:  No,  no. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Petitions. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  are  afraid  to;  that's  why. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Let  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  East  ask  for  unanimous  con- 
sent. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  I  have  asked  for  unanimous 

consent. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Presenting  reports. 

Mr.  Reid  from  the  standing  public  accounts 
committee  presented  the  committee's  report 
which  was  read  as  follows  and  adopted: 

Your  committee  recommends  that  it  be 
provided  with  a  copy  of  the  Provincial  Audi- 
tor's report  (m  the  Ontario  Northland  Trans- 
portation Commission  and  Star  Transfer  Ltd. 
tor  the  year  ending  Dec.  31,  1973,  concur- 
rently with  copies  of  the  same  being  pro- 


lOOO 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


vided  to  the  commission  and  the  Ministry 
of  Transportation  and  Communications. 

ryour  committee  further  recommends  that 
the  chairman  of  the  Ontario  Northland  Trans- 
portation Commission  furnish  the  committee 
with  a  copy  of  the  internal  audit  reports 
completed  by  the  staff  of  the  internal  audit 
branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  during  1973  for  the  Ontario 
Northland  Transportation  Commission  and 
Star  Transfer  Ltd.  within  two  weeks  of  this 
date. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  hke  to 
move  a  motion  to  extend  the  question  period 
by  15  minutes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  believe  it  is  reserved  for 
the  ministry.  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Shulman:  He  is  allowed  to  ask  for 
unanimous  consent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  the  esti- 
mates of  the  following  ministries  be  referred 
to  the  standing  administration  of  justice  com- 
mittee: the  Ministry  of  the  Provincial  Secre- 
tary for  Justice,  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General,  and  the  Ministry  of  the  Solicitor 
General. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Prior  to  that  particular 
motion  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  of  the 
government  leader, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Did  the  motion  carry?  The 
member  wishes  to  speak  to  the  motloil? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I'd  like  to  speak  to  the 
matter  by  way  of  a  question.  I  am  wondering 
if  the  House  leader  could  explain  why  he 
hasn't  put  on  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  and  referred  them  to  the  standing 
committee  on  justice?  It  would  seem  to  me 
that  the  main  thrust  of  that  particular  oper- 
ation does  deal  in  the  justice  field,  especially 
in  connection  with  the  operation  of  the  land 
registry  offices  now. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  That  is  correct, 
Mr.  Speaker.  The  ministries  not  mentioned  in 
the  motion  will  be  heard  in  the  House.  I 
wotdd  like  to  inform  the  House  too  that  the 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  (Mr.  Welch) 
is  ready  to  be  heard. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Roy:  Could  I  move  my  motion,  Mr. 
Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  I  have  explained  to  the 
hon.    member    that    the   motions    under    this 


routine  proceeding  are  reserved  for  the  gov- 
ernment. 

Mr.  Roy:  Just  for  the  government? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes. 

Mr.  Roy:  But  if  I  had  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  House  to  move  this  motion— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  There  is  no  tele\'ision 
here. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Do  you  deny  unanimous 
consent,  Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  no  way  that  the 
hon.  member  could  do  this  at  this  point  in 
time. 

Mr.  Roy:  You  are  protecting  these  guys, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  following  the  rules  of 
the  House— the  standing  orders  which  have 
been  agreed  upon. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order,  sir,  at  the  end  of  the  question 
period  surely  the  member  was  perfectly 
proper  to  ask  for  unanimous  consent  to 
extend  it  for  15  minutes?  You  should  put 
that  to  the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  there  were  objections. 
Certainly  the  hon.  member- 
Mr.  Shulman:  You  never  put  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  heard  objections  when  it 
was  suggested. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  You  sure  did. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  heard  objections  which 
indicates  to  me  that  there  would  not  be 
unanimous  consent,  so  why  waste  the  time 
of  the  House? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  wouldn't  withhold 
unanimous  consent  surely?  They  just  impede 
democracy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  just  did. 

Mr.  Roy:  All  those  against  it  stand  up. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills. 

Orders  of  the  day. 


FARM  PRODUCTS  GRADES  AND 
SALES  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  moves  second  reading 
of  Bill  20,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Farm 
Products  Grades  and  Sales  Act. 


APRIL  9,  1974 


1001 


Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  don't  have  many  comments 
with  respect  to  this  bill;  we  support  it.  It 
does  have  a  number  of  principles  in  it. 

The  first  part  of  the  bill  has  to  do  with 
revoking  the  power  to  make  regulations 
with  respect  to  the  licensing  procedures  and 
in  its  stead  it  provides  for  the  various  criteria 
to  be  set  out  in  the  bill  itself  in  regard  to 
licensing.  On  this  side  of  the  House  we  have 
long  felt  that  many  of  these  bills  should  be 
more  explicit;  many  of  them  should  deal  in 
more  precise  terms  with  what  exactly  is 
intended  and,  further,  the  powers  in  a  bill 
should  be  contained  in  the  bill  rather  than 
in  the  regulations. 

Many  of  the  powers  given  in  statutes  and 
bills  we  pass  through  this  Legislatiire  are 
expanded  and,  in  some  cases,  negated  to  an 
extent  by  the  regulations.  We  really  have 
no  power  in  making  those  regulations  al- 
though we  have  a  regulations  committee 
which,  I  believe,  reviews  the  regulations 
from  time  to  time. 

I  don't  mind  shouting,  Mr.  Speaker,  but— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  Legislature  come 
to  order  please?  The  hon.  member  for  Huron- 
Bruce  has  the  floor  and  we  would  like  to 
hear  what  he  has  to  say  on  the  second  read- 
ing of  Bill  20. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Okay,  I  will  talk  to  the  minis- 
ter (Mr.  Stewart);  I  am  sure  he  can  hear  me. 

In  any  case  we  welcome  that  particular 
change  in  the  bill.  The  power  to  make  regu- 
lations is  still  inherent  under  the  terms  of  the 
bill  with  respect  to  issuing,  or  renewing  I 
should  say,  licences  and  their  suspension  and 
so  on,  and  the  conditions  involved  in  fixing 
fees  and  so  on,  and  the  conditions  involved 
in  fixing  fees  and  so  on.  That  is  still  done 
by  regulation.  The  prescribing  of  forms  and 
providing  for  their  use  is  still  done  by  regu- 
lation. 

The  point  is,  there  is  a  step  forward  in  this 
bill  to  accommodate,  I  think,  what  we  have 
long  said  on  this  side  of  the  House,  that  more 
power  should  be  set  out  in  the  bill  rather 
than  by  regulation.  This  bill  does  precisely 
that  with  respect  to  licensing,  or  most  of  the 
licensing  procedures. 

The  second  thing  this  bill  does  is  to  make 
provision  for  a  produce  licence  review  board. 
That  concept  is  something  with  which  we 
agree  and  I  think  we  can  certainly  support 
that  principle. 

The  other  thing  that  strikes  me  about  the 
bill  is  that  it  establishes  a  Produce  Arbitration 
Board    to    arbitrate    disputes    arising    out   of 


contracts,  such  as  when  a  company  contracts 
with  a  fanner  and  part  of  the  terms  or  all  of 
the  terms  of  that  contract  are  breached  for 
one  reason  or  the  other.  I  gather  that  under 
the  terms  of  this  bill,  given  those  circum- 
stances, the  farmer  can  now  appeal  to  the 
Produce  Arbitration  Board  to  arbitrate  the  dis- 
pute between  the  fanner  and  the  company. 

If,  in  fact,  the  terms  of  the  contract  have 
been  breached  the  Produce  Arbitration  Board 
has  the  power  to  indicate  to  the  company  that 
it  will  have  to  follow  through  on  tfie  terms 
of  the  commissions  and  the  terms  of  the 
contract  which  it  undertook  with  the  farmer. 
There  is  an  appeal  to  the  courts  from  the 
award  of  the  board. 

There  are  really  three  forms  of  appeal  in 
this  particular  bill  with  respect  to  licensing. 
The  director  has  a  form  of  appeal,  in  that  he 
can  review  the  matter  again;  so  that  really 
is  a  form  of  appeal.  Then  it  can  go  to  the 
appeal  board  and  thence  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  as  I  understand  it.  So  there  are  three 
levels  of  appeal.  If  a  person  feels  that  he  has 
been  harshly  dealt  with,  or  if  he  has  been 
aggrieved  in  any  way,  shape  or  form,  he  has 
that  option  open  to  him  in  the  issuing  of  a 
licence. 

I  think  that's  all  I  have  to  say  about  the 
bill.  We  feel  that  it's  basically  a  housekeeping 
bill,  although  it  does  make  a  number  of  new 
provisions,  such  as  the  removal  of  the  regu- 
lations with  respect  to  licensing  and  the  crea- 
tion of  the  Produce  Arbitration  Board  and 
the  Produce  Licence  Review  Board.  These  are 
things  with  which  we  agree  and  we  support 
the  biU. 

Just  before  I  close,  I  would  like  to  get  the 
interpretation  of  the  minister  with  respect  to 
this  Produce  Arbitration  Board.  I  hope  that 
my  interpretation  of  its  function  is  cOTrect, 
because  we  have  had  a  niunber  of  cases 
where  farmers  have  felt  that  a  company  has 
actually  reneged  on  the  terms  of  an  agree- 
ment and  they  have  had  no  legal  recourse. 
Under  the  terms  of  this  bill,  I  would  pre- 
sume that  they  would  have  recourse  to  that 
board. 

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

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdalte):  As  my 
friend,  the  member  for  Huron-Bruce,  has  said, 
there  appear  to  be  a  number  of  points  that 
are  covered  in  the  bill.  I  take  it  that,  for 
practical  purposes,  there  are  three  principles 
to  the  bill. 

The  first  one  is  to  provide  for  the  marking 
of  motor  vehicles  which  transport  farm  prod- 


1002 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


uce  and  to  provide  for  a  system  of  markers 
that  will  be  issued  as  well  to  prohibiting  any- 
body from  transporting  farm  produce  unless 
there  is  a  marker  on  the  vehicle. 

I  take  the  second  principle  of  the  bill  to  be 
to  incorporate  in  the  Act  the  present  provi- 
sions which  are  set  out  in  the  Revised  Regu- 
lations of  Ontario,  No.  289,  with  respect  to 
licences.  The  Act,  as  I  understand  it,  as  and 
when  it  is  passed,  will  provide  for  three  types 
of  licences— a  licence  as  a  dealer,  a  licence 
as  an  operator  of  a  controlled-atmosphere 
storage  plant  and  a  licence  as  a  packer  of 
controlled-atmosphere  fruit. 

I  would  like  to  have  the  minister's  assur- 
ance that  there  will  be  no  other  types  of  licen- 
ces issued  by  way  of  regulation,  because  if 
such  licences  were  issued  by  way  of  regula- 
tion, the  licensees  would  not  appear  to  have 
the  benefit  of  the  provisions  incorporated  in 
the  Act  with  respect  to  the  Produce  Licence 
Review  Board. 

A  cursory  review  of  the  regulations  in  the 
Revised  Regulations  of  Ontario,  No.  289  and 
following  under  this  Act,  wouM  indicate  that 
at  the  present  time  all  of  the  licences  which 
are  provided  for  by  regulation  are  now  being 
transferred  into  the  Act,  and  in  addition  a 
licence  is  now  being  provided  for  a  dealer  in 
farm  produce. 

It  seems  to  me  to  be  very  important  to 
be  clear  that  while  the  wording  of  the  Act 
will  permit  regulations  to  be  passed  with 
respect  to  other  forms  of  licences,  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Act  appears  to  be  that  provision 
for  any  new  licences  to  be  issued  for  dif- 
ferent categories  will  come  by  way  of  amend- 
ment to  the  Act  and  will  not  be  done  by  way 
of  regulation,  so  that  any  licensee  under  this 
Act  will  have  the  benefit  of  the  provisions  of 
the  Produce  Licence  Review  Board  if  there  is 
a  refusal  to  issue,  or  if  there's  revocation  or  a 
suspension  or  a  failure  to  renew  a  licence.  I 
take  that  to  be  the  scheme  that  the  minister 
proposes  under  the  Act. 

The  third  item  is,  as  my  friend,  the  mem- 
ber for  Huron-Bruce  has  pointed  out,  a  pro- 
vision for  a  Produce  Arbitration  Board  so  that 
any  dispute  imder  any  contract  between  a 
licensee  and  a  producer  of  farm  products  will 
automatically  be  subject  to  arbitration  under 
the  Arbitrations  Act,  with  the  additional  pro- 
vision, as  is  clearly  stated,  that  there  would 
be  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  arbi- 
trator to  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  and, 
if  necessary,  to  the  Court  of  Appeal. 

I  take  it  that  the  evil  sought  to  be  cured 
is  the  situation  in  which  disputes  either  rankle 
and  go  unresolved  between  a  licensee  and  a 


producer  of  farm  products,  or  in  which  they 
have  to  have  direct  recourse  to  the  courts 
in  order  to  get  the  matter  settled,  which  un- 
doubtedly is  an  expensive  procedure. 

I  am  curious  as  to  whether  or  not  the  min- 
ister believes  the  arbitration  provision  will, 
in  fact,  be  substantially  cheaper  for  the  par- 
ties to  it  than  the  normal  court  process.  I 
interpolate  that  it  would  appear  the  minister 
is  satisfied  there  has  to  be  some  different 
intermediary  step  for  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes between  producers  of  farm  products 
and  licence  holders  rather  than  having  them, 
as  I  say,  either  rankle  without  going  to  the 
courts  and  remain  unresolved,  or  requirinc 
the  parties  to  them  to  take  the  contractual 
dispute  to  the  coiui:. 

Tt  would  appear  to  me  that  the  provisions 
which  are  set  out  in  the  bill  covering  these 
three  principles— that  is  the  incorporation  into 
the  Act  of  the  provisions  with  respect  to  the 
issuance  of  the  three  types  of  hcences;  the 
provision  with  respect  to  the  Produce  Arbi- 
tration Board— are  well  merited  and  the  bill 
would  have  our  support. 

I  am  curious  that  the  Produce  Licence 
Review  Board  is  to  consist  of  not  fewer  than 
three  people  and  that  none  of  them  is  to  be 
a  member  of  the  public  service  in  the  employ 
of  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food.  My 
curiosity  asks  why  should  it  be  necessary  to 
have  any  member  of  the  public  service  sit- 
ting on  the  Produce  Licence  Review  Board, 
whether  that  person  be  in  the  employ  of  the 
Ministry  of  Agricidture  and  Food  or  any 
other  branch  of  the  public  service. 

I  also  note  it  is  specifically  provided  in  the 
Produce  Arbitration  Board's  constitution  that 
it's  to  be  made  up  of  one  dealer  and  one 
producer  of  farm  products.  Presumably,  the 
one  dealer  would  be  able  to  represent  the 
other  licensees  —  namely,  the  licensees  who 
would  be  the  ones  holding  licences  as  oper- 
ators of  controlled-atmosphere  storage  plants 
or  licences  as  packers  of  fruit  in  controlled- 
atmospheres— and  that  it  would  not  be  neces- 
sary to  provide  specifically  for  that  particular 
type  of  interest  to  be  represented  on  a  Prod- 
uce Arbitration  Board  set  up  to  arbitrate  a 
dispute  with  respect  to  such  a  storage  plant. 

With  those  comments,  it  would  appear  to 
us  that  the  bill  merits  the  support  of  this 
party  and  we  would  so  support  it  on  second 
reading.  I  do  hope  the  minister  will  take  the 
time  to  answer  the  two  or  three  questions 
which  I  have  raised  during  the  course  of  my 
remarks. 

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


APRIL  9,  1974 


1003 


Mr.  D.  A.  Paterson  (Essex  South):  I  hadn't 
intended  speaking  on  this  piece  of  legislation 
as  I  thougnt  it  looked  quite  acceptable  to  the 
people  in  my  area,  but  there  are  one  or  two 
areas  which  have  sort  of  whetted  my  imagi- 
nation and  I  would  like  some  clarification 
from  the  minister. 

It  relates  to  section  2  and  the  principle 
contained  therein  concerning  issuing  markers 
for  motor  vehicles  owned  or  leased  by  per- 
sons licensed  as  dealers  and  prohibiting  any 
person  from  transporting  the  produce  unless 
there  is  a  marker  on  the  vehicle.  As  I  recall 
from  my  days  in  the  produce  business,  there 
were  numerous  itinerant  dealers  with  numer- 
ous types  of  vehicles  marked  and  unmarked, 
and  so  forth. 

I  just  wonder  what  effect  this  is  going  to 
have  on  the  transactions  in  the  fruit  and 
vegetable  industries.  I  assume  it's  not  going 
to  affect  in  any  way  a  recognized  dealer  who 
is  going  to  transport  his  produce  to  the 
Ontario  Food  Terminal  or  elsewhere  through 
PCV  carriers  that  he  has  engaged  for  many 
years.  I'm  just  curious  to  ask  for  a  little 
further  explanation  of  this  particular  section. 

There  is  one  other  area  that  bothers  me, 
since  we  are  trained  in  the  British  sense  of 
justice,  I  know  this  is  common  in  other  bills, 
but  there  is  a  clause  here  that  the  applicant 
may  or  may  not  be  granted  a  licence  if  there 
is  "reasonable  ground  for  belief  that  the 
business  will  not  be  carried  on  in  accordance 
with  the  law."  This  tends  to  bother  me  and 
I  realize  that  the  minister  and  his  oflBcials 
have  many  years  of  experience  in  dealing 
with  people  in  the  business,  some  of  whom 
have  flouted  laws  of  the  province.  No  doubt 
these  are  the  matters  that  are  taken  into  con- 
sideration in  this  regard,  but  it  still  bothers 
me  as  a  Liberal  to  prejudge  a  person  who 
is  going  to  enter  into  business  as  to  whether 
he  will  conduct  his  affairs  ethically  or  other- 
wise. 

The  other  matter  is  in  relation  to  the  opera- 
tors of  controlled-atmosphere  storage  plants. 
The  owner  or  the  operator  of  the  controlled- 
atmosphere  storage  plant  must  now  hold  a 
licence  as  an  operator  and  similarly  he  must 
be  a  packer  of  controlled-atmosphere  fruits, 
according  to  what  I  read  into  this. 

I  realize,  Mr.  Speaker,  there's  a  very  special 
onus  on  a  person  who  has  a  CA  facility  in 
that  for  long  periods  of  time  they  do  store 
the  produce  of  many  other  growers  in  the 
area,  so  they  are  a  special  entity.  I  think  this 
is  good  that  they  have  to  be  licensed  to  know 
what  they  are  doing  for  the  protection  of  the 
other  growers  whose  produce  they  are  hold- 
ing in  storage. 


I  just  wonder  if  there  is  any  other  spedal 
onus  on  these  people  in  regard  to  liability 
once  the  licence  has  been  given  to  them.  Is 
this  covered  by  insurance  and  so  forth  in 
case  of  malpractice?  I  assume  there  would 
be  none  if  the  person  were  so  licensed. 

My  colleagues  have  commented  on  the 
Produce  Licence  Review  Board  and  the 
Produce  Arbitration  Board,  and  I  think  set- 
ting up  these  two  boards  is  worthy.  The  only 
proolem  in  this  regard  is  that  there  are 
numerous  people  in  my  area  who  are  both 
growers  and  dealers.  I  just  wonder  if  they 
are  excluded  from  possioly  being  appointed 
into  the  Produce  Arbitration  Board.  As  indi- 
cated, they  must  be  a  holder  of  a  licence  as 
a  dealer  and  I  assume  that  this  would  apply 
to  both  grower-dealers  and  straight  dealers. 

I  conclude  with  these  few  remarks,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kent. 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  The  member  for 
Essex  South  has  discussed  the  point  that  I 
was  going  to  bring  up. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  any  other  members 
who  wish  to  speak  on  Bill  20  before  the 
minister  replies? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
tmre  and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  appreciate  the 
comments  made  by  the  hon.  members  oppo- 
site with  regard  to  the  bill.  The  function  of 
the  Produce  Arbitration  Board,  if  I  may  deal 
with  that  one  in  general  terms,  is  really  to 
try  to  resolve  some  of  the  points  of  argument 
that  can  arise  out  of  disputes  over  the  sale 
of  produce  without  having  to  go  through  the 
formal  procedure  of  an  application  to  the 
courts.  There  is,  of  course,  tne  final  right  in 
the  bill  to  take  the  matter  to  the  courts  if 
they  wish  to,  but  we  felt  that  this  would  be 
a  somewhat  more  informal  procedure  and,  as 
my  friend  from  Riverdale  mentioned,  we 
think  it  will  be  perhaps  less  expensive  to  the 
people  involved.  In  some  cases  there  are  not— 

Mr.  Paterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  might  I  ask 
a  question  for  clarification? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Yes. 

Mr.  Paterson:  Would  this  involve  disputes 
where,  say,  something  is  sent  in  on  consign- 
ment for  sale  and  this  type  of  argument  may 
exist  between  the  grower  and  the  consignee? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Yes,  it  could,  Mr. 
Speaker,  but  we  have  envisaged  that  it  might 
be  more  applicable  where  a  trucker  goes 
around    the    country    buying    potatoes,    or 


1004 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


apples,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  and  some  sort 
of  a  verbal  agreement  has  been  reached 
in  the  past  that  either  party  may  have  mis- 
understood in  the  rush  of  the  hour  at  harvest 
time  and  disputes  arise.  Sometimes  there  are 
misunderstandings  that,  I  think,  may  have 
been  honest  misunderstandings.  But  I'm 
afraid  that,  based  on  some  of  the  evidence 
that  we  have  had  brought  to  our  attention 
by  the  people  involved  in  the  trade,  there 
have  been  attempts  made  in  some  oases  to 
circumvent  the  terms  of  the  agreement.  So 
this  Produce  Arbitration  Board,  which  is 
really  a  new  approach,  should  work  and,  we 
think,  will  help  to  resolve  some  of  those 
diflBculties. 

As  to  the  matter  of  markers  on  vehicles, 
it's  the  same  as  now.  It  is  required  now  that 
there  be  markers  on  these  vehicles  and  I 
beheve  that  it  does  expedite  the  inspection 
procedures  to  have  the  marker  on  the  vehicle 
indicating  that  that  vehicle  is  one  that  carries 
the  particular  produce  in  question. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Is  that  presently  in  the  regu- 
lations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Yes,  it's  presently  in  the 
regulations,  so  there  is  really  nothing  new 
about  it.  It's  just  re-emphasizing  it  and  re- 
wording it. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Thank  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  There  vdll  be  no  other 
types  of  licences  issued  other  than  those  re- 
ferred to  in  this  bill,  so  that  that  matter 
is  cleared  up.  We  felt  if  any  other  type  of 
licence  is  required  to  be  issued  by  some 
other  type  of  the  industry,  then  that  will 
necessitate   an   amendment  to  the  Act. 

Mr.  Paterson:  I  would  like  a  clarification 
again,  Mr.  Speaker.  May  I  ask  if,  in  a  pinch, 
certain  vehicles  are  not  available  and  a 
produce  company  leases  a  vehicle,  are  these 
licences  transferable  to  leased  units  on  a 
short-term  basis? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Does  the  member  mean 
the  markers? 

Mr.  Paterson:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  see  no  reason  why 
they  shouldn't  be,  but  my  director  of  inspec 
tions  is  back  here  under  the  gallery.  That's 
a  neat  legal  question  and  I'm  not  sure.  I  see 
no  reason  why  they  shouldn't  be,  but  I'm 
not  sure  whether  that's  possible.  Is  it  or  not? 
Yes,  I'm  told  that  it  is  possible,  but  I  would 
think  that  we  wouldn't  encourage  that  to  be 
done  if  possible. 


With  regard  to  civil  service  representation 
on  both  the  Licence  Review  Board  and  the 
Produce  Arbitration  Board,  I  have  some  reser- 
vations about  civil  service  representation 
there.  I'm  always  afraid  that  somebody  might 
say  that  someone  within  government  is  try- 
ing to  influence  a  decision  that  was  being 
made,  and  I  think  we  want  to  relieve  our- 
selves, and  any  minister  who  might  happen 
to  be  handling  the  ministry,  of  any  such 
insinuation  which  might  come  from  some 
place.  I  would  hope  that  it  wouldn't. 

The  matter  raised  by  my  friend  from 
Essex  South  of  the  applicant  being  granted 
a  licence  or  not  granted  a  licence  on  the 
basis  of  ethics,  is,  plain  and  simple,  a  matter 
that  I  think  has  to  be  left  to  the  discretion 
of  the  director,  with  his  knowledge  of  the 
applicant's  past  business  dealings  in  the  com- 
munity. There  have  been  some  real  fly-by- 
night  operators  who  have  fleeced  producers 
right,  left  and  centre.  I  think  we  have  to  be 
very  sure  that  those  people  are  not  granted 
a  licence  by  this  government,  or  by  any  other 
government,  to  go  out  and  carry  on  that  type 
of  a  nefarious  practice. 

Based  on  his  knowledge,  if  the  director 
says  "No,  you  don't  qualify  for  a  licence" 
and  he  simply  sends  in  his  son,  or  his  brother, 
or  his  wife  the  next  day  to  apply  for  a  licence 
—and  we  know  it's  the  same  outfit  that's 
involved— I  think  that  the  director  has  every 
right  to  question  the  validity  of  that  applica- 
tion and  whether  or  not  it  should  be  granted. 

Now,  of  course,  there  is  the  right  of  appeal 
and  that  applicant  has  the  right  to  take  that 
to  the  appeal  board  where  both  sides  have 
the  opportunity— the  applicant  and  the  direc- 
tor—to clearly  state  before  the  Licence  Re- 
view Board  why  they  should  or  should  not 
receive  favourable  consideration  in  the  appli- 
cation for  the  licence. 

I  would  say  this,  that  we  have  gone  over 
this  legislation  pretty  carefully  with  the  On- 
tario Fruit  and  Vegetable  Growers  Association 
marketing  board  executive  ofl5cers  and  we 
have  also  discussed  it,  as  I  understand  it, 
with  several  of  the  responsible  produce 
dealers  in  Ontario.  So  that  both  sides  are 
reasonably  knowledgeable  about  what  we  are 
trying  to  do  here  and  I  think  both  have  a 
keen  appreciation  for  an  honest  eflFort  being 
made  to  come  to  grips  with  the  situation, 
which  has  been  something  less  than  desirable 
over  the  last  few  years. 

I  suppose  the  matter  of  accessibility  of 
various  farms  throughout  the  area,  the  ability 
to  move  produce  by  trucks  and  highways 
easily  and  quickly,  does  provide  the  oppor- 


APRIL  9.  1974 


1006 


tunity  for  some  practices  to  evolve  that  are 
less  than  desirable. 

But  I  would  think  that  there  is  an  onus 
on  the  producer  to  see  that  he  does  negotiate 
a  deal  with  whomever  it  is  he  is  selling  the 
produce  to  and  then  have  that  deal  marked 
down  in  writing— not  on  the  back  of  some 
envelope  or  a  cigarette  package,  but  a  legiti- 
mate type  of  a  contract,  a  bill  of  sale;  and 
then  the  Produce  Arbitration  Board  has  some- 
thing to  work  with. 

I'm  afraid  that  all  too  often  in  the  past 
there  may  have  been  these  informal  types  of 
deals  made  that  have  ended  up  in  misunder- 
standings for  all  concerned  and  some  pretty 
hard  feelings  have  evolved  out  of  it  all. 

In  the  final  analysis  they  come  to  our 
ministry's  inspectors  and  say  to  them,  "Now 
you  resolve  this  thing,  this  is  my  side  of  the 
stor>'." 

Our  people,  who  really  have  no  obligation 
to  try  to  resolve  these  matters  in  tecnnical 
or  statutory  terms,  but  simply  because  they 
know  the  parties  involved,  in  an  attempt  to 
resolve  the  issue  may  contact  the  other  party 
and  find  that  there  is  really  nothing  to  go  on. 

So,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  urging  that  there 
be  some  type  of  formal  agreement  drawn  up 
between  the  various  parties  to  these  deals; 
and  I  think  that  that  would  just  make  good 
common  sense.  So  I  appreciate  the  support 
of  the  hon.  members  opposite,  Mr.  Speaker, 
on  second  reading. 

Mr.  Spence:  May  I  ask  a  question  of  the 
minister  in  regard  to  clarification? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Yes. 

Mr.  Spence:  Now  this  doesn't  mean  that  if 
the  producer  delivers  his  vegetables  or  fruit 
or  whatever  to  a  plant,  he  doesn't  need  a 
licence  to  do  that,  or  that  he  doesn't  need  to 
have  a  marking  on  his  vehicle. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  No,  I  should  have  that 
recorded  in  Hansard,  Mr.  Speaker;  the  answer 
is  "no"  to  that. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  bill  be  ordered  for 
third  reading? 

Agreed. 


THIRD  READING 

The  following  bill  was  given  third  reading 
upon  motion: 

Bill  20,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Farm  Prod- 
ucts Grades  and  Sales  Act. 


AGRICULTURAL  SOCIETIES  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  moves  second  reading  of 
Bill  21,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Agricultural 
Societies  Act. 

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

Mr.  Gaunt:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  a  few  brief 
comments  about  this  bill.  Essentially  it  is  a 
housekeeping  bill.  There  are  a  lot  of  changes 
being  made,  but  not  really  fundamental 
changes,  so  I  don't  think  that  111  use  the 
opportunity  to  launch  a— 

An  hon.  member:  Go  ahead. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Yes,  there  are.  They  are 
great. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Well,  there  are  changes,  but  are 
they  fundamental— raising  the  membership 
from  $1  to  $2? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Well,  no. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  There  are  some  things  that  are 
more  significant  than  that  one,  but  I  don't 
want  to  use  this  opportunity  to  launch  a 
long  speech  on  the  role  of  agricultiu-al  socie- 
ties in  the  community  and  the  changes  that 
should  be  made  in  regard  to  making  their 
role  more  eflFective,  and  on  the  position  of 
the  small  rural  fair  as  opposed  to  the  large 
county  fair.  I  don't  want  to  get  into  that 
discussion,  although  I  think  I  coiild  on  a  bill 
of  this  nature. 

On  the  matter  of  the  fee  required  by 
organizing  members,  I  am  curious  why  diat 
is  oeing  raised.  It's  not  a  major  change,  but 
the  point  is  that  the  fee  is  not  normally  con- 
sidered to  be  a  money-raising  device  widiin 
the  society.  I  am  wondering  what  the  theory 
is  behind  the  change  in  the  members'  fee 
from  $1  to  $2.  It's  just  a  curious  note  that  I 
inject  into  the  matter  at  this  point,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  really  couldn't  find  a  reason  why 
that  would  be  done  other  than  to  raise  more 
money  and,  as  I  say,  the  raising  of  mcMiey 
through  this  particular  device  within  the 
agricmtural  society  is  pretty  limited  to  say 
the  least. 

Regarding  the  other  changes,  I  am  pleased 
to  see  that  homestead  improvement  competi- 
tions carried  out  by  agricultural  societies  are 
now  grantable.  I  think  that  is  a  good  change 
and  one  which  I  am  sure  will  be  welcomed 
by  all  agricultural  societies  across  the  prov- 
ince. Many  of  them  have  undertaken  these 
competitions,  and  I  think  that  the  agricul- 
tural benefits  as  well  as  the  commum'ty  under 
whose  ambit  the  agricultural  society  coines. 


1006 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


because  it  improves  the  countryside  and  the 
appearance.  I  think  it  is  a  good  thing,  and 
its  a  good  direction  in  which  to  move  with 
respect  to  this  kind  o£  thing. 

I  am  pleased  to  see  that  that  is  now  grant- 
able  and  the  Act  has  been  broadened'  to 
recognize  that  new  role  of  the  agricultural 
society.  It  used  to  be  that  the  agricultural 
society  was  a  one-  or  two-  or  perhaps  three- 
day  event  in  the  minds  o£  people.  I  think 
that  has  changed. 

The  agricultural  society  now  is  becoming 
more  of  a  year-round  activity  in  a  lot  of 
communities  throughout  this  province.  I  think 
that  is  a  good  thing,  essentially  because  the 
small  rural  fairs  were  having  a  very  diflBcult 
time  to  make  ends  meet.  They  were  faced 
with  a  dwindling  rural  population,  with  re- 
duced revenues  on  fall-fair  day,  and  in  many 
cases  they  just  couldn't  see  their  way  clear 
to  keep  going. 

But  they  have  broadened  their  approach 
in  many  cases.  They  have  got  into  the 
homestead  improvement  competitions,  ama- 
teur nights  as  well  as  events  surrounding 
horse  racing  and,  in  some  cases,  horse  shows. 
All  of  these  things  tend  to  come  at  various 
periods  throughout  the  year,  so  that  rather 
than  having  a  function  once  a  year,  the  agri- 
cultural societies,  particularly  the  smaller  and 
medium-sized  ones,  are  holding  what  used 
to  be  considered  so-called  extracurricular 
activities  throughout  the  year.  In  this  way 
they  are  involving  their  people  pretty  well  on 
a  continuous  basis,  which  is  all  to  the  good, 
I  think. 

This  bill  recognizes  those  shifts  and 
changes  in  the  role  of  the  agricultural  society, 
and  for  that  I  am  grateful. 

I  noticed)  that  the  bill  takes  into  account 
the  matter  of  enforcement.  I  don't  think  it 
has  been  a  frequent  occurrence,  but  there 
have  been  some  occasions  when  the  so-called 
hucksters  have  tried  to  invade  the  fall  fairs, 
and  the  directors  have  been  placed  in  a  very 
diflBcult  position  to  try  to  keep  them  out.  I 
think  on  a  few  occasions  they  weren't  able 
to  keep  them  out.  So  I  think  this  is  a  good 
change. 

I  see  that  the  penalty  is  raised  from  $50  to 
$100  where  an  offence  has  been  committed. 
I'm  wondering  if  this  is  high  enough.  I  pose 
that  question  to  the  minister.  Perhaps  it 
should  be  $200  or  $300  because  some  of 
these  people  are  very  persistent  and,  particu- 
larly at  a  larger  fair,  they  know  they  can 
make  a  good  dollar  quickly  and  they  are  pre- 
pared to  take  their  chances.  I  would  suggest 
to  the  minister  that  perhaps  that  amount 
should   be  reconsidered.   I   don't  think  $100 


is  any  great  deterrent  to  these  people  who 
are  bound  and  bent  on  getting  in  regardless 
of  what  they  are  told. 

The  grants  or  loans  given  by  municipalities 
to  agricultural  societies  are,  I  think,  a  very 
important  aspect  of  the  operation  of  an  agri- 
cultural society.  I  think  that  during  the  life- 
time of  these  societies,  most  municipalities 
have  given  grants  and/or  loans  to  these  socie- 
ties, and  the  municipalities  have  played  a 
pretty  important  role  in  the  success  and  the 
growth  of  agricultural  societies  throughout  tlie 
provinces.  As  I  understand  the  Act,  as  pres- 
ently drafted,  the  limits  placed  on  municipali- 
ties in  regard  to  grants  and  loans  are  removed; 
they  can  now  give  whatever  they  deem  to  be 
proper  by  way  of  assistance  through  grants 
and  loans  to  the  agricultural  societies.  I  think 
that  is  a  move  in  the  right  direction,  as  well. 

Basically,  then,  we  support  the  changes. 
We  hope  that  they  will  result  in  the  growth 
of  fall  fairs  across  the  province.  We  hope 
that  they  will  result  in  improved  quality  at 
the  fall  fairs. 

Basically,  if  that  purpose  is  accomplished, 
then  I  think  the  rural  communities  throughout 
Ontario  will  be  the  big  beneficiaries  of  the 
changes  in  this  Act. 

While  I  am  on  this  topic  I'll  take  this  op- 
portunity to  say  to  the  minister— and  I  think 
he  believes  it;  certainly  his  director  has  said 
this  on  a  number  of  occasions— that  a  small 
rural  fair  is  a  very  important  event  in  the  life 
of  a  community.  I  think  that  it  galvanizes  and 
pulls  together  the  people  in  that  community 
the  way  nothing  else  does.  People  who  hardly 
ever  see  one  another  all  year  round  end  up 
working  together  at  the  fall  fair. 

I  think  that  if  the  small  fairs  throughout 
the  province  ever  disappear,  which  I  hope 
they  don't,  it  will  be  another  stumbling  block 
in  the  way  of  l^etter  rural-urban  relations. 
And  I  thinic  that  we  will  have  driven  another 
nail  in  the  coflRn  of  a  small  rural  community 
if  it  loses  its  fall  fair. 

The  fall  fair  is  a  very  important  event.  I 
think  this  government  and  the  federal  govern- 
ment should  be  doing  everything  they  pos- 
sibly can  to  ensure  that  these  fall  fairs  are 
encouraged  to  continue,  to  grow  and  to  be- 
come more  active.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  onl>-  one 
question  and  a  comment  or  a  warning  about 
the  bill.  My  question  is,  I  am  most  curious 
as  to  the  way  the  ministry  decides  upon  the 
size  of  the  grants  which  are  going  to  be  made, 
and  I  would  certainly  appreciate  it  if  the 
minister  would  refer  to  the  specific  $300 
grant  under  the  one  clause  and  a  grant  of 


APRIL  9.  1974 


1007 


not  more  than  $500  and  then  $200  and  $75 
an  J  a  maximum  of  $1,500.  Presumably  there 
must  be  some  sort  of  arbitrary  decision  as  to 
what  the  amount  will  be,  but  I  would  be 
interested  to  know  why  those  particular 
figures  were  selected  and  what  the  reasoning 
behind  it  would  be  in  making  the  selection 
of  those  particular  figures. 

The  word  of  caution  that  I  want  to  indicate 
is,  that  the  bill  provides  for  the  board  of 
directors  of  one  of  these  societies  appointing 
special  constables  on  a  pro-tem  basis  for 
practical  purposes  during  the  course  of  the 
operation  of  the  fair.  The  Act  as  it  presently 
stands  provides  that  it  would  be  the  justice 
of  the  peace  in  the  area  who  would,  in  fact, 
appoint  such  persons  to  act  on  a  pro-tem 
basis  as  constables.  The  reason  I  raise  it  is 
that  I  question  very  much  whether  or  not  the 
board  of  directors  of  a  society  should  either 
be  given  the  authority  or  saddled  with  the 
responsibility  of  making  that  kind  of  appoint- 
ment. 

It  would  seem  to  me  to  be  more  proper 
that  perhaps  the  board  of  directors  would 
nominate  the  persons  whom  they  suggest  but 
that  the  actual  appointments  should  be  made 
either  by  the  justice  of  the  peace,  or  by  the 
judge  of  the  county  or  district  court,  or  by 
the  senior  police  board  in  the  area,  in  order 
to  make  certain  that  the  persons  who  are 
appointed  both  recognize  the  responsibility 
that  they  have  to  discharge  and  are  aware 
of  the  danger  of  the  liability  which  they 
might  incur  if  they  were  to  discharge  their 
duties  improperly. 

Under  the  two  sections  where  those  per- 
sons are  given  authority  to  act  in  addition 
to  any  regular  constables  who  may  be  in 
attendance,  they  have  the  power— in  the  one 
case  the  language  referred  is  "to  remove" 
and  in  the  other  case  the  language  used  is 
"to  eject"— and  of  course  the  power  to  re- 
move and  the  power  to  eject  is,  within 
certain  time  limits,  in  substance,  the  power 
to  arrest,  that  is,  to  forcibly  take  hold,  arrest 
or  assault,  and  that  means  to  take  hold  of 
someone  forcibly  to  remove  him  from  the 
premises. 

In  most  cases  perhaps  there  is  no  question 
that  it  would  be  done  both  properly  and 
reasonably,  but  at  the  same  time  the  persons 
who  are  appointed  as  special  constables  run 
the  risk  that  they  may  use  more  force  than 
is  necessary  for  the  purpose.  They  may  injure 
some  person.  They  may  very  well  improperly 
exercise  their  duties. 

It  would  seem  to  me  that,  rather  than  have 
the  board  of  directors  themselves  appointing 
those  persons  to  act  as   constables  pro-tem. 


the  appointment  of  them  should  be  made 
perhaps  on  recommendation  of  the  board  of 
directors,  either  as  to  the  number  who  arc 
required  or  to  the  persons  who  might  fulfil 
the  role,  and  to  have  the  appointment,  in 
fact,  made  by  a  person  holding  a  judicial 
responsibihty  in  the  area  in  order  to  make 
sure  that  there  would  be  some  occasion  or 
some  opportunity  to  instruct  the  persons 
within  the  limitations  of  their  authority,  the 
way  in  which  they  are  to  conduct  them- 
selves and  the  scope  of  their  authorit>',  so 
that  they  do  discharge  their  responsibilities 
properly  as  and  when  the  occasion  may 
require  and  so  that  they  do  not  incur  the 
kind  of  personal  liability  that  they  might  ver>' 
well  incur  if  they  were  to  abuse  or  misuse 
the  authority  which  is  granted  to  them  in  the 
bill. 

Perhaps  it  is  just  a  word  of  caution,  per- 
haps there  is  no  significance  to  it,  but  I 
wanted  to  mention  it  because  it  could  very 
well  be  a  situation  which  could  lead  to  sub- 
stantial difficulty,  and  I  am  not  quite  certain 
where  the  actual  liability  resides.  It  may  well 
be,  in  a  situation  like  this  where  constables 
are  appointed  pro-tem,  that  there  may  pos- 
sibly be  an  adequate  provision  made  for 
some  kind  of  grant  of  inununity  if  they  act 
in  good  faith  and  in  a  reasonable  way  in  the 
carrying  out  of  their  duties,  or  some  such 
protection  for  them.  I  don't  pretend  to  know 
all  the  ramifications  but  I  am  concerned  that 
the  board  of  directors  should  have  this 
authority. 

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

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  pleased  to  support  what  the 
minister  is  trying  to  do  in  connection  with 
the  agricultural  societies.  They  certainly  play 
a  very  important  role  in  my  own  community. 
We  have  had  problems  there,  though,  be- 
cause of  the  increase  in  land  values  and  the 
constraints  of  space.  In  Markham,  for  ex- 
ample, they  have  sold  the  fairgrounds  and 
they  are  going  to  be  moving  to  a  new  area. 

There  has  been  a  lot  of  rivalry,  both  in 
Markham  and  Richmond  Hill,  between  urban 
elements— or  what  I  call  the  city  people- 
moving  into  the  area  and  the  interests  and 
pressures  they  bring,  and  those  who  are  the 
established  people  who  have  run  these  affairs 
in  the  past.  Sometimes  newer  people  have 
a  lot  of  diflBculty  understanding  the  special 
knowledge  and  expertise  of  those  who  have 
been  in  the  community  a  long  time. 

Those  rural  people  who  have  been  there  a 
long  time  understand  the  agricultural  aspects 


1008 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  the  fall  fairs  and  what's  needed  to  make 
them  successful.  Sometimes  it's  lost  on  those 
coming  into  a  community  who  don't  under- 
stand and  don't  support  those  people  who, 
to  my  mind,  have  made  these  fairs  the  great 
success  and  the  important  attraction  they 
have  been  to  a  city  like  Toronto. 

In  connection  with  one  clause;  I  want  to 
get  clarification  from  the  minister.  That  is 
the  matter  of  clause  5  which  says: 

Where  a  society  exhibits  a  display  of  a 
farm  product  that  is  produced  on  a  com- 
mercial basis  or  holds  a  fieldcrop  or  other 
competition  ...  is  approved  by  the  super- 
intendent. .  .  . 

Is  that  a  requirement  that  it  must  be  ap- 
proved or  is  it  just  a  situation  that  when  they 
are  looking  for  grant  support  it  has  to  be 
approved  by  the  superintendent? 

It  is  not  clear  from  the  wording  and  per- 
haps it  does  mean  that  if  the  province  is 
going  to  give  a  grant,  naturally  the  superin- 
tendent should  have  some  say  as  well  as 
receiving  a  report  afterwards.  Other  than 
that,  I  am  pleased  to  see  the  limit  of  support 
to  municipalities  is  removed.  Certainly  in  our 
area  it  will  be  important  that  we  have  very 
substantial  municipal  support  in  order  that 
these  fairs  ran  continue  to  exist  and  flourish. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lanark. 

Mr.  D.  J.  Wiseman  (Lanark):  Thank  you 
very  much,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  like,  on 
behalf  of  the  five  fair  boards  in  the  area  I 
represent  and  the  two  just  outside  my  riding, 
to  thank  the  minister  for  bringing  this  legis- 
lation forward.  Any  of  us  who  attends  these 
fairs  knows  that  the  light  horse  shows  in  the 
area  have  become  very  popular  and  there 
are  a  lot  of  young  children  who  have  horses 
and  show  them.  The  fair  boards  have  found 
it  diflBcult  to  arrange  for  prize  money  and  I 
think  this  maximum  of  $500  will  certainly  go 
a  long  way  to  help  them.  As  for  the  amateur 
entertainment,  I  think  most  of  our  small  fairs 
have  found  this  to  be  quite  an  expense  and 
there  again  I  would  like  to  congratulate  the 
minister. 

I  would  like  to  say,  though,  that  in  the 
bigger  fairs  like  the  Toronto  exhibition  and 
the  Ottawa  exhibition— I  know  we  give  a  lot 
of  money  and  it's  not  in  this  bill— if  we  could 
put  some  restrictions  on  their  entertainment 
or  try  to  talk  to  them  about  bringing  in 
American  entertainment  in  place  of  some 
Canadian  it  would  be  worthwhile;  I  think 
we  need  a  good  combination  of  both.  I  would 
like  again  to  thank  the  minister  on  behalf 
of  our  boards. 


There  is  one  thing  that  bothers  me.  Will 
these  grants  be  available  to  all  fairs  regardless 
of  size  in  the  area,  regardless  of  the  class  A 
fair  or  B  or  whatever  it  might  be?  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  Paterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  one 
area  in  this  bill  which  bothers  me.  That  is 
section  7  and  the  principle  of  that  concern- 
ing the  power  of  the  officers  of  the  agricul- 
tural society  to  regulate,  prohibit  and  prevent 
certain  things  happening  within  300  yd  of, 
or  on  their  particular  exhibition  grounds.  I 
concur  certainly  with  the  intent  of  this— that 
they  prohibit  theatrical,  circus  or  acrobatic 
performances  or  exhibitions  within  that  area 
—and  the  following  line  indicates  that  they 
may  regulate  or  prevent  huckstering  or 
trafficking  in  fruit.  I  wonder  if  that  should 
be  fruit  and  vegetables. 

The  other  point  that  I  would  like  to  make 
in  this  regard  is  as  to  whether  this  particular 
legislation  supersedes  a  transient  trader's 
licence  that  may  have  been  granted  to  what 
well  term  a  huckster  or  an  itinerant  sales 
person  by  the  municipality  in  which  the  fair 
is  going  to  take  place.  I  can  think  of  many 
instances  where  transient  traders'  licences  are 
given  out,  much  to  the  worry  or  chagrin  of 
the  retail  merchants  in  that  commimity.  It's 
bothersome  for  them  and  I'm  sure  it  would 
be  to  the  officers  of  an  agricultural  society 
who  have  a  very  few  days  in  which  to  carry 
out  their  year's  activity. 

Would,  in  fact,  this  legislation  supersede 
the  case  of,  say,  a  local  person  who  has  a 
transient  traders  licence,  who  possibly  has 
an  ice  cream  or  popcorn  vending  wagon  from 
coming  within  300  yd  of  that  exhibition  or 
not?  I  would  like  to  know  the  legal  ramifica- 
tions of  this  and  have  that  clarified  today,  so 
that  proper  enforcement  may  take  place  if 
such  is  the  case. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  any  other  member  wish 
to  speak  before  the  minister  replies?  Mr. 
Minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I'm  very  keen  about  this  bill,  quite  frankly. 
I  really  believe  that  this  not  only  goes  a  very 
long  way  to  assist  the  people  of  rural  Ontario 
in  the  agricultural  societies  to  govern  their 
own  affairs  more  appropriately  than  they  have 
been  able  to  do  in  the  past,  but  it  expands 
their  sphere  of  influence  within  the  local  com- 
munity. 


APRIL  9.  1974 


1009 


Perhaps  the  local  agricultural  societies  and 
the  fall  fairs— some  240  of  them  across  the 
Province  of  Ontario  today— are  providing  one 
of  the  last  vestiges  of  real  community  life  as 
we  have  known  it  throughout  generations  in 
this  province  of  ours.  To  some  degree  the 
l(x;al  communities  have  disappeared  in  many 
respects.  There  isn't  the  same  community 
spirit.  I've  said  this  before  in  this  House, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  being  a  rural  person  your- 
self you  will  understand,  that  the  advent  of 
the  combine  and  the  forage  harvester  to  my 
mind  had  more  to  do  with  the  abandonment 
of  the  community  spirit  as  we  knew  it,  when 
we  got  together  as  gangs  of  people  working 
together  as  a  community  effort.  That's  all 
over  with. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  That's  been 
augmented  to  some  extent  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  regional'  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Oh,  of  coiu-se.  But  the 
introduction  of  regional  government  didn't 
have  nearly  as  much  to  ao  with  it  as  the 
centralization  of  township  schools.  That's 
where  it  really  started  off  in  that  degree.  The 
local  school  was  the  centre  of  the  community, 
just  as  the  local  rural  church  was.  And  all  of 
that  we  predicated  on  how  far  you  could 
drive  a  horse  or  walk  on^  a  Sunday.  But  with 
the  advent  of  the  car  this  is  altogether  differ- 
ent today.  The  advent  of  the  school  buses 
and  the  centralization  of  schools  has  to  some 
degree  removed  that  spirit  of  community 
effort  that  we  used  to  have, 

'The  agricultural  societies,  being  strictly 
representative  of  the  rural  communities,  have 
continued  on.  As  someone  has  said  this  after- 
noon, they  have  expanded  their  sphere  of 
interest  and  they've  grown.  Contrary  to  the 
predictions  that  were  made  by  many  people 
that  they  would  disappear  from  the  scene  of 
rural  Ontario,  they  have  strengthened  their 
positions,  because  they  have  kept  up  to  date 
with  the  local  communities  in  many  cases. 
Those  societies  that  have  recognized'  the  fact 
that  many  urban  people  have  moved  out, 
that  there's  a  changing  characteristic  to  rural 
Ontario  today,  and  have  focused  their  atten- 
tion on  catering  to  the  new  interests  that  we 
find  in  rural  Ontario  have  been  able,  I  think, 
to  provide  an  even  better  service  than  we 
ever  had  in  the  past. 

We  look  upon  the  Act  in  the  housekeeping 
clauses  to  which  hon.  members  have  referred. 
My  friend  from  Huron-Bruce  asked  why  the 
organizing  fee  went  up  from  $1  to  $2.  At  the 
same  time  we  reduced  the  niunbers  from  25 
to  10  to  organize  the  society.  So,  really,  there 
are  not  many  dollars  involved.  But  I  suppose 


that  the  executive,  when  they  asked  that  this 
be  done,  felt  that  $1  in  1974  and  on  really 
wasn't  a  very  significant  amoimt,  nor  I  sup- 
pose is  $2.  So  we  were  pleased  to  grant  that 
request  of  the  agricultural  societies  to  be  able 
to  go  ahead  on  that  basis. 

The  hon.  member  for  Riverdale  raised  a 
question  that  was  of  concern  to  me,  I  must 
confess,  when  the  bill  was  first  discussed  with 
us  by  the  executive  officers  of  the  Ontario 
Association  of  Agricultural  Societies.  I  sup- 
pose that  that  is  one  of  the  strongest  organiza- 
tions we  have  in  rural  Ontario  today.  Their 
annual  meeting  is  something  to  behold^  be- 
lieve me;  with  well  over  1,000  delegates,  it 
is  quite  a  major  exercise. 

The  special  officer  status  prompted  me  to 
refer  the  whole  matter  to  the  law  officers  of 
the  Crown,  and  we  reviewed  it  thoroughly. 
Quite  frankly,  these  are  not  special  con- 
stables; they  have  no  real  police  powers,  and 
yet  my  friend  from  Riverdale  did  suggest  the 
power  to  remove  or  eject  does  connote  physi- 
cal effort  and  the  necessity  of  probably  taking 
hold  of  a  person  and  ejecting  him  if  the 
occasion  warranted  such  action. 

On  the  other  hand,  these  special  ccmstables 
would  have  the  same  power  to  remove  or 
eject  as  any  property  owner  now  does  when 
someone  is  on  his  property  improperly,  and 
as  such  they  are  agents  of  the  owners  of  the 
agricultural  society  or  the  fairgrounds.  In 
other  words,  they  are  the  people  who  own 
that  property. 

Now,  we  really  don't  believe  that  the 
powers  of  appointment  of  police  officers  have 
been  exceeded.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have 
the  approval  of  the  Attorney  General's  office 
for  this  legisfetion,  and  it  has  been  carefully 
worded  to  do  just  what  they  have  asked  to 
be  done  and  to  meet  with  the  approval  of  the 
law  officers  of  the  Crown. 

I  would  suppose— and  I  am  not  prompted 
to  suggest  this  by  any  notes  that  have  arrived 
on  my  desk— that  several  of  the  security  firms 
that  now  provide  this  service  probably  could 
be  employed  to  provide  this  service  to  the 
various  exhibitions.  Some  of  them  are  now 
doing  it.  Others  are  not.  In  some  cases,  they 
have  used  Ontario  Provincial  Police  officers, 
but  there  are  just  not  enough  to  go  round 
in  the  fall  fair  season. 

The  matter  of  the  increase  of  the  fine  to 
more  than  $100  is  something  that  prompts 
me  to  wonder  if  that  $100  is  enough,  quite 
frankly.  It  is  not  much  in  today's  economy 
and,  as  my  friend  from  Essex  South  men- 
tioned, there  are  people  who  come  there  who 
are— for  want  of  a  better  word— so-called 
hucksters,  who  could  find  themselves  in  the 


1010 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


position  of  making  a  very  fast  doU'ar,  and 
perhaps  in  a  bit  of  a  slippery  way,  and  I  am 
wondering  if  indeed  the  $100  fine  is  enough. 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  the  right  of 
the  fair  board  to  have  its  security  people  or 
those  who  are  carrying  out  the  enforcement 
of  the  regulations  of  the  fair  within  300  yds. 
Perhaps  that's  sufficient.  The  same  regulations 
pertain  to  fairs  like  the  CNE  or  the  larger 
shows  like  the  Ottawa  and  London  exhibi- 
tions, so  perhaps  there  is  no  real  problem 
there.  But  the  matter  of  the  fine  does  prompt 
me  to  wonder  a  bit  if  perhaps  we  should  be 
looking  at  that  matter. 

One  other  matter  that  was  raised  is  how 
the  grants  are  arrived  at.  This  is  indeed  an 
arbitrary  figure.  In  order  to  set  a  budget,  we 
take  the  number  of  exhibitions  in  the  province 
and  base  it  on  their  indication  of  what  partici- 
pation they  will  have— and  that's  based  a  bit 
on  their  past  experience  as  well  as  on  other 
things.  But  of  course  this  is  new,  and  we 
simply  set  these  figures  as  being  what  we 
can  live  with  within  our  budget  and  that's 
simply  one-third  of  what  they  will  pay  out 
up  to  this  maximum. 

Frankly,  I  think  that  the  opportimity  to 
develop  these  farmstead  improvement  com- 
petitions is  one  of  the  best  and  most  far- 
reaching  steps  for  the  betterment  and  im- 
provement of  rural  Ontario  that  I  can  think 
of.  Every  one  of  us  is  fully  aware  of  what 
happens  as  far  as  the  international  plowing 
match  is  concerned,  where  we  have  the  farm- 
stead improvement  competitions  associated 
with  that,  and  the  betterment  of  the  rural 
commimities  is  abundantly  evident  for  all  to 
see. 

Unfortunately,  it  only  moves  around  from 
county  to  county  in  the  various  parts  of  the 
province;  and  many  other  parts  of  the  prov- 
ince, with  a  little  bit  of  inspiration  and  en- 
thusiasm and  support  and  initiative  from  some 
local  body,  could  perhaps  achieve  the  same 
degree  of  success.  We're  simply  making  it 
possible  in  this  amendment  to  assist  the  focal 
agricultural  societies  to  do  what  the  interna- 
tional agricultural  societies'  executive  have 
been  able  to  do  for  some  time. 

With  regard  to  amateur  shows,  I've  been 
impressed,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  the  tremendous 
wealth  of  talent  we  have  throughout  rural 
Ontario.  We  have  so  many  young  people  who 
are  far  more  talented,  I  guess,  than  we  were 
in  our  day,  and  I  think  they  should  have  the 
opportunity  to  display  their  talents.  Perhaps 
they  only  require  the  opportunity  to  present 
whatever  they  can  do  before  the  public  and, 
surely,  there's  no  better  place  than  through 


the  local  fair  boards'  activities.  So  that  is 
why  this  has  been  introduced. 

The  special  grants  available  to  the  light 
horse  shows  have  been  introduced  simply  to 
keep  pace  with  the  new  look  in  rural  Ontario, 
where  we  have  many  people  now  having  pony 
clubs  and  light  horse  shows,  and  I  think  that 
this  legislation  will  help  to  come  to  grips  with 
all  of  these  matters. 

I'd  like  to  refer  the  bill',  if  I  might,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  the  committee  of  the  whole 
House,  because  there  may  be,  after  fuilher 
consideration,  an  amendment  that  I  would 
like  to  make  at  that  time,  which  would  be 
consistent  with  a  suggestion  made  b>  the 
Provincial  Auditor. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  my  understanding  that 
the  bill  is  to  go  to  the  committee  o£  the 
whole  House. 


NOTICE  OF  MOTION  No.  1 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Government  notice  of 
motion  No.  1. 

Hon.  Mr.  White  moves  that  this  House 
approve  in  general  the  budgetary'  policy  of 
the  government. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
That'll  never  carry. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West) :  Lots  of 
enthusiasm  for  that. 


BUDGET  ADDRESS 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer  and  Minister  of 
Economic  and  Intergovernmental  AflFairs):  Mr. 
Speaker,  needless  to  say  I'm  very  privileged, 
indeed  to  have  the  opportunity  once  again  of 
presenting  a  budget  to  the  legislative  assem- 
bly and  to  invite  the  support  of  the  members. 

As  I  do  so,  I  point  out  something  that  may 
not  be  universally  known,  namely  that  this 
is  the  last  day  that  Ian  Macdonald  will  be 
Deputy  Treasurer  of  Ontario,  and  while  he 
has  been  praised  by  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
and  the  leaders  of  the  opposition  parties,  I 
would  like  to  pay  my  personal  respects  and 
give  my  personal  thanks  to  him  for  his  assist- 
ance to  me  over  the  years,  and  more  particu- 
larly in  the  last  15  months.  He  is  a  man  who 
is  clever,  wise  and  good  and  I  know  hell  do 
well  at  York.  He's  taking  apphcations  for 
honorary  degrees. 


APRIL  9.  1974 


1011 


Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Is  the 
Treasurer  first  on  the  list? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  think  not. 

He  will  be  a  special  adviser  to  the  Premier 
until  the  end  of  June.  Our  regret  at  seeing 
Ian  leave  is  mitigated  to  some  extent  by  his 
successor,  who  is  sitting  behind  him  fittingly 
enough,  Mr.  Kendall  Dick,  who  will  become 
the  Deput\'  Treasurer  tomorrow.  I  look  for- 
ward to  working  with  Mr.  Dick  in  this  new 
capacity. 

May  I  take  a  further  moment  to  thank  Dr. 
Terry  Russell,  assistant  deputy  minister;  Mr. 
Duncan  Allan,  executive  director;  and  Mr. 
George  Mclntyre,  executive  director;  and 
their  staffs,  for  the  untold  hours  they  put 
into  the  budgetary  preparation,  indeed  for 
11  months  or  more.  I  thank  them  very  much 
for  their  unstinting  help  and  the  enormous 
dedication  of  their  staffs.  Thank  you  very 
much  indeed. 

I'm  glad  also  to  point  out  that  in  the 
Speaker's  gallery  as  guests  of  Mr.  Speaker, 
together  with  my  wife  Beatrice,  are  friends 
of  mine  from  Ontario,  from  Quebec  and  from 
Bermuda.  We  hope  they'll  find  this  an  inter- 
estini;  session  for  them  all,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  The  Treasurer 
won't  have  any  after  today. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  The  member 
would  be  surprised. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  most 
important  problem  facing  us  today  is  infla- 
tion. The  year  1973  is  one  of  record  growth 
in  Canada  and  in  Ontario,  but  excessive  price 
rises  eroded  much  of  the  benefit  which  should 
have  accompanied  this  strong  development. 
Prices  have  accelerated  steadily  and  we  are 
faced  with  the  prospect  of  10  per  cent  infla- 
tion in  1974. 

This  worldwide  phenomenon  is  threatening 
the  stability  and  growth  of  the  economies  of 
the  industrialized  world.  The  growing  short- 
age of  basic  raw  materials  and  energy  sup- 
plies is  adding  to  inflationary  pressures. 
There  is  little  prospect  for  an  early  return  to 
price  stability  unless  all  jiu"isdictions  employ 
the  powers  at  their  disposal  with  new  deter- 
mination and  courage.  The  government  of 
Ontario  is  willing  to  use  every  practical  meas- 
ure within  its  constitutional  jurisdiction  to 
combat  inflation  in  the  expectation  that  other 
responsible  organizations  in  the  public  and 
private  sectors  will  do  the  same.  This  is  our 
promise  and  this  is  our  challenge. 

The  forces  of  inflation  are  durable  and 
persistent.  To  beat  back  these  forces  requires 


concerted  action  bv  all  leveU  of  government 
Ontario  will  provide  the  leadership  by  initiat- 
ing a  course  of  forceful  action  which  indudec: 
New  measures  to  offset  the  effects  of  inflation; 
new  measures  to  restrain  inflation,  new  me«- 
ures  to  stimulate  supply;  new  roeasuzet  to 
share  with  the  public  the  profits  of  inflaticm; 
and  new  measures  to  sluure  resources  with 
local  governments. 

Our  success  in  controlling  inflation  will 
depend  on  the  co-operation  of  the  wage 
earner,  the  consumer  and  the  businessman. 
But  it  will  also  depend  greatly  on  leadership 
and  action  by  the  federal  government  to 
puncture  the  myth  that  inflation  is  inevitable 
and  to  restore  confidence  in  the  belief  that 
every  Canadian  will  share  in  rising  prosperity. 

All  members  are  aware  of  the  inequitable 
impact  of  inflation  on  low-income  families 
and  other  groups  on  relatively  fixed  incomes. 
The  first  part  of  the  government's  strategy 
for  dealing  with  inflation  consists  of  proposals 
for  substantial'  new  programmes  to  offset  the 
effects  of  inflation. 

These  are:  A  guaranteed  annual  income 
programme  for  the  elderly,  the  blind  and  the 
disabled;  free  prescription  drugs  for  elderly 
persons  with  low  incomes  and  for  all  indi- 
viduals on  social  assistance;  enriched  tax 
credits,  including  a  doubling  of  the  property 
tax  credit  to  take  into  account  the  increased 
cost  of  heating;  and  a  broadening  of  exemp- 
tions under  the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Act. 

I  am  proposing  a  new  guaranteed  aimual 
income  system,  to  be  known  as  GAINS,  for 
the  elderly,  blind  and  disabled  in  Ontario. 
The  GAINS  programme  will  guarantee  an 
income  of  $50  a  week  for  all  single  persons 
and  $100  a  week  for  all  married  couples  who 
are  aged  65  and  over,  and  for  those  who  are 
blind  or  disabled  and  receive  family  bene- 
fits. This  represents  a  guaranteed  annual  cash 
income  of  $5,200  a  year  for  a  married  couple 
and  $2,600  a  year  for  a  single  person.  In 
future,  the  guaranteed  income  levels  will  be 
increased  periodically  in  order  to  maintain 
the  purchasing  power  of  these  benefits. 

This  programme  will  commence  July  1, 
1974.  In  this  fiscal  year  GAINS  will  provide 
$75  million  in  increased  cash  inccwne  for 
people  in  need.  More  than  310,000  people 
will  receive  Ontario  GAINS  cheques  in  July, 
1974.  This  will  include  270,000  pensioners 
who  are  digible  for  the  federal  Guaranteed 
Income  Supplement  and  a  further  10,000 
low-income  elderly  who  are  ineligible  for 
CIS  because  they  do  not  meet  the  federal 
residency  rccjuirement  of  10  years.  No  fewer 
than  120,000  pensioners  will  receive  the 
maximum  GAINS  entitlement.  With  the  in- 


1012 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


troduction  of  this  programme,  blind  and  dis- 
abled persons  will  be  entitled  for  the  first 
time  to  the  same  income  guarantee  as  those 
who  are  over  age  65. 

In  addition  to  GAINS,  Ontario  will  initiate 
a  new  programme  to  remove  the  burden  of 
high  drug  costs  on  needy  pensioners.  For  all 
people  who  receive  the  guaranteed  income 
supplement  and  those  on  provincial  assist- 
ance programmes,  the  government  will  pro- 
vide free  prescription  drugs.  This  programme 
will  begin  in  September  and  will  cost  $12 
million  in  the  current  fiscal  year.  Details  will 
be  announced  by  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Miller). 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Why  not 
now? 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Why  wait 
until  spring?  Do  it  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Recause  it  can't  be  done 
now;  it  has  to  be  organized. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  also  proposing  a  sub- 
stantial enrichment  and  improvement  of  On- 
tario's tax  credits  to  minimize  the  burden  of 
shelter  costs  for  those  families  most  vulner- 
able to  the  eroding  powers  of  inflation. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  property  credit  will 
double  from  $90  to  $180.  The  pensioner 
credit  will  increase  from  $100  to  $110  and 
the  maximum  tax  credit  entitlement  will  be 
raised  from  $400  to  $500,  with  the  offset  rate 
being  increased  from  one  to  two  per  cent  of 
taxable  income.  These  improvements  will 
ensure  that  maximum  benefits  flow  to  those 
most  in  need  of  relief  from  rising  living  costs, 
including  home  heating,  and  will  further  re- 
duce the  burden  of  property  taxes. 

Ontario's  fair  sharing  tax  credit  system  will 
now  provide  $375  million  in  benefits  to  On- 
tario families  and  individuals  compared  to 
$305  million  in  1973.  It  is  also  becoming  in- 
creasingly important  to  increase  the  scope 
and  flexibility  of  the  Ontario  tax  credits  so 
that  the  administration  of  the  tax  credit  sys- 
tem and  GAINS  will  be  fully  integrated. 
Initially,  GAINS  will  be  administered  sepa- 
rately by  the  Ontario  Ministry  of  Revenue; 
however,  in  recognition  of  the  advantages 
which  accrue  in  the  long  run  through  the 
integration  of  the  income  security  and  tax 
credit  systems,  Ontario  plans  to  assume  tfie 
full  administration  of  its  tax  credit  system. 

An  hon.  member:  All  the  publicity— 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  As  a  further  measure  to 
help  restore  the  purchasing  power  of  the  con- 


sumers' dollars.  I  am  proposing  to  remove 
the  retail  sales  tax  from  a  broad  range  of 
items.  First,  I  propose  to  exempt  a  number 
of  personal  hygiene  items  such  as  toothpaste, 
baby  powder,  soap,  deodorants  and  feminine 
hygiene  products. 

Secondly,  I  propose  to  exempt  a  broad  list 
of  household  products  used  for  washing  and 
cleaning  purposes.  A  detailed  list  of  the 
new  exemptions  is  included  in  the  appendix 
A  list,  budget  statement. 

The  value  of  these  sales  tax  exemptions  is 
estimated  to  be  $28  million  in  this  fiscal 
year.  Ontario's  exemptions  are  more  exten- 
sive than  those  granted  by  any  other  Cana- 
dian province  employing  sales  taxes,  or  by 
neighbouring  states  in  the  USA. 

Thirdly,  I  am  proposing  the  full  exemp- 
tion of  all  footwear  sold  for  $30  or  less. 
This  will  remove  the  sales  tax  from  all  chil- 
dren's shoes  and  most  adult  shoes,  as  well 
as  from  lower-priced  skates,  cleats  and  ath- 
letic footwear. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  so  the  Treasurer 
can  skate  around  a  little  better. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Until  now  children's 
shoes  up  to  size  6  have  been  exempt.  The 
value  of  this  new  exemption  is  estimated 
at  $15  million  a  year. 

Children's  clothing  presents  a  taxation 
problem  similar  to  that  for  shoes.  The  use 
of  a  size  criterion  for  exemption  inevitably 
means  that  the  sales  tax  bears  on  clothing 
for  larger  than  average  children  while  the 
exemption  is  enjoyed  by  smaller  adults.  The 
government  is  interested  in  correcting  the 
situation  so  that  all  children's  clothing  is 
free  of  the  retail  sales  tax.  I'm  considering 
a  tax  credit  mechanism,  but  invite  any  other 
ideas  to  achieve  this  desired  result  for  the 
1975  budget. 

These  sales  tax  cuts  will  lower  the  cost  of 
many  important  items  to  Ontario  consumers 
by  $43  mfllion  in  this  fiscal  year.  The 
changes  will  take  efi^ect  after  the  necessary 
legislation  is  passed  by  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  proposals  which  I  have 
made  for  decreasing  the  efi^ects  of  inflation 
are  comprehensive  and  long-lasting.  The  sales 
tax  exemption  will  be  a  benefit  to  all  of  our 
people.  The  GAINS  programme  will  ensure 
that  Ontario's  elderly  citizens  enjoy  a  good 
standard  of  living  during  their  retirement 
years  and  that  our  blind  and  disabled  people 
are  guaranteed  equal  income  benefits. 

The  enriched  tax  credits  will  further  reduce 
the  burden  of  property  taxes  and  home  heat- 


APRIL  9.  1974 


1013 


ing  costs;   and   free   prescription  drugs   will 
provide  significant  assistance  to  those  in  need. 

The  GAINS  programme  and  the  improved 
tax  credit  system  are  an  important  step 
toward  a  comprehensive  guaranteed  income 
system  for  Ontario  citizens.  The  government 
intends  to  build  on  these  advances  and 
invites  the  suggestions  of  interested  groups 
for  improvements  to  these  programmes  in  the 
future. 

In  summary,  the  measures  I  propose  in- 
volve an  adaitional  $200  million  to  offset 
the  effects  of  inflation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  now  like  to  describe 
three  important  new  measures  to  restrain 
inflation.  They  are  designed  to  stabilize  land 
prices  and  encourage  Canadian  ownership 
of  Ontario  real  estate,  and  to  freeze  public 
transit  fares. 

One  cause  of  present  inflation  is  the  rapidly 
escalating  price  of  land.  Some  increase  in 
land  prices  is  to  be  expected  because  of 
the  steady  process  of  urbanization  and  the 
need  to  accommodate  100,000  new  families 
in  Ontario  each  year.  There  is  no  doubt, 
however,  that  speculation,  both  by  Canadian 
residents  and  by  non-residents,  bids  up  prices 
artificially,  increases  the  cost  of  housing  and 
generates  unwarranted  windfall  gains. 

Therefore,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  proposing 
a  new  tax  to  discourage  this  specidative 
activity.  This  tax  has  two  objectives:  To 
reduce  the  escalation  of  land  and  housing 
prices  and  to  recover  for  the  public  a 
major  share  of  windfall  gains  from  land 
speculation.  The  land  speculation  tax  will 
go  into  effect  at  midnight  tonight.  It  will 
impose  an  additional  50  per  cent  tax  on 
the  increase  in  value  realized  on  the  sale  of 
designated  land.  Over  and  above  this  tax, 
normal  personal  and  corporate  income  taxes 
will  apply.  The  speculation  tax  is  designed 
to  bear  most  heavily  on  owners  of  land  and 
properties  which  are  purchased  and  resold 
without  any  real  value  being  added. 

There  is  a  table,  sir,  in  the  statement, 
showing  that  the  maximum  rate  of  tax  on 
corporations  will  thereby  go  to  87  per  cent 
and  on  individuals  to  81  per  cent,  providing 
they  are  Canadian  residents. 

The  government  does  not  wish  to  discour- 
age development  and  construction  of  indus- 
trial, commercial,  or  residential  buildings. 
Accordingly,  exemptions  vvdll  be  provided  in 
the  following  instances: 

Sale  of  property  used  for  commercial  and 
industrial  purposes,  including  tourist  establish- 
ments, will  be  exempt; 


Sale  of  property  where  the  vendor  has  com- 
plied with  a  subdivision  agreement  and  con- 
structed residential  or  commercial  premises, 
will  be  exempt; 

Sale  of  property  where  the  vendor  has  pur- 
chased serviced  land  and  constructed  resi- 
dential or  commercial  premises,  will  be 
exempt; 

Homeowners  will  be  exempt  from  the  land 
speculation  tax  on  their  principal  residence, 
including  10  acres  of  land; 

A  principal  recreational  property,  includ- 
ing 20  acres  of  land,  will  also  be  exempt. 

This  latter  exemption  will  not  apply,  how- 
ever, when  the  purchaser  of  the  recreational 
property,  such  as  a  cottage,  is  a  non-resident 
of  Canada. 

People  who  trade  in  non-principal  proper- 
ties will  be  taxed  on  any  gain  whicn  they 
realize  from  the  sale  of  these  non-prindpal 
residences. 

Persons  who  effectively  dispose  of  land 
through  transfers  of  corporate  snares  will  also 
be  required  to  pay  the  tax. 

Family  farms  will  be  exempt  from  the  land 
speculation  tax  when  the  farms  are  trans- 
ferred within  the  family  and  continued  in 
agricultural  use.  When  disposed  of  outside 
the  family,  these  farms  will  bear  the  tax 
on  the  appreciation  in  value  after  April  9 
in  excess  of  10  per  cent  compounded  annu- 
ally. This  feature  will  help  to  retain  land  in 
agricultural  use  and  also  ensure  that  the  tax 
does  not  apply  unfairly  to  farmers,  whose 
income,  capital  and  pension  stream  is  largely 
tied  up  in  the  form  of  land. 

The  following  features  will  also  be  incor- 
porated into  the  land  speculation  tax: 

Acquisition  cost  will  be  the  fair  market 
value  on  April  9,  or  the  actual  cost  if  pur- 
chased after  April  9,  1974; 

In  determining  the  increase  in  value  after 
April  9,  capital  improvement  costs  and  rea- 
sonable carrying  charges  not  exceeding  10 
per  cent  per  annum  will  be  allowed  as 
eligible  deductions.  These  eligible  deductions 
also  apply  to  family  farms; 

The  land  speciJation  tax  will  not  apply  in 
the  case  of  expropriations,  sales  to  all  govern- 
ments and  agencies  thereof,  nor  to  Canadian 
resource  properties  in  Ontario. 

The  government  of  Ontario  recognizes  that 
strong  measures  are  required  to  cuib  the  ex- 
cessive land  speculation  now  occurring.  We 
are  determined  to  proceed  with  firm  action. 
At  the  same  time  we  recognize  that  this  is 
a  complex  matter  and  unforeseen  problems 
may  emerge  in  administering  this  new  tax. 


1014 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Thus,  during  the  first  year  of  operation  I 
envisage  a  series  of  amendments  and  refine- 
ments to  the  land  speculation  tax  bill.  This 
bill  will  be  tabled  immediately  after  this  ad- 
dress by  my  colleague  the  Minister  of  Reve- 
nue (Mr.  Meen). 

By  introducing  this  land  speculation  tax  I 
hope  to  deflate,  or  at  least  slow  down,  land 
price  increases  and  thereby  contain  costs  for 
housing  and  other  development  projects  in 
Ontario. 

The  success  of  this  speculation  tax  will  be 
inversely  related  to  its  revenue  yield— the 
smaller  the  revenues  the  greater  the  desired 
impact  on  curbing  speculation.  For  this  fiscal 
year  the  revenue  yield  from  the  speculation 
tax  can  be  little  more  than  a  rough  estimate, 
which  I  have  set  at  $25  million  in  keeping 
with  my  optimism  that  the  tax  will  indeed 
produce  the  anti-speculation  result  the  govern- 
ment is  seeking. 

Half  of  the  revenue  from  this  new  tax  wiU 
be  shared  with  Ontario  municipalities  utilizing 
a  method  to  be  designated  by  the  Provincial- 
Municipal  Liaison  Committee.  Recent  experi- 
ence with  the  fiscal  arrangements  sub-com- 
mittee of  the  PMLC  has  proven  the  value  of 
this  form  of  provincial-municipal  co-operation. 
I  will  require  that  these  additional  local 
revenues  be  correlated  with  the  municipali- 
ties' success  in  providing  new  housing  at  rea- 
sonable cost  for  our  people.  The  government 
of  Ontario  expresses  its  appreciation  to  the 
co-chairman  and  members  of  the  PMLC  for 
their  co-operation  in  financial  and  legislative 
matters  during  the  past  year. 

In  examining  the  problem  of  rapidly  rising 
prices  for  real  property  in  Ontario,  it  has 
become  increasingly  apparent  that  large-scale 
acquisition  of  land  by  non-residents  of  Canada 
is  a  significant  factor.  The  matter  of  control 
of  non-resident  ownership  of  Canadian  land 
is  a  current  constitutional  issue  which  has  not 
been  fully  resolved.  The  problem  has  been 
studied,  however,  and  has  been  reported  on 
recently  by  Ontario's  Select  Committee  on 
Economic  and  Cultural  Nationalism. 

The  government  of  Ontario  recognizes  that 
positive  action  on  this  matter  is  required  now 
in  order  to  maximize  Canadian  ownership  of 
our  real  estate.  The  government  has  decided 
therefore  to  take  interim  steps  using  the 
instruments  at  its  disposal.  Accordingly,  I  am 
proposing  to  increase  substantially  the  land 
transfer  tax  on  purchases  of  land  by  non- 
residents of  Canada,  to  20  per  cent  from  6/10 
of  one  per  cent,  effective  at  midnight  tonight. 

In  proposing  this  measure,  I  wish  to  em- 
phasize   that    we    continue    *^    welcome    the 


flow  into  Ontario  of  mortgage  and  debt  finan- 
cing from  abroad.  I  emphasize  also  that  it  is 
not  our  intention  to  penalize  industries  which 
seek  to  locate  or  expand  in  this  province, 
although  we  would  encourage  these  estab- 
lished companies  to  broaden  Canadian  equity 
participation. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  To  ensure  that  industries 
which  contribute  substantially  to  the  Ontario 
economy  will  not  be  penalized,  I  propose  to 
establish  a  review  procedure  whereby  the 
additional  transfer  tax  may  be  rebated  in 
certain  instances.  The  Minister  of  Revenue 
wfll  table  the  bill  immediately  after  my  bud- 
get statement. 

In  order  that  the  tax  on  non-residents  does 
not  curtail  the  operations  of  foreign  companies 
which  play  an  important  role  in  developing 
our  stock  of  housing  and  commercial  realty, 
I  propose  to  forgive  the  additional  tax  when 
vacant  land  bought  by  a  non-resident  is  sold 
back  to  Canadians  within  five  years  in  the 
form  of  housing  or  developed  commercial 
premises. 

The  increase  in  land  transfer  tax  to  20  per 
cent  on  purchases  by  non-residents  wfll  com- 
plement and  reinforce  the  land  speculation 
tax.  Speculative  pressure  on  land  prices  wfll 
be  relieved  at  both  the  purchase  and  sale 
points.  I  estimate  that  this  increase  in  land 
transfer  tax  wfll  yield  an  additional  $60  mfl- 
lion  in  1974-1975. 

On  Nov.  22,  1972,  the  Premier  clteariy 
enunciated  Ontario's  policy  to  encourage  pub- 
lic transit  when  he  said: 

The  province  will  shift  emphasis  from 
urban  expressways  to  a  variety  of  trans- 
portation facflities  which  will  put  the 
people  first. 

Accordingly,  the  government  has  created  new 
forms  of  financial  assistance  to  translate  this 
policy  into  action.  They  compare  capital 
grants  to  cover  75  per  cent  of  the  costs  of 
new  buses,  streetcars  and  subways.  We  also 
assist  in  the  financing  of  the  operating  deficits 
of  transit  authorities.  Under  this  policy,  public 
transit  facilities  have  expanded  considerably, 
the  extent  and  quality  of  service  has  been  im- 
proved, and  provincial  operating  subsidies 
have  grown  from  $5  mfllion  in  1971-1972  to 
$18  mflhon  in  1973-1974. 

Rising  costs  of  running  transit  services  are 
now  creating  financing  problems  for  munici- 
palities. Without  additional  financing  support 
from  the  province,  transit  fares  would  have 
to  increase.  To  prevent  fare  increases,  while 
at  the  same  time  limiting  the  resulting  burden 


APRIL  9,  1974 


1015 


on  local  governments,  I  am  proposing  an 
important  enrichment  in  our  financial  support 
towards  public  transit. 

The  government  of  Ontario  now  proposes  a 
plan  which  consists  of  removing  the  ceilings 
on  the  province's  present  operating  subsidies 
and  substituting  full  sharing  of  the  deficit 
burden  with  local  authorities.  This  means  that 
Ontario  will  increase  its  operating  subsidies 
to  $35  million  in  1974-1975,  which  compares 
to  $20  million  if  the  old  formula  had  been 
continued.  This  level  of  funding  is  based  on 
the  existing  fare  structures  and  the  participat- 
ing municipalities  will  be  required  to  freeze 
all  transit  fares  at  their  present  levels.  Ex- 
amples for  different  municipalities  are  pro- 
vided in  the  document. 

This  initiative  will  produce  two  beneficial 
results.  First,  costs  of  getting  to  work  and 
other  destinations  will  not  increase  during 
this  period  of  high  inflation.  Secondly,  there 
will  be  an  increased  incentive  to  expand  and 
improve  public  transit  services  in  this  prov- 
ince. The  government  of  Ontario  is  grateful 
to  municipal  officials  for  their  co-operation 
in  the  deliberations  leading  to  this  new 
provincial  subsidy  programme. 

These  three  initiatives  to  restrain  inflation 
will  be  carefully  monitored  for  their  effects 
on  the  provincial  economy  and  they  will  be 
adjusted,  if  necessary,  to  attain  the  desired 
objectives. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  now  like  to  intro- 
duce proposals  to  stimulate  small  Canadian 
businesses,  and  to  encourage  residential  and 
non-residential     construction     by     increasing 

f rants  for  water  and  sewerage  projects  and 
y    rationalizing    government    land    develop- 
ment operations. 

Small  businesses  play  an  important  role  in 
our  economy.  It  is  a  social  and  economic  role 
which  justifies  special  incentives  to  encourage 
new  and  existing  small  enterprises  to  develop 
and  expand  their  operations,  thus  creating 
new  and  challenging  jobs  for  Canadians.  Two 
major  problems  encountered  by  small  busi- 
ness are  availability  of  venture  equity  capital 
and  its  high  cost.  I  am  therefore  proposing  a 
new  programme  which  will  help  overcome 
these  problems. 

The  first  part  of  this  programme  is  an 
investment-related  incentive  designed  to  en- 
courage the  growth  of  active,  Canadian- 
controlled  private  corporations  which  qualify 
for  the  federal  small  business  deduction. 
These  corporations  will  be  entitled  to  an 
income  tax  credit  equal  to  5  per  cent  of  the 
increase  in  their  capital  in  Ontario,  to  a 
maximum   of   $3,000   annually.    Relating   the 


incentive  to  increased  capitalization  will  en- 
sure that  the  tax  savings  are  used  to  finance 
corporate  growth.  Increases  in  plant,  inven- 
tory and  similar  assets  are  reflected  in  the 
amount  of  paid-up  capital  and  such  increases 
thereby  qualify  for  this  investment  credit. 
This  change  will  be  effective  with  fiscal 
years  ending  after  April  9,  1974.  I  estimate 
the  revenue  cost  of  this  incentive  to  be 
about  $15  million  in  1974-1975. 

The  second  part  of  my  programme  to  assist 
small  Canadian  businesses  is  designed  to 
motivate  private  sources  of  venture  capital 
to  provide  funds  to  small  enterprises  The 
government  of  Ontario  appreciates  the  co- 
operation of  the  Financial  Executives  Insti- 
tute of  Canada,  the  Ontario  Chamber  of 
Commerce,  the  Canadian  Manufacturers 
Association,  and  the  Investment  Dealers  Asso- 
ciation of  Canada  in  developing  this  pro- 
gramme. 

The  new  incentive  which  I  am  proposing 
provides  for  a  tax  flow-through  for  a  new 
type  of  corporation,  termed  a  "venture  invest- 
ment corporation"  or  VIC.  This  corporation 
will  participate  in  the  financing  of  small 
Canadian  enterprises  qualifying  for  the  fed- 
eral small  business  deduction.  Corporations 
investing  in  a  VIC  would  be  allowed  to 
deduct  such  investment  from  their  taxable 
income  and  thus  defer  income  taxes  as  long 
as  the  investment  is  kept  in  the  VIC. 

The  incentives  recommended  in  this  pro- 
posal affect  only  the  Ontario  corporate  income 
tax.  Ontario,  however,  has  limited  scope  to 
ensure  the  full  success  of  this  proposal  if  the 
federal  government  does  not  partidpate. 

First,  the  low  12  per  cent  Ontario  corpor- 
ate income  tax  rate  is  not  suflBciently  large 
by  itself  to  attract  substantial  investments  in 
VICs  since  the  resulting  tax  deferral  would 
be  relatively  small. 

Secondly,  investments  by  individuals  in 
VICs,  which  constitute  a  major  potential 
source  of  financing,  would  not  be  eligible  for 
the  tax  incentive. 

I  invite  the  federal  government  to  partici- 
pate by  adopting  this  approach  with  respect 
to  federal  income  taxes.  I  will  initiate  dis- 
cussions with  the  federal  Minister  of  Finance 
as  soon  as  possible  on  wavs  of  jointly  imple- 
menting this  proposal  and  I  will  bring  for- 
ward enabling  tax  legislation  during  1974. 

Having  requested  the  federal  government 
to  parallel  our  proposal  concerning  venture 
investment  corporations,  I  am  pleased  to 
announce  that  we  in  turn  intend  to  parallel 
the  federal  tax  treatment  of  mortgage  invest- 
ment   corporations,    MIC.    This    tax    change 


1016 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


permits  the  flow-through  of  funds  to  the  in- 
vestor without  corporate  tax,  then  treats  pay- 
ments received  by  the  investor  as  interest 
rather  than  dividends.  This  will  encourage 
the  flow  of  funds  into  the  residential  mort- 
gage market  from  small  investors  and  supple- 
ment other  efforts  to  increase  the  supply  of 
housing. 

As  an  additional  measure  to  assist  small 
business,  I  am  proposing  a  reduction  in  the 
paid-up  capital  tax  on  family  farm  corpora- 
tions to  a  flat  rate  of  $50  annually. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Has  the  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  got  one 
of  those? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  To  qualify,  the  farm 
corporations  must  meet  essentially  the  same 
conditions  required  for  the  forgiveness  pro- 
vided under  the  Succession  Duty  Act  for 
bona  fide  family  farms.  This  change  means 
that  family  farm  corporations  will  pay  only 
the  $50  minimum  capital  tax.  I  estimate  the 
revenue  cost  of  this  measure  to  be  $250,000 
in  this  fiscal  year. 

Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  request  of  members  of 
the  Legislature,  I  propose  to  introduce 
amendments  to  the  Succession  Duty  Act, 
which  will  extend  the  definition  of  eligible 
assets  for  purposes  of  forgivable  farm  suc- 
cession duties. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  the  amendment  of 
the  member  for  Huron-Bruce  (Mr.  Gaunt). 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  is  the  amendment 
of  the  member  for  Victoria-Haliburton  (Mr. 
R.  G.  Hodgson). 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Give  the 
member  for  Huron-Bruce  credit. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  Glen  Hodgson 
amendment,  I  think  we'll  call  this. 

These  changes  will  be  retroactive  to 
April  12,  1973,  when  the  concept  of  for- 
givable farm  duty  was  introduced.  Changes 
will  also  be  proposed  with  respect  to  the 
once-in-a-lifetime  gift  affecting  farm  families 
so  that  the  gift  may  be  made  in  several 
annual  instalments. 

Let  me  reiterate  the  government's  policy 
on  succession  duties.  We  intend  to  continue 
to  tax  large  accumulations  of  wealth,  while 
at  the  same  time  ensuring  that  the  tax  does 
not  bear  on  citizens  of  average  means.  Ac- 
cordingly I  should  like  to  take  further  steps 
to  ensure  that  inflation  does  not  drive  people 
of  moderate  means  into  this  tax. 

I  am  proposing  the  following  changes  in 
the     Succession    Duty    Act,     effective    with 


deaths  occurring  after  midnight  tonight:  That 
the  basic  exemption  of  $100,000,  below 
which  an  estate  is  not  taxable,  be  increased 
to  $150,000;  that  the  exemption  for  surviv- 
ing dependent  children  be  raised  from  $2,000 
to  $3,000  for  each  year  that  the  dependent 
is  under  26  years  of  age;  that  the  exemption 
for  orphaned  children,  currently  at  $4,000  for 
each  year  that  the  dependent  is  under  26 
years  of  age,  be  increased  to  $6,000;  and 
that  the  exemption  for  invalid  or  infirm 
dependents  be  raised  from  $4,000  to  a  new 
and  higher  level  of  $6,000  for  each  year 
the  individual  is  under  71  years  of  age. 

These  changes  will  affect  all  estates  and 
will  cost  $6  million  in  this  fiscal  year. 

To  increase  the  supply  of  serviced  lots, 
the  government  is  proposing  to  make  avail- 
able to  restructured  municipalities  a  15  per 
cent  grant  in  respect  of  capital  costs  for 
regional  water  and  sewage  projects.  All 
projects  which  are  now  under  way,  including 
the  York  Pickering  trunk  lines,  will  be  com- 
pleted by  the  province  and  the  assets  turned 
over  to  the  restructured  municipality  at  15 
per  cent  less  than  the  cost  to  the  province. 
The  estimated  cost  of  these  changes  is  $11 
million  in  1974. 

To  increase  the  supply  of  housing,  the 
government,  through  the  Ministry  of  Hous- 
ing, will  implement  a  number  of  new  pro- 
grammes, and  expand  existing  programmes  in 
order  to  ensure  continued  expansion  in  On- 
tario's housing  supply. 

In  1973  there  were  more  than  110,000 
housing  starts  in  the  province,  a  seven  per 
cent  increase  over  the  1972  level,  the  largest 
nimiber  of  housing  starts  in  our  history. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  But  not  in  the  cities.  Let  them 
come  in  the  cities  where  they  are  needed. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  How  would  the  member 
know? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right.  I  will  give  him 
the  figures. 

An  hon.  member:  Where?  On  Toronto 
Island? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  are  down  by  30  per 
cent  in  London;  the  Treasurer  should  look 
at  that.  He  knows  the  housing  starts  are 
down  by  seven  per  cent  in  Metro.  The 
government  is  not  answering  the  need  where 
it  is. 

An  hon.  member:  How  many  on  Toronto 
Island? 


APRIL  9,  1974 


1017 


Hon.  A.  Grossman  ( Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  The  member  is 
against  growth  anyway. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  year  $19.8  million 
has  been  allocated  to  the  new  Ontario  hous- 
ing action  programme  which  will  increase  the 
supply  of  serviced  lots  available  for  residential 
construction.  In  addition,  fimds  available 
through  the  Ontario  Mortgage  Corp.  will  be 
increased  in  order  to  helj  families  with 
moderate  incomes  to  purchase  homes. 

The  government  has  also  initiated  a  number 
of  programmes  to  rehabilitate  neighbourhoods 
and  residences,  including  the  Ontario  home 
renewal  programme  and  the  federal-provincial 
neighbourhood  improvement  programme, 
which  together  with  the  community-sponsored 
housing  programme  has  been  allocated  $17 
million  for  the  fiscal  year. 

The  Ontario  Housing  Corp.'s  programme 
for  rental  accommodation  for  pensioners  and 
low-income  families,  which  currently  provides 
more  than  60,000  units,  will  expand  signifi- 
cantl\-  in  1974.  More  than  8,000  units  are 
now  under  construction  and  are  expected  to 
be  occupied  within  the  year,  and  an  addi- 
tional 19,000  units  are  in  various  stages  of 
development. 

In  recent  years  the  province  has  been  in- 
creasingly active  in  the  purchase  of  land  to 
reach  a  number  of  social  and  economic  ob- 
jectives. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  that  all  he  has  on  housing? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  In  future  we  expect  there 
will  be  significant  expansion  of  this  activity 
with  important  financing  implications.  It  is 
imperative,  therefore,  to  lay  the  ground  work 
for  improved  co-ordination  of  government 
land  activities  involving  development  and  re- 
sale or  lease  of  land  for  industrial  or  resi- 
dential' purposes. 

Accordingly,  I  inteinl  to  bring  forward  legis- 
lation this  year  to  establish  an  Ontario  land 
corporation  which  will  be  given  the  financing 
and  co-ordinating  responsibilities  for  the 
government's  land  development  operations. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  was  promised  last 

year,  too. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  That 
won't  tax  them  greatly. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  new  Ontario  land 
corporation  will  have  the  power  to  acquire, 
service  and  develop  land  in  the  province  for 
resale    or    Incasing   on   long-term   basis.    The 


corporation  would  not  hold  any  lands  in  per- 
petuity. In  addition  to  increasing  the  supply 
of  housing,  the  corporation  would  also  be  in- 
volved in  the  establishment  of  industrial  parks 
to  nurture  development  in  certain  parts  dt  the 
province.  It  would  also  purchase  and  lease 
back  land  and  buildings  to  the  Ministry  of 
Government  services  in  competition  with  the 
private  sector.  It  would  acquire  the  assets  of 
projects  such  as  the  north  Pickering  com- 
munity development  project  and  possibly 
other  new  towns. 

The  Ontario  land  corporation  would  en- 
able the  government  to  make  better  use  of  the 
special  skills  and  entrepreneurial  talents  avail- 
able in  the  private  sector. 

I  envisage  the  financing  of  the  corporation 
to  be  similar  to  that  of  Ontario  Hydro.  Land 
acquisition  will  be  financed  by  current  reven- 
ues, by  government  loans  and  by  own-account 
borrowing  guaranteed  by  the  province. 

I  am  inviting  proposals  from  the  investment 
community  to  form  a  new  syndicate  for  the 
financing  of  this  corporation,  using  imagina- 
tive debt  instruments  and  introducing  a  new 
note  of  competition  into  the  capital  markets. 
By  bringing  together  major  land  purchases 
of  the  government  in  this  manner,  it  will  be 
possible  to  plan  for  the  development  of  re- 
gions in  the  province  on  a  co-ordinated  basis 
and  to  increase  the  impetus  of  development 
in  eastern  and  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  When  is  the 
election? 

Hon.  Mr.  White;  I  take  that  as  a  really 
sincere  compliment;  thank  you.  It's  the  clever- 
est thing  I  have  ever  heard  the  hon.  member 
say. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  like  to  describe  pro- 
posals designed  to  secure  for  the  public  of 
Ontario  a  larger  share  of  profits  from  mining 
and  forestry  industries. 

During  the  past  two  years  a  wodd-wlde 
shortage  of  raw  materials  had  developed  on 
an  unprecedented'  scale.  Increased  oemand 
by  major  industrialized  countries  has  resulted 
in  sharply  higher  metals  prices  and  substan- 
tial windfall  gains  for  the  mining  industry  in 
Ontario.  With  the  prospective  demand  for 
minerals  likely  to  sustain  current  price  trends 
into  the  future,  it  is  only  fair  that  we  secure 
for  the  people  a  higher  return  from  our 
natural  resources. 

Mr.  Cassidv:  The  government  has  never 
thought  that  before. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  For  legal  and  financial 
reasons  I  have  decided  to  increase  the  mining 


1018 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


profits  tax  rather  than  impose  a  new  royalty 
on  our  resources. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  he  talking  about?  It  is 
just  that  the  government  can  give  less  this 
way  but  give  the  appearance  of  more,  that's 
all. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  same  ripofiF  has  been 
going  on  for  decades. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  mining  profits  tax 
has  the  advantage  that  it  takes  into  account 
the  expenses  of  extracting  the  ore  and  con- 
sequently it  does  not  discourage  the  mining 
of  low-grade  ore;  a  royalty  system,  on  the 
other  hand,  tends  to  encourage  high-grading 
—that  is,  the  mining  of  only  high-grade  ore. 
I  am  proposing,  therefore,  to  double  the 
revenue  yield  of  the  mining  tax. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  From  nothing  to  nothing. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  is  to  be  achieved  by 
replacing  the  present  15  per  cent  flat-rate 
tax  with  a  graduated  rate  ranging  from  a  zero 
rate  on  the  first  $100,000  of  profits  to  a  rate 
of  40  per  cent  on  profits  in  excess  of  $40 
million. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Who  determines  profits?  Who 
determines  them?  Some  tax! 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Not  the  member's 
father  anyway. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  new  initiative  would 
secure  a  large  share  of  windfall  gains  with- 
out imposing  an  unfair  burden  of  taxation 
should  metals  prices  and  profits  decline.  The 
low  initial  rate  of  the  graduated  tax  will  be 
of  assistance  to  the  smaller  mining  companies 
whose  operations  often  provide  the  only  major 
source  of  employment  in  isolated  northern 
communities. 

In  addition  to  doubling  the  mining  tax,  I 
am  proposing  other  measures  to  increase  in- 
come tax  revenues  from  the  mining  industry. 
These  are: 

Abolition  of  the  three-year  exemption  for 
new  mines; 

Disallowance  of  the  deduction  of  mining 
taxes  and  mining  royalties  for  corporate  in- 
come tax  purposes;  and 

Removal  of  the  mine  and  mill  allowance 
under  the  capital  tax. 

lAt  the  same  time,  I  am  proposing  changes 
which   will    increase   incentives   for   explora- 


tion   and    development    and    processing    in 
Ontario.  These  changes  are: 

The  depletion  allowance  will  continue  to 
apply  automatically  to  all  operators  and  non- 
operators— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Non-operators  too,  eh? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —the  fast  write-ofi^  pro- 
visions under  the  federal  Income  Tax  Act 
will  be  paralleled  by  Ontario  for  new  mines, 
major  expansion  of  existing  mines  and  asso- 
ciated processing  facilities- 
Mr.  Lewis:  The  Treasurer  is  quite  un- 
believable. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —full  deduction  of  pre- 
production  expenses  will  be  allowed  under 
the  Mining  Tax  Act;  and  full  deduction  will 
be  allowed  under  the  Corporations  Tax  Act 
of  exploration  and  development  expenses  in- 
curred in  Ontario  by  non-principal  business 
corporations. 

The  last  provision  means  that  a  corpora- 
tion not  in  the  mining  industry  will  be  en- 
titled to  decrease  taxable  income  for  Ontario 
corporation  income  tax  purposes  by  the 
amount  of  the  expenses  incurred  in  exploring 
for  and  developing  mining  properties,  as  has 
been  the  case  in  the  past  for  mining  com- 
panies only.  The  federal  government  will  be 
asked  to  consider  similar  provisions  aff^ecting 
their  corporate  income  tax. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  This  is  known  as  the  cor- 
porate ripoff. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  In  addition  to  the  above 
tax  incentives,  the  Ontario  government  is 
considering  the  expansion  and  modification 
of  the  mineral  exploration  assistance  pro- 
gramme to  cover  the  whole  province.  The 
goverrmient  is  also  considering  the  establish- 
ment of  a  Crown  corporation  to  imdertake 
exploration  activities  in  Ontario.  The  Minis- 
ter of  Natural  Resources  (Mr.  Bemier)  will 
announce  full  details  of  these  programmes 
later  this  year. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  already  has. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  In  a  full  year,  the  net 
impact  of  these  changes  will  be  to  increase 
provincial  revenues  from  the  mining  industry 
by  $50  million,  from  $75  million  in  1973- 
1974  to  $125  million  in  1974-1975. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  could  hardly 
have  done  less. 


APRIL  9.  1974 


1019 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  In  addition  to  doubling 
the  yield  of  the  mining  tax,  I  am  also  pro- 
posing to  double  the  CroNvn  dues  which  the 
province  receives  from  the  cutting  of  timber 
on  Crown  lands.  These  dues  are  the  main 
form  of  revenue  from  Crown  timber.  It  has 
been  many  years  since  they  were  last  in- 
creased. Some  increase  in  revenue  will  also 
result  from  a  reduction  in  the  large  number 
of  different  rating  groups  for  tnese  dues. 
The  combined  addition  to  revenue  is  about 
$12  million  in  a  full  year.  This  will  raise  the 
present  level  of  revenues  from  $12  million 
to  $24  million  in  1974-1975. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  still  won't  pay  for  services 
to  the  mining  companies. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  It  is  customary 
that  the  hon.  Treasiu-er  be  granted  the  cour- 
tesy of  delivering  his  budget  without  interrup- 
tions and  interjections.  I  would  ask  the  hon. 
members  to  please  observe  this  condition. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  not  so. 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  doubling  of  Crown 
dues  is  an  interim  measure,  pending  a  com- 
plete review  of  this  revenue  field.  The  review 
will  be  conducted  by  a  task  force  under  the 
joint  direction  of  the  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources  and  myself.  It  is  our  intention  to 
implement  a  system  which  will  be  more 
responsive  to  changes  in  forest  company 
profits,  revenues  rising  with  increasing  profits 
and  declining  with  decreasing  profits. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  extra  $62  million  which 
will  be  raised  from  the  mining  and  forest 
industries  represents  a  fair  return  to  the 
people    of    Ontario    from    these    natural    re- 


Mr.  Lewis:  That's  shocking. 

Mr  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  That's  abso- 
lutely shocking. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  are  $300  million  short. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Go  to  the  bushi 

Mr.  Lewis:  One  day. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Let  me  now  turn  to  the 
government's  measures  to  share  provincial  re- 
sources with  local  governments.  In  develop- 
ing these  measures,  I  have  had  the  pleasure 
of  extensive  discussions  with  representatives 
of  local  government.  Particularly,  I  had  many 
useful  meetings  with  the  municipal  liaison 
committee   and   its   fiscal   arrangements   sub- 


committee. These  discussions  contributed 
greatly  to  the  government's  revenue-sharing 
arrangements. 

In  1973,  local  governments  were  faced 
with  a  $140-million  financing  deficiency  and 
the  need  to  increase  mill  rates  on  average  by 
eight  per  cent.  Concerned  about  the  prospect 
of  eroding  tax  reform  gains  already  made,  the 
province  increased  its  assistance  dramatically 
to  prevent  increases  in  the  property  tax. 

In  the  1973  budget,  $180  million  in  new 
forms  of  local  support  was  announced.  The 
key  element  in  this  reform  programme  b  the 
property  tax  stabilization  plan.  This  plan  is  a 
balanced  programme  of  different  types  of 
unconditional  grants,  involving  a  degree  of 
equalization,  an  incentive  to  restrain  and 
economize  in  spending,  and  recognition  of 
special  burdens  and  cost  factors. 

In  retrospect,  this  plan  has  proven  to  be 
successful  and  effective.  I  am  very  pleased 
with  the  degree  of  co-operation  from  local 
governments  in  passing  on  the  benefits  of 
these  transfers  to  their  taxpayers.  Property 
taxes  were  in  fact  reduced  during  1973  by 
more  than  five  per  cent  on  average  from  1972 
levels.  As  a  result,  1973  became  the  first  year 
the  provincial  transfers  to  local  governments 
exceed  the  total  revenue  from  property  taxes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  it  will  be  of  interest 
to  the  members  and  others  to  gain  additional 
insight  into  the  distribution  of  funds  under 
this  plan  and  the  impact  it  has  had  on  local 
spending  and  taxes.  I  am  making  available, 
therefore,  in  a  separate  document  on  the 
property  tax  stabilization  programme  a  num- 
ber of  summary  tables  which  display  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  new  grants,  the  local  spending 
growth  rates  and  the  changes  in  property  tax 
rates. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  success  of  the 
expenditure  restraint  introduced  by  the  prov- 
ince in  keeping  municipal  spending  growth 
rates,  on  average,  below  historical  standards 
in  spite  of  the  rate  of  inflation.  This  expendi- 
ture constraint,  combined  with  new  assistance, 
ensured  a  substantial  benefit  to  local  taxpayers 
in  reduced  property  taxes. 

The  grant  reforms  introduced  last  year  were 
based  on  a  comprehensive  analjrsis  of  the 
financial  outlook  for  local  governments.  In 
aggregate,  the  reforms  more  than  covered  the 
anticipated  local  deficit.  For  1974  we  re- 
examined the  financial  outlook  of  the  local 
government  sector  which  will  again  be  sig- 
nificantly underfinanced.  Local  finance  tends 
to  deteriorate  more  rapidly  the  higher  the 
rate    of    inflation    in    the    economy    because 


1020 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


municipalities'  OAvn  revenues  are  not  respon- 
sive to  inflation. 

After  allowing  for  maximum  prudent  bor- 
rowing, the  local  government  sector  is  ex- 
pected to  incur  a  $182  million  financing 
deficiency  in  1974  in  the  absence  of  any  new 
grant  enrichments.  To  meet  this  deficiency, 
local  mill  rates  would  have  to  be  raised,  on 
average,  by  10  per  cent. 

The  implications  of  these  prospects  are  con- 
sidered undesirable  by  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment. We  propose  a  new  revenue-sharing  plan 
which  has  the  merits  of  creating  greater  cer- 
tainty about  future  assistance,  of  protecting 
tax  reforms  akeady  achieved  and  of  stabilizing 
property  taxation  in  the  total  tax  system.  The 
broad  oudines  of  the  Ontario  government 
commitment  were  announced  by  me  at  the 
national  tri-level  conference  held  in  Edmonton 
in  November  1973.  The  three  parts  of  the 
Ontario  government's  revenue-sharing  com- 
mitment are  the  following: 

The  province  will  increase  its  transfers  to 
local  governments  and  agencies  at  the  rate  of 
growth  of  total  provincial  revenue; 

The  province  will  pass  on  to  local  govern- 
ments the  full  benefit  of  any  net  gains  in 
new  unconditional  tax  sharing  by  the  federal 
government;  and 

The  province  will  give  municipalities  access 
to  funds  generated  by  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Employees  Retirement  System  to  permit  better 
use  of  credit  capacity. 

I  am  pleased  to  announce  in  this  budget 
$124  million  in  grant  enrichments.  This 
amount  reduces  the  potential  financing  deficit 
to  $58  million,  or  the  equivalent  of  an  average 
increase  in  property  taxes  of  3.2  per  cent  in- 
stead of  10  per  cent.  This  deficiency  would 
be  fiuther  reduced  by  whatever  new  revenues 
are  realized  from  the  municipal  half  of  the 
land  speculation  tax. 

Unusually  large  increases  in  provincial 
assistance  such  as  the  1973  reforms  cannot  be 
repeated  every  year  because  they  are  quite 
obviously  beyond  the  financial  capacity  of  the 
Ontario  government  itself.  It  is  our  suggestion 
that  the  federal  government  play  its  part  in 
further  alleviating  the  pressures  on  property 
taxes.  As  shown  in  budget  paper  B,  a  modest 
improvement  in  federal  tax  sharing  would 
meet  the  balance  of  anticipated  local  financing 
deficiencies  and,  through  the  province,  further 
reduce  municipal  dependence  on  regressive 
property  taxes. 

The  province's  revenue  growth  rate  of  11.7 
per  cent  is  applied  to  basic  transfers  of 
$2,049  million  in  1973-1974.  As  a  result  the 
government  will  make  basic  transfers  in  the 


1974-1975  fiscal  year  of  $2,288  million,  which 
is  an  increase  of  $239  million.  This  total  in- 
crease includes  $124  milhon  for  new  provin- 
cial transfers,  of  which  $3  million  comes  from 
the  deconditionalization  of  nine  existing 
transfer  programmes.  Land  speculation  tax 
revenues  are  not  included  in  those  amounts. 

The  third  commitment  to  local  government 
announced  at  the  national  tri-level  conference 
was  the  government's  intention  to  provide 
local  government  with  access  to  some  of  the 
funds  generated  by  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Employees'  Retirement  System.  As  5'^ou  know, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  government  has  since  the 
inception  of  OMERS  provided  a  special  in- 
vestment vehicle  which  has  enabled  the 
system  to  develop  a  sound  actuarial  base.  As 
OMERS  matures  there  is  a  general  realization 
that  this  assistance  can  be  phased  out. 

Therefore,  I  propose  that  in  1975  up  to  20 
per  cent  of  OMERS  net  receipts  be  made 
available  to  the  system  for  wider  investment 
opportunities,  with  the  balance  to  be  invested 
in  special  Ontario  debentures.  This  percentage 
will  be  increased  from  year  to  year  as  invest- 
ment experience  is  developed  by  the  OMERS 
organization.  This  proposal  is  in  accordance 
with  the  recommendations  of  the  study  group 
established  by  me  to  review  OMERS'  invest- 
ment policies.  I  expect  that  OMERS  will  take 
full  advantage  of  the  government's  flexible 
position  with  respect  to  the  investment  of 
these  funds  to  achieve  the  primary  objective 
of  further  improving  the  level  of  pension 
benefits  to  the  system's  members  in  future 
years. 

I  also  propose  that  municipal  employee  and 
employee  representation  on  the  OMERS  board 
be  increased  while  the  number  of  Ontario 
public  servants  on  the  board  be  reduced. 

In  transferring  the  $124  million  in  new 
assistance  to  local  governments  we  have  taken 
account  of  several  objectives  and  situations 
concerning  local  government.  We  have  intro- 
duced five  new  regional  governments;  we 
have  recognized  the  realities  of  urban  transit 
problems;  we  have  continued  an  equalizing 
role;  and  we  have  provided  universal  assist- 
ance to  local  government  to  meet  the  1974 
financial  requirements  in  the  face  of  slow- 
growing  local  revenues. 

We  have  designed  a  package  of  enriched 
unconditional  assistance  which  meets  these 
requirements.  The  main  vehicle  for  the  prov- 
ince's larger  transfers  is  the  property  tax 
stabilization  plan  comprising  resource  equal- 
ization grants,  general  and  special  support 
grants  as  well  as  per  capita  grants. 


APRIL  9.  1974 


1Q21 


Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  What 
about  the  unorganized  territories? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  resource  equalization 
grant  was  the  most  important  component  of 
the  1973  property  tax  stabilization  plan.  The 
government  intends  to  increase  this  grant  by 
a  number  of  changes  in  the  formula.  These 
changes  are  summarized  as  follows: 

The  standard  of  equalized  assessment  per 
capita  will  be  raised  to  $10,100,  reflecting  the 
increased  average  per  capita  assessment  in 
Ontario; 

The  grant  rate  will  be  raised  from  50  per 
cent  to  60  per  cent  of  the  relative  deficiency 
below  this  average; 

The  base  of  the  grant  will  be  the  1973  net 
general  dollar  levy,  which  will  be  broadened 
to  include  grant  entidements  under  the  1973 
Property  Tax  Stabilization  Act;  and 

The  maximum  rate  of  this  grant  will  be 
raised  from  20  to  25  per  cent  of  the  1973  net 
general  dollar  levy  as  adjusted  for  last  year's 
grant  entidements  with  further  adjustments 
for  former  recipients  of  mining  revenue  pay- 
ments. 

The  above  enrichments  of  the  resource 
equalization  grant  will  transfer  an  additional 
$15  million  to  resource-deficient  municipalities 
in  the  province,  bringing  the  total  funds  com- 
mitted by  the  province  in  1974  for  resoiux;e 
equalization  to  $71  million. 

In  1974-1975,  the  Ontario  government  will 
enrich  significantiy  the  generaJ.  supiwrt  grant 
This  grant  is  available  to  all  municipalities 
and  it  is  responsive  to  tax  eflFort  as  well  as  to 
local  economies  in  spending  growth.  The 
grant  rate  schedule  has  been  revised  to  take 
into  account  the  predicted  rate  of  inflation 
without  removing  the  incentive  to  restrain 
spending. 

Last  year,  the  lowest  grant  rate  of  two  per 
cent  corresponded  with  a  spending  growth  rate 
of  12  per  cent  or  higher.  This  year,  the  k)west 
grant  has  been  raised  to  three  per  cent  and 
will  correspond  to  a  spending  growth  rate  of 
14  per  cent  or  higher. 

The  schedule  increases  the  grant  rate  by 
one  per  cent  for  every  percentage  reduction 
in  expenditure  growth  below  14  per  cent  so 
the  maximum  grant  rate  of  nine  per  cent  is 
earned  when  the  spending  growth  is  held  to 
eight  per  cent  or  less.  AU  upper  and  lower- 
tier  municipalities  in  new  regional  municipal- 
ities will  receive  a  flat  grant  rate  of  seven 
per  cent  of  their  1974  net  general  dollar  levy. 

The  estimated  increase  in  general  support 
grants  in  1974-1975  is  $33  mfllion,  raising  the 
total  value  of  this  grant  to  $82  miDion. 


The  special  10  per  cent  support  grant  to 
northern  Ontario  municipahties  has  provided 
significant  relief  to  local  governments  and  tax- 
payers in  the  remote  parts  of  the  province 
where  costs  substantially  exceed  those  in  other 
parts  of  the  province.  The  Ontario  govern- 
ment has  decided  to  increase  the  rate  of  this 
tax  support  grant  from  10  to  12  per  cent  of 
the  net  general  dollar  levy.  This  higher  rate 
will  provide  an  increase  in  special  assistance 
to  northern  communities  of  $4  million  in  1974, 
from  $9.9  million  last  year  to  $13.9  million  in 
1974-1975. 

The  per  capita  grants  for  both  regional  and 
other  municipalities  will  be  simplified  and 
increased.  Regional  governments  will  receive 
a  10  per  cent  increase  plus  an  additional  20 
cents  per  capita  to  assume  responsibihty  for 
local  planning.  This  amounts  to  an  increase 
from  $8  to  $9  per  capita,  which  is  12.5  per 
cent.  The  scale  of  payments  for  per  capita 
grants  for  non-regional  municipalities  is  in- 
creased by  a  similar  percentage  together  with 
a  reduction  in  the  number  of  population 
ranges.  Both  types  of  per  capita  grants  will 
be  calculated  on  a  two-year  advance  in  the 
population  base. 

The  grants  made  towards  the  cost  of  polic- 
ing will  also  be  increased  for  1974,  and  will 
be  made  on  the  same  updated  population 
base  as  the  main  per  capita  grant.  The  rate 
of  grant  will  be  increased  from  $3  to  $5  per 
capita  for  non-regional  or  regional  lower-tier 
municipalities  providing  policing  services  and 
from  $5  to  $7  per  capita  for  regional  munic- 
ipalities with  regional  police  services.  The 
additional  cost  of  these  enrichments  will 
amount  to  $17  million  to  a  1974-1975  total  of 
$42  million. 

Having  recognized  si>ecial  problems  in  the 
large  areas,  the  Ontario  government  proposed 
to  recognize  unusual  situations  which  have 
arisen  in  rural  areas.  In  recent  years,  spending 
restraints  of  the  province  have  increasingly 
resulted  in  mimicipal  spending  on  roads  with- 
out the  benefit  of  financial  assistance  towards 
part  of  this  activity.  This  has  become  a  par- 
ticular concern  in  those  small  municipalities 
which  cannot  realistically  ease  their  road 
spending  requirements  by  public  transit  solu- 
tions. To  meet  this  pressing  problem,  the 
province  will  allocate  a  special  $17  million  to 
assist  the  smaller  municipalities  in  rural  areas 
in  financing  their  needs  for  roads. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  It  is 
good  to  see  members  opposite  come  to  life. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Does  that  include  Highway 
10? 


1022 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  brings  the  province's 
total  road  building  and  maintenance  grants  to 
$229  million  in  1974-1975  from  $199  million 
in  1973-1974. 

Lastly,  we  intend  to  improve  the  arrange- 
ments by  which  the  province  subsidizes  public 
libraries  and  museums.  A  total  of  $16.5  mil- 
lion will  be  set  aside  for  these  purposes  com- 
pared to  total  grants  of  $13.5  million  last  year. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it  might  be  of  assist- 
ance to  the  members  if  I  summarized  at  this 
point  the  increases  in  provincial  grants  to 
local  government.  The  province  expects  to 
increase  its  total  direct  transfers  to  local  gov- 
ernments by  $239  million— $124  million  in 
new  grants  and  $115  million  in  increases  to 
existing  transfer  programmes.  The  Ontario 
government  is  channelling  most  of  the  new 
resources  into  unconditional  grants.  These 
measures  provide  for  substantial  sharing  of 
our  limited  resources  with  local  governments. 

I  am  introducing  a  new  list  of  grants  in 
appendix  B  to  be  considered  for  decondition- 
alization  in  1975.  This  list  is  based  on  recom- 
mendations from  municipal  oflScials  and 
further  progress  is  to  be  expected  in  the  1975 
budget. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  government's  financial 
plan  for  1974-1975  aims  at: 

A  neutral  economic  impact  with  spending 
growth  of  14.2  per  cent; 

A  balance  in  tax  increases  and  tax  cuts; 

Stable  net  cash  deficits  as  this  term  is  de- 
fined; and 

A  substantial  reduction  in  the  public  debt 
resulting  from  cash  receipts  in  excess  of  cash 
disbursements  and  from  decreases  in  our 
liquid  reserves. 

Budgetary  expenditures  are  forecast  to  in- 
crease by  14.2  per  cent  in  1974-1975.  This  is 
a  higher  rate  of  increase  than  in  1973-1974 
but  it  is  below  the  average  of  the  last  five 
years  in  spite  of  inflation.  This  inflation  has 
raised  the  costs  of  existing  programmes  and 
has  also  necessitated  increased  provincial 
transfers.  Following  the  procedure  adopted 
last  year,  the  estimates  are  again  being  tabled 
separately  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Manage- 
ment Board  on  the  basis  of  policy  fields  and 
the  responsible  ministers  will  provide  a  de- 
tailed description  of  expenditure  plans  when 
the  estimates  are  debated. 

The  province's  14.2  per  cent  expenditure 
growth  compares  favourably  with  other  prov- 
inces and  the  federal  government.  Once  again, 
the  increase  in  expenditure  closely  matches 
the  rate  of  growth  in  the  provincial  economy. 
Consequently,  during  the  past  three  years  the 


government's  share  of  total  output  has  not 
increased.  In  contrast,  federal  spending  in- 
creased by  24  per  cent  in  1973-1974  and  a 
further  increase  of  about  18  per  cent  is 
expected  in  1974-1975. 

I  estimate  that  the  tax  changes  proposed  in 
this  budget  will  have  little  net  impact  on 
revenues.  In  1974-1975  I  am  forecasting 
budgetary  revenues  to  grow  at  12.1  per  cent 
including  the  revenues  from  the  land  specula- 
tion tax. 

The  net  cash  deficit,  so-called,  is  estimated 
at  $708  million  in  1974-1975,  which  is  lower 
than  last  year.  The  budgetary  deficit  will 
increase  from  $421  million  in  1973-1974  to 
$625  million  in  1974-1975,  while  the  non- 
budgetary  deficit  wiU  decrease  from  $300  mil- 
lion in  1973-1974  to  $83  million  in  1974-1975. 
The  province's  net  cash  requirements  wiU 
amount  to  about  1.3  per  cent  of  gross  pro- 
vincial product  in  1974-1975,  the  lowest  in 
five  years.  Throughout  the  past  decade  net 
debt  as  a  percentage  of  GPP  has  remained 
well  below  the  nine  per  cent  guideline  recom- 
mended by  the  Ontario  committee  on  taxation. 
In  addition,  it  would  now  require  less  than 
six  months'  revenue  to  pay  oflF  a  net  debt, 
compared  with  nine  months*  revenue  a  decade 
ago.  In  other  words,  sir- 
Mr.  Sargent:  Anybody  can  do  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —after  a  decade  of  finan- 
cing rapid  growth  and  expansion  in  essential 
public  services  and  financial  aid  to  municipal- 
ities the  financial  integrity  of  the  province  is 
as  sound  as  ever. 

Mr.  Roy:  Who  said? 

Mr.  J.  E.  BuIIbrook  (Samia):  It  shows  that 
inflation  is  up  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  I 
became  Treasurer  of  Ontario  some  15  months 
ago  I  set  myself  the  objective  of  reducing 
outstanding  public  debt.  I  am  pleased  to  re- 
port that  I  accomplished  a  reduction  in  the 
outstanding  public  debt  of  $225  mfllion  in 
1973-1974. 

To  assure  the  maintenance  of  the  province's 
high  credit  standing,  our  debt  reduction  pro- 
gramme will  be  accelerated.  In  1974-1975  I 
am  planning  to  retire  $99  million  of  maturing 
public  debt. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  This  is  a  shell  game. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  In  addition,  I  intend  to 
begin  a  special  debt  reduction  programme 
with  a  potential  target  value  this  year  of 
$350  million,  thereby  providing  a  total  target 


APRIL  9.  1974 


1023 


for  debt  reduction  of  $449  million.  This  pro- 
gramme will  be  designed  and  conducted  to 
minimize  any  disturbance  of  the  market  for 
our  bonds. 

Mr.  NfacDonald:  He  is  outdoing  Whacky 
Bennett. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  Whacky  Bennett's 
budget. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  It  will  relieve  pressure  on 
Canadian  capital  maricets  and  provide  borrow- 
ing capacity  for  Ontario  Hydro,  private  sector 
and  local  government  financing. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  Well,  it  still  can't  save  the 
Tories. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  last  page  was  truly 
amazing. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  de- 
scribed a  bold  attack  to  meet  the  challenge  of 
inflation.  When  the  federal  government  joins 
Ontario  with  equally  positive  actions  we  can 
anticipate  success  in  the  battle  against  in- 
flation. 

Mr.  Roy:  Did  Bob  Stanfield  write  that? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  To  recapitulate,  this 
budget  guarantees  an  annual  income  for  those 
most  in  need;  secures  a  fair  return  to  the 
community  from  our  natural  resources;  re- 
duces the  tax  burden  on  the  consumer; 
discourages  speciJation  in  land  and  real 
estate;  encourages  Canadian  ownership  of 
Ontario  land  and  buildings;  provides  for  a 
fairer  distribution  of  the  tax  burden;  shares 
provincial  revenues  generously  with  local  gov- 
ernments; strengthens  the  province's  financial 
planning;  and,  sir,  it  introduces  even  greater 
equity  in  the  progressive  Province  of  Ontario. 

The  measiu-es  proposed  in  the  1974  budget 
befit  a  strong  and  compassionate  province.  I 
am  confident,  sir,  that  with  these  initiatives 
Ontario  will  remain  in  the  forefront  among 
progressive  and  dynamic  jurisdictions  any- 
where in  the  world. 

Thank  you. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  in  at  least  one  respect 
it  is  better  than  last  year. 

Mr.  Roy:  Last  year  you  weren't— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  are  dumb- 
founded over  there— still  breathLig,  but  dumb- 
founded. 

Mr.  Breithaupt  moves  the  adjournment  of 
the  debate. 


Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (Yoric  North):  Not  much 
more  to  say,  is  there? 

An  hon.  member:  Not  much  the  member 
can  say. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well  at  least  his  friends 
in  the  gallery  know  why  the  member  is  over 
there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  the  House  revert  to 
the  introduction  of  bills. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


LAND  SPECULATION  TAX  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  to  impose  a  Tax  on  Specula- 
tive Profits  Resulting  from  the  Disposition  of 
Land. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Every  pennv  of  profit  up  until 
today  is  just  untouched  dv  this  bill.  You 
know,  2%  years  of  speculation  since  the 
Premier  was  elected  and  it  isn't  touched. 
They  are  laughing  all  the  way  to  the  bank. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Why  does  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  look  so  sad? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  members  opposite 
were  smiling  last  year  after  the  budget  but 
were  crawling  around  by  the  end  of  the  week. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills,  as  soon 
as  we  have  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  NDP  leader  is 
scraping  the  bottom  of  the  barrel. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  one  scrapes  where  one 
scrapes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  hell  vote  for  this 
one,  too. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martcl  (Sudbury  East):  Will 
the  Premier  accept  amendments? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Try  it. 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue); 
Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  will  implement  the 
budget  proposals  for  a  land  speculation  tax. 
It  is  a  complex  tax  bill  and  as  mentioned  by 
the  Treasurer  in  his  budget  statement,  we  en- 
visage a  series  of  amendments  and  refinements 
will  be  required  as  we  gain  experience  with 
it. 


1024 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


LAND  TRANSFER  TAX  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  the  Land  Transfer  Tax  Act,  1974. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  re- 
places the  existing  Land  Transfer  Tax  Act  and 
will  implement  the  budget  proposals  for  a  20 
per  cent  tax  on  non-residents  acquiring  land. 
It  also  includes  provisions  required  for  the 
administration  of  this  new  tax. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  will  be  passed  on  to  the 
consumer. 


RETAIL  SALES  TAX  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Now,  this  isn't  bad.  This  has 
redeeming  features  to  it. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  The 
member  can  start  using  soap  now! 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  isn't  bad  either. 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  con- 
tains the  amendments  to  the  Retail  Sales  Tax 
Act  required  to  implement  the  budget  pro- 
posals related  to  sales  tax.  It  also  contains 
several  minor  amendmens  not  directly  related 
to  the  budget,  but  which  will  be  conveniently 
made  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  all?  Where  is  the  bill  on 
the  mining  revenues?  Why  do  the  mines  get 
off  and  the  people  don't? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  House,  I  would 
like  to  inform  the  members  that  on  Thursday 
next  we  will  deal  with  the  last  Act  as  intro- 
duced by  the  Minister  of  Revenue,  An  Act  to 
amend  the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Act.  It  will  be 
printed  and  will  be  in  the  books  ready  for 
Thursday  morning.  Should  we  conclude  that 
piece  of  business,  we  will  deal  with  the  esti- 
mates of  the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services 
to  complete  the  day,  and  the  House  will 
adjourn  at  6  o'clock  on  Thursday. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  5:05  o'clock,  p.m. 


APRIL  9,  1974  1025 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  April  9,  1974 

Solandt  Commission  report,  statement  by  Mr.  Grossman  987 

Solandt  Commission  report,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Good     .  987 

Private  sector  involvement  in  nuclear  power  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman: 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Sargent  988 

Health  planning  task  force  report,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Stokes, 

Mr.  Roy,  Mr.  Cassidy  988 

OHC  advertising,  question  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  990 

Etobicoke  housing  subdivision,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F. 

Nixon 990 

Lake  Erie  public  beaches,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Haggerty  991 

Coincidental  timing  of  Hydro  projects,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F. 

Nixon,  Mr.  Cassidy  992 

Corporation  income  tax  paid  by  oil  companies  to  province,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen: 

Mr.  Lewis  993 

Deep  well  pollution,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  995 

Environmental  impact  of  public  works,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr. 

Cassidy,  Mr.  Singer  995 

Crop  insurance,  question  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Wiseman  997 

Housing  programmes,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Foulds,  Mr,  Spence  997 

Fire  insurance  for  rooming  houses,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Cassidy  997 

Farmers'    concerns   over  locaHon  of  nuclear  plant,   questions  of   Mr.   Stewart:    Mr. 

Riddell,  Mr.  Lewis  998 

Lake  Superior  outflows,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Foulds  998 

Land  titles  oflDce,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Singer 999 

Presenting  report,  standing  public  accounts  committee,  Mr.  Reid  999 

Motion  re   estimates  referred   to  standing   administration  of  justice  committee,   Mr. 

Winkler,  motion  agreed  to  1000 

Farm  Products  Grades  and  Sales  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Stewart,  second  reading 1000 

Third  reading.  Bill  20  1005 

Agricultural  Societies  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Stewart,  second  reading  1005 

Budget  address,  Mr.  White  1010 

Land  Speculation  Tax  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Meen,  first  reading  1023 

Land  Transfer  Tax  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Meen,  first  reading  1024 

Retail  Sales  Tax  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Meen,  first  reading  1024 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  1024 


No.  24 


Ontario 


Hegisilaturc  of  d^ntario 


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


Thursday,  April  11, 1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARUAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


1029 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

FEDERAL  COMPETITION  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  am  tabling  a  letter  and  a  report  to  the 
federal  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Corporate 
Affairs,  the  Hon.  Herb  Gray. 

This  material  expresses  this  government's 
concern  with  respect  to  Bill  C-7,  An  Act  to 
amend  the  Combines  Investigation  Act.  I 
would  certainly  wish  that  both  this  material 
and  my  comments  this  afternoon  will  be 
viewed  as  presented,  in  a  spirit  of  co-opera- 
tion aimed  at  helping  shape  economic  policies 
which,  of  course,  transcend  federal  and  pro- 
vincial jurisdictions. 

The  federal  government's  competition  policy 
was  first  introduced  in  June,  1971,  as  Bill 
C-256,  the  Competition  Act.  In  February, 
1973,  the  Ontario  government  published  its 
views  on  that  initial  legislative  attempt.  The 
present  bill.  Bill  C-7,  is  the  first  part  of  the 
federal  government's  two-stage  legislative  ini- 
tiative designed  to  implement  its  revised 
competition  pohcy. 

From  the  information  made  public  by  the 
Hon.  Herb  Gray,  it  is  our  understanding  that 
this  second  stage  will  contain  the  main  thrust 
of  the  federal  government's  competition  policy. 
Therefore,  before  I  outline  our  concerns  about 
this  first  stage,  Bill  C-7,  may  I  reiterate  some 
of  the  views  made  in  our  earlier  report? 

First,  we  would  appreciate  a  clear  indica- 
tion that  the  federal  government  has  formu- 
lated its  competition  policy  within  the  context 
of  a  comprehensive  national  industrial  policy. 
Little  explanation  has  been  discernible  as  to 
how  this  proposed  competition  policy  will  co- 
incide with  the  federal  governments  policies 
on  taxation,  tarifi^s,  foreign  investment  and 
regional  development,  to  name  a  few. 

Second,  we  are  concerned  that  the  second 
stage  legislation  may  contain  provisions  poten- 
tially so  restrictive  as  to  prevent  the  desirable 
long-term  restructuring  of  the  Canadian  econ- 


Thursday,  April  II,  1974 

omy.  There  is  a  need  to  give  more  priority  to 
the  benefits  which  can  be  achieved  through 
industrial  rationalization,  such  as  its  efi^ects  on 
employment  and  Canada's  ability  to  compete 
in  international  markets. 

And  third,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Restrictive 
Trade  Practices  Commission  should  not  be 
given  the  authority  to  determine  Canada's 
industrial  strategy. 

The  combination  in  the  Restrictive  Trade 
Practices  Commission  of  both  a  pohcy-making 
function  and  a  poHcy-implementation  function 
would  result  in  that  body  being  vested  with 
almost  unrestricted  discretion.  When  stage  II 
is  introduced,  the  federal  government  should 
ensure  that  the  objectives  oi  the  government's 
policy  are  presented  in  clear  legislative  state- 
ments, and  that  there  be  timely  and  mean- 
ingful consultation  with  both  the  private  and 
public  sectors. 

Let  me  now  turn  to  Bill  C-7,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  first  stage  of  this  two-stage  legislative 
process. 

This  government  is  in  basic  agreement  with 
many  of  the  aims  of  stage  I.  We  are  pleased 
to  see  additional  federal  efforts  to  protect  the 
consumer,  and  we  agree  that  the  services 
industries  should,  in  general,  be  brought  with- 
in the  scope  of  anti-combines  legislation. 

At  the  same  time  Ontario  does  have  a 
number  of  reservations  about  this  current 
federal  legislation.  They  fall  into  three  broad 
areas. 

First,  there  are  the  problems  raised  by 
overlaps  in  federal  and  provincial  jurisdiction. 
There  are  a  number  of  cases  where  specific 
practices  and  industries  may  be  subject  to 
provincial  laws  which  overlap  or  conflict  with 
the  provisions  of  Bill  C-7.  For  example,  the 
province  currently  regulates  a  number  of  pro- 
fessions as  well  as  a  number  of  specific  indus- 
tries, such  as  loan  and  trust  corporations  and 
the  securities  industry.  Similarly,  areas  such 
as  telecommunications  and  transportation 
which  are  at  least  partly  regulated  by  the 
federal  government  may  also  be  subject  to 
competition  legislation.  These  overlaps  create 
confusion  and  uncertainty  and  are  detrimental 
to  the  conduct  of  business. 

Second,  there  are  problems  arising  out  of 
the    enlarged    scope    and    authority    to    be 


1030 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


granted  to  the  Restrictive  Trade  Practices 
Commission.  While  we  agree  that  an  ad- 
ministrative body  is  an  appropriate  forum 
for  resolving  some  judicial  issues,  we  think, 
however,  that  Bill  C-7  should  include 
specific  rights  of  appeal  on  decisions  of  the 
commission  to  a  superior  provincial  court 
with  a  tradition  of  experience  with  criminal 
matters.  We  are  also  concerned  about  the 
appropriateness  of  granting  a  subordinate 
agency  the  power  to  determine  industrial 
organization  and  structure  and  to  make 
policy  which  it  will  then  implement. 

Our  third  point  is  that  there  are  economic 
and  legal  problems  arising  out  of  am- 
biguities and  uncertainties  in  Bill  C-7.  On- 
tario thinks  that  certain  portions  of  Bill  C-7 
are  unclear  and  will  make  business  planning 
difficult.  To  some  extent,  this  problem  can 
be  dealt  with  by  redrafting  portions  of  the 
statute,  expediting  passage  of  regulations, 
and  by  issuing  rulings  and  policy  guidelines. 
Our  report  placed  before  members  today 
provides  specific  examples  of  our  concerns. 

It  is  obvious  that  any  federal  competition 
legislation  v^dll  have  a  major  impact  on  the 
provinces.  Not  only  are  their  economies 
directly  affected,  but  new  federal  competi- 
tion law  will  also  in  many  instances  neces- 
sitate changes  and  additions  to  provincial 
statutes.  In  view  of  these  intergovern- 
mental implications,  it  seems  appropriate  the 
provinces  should  continue  to  play  a  major 
role  in  the  evolution  and  the  continuing  im- 
plementations of  national  competition  policy. 

Beyond  those  three  broad  areas  of  pro- 
vincial concern,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
add  the  hope  we  have  that  the  bill's  objec- 
tives for  consumers  and  distributors  might  be 
clarified.  For  example,  the  possibility  that  a 
manufacturer  might  be  required  to  supply  all 
distributors  so  requesting,  could  militate 
against  the  responsible,  often  small  retailer, 
who  emphasizes  full-line  service  and  main- 
tenance and  who  gives  priority  to  Canadian 
goods. 

On  a  number  of  occasions,  and  again  today, 
Ontario  has  stressed  the  importance  of  pro- 
vincial participation  in  the  development  of 
economic  policies  which  transcend  both 
federal  and  provincial  jurisdictions.  Competi- 
tion policy  is  clearly  one  of  these  areas.  It  is, 
therefore,  in  the  spirit  of  co-operation  that  our 
views  are  put  forward  in  this  House  this 
afternoon. 


STUDY  ON  FOOD  COMPANY 
PROFITABILITY 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minster  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker, 
there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  concern  wdth 
regard  to  increasing  food  prices  and  questions 
have  been  raised  about  the  increased  profits 
of  food  companies.  In  addition,  there  appears 
to  be  a  great  deal  of  confusion  as  to  exactly 
who  or  what  is  causing  the  prices  to  rise.  In 
response  to  these  inquiries  my  ministry  has 
been  trying  to  get  at  the  facts.  We  are  pre- 
paring a  two-part  study  on  the  profitability 
of  the  food  industry  to  try  and  establish  once 
and  for  all  the  accurate  situation. 

I  would  like  to  place  before  the  Legis- 
lature today  part  one  of  an  analysis  of  profit- 
ability for  16  companies  in  the  food  industry 
which  has  been  prepared  for  the  ministry. 
This  document,  together  with  the  supporting 
statistical  data,  covers  the  period  from  1967 
to  1972.  Part  two  of  this  report  will  be  made 
public  in  late  June  or  early  July,  which  vidll 
review  and  analyse  1973  financial  results  just 
now  becoming  available. 

The  purpose  of  the  overall  study,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  to  determine  the  extent  to  which 
food  company  profits  contribute  to  rising  food 
prices.  We  are  all  aware  of  last  year's  rapid 
increases  in  food  prices.  Food  company  profits 
also  increased  along  with  the  prices,  making 
necessary  an  independent  study  of  the  re- 
lationship between  prices  and  profit.  I  believe 
the  provincial  government  has  a  natural  role 
to  play  in  providing  such  a  study. 

The  method  we  are  pursuing  has  three  im- 
portant steps.  First,  we  are  attempting  to 
separate  the  profits  of  food  operations  from 
those  resulting  from  acquisitions,  real  estate 
transactions,  or  changes  in  federal  taxes.  If 
our  objective  is  to  trace  the  relationship  be- 
tween food  prices  and  profits,  food  profits 
should  first  be  isolated. 

The  second  step  is  to  assess  profitability  in 
the  base  period  of  1967  and  1972,  when 
prices  and  profits  were  relatively  stable,  and 
compare  these  results  with  the  profitability 
of  the  same  companies  in  1973,  when  profits 
and  prices  increased  sharply. 

Our  third  step  will  be  to  compare  the 
profit  trends  of  the  food  industry  with  those 
of  other  industries  having  similar  capital 
structure,  size  and  business  risk. 

By  employing  this  approach,  Mr.  Speaker, 
we  intend  to  avoid  the  errors  made  by  many 
others  who  have  offered  their  quick  and  ill 
considered  analysis  of  the  situation.  We  will 
not  be  comparing  increases  over  a  short  time 


APRIL  11,  1974 


1031 


period  in  order  to  have  dramatic  appeal;  nor 
will  we  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  all  in- 
creases are  excessive,  particularly  if  the  figures 
indicate  a  return  to  previous  acceptable  levels 
of  earnings  rather  than  the  achievement  of 
new  levels  of  profitability.  We  will  also  sep- 
arate out  as  much  as  possible  the  impact  of 
short-term  tax  changes  and  non-food  profits 
to  provide  a  proper  basis  for  judging  the  re- 
lationship between  food  company  profits  and 
price  increases. 

Our  studies  will  not  attempt,  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  provide  a  final  answer  to  whether  or  not 
food  company  profits  are  excessive.  Certainly 
the  comparison  of  food  industry  rates  of  re- 
turn with  those  of  other  similar  industries  will 
be  most  helpful  in  determining  the  acceptabil- 
ity of  food  industry  profits.  However,  the  final 
determination  on  what  is  excessive  must  be 
made  by  the  public— and  that  is  how  it  should 
be. 

An  interplay  between  social  and  economic 
forces  must  decide  the  definition  of  excessive 
profits.  The  entry  of  new  firms  into  an  in- 
dustry in  which  profits  appear  to  be  out  of 
keeping  with  risk  will  occur  naturally  and 
tend  both  to  define  and  to  off^set  excessive 
profit  situations. 

Investor  expectations,  corporate  require- 
ments for  expansion  and  modernization,  the 
cost  of  money  and  public  confidence  in  busi- 
ness axe  further  components  in  the  final 
determination. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  ( Wentworth ) :  He  sounds  like 
an  apologist  even  before  he  begins. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  One  of  the  purposes  of 
this  study  is  to  initiate  an  informed  dialogue 
with  the  public  and  industry,  leading  to  a 
fuller  understanding  of  why  profits  are  needed, 
how  they  occur  and  what  level  of  profitability 
is  considered  acceptable  by  consumers,  in- 
vestors and  company  management.  Perhaps  it 
will  be  possible  to  come  to  a  consensus  for  the 
industry's  rate  of  returns,  taking  into  account 
all  these  viewpoints. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  also  like  to  point  out 
.  a  number  of  diflficulties  turned  up  by  this 
I        study. 

The  most  important  difficulty  has  been  the 
inadequacy  of  some  of  the  financial  data  pub- 
lished by  many  food  companies.  It  seems  to 
f  me  that  annual  reports  are  written  with  too 
much  emphasis  on  management  accomplish- 
ments and  too  little  accent  on  informing  the 
public.  Disclosure  requirements  are  being  met, 
but  in  an  effort  to  please  shareholders  or 
frustrate  the  competition,  valuable  information 


is  not  being  given— information  vital  to  the 
consumer. 

Companies  should  be  showing  us  in  more 
detail  where  their  profits  are  coming  from, 
why  they  are  needed  and  where  they  are 
going. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Is  the 
minister  going  to  amend  the  Busine&s  Cor- 
porations Act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Most  "source  and  ap- 
plication" statements  are  insufficient  to  assure 
the  consumer  as  to  corporate  responsibility; 
nor  is  this  the  best  medium  to  use  for  com- 
municating to  the  public.  Some  companies 
even  refuse  to  send  copies  of  their  annual 
report  to  non-shareholders. 

Communicating  with  their  consumers  should 
be  a  major  objective  of  every  company,  espe- 
cially where  there  is  much  widespread  con- 
cern about  rising  prices.  In  the  ca.se  of  the 
food  industry,  the  legitimate  concern  con- 
sumers have  for  what  is  happening  to  the 
extra  money  they  are  forced  to  pay  for  food 
has  become  an  important  social  issue. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  intend  in  the  very  near 
future  to  write  to  the  major  companies  in  the 
food  industry  to  suggest  that  greater  co- 
operation be  shown  to  the  consumer  seeking 
information,  and  that  greater  efi^ort  be  given 
to  explaining  the  facts  about  the  profitability 
of  their  companies. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  ( Windsor  West ) :  Legis- 
late it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Part  one  of  this  study 
which  I  am  tabling  today  for  the  benefit  of 
all  members  is,  I  think,  a  sound  begiiming  to 
a  clear  and  complete  analysis  of  the  profitabil- 
ity of  one  of  our  most  important  industries. 
I  ask  the  members  of  this  Legislature,  the 
public  and  the  companies  to  give  this  report 
a  dispassionate  reading  and  then  to  write  to 
me  with  comments  and  suggestions  to  direct 
our  further  investigations  and  to  contribute 
to  the  conclusions.  Because  we  intend  to  com- 
plete this  study  by  July,  I  hope  to  receive 
these  comments  before  the  end  of  May. 

Mr.  Speaker,  a  copy  of  this  study  has  been 
sent  to  the  federal  Food  Prices  Review  Board 
which  is  doing  a  similar  study  of  the  food 
industry.  One  of  the  cjuestions  that  will 
naturally  arise  is  the  position  of  our  govern- 
ment and  the  federal  govenament  should  this 
analysis  and  subsequent  public  consensus  indi- 
cate that  some  excessive  profits  are  being 
made.  At  this  stage,  with  many  facts  outstand- 
ing and  many  questions  unanswered,  particu- 
larly the  question  of  how  and  where  profits 


1032 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


are  being  made,  no  conclusion  or  statement 
of    position    is    possible.    We    must    first   see 
where  this  study  leads  us  and  then  judge  the 
public's  reaction  to  it. 
Thank  you. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Is  the 
minister  tabling  a  study  without  any  con- 
clusions? Is  that  it? 


PHASING  OUT  OF  JUVENILE 
TRAINING  SCHOOL 

Hon.  R.  T.  Potter  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Services ) :  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon.  members  will 
recall  that  two  years  ago  the  ministry  initiated 
a  group  home  programme.  These  group  homes 
offer  a  homelike  atmosphere  for  those  young 
people  in  our  care  who,  in  our  consideration, 
do  not  require  institutionalized  care  but  who 
are  unable  to  cope  with  the  more  intense 
relationships  involved  in  the  normal  single- 
child  foster  home. 

The  development  of  the  programme  in  the 
past  two  years  has  served  to  illustrate  that 
many  voung  people,  after  a  short  assessment 
period,  can  function  well  in  the  community 
when  given  care  and  supervision. 

A  vear  ago,  due  to  the  success  of  this 
policy,  we  were  able  to  discontinue  the  use 
of  Elmcrest  Training  School.  Since  that  time 
the  group  home  programme  has  continued  to 
develop  and  as  a  result  the  ministry  is  now 
in  the  position  where  it  can  discontinue  the 
use  of  a  second  training  school.  Moreover,  I 
venture  to  say  that  providing  present  patterns 
of  commitment  to  training  schools  continue 
we  will  be  in  a  position,  18  months  from  now, 
to  close  a  third  training  school. 

The  phasing-out  of  another  training  school 
is,  of  course,  in  keeping  with  the  ministry's 
polic}',  with  adults  as  well  as  with  juveniles, 
of  caring  for  and  supervising  those  placed  in 
its  care  in  the  community  wherever  possible 
rather  than  in  a  training  school  or  in  a  cor- 
rectional centre. 

The  decision  as  to  which  school  to  phase 
out  was  not  an  easy  one,  but  after  most 
careful  deliberation  by  the  ministry's  task 
force  charged  with  examining  the  alternatives, 
the  decision  has  been  made  to  close  Glen- 
dale  school  in  Simcoe  as  a  training  school  and 
to  operate  it  as  an  adult  training  centre.  The 
programme  which  will  be  developed  there  will 
be  very  similar  to  that  of  the  Brampton  Adult 
Training  Centre  and  will  cater  to  young  adults 
who  are  first  offenders  and  who,  without  this 
new  alternative  being  available  would  nor- 
mally be  housed  in  the  Guelph  Correctional 
Centre. 


Few  alterations  need  to  be  made  to  equip 
Glendale  school  for  this  purpose,  and  it  is 
anticipated  that  most  of  the  staff  now  em- 
ployed at  Glendale  will  choose  to  become 
involved  in  the  new  programme  for  young 
adults.  Staff  who  do  not  wish  to  work  with 
the  older  age  groups  will  be  offered  employ- 
ment opportunities  in  other  training  schools. 

CONTAINERS  FOR  FARM  PRODUCE 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  you  will  recall 
that  when  objections  were  raised  last  fall  to 
the  requirements  that  new  containers  must  be 
used  by  producers  to  market  certain  veg- 
etables, I  undertook  to  review  the  regulation 
with  the  Ontario  Fruit  and  Vegetable  Grow- 
ers Association.  When  the  Act  was  first  intro- 
duced in  1937,  it  consolidated  several  existing 
Acts.  Subsequent  amendments  to  the  Act  and 
the  regulations  under  the  Act  have  attempted 
to  keep  pace  with  both  the  sophisticated  de- 
mands of  the  consumer  and  the  changing 
marketing  attitudes  of  our  fruit  and  vegetable 
producers. 

In  the  last  10  years  Ontario's  fruit  and 
vegetable  industry  has  upgraded  the  quality 
of  its  packaging.  This  trend  has  been  accentu- 
ated by  the  influence  of  United  States  pack- 
aging in  the  industry  itself.  This  trend  will 
undoubtedly  continue  in  the  North  American 
market. 

Uniformity  of  packaging  characterizes  the 
milk  industry  and  many  other  food  products; 
returnable  plastic  milk  containers  commer- 
cially used  for  milk  are  not  also  used  for  some 
other  purpose.  This  practice  itself  protects 
consumers  from  undue  contamination  and 
provides  them  with  a  greater  assurance  of  a 
wholesome  product.  The  fact  that  containers 
used  for  fruits  and  vegetables  are  essentially 
of  multi-purpyose  design,  warrants  a  particular 
effort  to  ensure  that  fniits  and  vegetables  are 
packed  in  clean,  sound  containers. 

We  propose  to  revoke  clause  (h)  of  section 
3  of  regulation  293  of  the  Revised  Regulations 
of  Ontario,  1970,  and  the  following  is  substi- 
tuted: 

3.  No  person  shall  pack,  transport,  ship, 
advertise,  sell  or  offer  for  sale  any  produce— 
and  this  is  under  subsection  (h)  — 

(h)  in  a  package  that  is  damaged,  stained, 
soiled,  warped  or  otherwise  deteriorated  so 
as  materially  to  effect  the  soundness,  appear- 
ance or  wholesomenes  of  the  produce  packed 
therein. 

This  regulation  is  a  revision  based  on  both 
the  present  federal  regulations  and  our  own 


APRIL  11.  1974 


1033 


regulation  on  the  packaging  of  farm  products, 
adding  the  new  requirement  of  wholesome- 
ness. 

The  regulations  which  require  the  grower 
to  place  his  name  plainly  on  a  container  which 
is  being  used  for  the  purpose  of  selling 
produce,  and  which  prohibit  use  of  a  container 
bearing  another  producer's  name,  remain  in 
force  and  will  be  more  vigorously  enforced. 

In  light  of  the  above  amendments,  subsec- 
tion (4)  of  section  27  of  regulation  293, 
which  requires  new  containers  only  to  be  used 
for  cabbage,  cauliflower,  celery  and  head 
lettuce,  is  revoked.  This  will  permit  the  use 
of  used  containers  for  cabbage,  cauliflower, 
celer)-  and  head  lettuce  as  long  as  the  con- 
tainers are  not  altered  so  as  to  aff^ect  the 
soundness,  appearance  or  wholesomeness  of 
the  produce. 

The  amendment  will  become  law  on  Tues- 
day, April  16,  1974. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


STUDY  ON  FOOD  COMPANY 
PROFITABILITY 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion ) :  A  question  of  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  relative  to  his  state- 
ment: Is  it  his  intention  to  replace  legislative 
action  at  this  session  with  the  further  study 
that  he  has  announced  today,  even  though  the 
first  part  dealing  with  pricing  matters  up  until 
1972  is  tabled;  particularly  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  food  costs  are  going  up,  according  to 
Statistics  Canada,  at  the  rate  of  one  per  cent 
a  month;  and  that  vegetable  costs,  it  was 
particularly  announced  this  morning,  are  go- 
ing to  increase  in  cost  by  10  to  20  per  cent, 
even  though  the  farmers  concerned  will  only 
get  an  extra  cent  and  a  half,  for  example  for 
the  peas  that  go  into  the  can,  while  their 
costs  are  going  to  increase  by  20  per  cent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
not  my  intention  to  substitute  the  one  for  the 
other. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Since 
the  minister  has  expressed  explicit  concern 
for  the  reports  from  the  corporations,  why 
would  he  not  give  an  indication  that  he  is 
going  to  amend  the  business  corporations 
statute  requiring  specific  information  that  ob- 
viously he  feels  should  be  a  part  of  the 
background  in  order  for  his  ministry  to  make 
decisions  and  new  regulations? 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  knows,  there  arc 
mandatory  disclosure  requirements,  mainly  of 
a  financial  nature,  that  are  already  part  of 
the  Business  Corporations  Act  and  the  secur- 
ities legislation. 

Mr.  Singer:  Right-but  the  minister  is  not 
satisfied  with  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  The  things  I  would  like 
to  see  amplified  are  such  matters  as  increased 
explanations,  and  policies  of  the  company 
being  made  available  in  those  same  financial 
statements.  It  is  something  to  consider,  but 
it  might  well  be  out  of  the  purview  of  the 
ministry  insofar  as  compelling  the  amplifica- 
tion of  all  those  matters  that  don't  relate 
primarily  to  financial  structures  pertaining  to 
the  company  and  its  operations. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  I  am  working  from  memory, 
fcut  as  I  understood  the  minister's  statement, 
he  indicated  that  despite  the  study  on  aU  the 
material  that  was  available,  for  a  five-year 
period  of  1967  to  1972  inclusive,  no  conclu- 
sions could  be  drawn.  Is  that  what  he  said? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  Mr.  Speaker.  There 
are  certain  things  pointed  out  by  the  study 
and,  upon  reading  the  study,  members  will 
see  certain  apparent  conclusions  that  are 
arrived  at  by  the  people  who  prepared  the 
study.  We  are  only  able  to  go  to  1972  be- 
cause a  number  of  the  1973  statements  are 
not  yet  available;  hence  my  having  to  do  it 
in  the  two-stage  process  so  that  we  can  bring 
it  up  to  date  when  those  other  items  of  in- 
formation are  available  to  the  ministry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  had  indicated  he  wanted  to  ask  a 
supplementary  question  before  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Downsview. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  view  of  the  fact  the  food  industry  is  the 
biggest  ball  game  in  the  world,  why  would 
the  minister  put  controls  on  land  before  food? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  ( Victoria-Haliburton ) : 
Why  doesn't  the  member  get  Lalonde  to 
do  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  before  the  hon.  member  starts  talking 
or  asking  questions  in  terms  of  priorities,  he 
should  take  a  look  at  this  report  I  filed  today. 

It's  also  interesting  to  note  that  investment 
analysts  have  for  a  period  of  time  hesitated 
against  recommending  investments  in  certain 


1034 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


major  food  industries  in  this  country,  and  I 
think  that  when  one  takes  a  look  at  the 
statement  some  of  the  answers  will  become 
apparent,  certainly  pertaining  to  certain 
operators  but  not  all  of  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  member  has 
had  one  supplementary;  we  will  alternate. 
The  hon.  member  for  Downs  view  is  next. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  could  the  minister 
advise  why  he  feels  he  must  go  on  bended 
knee  to  the  companies  to  ask  for  additional 
information  in  their  annual  statements  when 
it  would  be  a  simple  thing  to  draft  appropri- 
ate amendments  and  include  them  in  the 
Business  Corporations  Act? 

Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  he  has  told 
us  in  his  statement  that  he  is  not  satisfied 
that  the  present  provisions  in  the  Act  are 
sufficient  to  allow  him  to  exercise  a  little 
muscle?  Couldn't  he  exercise  muscle  if  he 
amended  the  statute  appropriately? 

iHon.  Mr.  Clement:  There  is  no  question 
about  it;  I  think  we  have  the  jurisdiction  to 
do  those  things.  What  I  am  concerned  about 
and  what  I  meant— 

Mr.  Singer:  Well  then,  don't  beg  them— 
do  it! 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  —in  the  statement  that 
I  gave  today,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  quite 
frankly  in  many  areas  the  food  industry  has 
not,  in  my  assessment  and  my  advisers'  assess- 
ment, been  conscious  of  its  responsibilities  on 
a  public  relations  basis  to  the  consumers  of 
this  province. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well  then,  legislate  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  If  necessary  it  is  a 
possibility,  but  I  have  invited  comments  from 
members  of  this  House  as  well  as  the  general 
public;  and  after  having  had  an  opportunity 
to  study  those  comments- 
Mr.  Singer:  Oh  yes,  12  years  from  now  we 
will  have  another  select  committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Well,  I  don't  know  how 
long  it  takes  the  hon.  member  to  respond  to 
my  invitation. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  What  about 
the  minister's  responsibilities  to  the  consumers 
of  this  province,  never  mind  the  supermarkets* 
PR  responsibilities?  Is  he  saying  that  after  a 
review  of  16  companies  in  the  field  over  a 
five-vear  period,  in  advance  of  the  maior 
profit  period,  he  is  still  not  prepared  to  take 
any  action  selectively  to  roll  back  certain 
prices?  Is  that  the  result  of  this  study? 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  it  is  not  the  result 
of  that  study. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick   ( Riverdale ) :    Or  even 
to  express  a  view? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  doesn't  even  have 
a  view  after  all  that. 

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


MUNICIPAL  WATER  AND  SEWERAGE 
GRANTS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  put  a 
question  to  the  Treasurer,  Mr.  Speaker,  actu- 
ally for  clarification  on  a  couple  of  his  state- 
ments yesterday.  Specifically,  in  the  absence 
of  the  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Handleman), 
can  he  tell  the  House  what  he  expects  to 
accomplish  with  the  $11  million  allocated  to 
a  special  15  per  cent  subsidy  for  servicing 
costs  in  certain  regions,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  it  is  expected  there  will  be  over  100,000 
building  starts? 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer,  'Minister  of 
Economics  and  Intergovernmental  Affairs): 
We  are  going  to  give  some  additional  financial 
inducement  to  municipalities  and  regions.  It 
was  to  correct  a  distortion  which  has  existed 
for  a  decade  or  more. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  How  many  lots  would  be 
connected? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  would  be  glad  to  ex- 
plain the  background,  if  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  would  like  me  to,  although  it  may 
not  be  necessary. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Yes.  I  was  particularly 
concerned,  if  the  minister  will  permit  me, 
about  two  matters.  First,  how  many  ser\dced 
lots  can  be  provided  by  the  infusion  of  $11 
million  under  this  programme?  And  am  I 
correctly  reading  his  speech  that  he  said  spe- 
cifically the  15  per  cent  reduction  would  be 
available  only  in  regions  or  reformed  counties 
of  which  we  have  none  as  yet? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Yes,  that's  right.  The  15 
per  cent  subsidy  has  been  available  onh'  when 
the  OWRC  owned  the  asset.  That  idea  was 
created  when  London  built  a  pipeline  from 
Grand  Bend  and  when  very  serious  objections 
were  raised  by  the  municipalities  standing 
between  London  and  Lake  Huron.  Their  fear 
was  that  London  would  cut  off  their  water. 

Mr.  Singer:  They  have  been  doing  that  for 
years  around  here. 


APRIL  11.  1974 


10S5 


Interjections  by  hon.  meinl>en. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  To  induce  London  to  go 
ahead  with  the  pipeline  and  leave  the  owner- 
ship of  the  asset  with  the  OWRC,  thereby 
allaving  the  fears  of  the  municipahties  be- 
tween London  and  the  lake,  a  15  per  cent 
subsidy  was  introduced. 

Now  we  have  regional  government  and  will 
have  restructured  county  govenraient  in  many 
parts  of  the  province. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Not  in  London,  they 
don't. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Had  London  and  Grand 
Bend  been  in  a  region  there  would  have  been 
no  need  for  that  subsidy.  Now  that  we  have 
the  regional  governments  we  want  to  make 
available  to  them  the  same  subsidy  which  has 
been  available  previously,  even  if  they  them- 
selves own  the  assets.  This  comes  in  part  in 
response  to  requests  from  the  regions.  It  is 
going  to  make  quite  a  difference  to  Toronto 
and  certain  other  areas. 

May  I,  Mr.  Speaker,  abridge  the  rules 
slightly  to  say  I  have  a  bulletin  that  the  mem- 
ber for  Grey-Bruce  is  celebrating  his  39th 
birthda\-  today.  In  fact,  the  memo  says  59, 
but  I  know  that  can't  be  true. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  In  this  state  of  high 
good  humour,  I  would  simply  again  like  to 
ask  the  Treasurer  two  things. 

Is  it  true  that  only  2,200  lots  could  be 
serviced  with  the  $11  million,  the  15  per  cent 
subsidy?  And  why  would  it  appear  that  any 
further  assistance  to  municipalities  that  do 
not  choose,  or  have  not  yet  had  the  oppor- 
tunity, to  go  into  a  regional  government  will 
be  restricted?  Surely  this  is  an  unfair  applica- 
tion in  the  approach  to  the  provision  of 
services? 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Why 
doesn't  it  aflFect  London? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  don't  think  it  is  fair  to 
single  out  this  one  particular  item  of  $11  mil- 
lion when  one  considers  we  have  got  an  $8 
billion  budget,  and  when  one  considers  there 
will  be  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  ex- 
pended on  services  of  one  kind  or  another  to 
satisfy  a  number  of  priorities,  one  of  which 
is  to  create  more  housing. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  minister  should  have 
more  of  them  in  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Questions  on  further  de- 
tails of  this  and  related  programmes  must  be 
put  to  the  Minister  of  Housing.  I  do  point  out 
to  the  hon.  member  that  we  created  110,000 


new  homes  in  this  province  last  year,  an  in- 
crease of  seven  per  cent  and  the  largest  num- 
ber in  history. 

I  point  out  also  that  while  I  had  the  re- 
sponsibility we  increased  the  supply  of  lots 
by  68  per  cent  over  the  previous  year. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  would  have  been 
increased  by  100  per  cent  if  the  minister 
hadn't— 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  And  that  previous  year 
was  40  per  cent  above  the  year  before.  I 
point  out  that  we  built  1.23  new  dwelling 
units  for  every  new  family  formed  here  in 
the  last  10  years. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
speak  on  that?  Let  him  make  a  speech  on 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  To  single  out  a  particidar 
grant  is,  in  my  view,  completely  distorting 
the  reality  of  the  overall  integrated  pro- 
gramme of  the  govenmient.  Now  what  was 
tile  next  question? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  All  right,  Mr.  Speaker, 

with  your  permission,  surely  you  would  agree 
with  me  that  the  answer  the  Treasurer  has 
made  completely  obscures  the  question  and 
the  answer  that  is  required  to  the  question. 
Why  is  it  that  in  the  Treasiu-er's  budget— and 
he  is  the  father  of  more  of  the  regional  gov- 
ernments than  anybody  else  aroxmd  here— 
he  would  dislocate  the  economy  of  the  prov- 
ince to  the  extent  that  those  areas  which  do 
not  participate  in  regionalism  and  do  not 
choose  to  are  not  going  to  have  access  to  this 
programme?  Surely  that's  an  imfair  approach? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  think  in  certain  circum- 
stances one  might  consider  broadening  the 
programme.  Let  me  put  it  this  way:  If  Brant- 
ford  wanted  to  build  a  big  pipeline  through 
Brant  and  hold  the  asset  and  control  who 
used  the  water  out  of  that  pipe,  does  my  hon. 
friend  think  the  interests  of  all  the  munici- 
palities in  Brant  county  would  be  fully  pro- 
tected? Or  does  he  think  we  might  be  wise  to 
continue  the  existing  policy  of  keeping  the 
asset  in  the  hands  of  the  OWRC?  Which? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  is  no  way  Brant 
would  do  it.  The  Province  of  Ontario  should 
do  it.  That's  what  I'm  saying. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That's  a  littie  more  tell- 
ing, isn't  it? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Would  he  kindly  answer 
the  question  of  why  the  funds  are  not  avail- 
able to  the  municipalities?  What  about  the 


10^ 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Braritford  pipeline?  Why  doesn't  the  govern- 
ment build  it  if  it  wants  it?  It  has  the  money. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  doesn't  the  Treas- 
urer answer  the  question?  He  really  is 
ridiculous. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  hon.  Leader  of 
the  Opposition- 
Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  What  did  the 
minister  mean  when  he  said  the  programme 
might  be  broadened  imder  certain  circum- 
stances? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  think  if  one  found  a 
group  of  municipalities  which  were  in  full 
concurrence  there  might  be  a  way,  not  now 
provided  for  in  my  budget— or  not  now  in  my 
current  thinking,  quite  frankly— by  which  we 
might  want  to  make  some  further  changes  to 
the  programme.  If  there  are  such  circum- 
stances I  would  be  very  glad  to  have  the  de- 
tails and  to  consider  some  further  improve- 
ment on  this  kind  of  programme. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  supplementary:  In  view  of 
the  fact  the  London  pipeline  is  not  owned 
by  the  municipality  but  is  owned  by  the 
government  of  Ontario,  why  is  he  comparing 
that  project  with  the  15  per  cent  assistance 
to  those  municipalities  which  will  be  dointr 
the  water  improvements  or  the  sewage  im- 
provements on  their  own?  I  understood  this 
is  a  programme  only  for  municipalities  which 
wish  to  carry  out  a  programme  of  servicing 
on  their  own,  not  using  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment? Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Yes,  that's  right. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  A 
supplementary. 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  pipeline  has  got 
nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  When  the  minister  uses 
these  figures  of  68  per  cent  more  lots  in  1973 
over  1972,  and  in  turn  40  per  cent  more  lots 
in  1972  than  in  1971,  what  is  the  number  in 
1971  so  that  we  can  get  some  meaningful 
idea  of  what  these  figures  are? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  don't  know.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  now  that  I  think  about  it,  the  68  per 
cent  may  have  been  sometime  before  the  end 
of   the   year.   It   is    a    figure   that   was    very 


attractive  to  me  and  which  is  embedded  in 
my  cranium. 

iMr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  anyway. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  There  were  50  lots  in 
1971  and  he  is  only  up  to  100  now. 

Mr.  Singer:  How  about  relating  it  to  the 
price  of  houses? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  have  not  been  directly 
involved  in  this  area- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —since  Jan.  8  and  I  must 
say  I'm  a  little  vague  about  the  figures.  The 
Minister  of  Housing  can  certainly  provide 
them  to  the  House. 

An  hon.  member:  Really  vague. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  vague  minister. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  is  next  on  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Sargent:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Grey 
county  and  Bruce  county  do  not  want  regional 
government— is  this  a  pressure  play  to  have 
us  in  there  or  what? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  what  he  is  trying 
to  do. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  No.  It's  an  attempt  to 
take  a  further  restriction  ofl^  the  use  of  these 
public  moneys  insofar  as  the  regions  are 
concerned. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  As  long  as  you  are  in  a 
region. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Now  if  there  is  a  way  of 
broadening  the  grant  programme  to  take  in 
all  municipalities  without  establishing  some 
kind  of  civil  war  between  municipality  A  and 
municipality  B,  I'd  be  very  glad  to  look  at  it. 
But  I'm  going  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  a 
lot  of  circumstances— and  the  blushing  that 
I've  observed  on  the  face  of  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  is  further  evidence- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Blushing? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —a  number  of  municipal- 
ities are  going  to  object  to  the  largest  munic- 
ipality owning  the  water  pipe  that  runs 
through  their  territory. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  is  trying  to  impose  his 
regionalism  policies  using  that. 


APRIL  11,  1974 


1037 


Mr.  Sargent:  And  that's  not  going  to  woric. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Since  the  Treasurer  is  obviously 
adept  at  pulling  figures  from  the  air  at  the 
drop  of  a  hat- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Adept?  Fuzzy,  not  adept. 

Mr.  Lewis:  -what  do  all  these  figures 
amount  to  in  terms  of  the  actual  number  of 
additional  units  of  housing  which  he  must 
have  assumed  they  would  create  in  order  to 
have  chosen  $15  miUion  on  one  hand,  $11 
million  on  the  other?  What  total  of  lots  did 
the  Treasurer  have  in  mind  which  underpins 
this  programme? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  old  grant  programme 
encouraged  regionalized  municipalities  to  let 
the  OWRC  put  in  the  facility  and  own  the 
asset.  The  regions  are  big  boys  and  they  are 
accumulating  additional  resources,  economies 
of  scale  and  expertise. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Show  us  where,  show  us 
where. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  They 
aren't  accumulating  anything. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Bigger  taxes. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  saw  no  reason  why 
these  regions  should  be  precluded  from  pro- 
viding these  services  for  their  own  citizens, 
particularly  since  the  planning  and  the  pipes 
and  sewers  are  at  the  upper  tier  in  the 
region. 

An  hon.  member:  Bigger  bureaucracy. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  In  meeting?  with  the 
regional  chairmen  last  fall  this  was  a  request 
from  them,  and  since  it  did  eliminate  some 
distortion  it  seemed  to  me  reasonable,  and  of 
course  I  hoped  it  might  have  the  further 
advantage  of  increasing  the  supply  of  serviced 
lots. 

Mr.  Good:  One  more  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  There  have  been  six 
supplementaries,  which  I  beheve  is  reason- 
able. The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


ALLEGED  EXCHANGES 
OF  PURCHASE  OFFERS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  another  question 
of  the  Treasurer.  Has  he  heard  the  reports, 
mainly  from  the  CBC,  of  unwarranted  ex- 
changes of  oflFers  to  purchase  among  and  be- 
tween real  estate  companies,   whidi  led  at 


least  some  observers  to  oontemplate  there 
might  very  well  have  been  a  leak  in  the  pfO* 
posed  new  laws  in  the  budget  yesterday  per- 
taining to  land  transfer  tax  and  the  land 
profits  tax?  Is  the  minister  aware  of  those 
reports?  Is  he  concerned,  and  if  he  is  con- 
oenaed,  as  many  people  are,  is  he  conducting 
any  investigation? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  have  not  heard  those 
reports.  This  bill  is  going  to  be  brought  for- 
ward today  by  the  Minister  of  Revenue  (Mr. 
Meen).  We  have  a  number  of  safeguards  so 
that  this  IdiKi  of  thing  cannot  take  place.  If 
people  break  the  law  in  this  instance  then  I 
expect  they  will  go  to  jail. 

An  hon.  member:  They  could  go  to  jail? 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  A  supple- 
mentary question  of  the  minister:  In  review- 
iiig  any  attempts  to  claim  benefits  because  of 
offers  to  purchase  which  are  provided  to  set 
subsequent  values,  would  the  Treasurer 
undertake  that  those  offers  would  be  par- 
ticularly reviewed,  especially  in  this  last  week 
or  two,  to  ensure  they  were  in  fact  bona  fide? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  Minister  of  Revenue 
may  want  to  comment  on  this,  but  let  me  say 
that  an  offer  to  purchase,  in  and  of  itself,  does 
not  establish  value  any  more  than  it  would 
have  done  for  succession  duty  purposes  over 
the  last  50  years. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  If  the  Speaker  will  allow: 
So  the  minister  is  content  that  the  regulations 
and  the  procedures  which  will  be  followed 
are  so  minded  that  they  will  certainly  attempt 
to  screen  out  that  particular  problem,  if  in 
fact  it  exists? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  have  further  questions?  The  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  West. 


REAL  ESTATE  TRANSACTIONS 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Treasurer, 
also  of  course  flowing  from  the  budget:  Could 
the  Treasurer  indicate  for  the  most  recent 
year,  presumably  1973  would  do,  what  pro- 
portion of  Ontario's  real  estate  transactions 
fall  into  the  various  categories  exempted  from 
the  land  speculation  tax?  That  is,  what  pro- 
portion of  transactions  falls  into  commercial- 
industrial,  what  proportion  into  renovated 
property,  what  proportion  into  new  dwellings, 
what  proportion  into  second  homes  or  second 
cottages,  since  all  of  those  are  exempted? 


1038 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  data  we  have  is 
highly  imperfect  and  I  can't  give  a  good 
answer.  The  Minister  of  Revenue,  once  again, 
may  have  detail  which  I  lack.  We  vdll,  by 
the  end  of  the  year,  have  much  better  data 
affecting  residential  properties  because  of  the 
new  assessment  programme  and  the  informa- 
tion now  required  by  the  assessors.  All  of  this 
information  is  going  into  the  computer  and 
will  be  readily  available  in  printouts.  Some 
time  in  1975  we  will  have  similar  information 
for  industrial  and  commercial  properties. 

In  the  meantime  we  have  an  interminis- 
terial  task  force  attempting  to  collect  addi- 
tional information,  through  sampling  tech- 
niques and  so  on,  indicating  the  ownership 
of  existing  lands,  the  nationality  oi  pur- 
chasers, the  mix  between  different  classes  of 
real  estate  and  such  like. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Treasurer  will  imderstand 
my  supplementary.  How  does  he  arrive:  (a) 
at  a  ball  park  figure  when  his  statistics  are, 
as  he  calls  them,  imperfect;  and  (b)  how  does 
he  know  it  will  have  any  beneficial  effect  at 
all  on  the  rising  prices  of  land,  and,  more 
important,  on  the  rising  cost  of  housing— 
that's  quite  a  different  issue— when  he  has 
absolutely  no  idea  what  his  exemptions  ex- 
clude, and  what  is  covered  and  what  isn't 
covered— and  he  won't  have  much  on  it  till 
1975  or  1976? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  There  are  two  aspects  to 
it.  First  of  all,  there  is  no  doubt  but  that 
some  foreign  investors  are  putting  money  into 
land  in  Ontario— land  and  buildings- 
Mr.  Lewis:  What  about  the  speculative  tax? 
The  50  per  cent? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —because  they  see  Ontario 
is  one  of  the  most  progressive,  prosperous  and 
stable  jurisdictions  in  die  world. 

Mr.  Singer:  Not  just  the  world,  the  galaxy. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  It  is  a  tax 
which  will  never  be  collected. 

Mr.  Lewis:  When  I  see  him  doing  up  his 
jacket,  then  I  know  for  sure- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  ( Timiskaming ) :  He's  just 
warming  up. 

Interjections  by  hon.  membres. 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  Now  while  it's  true  we 
haven't  any  exact  number  as  to  these  cash 
inflows,  we  are  sure  they  are  significant- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Then  this  is  just  a  hoax. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —and  we  believe  this 
additional  tax  will  mitigate  this  problem. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  does  he  know? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  As  the  foreign  demand  is 
removed  from  the  total  demand  cmve,  the 
upward  pressure  on  prices  should  be  very 
greatly  decreased. 

Mr.  Deans:  No. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  If  20  per  cent  doesn't 
work,  then  we'll  try  sometihing  higher. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Treasurer  is  not  talking 
about  the  speculative  land  tax.  He  is  talking 
about  the  land  transfer  tax. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  But  we  are  Conservatives; 
we  don't  want  to  start  at  75.  Now  I  am 
coming  to  the  speculation  tax. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order,  I  am  not 
talking  about  the  land  transfer  tax. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  minister  has  the  floor. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Now,  coming  to  the  land 
speculation  tax. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Which  is  the  answer  he 
sought. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  It's  once  again  true  the 
data  is  not  as  extensive  or  as  accurate  as  we 
would  wish. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  At  the  same  time,  once 
again  it  must  be  recognized  there  is  very 
considerable  land  speculation  by  Canadian 
residents. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  all  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  By  introducing  this  very 
substantial  tax  which  runs  the  total  tax  up 
to  81  per  cent  for  an  individual,  87  per  cent 
for  a  corporation- 
Mr.  Lewis:  I  understand. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —and  95  per  cent  for  a 
non-resident,  we  think  we  will  take  most  of 
the  profit  out  of  these  transactions— 


APRIL  11.  1974 


1039 


Mr.  Shulman:  Sounds  all  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —and  will  induce  moneys 
to  go  into  equity  securities  in  Canadian  cor- 
porations insteaa. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Will  it  stop  the  sale  of  land? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  If  these  instruments  are 
not  powerful  enough,  we  have  other  possibil- 
ities now  being  explored.  For  instance,  it  may 
be  necessary  to  levy  some  kind  of  a  proper^ 
tax  surcharge  on  idle  lands  which  are  being 
kept  out  of  the  market. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Has  the  Treasurer  thought  of 
buying  land? 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  no. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  is  a  matter  that  is 
under  consideration  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  government  is  just  forc- 
ing the  price  of  land  up. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 


Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if  the 
minister  can  tell  us  if  he  has  considered  what 
effect  this  speculation  tax  is  going  to  have  on 
small  builders  who  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
buying  two,  three,  five  or  half  a  dozen  lots 
from  a  developer?  If  the  tax  applies  to  a 
developer,  he  is  going  to  be  imable  to  sell  to 
the  small  builder  because  of  the  tax  rate;  so 
the  small  builder,  it  would  seem,  is  very  likely 
to  be  forced  out  of  business. 

Has  the  minister  given  any  thought  to  this 
and  what  is  he  going  to  do  to  try  to  preserve 
the  small  builder? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Yes,  we  are  aware  of  this 
potential.  The  Minister  of  Housing  has  had 
conversations  with  the  development  industry. 
Most  of  these  development  industries  have  a 
development  capacity  which  is  well  in  excess 
of  their  housebuilding  capacity,  and  as  the 
hon.  member  suggested  in  the  past  they  have 
sold  oflF  these  lots.  Now  there  will  be  an  in- 
ducement to  retain  the  lots  and  build  their 
own  houses  on  them,  even  if  that  can't  be 
done  fairly  quickly. 

The  minister  will  have  the  power  to  exempt 
certain  lands  from  taxation  if  he  is  satisfied 
this  is  necessary  to  increase  the  stock  of  hous- 
ing. And  here  again,  I  think  if  further  details 
are  wanted  by  the   House  in   the   question 


period,  the  question  might  go  to  the  Minister 
of  Revenue. 

Mr.  Shulman:  What  is  left  of  the  tax,  then? 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  left? 

Mr.  Deans:  A  supplementary  question. 

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

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary 
question:  Doesn't  the  minister  feel  the  specu- 
lator is  more  likely  to  do  one  of  two  tnings 
—either  delay  putting  the  land  on  the  market, 
or  attempt  to  build  me  tax  into  the  final  price 
in  order  to  ensure  he  does  in  fact  get  back 
the  profit  he  seeks  and  got  previously. 

Mr.  Lewis:  This  is  just  a  headline. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  This  is  a  mistake  that  is 
often  made.  The  price  of  a  house  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  cost  of  that  house.  The  price 
of  the  house  is  established  by  the  supply  and 
demand  equilibrium  point. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  My  house  cost  me 
$25,000. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  almost  second  year 
economics. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That  was  the  cost.  And 
today  it  is  worth  $50,000  or  $60,000  or 
$70,000. 

Mr.  Deans:  Today  it  costs  that;  but  it  is 

not  worth  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Now  in  what  way  did  my 
cost  aflFect  the  selling  price?  I  had  occasion 
to  use  another  illustration  in  a  meeting  this 
morning,  which  was  attended  by  the  member 
for  York  South.  The  Edsel  probably  cost 
$75,000  per  unit,  and  they  couldn't  sell  it 
for  $3,000. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  the  minister  going  to  answer 
my  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Whites  I've  answered  it.  If  the 
member  can't  understand  it,  that's  his  prob- 
lem. 

Mr.  Speaken  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre. 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  view  of  the  fact  I  agree 
with  the  minister's  statement  that  supply  and 
demand  is  the  key  factor  in  the  selling  price 
of  the  house— 


1040 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Deans:  Does  he  think  it's  not  too 
much? 

Mr.  Deacon:  —does  he  believe  that  his  $34 
million  increase  in  his  budget  for  provision  of 
serviced  lands  through  the  provincial  pro- 
grammes and  the  $11  million  subsidy  he  just 
talked  about  earlier  in  this  question  period, 
is  going  to  be  sufficient  to  eliminate  the 
province-wide  shortage  of  serviced  building 
sites? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  No  way. 

Mr.  Deacon:  And  if  not,  how  many  build- 
ing sites  will  he  have  to  provide  in  addition 
to  what  he  has  in  this  budget  to  eliminate 
this  shortage?  Because  he  well  knows  well 
never  stop  this  speculation  with  this  tax 
unless  we  have  an  oversupply  of  serviced 
land. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Well,  this  disappoints  me. 
This  disappoints  me  because  the  member's 
leader  said  yesterday  it  was  excellent. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  said  the  land  speculation  tax  was  ex- 
cellent. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications):  I  don't  know 
which  one  is  leader  over  there. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  ^lember. 

Mr.  Deacon:  He  said  it  was  excellent  if  it 
was  tied  to  a  major  land  serving  programme. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That  is  what  the  man 
said. 

TThere  is  some  infoiroation  in  the  budget 
statement  about  the  increase  in  housing  stock. 
Further  details  will  have  to  be  obtained  from 
the  Minister  of  Housing. 

Mr.  Deacon:  We  are  talking  about  a  shorb- 
age  of  building  sites. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hwi.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West.  A  new  question? 


HOSPITAL  WORKERS'  WAGE  RATES 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
Treasurer:  Is  the  Treasurer  aware  that  the 
GAINS  programme  he  has  introduced  now 
gives— and  we  support  the  principle;  it's  the 
anomaly  that  I'd  like  an  answer  on— to  the 
elderly  and  the  disabled  a  level  of  income 
which  in  both  gross  and  net  terms  in  many 


instances  is  significantly  ahead  of  that  re- 
ceived by  many  hospital  workers  in  this  prov- 
ince who  have  families  to  support?  Is  he  in  a 
position  to  indicate  when  the  government 
will  provide  an  increase  for  the  hospital 
workers  to  avoid  the  crisis  of  May  1? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  We  are  certainly  aware 
of  the  anomalies.  A  number  of  possibilities 
are  under  study  insofar  as  the  Ministry  of 
Health  is  concerned— and  that  matter  should 
be  dealt  with  by  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr. 
Miller). 

Mr.  J.  Dukszta  (Parkdale):  Is  the  minister 
aware  that  the  Ontario  Hospital  Association 
has  written  a  letter  to  all  of  us  here  in  the 
Legislature  suggesting  the  danger  of  strike  is 
imminent?  Is  the  government  prepared  to 
grant  some  money  to  the  hospital  workers 
immediately? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I  don't  think  I  should 
say  anything  that  is  going  to  in  some  way 
affect  the  negotiations  now  taking  place.  It 
must  be  evident  that  every  year  we  are  en- 
gaged in  negotiations  with  the  public  service 
of  Ontario  and  other  groups  in  the  public 
sector.  When  a  contract  is  negotiated,  the 
funds  are  provided. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West?  All  right,  supplementary;  the 
hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition  should  have 
the  next  one. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Yes,  the  question  is  really 
put  because  May  1  is  the  deadline.  Surely  if 
there  is  something  the  Treasurer  can  say  or 
do  to  be  of  assistance  in  this  regard  it  shoiJd 
be  said  and  done.  If  he  is  afraid  of  inter- 
fering with  negotiations,  he  shouldn't  be 
afraid,  because  isn't  he  aware  that  negotia- 
tions have  been  interrupted,  that  the  last  offer 
is  not  accepted  and  it  appears  there  will  be 
an  illegal  strike— illegal  under  the  laws  of  the 
province— beginning  May  1  unless  somebody, 
whether  it  is  the  Treasurer  or  the  Minister 
of  Health,  says  or  does  something? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Why  does  the  Treasurer 
deliberately  provoke  us? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  said 
as  much  as  is  fitting.  Further  questions  may 
be  asked  of  the  Minister  of  Health  perhaps 
next  week. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  there  have  been 
suflBcient  supplementaries.  The  hon.  member 
for  Scarborough  West.  There  are  just  a  few 
minutes  remaining. 


APRIL  11,  1974 


1041 


GAINS  PROGRAMME 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  amount  of  money  does 
the  Treasurer  expect  to  recover  from  the 
federal  government  for  the  GAINS  pro- 
gramme? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  We  expect  to  recover 
against  those  payments  made  toward  the  dis- 
able<l  and  the  bund.  We  do  not  expect  to  re- 
cover any  portion  of  the  costs  for  GAINS  to 
persons  over  65  years  of  age. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  not? 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Why 
not?  Barrett  gets  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  In  answer,  I  have  as  a 
recollection,  $17  million  for  persons  under  65 
years  of  age. 

Mr.  Deans:  But  why? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Forgive  me— tell  me  if  I  am 
wrone,  I  may  well  be— but  my  understanding 
was  mat  in  the  Province  of  British  Columbia 
up  to  43  per  cent  was  recoverable  of  the 
additional  amounts  they  paid  to  those  over 
65  when  they  introduced  their  programme. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  are  still  fighting  for  50 
per  cent  but  they  are  receiving  42  to  43  per 
cent,  which  is  many  millions  of  dollars  and 
would  make  a  substantial  change  to  the 
Treasurer's  budgetary  allocation. 

An  hon.  member:  What's  the  difference  in 
the  programme? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  federal  minister  has 
complete  power  over  whether  or  not  to  accept 
a  provincial  programme  as  having  eligibility 
for  the  federal  grants,  that  is  within  his  dis- 
cretion. Right  or  wrong,  that's  the  way  it  is. 
The  British  Columbia  govenunent  had  hoped 
to  get  back  a  very  large  proportion  of  its 
expenditure.  Tliose  hopes,  I  think,  have 
diminished  as  negotiations  have  proceeded. 
The  last  report  we  had— 

Mr.  Martel:  It  gets  40  per  cent  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  —and  we  were  in  constant 
commimication  with  the  federal  government 
as  we  developed  this  GAINS  programme,  was 
that  they  would  pay  only  for  this  group  of 
citizens  and  the  amount  of  their  contribution 
would  amount  to  $17  million,  I  would  like  to 
assure  the  House  we  will  get  every  dollar  we 
can. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  The  min- 
ister then  is  telling  the  House  he  discussed 


this  at  each  stage  with  the  federal  authorities, 
is  that  so?  And  is  he  further  saying  that  really 
the  Canada  Assistance  Plan  will  pay  half  the 
cost  for  those  additional  payments  undertaken 
by  the  province  associated  with  a  means  test 
or  associated  directly  with  payments  pre- 
dicated on  the  guaranteed  income  supplement, 
which  is  a  means  test? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  One  of  the  requirements 
of  the  federal  legislation  policy  is  that  there 
be  a  means  test  applied— not  the  automatic 
needs  test  of  CIS  out  a  specific  means  test, 
which  is  to  say  the  income  received  by  a 
recipient  and  the  costs  of  that  recipient,  which 
vary  of  course  from  Toronto  to  Lucan,  Ont 
Our  officials  were  in  touch  with  the  federal 
officials.  I  think  it  comes  under  Mr.  Al  John- 
son if  I  remember  correctly.  Mr.  Al  Johnson 
I  think  is  the  person  responsible  in  Ottawa. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Treasurer  was  just  too 
late.  He  was  a  year  late.  Barrett  did  it  over 
a  year  ago. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  information  I  have 
given  the  House  is  the  best  information  we 
have  to  date. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  men*er  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 
The  hon.  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications has  the  answer  to  a  question 
asked  previously. 


U.S.-CANADA  FREIGHT  SURCHARGE 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
The  question  had  been  placed  to  me  by  the 
hon.  member  for  Kent  (Mr.  Spence).  The 
question  was: 

Is   the  minister   aware   that   the   United 
States    Interstate    Commerce    Commission 
approved  a  six  per  cent  surcharge  in  frei^t 
charges  being  applied  to  Ontario  destina- 
tions from  American  points  of  origin  to  the 
Canadian    destinations,    whereas    this   sur- 
charge should  only  apply  to  the  Canadian 
point  of  entry?   1.   Why  is  this  surcharge 
applied    on    goods    coming    into    Canada? 
2.  What  authority  does  the  Ontario  Hi^- 
way  Transport  Board  have  with  regard  to 
such  rates? 
Mr.  Speaker,  on  Feb.  8  of  this  year,  the  Inter- 
state   Commerce    Commission    issued    special 
permission   allowing   a  maximum   emergency 
fuel  surcharge  of  six  per  cent  to  be  applied 
on  line  haul  common  carrier  rates.  The  pro- 
posal was  initially  made  to  the  ICC  by  various 
tariff  bureaus  in  the  United  States,  including 


1042 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  Niagara  Frontier  TarifF  Bureau,  which  in 
fact  determines  the  rate  level  on  many  ship- 
ments between  Ontario  and  the  United  States. 
The  Niagara  Frontier  TarifF  Bureau  is  a 
non-profit-making  organization  wholly  owned 
by  major  motor  carriers  that  serve  within  the 
United  States  and  between  the  US  and 
Canada.  This  bureau  has  the  jurisdiction  to 
set  and  publish  rates  between  all  US  states 
and  Ontario,  excepting  the  states  of  Arizona, 
California,  Utah,  Colorado,  Iowa,  Montana, 
Nevada,  New  Mexico,  Oregon,  Washington 
and  Wyoming. 

In  the  United  States,  the  member  carriers 
are  allowed  to  develop  and  publish  rates 
under  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
Act.  In  Ontario,  the  rates  are  decided  upon 
by  the  bureau  in  the  absence  of  any  other 
body.  They  must  be  filed  with  the  Ontario 
Highway  Transport  Board,  as  of  May  1,  1963. 
The  bureau  is  not  allowed  to  change  their 
rates  for  a  period  of  30  days  after  they  have 
been  filed  with  the  board. 

The  tariff  bureau  does  perform  some  useful 
functions,  simphfying  and  reducing  the  num- 
ber of  tariffs  that  shippers  use.  However,  the 
ministry  staff  is  concerned  about  the  apparent 
monopolistic  nature  of  some  bureaus  and  is 
investigating  their  impact  on  the  trucking 
industry. 

In  summary,  the  Niagara  Frontier  Tariff 
Bureau  sets  New  York-Ontario  rates  as  they 
are  by  default,  because  it  is  the  only  organ- 
ized rate-making  body.  The  Ontario  Highway 
Transport  Board  does  not  have  the  legislative 
right  to  scrutinize  and  reject  the  bureau's 
rates. 

On  the  subject  of  fuel  increases,  my  min- 
istry has  been  investigating  fuel  costs  in  the 
trucking  industry.  Fuel  prices  in  Ontario  have 
advanced  since  last  September,  and  the 
truckers  have  lost  their  traditional  bulk  fuel 
discount.  Labour  costs  are  also  increasing  as 
of  the  beginning  of  April.  Together,  the 
labout  and  fuel  increases  account  to  close 
to  the  total  rate  of  increase  filed  by  the 
carriers. 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  Mr.  Speaker,  may 
I  ask  a  question  for  clarification?  Does  the 
minister's  department  get  that  six  per  cent  for 
the  distance  of  the  journey  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Well,  the  six  per  cent  is 
the  rate  that  has  been  set— pardon  me,  it's 
five  per  cent— by  the  Niagara  Frontier  Tariff 
Bureau.  So  that  goes  to  the  trucking  industry 
in  the  way  of  rates  that  have  been  estab- 
lished by  tariff.  These  tariffs  have  been  filed 


with  the  Ontario  Highway  Transport  Board 
and  approved.  Basically,  it's  a  rubber-stamp 
approval,  because  the  legislation  is  a  little 
weak  in  this  area,  no  question. 

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


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  I 
would  like  to  ask  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications  with 
respect  to  a  display  ad  which  was  published 
by  his  department  in  the  Globe  and  Mail  of 
April  9,  calling  for  engineers  in  the  $22,000- 
class  to  participate  in  our  GO-Urban  and 
light-rail  transit  programmes:  Would  the 
minister  pray  tell  us  what  light-rail  transit 
programmes  he  has  been  indulging  in  that 
he  hasn't  told  us  about? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe 
the  hon.  member  is  well  aware,  and  it  has 
been  stated  before  publicly  and  certainlv  it's 
been  said  in  this  House,  that  the  Ontario 
Transportation  Development  Corp.  is  very  in- 
terested in  all  forms  of  urban  transit  systems, 
despite  the  fact  that  the  Opposition  have 
attempted  to  mislead  the  public  of  this  prov- 
ince into  believing  we  have  gone  into  only 
one  particular  area. 

We  are  most  interested  in  light  rail;  we 
are  interested  in  buses,  we  are  interested  in 
straight  railroads  and  in  all  forms  of  urban 
transit  systems.  So  there's  nothing  misleading 
about  it.  If  the  member  hasn't  been  aware  of 
what's  going  on,  that's  his  problem,  sir;  it's 
his  city. 

Mr.  Givens:  What  programmes  has  the  gov- 
ernment got? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  Supplementary:  It's  one  thing 
to  be  looking  into  something;  it's  another 
thing  to  have  programmes.  What  light-rail 
transit  programmes  has  the  ministry  got?  I'm 
not  asking  him  what  it's  looking  into.  What 
light-rail  programmes  does  it  need  an  en- 
gineer for? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are 
light-rail  programmes,  obviously,  that  are  be- 
ing developed  vdthin  the  various  munici- 
palities. Certainly  here  in  Metropolitan  Toron- 
to it  has  been  indicated  that  light  rail  would 
very  effectively  serve  certain  areas.  We  don't 
dispute  that,  and  the  Ontario  Transportation 
Development  Corp.  is  looking  into  that  very 
system. 


APRIL  11.  1974 


1043 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  right,  back  oflF. 

Mr.  Singer:  What  about  Spadina? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


ALLEGED  LOSS  OF  LIQUOR 
BY  LCBO  STORES 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  for  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations, Mr.  Speaker.  Can  the  minister  ex- 
plain how  the  Liquor  Control  Board  of  On- 
tario could  lose  so  much  liquor  that  they 
have  had  to  send  letters  out  to  all  the  stores 
asking  if  anybody  knows  where  it  has  gone? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  has  been 
around  again. 

An  hon.  member:  Somebody  is  buying 
futures  in  booze. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Perhaps  the  hon.  mem- 
ber might  give  me  more  information.  I  don't 
know  what  he  is  talking  about. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Is  the  minister  not  aware 
that  last  month  the  head  oflBce  of  the  Liquor 
Control  Board  sent  a  letter  to  some  dozen 
stores,  asking  if  any  of  them  know  what 
happened  and  why  there  is  such  a  shortage? 

Hon,  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  I  do. 

An  hon.  member:  More  consumption. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  The  introduction  of 
self-service  stores  in  this  province  has  pro- 
vided a  great  convenience  to  the  consuming 
public. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  They  didn't  know  they  had 
to  pay. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Up  to  the  time  the  self- 
service  stores  were  introduced  it  was  neces- 
sary, and  always  acceptable,  that  they  bal- 
ance right  to  the  penny.  But  with  the  intro- 
duction of  the  self-service  stores,  pilferage 
has  been  a  problem. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  There  has  been 
some  self-service  and  then  some. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  By  a  lot  of  people  with 
raincoats. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  There  have  been  some 
who  have  taken  the  self-service  invitation 
very    seriously,    and    as    a    result    the    stock 


balance  doesn't  necessarily  come  out  with  the 
right  answer  in  view  of  the  fact  there  are 
these  shortages,  and  they  are  constantly  mak- 
ing our  managers  aware  of  these  sboitAges. 

Mr.  Shulman:  How  much  is  missing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  don't  have  those 
figures  right  now,  but  I  can  provide  them  to 
the  hon.  member.  It  is  not  si^iificant  in  terms 
of  total  sales,  but  it  still  is  a  problem  insofar 
as  the  management  of  those  stores  is  con- 
cerned. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  A  few  dozen  cases. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  in  view  of  the  fact 
there  are  just  a  few  moments  remaining,  we 
should  not  entertain  further  supplementaries. 

The  hon.  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 
has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 


GUELPH  CORRECTIONAL  CENTRE 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  member 
for  Wellington  South  (Mr.  Worton)  asked 
on  April  8  whether  action  had  been  taken 
on  the  recommendations  of  the  Eastaugh  re- 
port on  the  working  conditions  at  Guelph 
Correctional  Centre. 

This  report  was  made  public  on  July  5, 
1973,  and  at  that  time  my  predecessor  (Mr. 
Apps)  xmdertook  to  initiate  action  tou'ards 
the  implementation  of  11  of  the  12  recom- 
mendations, noting  that  the  12th  reown- 
mendation  was  a  subject  for  negotiation  be- 
tween the  CSAO  and  the  province. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased  to  report  this 
has  been  done.  Ten  of  the  11  recommenda- 
tions have  already  been  acted  upon  and  the 
other  one,  recommending  the  installation  of 
a  PA  system,  is  in  the  process  of  being  carried 
out. 

I  will  have  more  details  on  the  progress 
which  we  have  made  at  Guelph  during  the 
estimates,  but  I  thought  members  might  be 
interested  to  know  that  our  plans  to  divide 
Guelph  Correctional  Centre  into  11  smaller 
units  should  be  completed  within  the  next 
two  weeks.  Much  of  the  work  on  the  physical 
alterations  has  been  carried  out  by  the  in- 
mates themselves  at  a  considerable  saving  to 
the  taxpayers  of  the  province. 

vMr.  Speaker,  it  is  hoped  also  that  when 
these  changes  are  completed  it  will  be  pos- 
sible to  do  away  with  overtime  almost  en- 
tirely, again  at  a  considerable  saving  to  the 
taxpayers  and  obviating  the  necessity  for 
taldng  any  action  on  recommendatiMi  No.  12 
of  the  report 


1044 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  would  just  add  that  the  staflF  have  been 
involved  in  these  changes  from  the  'beginning, 
and  the  ministry  is  grateful  to  them  for  the 
role  they  have  played. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  has  the  answer 
to  another  question. 


COMMUTER  TICKET 
INTERCHANGEABILITY 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
The  hon.  member  for  York  Centre  asked'  me 
a  question  on  Tuesday,  April  2,  relative  to 
the  need  for  interchangeability  of  commuter 
tickets  between  Canadian  National,  Canadian 
Pacific  and  GO-Transit.  I  can  only  surmise 
that  this  may  have  arisen  due  to  die  recent 
introduction  of  the  Toronto-Barrie  CN 
passenger  train  service. 

Mr.  Deacon:  We  have  it  in  Stouffville  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  fares  being  charged 
on  this  service  were  set  by  the  railway  trans- 
port committee  of  the  Canadian  Transport 
Commission  and  they  have  chosen  to  set 
single-trip  fares  that  are  slightly  more  expen- 
sive than  GO  Bus  fares  and  monthly  passes 
that  are  identical  in  price  to  the  GO  Bus 
monthly  passes. 

With  such  limited  service,  I  can  readily 
see  where  the  monthly  pass  would  not  be 
attractive  to  most  commuters.  However,  had 
the  committee  set  fares  for  a  10-trip  book  of 
tickets  comparable  to  those  offered'  by  GO,  I 
would  think  that  interchangeability  between 
CN  and  ourselves  would  be  accomplished  to 
a  large  degree  and  thus  satisfy  the  commuters 
from  that  area. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  supplementary:  In  that 
case,  will  the  ministry  agree  to  work  with 
the  Canadian  Transport  Commission  to  get 
common  fares  established  so  that  they  can 
be  clearly  interchangeable? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  the 
Toronto    Area    Transit    Operating    Authority 
comes  into  being  in  the  very  near  future- 
Mr.  Deacon:  I  am  talking  about  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —fare  integration  will  be 
one  of  the  objectives,  and  this  certainly  would 
include  discussions  with  CN,  CP  and  the  rail- 
way transport  committee. 

Mr.  Deacon:  But  is  there  any  reason  not 
to  go  ahead  with  it  right  now,  instead  of 
waiting  for  this  authority? 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Well,  I  am  not  going  to 
suggest  we  can  go  ahead  with  it  this  very 
day  and  attempt  to  put  together  discussions, 
but  we  do  believe  we  can  hold  our  discus- 
sions with  all  of  the  interested  parties,  in- 
cluding the  carriers  as  well  as  the  commission. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Don't  stand  on  one  leg  wait- 
ing for  CN. 

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

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Mr.  Taylor,  from  the  standing  private  bills 
committee,  presented  the  committee's  report 
which  was  read  as  follows  and  adopted: 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  following 
bills  without  amendment: 

Bill  Prll,  An  Act  respecting  the  town  of 
IngersoU. 

Bill  Prl7,  An  Act  respecting  Diamond  and 
Green  Construction  Co.  Ltd. 

Bill  Pr23,  An  Act  respecting  Dominion 
Cartage  Ltd.  and  Downtown  Storage  Co.  Ltd. 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  following 
bills  with  certain  amendments: 

Bill  Pr9,  An  Act  respecting  the  town  of 
Strathroy. 

Bill  Prl3,  An  Act  respecting  Tara  Explora- 
tion and  Development  Co.  Ltd. 

Bill  Prl8,  An  Act  respecting  Victoria  Hos- 
pital Corp.  and  the  War  Memorial  Children's 
Hospital  of  Western  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  moves  that  when  this 
House  adjourns  today  it  stand  adjourned  until 
Tuesday  next,  April  16. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills. 

Orders  of  the  day. 

RETAIL  SALES  TAX  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  second  reading  of 
Bill  27,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales  Tax 
Act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kit- 
chener. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  my  remarks  on  this  bill  will  not  be 
lengthy.  There  are  a  few  points,  I  think, 
which    should    be    raised    as    these    various 


APRIL  11,  1974 


1045 


changes,  reflecting  the  budget  decisions,  are 
brought  into  effect. 

It's  interesting,  of  course,  to  note  that  some 
$354  million  has  been  raised  this  year  over 
last  year,  the  result  of  the  increase,  particu- 
larly, of  the  sales  tax  from  five  to  seven  per 
cent.  In  light  of  that  great  increase  by  which 
this  tax  becomes  the  largest  tax  collected  by 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  we  see  a  very  minor 
return.  That  return  of  $43  million  reflects  two 
particular  items,  the  items  of  personal  hygiene 
matters  which  are,  I  suppose,  of  some  partic- 
ular consequence,  and  the  matters  dealing 
with  the  reduction  of  the  tax  burden  on  the 
costs  of  footwear. 

I  suppose  there  would  be  some  who  would 
think  that  the  price  of  $30  is,  in  reality,  quite 
generous  although  I  think  the  facts  will  show, 
as  members  are  no  doubt  aware,  that  espe- 
cially in  young  people's  shoes  and  in  various 
of  the  athletic  items— the  requirements  of 
skates  and  various  other  kinds  of  specialty 
shoes— the  prices  of  these  articles  are  substan- 
tially higher  than  one  might  ordinarily  pre- 
sume. 

It  is,  however,  somewhat  curious  that  this 
government,  in  attempting  some  changes  in 
the  sales  tax,  has  chosen  this  particular  area 
when  there  are  other  areas  which  are  equally 
important.  I  would  refer  briefly  to  the  situ- 
ation with  respect  to  the  removal  of  the  sales 
tax  on  building  materials,  a  tax  which  brings 
in  a  revenue,  no  doubt,  of  about  $100  mil- 
lion a  year.  Further,  it  is  a  tax,  the  removal 
of  which,  we  believe,  would  have  a  substantial 
effect  on  the  provision  of  housing  and  on  real 
benefits  for  the  people  of  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  However,  this  is  the  choice  the 
government  has  made. 

We  had  noted  in  earlier  years  in  the  review 
of  the  select  committee  on  taxation— of  which 
I  happened  to  be  a  member  and  of  which 
the  present  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  was  the 
chairman— that  there  were  other  items  which 
had  been  suggested  for  taxation  at  that  point. 
It  was,  inde^,  the  view  of  the  select  com- 
mittee, at  least  in  majority,  that  the  items  to 
be  taxed  should  include  not  oiJy  these  items 
which  are  being  removed  toaay  but  also 
matters  of  children's  clothing  and  various 
other  items  which  would  be  Iwdanced  with  a 
tax  credit.  That  has  not  been  proceeded  with 
although  the  tax  credit  programme  of  this 
government  has  been  brought  in  as  various 
tinkering  has  been  done  to  bring  certain 
credits  to  various  sectors  of  the  economy. 

I  think  that  the  recent  budget  has  of  course 
made  some  changes  in  the  increasing  of  tax 
credits,  which  have  probably  resulted  in  some 
benefits  to  selected  areas  or  our  society. 


We,  of  course,  are  of  the  view  that  it  woukl 
be  better  in  the  first  place  not  to  collect  taxes 
raher  than  to  collect  them  and  then  hand 
them  back,  as  though  the  largesse  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  Ontario  was  the  source  of  tnete 
funds  rather  than,  in  fact,  the  initial  removal 
of  the  items  from  the  pockets  of  the  people 
and  from  the  purses  of  the  people  of  this 
province. 

I  do  suggest  that  these  changes  should  have 
been  in  effect  immediately  as  of  the  date  of 
the  budget.  As  hon.  members  will  recall  in  the 
last  year  we  had  certain  increases  in  taxes 
which  this  party  of  course  thought  should  not 
be  imposed  until,  in  fact,  the  ^gislation  was 
passed.  However  the  government  chose  to 
make  those  impositions  as  to  increases  of 
taxes  on  the  date  of  the  budget— which  is 
ordinarily  the  case,  I  must  admit. 

If  that  is  the  case  and  the  philosophy 
which  this  government  is  following,  then  we 
also  believe  that  the  deductions  and  the  re- 
moval of  taxes  should  be  in  effect  as  of  budget 
night.  Surely  some  consistency  in  the  matter 
should  exist  and  I  would  appreciate  hearing 
from  the  minister  when  he  has  the  opportunity 
to  advise  us  as  to  the  reasoning  behind  the 
withholding  of  the  lowering  of  these  taxes 
until  the  bill  is  passed.  This  especially  in  the 
light  of  the  fact  that  there  was  the  oppor- 
tunity for  persons  to  avoid  other  taxes  last 
year  because  of  the  difficulty  of  increasing 
the  taxes  until,  presumably,  the  legislation 
had  been  passed  by  this  House. 

You  will  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  turmoil 
that  existed  at  that  point  and  it  would  be  in- 
teresting to  know  the  reasoning  behind  the 
withholding  of  tax  reduction  at  this  point, 
when  there  was  no  problem  in  increasing 
taxes  in  the  last  budget. 

I'm  interested  in  noting  section  2  of  this 
bill  which  refers  as  well  to  some  particular 
items  that  are  sold  by  charitable  or  various 
benevolent  organizations.  I  note  that  only 
used  items  are  referred  to  and  I  would  sug- 
gest to  the  minister,  following  a  discussion 
which  we  had,  that  some  consideration  might 
be  given  with  respect  to  the  sale  of  donated 
items. 

As  the  minister  will  recall  there  was  some 
correspondence  sedcing  an  exemption  from  the 
collection  of  sales  tax,  particularly  with 
respect  to  the  Mennonite  sale  in  New  Ham- 
burg. This  is  a  sale  of  donated  items  of  food, 
of  clothing,  of  quilting,  of  all  sorts  of  hand- 
made items  that  are  sold  after  they  have 
been  donated  and  the  full  profits  given  to 
charity.  I  think  an  exemption  has  been 
granted  to  this  kind  of  circumstances  in  the 


1046 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


past  and,  indeed,  the  minister  may  have  al- 
ready dealt  with  this  particular  point. 

I  am  interested  in  his  view  as  to  whether 
some  general  legislation  might  be  acceptable 
with  respect  to  donated  items  or,  of  course, 
his  reasoning  as  to  why  he  would  feel  that  it 
would  be  better  to  deal  with  this  as  an  ex- 
ception rather  than  a  general  item  of  legis- 
lation. 

As  we  look  over  the  pages  in  this  bill  there 
is  another  section  which  is  somewhat  involv- 
ed, but  which  I  take  to  mean  that  a  propor- 
tion of  sales  tax  will  be  refunded  to  munici- 
palities for  the  various  kinds  of  amusements 
carried  on  in  community  centres  in  the  pro- 
portion that  those  amusements  bear  in  the  net 
proceeds  to  the  municipality  compared  with 
the  gross  admission  amounts. 

This  would  allow  the  province  to  involve 
itself  in  the  refunding  of  at  least  a  certain 
proportion  of  tax,  especially  in  circumstances 
where— so  far  as  community  centres  are  con- 
cerned—likely large  groups  of  citizens  are  in- 
volved in  fund-raising  projects  or  whatever. 
And,  of  course,  the  province,  to  encourage 
that  sort  of  thing,  should  give  some  tax 
benefit. 

I  think  particularly  of  the  smaller  com- 
munity centres  where  fund  raising,  in  order 
to  improve  these  centres,  goes  on  from  time 
to  time.  I  think  that  the  minister  is  well 
advised  to  give  a  rebate  of  the  sales  tax 
otherwise  collected  as  an  encouragement  to 
those  who  are  involving  themselves  in  de- 
veloping programmes  from  which  the  net  pro- 
ceeds are  going  to  benefit  the  mimicipality  or 
the  community. 

I  don't  know  whether  these  proceeds  have 
to  be  given  directly  to  a  municipal  organiza- 
tion or  whether,  for  example,  the  board  of 
management  of  a  community  centre  or  some 
other  local  service  organization  is  able  to 
benefit  where  the  proceeds  are  being  used, 
shall  we  say  to  put  an  extension  on  the  local 
arena  or  to  contribute  additional  facilities  to 
a  location  that  already  is  receiving  or  has  re- 
ceived a  benefit  under  the  Community 
Centres  Act.  Perhaps  the  minister  will  be  able 
to  give  some  explanation  to  that  point  when 
the  time  comes. 

As  I  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  reduction  of 
taxes  against  these  particular  items  with 
respect  to  the  retail  sales  tax  is  welcome.  We 
think  that  this  kind  of  a  situation  is  to  be 
encouraged,  particularly  as  in  family  expen- 
ditures. These  items  bear  a  certain  proportion 
in  the  overall  budget  of  a  family.  I  suppose 
there  are  some  who  might  facetiously  say  that 
the  government  is  simply  attempting  to  en- 


courage cleanliness  as  being  next  to  godliness 
on  the  basis  that  even  if  we  have  housing 
problems  or  other  problems,  at  least  we'll  all 
smell  nice  and  look  clean.  This  may  not  be 
the  only  reason— and  I  hope  it  isn't— because 
certainly  there  are  greater  tax  areas  that  need 
reform  than  this  particular  one. 

However,  I  am  content  that  some  progress 
has  been  made  in  this  area,  even  though  it  is 
not  exactly  along  the  lines  that  we  in  this 
party  would  like  to  see  the  sales  tax  used  for. 
That  tax  remains  a  regressive  one  in  many 
facets;  however,  at  least  some  of  the  re- 
gressivity  is  attempted  to  be  removed  by  this 
and  by  the  various  tax  credits  which  have 
been  proposed  by  the  government. 

Accordingly,  we  are  prepared  to  support 
the  bill  and  encourage  the  minister  to  make 
further  and  other  exemptions  that  will  benefit 
in  a  much  more  effective  way  the  people  of 
Ontario. 

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

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  recognize  that  the  rules  of  the 
House,  strictly  interpreted,  narrow  the  scope 
of  this  debate  to  consideration  of  the  few  new 
exemptions;  and  I  presume  if  one  strays  at 
any  great  length  into  a  discussion  of  the  sales 
tax  per  se,  that  I  will  be  the  victim  of  your 
gavel— at  least  your  voice  if  not  your  gavel. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener  strayed  somewhat,  but  I  didn't  in- 
terfere and  I  don't  intend  to  with  the  hon. 
member  for  York  South. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Yes,  well,  I  shall  not 
breach  the  rules  of  the  House  excessively. 

An  hon.  member:  Don't  be  superficial. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  When  the  sales  tax  was 
originally  introduced  in  this  province  we  ex- 
pressed our  views  with  regard  to  it.  I  was 
interested  at  a  meeting  which  I  attended 
with  the  provincial  Treasurer  this  morning 
and  the  number  of  groups  who  are  revie\\ing 
the  budget,  to  learn  from  him  that  authori- 
tative independent  outside  sources  have 
pointed  out  that  the  sales  tax  is  19  times  more 
regressive  than  the  income  tax.  Perhaps  I  can 
sum  up  my  sentiment  with  regard  to  the  sales 
tax  per  se,  with  a  quote  from  such  an 
authoritative  source  as  the  provincial  Treas- 
urer himself:  "We  are  operating  on  a  tax 
that  is  19  times  more  regressive  than  another 
that  might  be  applied." 

Now,  when  you  take  that  into  account  as 
the  sort  of  context  in  which  you  are  operat- 


APRIL  11.  1974 


1047 


ing— the  premise  for  vour  start— then  an  ex- 
emption list  that  looks  lengthy,  but  which, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  draw  to  your  attention,  actu- 
ally adds  up  to  $43  million.  This  $43  milUon 
happens  to  be  2.9  per  cent  of  last  year's  take 
on  the  sales  tax,  which  was  a  cool 
$1,487,000,000. 

So,  as  the  hon.  member  for  Kitchener  has 
pointed  out,  last  year  we  had  something  like 
$354  million  more  revenue  coming  in  from 
the  sales  tax— this  highly  regressive  tax— and 
yet,  as  a  sort  of  Santa  Glaus  effort,  presxmi- 
ablv  in  terms  of  or  for  the  purpose  or  coping 
with  the  increased  cost  of  living,  the  govern- 
ment now  is  going  to  create  further  exemp- 
tions which  will  hand  back  2.9  per  cent  of 
that  total  take,  namely  about  $43  million. 

The  next  point  that  I  would  like  to  make 
is  that  on  tne  other  side  of  the  House  we 
are  periodically— again  from  as  high  a  posi- 
tion as  that  of  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)— being 
accused  on  this  side  of  the  House  of  being 
hypocrites.  Well,  you  know,  when  the  govern- 
ment had  a  choice  as  to  where  they  might 
cut  off  sales  tax  in  order  to  meet  public  needs 
—and  they  themselves  admit  that  so  much  of 
the  rest  of  their  budget  is  directed  to  meet- 
ing the  need  for  housing  and  cutting  the  cost 
of  inflation,  particularly  in  the  housing  field 
—one  wonders  why  they  didn't  move  in  terms 
of  removing  the  sales  tax  from  building 
material's. 

And  here  I  get  to  the  hypocrisy  of  it— the 
Tories  in  Ottawa  are  screaming  for  removal 
of  the  sales  tax.  They  aren't  in  power,  so  it's 
easy  to  talk.  The  Tories  here  are  in  power. 
They  don't  remove  the  sales  tax.  The  Liberals 
here  are  screaming  for  removal  of  the  sales 
tax.  They  are  not  in  a  position  to  do  anything 
about  it.  The  Liberals  in  Ottawa  are  in 
power,  but  they  don't  do  anything. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
But  the  NDP  in  BC  are  yelling  about  it  and 
not  doing  anything.  They  are  trying  to  get  it 
both  ways. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  So  you  see,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  loss  of  sales  tax  revenue  from  building 
materials,  which  presimiably  would  be  a  very 
important  ingredient  in  terms  of  reducing 
housing  costs,  is  approximately  one-half  of 
what  the  government  gained  in  the  added 
amount  in  the  sales  tax  last  year.  The  govern- 
ment gained  about  $354  million.  I  understand 
the  building  materials  would  represent  about 
$190  million. 

In  other  words,  Mr.  Speaker,  obviously  this 
is  a  bill  which  one  should  support  because 


it  is  going  to  reduce  tb©  regre«lvitv,  and  I 
presume  one  should  also  oonoede  ttutt  it  is 
going  to  reduce  it  on  items  that  arc  bought 
by  individuals,  and  that  may  have  an  ad£d 
factor  of  progressivity.  But  the  Umited  extent 
to  which  it  is  going  to  make  that  reduction 
and  the  particular  choices  which  the  govern- 
ment has  made,  and  more  particularly  the 
choices  which  it  has  excluded,  bring  into 
question  many  of  its  rather  high  professions 
with  regard  to  its  desire  to  have  equity  in  the 
tax  structure  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

But  as  I  have  already  implied,  we  will 
support  it  as  a  tiny,  baby  step  in  the  right 
direction  with  reference  to  individuals  and 
the  costs  they  have  to  bear  in  face  of  rising 
living  costs  today. 

There  would  have  been  another  alternative, 
of  a  cost  of  hving  rebate  that  would  be 
meaningful,  but  this  government  always  pro- 
ceeds on  a  bits-and-pieces  basis  rather  Uian 
a  comprehensive  basis  to  meet  a  fundamental 
need. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  reduction  of  $43 
million  in  sales  tax  collected  this  year  is  a 
very  small  amount  when  one  looks  at  the 
total  sales  tax  revenue. 

I  think  we  must  briefly  draw  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  government,  by  its  structure 
this  year,  even  with  this  reduction  in  sales 
tax  revenue,  is  moving  to  a  larger  and  larger 
source  of  revenue  from  the  retail  sales  tax 
field. 

It's  regrettable,  in  my  view  and  in  the 
view  of  this  party,  that  the  government  col- 
lects more  revenue  from  retail  sales  tax  than 
it  does  from  personal  income  tax.  This  should 
not  be,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Last  year  there  was  $1,305  nullion  collected 
from  retail  sales  tax,  and  even  with  these  re- 
ductions, Mr.  Speaker,  this  year  there  will  be 
$1,487  million.  So  the  government  will  take 
$182  million  more  this  year  than  last  year  in 
its  estimates  from  retail  sales  tax,  even  with 
these  reductions. 

I'm  sure  that  the  people  of  Ontario  are 
thankfiJ  for  these  few  reductions,  but  cer- 
tainly the  philosophy  of  keeping  such  a  re- 
gressive tax  as  a  major  source  of  income  is 
absolutely  a  wrong  philosophy,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor- WalkerviUe): 
The  wrong  approach. 

Mr.  Good:  The  approach  by  government 
that  is  incorporated  into  the  retail  sales  tax 


1048 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is  not  in  the  best  interests  of  the  majority  of 
the  people  in  the  province.  We  accept  the 
$43  million  reduction  but  we  do  not  accept 
the  $182  million  additional  revenue  which  the 
government  will  receive  because  of  inflation, 
and  certainly  inflation  plays  into  the  hands 
of  the  retail  sales  tax  more  than  any  other 
source  of  revenue  within  the  province.  Per- 
sonal and  corporate  income  tax  is  a  much 
more  progressive  type  of  tax  to  receive  and 
we  regret  that  the  government  continues  to 
have  as  its  major  source  of  revenue  the  retail 
sales  tax,  even  with  these  much  heraldied  re- 
ductions. 

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

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  have  very  few  comments  to  m^e.  I 
want  to  say  that  as  I  see  the  principle,  it  is 
whether  we  approve  or  don't  approve  of  the 
government  removing  sales  tax  from  certain 
things.  1  want  the  House  to  know  that  I 
approve  of  the  removal  of  the  sales  tax  from 
the  items  mentioned  in  this  particular  Bill  27. 
I  wonder  a  bit,  nevertheless,  about  how  the 
minister  decided  on  which  items  were  to  be 
exempted  from  sales  tax. 

Before  I  deal  with  that  I  want  to  ask  the 
minister  if  he  would  be  kind  enough  in  his 
reply  to  explain  the  diiference  between  taking 
a  tax  oflF  and  not  diealing  with  it  until  after 
the  Legislature  has  passed  it  and  imposing 
a  tax  and  making  it  retroactive. 

The  member  for  Kitchener  mentions  they 
supported  that  last  year;  I  think  it  fair  to  say 
we  initiated  the  action  on  it  last  year.  In  fact, 
the  discussion  was  very  much  centralized  be- 
tween ourselves  in  this  party  and  the  govern- 
ment; I  think  it  fair  to  say  we  believed  that 
a  tax  should  neither  be  imposed  nor  taken 
off  without  legislative  action. 

I  am  interested  to  know  whether  this  is  a 
change  in  the  government's  pohcy  with  re- 
gard to  the  imposition  of  taxes  as  much  as 
with  the  removal  of  taxes,  and  whether  the 
government's  intention  would  be,  from  here 
on  in,  to  give  adequate  notice  of  any  intended 
change  in  the  tax  structure  and  not  to  pro- 
ceed with  it  in  the  fashion  with  which  it  has 
previously  been  proceeded,  and  to  give  time 
for  the  Legislature  to  discuss  and  consider 
any  proposed  changes  in  the  taxation  policies 
of  the  government  of  the  province. 

It  seems  to  me,  though,  as  I  think  about  it, 
that  during  the  budget  discussion  by  the  Min- 
ister of  Finance,  he  indicated  there  were  some 
things  which  were  going  into  effect  almost 
immediately.  I  am  not  absolutely  clear  how 
one  draws  an  analogy  between  that  and  what 


the  government  is  currently  doing  with  regard 
to  taxes  that  are  being  taken  cm.  We  will  go 
through  that  argument  again  no  doubt. 

I  said  last  year  and  I  say  again  this  year 
that  I  think  that  any  time  the  government 
alters  a  statute,  it  has  to  have  one  of  two 
things.  Either  it  has  to  have  legislative 
approval  prior  to  implementation  or  it  has  to 
have  a  bill  or  an  Act  in  force  which  gives  it 
the  right  to  collect  taxes  provisionally  during 
the  course  of  debate.  That  wasn't  done  by 
this  government  and  1  want  to  suggest  that 
should  have  been  done  and  I  had  hoped  that 
it  would  be  done. 

Let  me  ask  the  minister  about  two  or  three 
matters  that  are  specific  to  this  particular 
bill.  How  is;  it  that  he  would  agree  to  exempt 
powders  and  liquids  for  cleaning  floors,  walls, 
tiles,  gl'ass,  metal,  cooking  utensils,  etc.  and 
yet  he  wouldn't  exempt  the  mops  and  brooms 
needed  to  do  the  job?  He  wouldn't  exempt 
the  pails  people  have  to  have  in  order  to  do 
the  job  effectively.  Scom-ing  pads— there  are 
surely  as  many  scouring  pads  used  to  clean 
cooking  utensils  in  this  province  toda}^  as 
there  are  cleaning  fluids?  Why  would  he  de- 
cide to  exempt  certain  things,  the  intent  of 
which  is  clear,  and  not  exempt  similar  kinds 
of  things? 

Let  me  ask  him  about  another.  He  has 
exempted  sanitary  pads  but  has  refused  to 
exempt  sanitary  belts.  Why  would  it  be  that 
he  would  decide  to  exempt  one  without  the 
other  since  they  are  both  obviously  used  one 
with  the  other  and  are  necessary  one  to  the 
other?  What's  the  rationale  behind  the 
changes?  Did  he  sort  of  peek  and  stick  his 
thumb  in,  take  a  few  and  say,  "We'll  exempt 
these  because  thev  fall  into  a  categor)'^  which 
would  meet  public  acceptance"  and  ignore 
some  of  the  odiers? 

The  reason  I  ask  about  those  specifically  is 
that  those  are  the  ones  specifically  mentioned 
in  the  retail  sales  tax  bulletin.  The  bulletin 
spell's  out  "To  be  exempt"  and  "Still  taxable" 
so  it's  obvious  that  the  ministry  thought  a  bit 
about  it.  If  the  minister  thought  a  bit  about 
it,  maybe  he  can  explain  to  me  why  tooth- 
brushes are  exempt  but  combs  aren't.  I  don't 
quite  follow. 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Toothbrushes  are  sanitary  items.  We  cannot 
all  afford  marcelles. 

Mr.  Deans:  Pardon? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Toothbrushes  are  sanitary 
items  but  we  can't  all  afford  marcelles. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  want  to  let  him  know  some 
other  things  are,  too.  Let  me  suggest  to  him 


APRIL  11.  1974 


1040 


that  disinfectants  are  still  taxable  but  de- 
odorants aren't.  Well,  all  right— let  me  suggest 
to  the  minister  that  there  are  certain  in- 
consistencies in  the  government's  attitude  to- 
ward certain  matters  as  being  matters  of 
necessity. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Mattel  (Sudbury  East):  They  put 
them  in  a  hat  and  drew  out  a  number  of 
them. 

Mr.  Deans:  Maybe  the  minister  could  con- 
sider broadening  it  ever  so  slightly  and  in- 
cluding two  or  three  of  the  items  I  have 
mentioned,  because  I  think  a  number  of 
people  would  be  interested  in  having  that 
happen. 

There  is  one  other  point  I  want  to  raise 
with  the  minister  that  should  be  considered. 
The  exemption  on  shoes  is  worthwhile,  I  am 
sure,  and  for  the  majority  of  people,  who 
don't  buy  many  shoes  over  the  course  of  a 
year  anyway,  the  saving  won't  be  very  great. 
But  there  are  people  who  have  foot  problems 
and  have  to  buy  special  kinds  of  shoes,  which 
are  obviously  more  expensive,  and  I  am  won- 
dering whether  there  is  a  way  that  they  can 
be  exempt.  I  am  not  absolutely  clear  at  the 
moment  whether  they  can  be  exempted  or 
not. 

Perhaps  the  matter  falls  into  that  category 
whereby  if  there  is  a  prescription  then  they 
can  be  exempt,  but  if  there  is  no  prescription 
they  can't— and  there  is  no  prescription  need- 
ed for  any  replacement.  So  I  would  like  to 
ask  the  minister  if  he  would  check  with  his 
oflBcials,  if  he  is  not  sure  about  it,  and  let 
me  know  about  that  at  some  future  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes. 

Mr.  Deans:  In  any  event,  I  think  it  is  a 
bit  of  a  mishmash.  It  is  unfortunate  that  the 
minister  couldn't  see  his  way  clear  to  make 
the  exemptions  a  little  broader,  but  I  think  in 
the  areas  I  have  mentioned,  and  in  others 
that  I  haven't  mentioned,  that  there  are  cer- 
tain inconsistencies. 

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

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wanted  to 
make  a  few  comments  concerning  this  bill, 
endorsing  the  principle  of  the  bill.  Anything 
that  will  reduce  the  sales  tax  for  the  general 
public  certainly  is  a  welcome  change.  How- 
ever, I  do  regret  that  the  minister  has  not 
gone  as  far  as  I  have  attempted  to  get  him 
to  go  when  I  asked  a  question  the  other  day 
during  the  question  period.  This  involves 
section  2  of  the  bill. 


I  have  noted  that  the  minister  has  exempt- 
ed footwear  under  the  value  of  $30.  How- 
ever, I  would  have  liked  the  minister  to  have 
included  in  that  section  on  exemption  for 
athletic  equipment.  Since  1976  is  Olympic 
year,  I  think  that  we  in  the  province,  as  well 
as  in  Canada,  should  go  all  out  in  an  attempt 
to  not  only  sell  the  Olympic  games  and  the 
concept  but  also  encourage  maximum  par- 
ticipation on  the  part  of  our  youth.  There  are 
many  amateur  groups  and  organizations,  on 
whom  is  imposed  the  seven  per  cent  sales  tax 
on  equipment  they  buy  to  encourage  par- 
ticipation on  the  part  of  all  ages  of  youth, 
who  should  have  been  considered  for  ex- 
emption. 

The  ministry  does  exempt  purchases  made 
by  boards  of  education  through  exemption 
certificates.  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  same 
principle  should  apply  to  those  athletic 
groups  that  are  recognized  and  financially 
assisted  by  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  (Mr.  Brunelle).  In  other  words, 
we  already  have  lists  of  groups  that  are 
considered  worthwhile  by  the  government  as 
far  as  some  type  of  athletic  equipment  assist- 
ance is  concerned. 

The  minister  could  have  gone  one  step 
further  in  this  section  of  the  bill  by  extend- 
ing exemption  of  sales  tax  to  those  organiza- 
tions through  some  type  of  arrangement  with 
the  Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices. Exempting  them  from  sales  tax  wouldn't 
amount  to  a  substantial  amount  of  money, 
Mr.  Speaker,  but  it  certainly  would  show  the 
government's  greater  awareness  of  and  con- 
cern for  fitness  and  a  greater  a\\'areness  of 
and  concern  for  physical  activity  on  the  part 
of  our  youth. 

We  do  have  a  drug  problem,  sir,  and  we 
do  have  all  types  of  other  problems.  At  least 
if  the  individual  is  going  to  bum  out  his 
energy  through  good  clean  athletic  activity, 
he  may  not  get  involved  in  some  of  the  other 
less  salutary  types  of  endeavours. 

Another  suggestion  that  I  would  like  to 
make  to  the  minister  is  where  he  mentions 
footwear,  I  think  any  type  of  orthopaedic 
footwear  should  be  exempt  from  the  sales  tax 
regardless  of  the  price. 

Mr.  Good:  Right. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  don't  think  we  should 
limit  that  to  $30.  As  long  as  it  is  for  the 
physical  or  the  health  benefit  of  the  indi- 
vidual, as  the  previous  member  made  men- 
tion, it  should  DC  exempt  from  the  taxation. 

In  section  3  of  the  bill  the  minister  is  go- 
ing to  rebate  to  municipalities  the  sales  tax 


1050 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


collected  from  functions  that  have  been  con- 
ducted in  community  centres.  I  would  suggest 
to  the  minister,  rather  than  use  that  approach, 
the  municipality  and/or  organizations  mat  are 
going  to  conduct  these  activities  apply  to  the 
ministry  in  the  same  way  that  an  individual 
applies  to  the  Liquor  Licence  Board  for  a 
special  occasion  permit.  They  apply  to  the 
ministry  for  a  permit  stating  that  they  are 
going  to  conduct  this  type  or  that  type  of 
charitable  activity  in  this  or  that  facility  and 
would  the  ministry  send  them  an  exemption 
certificate.  All  of  this  red  tape  and  the  letter 
writing  back  and  forth,  collecting  the  money, 
mailing  it  to  the  ministry,  then  asking  for  a 
refund,  would  be  expedited  and  done  away 
Nvith. 

I  offer  those  suggestions  to  the  minister 
for  his  consideration  and  hope  he  does  act  on 
them.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  ask  the 
minister,  if  I  might,  for  a  clarification  on 
something  that  is  apparently  lacking— or 
maybe  I  am  missing  the  point—on  children's 
clothing.  I  have  two  points  really.  I  am  not 
sure  why  the  government  simply  doesn't  take 
the  tax  all  off,  and  that's  where  maybe  I  am 
wrong.  The  tax  is  off  children's  doming,  but 
I  really  don't  think  so.  And  more  importantly 
—well,  not  more  importantly,  as  that's  pretty 
important— I  am  not  sure  if  the  minister  has 
been  buying  children's  clothes  of  late  in  order 
to  realize  the  tremendous  increase  in  cost  of 
those  items  for  that  group  which  actually 
needs  adults'  clothing,  but  which  is  only  12 
or  13  years  of  age.  I  don't  know  if  they  grow 
bigger  today.  It  certainly  seems  to  be  the 
case. 

II  have  had  a  lot  of  complaints  about  young 
people  whose  parents  take  them  to  buy  cloth- 
ing and  in  the  children's  section  simply  can- 
not get  the  type  of  clothing  that  fits  or  the 
type  of  shoes  that  fit  and  consequently  find 
themselves  either  in  the  ladies'  department  or 
in  the  men's  department  buying  clothing  that 
will  fit,  and  paying  retail  sales  tax  on  it. 

There  has  been  rumbling  about  it,  but 
surely  there  should  be  a  way  to  work  aroimd 
this,  using  maybe  oflBcial  school  student  cards 
that  most  high  schools  have  that  have  the 
ages  of  the  young  people  on,  so  that  we 
could  get  around  that  extra  cost  to  those 
people  whose  children  are  too  big.  It  seems 
to  me  to  be  a  simple  request.  It  may  be  a 
little  diflBcult  in  working  out  the  semantics 
to  ensure  that  only  those  who  are  actually  of 
age  would  derive  the  benefits,  but  it  seems 


to  me  to  be  an  area  in  which  the  government 
could  move  quite  easily. 

Mr.  Speaks:  TTie  member  for  Essex  South. 

Mr.  D.  A.  Paterson  (Essex  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  rising  to  take  part  in  this  debate, 
I  reahze  at  the  present  time  the  retail  stores 
in  Ontario  are  still  collecting  this  seven  per 
cent  tax  on  all  these  items  mat  are  going  to 
be  excluded  and  which  our  party  concurs  in. 
It  would  be  my  hope  that  with  the  support 
that  the  minister  is  receiving  with  respect  to 
this  legislation,  that  we  could  proceed,  not 
only  through  second  reading  today  but  hope- 
fully into  mird  reading  and  Royal  assent  later 
today  so  that  when  the  stores  reopen  this 
Saturday  that  the  public  of  our  province  may 
enjoy  the  benefits  of  this  good  legislation. 

I  don't  know  what  the  intent  of  the  House 
leader  is,  but  possibly  the  minister  can  indi- 
cate when  he  concludes  the  debate  on  second 
reading. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  speak  as  a  merchant;  and 
possibly  as  I  stay  in  this  Legislatiu-e  longer 
I  might  qualify  as  running  a  non-profit  organ- 
ization. It's  getting  close  to  that  point.  Tnere 
are  two  points  that  I  want  to— 

An  hon.  member:  That's  under  section  2. 

Mr.  Paterson:  Right.  I  might  qualify  for 
section  2  in  another  year  or  two  here. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  might  be  a  conflict  of 
interest. 

Mr.  Paterson:  Right.  Well,  I'm  getting  to 
that  non-profit  organization  category. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  He's  laying  the  foundations 
for  that  right  now. 

Mr.  Paterson:  I  may  not  have  the  conflict. 

But  there  are  two  matters  I  would  like  to 
discuss  and  I  think  the  first  is  in  relation  to 
section  3,  which  deals  with  rebates  to  munic- 
ipalities where  sales  are  conducted  at  com- 
munity centres. 

I  guess  this  is  one  of  the  old  chestnuts  that 
I  bring  up  from  time  to  time— and  I  realize 
it's  not  in  the  bill— and  that  is  the  matter  of 
rebate  for  those  persons  who  are  doing  the 
book  work  and  making  the  collections- that 
is,  the  retail  merchant. 

I  would  hope  that  the  minister,  in'  his  re- 
buttal, might  state  whether  that  is  still  being 
given  consideration  or  not. 

And  the  second  point  is  possibly  a  little 
closer  to  a  conflict  of  interest  in  myself, 
although  I  guess  as  a  merchant  we  are  really 
doing  the  work  of  the  province  and  we  are 


APRIL  11.  1974 


1061 


not  extracting  funds  for  our  own  purposes 
when  we  collect  the  tax  from  the  public. 

I  believe  in  the  ministerial  statements  re- 
garding the  retail  sales  tax  exemption  there 
was  an  indication  that  further  thought  was 
being  given  to  exclusions  in  relations  to  chil- 
dren s  clothing.  I  happen  to  be  in  the  retail 
fabric  business  and  all  fabrics  and  patterns 
and  the  necessary  supplies  in  making  a  child's 
garment  are  subject  to  the  seven  per  cent  tax. 
I  realize  that  this  would  be  a  most  diflBcult 
area  to  exempt. 

Possibly  the  minister  is  aware  of  a  new 
organization  in  the  province  composed  of 
both  wholesalers  and  tne  retail  establishments 
across  the  province,  along  with  pattern  com- 
panies and  so  forth.  He  might  sit  down  with 
them  some  day  and  possibly  come  up  with  a 
formula  that  when  a  child's  pattern  is  pur- 
chased and  the  required  length  of  fabric  for 
the  child's  dress  is  purchased  and  the  sundry 
supplies,  that  possibly— as  with  farmers— a 
signature  on  a  purchase  for  an  exemption 
might  be  a  possible  way  around  this. 

I  don't  know;  but  I  know  in  my  own  ex- 
perience I've  had  this  drawn  to  my  personal 
attention  many  times.  A  housewife  comes  in 
to  buy  fabric  for  a  child's  dress  and  says, 
"Why  do  we  have  to  pay  tax  when  we  can 
go  next  door,  buy  the  ready-made  garment, 
and  there  is  no  tax  on  the  same?" 

There  is  only  one  other  area  of  confusion 
in  relation  to  the  collection  of  tax  and  that 
is  in  relation  to  the  retail'  selling  on  certain 
books— instruction  books— and  I  feel  that  there 
should  be  some  clarification  put  forth  either 
to  the  printers  or  the  distributing  companies 
that  issue  these  through  to  the  retail  trade. 

I  believe  the  exemption  is,  if  a  book  is 
printed  less  than  four  times  a  year  it  is  not 
subject  to  the  retail  sales  tax.  It  is  most  con- 
fusing and  I  draw  this  matter  also  to  the 
minister's  attention  and  that  of  his  oflBcials 
and  possibly  something  can  be  done  in  future 
legislation  to  clarify  this. 

I  think  these  are  all  the  remarks  I  wish  to 
make  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Any  further  hon.  members 
wish  to  speak  to  this  bill?  If  not,  the  hon. 
minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  begin 
with.  I  would  like  to  thank  the  hon.  members 
for  their,  I  suppose  it's  fair  to  say,  universal 
support  of  this  bill— for  a  varying  number  of 
reasons,  of  course. 

I've  heard  the  argument  that  the  sales  tax 
is  19  times  more  regressive  than  income  tax, 
and  so  any  reduction  is  better  than  nothing. 


If  indeed  it  is  19  times  niore  regressive,  than 
a  verv  small  reduction  in  the  impact  <^  the 
Retail  Sales  Tax  Act  on  our  pe<^le  has  a  very 
significant  effect  on  them. 

iThe  question  I  might  raise— and  I  think  it 
was  the  hon,  member  for  York  South  who 
purported  to  quote  the  Treasurer  on  this— is 
whether,  in  fact,  it  is  19  times  more  regressive 
than  the  income  tax.  It  is  reallv  academic  be- 
cause I  think  most  of  us  in  tnis  House  con- 
sider that  the  Income  Tax  Act  is  not  a  re- 
gressive tax  but  is  a  rather  progressive  tax. 
So  I  don't  know  how  you  compare  apples  to 
oranges  and  suggest  that  something  that  is 
not  regressive  is  19  times  better  than  some- 
thing that  is,  or  whatever  the  suggestion  was 
by  that  comparison. 

I  think  perhaps  the  best  way  to  deal  with 
these  points  is  to  deal  with  them  in  the 
order  in  which  they  were  raised  in  the  House 
this  afternoon.  The  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener  referred  to  the  extent  to  which  this 
bill  applies  and  the  way  in  which  we  wound 
up  selecting  what  articles  were  on  it  and 
what  articles  still  remain  off  it.  In  fact,  that 
item  has  been  touched  upon  by  a  number  of 
the  members  this  afternoon. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  tell  you  that  my  min- 
istry put  together  several  possible  alternatives 
—we  called  them  packages,  in  the  colloquial— 
of  articles  that  were  practical  for  the  retail 
merchandising  indusby  to  be  able  to 
categorize  within  their  bins,  their  trays,  their 
shelves  and  their  corridors  in  their  stores,  so 
that  they  would  be  able  to  readily  identify, 
at  the  cash  counter  or  however  else,  whether 
the  article  was  taxable  or  not  taxable,  and 
we  were  able  to  tell  the  Treasurer  the  kind  of 
money  that  the  province  would  then  lose  by 
the  selection  of  one  or  other  of  these  various 
packages. 

The  package  selected  by  the  minister, 
which  includes  the  removal  of  sales  tax  on 
shoes  up  to  a  price  of  $30  a  pair,  eliminates 
between  80  per  cent  and  90  per  cent-by 
sort  of  a  rough  type  of  estimate— off  the  top 
of  one's  head— of  the  complaints  that  we  as 
members  have  received  with  respect  to  the 
problem,  as  outlined  by  the  member  for  Sud- 
bury East  and  others,  of  detemuning  when 
the  youngster  who  has  grown  too  fast  is 
suddenly,  at  age  14,  in  the  class  where  he 
winds  up  having  to  buy  adult  clothing  and 
pay  the  tax.  So  the  selection  of  a  size  was 
not  terribly  satisfactory.  It  was  most  dramati- 
cally illustrated  as  being  unsatisfactory  in  the 
category  of  shoes  and  boots. 

So,  in  the  removal  of  that,  I  think  we  have 
overcome  aroimd  80  per  cent  or  90  per  cent 
of   all    the   problems    that   our   people    have 


1052 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


faced  in  that  age  grouping  where  the 
youngsters  are  growing  from  young  people 
into  young  adults.  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say 
that  if  the  hon.  member  for  Sudbury  East  or 
any  of  oiu:  other  colleagues  can  come  up  with 
some  suggestions  as  to  the  way  in  which  we 
can  deal  with  clothing  generally  in  some 
rational  way,  so  that  small  adults  don't  get 
the  benefit  of  buying  children's  clothing,  then 
we  can  very  well,  in  my  ministry  and  in  con- 
junction with  the  Treasurer,  maybe  next  time 
around  or  even  earlier,  by  way  of  regulation, 
adopt  something  that  will  suit.  But  for  the 
present  time,  if  we  were  simply  to  wipe  that 
out,  the  loss  would  be  many  millions  of  dol- 
lars to  the  Treasury,  and  it  has  been  the 
Treasurer's  decision  that  we  would  not  re- 
move it  at  this  time. 

There  was  the  question,  also  raised  I  think 
by  the  hon.  member  for  Kitchener  and  re- 
peated by  others,  of  how  does  one  justify 
the  imposition  of  a  sales  tax  now  on  certain 
things  but  its  removal  at  some  later  time.  The 
imposition  of  the  tax  last  year  was  not  an 
abrupt  imposition,  it  was  an  increase  in  an 
existing  tax  on  which  all  the  merchants  had 
all  the  information  at  hand,  their  staff  knew 
how  to  deal  with  the  matter,  it  was  simply 
a  matter  of  charging  up  seven  per  cent  in- 
stead of  charging  up  five  per  cent. 

In  this  case  we  would  dearly  love  to  be 
able  to  roll  in  Tuesday  morning  with  a  re- 
moval from  sales  tax  of  the  items  as  set  out 
in  the  bill  and  as  set  out  in  a  very  elaborate 
regulation— which  will  have  to  flow  from  this 
bill;  but  the  difficulty  is  that  that  regulation 
has  to  go  through  the  mechanics  of  the  regu- 
lations committee  and  cabinet  itself  and  on  to 
the  registrar  of  regulations. 

My  staff  are  preparing  that  elaborate  regu- 
lation and  we  would  estimate  a  period  of 
roughly  10  days  from  the  time  when  the  bill 
is  passed  to  the  time  when  I  can  get  it 
through  the  various  hoops  and  approved  and 
out  to  all  the  retail  merchants  in  Ontario  so 
that  they  will  have  adequate  information  in 
time  to  be  able  to  deal  with  the  matter 
properly. 

The  member  for  Kitchener  also  referred  to 
donated  items.  We  haven't  covered  that.  I 
told  him— I  believe  it  was  at  the  reception 
the  other  day— that  we  would  look  at  this; 
we  will  look  at  it.  I  think  it's  a  matter  that 
should  be  given  serious  consideration;  that 
we  shouldn't  necessarily  do  these  things  on 
an  ad  hoc  basis  of  exempting  one  and  then 
letting  another  one  make  application. 

Perhaps  if  an  organization  qualifies  as  a 
charitable  organization  for  other  purposes  that 


it  might  then  automatically  qualify.  So  far 
the  practice  of  my  predecessors  has  been  to 
look  at  each  one  in  turn  and  determine 
whether  it  was  an  appropriate  organization, 
as  I  understand  it,  to  be  exempted  from  this 
kind  of  thing,  whether  they  be  donated 
goods  or  otherwise.  I  think  we  can  take  a 
further  look  at  it  in  the  course  of  the  next 
while. 

The  member  for  Kitchener  also  asked  the 
question  concerning  the  community  centres 
amendment;  and  my  notes,  I'm  afraid,  don't 
bring  the  question  fully  back  to  mind.  He  did 
say  something  about  the  benefits  going  back 
to  the  municipality— and  this  is,  of  cou^^e, 
what  we  would  expect  would  be  the  case.  If 
it  does  go  back  to  the  municipality— if  that 
was  the  member's  question;  I  think  it  was  as 
I  ruminate  on  this— if  it  does  go  back  to  the 
municipahty  and  the  affidavit,  as  contemplated 
by  the  amendment  in  the  Act,  is  sworn  to  say 
it  goes  back  to  the  benefit  of  the  municipality, 
then  however  the  municipality  and  its  coun- 
cil or  its  community  centres  board  determines 
to  apply  the  fund,  it  would  qualify  for  a 
proportionate  abatement  of  the  sales  tax. 

The  member  is  nodding  his  head.  I  presume 
that  that  satisfactorily  answers  his  question. 

The  member  for  York  South  raised  a  point 
v/hich,  of  course,  we  have  all  reflected  on 
from  time  to  time— and  that  is  the  matter  of 
the  removal  of  the  retail  .sales  tax  from  build- 
ing materials.  We  would  like  to  see  the  federal 
government  remove  their  tax,  which  is  a  very 
much  larger  one  than  the  tax  imposed  by 
Ontario. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  It  is  on 
the  wholesale  price— the  provincial  one  is  on 
the  retail  price. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  are  not  satisfied  that 
the  removal  of  our  tax  would  significantly 
reduce  the  retail  sale  price  of  that  house.  We 
think  that  the  builder  would  simply  move  in 
and  absorb  that  reduction  in  cost  to  him  and 
in  fact  would  retain  the  same  sale  price.  The 
point  is  the  value  of  the  sale  price  of  the 
house  on  the  market  is  not  determined  by  the 
cost  to  the  builder  so  much  as  it  is  determined 
by  what  the  buflder  can  get  when  he  puts  it 
on  the  market.  And  that,  I  suspect  is  why  the 
federal  government  has  also  not  removed  its 
sales  tax. 

If  they  remove  theirs  at  the  federal  level, 
the  amount  of  our  tax  would  of  course  be 
reduced  by  a  factor— by  I  suppose  11  per  cent 
of  our  seven  per  cent. 

But  we  do  not  believe  in  this  present  market 
that   there  would   be   any   significant   abate- 


APRIL  11.  1974 


1053 


nient  in  the  sale  price  of  houses,  unless  and 
until  there  can  be  a  sufiBcient  supply  of  houses 
on  the  market  so  that  they  are  in  fact  com- 
petitive—then the  sale  price  will  simply  be 
governed  today  by  what  the  market  can  stand. 

By  reducing  that  tax,  we  would  lose  roughly 
$195  million— I  think  that  is  the  estimate- 
without  any  significant  improvement  in  the 
price  by  way  of  reduction  in  the  sale  price  of 
houses  on  the  market. 

I  think  I  have  answered  the  questions  by 
the  member  for  Wentworth  as  to  how  we 
decided  which  items  we  would  exempt  and 
how  we  would  not  accept  others,  but  I  might 
just  point  out  that  as  for  shoes,  I  have 
checked  with  our  staff  and— since  the  member 
for  Wentworth  isn't  in  his  seat  his  colleagues 
might  relate  it  to  him— I  am  advised  that 
orthopaedic  shoes  now  do  qualify.  That  is,  the 
type  of  shoe  with  an  elevated  arch  or  strength- 
ening facilities  would  qualify  as  an  ortho- 
paedic device. 

The  member  for  Windsor- Walkerville  asked 
about  athletic  equipment.  That  again  is  just 
part  of  a  package,  one  might  say.  If  one 
starts  talking  about  athletic  equipment,  one 
has  to  start  getting  selective  unless  one  is  pre- 
pared to  wipe  out  the  $100  pair  of  skis  or  the 
expensive  pair  of  skates. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  The  way  of  doing  it, 
though,  is  by  going  through  the  Ministry  of 
Community  and  Social  Services,  not  to— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  At  the  present  time  there 
are  facilities  for  schools  to  purchase  this  kind 
of  equipment  tax-free.  I  would  suggest  that 
imless  we  can  come  up  with  something,  and 
maybe  the  hon.  member  has  some  suggestion 
that's  workable— we  can  look  at  that— but 
again  it  is  a  package.  We  have  got  to  consider 
all  the  factors  and  particularly  the  financial 
impact  of  this.  Whether  these  people  who  are 
paying  the  tax  can  presently  aff^ord  to  pay  it 
is  certainly  an  important  one  but  it  is  not 
the  only  factor  to  remember.  We  have  got  to 
look  at  the  luxury  aspect  of  these  things. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  don't  say  all  athletic 
equipment.  I  am  specifying  selected  equip- 
ment, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  was  not  clear  about 
what  the  member  for  Windsor-Walkerville 
was  suggesting  with  respect  to  municipalities 
and  their  applications  for  exemption  permits 
on  admission  prices.  It  seems  to  me  that 
might  just  develop  into  an  administrative 
nigntmare. 


I  have  the  notion  that  the  course  of  action 
we  are  following  by  way  of  a  distinc-t  exemp- 
tion by  statute,  thereby  permitting  them  from 
the  beginning  to  know  where  they  are  when 
they  are  plarming  their  function,  is  far  better 
than  requiring  that  they  apply  to  tlie  ministry 
for  s-pecific  exemptions.  Waiting  for  the  min- 
ister's response  c-an  leave  them  in  limbo  for 
some  time  while  the  matter  is  weighed.  Con- 
sefiuently,  I  think  the  course  of  action  we  are 
following  here  in  a  specific  area  is  a  far 
clearer  one. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  The  government  is  going 
to  handle  the  moneys  two  times. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Is  that  the 
same  as  twice? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  There  is  no  sense  in  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  come  now,  I  think,  to 
the  last  item  I  need  to  touch  on.  It's  the 
comment  by  the  member  for  Sudbury  East, 
on  which  I  have  already  touched  briefly, 
dealing  with  younger  children  with  outsized 
feet  and  that  kind  of  problem  with  larger 
than  average  children.  The  member  for  Essex 
South  touched  on  this,  too. 

The  diflBculty  is  that  today  the  styling  of 
students'  clothing  and  adults'  clothing  is  much 
the  same.  I  am  told  it  used  to  be  that  one 
could  always  tell  the  difference  between 
young  children's  clothing  and  clothing  for 
children  up  to  age  16  and  adtJt  clothing.  I 
see  the  member  for  Essex  South  is  not  in  his 
seat  but  I  think  he  would  confirm  that  there 
is  very  little  style  difference  any  longer.  It's 
diflRcult  if  not  impossible  to  police  sales  of 
this  nature  whereas  it  is  possible  to  police 
them  if  there  are  styling  differences. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Take  it  off  all  clothing  and  be 
done  with  it. 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  Right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  would  ask  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  if  he  has  any  suggestions 
as  to  how  we  would  cope  with,  say,  telephone 
orders?  Recognizing  that  styles  are  the  same, 
how  then  do  the  tax  auditors  inspect  the 
books  when  people  have  placed  telephone 
orders?  It's  fine  for  someone  to  come  in  and 
produce  a  card  identifying  him  as  a  student 
at  the  XYZ  collegiate  and  that  he's  15  or  16 
years  of  age  but  what  kind  of  evidence  is 
then  left  with  the  merchant  so  that  he  can 
satisfy  the  auditors  when  they  check  to  make 
sure  if  he  has  or  has  not  collected  a  properly 
payable  tax? 

These  are  some  of  the  problems  we  face 
in  my  ministry.  If  we  can  come  up  with  some 
ideas  as  to  how  to  properly  organize  this  end 


1054 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  merchant  selling,  I  can  tell  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  I'd  be  the  first  to  recommend 
to  my  colleagues  a  suitable  course  of  action, 
provided  it  can  be  policed  properly. 

Mr.  Speaker,  those  observations  conclude 
my  comments.  I  just  want  to  repeat  my  open- 
ing words— that  I  appreciate  the  support  com- 
ing from  all  sides  of  the  House  on  this  very 
significant  bill. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
bill.  ^ 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  bill'  be  ordered  for 
third  reading? 

Agreed. 


THIRD  READING 

The  following  bill  was  given  third  reading 
upon  motion. 

Bill  27,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  will  never 
have  it  easier. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  No,  I  don't  think  I  will. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  shouldn't  draw  any 
conclusions  from  that. 


Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  have  been  around  here 
for  a  while,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  that 
the  idea  was  to  go  into  estimates  at  this  time. 
However,  there  have  been  suggestions  made 
to  me  that  it  might  be  wise  to  consider 
adjourning  the  House  right  now— rising  now. 
The  traffic  is  very  heavy  at  this  particular 
hour  for  the  members  to  go  home  and  it 
would  seem  to  me  an  appropriate  time  if  we 
were  to  move  that  the  House  rise.  I'm  not 
sure  what  that  does  to  the  committee  down- 
stairs, but  it  does  seem  to  me  to  be  the  useful 
thing  to  do. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Right  on. 

Mr.  R.  Gisbom  (Hamilton  East):  They'll  be 
glad  to  go  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  assume  it  wouldn't 
upset  our  friend  the  Minister  of  Correctional 
Services  (Mr,  Potter),  so  with  that  in  mind  I 
would  move  that  the  House  do  now  rise. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  4:05  o'clock,  p.m. 


APRIL  11,  1974  1055 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  April  11,  1974 

Federal  competition  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Welch   1029 

Study  on  food  company  profitability,  statement  by  Mr.  Clement  1030 

Phasing  out  of  juvenile  training  school,  statement  by  Mr.  Potter  1032 

Containers  for  farm  produce,  statement  by  Mr.  Stewart  1032 

Study   on   food   company  profitability,   questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.   R.   F.  Nixon, 

Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Sargent,  Mr.  Singer  1033 

Municipal    water    and    sewerage    grants,    questions    of    Mr.    White:      Mr.    Lewis, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Deacon,  Mr.  MacDonald,  Mr.  Sargent  1034 

Alleged   exchanges   of  purchase   o£Fers,   questions  of  Mr.  While:   Mr.   R.   F.   Nixon, 

Mr.    Breithaupt    1037 

Real  estate  transactions,  questions  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Deans, 

Mr.  Deacon  1037 

Hospital  workers'   wage   rates,   questions   of   Mr.    White:    Mr.    Lewis,    Mr.    Dukszta, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  1040 

GAINS  programme,  questions  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  1041 

US-Canada  freight  surcharge,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Spence  1041 

GO-Urban  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Givens  1042 

Alleged  loss  of  liquor  by  LCBO  stores,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Shulman  1043 

Guelph  Correctional  Centre,  questions  of  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Worton  1043 

Commuter  ticket  interchangeabiUty,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Deacon  1044 

Presenting  report,  standing  private  bills  committee,  Mr.  Taylor  1044 

Retail  Sales  Tax  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Meen,  second  reading  1044 

Third  reading.  Bill  27  1054 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Stewart,  agreed  to  1054 


No.  25 


Ontario 


Hegisilature  of  (J^ntarto 


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


Tuesday,  April  16, 1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


1059 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Oral  questions.  The  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition. 

BANK  OF  CANADA  RATE  INCREASE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Housing,  who 
obviously  has  one  of  the  more  important  port- 
folios these  days.  Has  his  staff  given  him  any 
estimation  as  to  the  effect  of  the  unprece- 
dented increase  of  one  per  cent  in  the  prime 
lending  rate  established  by  the  Bank  of 
Canada  on  the  costs  of  housing  in  this  prov- 
ince? 

Is  there  a  possibility  that  the  government 
of  Ontario  will  undertake  some  sort  of  a 
mitigating  programme  either  through  the 
Province  of  Ontario  Savings  OflBce  or  perhaps 
by  using  new  federal  legislation  allowing 
provinces  to  have  a  direct  interest  in  banking 
concerns,  to  offer  some  sort  of  assistance  to 
individual  home  buyers,  whereby  these  lend- 
ing rates  are  not  going  to  have  the  bad  effect 
on  housing  that  they  may  very  well  have? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): There  are  a  number  of  questions  there, 
Mr.  Speaker.  In  response  to  the  first  part  of 
the  question,  my  staff  started  to  work  on  it 
this  morning.  I  expect  to  have  an  answer  from 
them  within  a  day  or  two  as  to  the  total 
impact  of  the  Bank  of  Canada's  move. 

On  the  whole,  I  suppose  we  have  to  say 
that  the  Bank  of  Canada  in  acting  to  restrain 
the  monetary  supply  is  taking  one  of  the 
classical  attacks  on  inflation.  It  nasn't  worked 
in  the  last  couple  of  years,  and  there  is  some 
doubt  in  my  mind  as  to  whether  it  will  work 
in  the  future.  As  for  the  province  entering 
directly  into  mortgage  financing  and  subsidiz- 
ing mortgages,  we  will  certainly  have  to  take 
a  look  at  that  after  we've  examined  the  im- 
pact of  the  Bank  of  Canada  move. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Has  the 
minister  any  contingency  plans,  based  on  the 


Tuesday,  April  16<  1974 

work  that  has  been  done  by  himself  and  his 
predecessors  since  the  ministry  was  set  up,  to 
provide  some  sort  of  provincial  programme 
to  meet  the  needs  of  the  people  in  this  prov- 
ince in  the  face  of  the  high  costs  of  capital 
associated  with  housing,  rather  than  simply  fit 
ourselves  in  with  the  programme  as  it  extends 
across  Canada?  Does  he  have  su<^  contin- 
gency plans  now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  As  the  hon.  mem- 
ber well  knows,  there  is  a  preferred  lending 
programme  in  Ontario  which  has  money  avail- 
able at  8%  per  cent  for  certain  income 
groups.  That  is  the  only  plan  that  I  know  of 
at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  A  supplemen- 
tary question:  Is  it  the  intention  of  the  min- 
ister to  extend  the  range  of  incomes  for  which 
this  preferred  interest  rate  is  available,  in 
order  to  try  to  offset  not  only  the  increase 
that  is  likely  to  come  because  of  the  Bank  of 
Canada  move,  but  the  ever-increasing  in- 
creases that  we  are  seeing  every  week  in  any 
event? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  meeting  arranged  with  the  Minister  of  State 
for  Urban  Affairs  on  April  24  and  at  the  top 
of  our  agenda  is  a  discussion  on  the  integra- 
tion of  the  assisted  home  ownership  plan  of 
the  federal  government  and  the  preferred 
lending  programme  of  the  provincial  govern- 
ment to  make  sure  that  a  wide  range  of  in- 
come earners  is  covered  by  these  two  pro- 
grammes. 


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question,  Mr. 
Speaker,  of  the  same  minister  relating  to  his 
statements  over  the  weekend  about  the  lack 
of  co-operation  from  municipalities  around 
Metropolitan  Toronto  in  fulfilling  the  hous- 
ing action  programme,  leading  Mayor  Mar- 
garet Britnell,  for  example,  to  say  the  Hous- 
ing Minister  has  "completely  lost  his 
marbles." 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


1060 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Can  the  minister  give 
any  specific  instances  where  municipalities 
have  failed  to  co-operate  with  the  provin- 
cial ministry,  or  would  he  in  fact  agree  that 
it  has  been  red  tape  that  has  held  up  the 
approvals  that  the  municipalities  have  had 
before  the  provincial  government  these  many 
months? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  Tell  them  about  Mel  Lastman 
in   today's   paper. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker, 
despite  a  number  of  bitter  experiences  dur- 
ing my  life,  I  think  I  am  going  to  continue 
to  be  accessible  to  and  communicative  with 
the  media.  I  have  great  faith  in  their  in- 
tegrity in  interpreting  what  people  say  to 
them. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Unlike  the 
Premier    (Mr.    Davis). 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Unfortunately, 
space  requirements  do  not  permit  them  to 
publis'h  everything  that  is  said  and,  with 
mv  lack  of  articulation,  I  suppose  I  wasn't 
able  to  get  across  to  the  reporter  from  the 
Star- 
Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downs view):  Does  the 
minister  say  that  he  has  any  marbles  to 
lose. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —that  I  didn't 
mention  lack  of  co-operation,  nor  did  I 
say  that  there  was  any  obstructionism.  As 
for  losing  my  marbles,  I  don't  know  that 
I  ever  had  any. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  We  had 
some    doubts,    too. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  He'll  get 
along  well  in   the   cabinet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  What  I  did  say, 
Mr.  Speaker,  was  that  I  was  expressing  the 
same  type  of  frustration  which  is  ex- 
pressed on  the  opposite  side  of  the  House 
at  the  lack  of  Drogress.  Perhaps  I  am  not  as 
diplomatic  as  I  should  be. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  The 
minister  will  learn. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Perhaps  blunt 
speaking  is  not  the  right  thing  for  this  port- 
folio. But  I  felt,  having  made  tremendous 
progress  in  certain  aspects  of  our  housing 
action  programme  and  very  little  progress 
in  getting  municipal  agreement  to  specific 
propositions,    that    I    should    draw    to    the 


attention  of  the  press  not  that  they  were 
being  unco-operative  but  that  perhaps  they 
weren't  moving  as  fast  as  we  would  like 
them  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce   has   a   supplementary. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  minister  has 
$11  million  in  the  budget  for  helping  un- 
serviced  lots  and  he  plans  110,000  housing 
starts,  has  he  met  with  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  (Mr.  Auld)  to  question  him 
on  the  fact  that  this  will  only  provide  2,000 
lots  and  we  will  be  98,000  lots  short?  What 
is  the  minister  going  to  do  about  it?  Is  he 
going  to  meet  with  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  and  resolve  this  or  what? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
amount  has  been  mentioned  before  in  this 
House,  and  of  course  we  are  again  talking 
about  an  amount  in  the  Ministry  of  En- 
vironment's estimates  for  assistance  in  sewers 
and  water  services.  What  we  have  in  our 
ministry  is  $20  million  in  our  housing 
action  programme  facilitating  fund,  and  this 
is  what  we  are  asking  the  municipalities  to 
come  and  get.  We  have  asked  them  to 
come  and  get  a  piece  of  that  action. 

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

Mr.  Cassidy:  Could  the  minister  tell  us, 
in  view  of  his  comments  over  the  week- 
end, what  is  the  exact  number  of  the 
several  thousand  lots  he  has  hoped  to  get 
and  how  many  does  he  now  hope  to  get 
through  the  housing  action  programme, 
thanks  to  the  difficulties  that  he  is  having 
with   municipalities. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  My  hopes  have 
not  been  dashed,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  still  hope 
to  have  the  same  X  thousands  of  lots  that 
we  were  talking  about,  and  hopefully  I 
will  be  in  a  position  to  make  that  announce- 
ment to  the  hon.  member  when  I  get  a 
municipal  agreement  on  paper. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Downsview, 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  does  the  minister 
not  realize  that  his  stupid  diatribe  against 
the  municipalities  is  obviously  an  effort  to 
shift  the  blame  and  that  the  municipalities 
cannot  build  houses  by  themselves  unless 
they  have  money  to  provide  services? 

Mr.  J.  R.  Smith  (Hamilton  Mountain): 
Look  around  you.  Look  around  you. 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1061 


Mr.  Singer:  What  is  the  minister  going 
to  do  about  putting  the  municipalities  in  the 
position  where  they  can  supply  services? 

Hon  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
is  exactly  what  we  propose  to  do  with  our 
housing   action   facilitating  fund. 

Mr.    Singer:    With    $11    million?    Baloney 

Hon.     Mr.     Handleman:     There     is     $20 
million.    It   is    available   not   only   for   hard 
service   infrastructure   but   for   soft   service- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —and  we  are  quite 
prepared    to    sit    down    and    discuss    grant 
negotiations    with   the   municipalities- 
Mr.  Singer:  He  doesn't  blame  Ottawa,  he 
blames  the  municipalities. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —and  hopefully  that 
will  be  right  away. 

Mr.  Singer:  When  is  the  minister  going  to 
accept  responsibility  himself? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  There  was  no  dia- 
tribe against  the  municipalities.  I  simply  com- 
mented on  the  situation- 
Mr.   Speaker:   Order.   The   Leader  of  the 
Opposition,  further  questions? 


UNION  GAS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Premier,  in  the  absence  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour  (Mr.  Guindon):  Has  he  been  kept  in- 
formed as  to  the  circumstances  attending  the 
continuing  strikes  involving  the  employees 
and  the  management  of  Union  Gas  whereby 
gas  has  been  shut  oflF  in  certain  communities, 
there  has  been  an  exchange  of  gunfire  in  one 
community  and  in  one  recent  incident  the 
pressure  regulators  have  been  tampered  with, 
resulting  in  an  increase  in  pressure  which 
could  have  resulted  in  some  violent  explosions 
if  in  fact  safety  equipment  had  not  been 
functioning  properly?  Is  he  satisfied  with  the 
role  played  by  the  Ministry  of  Labour  in 
trying  to  readi  a  solution  to  this  problem, 
or  is  he  as  concerned  as  I  and  other  citizens 
in  the  areas  aflFected  are,  that  we  are  going 
to  have  to  take  some  remedial  steps  for  the 
safety  of  the  citizens  involved? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  think  we  demonstrated  the  government's 
concern  some  weeks  ago  when  we  made  it 
very  clear  that  the  personnel  of  the  OPP 
would  be  made  available  to  see  that  there 


were  no  dangers.  I  must  confess  I  haven't 
discussed  it  with  the  Minister  of  Labour  to- 
day. I  shall,  probably  before  the  day  is  done. 
I  can  only  say  that  the  government  is  con- 
cerned about  the  possibUity  of  danger  or 
other  matters  occurring  with  respect  to  this 
strike.  I  would  also  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
everybody  would  like  to  see  it  finished  and 
there  is  no  question  in  my  mind  that  the 
minister  and  the  ministry,  to  the  extent  that 
it  is  possible,  are  devoting  their  very  con- 
siderable talents  to  this  objective. 

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


POTATO  SUPPLIERS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  With  your  permission, 
Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food:  Has  he  made  himself 
aware  of  the  stories  printed  in  the  Globe  and 
Mail  over  the  weekend  indicating  collusion 
among  the  main  potato  suppliers  Si  the  Met- 
ropolitan Toronto  area,  which  in  fact  appears 
to  be  an  established  cartel  involving  not  only 
the  ordinary  wholesale  companies  but  in  asso- 
ciation with  Mr.  loseph  Burnett,  whose  name 
was  recently  mentioned  in  this  House  in 
connection  with  laundering  money?  Is  he 
aware  that  this  situation  is  traceable  back  to 
the  similar  situation  in  1968  when  the  min- 
ister's food  council  examined  the  matter  and 
found  payments,  something  called  payola, 
which  in  fact  acted  for  the  restraint  of  free 
competition? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  it.  I  have  not  seen  the  story  but  I 
will  make  myself  as  aware  as  possible  of  it 
and  look  into  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nucon:  Supplementary:  Will  the 
minister  look  into  it  in  conjimction  with  the 
Minister  for  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations who  might  have  some  special  regu- 
latory powers  in  this  regard?  Since  the  food 
council  is  concerned,  will  the  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  report  to  the  House 
on  the  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  cer- 
tainly look  into  this  situation  and  what  I 
have  to  report  will  be  based  upon  what  we 
find. 

Mr.  M.  Sbulman  (High  Park):  Supplemen- 
tary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon  member  for  High 
Park. 


1062 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Shulman:  In  view  of  the  many  threats 
to  these  potato  growers  who  are  foolish 
enough  to  attempt  to  compete  with  Mr.  Bur- 
nett, would  the  minister  also  refer  that  matter 
to  the  Solicitor  General  (Mr.  Kerr)  to  see  if 
charges  can  be  laid? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  As  I  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  will  look  into  it.  I  will  make  no  attempts  to 
offer  to  do  anything  until  I  find  out  what 
the  facts  of  the  matter  are. 

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


HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Housing. 
How  does  the  Minister  of  Housing  explain 
his  statement  that  there  is  progress  being 
made  in  Ontario  in  the  housing  field  against 
the  backdrop  of  an  overall  decline  in  the 
number  of  housing  starts  in  Ontario  in  Febru- 
ary and  March  of  this  year  over  last  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Over  February  and 
March  of  last  year?  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
examined  the  housing  starts  and  in  February 
and  March  they  seemed  to  be  up  over  last 
year.  I  would  have  to  examine  the  figures 
again  and  check  out  the  hon.  member's  as- 
sumption, because  I  did  look  at  the  figures 
just  this  morning  and  they  appeared  to  me 
to  indicate  a  slight  decrease  in  multiple- 
dwelling  units  and  a  large  increase  in  single- 
family  housing. 

Mr.  Singer:  Whatever  happened  to  the 
speeding  up  of  the  process? 

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

Mr.  Deans:  I  will  wait  for  an  answer  to 
come  back  from  the  minister. 


ACTIONS  OF  REAL  ESTATE  AGENTS 

Mr.  Deans:  Can  I  ask  the  Minister  of  Con'- 
sumer  and  Commercial  Affairs  whether  he  in- 
tends to  take  some  action  to  strengthen  the 
Real  Estate  Act  to  ensure  that  persons  who 
are  dealing  in  the  purchasing  of  housing  and 
who  are  in  fact  real  estate  agents  inform 
prospective  buyers  or  sellers  that  they  are  act- 
ing on  behalf  of  a  real  estate  agency  rather 
than  a  private  buyer? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consiuner 
and    Commercial    Relations):    I    am   sorry.    I 


don't  understand  the  import  of  the  member's 
question,  Mr.  Speaker.  Agents  invariably  act 
on  behalf  of  the  vendor.  Tliere  are  exceptions 
to  that  arrangement  but— 

Mr.  Deans:  Let  me  refer  the  minister  to 
the  Toronto  Sun  article  of  the  weekend,  in 
which  it  was  stated  by  a  speculator  in  hous- 
ing that,  among  a  number  of  the  manipula- 
tions that  are  going  on,  there  is  a  failure  on 
the  part  of  real  estate  agents  to  inform  pros- 
pective sellers  that  they,  the  agents,  are  not 
acting  on  behalf  of  purchasers  but  rather  on 
behalf  of  real  estate  companies;  and  that,  in 
fact,  they  are  acting  as  a  middleman— buying, 
inflating  the  price,  and  then  selling  the  prop- 
erty off  again.  What  action  does  the  minister 
propose  to  take  to  try  to  put  a  stop  to  this 
particular  speculation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  An  agent  acting  on  be- 
half of  any  vendor  must  by  law  notify  that 
vendor  if  he  is  acting  on  behalf  of  any  other 
interested  party.  If  he's  buying  on  his  own 
behalf  or  on  behalf  of  another  client  he  must 
disclose  that.  If  he  doesn't  discl'ose  that,  he 
forfeits  his  commission  as  well  as  giving 
grounds  for  the  lifting  of  his  licence.  There 
are  cases  pending  of  a  similar  nature  to  that 
right  now,  and  we  prosecute  them  vigorously. 

(I  think  the  member's  colleagues  who  are 
familiar  with  the  practice  of  law  will  assure 
him  that  that  is  a  very  serious  breach  of  the 
Act  itself,  and  we  won't  tolerate  that  type 
of  activity  by  any  real  estate  agent  or  broker. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  it  the  intention  of  the  minis- 
ter to  investigate  the  content  of  the  story  to 
determine  the  validity  of  the  claim  by  the 
real  estate  agent  to  ensure  that  this  act  will 
be  stopped  in  Ontario  at  this  time  to  cut 
down  the  cost  of  housing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm  not 
familiar  with  the  particular  story  to  which  the 
hon.  member  makes  reference.  But  I'm  sure 
my  staff  will  take  a  look  at  it.  I'll  make  a  note 
to  have  it  drawn  to  their  attention. 

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


WARRANTY  ON  NEW  HOMES 

Mr.  Deans:  I'd  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  whether 
it's  his  intention  to  institute  a  homeowner's 
warranty  during  this  year,  recognizing  that 
what  has  been  offered  by  the  construction  in- 
dustry is  not  going  to  be  satisfactory,  and  that 
Mr.  Basford,  frankly,  seems  to  be  dragging  his 
heels? 


APRIL  16.  1974 


1063 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it's 
incumbent  upon  this  government  to  imple- 
ment some  form  of  warranty  proji^amme.  If 
no  federal  programme  which  is  acceptable  to 
us  is  forthcoming— and  that  appears  to  be  the 
trend  in  which  we  are  moving— then  I  think 
we  have  no  alternative  but  to  implement 
some  type  of  warranty  programme.  I  should 
point  out  to  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I 
will  be  meeting  in  about  three  weeks'  time 
with  all  the  consumer  ministers  across 
Canada,  and  this  is  one  of  the  matters  that 
we  have  on  the  agenda  as  to  a  provincial  pro- 
gramme for  each  and  every  province. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  We  can't 
wait  that  long. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
accept  the  member  for  York-Forest  Hill's 
private  bill? 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Does 
the  minister  accept  my  bill? 

Mr.  Deans:  I  have  one  final  question,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  What's  the  member's 
name? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth  is  asking  questions  on  behalf  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  Would  the  minister  read  his 
bill? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes. 


SALE  OF  COLZA  OIL 

Mr.  Deans:  I  have  one  final  question  of 
the  Minister  of  Health.  Has  the  Minister  of 
Health  been  made  aware  of  the  ban  in  Italy 
on  the  sale  of  colza  oil?  It's  a  vegetable  oil 
used  as  a  substitute  for  olive  oil.  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  similar  types  of  oils  are 
sold  in  Ontario,  and  will  he  order  that  they 
be  examined  to  determine  whether  similar 
kinds  of  side  effects  might  not  be  occurring 
from  the  sale  and  use  of  colza  oil  in  Ontario? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

An  hon.  member:  That's  a  good  question. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  The 
member  said  it  for  me. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  In  all  seriousness,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  not  av^^re  of  that  oil,  but  I 


will  be  pleased  to  look  into  ft  in  case  Aere 
is  some  potential  risk  to  the  people  of  On- 
tario. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Ask  Mackey. 

Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  Supplementary  question:  May  I 
send  the  minister  a  bottle  of  the  oil  to  have 
it  examined? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  What  are  the  side 
effects? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Is  that  guaran- 
teed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  would  not  accept  it. 

Mr.    Deans:    And   let  me,   by  way  of   a 

supplementary  question,  ask  the  minister 
whether  he's  aware  that  it  also  goes  tmder 
the  name  of  rapeseed  oil,  and  it  has  been 
claimed  that  it  causes  sterility? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Show  us  the  bottle.  That 
could  have  come  from  Morty's  private  stock! 

An  hon.  member:  That's  of  great  concern 
to  us. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  was  going  to  suggest, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  he  should  try  some. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  recognize  it  under  its 
old  name  much  better. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth  have  fiuiher  questions? 

An  hon.  member:  Make  sure  it's  in  the 
bottle  one  is  supposed  to  send  to  his  doctor. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities  has  the  answer  to  a  question 
asked  previously. 


PUBLIC  SERVICE  ACT  CONFLICT 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  College* 
and  Universities):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  >%-as  so 
wrapped  up  in  that  bit  about  the  oil  that  I 
hope  you  won't  think  this  is  a  slippery- 
answer. 

An  hon.  member:  It  would  not  be  the  first 
time  either. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'd  Hke  to 
reply  to  a  question  raised  by  the  hon.  member 
for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt). 

In  1971-1972,  Dr.  D.  T.  Wright  received 
$39,863  in   remuneration  from  me  Ministry 


1064 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  Colleges  and  Universities  while  acting  in 
the  capacity  of  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  University  Affairs.  Dr.  Wright  did  not  re- 
ceive any  other  salary  or  per  diem  payments 
through  this  ministry  or  any  other  ministry. 
The  other  figures  referred  to  by  the  hon. 
member  were  not  received  by  Dr.  Wright, 
and  this  fact  was  specifically  set  out  in  the 
Provincial  Auditor's  report  for  1972-1973. 

The  hon.  member  asked,  at  the  same  time, 
whether  Dr.  Wright  received  benefits  for  con- 
sulting work  done  on  the  structural  steel  con- 
tract at  Ontario  Place.  In  his  university  work, 
prior  to  becoming  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  University  Affairs,  which  I  may  say  is  not 
a  civil  service  position.  Dr.  Wright  specialized 
in  the  theory  of  structures,  gaining  an  inter- 
national reputation  for  the  design  of  space 
frame  structures.  The  architectural  design  of 
the  dome  theatre  and  forum  at  Ontario  Place 
called  for  such  a  structure.  An  Ontario  firm 
won  the  contract  and,  in  turn,  asked  Dr. 
Wright  to  advise  it  on  some  special  aspects 
relating  to  the  strength  and  security  of  the 
building.  For  his  specialist  work  in  this  con- 
nection he  received  a  professional  fee  from 
that  firm. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  has  the  an- 
swer to  a  question  asked  previously. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  for  Nickel  Belt  (Mr.  Laughren)  had 
asked  the  question.  In  his  absence,  I  will 
wait  until  he  returns. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
East  was  first. 


PROVINCIAL  SECRETARIATS 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Premier.  I  wonder  if  the  Premier  would 
comment  on  an  article  in  the  Ottawa  news- 
paper last  week  referring  to  statements  by 
the  former  policy  secretary,  the  member  for 
Carleton  East  (Mr.  A.  B.  R.  Lawrence)  and 
the  former  policy  secretary,  the  member  for 
St.  George. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  former  member  for  St. 
George  (Mr.  A,  F.  Lawrence). 

Mr.  Roy:  The  member  for  Carleton  East 
stated  that  the  policy  secretariats  didn't  work 
because  they  were  too  efiicient;  they  built  up 
too  much  momentum;  and  they  threatened 
to  overrun  the  traditional  thinking  in  the 
party  in  the  Conservative  caucus. 


Mr.  MacDonald:  Thinking? 


Mr.  Roy:  The  former  member  for  St. 
George  stated  that  in  theory  secretariats  were 
good,  but  they  went  off  the  rails  because  of 
personality  clashes.  Now  I  wonder  if  the 
Premier  agrees  with  these  comments. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Is  this  of  urgent 
public  importance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  cer- 
tainly delighted  to  answer  that  question  of 
urgent  public  importance,  which  is  typical 
of  the- 

Mr.  Roy:  The  government  is  wasting  a 
million  bucks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —questions  from  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  East. 

Mr.  Speaker,  really  if  you  assess  what  has 
happened  since  the  rather  innovative  ap- 
proach here  with  the  development  of  the 
policy  field  secretariats,  from  a  very  personal 
standpoint  I  think  they  have  worked  very 
well. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  Premier  is  the  only  one  who 
thinks  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well  I  can  too!  There  is 
one  difference,  Mr.  Speaker,  between  myself 
and  the  members  across  the  House.  I  happen 
to  know  how  they  are  working;  they  don't. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Premier  is  the  only  one; 
nobody  else  does. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  now 
that  I  have  been  asked,  I  will  just  take  a  few 
minutes  to  outline  some  of  their  functions  in 
that- 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  well,  that  is  not  what  the 
Premier's  colleague  said. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —obviously  it  is  a  matter 
of  urgent  public  importance.  As  for  the  for- 
mer member  for  St.  George,  a  very  able 
member  of  the  cabinet,  a  very  excellent  con- 
stituency person,  who  moved  on  to  the  fed- 
eral arena  where  he  will,  I  would  think  some 
time  in  the  not  too  far  distant  futiu-e,  become 
a  member  of  the  government  in  Ottawa- 
Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Is  that 
after  the  Premier  becomes  the  leader? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  -I  think  it  is  fair  to  state 
that  knowing  that  individual  as  well  as  I  do— 


APRIL  16,  1974 


106S 


Mr.  Singen  The  Premier  can  gp  up  there 
and  he  can  come  down  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  I  am  very  flattered 
that  the  member  for  Downsview  thinks  I 
might  have  the  capacity  to  go  up  there.  I 
really  find  that  I  have  my  hands  full  here, 
particularly  from  the  member  for  Downs- 
view.  He  keeps  me  mentally  stimulated  all 
the  time.  I  would  hate  ever  to  move  and 
miss  his  contributions. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  I  am  glad.  I  enjoy  the 
Premier's  baiting. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  knew  the  member  would 
be  glad.  I  could  sense  the  frustrations  of  the 
former  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  from 
time  to  time.  I  would  say  this  about  the 
observations  made  by  the  former  provincial 
secretary  for  the  resource  field  who,  in  my 
view,  is  one  of  the  very  able  people  in 
political  and  public  life  in  this  province,  that 
he  made  a  very- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  little  late  for  that  kind 
of  patronizing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —a  very  excellent  contribu- 
tion- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr,  Speaker,  if  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  wherever  it  is  and  the  Islands 
wants  to  interject  that  the  hon.  member  has 
left  the  executive  coxmcil,  one  of  the  great 
things  about  the  party  I  happen  to  Itead  is 
that  we  recognize  and  are  prepared  to  make 
changes  when  we  feel  the  time  has  come. 

I  fully  appreciate  that  the  member  for 
Ottawa  and  the  Islands  envisages  himself  in 
the  vacant  seat  of  the  leader  of  that  party 
but  I  will  be  so  bold  as  to  make  a  prediction 
that  it  will  never  happen  because  he  doesn't 
have  the  capacity  to  do  it.  He  just  doesn't 
have  it. 

In  fact,  I  will  go  a  step  further- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  think  any  of  his 
caucus  colleagues  do  either.  I  tell  members 
the  former  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources 
Development  had  so  much  more  talent  and 
ability  and  commitment  to  public  life  in  this 
province  that  the  member  for  Ottawa  and  the 
Islands  really  has  a  great  deal  of  nerve  to 
mention  his  own  contribution  here  in  this 
House  and  I  make  no  bones  about  it. 


I  think  it  is  also  fair  to  state.  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  I  have  made  this  observation  before,  one 
of  the  limiting  factors  which  we  think  is 
slowly  changing  in  the  role  of  the  provincial 
secretary  is  not  intemallv  with  the  decision- 
making process.  The  difficulties  we  have  en- 
countered, and  I  think  this  would  be  shared 
by  evervbody  who  has  held  that  particular 
responsibility,  are  the  political  perceptions  of 
their  responsibilities  not  just  here  in  the 
House,  where  one  doesn't  expect  a  completely 
objective  viewpoint  in  any  event,  but  as  far 
as  the  general  public  is  concerned. 

Mr.  Roy:  It  is  not  working  and  the  Premier 

knows  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  think  this  Is  in  the 
process  of  change  but  as  far  as  the  function- 
ing of  government  is  concerned,  in  their  con- 
tribution to  cabinet  and  the  development  of 
pohcy,  I  can  only  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  works 
extremely  well. 


Mr.  Roy:  Supplementary. 

Mr.     Speaker:     The     hon. 
Sandwich-Riverside. 


member    for 


Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  just  a  short 
supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  we  can  depend  on  a  short 
supplementary  answer  perhaps  we  can  permit 
it. 

Mr.  Roy:  My  question  was  short;  it  was  his 
answer  that  was  long. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  light  of  the  fact- 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  tell  the  member,  if 
he  is  not  satisfied,  I  am  not  going  to  be  here 
at  6  o'clock. 

Mr.  Roy:  See  that?  He  is  interrupting  me 
again.  Order,  Mr.  Speaker,  please. 

Mr,  Speaker,  to  the  Premier,  in  light  of  the 
fact  that  we  are  going  to  vote  somethmg  like 
$1  million  in  estimates  for  these  three  super- 
ministries,  the  policy  secretariats,  doesn't  the 
Premier  feel  he  should  level  with  the  people 
of  Ontario,  save  us  $1  million  and  do  away 
with  them?  Isn't  it  apparent  to  him  that  he  is 
the  only  one  who  doesn't  realize  they  are  not 
working? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  not  only  is 
it   not   apparent   to   me,    I  would   say   with 
respect- 
Mr.  Roy:  He  is  the  only  one. 


1066 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —it  is  not  apparent  to 
those  who  are  involved  in  the  process. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  do  they  say  here? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  the  hen.  member  wishes 
to  vote  against  them  and  to  be  critical  of 
them  because  he  doesn't  have  the  capacity 
to  recognize  change  in  administration,  he  can 
be  my  guest. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  do  they  say? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order,  would  you  consider  adding  two 
minutes  to  the  question  period  to  compensate 
for  the  diversion  of  the  Premier  in  attacking 
my  colleague  here  when  he  was  answering  a 
question  there? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet ) :  What  is  the  member 
doing  himself? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  usually  do  consider  the 
length  of  the  statement.  I  did  not  in  that 
particular  case  think  it  was  an  exceptionally 
long  reply  to   the  provocative  question. 

The  hon.  member  for  Sandwich-Riverside. 

An  hon.  member:  It  was  only  irrelevant. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  question  was  relevant. 


EMPLOYMENT  OF  HANDICAPPED 
PEOPLE 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour 
regarding  his  interest  in  drafting  legislation 
which  would  require  large  employers  to  pro- 
vide a  certain  percentage  of  jobs  for  handi- 
capped and  disabled  persons.  Could  the  min- 
ister give  us  a  progress  report? 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  Yes, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  that  my  hon.  friend  from 
Sandwich-Riverside  has  shown  a  very  keen 
interest  in  the  last  couple  of  years  in  handi- 
capped' people  in  this  province.  We  have  had 
a  number  of  discussions.  I  had  promised  the 
hon.  member  that,  if  at  all  possible,  I  would 
like  to  consult  the  labour  department  in 
Great  Britain.  Unfortunately,  because  of  the 
political  climate  and  because  of  the  election 
which  took  place,  I  was  unable  to  go  to 
London,  England,  but  I  do  propose  to  do  so 
at  the  first  opportunity. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Windsor- Walkerville  has  a  supplementary. 


Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville):  Mr. 
Speaker,  may  I  ask  of  the  minister  if  he  is 
recommending  to  his  cabinet  colleagues  that 
they  adopt  the  same  principle  insofar  as  the 
civil  service  is  concerned? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
giving  this  matter  very  serious  consideration. 
I  had  hoped,  as  I  said,  to  visit  some  of  the 
countries  where  this  is  being  done.  Whenever 
I  have  a  real  study  made  of  the  situation  here 
in  Ontario,  I'll  be  glad  to  make  recommenda- 
tions. 

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


ATHLETIC  SCHOLARSHIPS 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Premier.  In  view  of  the  trend  of 
many  of  our  top  athletes  in  Ontario  of  going 
to  the  States  on  sports  scholarships,  doesn't 
the  Premier  think  it's  about  time  that  we  in 
Ontario  had  an  ongoing  lottery  to  provide 
funds  for  these  scholarships  to  keep  our  ath- 
letes here? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  They  can't  play  football 
here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  tliere 
are  two  aspects  to  this  question.  One  is  the 
question  of  whether  a  lottery  would  be  the 
appropriate  means  whereby  one  would  finance 
"athletic  scholarships."  I  would  think  that  if 
there  were  athletic  scholarships  there  are 
probably  other  ways  to  finance  them. 

The  really  basic  question  that  has  not  been 
resolved— in  Ontario  at  least— is  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  the  universities  are  pre- 
pared to  offer  athletic  scholarships  leaving 
apart  the  source  of  funds.  In  my  own  limited 
experience  in  a  former  ministry,  I  can  recall 
this  being  raised  from  time  to  time,  and  I 
happen  to  be  somewhat  interested  in 
athletics.  The  question  was  always  raised  as 
to  whether  or  not  a  imiversity  in  this  prov- 
ince should,  by  way  of  a  recognized  pro- 
gramme, have  athletic  scholarships  for 
students  in  attendance  at  the  institution. 

1 1  can  recall  the  former  Minister  of  Cor- 
rectional Services  having  some  public  views 
on  this,  and  I  must  confess,  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm 
of  someiwhat  mixed  feelings  myself.  I  regret 
seeing  a  number  of  Ontario  students  going  to 
Michigan  State,  Michigan,  Denver,  some  to 
play  hockey,  some  football,  some  basketball— 
not  many— quite  a  few  track  and  field,  be- 
cause I  would  prefer  to  see  them  here  at  our 
own  post-secondary  institutions. 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1067 


I  think  it  is  also  fair  to  point  out  though, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  don't  say  this  in  any 
critical  sense,  that  athletic  scholarship  pro- 
grammes at  some  institutions  in  the  United 
States  have  been  abused.  I  think  this  is  the 
part  that  is  the  concern  of  the  universities  in 
this  province— the  question  of  abuse  being 
built  into  the  system. 

I  happen  to  believe  in  intercollegiate 
athletics.  I  think  the  programmes,  quite 
frankly,  should  be  expanded.  I  would  like  to 
think  that  no  student,  really,  is  prejudiced  or 
precluded  from  attending  an  Ontario  univer- 
sity by  lack  of  finance  and  I  don't  think  that 
many  are,  if  any.  However,  when  you  have 
free  tuition,  perhaps  other  forms  of  induce- 
ments to  go  to  one  of  the  American  colleges, 
it  is  sometimes  diflScult  for  a  student  here  to 
say  no. 

As  I  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  question  whether 
the  lottery  would  be  the  right  approach.  I 
think,  really,  it  would  be  a  matter  for  the 
universities  of  this  province  to  resolve 
amongst  themselves  as  to  whether  or  not  they 
wish  to  build  scholarships  for  atWetic  compe- 
tence into  their  form  of  student  assistance,  or 
student  awards. 

As  I  say,  I  haven't  really  given  this  sub- 
ject much  thought  in  the  last  six  or  seven 
months.  I  would  be  quite  delighted  to  do  so 
and,  perhaps,  give  a  more  definitive  answer. 
But  the  universities  do  concern  themselves 
with  this  matter  because  I  say  very  frankly, 
from  some  very  personal  knowledge,  the 
scholarship  system  in  some  institutions  south 
of  the  border  has,  without  any  question,  been 
abused.  I  think  all  you  have  to  do,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  read  some  of  the  material  from 
time  to  time  and  you  vA\\  find  that's  fac- 
tually to  be  the  case. 

Mr.  Sargent:  One  supplementary:  In  view 
of  the  fact  that  a  lot  of  American  states  are 
using  lotteries  very  successfully,  why  is  On- 
tario dragging  its  feet  in  creating  this  new 
source  of  capital? 

Mr.  Roy:  There's  a  lot  of  Ontario  money 
going  outside  the  province  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is,  as  I 
say,  a  separate  question.  Whether  or  not  there 
should  be  an  Ontario  lottery  for  some  pur- 
pose, whatever  that  purpose  is,  is  something 
the  government  has  not  been  neglecting. 

Mr.  Sargent:  You  buy  lottery  tickets  any 
place  in  Ontario,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  just  say  we're  not 
neglecting  considerations  of  that,  Mr.  Speaker, 


but  I  just  have  no  policy  statement  to 
about  it  at  this  moment 


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


EMPLOYMENT  OF  STUDENTS  IN 
PSYCHIATRIC  HOSPITALS 

Mr.  J.  Dukszta  (Parkdale):  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  without  Portfolio  in 
charge  of  the  Youth  Secretariat.  As  yet  no 
money  has  been  allocated  for  the  unclassified 
stafF  in  the  provincial  mental  hospitals.  Sum- 
mer students  fall  in  this  category.  Could  he 
tell  me  how  much  of  the  $9  million  allocated 
for  the  summer  students  will  be  given  to 
employ  students  in  the  mental  hospitals— the 
psychiatric  hospitals  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrell  (Minister  without 
Portfolio):  Not  offhand,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I 
will  get  an  answer  for  the  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon  member  for  Lanark. 


SALES  TAX 

Mr.  D.  J.  Wiseman  (Lanark):  Yes,  I  have 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  In 
regard  to  the  tax-free  items  that  were  men- 
tioned in  last  Tuesday's  budget,  could  the 
minister  tell  us  when  these  items  will  be 
tax-free  so  that  we  might  tell  some  of  the 
merchants  in  our  area? 

Mr.  Singer:  As  of  May,  he  said  the  other 
day. 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  hope  to  have  it  finished 
later  this  week  with  information  out  to  the 
merchants  of  Ontario  in  the  course  of  next 
week  so  that  they  will  be  able  to  bring  the 
reductions  into  effect  on  Monday,  April  29. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  very  inconsistent  pol- 
icy; I  would  say  hypocritical. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for-^sup- 
plementary,  yes. 

Mr.  Wiseman:  Could  the  minister  tell  me 
in  the  case  of  the  $30  limit  for  a  pair  of 
shoes,  if  a  person  purchases  a  $40  pair  of 
shoes,  does  he  pay  the  tax  on  the  $10  over 
the  $30,  or  the  full  $40? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That  is  a  conflict  of  interest, 
because  the  member  sells  shoes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Just  buy  one  shoe  at  a  time. 


1068 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon,  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  once  the 
price  exceeds  the  minimum  figure  of  $30,  the 
tax  is  payable  on  the  full  purchase  price  of 
any  article;  just  as  it  is  payable  on,  let's  say, 
a  meal  in  a  restaurant  above  the  minimum 
figure— the  rate  of  tax  is  on  the  whole  of 
that  meal.  If  it  is  to  be  otherwise,  then  it  is 
a  matter  of  policy  for  the  Treasurer  and 
Minister  of  Economics  (Mr.  White)  to  deter- 
mine. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  about  one-legged  cus- 
tomers? 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Can 
they  buy  them  one  shoe  at  a  time? 

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


INTERMEDIATE    CAPACITY   TRANSIT 
SYSTEM 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications.  In  view  of  the  obvious 
failure  of  the  computerized  operation  in  the 
BART  system  in  San  Francisco,  and  in  view 
of  the  failure  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  after  having  spent  $57  million 
in  an  experiment  of  its  own  to  provide 
computerized  transport,  does  the  minister 
have  any  real  reason  to  believe  that  his  ex- 
periment, or  the  government's  experiment, 
is  going  to  succeed— even  at  the  Exhibition, 
where  he  is  spending  considerably  less? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  "Davis  train" 
doesn't  have  wheels— so  it  is  going  to  work 
better. 

Mr.  Givens:  That  is  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  reason  to  believe  that  it  will  be 
successful. 

Mr.    Singer:    Why? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  situation  as  it  in- 
volves the  BART  project  employs  a  tech- 
nology developed  over  some  15  years;  they 
were  unable  to  keep  up  with  today's  chang- 
ing technology.  In  the  case  of  the  Morgan- 
town  experiment,  it  was  basically  the  same 
—an  old  technology. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  didn't  even  know 
about  the  wheel  before  he  became  minister. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Windsor— 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  didn't 
complete  the  answer.  I  sat  down  because 
I  believe  the  hon.  member  for  York-Forest 
Hill  has  some  profound  statement  to  make, 
and  I  don't  want  to  interrupt  him. 

Interjections   by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Downsview. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  he  is  not  finished  yet, 
he    said. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  the  minister  is  going  to 
stand  up,  he  should  answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  said 
at  the  outset,  we  have  every  reason  to 
believe  that  our  programme  will  be  success- 
ful, despite  what  has  happened  in  the  in- 
cidents in  the  United  States.  We  are  testing 
our  technology  continually.  Both  projects 
were  referred  to  in  an  article  in  the  Globe 
and  Mail  this  morning.  Both  of  them  went 
ahead  and  built  their  projects  without  doing 
adeouate  testing  of  their  systems.  That  is 
not  happening  in  this  particular  case. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of 
supplementary,  I  was  not  referring  to  the 
difference  between  the  magnetic  levitation 
system  and  the  wheel  system.  I  was  re- 
ferring, in  particular,  to  whatever  reason 
the  minister  might  have  to  believe  that  a 
computerized  operation  would  work  here 
when  it  hasn't  worked  in  the  United  States 
—with  the  best  technicians  available,  with 
the  best  technical  advice  and  with  the  ex- 
penditure of  far,  far  more  money  than  even 
this  government  is  putting  into  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  for  ex- 
actly the  same  reason  that  we  talked  about 
the  various  modes  of  moving  the  equip- 
ment. I'm  sure  the  hon.  member  will 
aen'ee  that  computer  technology  has  im- 
proved somewhat  over  the  past  15  vears; 
and  if  he  doesn't  believe  so,  then  he  is 
certainly  behind  the  times. 

Mr.  Singer:  That  is  why  they  are  (?oing 
to  blow  up  $57  million  in  the  United 
States? 

Mr.   Speaker:    All  right,   supplementary. 

Mr.  Sargent:  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
BART  is  7%  years  down  the  road  now  on 
its  programme  and  they  are  1,000  per  cent 
wrong  on  their  carrying  load,  is  the  min- 
ister still  committed  to  this  programme?  Is 
he  going  to  go  ahead  with  it? 

Hon.   Mr.   Rhodes:   Yes,   Mr.   Speaker. 


APRIL  16,  1974 


lOGO 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Windsor  West  is  next 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Just  a  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Ottawa   Centre   on   a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  cost  of  the  BART  pro- 
gramme having  risen  by  more  than  double 
since  it  was  inaugurated,  can  the  minister 
now  give  us  an  estimate  of  the  escalation 
in  the  per-mile  cost  of  the  GO-Urban 
system? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
can't  give  that  estimate  at  this  time;  I  will 
attempt  to  get  the  figures  for  the  hon.  mem- 
ber. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  escalating. 


STRIKE  IN  GUELPH 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  A 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  he  not  agree  that  Doehler 
Canada  Ltd.  in  Guelph,  on  strike  since  Jan. 
29,  and  wholly  owned  by  National  Lead 
Co.  did  not  bargain  in  good  faith  inasmuch 
as  prior  to  the  commencement  of  that  strike 
it  did  not  oflFer  even  one  penny  per  hour 
increase  in  wages,  and  especially  since  the 
company's  lawyer  is  one  Ted  Stringer,  an 
organizer  of  the  anti-union  conference  in 
Hamilton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
in  a  position  to  say  whether  they  have  been 
bargaining  in  good  or  bad  faith.  I'd  be  glad 
to  look  into  it  and  to  report  to  the  member. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Could  the  minister  at  that  same  time  report 
on  the  progress  that  he  or  his  ministry  oflB- 
cials  have  been  making  of  late  in  trying  to 
solve  that  strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Can  the  member  repeat 
the  question?  I  didn't  hear  it. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  When  the  minister  reports 
to  us  on  what  degree  of  bad  faith  the  com- 
pany has  been  showing,  could  he  also  report 
on  the  progress  he  or  his  ministry  oflBdals 
have  been  making  of  late  to  solve  that  strike, 
now  some  13  weeks  old? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
never  said  we  would  report  on  the  company's 


bad  faith  in  this  negotiation.  There  is  no 
wav  I  can  say  that,  as  the  member  can 
realize.  However,  we  would  be  glad  to  re- 
port and  rd  be  glad  to  6nd  out  exactly  what 
nas  taken  place  lately;  and  if  neea  be  I 
would  even  go  so  far  as  to  call  a  meeting 
between  parties. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Perth 
is  next. 


AID  TO  TORNADO  VICTIMS 

Mr.  H.  EdighoflFer  (Perth):  A  question  of 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food:  Is  the 
minister  considering  making  funds  available, 
or  recommending  to  the  cabinet  that  funds 
be  made  available,  to  assist  the  farmers  of 
Hibbert  township  and  surrounding  areas  hit 
by  the  tornado  fast  Sunday?  There  was  con- 
siderable damage  to  houses  and  bams. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  disaster 
policy  has  been  in  operation  for  a  number  of 
years.  I  believe  it  is  administered  by  the 
department  of  the  Treasurer  and  Minister  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  very  ineffectual  one;  it 
never  cost  the  government  very  much. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  —in  which  the  province 
matches  any  moneys  that  are  raised  locally  by 
subscription  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  Speaken  The  hon.  member  for  Lake- 
shore. 


LAKESHORE  PSYCHL\TRIC  HOSPITAL 
GRANTS 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  To  the 
Minister  of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker,  pursuant  to 
our  little  conversation  in  the  hallway  of  a 
few  days  ago:  Has  the  hon.  minister  nad  an 
opportunity  to  investigate  the  conditions,  the 
grants,  the  pulling  back,  the  confusion  as  to 
what  moneys  are  available  to  the  Lakeshore 
Psychiatric  Hospital;  particularly  with  its 
plans  to  decentralize? 

Hon.  Mr.  Millen  Mr.  Speaker,  we  had  a 
conversation  in  the  hall  the  other  day,  but  I 
don't  recall  all  those  adjectives. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  question  was  asked 
in  the  House  before. 

Mr.  Foulds:  They  were  nouns. 

Mr.  Deans:  That's  why  he  doesn't  answer. 


1070 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  thought  they  were  ad- 
jecti\es,  but  that  explains  why  the  member 
is  a  teacher  and  I  am  not. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mostly  adverbs. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  One  of  the  statements 
the  member  made  at  that  point  was  that  in 
fact  ue  had  cut  back  budgets  at  Lakeshore 
Psychiatric  Hospital,  and  this  is  not  true.  On 
verif)  ing  the  figures  with  our  staff,  I  find  we 
increased  the  budget  by  about  four  per  cent. 
At  the  same  time  the  nimiber  of  patients 
being  treated  was  reduced  by  almost  10  per 
cent.  Now  no  programmes  were  eliminated 
as  a  result,  although  a  few  programmes  that 
were  being  considered  for  implementation 
have  not  been  started;  we  are  continuing  with 
the  same  slate  of  programmes  as  was  carried 
on  before. 

Did  the  member  want  the  answer  to  the 
earlier  part  of  his  question  about  the  land? 
Is  that  implicit  in  this? 

Mr.  Lawlw:  The  minister  may  continue; 
yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Thank  you,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  minister  remembers  the 
nouns  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes,  I  have  trouble  with 
those. 

There  was  a  switch  of  property  made  be- 
tween Humber  College  and  Lakeshore  Psy- 
chiatric Hospital  to  serve  each  of  the  insti- 
tutions better.  A  mental  retardation  facility 
is  planned  to  be  built  on  property,  currently 
owned  by  Humber  College  I  understand, 
some  distance  from  Lakeshore  Psychiatric 
Hospital;  and  in  turn  some  acreage  was 
given  to  Humber  College  for  the  construction 
of  buildings  on  property  currently  owned  by 
Lakeshore  Psychiatric  Hospital.  After  study- 
ing the  needs  of  both  institutions  it  was  felt 
this  exchange  of  land  made  good  sense  and 
would  serve  both  well. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lake- 
shore,  supplementary. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  On  those  slated  progranmies 
that  have  been  cut  back,  is  it  the  ministry 
intention  to  cut  back  the  programmes  for  a 
centre  for  mentally  retarded  adults  and  a 
forensic  centre  for  the  criminally  insane  at 
that  location? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  member 
mentioned  the  forensic  programme  was  to  be 


a  new  programme,  I  believe,  in  talking  to  me 
earlier. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  This  programme  is  not 
being  implemented  at  the  present  time.  This 
is  the  understanding  I  was  given. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  How  about  the  mentally  re- 
tarded project— all  right! 

Mr.  Foulds:  Is  there  a  cutback? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  There  is  no  cutback  that 
I  know  of  in  mentally  retarded  facilities 
there. 

Mr.  Sargent:  What  does  the  minister  mean? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  As  the  member  knows 
we  transferred  most  of  the  mental  retardation 
facilities  from  this  ministry  to  the  Ministry  of 
Community  and  Social  Services  effective  April 
1,  and  therefore  I'd  have  to  refer  the  member 
to  that  minister  for  a  specific  answer. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener— or  for  Waterloo  North  I  should 
say. 

Mr.  Good:  Thank  you,  I  accept  your 
apologies. 

Mr.  Roy:  He  accepts  that  as  an  apology. 


SUMMER  EMPLOYMENT  PROGRAMME 

Mr.  Good:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations:  How 
much  money  was  allocated  under  the  Experi- 
ence '74  programme  for  setting  up  of  con- 
sumer complaint  bureaus  in  storefront  opera- 
tions this  summer  to  create  employment  for 
youth? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  request 
came  in  from  one  of  the  faculty  members  at 
Niagara  College  for  this  type  of  a  pilot  pro- 
gramme. We  advised  that  particular  indivi- 
dual that  we  had  no  funding  available  and 
referred  it  to  the  Youth  Secretariat.  The 
Youth  Secretariat  reported  back  to  me  that  it 
endorsed  the  programme— the  total  program- 
me was  to  cost  $11,000,  $9,000  of  which 
would  have  to  be  approved  by  Management 
Board  of  Cabinet-on  condition  that  $2,000 
would  have  to  be  raised  locally  for  admin- 
istrative costs  by  the  Niagara  College  people 
involved. 

The  last  I  heard  of  it,  a  week  or  10  days 
ago,   the  people   at   Niagara  College— and   I 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1071 


don't  know  the  number  of  administrative  staff 
I'm  talking  about,  whether  it's  one  or  five 
people— regretfully  were  unable  to  raise 
$2,000.  rfcrefore,  as  the  matter  stands  right 
now,  we  are  reviewing  it  to  see  if  we  are 
going  to  proceed  with  that  programme  or 
not. 

Mr.  Good:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  for  questions  has 
expired. 

Mr.  Good:  Just  one  supplementary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  has  expired.  I  will 
perhaps  recx)gnize  the  hon.  member  at  the 
next  question  period  if  he  wants  to  ask  a 
new  question. 

Mr.  Roy:  When  is  that  going  to  be? 

Mr.  Speaker:  On  Thursday  next. 

Mr.  Roy:  Thursday,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

iMotions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


COMMISSIONER  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE 
ACT,  1974 

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

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  the  ninth 
consecutive  time  I've  introduced  this  bill. 
Sometimes  I  think  I'm  making  a  little  prog- 
ress, sometimes  I'm  not  quite  sure— but  I'm 
going  to  persist  in  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Arthur  Wishart  almost 
bought  it  one  year. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  protection  of  citizens  and 
investigations  of  their  complaints  in  regard  to 
civil  servants  cannot  be  overemphasized.  The 
success  of  this  type  of  office  in  other  juris- 
dictions, such  as  the  Province  of  Alberta,  has 
been  noteworthy  and  certainly  should  be  fol- 
lowed now  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 


BUSINESS  CORPORATIONS  ACT 

Mr.  Roy  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in> 
tituled,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Business  Cor- 
porations Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  the  second 
consecutive  time  I  have  introduced  this  bill. 
The  reason  for  this  bill  is  the  actixities  of 
certain  companies  that  are  compelling  certain 
people  to  give  up  their  fingerprints  for  the 
privilege  of  cashing  cheques. 

The  bill  was  introduced  last  year  in  the 
hope  that  it  would  curtail  the  activities  of 
these  companies  in  that  they  could  not  compel 
people  to  give  their  prints  and,  secondly, 
once  prints  were  taken,  by  controlling  what 
could  be  done  with  the  prints. 

I  am  told  the  activities  of  these  companies 
have  extended  to  the  point  where  they  now 
want  to  footprint  babies,  nose-print  dogs  and 
even  start  taking  fingerprints  from  people 
who  are  on  welfare.  We  feel,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  this  activity  should  be  curtailed  and 
controlled. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 
ing the  adjourned  debate  on  the  motion  that 
th^  House  approve  in  general  the  budgetary 
policy  of  the  government. 


BUDGET  DEBATE 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kit- 
chener. 

Mr.  J.  R,  Brcithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  true  measure  of  the  1974  On- 
tario budget  is  not  in  the  rhetoric  of  the 
Treasurer's  statement  but  in  his  forecast  for 
Ontario's  economy  this  year.  The  Treasurer 
(Mr.  White)  speaks  of  "measures  to  restrain 
inflation"  yet  he  forecasts  the  rate  of  ijiflation 
will  accelerate  to  10  per  cent  or  more  this 
year.  The  Treasurer  claims  he  has  introduced 
measures  "to  increase  the  supply  of  housing" 
yet  he  predicts  there  will  be  fewer  hoaxing 
starts  in  1974  than  there  were  in  1973.  The 
Treasurer  claims  his  budget  introduces  greater 
equity  yet  he  predicts  there  will  be  a  15  per 
cent  increase  in  unemployment  in  Ontario  this 
year  over  last;  that  is,  a  rise  from  143,000  to 
164,000. 

I  presume,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  Treasurer 
talks  with  his  friends  in  Ottawa;  that  is,  his 
Conservative  friends.  His  national  leader 
spends  mo.st  of  his  time  trying  to  throw 
banana  skins  under  the  federal  gONemment 


1072 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


but  the  most  likely  result  is  that  Father  Lewis 
will  be  tripped;  however  that  is  another  story. 
If  Mr.  Stanfield  is  correct,  inflation  is  running 
rampant  and  it  will  destroy  the  middle  classes 
and  those  pensioners  who  save  for  a  better 
future  in  their  retirement. 

If  the  federal  Liberals  are  correct,  the  in- 
flation rate  in  Canada  is  to  be  compared  with 
that  of  other  nations.  We  are  to  be  seen  as 
comparatively  successful  when  we  see  most 
other  nations— such  as  Switzerland,  Yugoslavia 
and  Vietnam— suffer  through  annual  rates  of 
12,  24  and  65  per  cent. 

Whichever  view  one  may  accept,  the  facts 
are  that  Ontario  is  not  controlling  its  own 
contribution  to  inflation.  Ontario  is  not  taking 
the  lead  that  is  needed.  This  government 
usually  claims  that  its  programmes  are  the 
best  in  Canada  or  in  North  America  or  even 
in  the  western  world.  Each  minister  of  tiie 
Crown  uses  the  press  facilities  and  those  of 
selected  public  relations  firms  to  tell  our  citi- 
zens the  wonders  of  Toryism  in  Ontario.  But 
the  failure  of  our  wealthy  province  to  in- 
fluence inflation  pre&sures  is  not  as  well 
brought  before  our  eight  million  people. 

Quite  simply,  the  solutions  offered  in  this 
government's  budget  will  not  relieve  inflation, 
will  not  increase  the  supply  of  housing  and 
will  not  control  unemployment.  Rather  than 
try  to  solve  the  problems  of  our  economy,  the 
Treasurer  has  chosen  to  obscure  them  with 
insincere  and  superficial  remedies.  He  has 
substituted  rhetoric  for  real  solutions. 

The  government's  cynicism  is  nowhere 
more  apparent  than  in  the  claim  that  this 
budget  will  have  a  neutral  economic  im- 
pact. The  Treasurer  made  the  same  claim  in 
last  year's  budget  yet  he  ended  the  year 
with  a  deficit  of  $421  million  and  and  in- 
flation advanced  for  our  citizens  by  more 
than  nine  per  cent  in  that  year.  This  year, 
spending  will  increase  by  more  than  $1 
billion.  The  gap  between  revenues  and 
expenditures  will  grow  by  more  than  17 
per  cent  and  the  budgetary  deficit  will  rise 
by  $625  nullion. 

This  government  will  have  added  more 
than  $2  billion  to  the  public  debt  in  four 
years,  and  annual  interest  payments  on 
the  debt  have  jumped  by  177  per  cent  to 
$674  mfllion  this  year. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): It  is  a  shame.  A  fiscal  nightmare. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  These  uncontrolled 
spending  increases  are  adding  to  the  in- 
flationary pressures  in  our  economy  In  its 
1974  economic  forecast  the  Financial  Times 


of  Canada  says  of  Ontario,  **The  most 
critical  problem  for  the  province  wiH  prob- 
ably be  to  bring  pubHc  spending  into  better 
balance  with  revenues."  The  Chamber  of 
Commerce  agrees  with  the  following  com- 
ment, "What  is  urgently  required  is  fiscal 
discipline  from  governments  in  Canada.  The 
current  rates  of  growth  of  government 
spending  are  excessive  and  have  contributed 
in  a  major  way  to  domestic  inflation."  A 
recent  report  by  the  Ontario  Economic 
Councfl  stated  bluntly  that  rising  govern- 
ment expenditures  were  inflationary  in  their 
impact  on  the  economy. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  January  of  this  year, 
Ontario's  Treasurer  said  the  following  to  a 
meeting   of   Canadian   finance  ministers: 

I  acknowledge  the  contribution  of  the 
public  sector  to  inflation.  In  its  ninth  and 
tenth  annual  reviews,  the  Economic 
Council  of  Canada  recommended  reduced 
expenditure  growth  in  the  public  sector. 
I  agree  with  this  recommendation. 

Well,  as  quoted,  the  Treasurer  may  agree 
with  the  recommendation  but  he  has  cer- 
tainly not  heeded  it.  Last  year  he  increased 
Ontario's  rate  of  expenditure  growth  from 
7.5  per  cent  to  12.7  per  cent.  This  year  he 
has  increased  the  rate  again,  to  14.3  per 
cent. 

Interim  statistics  for  the  last  fiscal  year 
indicate  the  lade  of  control  on  provincial 
government  spending.  Total  government  ex- 
penditures were  about  $35  mfllion  over 
budget,  and  the  budgetary  deficit  was  $19 
million  more  than  the  Treasurer  predicted. 
His  own  ministry  overspent  its  budget  by 
$13  million.  The  Ministry  of  Education  over- 
spent by  $37  million.  Community  and 
Social  Services  overspent  by  15  per  cent, 
or  $74  million  more  than  was  budgeted. 
Interest  payments  on  the  public  debt  were 
$26  mfllion  over  budget. 

Expenditures  were  also  out  of  control  in 
1972-1973.  The  Ministry  of  the  Environ- 
ment overspent  its  budget  by  35  per  cent. 
The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  over- 
spent by  18.5  per  cent.  Indeed,  total  gov- 
ernment spending  that  year  was  some  $117 
mfllion  above  the  budgeted  amounts. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Treasurer  is  rather  sen- 
sitive about  the  size  of  the  provincial  debt. 
Instead  of  embarking  on  another  wfld 
spending  spree  this  year,  the  government 
should  be  restricting  its  expenditures  imtil 
they  are  needed  to  stimulate  the  ecoilomy. 
The  budgeted  increase  of  more  than  20 
per  cent  on  direct  capital  expenditures  is 
particularly    inappropriate    and    inflationary. 


APML  16,  1974 


1073 


The  Ontario  economy  is  now  operating 
ver\'  close  to  capacity.  Demand  is  out- 
stripping supply  in  many  segments,  and 
bottlenecks  are  developing  in  the  supply 
process.  The  provincial  government  should 
not  be  competing  with  the  private  sector  for 
scarce  resources.  Such  competition  will  only 
aggravate  the  existing  shortages  and  drive 
prices  even  higher.  The  expansionary 
policies  that  were  necessary  two  years  ago 
to  relieve  high  unemployment  are  not  suit- 
able to  our  present  generally  almost  full- 
employment  situation. 

Those  areas  in  the  north  and  east  where 
unemployment  remains  high  should  be  assist- 
ed with  regional  development  programmes. 
However,  the  large  provincial  deficit  for 
which  the  Treasurer  has  budgeted  can  only 
generally  add  fuel  to  the  fires  of  inflation. 
Cost  cutting  could  begin  in  the  Premier's 
own  office,  where  the  staff  has  now  grown 
to  58,  including  his  newly  appointed  press 
secretary  who  will  cost  us  $30,000  per  year. 
This  press  secretary  is  in  addition  to  a 
$25,000  per  year  press  aide,  who  maintains 
contact  with  the  press  gallery  at  Queen's 
Park.  The  government  would  be  well  ad- 
vised to  note  the  comments  of  Mr.  J.  L. 
Kozlowski  in  a  letter  to  the  Welland  Tribune 
last  month.   Mr.   Kozlowski  wrote: 

Why  should  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario 
pay  for  the  services  of  the  new  press  secre- 
tary, whose  duties  will  actually  involve 
public  relations  work  on  behalf  of  the 
Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  and  the  Conservative 
Party?  This  kind  of  misuse  of  the  public's 
money  to  try  to  improve  a  badly  damaged 
image  brought  about  solely  by  consistently 
inept  and  bungling  performances  by  mem- 
bers of  the  Premier's  party  and  staff  is 
absolutely  ludicrous  and  irresi)onsible  and 
typical  of  a  government  that  has  lurched 
from  crisis  to  crisis  since  the  last  election. 

Salaries  and  wages  in  the  Premier's  office  and 
in  the  cabinet  office  jumped  335  per  cent  in 
the  first  two  years  of  the  Davis  government, 
and  travel  expenses  multiplied  by  five  times. 

The  policy  secretariats  or  superministries 
have  been  a  failure;  yet  they  will  spend  about 
$1.3  million  annually.  Their  lack  of  success 
was  indicated  recently  when  three  ministers 
with  the  resource  development  policy  area 
were  arguing  in  public  over  the  appropriate 
routing  for  the  oil  pipeline  extension  to 
Montreal. 

The  government  should  admit  that  these 
secretariats  were  a  mistake.  The  Premier  was 
able  to  front-bench  his  rivals  in  the  last 
leadership  campaign  so  that  two  of  them  have 
since  dropped  from  sight.  Now  that  his  posi- 


tion is  secure  within  his  party,  he  oould 
elminate  these  useless  appendices  to  power. 
This  is  even  more  apparent  when  ^  some- 
time Attorney  General  has  now  taken  over 
the  justice  policy  secretariat— which  appears 
to  have  submerged  without  a  bubble,  except 
for  the  continuing  cost 

This  government  could  save  anodier  $17 
million  by  cancelling  its  Krauss-Maffei  mag- 
netic levitation  experiment  at  the  Canadian 
National  Exhibition  grounds.  The  Krauss- 
Maffei  system  has  been  seriously  discredited 
as  a  solution  to  Ontario's  urban  transport  prob- 
lems. Even  if  it  does  work,  it  will  be  inferior 
to  comparable  but  less  expensive  systems 
already  in  use  around  the  world.  Urgendy 
needed  transit  developments  in  Ontario's  cities 
are  being  delayed  while  the  provincial  govern- 
ment wastes  time  and  money  with  this  experi- 
ment. 

The  pork-barrel  payments  to  Conservative 
back-benchers  for  their  service  on  boards  and 
conmiissions  should  also  be  stopped.  The 
recent  commission  on  the  Legislature,  of 
which  Mr.  Dalton  Camp  is  the  chairman, 
found  no  other  jurisdiction  where  this  practice 
is  so  overworked  as  in  Ontario. 

The  member  for  Dufferin-Simcoe  (Mr. 
Downer)  receives  $7,0(X)  annuallv  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Liquor  Licence  Boara  of  Ontario. 
The  member  for  Fort  William  (Mr.  Jessiman) 
gets  $5,000  as  chairman  of  the  Ontario  North- 
land—apparently together  with  many  other 
perquisites  as  the  recent  reports  in  the  Globe 
and  Mail  have  shown.  The  member  for  On- 
tario (Mr.  Dymond)  receives  $5,0(X)  as  chair- 
man of  the  Ontario  Science  Centre.  The 
member  for  Haldimand-Norfolk  (Mr.  Allan) 
gets  $5,000  as  chairman  of  the  Niagara  Paries 
Commission.  The  member  for  Hastings  (Mr. 
Rollins)  gets  $5,(XX)  as  chairman  of  tfie  St 
Lawrence  Parks  Commission.  The  member  for 
Wellington-Dufferin  (Mr.  Root)  gets  $100  per 
diem  when  he  sits  as  a  member  of  the 
Environmental  Hearing  Board. 

In  fact,  there  are  only  about  a  dozen  mem- 
bers of  the  Conservative  Party  in  this  Legis- 
lature who  do  not  get  payments  of  some  sort 
beyond  their  basic  salaries  of  $22,500.  TTicsc 
payments  may  help  them  cope  with  rising 
prices,  but  in  fact  they  aggravate  inflation  in 
Ontario  by  adding,  if  nothing  else,  to  the 
provincial  debt. 

Unfortunately,  the  recent  reappointment  of 
the  member  for  Simcoe  Centre  (Mr.  Evans) 
as  a  director  of  Ontario  Hydro  with  a  salary 
of  $7,000  is  another  indication  that  this  gov- 
ernment intends  to  continue  its  ill-conceived 
system  of  rewarding  faithful  back-benchers. 


1074 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Last  year,  Ontario  Place  lost  some  $1.7 
million,  even  though  entrance  fees  were  in- 
creased by  50  per  cent.  Now,  the  same 
bureaucrats  who  produced  that  extravagance 
are  promoting  Maple  Mountain  for  north- 
eastern Ontario.  The  government  has  already 
spent  $250,000  on  feasibihty  studies  and, 
according  to  the  Conservation  Council  of 
Ontario,  has  made  significant  expenditures 
to  improve  road  access  to  the  area. 

This  government  must  involve  the  public 
in  discussions  about  the  entire  Maple  Moun- 
tain project  immediately.  Surely  the  citizens 
of  the  province  have  a  far  greater  right  to 
know  what  is  going  on  than  the  chosen  busi- 
ness confidants  of  the  Ministry  of  Industry 
and  Tourism,  who  all  stand  to  profit  from 
their  proximity  to  the  seats  of  power  in 
Ontario. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Don  t  they  know  it!  Don't 
they  like  iti 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Certainly  the  costly  errors 
and  expenses  that  were  part  of  Ontario  Place 
and  of  the  Science  Centre  in  their  election 
year  starts  must  be  avoided  before  Maple 
Moimtain  is  paraded  before  us  by  a  Davis 
government  bent  on  seeking  re-election  in 
1975.  The  combination  of  the  Krauss-Mafi^ei 
kiddie  cars  at  the  CNE  and  Maple  Mountain 
for  northeastern  Ontario  will  be  too  blatant, 
even  then,  as  our  citizens  are  once  again 
bribed  with  their  ovm  money. 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): The  member  vdll  regret  those  words. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  There  are  dozens  of  steps 
this  government  should  be  taking  to  bring 
its  expenditures  under  control  and  reduce  its 
inflationary  deficit.  I  have  just  referred  to  a 
few  of  them.  The  greatest  savings  will  result 
from  a  realignment  of  priorities  within  pro- 
grammes, rather  than  the  complete  elimina- 
tion of  certain  expenditiue  items. 

Greater  emphasis  on  preventive  health 
care,  for  instance,  would  substantially  reduce 
overall  health  care  expenditures.  Another 
saving  would  result  by  cutting  sharply  into 
advertising  expenses.  There  was  some  $2 
million  spent  wdthin  Ontario  last  year.  We 
should  eliminate  all  advertisements  that  do 
not  either  alert  our  residents  to  some  danger 
or  inform  them  of  the  steps  they  should  take 
to  benefit  from  government  programmes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  soaring  expenditures  asso- 
ciated with  regional  governments  are  all  add- 
ing to  the  provincial  debt.  The  programme  of 
this  government,  whereby  regionaJ  govern- 
ments have  been  imposed  throughout  Ontario, 


has  aggravated  the  cost-price  squeeze  for 
many  goods  and  services.  The  attempt  to 
achieve  economies  of  scale  by  centralizing 
municipal  decisions  has  backfired,  and  the 
dramatic  increase  in  regional  government 
costs  are  now  contributing  to  inflation. 

In  Waterloo  county,  my  part  of  Ontario, 
the  cost  of  services  assumed  by  the  regional 
government  increased  by  36  per  cent  in  the 
first  year  of  regional  government. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Economies  of  scale,  they 
call  it. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  Kitchener,  costs  rose  by 
25  per  cent;  in  Waterloo  they  were  up  by 
82  per  cent. 

An  Hon.  member:  Not  bad. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  In  Burlington  it'll  be  even 
worse. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  the  township  of  North 
Dumfries  they  went  up  by  120  per  cent. 
Start-up  costs  in  the  region  were  $1.8  million, 
a  quarter  of  which  was  paid  from  the  pro- 
vincial Treasury;  the  balance  was  added  to 
the  property  tax  burden  of  the  region.  The 
extension  of  municipal  police  services  to  rural 
areas  allowed  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police 
to  decrease  its  detachment  by  five  oflBcers. 
But  the  region  added  43  more  policemen  at 
a  cost  of  some  $300,000. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  How  about  that? 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  That's 
economy. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Here  are  some  quotations 
from  an  article  that  was  printed'  in  the 
Kitchener- Waterloo  Record  on  April  11,  last 
Thursday,  and  which  was  based  on  research 
done  by  Robert  Mackenzie  of  that  newspaper. 
And  I  quote: 

(Sixteen  months  ago,  before  regional  gov- 
ernment in  Waterloo  county,  the  various 
levels  of  mum'cipal  government  provided 
about  1,750  full-time  jobs,  employing 
slightly  more  than  one  in  every  100 
workers  of  the  county's  estimated  labour 
force  of  120,000. 

The  population  and  labour  force  have 
each  grown  about  three  per  cent  since 
Jan.  1,  1973,  the  ofiicial  start  of  regional 
government.  But  municipal  employment 
lias  skyrocketed  more  than  55  per  cent  to 
more  than  2,740,  up  about  990,  including 
slightly  more  than  1,000  who  work  directly 
for  the  region. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  the  taxpayers  pay. 


APRIL  16.  1974 


1075 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Mackenzie  goes  into 
some  detail  as  to  the  net  cains  and  losses 
with  the  appearance  and  oisappearance  of 
the  several  municipalities.  The  one  further 
comment  that  I  think  is  worthwhile  in  this 
area  concerns  the  activities  in  the  new  city 
of  Cambridge,  a  municipality  which  Mr. 
Speaker  represents.  This  will  suffice: 

The  story  in  Cambridge  still  is  a  mystery. 
A  report  on  current  employment  in  Cam- 
bridge    as     compared     witn     the     former 
•municipalities    of   Gait,   Preston   and   Hes- 
peler,  oefore  amalgamation,  was  prepared 
about    two    months    ago.    However,    city 
officials  refuse  to  make  it  public. 
Mr.    Speaker,    the   total   is   presumed   to  be 
about    450.    Formerly    Gait    had   about   240 
employees,    Preston   had    100   and    Hespeler 
had  26.  That  means  an  increase  of  23  per 
cent  in   total,   even   after  the   regional   sub- 
tractions of  police  and  parks  and  recreation 
are  considered. 

Mr.  Worton:  What  a  way  to  gol 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  And  the  rate  of  increase 
is  to  continue  at  fi\'e  per  cent  each  year,  so 
we  are  told. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It's  a  spending  machine. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  experience  in  Water- 
loo region  is  unfortunately  not  unique.  In 
Georgian  Bay  township,  one  resident's  taxes 
rose  by  more  than  400  per  cent,  from  $49.50 
in  1969,  before  regional  government  was 
introduced  in  Muskoka,  to  $254  last  year. 
This  year  the  rates  are  expected  to  rise  by 
another  173  per  cent  to  $695.  In  all,  a  total 
change  of  14  times  the  original  amount  in 
only    five    years. 

In  four  years  of  regional  government  in 
Niagara,  the  annual  cost  of  operating  the 
regional  municipality,  exclusive  of  the  local 
municipalities,  has  jumped  by  85  per  cent; 
from  $22  million  to  $41  million.  In 
Ottawa-Carleton,  spending  by  that  regional 
government  has  increased  by  88  per  cent  in 
five  years. 

These  soaring  expenditures  affect  all  of 
the  taxpayers  in  Ontario,  not  only  those  who 
are  living  in  the  regional  areas.  The  pro- 
vincial Treasury  paid  some  46  per  cent  of 
all  municipal  government  costs  last  year. 
This  amounted  to  $1.9  billion  and  the  ex- 
cessive costs  associated  with  regional  gov- 
ernment add  unnecessarily  to  provincial  gov- 
ernment spending  which  further  aids  in- 
flation. However,  in  the  past  year,  when  the 
consumer  price  index  has  advanced  by  the 
largest  single  amount  in  22  years,  this 
Conservative    government    has    implemented 


five  more  regional  governments  on  our 
people.  The  costs  for  this  expensive  form  of 
municipal  involvement  are  apparently  out  of 
control. 

The  Premier  was  quoted  in  the  press  as 
having  talked  recently  about  the  matter  of 
hypocrisy.  As  an  acknowledged  expert  on 
the  subject,  he  might  have  referred  to  his 
own  Ministry  of  Health,  which  restricts  the 
spending  increases  of  hospitals  to  about 
seven  per  cent  this  year  but  which  will  in- 
crease its  own  departmental  expenditures 
this  year  by  almost  13  per  cent. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There's  hypocrisy  for 
you,   Mr.   Speaker. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  We  can  also  refer  to  the 
1974  Ontario  budget,  which  begins  with 
the  following  words— and  I  am  sure  you 
will  recall  them,  Mr.  Speaker— "The  most 
important  problem  facing  us  today  is  in- 
flation." 

The  budget  ends  with  a  record  budgetary 
deficit  of  $625  million. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They're  trying  to  have 
it   both   ways. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Without  the  courage  to 
stop  inflation,  this  government  cannot  hope 
to  control  inflation  in  the  whole  of  On- 
tario's economy.  Provincial  government 
spending  constitutes  more  than  15  per  cent 
of  Ontario's  gross  provincial  product.  Strict 
controls  on  such  a  major  portion  of  our 
economy  would  not  only  slow  price  increases. 

Ontario's  government  cannot  slow  the  in- 
flationary spiral  in  the  provincial  economy 
until  it  can  find  the  courage  to  control  the 
inflation  of  its  own  expenditures. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  AikI  until  the  Treasurer 
can  find  the  courage  to  come  in  and  listen 
to  the  debate. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Such  an  approadi  would 
dampen  the  psychology  that  accepts  con- 
tinual price  and  cost  increases  as  inevitable. 
It  would  also  reduce  the  high  demand 
pressures  that  propel  the  inflationary  spiral. 

Besides  limiting  its  own  expenditures,  the 
government  of  Ontario  should  be  reducing 
the  extreme  inflationary  pressures  originat- 
ing in  the  business  sector. 

According  to  statistics  compiled  by  the 
federal  government,  Canadian  businessmen 
propose  to  relieve  the  supply  bottlenecks 
that  have  developed  in  the  economy  by  a 
21  per  cent  increase  in  capital  investment  in 
1974. 


1076 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


In  some  areas  of  the  nation,  particularly 
in  the  Maritimes,  massive  capital  investment 
may  be  beneficial.  But  in  Ontario  it  would 
result  in  even  greater  inflationary  pressures 
generated  by  shortages  in  materials  and  in 
skilled  labour. 

The  Canadian  Imperial  Bank  of  Com- 
merce noted  last  fall: 

Labour  shortages  have  become  in- 
creasingly apparent  in  various  skilled 
trades  and  in  various  regions  in  Canada 
...  In  addition,  the  shortages  of  capacity 
which  are  now  apparent  in  a  number  of 
industries  are  also  likely  to  continue  for 
some  time. 

Canadian    Business    magazine   agreed   in    its 

1974  forecast  for  Ontario: 

There  is  a  shortage  of  materials  and 
specific  labour  skills  and  little  excess  ca- 
pacity in  many  industries.  That  would 
seem  to  create  diflficulties  in  expanding 
business  activity  to  the  same  degree  as  in 
1973.  .  .  .  The  preliminary  estimate  of 
business  spending  intentions  for  1974  indi- 
cates an  even  larger  expansion,  particu- 
larly in  the  manufacturing  sector.  There  is 
a  real  question  whether  such  a  large  in- 
crease can  be  accommodated,  given  the 
shortages  of  labour  and  materials. 

Production  of  steel,  which  is  already  in  short 
supply,  will  only  increase  by  about  four  per 
cent  this  year,  and  shortages  of  roofing  and 
insulation  materials  are  expected  to  continue 
throughout  1974.  Unrestrained  business 
spending  can  only  force  prices  higher. 

The  federal  government  is  currently  re- 
ducing corporate  income  taxes  by  one  per 
cent  annually  to  encourage  capital  invest- 
ment in  those  regions  of  the  nation  where 
extra  demand  can  be  accommodated.  The 
federal  tax  has  been  reduced  from  40  per 
cent  in  1972  to  38  per  cent  this  year,  and 
it  will  be  reduced  by  an  additional  two  per 
cent  by  1976. 

This  economic  stimulus  though  appropriate 
in  some  regions  of  the  country,  contributes 
most  importantly  to  inflation  in  Ontario. 

The  provincial  government  should  con- 
sider stepping  into  the  area  that  has  been 
vacated  by  the  federal  authorities  and  in- 
crease its  own  corporate  tax  by  the  two  per 
cent  that  has  been  given  up.  Accommodation 
for  developments  in  northern  and  eastern 
Ontario  could,  of  course,  be  made  as  deemed 
necessary. 

Such  an  increase,  we  expect,  would  with- 
draw some  $96  million  from  the  business 
sector  in  1974  and  would  help  to  reduce  the 


inflationary  pressures  within   Ontario's  econ- 
omy accordingly. 

Although  spending  reductions  will  reduce 
legitimate  inflation,  the  government  also  must 
protect  consumers  from  unjustified  price  in- 
creases, and  this  it  has  failed  to  do. 

A  standing  committee  of  the  Legislature 
should  be  empowered  to  function  as  a  pro- 
vincial prices  review  board,  and  it  should  be 
provided  with  the  necessary  powers  and 
staff.  It  must  not  only  examine  price  in- 
creases that  are  within  provincial  jurisdic- 
tion, but  also  recommend  action,  including 
rollbacks,  to  the  Legislature. 

A  provincial  prices  review  board  would 
have  been  required  to  approve  the  recent 
milk  price  increase,  for  instance,  after  hearing 
evidence  from  the  Ontario  Milk  Marketing 
Board  and  the  other  interested  parties,  in- 
cluding consumer  groups.  It  would  also  re- 
view proposals  to  increase  medical  fee  sched- 
ules or  car  insurance  rates  to  ensure  that 
such  changes  were  justified  by  higher  costs. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  A  page  out  of  the  NDP 

book. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  review  board  would 
also  be  able  to  study  pricing  practices  in 
specific  industries  and  to  recommend  a  per- 
manent review  or  control  mechanism 
wherever  price-gouging  is  vddespread.  Such 
a  review  of  the  apartment  situation  and  rent 
structures  generally  should  be  an  urgent 
priority. 

There  is  already  considerable  evidence, 
particularly  in  the  Toronto  area,  that  apart- 
ment owners  are  taking  advantage  of  the 
extremely  low  apartment  vacancy  rate  to 
institute  substantial  rent  increases. 

This  procedure  would  give  all  sectors  of 
our  economy  a  forum  for  information,  for 
response  and  ultimately  for  action. 

The  1974  Ontario  budget  takes  a  small 
step  towards  easing  the  impact  of  inflation 
on  the  elderly,  the  blind  and  the  disabled, 
with  the  introduction  of  the  guaranteed  in- 
come system. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Biggest  increase  in  any 
province  in  Canada. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  new  system,  of  course, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  identical  to  that  proposed 
by  the  Liberal  Party  in  October,  and  we 
welcome  the  government's  announcement. 

It  is  appalling  that  Ontario  had  not  acted 
until  now  to  create  this  much-needed  pro- 
gramme. It  is  even  more  difficult  to  under- 
stand  why  the   311,000  beneficiaries   should 


APML  16,  1974 


10T7 


have  to  wait  another  2%  months  for  the  pro- 
gramme to  be  implemented. 

This  new  programme  will  provide  only 
limited  protection  against  inflation  unless  the 
benefits  are  indexed  and  adjusted  at  least 
annually  to  o£Fset  the  full  amoimt  of  the 
rise  in  the  consumer  price  index. 

The  Treasurer's  vague  promise  that  "the 
guaranteed  income  levels  will  be  increased 
periodically"  is  not  suflBcient. 

The  government  should  also  be  adjusting 
other  social  benefit  payments  as  prices  rise, 
including  Workmen  s  Compensation  Board 
payments  and  family  assistance  payments. 

The  GAINS  programme,  as  outlined  by  the 
Treasurer,  is  only  a  beginning.  A  retired 
couple  can  now  receive  up  to  $433.33  per 
month,  but  a  mother  with  one  child  must 
still  subsist  on  a  monthly  payment  of  only 
$252  under  the  family  assistance  programme. 
There  is  the  additional  $20  in  federal  fam- 
ily allowance  payments,  of  course,  but  the 
total  remains  42  per  cent  less  than  the 
retired  couple  receives. 

A  study  of  524  poor  families  in  Toronto, 
which  was  made  in  December,  1971,  showed 
they  paid  an  average  of  $37  more  for  rent 
per  month  than  the  provincial  assistance 
budget  provided.  The  amount  which  was  left 
for  food,  personal  care  expenses,  clothing, 
household  maintenance,  school  supplies  and 
emergencies  was  therefore  reduced  to  about 
$128  a  month. 

As  a  result,  some  families  had  as  little  as 
50  cents  per  person  per  day  to  spend  on  food. 
The  budget  allowance  for  a  family  of  four 
was  increased  by  $30  in  January,  1973,  but 
only  $5  of  this  increase  was  allocated  to 
shelter  costs  and  the  total  increase  has  since 
been  wiped  out  by  inflation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  rapidly  rising  food  costs  and 
prices  are  the  most  cruel  and  most  alarming 
aspect  of  the  present  inflation  and  yet  the 
Treasurer  did  not  even  mention  food  costs  in 
his  budget  address. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  goes  another  busy 
minister. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  low-income  families— 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  This  is  what  we  heard 
last  year. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  —higher  food  prices  espe- 
cially caused  a  shift  to  food  of  lower 
nutritional  value.  Results  can  be  devastating. 
A  report  prepared  by  the  government  of 
Quebec  found,  "The  higher  fimctions  of  the 
brain,  logic  and  reasoning,   and  some  other 


activities,  reading  and  writing,  are  greatly 
compromised  in  the  undernourished  child." 

The  National  Council  of  Welfare  has  also 
reported  'The  poorly  nourished  child  has 
trouble  paying  attention,  is  more  likely  to  fall 
asleep  in  class,  is  more  restless,  more  irritable 
and  less  alert." 

I  suppose  that  could  refer  to— 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  ( Ottawa  East ) :  They  are  all 
undernourished  on  the  other  side. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  I  never  knew  what  was 
wrong  when  I  listened  to  the  member's  speech 
before.  That  is  what  happened. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  is  what  happens  to 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food.  He 
didn't  have  his  Wheaties  this  morning. 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  minister  talking  about  food 
for  thought? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  could  happen,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that— 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  am  undernourished. 
That  is  the  problem. 

iMr.  Breithaupt:  —certain  members  of  the 
House  might  be  afflicted  with  those  problems 
but  I  doubt— 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  thought  it  was  the 
member's  speeches. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  —if  it  is  a  lack  of  nourish- 
ment for  any  of  the  members  opposite. 

Food  prices  have  risen  16  per  cent  in  the 
past  year  in  Toronto;  17.8  per  cent  in  Ottawa 
and  14.8  per  cent  in  Thunder  Bay.  In  just 
one  year,  beef  prices  have  increased  by  25 
per  cent;  poultry  prices  are  up  35  per  cent; 
the  cost  of  eggs  has  risen  by  26  per  cent;  the 
cost  of  fresh  fruit  has  jumped  27  per  cent; 
and  the  cost  of  sugar  soared  by  72  per  cent. 

The  price  of  milk  increased  from  36  to  41 
cents  per  quart  just  yesterday,  an  increase  of 
14  per  cent. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Why 
doesn't  the  member  talk  to  Beryl  Plumptre? 
How  about  he  and  Beryl  getting  together  for 
the  weekend? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Some  of  these  increases 
have  no  doubt  been  necessary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Don't  throw  him  out. 
There  are  few  enough  of  them  over  there. 


1078 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  Yes,  I  don't  think  we 
would  have  a  quorum  if  you  disposed  of  the 
Solicitor  General,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Although  on  other  occa- 
sions it  might  be  all  right. 

Mr.  Roy:  We  might  get  some  intelligent 
comments,  though. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  any  event,  of  course, 
we  are  here  to  deal  with  the  business  of  this 
province  and  I  think  we  have  an  obligation 
to  deal  with  the  things  that  are  of  provincial 
concern.  Whether  other  jurisdictions  have 
their  problems  or  handle  them  in  ways  that 
they  think  best  is  really  not  our  problem  here. 

Some  of  these  increases  as  I  have  said,  Mr. 
Speaker,  have  no  doubt  been  necessary  to 
offset  higher  costs  and  others,  such  as  the 
milk  price  increase,  have  been  necessary  to 
enable  some  farmers  to  stay  in  business.  As 
the  Minister  of  Consimier  and  Commercial 
Relations  (Mr.  Clement)  will  discover  when 
he  studies  the  activities  of  the  food  industry 
for  1973  it  is  apparent  that  some  food  price 
increases  have  not  been  justified.  These  are 
increases  that  Ontario  consumers  will  bear,  if 
not  very  gladly. 

Some  price  increases  were  in  fact  appar- 
ently not  justified  and  they  are  now  appear- 
ing as  higher  profits  in  the  food  industry. 
Profits  of  the  food  processing  companies  in 
Canada  rose  by  81,1  per  cent  in  the  fourth 
quarter  of  1973;  by  about  60  per  cent  for  the 
entire  year. 

Maple  Leaf  Mills,  one  of  the  larger  food 
processers,  had  profits  of  $7.9  million  in  1973 
compared  with  $3.1  million  in  1972,  a  155 
per  cent  increase. 

George  Weston  Ltd.,  of  Toronto,  increased 
its  profits  by  86  per  cent  in  1973  from  $18.6 
million  to  $34.6  milhon.  J.  M.  Schneider 
Foods  increased  profits  by  35  per  cent  last 
year,  and  Bums  Foods  increased  its  profits 
in  the  first  nine  months  of  1973  by  24  per 
cent  over  the  same  time  period  in  1972. 

Canada  Packers'  profit  was  up  33  per  cent 
for  the  nine  months  ended'  Feb.  1,  1974,  over 
the  same  period  last  year. 

Officials  from  these  companies  and  many 
others  should  immediately  be  summoned  be- 
fore a  standing  committee  of  the  Legislature 
to  justify  their  enormous  price  increases.  If 
they  were  found  to  be  unwarranted,  the 
Legislature  should  be  asked  to  consider 
measures  to  roll  back  prices  in  the  food  pro- 
cessing industry,  and  a  mechanism  should  be 
established  to  review  future  price  increases 
as  I  have  already  suggested. 


The  government's  study  into  the  economics 
of  the  food  industry  for  1973  must  be  accel- 
erated to  aid  the  standing  committee  in  its 
work.  The  government,  if  it  was  serious  about 
inflation  would  also  require  food  retailers  to 
provide  detailed  information  about  their 
internal  economic  structures  in  their  armual 
reports  so  that  consimiers  would  have  more 
information  to  consider  on  that  subject. 

At  the  retail  level,  unit  pricing  should  be 
required  by  law  to  assist  food  shoppers  in 
getting  the  best  value  for  the  money  sp^it. 
Wast^l  packaging  should  be  controllea  and 
in  particular,  non-returnable  cans  and  bottles 
should  be  outlawed.  If  any  such  convenience 
packaging  is  thought  necessary  in  particular 
exceptions,  the  premium  should  be  sufBciently 
high  to  discourage  all  but  exceptional  use. 

iSoft  drink  manufacturers  faced  sharp  price 
increases  for  cans  and  bottles  on  April  1,  but 
only  50  per  cent  of  the  soft  drink  containers 
sold  in  Ontario  are  in  returnable  bottles. 
Bottlers  maintain  that  returnable  containers 
would  lower  their  production  costs.  Surely  we 
must  have  a  standard  returnable  soft  drink 
container  similar  to  the  standard  beer  bottle 
used  in  Ontario.  This  would  reduce  costs. 

(If  inflation  in  the  price  of  food  is  to  be 
controlled,  we  must  not  only  look  at  the 
effects  in  the  manufacturing  and  retail  levels. 
We  must  also  look  at  the  effects  on  the  farm- 
ers who  are  the  primary  producers  in  the 
chain. 

One  of  the  most  important  long-term 
factors  in  the  spiralling  price  of  food  is  the 
loss  of  prime  agricultural  land.  This  govern- 
ment must  act  now  to  preserve  our  best  land 
for  agricultural  use.  Ontario  has  about  seven 
million  acres  of  prime  farmknd— this  is  equal 
in  amount  to  nearly  one-third  of  all  of  the 
best  land  available  in  Canada.  But  lands  are 
now  being  used  for  housing,  for  hydro  rights- 
of-way,  for  highways  and  even  for  airports. 
Even  successful  dairy  farmers  can  make  a 
better  living  by  selling  their  farms  and 
collecting  interest  on  the  proceeds,  than  by 
working  the  land  and  keeping  herds  and 
producing  much  needed  fooaistim"s. 

Data  from  the  1966  and  1971  federal 
census  indicates  that  the  Province  of  Ontario 
loses  26  acres  of  arable  farmland  every  hour 
of  every  day.  The  acreage  of  improved  land 
has  dropped  by  some  9.5  per  cent  in  the  past 
five  years. 

This  dangerous  trend  must  be  stopped.  As 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  has  re- 
ported: 

It  is  not  only  farmers'  incomes  that  de- 
pend on  preserving  farmland.  How  land  is 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1070 


regulated  will  also  determine  how  much 
food  will  be  on  the  supermarket  shelves  in 
the  future,  and  at  what  price. 

As  residential  and  industrial  development 
occur,  a  directiy  proportionate  demand  for 
food  arises.  With  every  acre  of  farmland  that 
is  consumed  by  urban  sprawl,  the  ability  to 
produce  food  is  altered  although  the  demand 
for  food  is  increased. 

However,  because  of  the  actions  of  this 
government,  farmers  on  the  fringes  of  urban 
development  are  unable  to  expand  their  op- 
erations because  of  the  artificially  high  prices 
for  land  and  because  of  the  inflated  property 
taxes.  Some  farmers  in  Peel  county  recently 
expressed  the  view  that  these  pressures  will 
eliminate  their  activities  within  the  next  six 
months.  It  may  well  be  that  imless  this  gov- 
ernment acts  effectively,  some  food  products 
may  not  be  available  locally  at  any  reason- 
able price. 

The  main  objective  of  the  government  of 
Ontario  should  be  to  keep  viable  farmland  in 
production.  A  clear  policy  is  needed  to  assess 
the  provincial  impact  of  projects  such  as 
highways  and  dams.  If  that  was  done,  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  could  also 
make  comments  on  such  matters  and  not 
have  to  restrict  his  remarks  to  federal  gov- 
ernment projects  alone,  such  as  the  Samia 
to  Montreal  pipeline. 

Mr.  Speaker,  development  should  be  pro- 
hibited on  class  1  and  class  2  farmland  unless 
it  is  demonstrated  that  no  other  suitable  land 
is  available  for  such  development.  Property 
taxes  on  these  lands  should  be  levied  at  agri- 
cultural rates.  Methods  of  compensating  farm- 
ers for  lost  development  rights  should  be 
carefully  studied  and  an  equitable  solution 
arrived  at  in  this  important  area.  The  cost 
implications  of  issuing  long-term  debentures 
to  farmers  whose  land  is  so  restricted  must 
be  considered  by  this  government 

As  a  short-term  solution  to  production 
needs,  the  government  should  consider  en- 
acting legislation  that  would  require  farm- 
lands bought  or  now  being  held  by  specu- 
lators to  remain  in  agricultural  production 
until  development  proceeds.  The  activities  of 
speculators  in  raw  land  have  contributed  to 
an  artificial  reduction  in  agricultural  produc- 
tion. These  persons  buy  viable  farms,  and, 
in  many  cases,  remove  tnem  from  active  agri- 
cultural production.  They  allow  the  buildings 
to  become  dilapidated  and  the  fields  to  be 
overgrown  with  weeds. 

Ontario's  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
has  admitted:  "There  are  hundreds,  yes,  thou- 
sands  of  acres   of   good  farmland   held   by 


developers,  speculators,  bobby  farmers,  re- 
tired or  tired  farmers  that  could  be  put  to 
use."  But  his  government  has  not  listened  to 
him.  The  Liberal  opposition  aerees  with  the 
opinion  of  the  committee  on  nirm  classifica- 
tion that  land  which  is  not  used  for  produc- 
tion should  not  be  eligible  for  the  same 
benefits  as  bona  fide  farmland.  We  endorse 
the  view  expressed  by  the  Samia  Observer 
that  "if  empty  land  is  purchased  and  not  put 
into  production,  it  should  be  taxed  as  inous- 
trial  land.  Disappearing  farmland  is  a  very 
real  threat,  one  that  will  need  firm  laws  to 
stop." 

In  the  longer  term,  a  major  thrust  of  gov- 
ernment policy  must  be  to  steer  growth  away 
from  class  1  and  class  2  farmland.  Some 
people  advocate  doing  this  by  stopping  all 
developments,  but  this  is  obviously  not  a 
realistic  solution  for  Ontario,  where  our  popu- 
lation increases  annually  by  about  125,000 
people.  A  real  provincial  aevelopment  plan 
is  needed  to  decentralize  the  growth  that 
contributes  to  the  urban  sprawl  in  the  "golden 
horseshoe." 

We  must  ensure  that  all  parts  of  the  prov- 
ince share  in  industrial  expansion  and  in  the 
accommodation  of  our  growing  population. 
Surely  all  members  of  this  House  will  agree 
with  me  that  the  use  of  our  prime  agricul- 
tural lands  to  develop  the  industriaJ  and 
housing  sites  we  need  is  no  longer  an  ac- 
ceptable solution.  Prime  agricultural  land  is 
a  limited  resource,  and  it  is  one  which  we 
must  carefully  and  wisely  use. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  failure  of  this  govern- 
ment to  provide  an  adequate  supply  of  ser- 
viced building  lots  has  resiJted  in  a  critical 
housing  shortage  and  in  rapidly  rising  prices 
for  accommodation  of  every  sort  The  Ontario 
Economic  Coimcil  reported  a  year  ago  that 
by  concentrating  its  efforts  on  house  building 
instead  of  on  land  servicing,  the  province  h 
"treating  the  symptoms  and  not  the  disease." 
The  OEC  also  noted  that  Ontario  'lacks  a 
planned  programme  of  ensuring  an  adequate 
supply  or  serviced  land  in  the  correct  places." 

The  Treasurer  annoimced  in  last  week's 
budget  that  the  province  will  allocate  $11 
million  to  "increase  the  supply  of  serviced 
lots"  in  1974.  His  proposal,  Mr.  Speaker,  is 
practically  meaningless.  In  Ontario,  it  costs 
from  $5,000  to  $6,000  to  service  a  single 
building  lot,  especially  in  the  Toronto  area. 
In  northern  Ontario  tne  costs  are,  of  course, 
much  higher.  Even  at  $5,000  per  lot,  this 
pathetic  programme  will  service  at  the  most 
some  2,200  building  lots-hardly  a  bold  new 
response. 


1080 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  Ontario  Task  Force  on  Housing  re- 
ported several  months  ago  that  there  is  "a 
near  crisis  in  housing"  in  this  province,  but 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne  and  the  budget 
for  1974  have  both  revealed  that  this  old 
Conservative  government  lacks  the  will  to 
control  spiralling  land  and  housing  costs. 

Everywhere  in  Ontario,  house  prices  are 
out  of  control.  The  average  cost  of  a  home 
in  Metropolitan  Toronto  has  increased  by 
36  per  cent  in  the  past  year,  an  escalation 
of  about  $1,000  a  month. 

The  situation  in  the  Kitchener-Waterloo 
area  has  been  well  documented  by  my  col- 
league, the  member  for  Waterloo  North 
(Mr.  Good)  in  his  contribution  to  the  Throne 
debate,  and  I  shall  not  repeat  those  details 
here. 

Other  cities  in  Ontario  have  also  been 
experiencing  alarming  house  price  increases. 
Shelter  costs  in  Ottawa  rose  by  22  per  cent 
last  year,  and  in  Thunder  Bay  housing 
costs  went  up  by  25  per  cent.  In  January 
of  this  year,  the  agency  members  of  the 
Mississauga  Real  Estate  Board  sold  twice 
as  many  houses  as  they  did  last  year,  but  the 
value  of  the  sales  tripled.  The  average  price 
of  resale  homes  in  Hamilton  was  21  per 
cent  higher  in  the  last  half  of  1973  than  a 
year  earlier,  and  in  Sault  Ste.  Marie  house 
costs  have  risen  by  25  per  cent  in  the  past 
18  months.  I  think  we  would  all  benefit 
from  a  look  at  the  proposal  which  this  gov- 
ernment has  now  brought  forward  to  deal 
in  some  way  with  this  problem. 

I  refer,  of  course,  to  the  proposed  land 
speculation    tax. 

While  I  can  agree  with  this  kind  of  tax 
in  principle,  I  fear  that  the  programme  may 
contain  too  many  loopholes  to  have  any 
significant  eflFect  on  the  price  of  housing. 

Unless  the  tax  is  coupled  with  measures 
to  substantially  increase  the  supply  of  ser- 
viced land,  it  will  only  underpin  the  present 
inflated  price  levels.  Indeed,  without  a 
mechanism  to  prevent  its  effects  from  being 
passed  on  the  house  buyer,  the  tax  may 
even   aggravate  the  problem. 

The  speculative  profits  of  all  developers 
to  date  are  to  be  exempted  from  the  tax; 
so  the  biggest  land  owners,  including  the 
13  foreign-controlled  companies,  which  we 
are  told  own  half  of  the  land  available  for 
housing  between  Oshawa  and  Burlington, 
will  not  pay  any  tax  on  their  windfall  profits. 

The  select  committee  on  economic  and 
cultural  nationalism  reported  last  fall  that 
"through  market  linkages,  hyper-investment 
in      urban      commercial      developments      is 


putting  undue  upward  pressure  on  residen- 
tial real  estate  prices   and  shelter  costs." 

However,  the  terms  of  the  proposed  tax 
would  not  apparently  apply  to  the  specula- 
tive profits  made  from  the  sales  of  commer- 
cial or  industrial  properties. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  proposed  land 
speculation  tax  is  further  undermined  by 
the  exemption  of  sales  where  the  vendor 
has  made  capital  expenditures  on  the  prop- 
erty equal  to  20  per  cent  of  the  acquisition 
cost. 

The  tax  will  therefore  not  apply  to  the 
type  of  house  speculation  that  is  rampant 
in  inter-city  areas  like  Donvale  and  Cabbage- 
town  in  Toronto.  Typically,  these  houses 
are  purchased  from  lower-income  families, 
then  renovated  and  resold  at  a  significant 
profit.  The  cost  of  renovations  often  exceeds 
20  per  cent  of  the  purchase  price  and  the 
speculative  profits  would  therefore  not  be 
taxable  under  the  Treasurer's  proposal. 

One  house  in  Cabbagetown,  at  410 
Sumach  St.,  was  purchased  for  $31,000  in 
1972,  then  renovated  and  resold  last  year 
for  $56,900.  That  is  a  price  increase  of  84 
per  cent.  Another,  at  435  Wellesley  St.  E. 
was  purchased  in  1972  for  $24,000  and 
resold  within  the  year  for  $58,000,  a  profit 
of  142  per  cent. 

This  type  of  speculation  is  particularly  a 
problem,  since  the  displaced  low-income 
families  usually  have  no  alternative  accom- 
modation but  subsidized  housing. 

Undoubtedly  the  number  of  speculative 
transactions  will  decrease  once  the  pro- 
posed tax  is  implemented,  but  a  quick  cal- 
culation, using  1973  figures,  gives  some  in- 
dication of  the  magnitude  of  the  moneys  in- 
volved. 

The  president  of  the  Ontario  Real  Estate 
Association,  who  is  not  likely  to  over- 
estimate in  such  matters,  said  last  month 
that  at  feast  30  per  cent  of  real  estate  sales 
in  Ontario  involve  speculators.  Speculative 
real  estate  sales  therefore  had  a  value  of 
approximately  $2.4  billion  last  year. 

If  real  estate  prices  across  the  province 
rose  by  an  average  of  15  per  cent  during 
the  year,  speculator  profits  were  about  $360 
million.  A  tax  of  50  per  cent  on  these  profits 
would  have  yielded  $180  million,  but  the 
Treasurer's  proposed  tax  is  expected  to  yield 
only  $25  million  or  14  per  cent  of  my  last 
figure. 

The  Treasurer  has  argued  that  "the 
success  of  this  speculation  tax  will  be  in- 
versely   related    to    its    revenue    yield.    The 


APRIL  16.  1974 


1061 


smaller  the  revenues,  the  greater  the  desired 
impact  on  curbing  speculation." 

In  fact,  he  has  provi<led  so  nuuiy  loop- 
holes that  the  revenue  from  this  tax  could 
drop  to  zero  and  speculative  activity  could 
continue  almost  unabated  in  the  guise  of 
land  development  or  of  urban  renewal. 

A  study  of  the  effect  of  the  land  specula- 
tion tax  on  smaller  builders  illustrates  one 
method  by  which  the  amount  of  the  tax  will 
probably  be  passed  on  to  the  home  buyer. 
The  role  of  the  smaller  builder  in  providing 
housing  is  particularly  important  in  northern 
Ontario,  where  only  very  few  companies 
can  afford  to  finance  the  complete  develop- 
ment process. 

The  smaller  builder  who  adds  services  to 
a  building  lot  must  recover  his  investment  at 
that  stage  in  the  development  process,  and 
he  will  then  often  sell  the  lot  to  another 
builder  who  actually  puts  up  the  house. 

In  Sudbury,  where  there  are  no  large 
builders,  the  price  of  an  unserviced  lot  is 
about  $500.  It  will  cost  another  $500  for  the 
necessar)'  surveying,  engineering  and  legal 
fees.  If  the  land  is  not  excessively  rocky, 
ser\ices  may  cost  another  $7,000,  plus  about 
$400  for  interest  charges  on  the  money  used 
for  the  construction  of  services.  The  builder's 
total  cost,  before  he  starts  to  construct  a 
house,  is  about  $8,400. 

If  the  present  selling  price  for  a  serviced 
lot  is  in  the  $10,500- $11, 000  range,  there  wall 
be  a  profit  of  some  $2,600  for  the  work  he 
has  done.  However,  the  land  speculation  tax 
at  this  stage  will  cut  his  after-tax  profit  from 
about  $1,000  to  $500,  unless  he  adds  the 
difference  to  the  selling  price  of  the  serviced 
lot.  With  the  tax  structured  as  the  Treasurer 
has  proposed,  he  will  have  little  alternative 
but  to  do  just  this. 

The  proposed  change  in  the  land  transfer 
tax  should  discourage  the  limited  number  of 
short-term  foreign  speculators  and  hopefully 
will  slow  the  alienation  of  our  best  recrea- 
tional properties. 

However,  this  tax  will  likely  not  deter 
many  of  the  Swiss,  American,  Japanese,  Ger- 
man and  British  investors  who  are  competing 
with  Canadian  residents  to  buy  real  estate  in 
Ontario  as  a  long-term  investment. 

An  apartment  building  on  Kingston  Rd.  in 
Toronto,  which  sold  last  year  for  $300,000, 
was  recently  purchased  by  Japanese  interests 
for  $1.3  million.  Such  buyers  will  not  be 
discouraged  by  a  20  per  cent  surtax. 

In  addition,  any  foreign  company  can  buy 
land,  withhold  it  from  the  market  for  four 
years,  develop  it  and  then  resell  it  to  Cana- 


dians. The  profits  can  then  be  exported  from 
Canada  witnout  the  payment  of  either  the 
land  speculation  tax  or  the  increased  land 
transfer  tax. 

The  proposed  change  in  the  land  transfer 
tax  is  but  a  pale  reflection  of  the  recom- 
mendation maae  by  the  select  committee  on 
economic  and  cultural   nationalism. 

The  committee  said  that  the  ownership  of 
land  by  other  than  Canadian  citizens  or  resi- 
dents should  be  prohibited.  Indeed,  how 
much  more  of  our  neritage  must  be  sold  off 
before  this  government  will  take  really  de- 
cisive action? 

Even  a  complete  prohibition  of  foreign 
land  ownership  and  an  effective  tax  on 
speculative  land  profits  can  only  slow  the 
rise  in  the  price  of  housing.  In  order  to 
reduce  and  stabilize  housing  costs  in  Ontario, 
the  provincial  government  must  ensure  that 
there  is  always  an  adequate  supply  of  ser- 
viced land  available  for  residential  develop- 
ment. 

There  has  already  been  too  much  delay. 
Housing  costs  in  Toronto  have  already  risen 
by  50  per  cent  since  the  provincial  Throne 
Speech  of  1972,  which  promised  bold  action 
on  the  urgent  housing  problem. 

The  provincial  government  has  assembled 
almost  18,000  acres  of  land  for  residential 
purposes,  as  my  leader  has  so  carefully  docu- 
mented on  many  occasions.  There  are  some 
300  acres  in  Kitchener  and  some  3,000  acres 
in  the  area  north  of  Cambridge  in  Waterloo 
region.  There  are  another  1,300  near  Oak- 
viUe. 

These  lands  are  being  held  imdeveloped 
while  the  near-crisis  that  was  reported  last 
year  by  the  Ontario  Task  Force  on  Housing 
is  becoming  more  and  more  serious. 

This  government  has  badly  mishandled  its 
land-banking  programme. 

The  Waterloo  assembly  removed  about 
3,000  acres  of  developable  land  from  a  mar- 
ket which  was  already  suffering  from  a  lack 
of  supply.  As  a  result,  all  the  land  prices  in 
adjoining  areas  have  increased  and  supply  is 
almost  non-existent. 

This  government  has  delayed  too  long. 
The  land  now  being  held  must  be  developed 
for  housing  needs  immediately.  If  we  are  to 
reduce  land  costs,  this  government  must  also 
abandon  its  current  policy  of  selling  off  its 
land  holdings  at  the  prevailing  high  market 
prices. 

In  Metro  Toronto,  at  the  Malvern  land 
assembly,  building  lots  that  cost  about  $8,000 
to  assemble,  service  and  debenture  are  being 


1082 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


sold  by  the  province  for  twice  that  amount 
and  more. 

Instead  of  using  its  land  banks  to  reduce 
housing  costs,  the  Davis  government  has  been 
supporting  high  land  prices  and  collecting 
its  windfall  gains  like  any  other  speculator. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Shame 
on  the  government, 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  This  practice  must  end, 
but  I  doubt  if  it  will  end  until  this  govern- 
ment ends. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  They  are 
the  worst  speculators  of  all. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  provincial  government 
should  not  be  profiteering  from  the  current 
land  shortage,  but  should  be  selling  its 
assembled  land  at  cost  in  order  to  lower 
prices. 

A  vigorous  progranmie  to  provide  serviced 
building  lots  throughout  the  province  is 
urgentiy  required.  This  programme  should  be 
undertaken  oy  the  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 

OHC  should  build  the  necessary  trunk 
services  for  sewer  and  water  as  public  util- 
ities, and  sell  them  to  mimicipalities  in  much 
the  same  way  as  Hydro  sells  electricity  to  its 
consumers. 

Mr.  Deacon:  It  certainly  can't  be  the  Min- 
istry of  the  Environment.  They  won't  spend 
money  on  increasing  services. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Shelter  costs  are  soaring 
throughout  Ontario  and  the  primary  cause,  as 
the  Ontario  Economic  Council  noted  last 
year,  is  the  scarcity  of  developed  land. 

The  government  must  start  treating  the 
cause  by  developing  its  own  land  holdings 
and  by  initiating  a  land  servicing  programme. 

Although  steps  to  control  Ontario's  land 
costs  are  the  most  urgent  priority,  action  is 
also  required  to  reduce  residential  housing 
costs  in  Ontario. 

Land  costs  seldom  account  for  more  than 
half  of  the  price  paid  by  a  home  buyer.  The 
balance  is  attributable  to  labovir  costs  and 
building  material  costs.  The  building  mate- 
rials account  for  about  a  third  of  the  total 
cost  of  house  accommodation  in  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  cost  of  residential  build- 
ing materials  used  in  Ontario  has  jumped  by 
some  24  per  cent  in  the  last  two  years.  The 
provincial  government  has  not  only  profited 
from  these  price  increases  through  higher 
sales  tax  revenues  but  last  year  it  added  an- 
other two  per  cent  to  the  ultimate  cost  when 
the  rate  of  the  sales  tax  was  increased  from 
five  per  cent  to  seven  per  cent. 


The  provincial  tax  on  building  materials 
added  about  $101  million  to  housing  costs  in 
Ontario  last  year.  A  house  priced  at  $43,000, 
for  example,  became  $l,O0iO  more  expensive 
because  die  province  added  seven  per  cent  to 
the  cost  of  the  lumber,  nails,  plaster,  con- 
crete and  other  materials  used  in  construction. 
'The  sales  tax  on  building  materials  is  an 
inequitable  and  unjustified  addition  to  the 
already  high  cost  of  housing  in  Ontario. 
Building  materials  used  in  hospitals,  schools 
and  nursing  homes  are  exempt  from  the  pro- 
vincial sales  tax.  Building  materials  used  in 
houses  and  apartment  accommodation  should 
be  also. 

The  provincial  government  should  also  be 
encouraging  wider  use  of  inexpensive  housing 
forms,  including  mobile  and  factorj-built 
homes.  A  pre-fabricated  three-bedroom  home 
on  a  $15,000  lot  would  sell  today  in  Ontario 
for  between  $30,000  and  $35,000.  These  are 
permanent  homes,  usually  set  down  on  a 
concrete  foundation. 

A  500-unit  community  of  factory-built 
homes  just  south  of  Barrie  has  been  built  to 
National  Housing  Act  standards  and  it  is  so 
successful  that  another  150  xmits  will  be 
added  this  year.  The  low  costs  have  made 
this  neighbourhood  into  a  popular  retirement 
community  as  well.  In  the  Waterloo  area,  a 
complex  of  108  factory-produced  homes  was 
completed  last  month. 

'But,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  building  codes  of 
most  cities  bar  such  housing  not  because  of 
structural  specifications  but  because  of  house 
and  lot  size  restrictions.  Municipalities  de- 
mand oversized  lots,  wide  streets  and  the 
highest  quality  of  services  because  of  their 
heavy  reliance  on  property  tax  as  a  source 
of  revenue.  Low  cost  housing  on  smaller  lots 
means  lower  property  tax  revenues.  I  would 
suggest  that  more  communities  follow  the 
example  of  Kitchener  by  changing  the 
standards  and  building  good  quality  housing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Is  that  up  or  down? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Satisfactory;  I  think  that 
is  the  important  word, 

'The  1974  Ontario  budget  discussed  inflation 
only  in  a  province-wide  context  and  ignored 
both  the  role  of  regional  development  as  a 
counter-inflationary  force  and  the  related 
problems  of  regional  disparities  in  prices  and 
economic  growth. 

'By  focusing  Ontario's  growth  on  the 
Toronto-centred  region,  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment has  bled  people  and  jobs  from  other 
parts  of  the  province,  particularly  the  north 
and  east.  As  a  result,  unemployment  rates  in 
those  parts  of  the  province  are  unnecessarily 


APRIL  16.  1974 


1083 


high  and  unnatural  inflationary  demands  for 
acx^ommodation  have  been  created  in  Toronto 
and  nearby  centres.  While  the  area  between 
Oshawa  and  Burhngton  has  a  10-year  growth 
rate  of  31  per  cent,  the  population  of  Kings- 
ton is  dropping  by  one  per  cent  per  decade, 
and  the  population  of  Timmins  is  declining 
by  seven  per  cent. 

Mr.  C.  J.  S.  Apps  (Kingston  and  the 
Islands):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order, 
did  the  member  say  the  population  of  Kings- 
ton was  dropping  one  per  cent  per  decade? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  is  the  information  I 
have. 

Mr.  Apps:  That  is  absolutely  vwong.  The 
member  nad  better  check  his  figures. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Perhaps  the  member  for 
Kingston  and  the  Islands  can  enter  the  debate 
and  correct  me  if  the  facts  are  incorrect. 

Mr.  Apps:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order, 
I  will  correct  him  now. 

Mr.  Good:  The  member  for  Kingston  is 
no  more  of  an  authority  than  the  member  for 
Kitchener. 

Mr.  Apps:  I  sure  am  because  I  live  there. 
I  know  what  the  population  is  in  Kingston. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Apps:  The  population  has  increased 
by  10,000  people  over  the  last  10  years.  It's 
gone  up  1,000  each  year. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Well,  that  is  the  informa- 
tion I  have,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Apps:  That's  a  far  cry  from  decreasing 
one  per  cent  per  decade. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  If  it  is  incorrect  or  not 
completely  accurate,  I  appreciate  the  informa- 
tion given  by  the  member  for  Kingston  and 
the  Islands. 

Mr.  Apps:  I  trust  the  member's  other  state- 
ments are  not  as  inaccurate  as  that  one. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  think  the  member  will 
find  they  are  quite  correct.  The  Kitchener 
and  Guelph  areas  have  grown  by  about  35 
per  cent  in  a  10-year  period. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Worton:  It  is  due  to  the  Liberal  mem- 
bers, that  is. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  But  Peterborough  and 
Thunder  Bay  grew  only  six  per  cent. 


Northern  Ontario's  population  has  dropped 
from  11.6  per  cent  of  the  total  provincial 
population  in  1961  to  9.9  per  cent  last  year; 
and  the  area  east  of  Oshawa  is  growing  only 
about  half  as  fast  as  the  Toronto  region.  This 
concentration  of  growth  in  one  small  part  of 
the  province  hurts  all  regions. 

'The  provincial  government  must  de^ 
centraKze  Ontario's  growth  and  correct  the 
serious  regional  imbalances  that  are  occurring 
in  our  economy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  All  the  figures  are  suspect 
now. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  am  qiiite  sure,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  even  the  Solicitor  General  wiD 
realize  that  his  part  of  the  province  is  grow- 
ing much  more  quickly  than  are  some  others. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Good  members. 

Mr.  Worton:  What  can  one  attribute  to 
them? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Part  of  the  solution  will  be 
in  relocating  some  provincial  government 
activities  to  these  areas.  Moving  the  Ministry 
of  Natural  Resources  to  the  north,  for  in- 
stance, would  not  only  stimulate  the  northern 
economy  but  would  also  result  in  more  re- 
sponsible government. 

'A  government-run  land  servicing  pro- 
gramme, like  the  one  I  suggested  earlier, 
would  permit  more  orderly  growth  throughout 
the  province.  Specifically,  it  could  decentralize 
growth  pressures  by  providing  inexpensive 
land  for  housing  in  eastern  and  northern 
Ontario. 

An  eff^ective  programme  to  decentralize 
growth  must  also  include  stimuli  for  indus- 
trial development  and  employment  oppor- 
tunities in  the  north  and  east.  These  will  re- 
quire fundamental  changes  in  the  eccmomic 
policies  and  development  priorities  of  Ae 
provincial  government. 

The  Ontario  Development  Corp.  should  be 
transformed  from  a  grantor  of  funds  to  an 
initiator  of  businesses.  ODC  should  work  with 
private  and  public  agencies  to  identify  de- 
velopment opportunities  and  carry  new  proj- 
ects to  the  stage  where  conventional  business 
organizatitMis  are  prepared  to  fimd  and  man- 
age them.  This  would  also  confront  the  prob- 
lem of  foreign  domination  of  Ontario's 
economy  by  adding  to  the  number  of 
Canadian-owned  enterprises  and  by  develc^ 
ing  Canadian  managerial  skills. 

Regional  variation  of  tax  policies  is  also 
required  as  part  of  any  serious  programme  to 
overcome  regional  disparity.  As  one  incen- 
tive, the  five  per  cent  tax  credit  for  invest- 


1084 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ment  in  machinery  and  equipment  which  ex- 
pired last  year  should  be  renewed,  but  only 
for  goods  that  will  be  used  in  the  regions 
east  of  Oshawa  and  north  of  the  French 
River. 

When  it  was  introduced  in  the  1971  On- 
tario budget,  the  investment  tax  credit  applied 
to  all  parts  of  the  province.  At  that  time, 
the  then  Treasurer  said: 

This  tax  credit  approach  to  stimulating 
investment,  economic  grovii:h  and  job 
opportunities  in  Ontario  has  major  advan- 
tages over  alternative  measures.  It  will  have 
Ian  immediate  impact  because  it  produces 
immediate  tax  savings  to  companies  that 
invest  in  economic  expansion.  It  does  not 
reduce  the  value  of  capital  cost  allowances. 
It  is  simple  to  understand  and  administer. 

Such  an  alternative  is  still  required  in  the 
north  and  east,  but  this  Toronto-centredi  gov- 
ernment has  again  ignored  those  parts  of  the 
province. 

The  north,  as  I  have  mentioned,  has  9.9 
per  cent  of  Ontario's  population,  but  produces 
only  5.2  per  cent  of  the  manufacturing  ship- 
ments in  the  province.  In  the  east,  where 
some  16.7  per  cent  of  Ontario's  residents 
live,  the  value  of  manufacturing  shipments 
is  only  8.5  per  cent  of  the  provincial  total. 
A  five  per  cent  investment  tax  credit  for 
companies  in  those  regions  would  permit 
them  to  reduce  their  tax  payments  to  the 
province  by  $5  for  every  $100  of  investment 
in  machinery  and  equipment  and  would  con- 
tribute to  a  more  even  distribution  of  popu- 
lation and  industrial  growth  throughout  the 
province.  The  provincial  revenue  loss  would 
be  about  $30  million. 

Regional  price  inequities  must  also  be 
overcome  if  more  people  and  industries  are 
to  be  attracted  to  the  north.  The  cost  of 
living  in  Thunder  Bay  rose  by  8.7  per  cent 
in  1973,  almost  one  per  cent  more  than  the 
price  rise  in  Toronto,  with  the  result  that 
the  gap  between  prices  in  northern  and 
southern  Ontario  is  now  wider  than  ever. 
Local  newspapers  recently  advertised  pork 
for  99  cents  a  pound  in  Thunder  Bay  and 
78  cents  a  pound  in  Toronto.  Twenty-six 
ounce  bottles  of  Pepsi  were  four  for  $1  in 
Thunder  Bay  and  five  for  $1  in  Toronto. 

Similar  inequities  exist  in  other  parts  of 
the  north.  A  24  oz  loaf  of  white  bread  costs 
41  cents  in  White  River  compared  with  30 
cents  in  Toronto.  A  sofa  that  costs  $580  in 
Toronto  is  $70  more  in  Smooth  Rock  Falls. 

Some  companies  have  formally  established 
two-price  systems  in  Ontario— higher  in  the 
north  and  lower  in  the  south.  The  Simpsons- 


Sears  catalogue,  for  instance,  lists  dozens  of 
prices  for  identical  tools  and  parts  that  are 
anywhere  from  50  cents  to  $25  higher  in 
the  north  than  in  the  south.  These  dis- 
crepancies exist  partly  because  transportation 
costs  to  the  north  are  higher.  These  different 
prices  would  not  be  a  serious  matter  if  in- 
comes in  the  north  were  correspondingly 
higher  than  those  in  the  south.  But  the  per 
capita  income  in  northeastern  Ontario  is  $210 
less  than  in  Toronto,  and  incomes  in  north- 
western Ontario  are  another  $240  lower  than 
that. 

The  provincial  government's  response  to 
these  discrepancies  has  been  to  equalize  beer 
prices  across  the  province.  No  comprehensive 
policies  have  been  formulated.  The  govern- 
ment has  not  even  stated  that  price  equity 
across  Ontario  is  its  goal.  It  certainly  has  not 
indicated  that  it  has  any  plans  to  achieve 
such  a  goal. 

One  effective  method  of  sharing  cost  dif- 
ferences throughout  the  province  would  be 
to  reduce  the  rate  of  retail  sales  tax  to  five 
per  cent  north  of  the  French  River.  The 
revenue  loss  from  such  a  reduction  would 
be  approximately  $37  million  for  the  fiscal 
year  1974-1975.  The  same  objective  could 
be  achieved  by  increasing  the  retail  sales  tax 
credit  available  to  residents  of  northern  On- 
tario. 

The  government  should  also  take  steps  to 
relieve  the  burden  of  high  transportation 
costs  for  people  who  live  in  the  north.  Cars 
cost  about  $150  more  in  Thunder  Bay  than 
in  Toronto  and  gasoline  costs  four  cents  a 
gallon  more  than  in  southern  Ontario.  The 
recent  oil  price  agreement  reached  by  the 
Canadian  first  ministers  will  equalize  prices 
between  the  area  east  of  the  Ottawa  Vallev 
line  and  southern  Ontario,  but  prices  will 
remain  higher  in  northern  Ontario  because 
of  the  cost  of  transporting  products  from  the 
refineries. 

The  importance  of  transportation  to  north- 
erners is  best  measured  by  the  large  percen- 
tage of  gasoline  sales  in  that  part  of  the 
province.  Although  only  8.5  per  cent  of  the 
total  passenger  car  registrations  in  Ontario 
are  north  of  the  French  River,  industry 
sources  advise  that  14  per  cent  of  Ontario  s 
gasoline  sales  are  in  the  north.  Gasoline  costs 
in  northern  Ontario  could  be  approximately 
equalized  with  those  in  the  south  by  reduc- 
ing the  gasoline  tax  from  19  cents  per  gal- 
lon to  15  cents  per  gallon  in  the  north.  The 
revenue  loss  from  this  measure  would  be 
about  $15  million. 

These  losses  of  revenue  entailed  in  these 
measures    to    promote    regional    development 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1065 


and  to  reduce  regional  disparity  should  be 
offset  by  further  increases  in  minine  taxes. 
The  mining  tax  changes  proposed  oy  the 
Treasurer  fail  to  secure  an  adequate  return 
for  the  province's  mineral  resources.  While 
the  new  progressive  rates  will  mean  higher 
taxes  for  about  six  companies,  another  37 
companies  will  pay  lower  mining  taxes.  The 
mining  tax,  therefore,  becomes  a  very  un- 
reliable revenue  source,  as  it  will  now  be 
extremely  sensitive  to  the  profits  of  a  few 
large  companies. 

However,  the  Liberal  Party  rejects  the 
position  expressed  by  the  leader  of  Ontario's 
third  party  that  a  15  per  cent  royalty  should 
be  collected  on  the  value  of  all  mineral  pro- 
duction in  Ontario.  Such  a  tax  would  fail  to 
discriminate  between  high-grade  ores  that 
can  be  extracted  at  little  cost  and  the  low- 
grade  ores  which  are  far  less  economical  to 
produce,  with  the  result  that  many  mines 
will  be  forced  to  close. 

The  Smith  Committee  on  Taxation  re- 
ported another  problem  with  royalties. 
Since  1908,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  province  has 
not  reser\ed  the  mineral  rights  whenever 
it  made  grants  of  land,  and  all  reservations 
previously  made  were  relinquished  in  that 
year.  As  the  committee  noted: 

This  sequence  of  events  has  had  a  sig- 
nificant effect  on  the  form  of  mineral 
impost  available  to  the  province.  It  is 
well  established  that  a  province  is  con- 
stitutionally unable  to  impose  a  royalty 
on  mineral  production  from  privately 
owned  land  as  such  a  royalty  is  con- 
strued to  be  an  indirect  tax.  In  1928  the 
judicial  committee  of  the  Privy  Council 
held  that  a  percentage  tax  on  the  gross 
revenue  from  the  sale  of  coal  by  a  mine 
was  an  indirect  tax  which  is  ultra  vires 
the   enacting  province. 

The  committee,  of  which  I  happened  to  be 
a  member,   concluded; 

For  administrative  and  constitutional 
reasons  .  .  .  the  imposition  of  a  royalty 
or  gross  income  tax  on  the  output  of 
Ontario  mines  is  impracticable.  A  profits 
tax  is  the  logical  alternative. 

However,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment is  not  taxing  the  real  profits  of 
mining  companies,  but  an  artificial  profit 
figure  that  is  arrived  at  after  special  deduc- 
tions for  fast  depreciation  and  depletion. 
Instead,  the  mining  tax  should  be  applied 
against  the  companies'  cash  flow,  or  real 
operating  profit,  less  a  portion  of  actual 
expenditures  on  exploration  and  development 
within   Ontario. 


The  difference  between  operating  profit 
and  taxable  profit  is  often  substantial.  In 
1972,  for  instance.  International  Nickel's  be- 
fore-tax  profit  was  $98  million  less  than  its 
operating  profit.  Falconbridge  had  an  oper- 
ating profit  of  $94  million,  but  was  taxed 
on  a  profit  of  only  $18  millJon.  Rio  Algom's 
before-tax  profit  was  $20  million,  or  $15 
million  less  than  its  operating  profit  Mo- 
Intyre  Porcupine  Mines  had  an  operating 
profit  of  $2.5  milhon,  but  for  tax  punposes 
this  was  reduced  to  a  loss  of  $8  million. 

A  mining  economist  has  estimated  that 
the  1973  operating  profit  of  mining  com- 
panies in  Ontario  was  in  the  vicinity  of 
$900  million.  If  these  companies  could  de- 
duct 25  per  cent  of  their  exploration  and 
development  costs  which  totalled  $110  mil- 
lion in  1970,  the  latest  year  for  which  figures 
are  available,  and  even  if  the  average  tax 
rate  was  only  20  per  cent,  a  tax  on  operat- 
ing profits  would  generate  about  $175  mil- 
lion or  about  twice  as  much  as  the  revised 
tax  is  expected  to  produce.  The  province 
certainly  must  restructure  its  mining  tax  to 
capture  an  appropriate  revenue  from  our 
mineral  resources. 

With  these  comments,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  outlined  only  some  of  the  comments 
which  the  opposition  has  concerning  the 
budget  brought  down  by  the  provincial 
Treasurer  last  week.  Other  members  of  the 
caucus  will  be  making  comments,  as  they 
make  their  own  contributions  to  this  debate, 
which  will  not  only  elucidate  some  of  the 
points  which  I  have  raised  but  will,  no 
doubt,  add  many  others  for  your  considera- 
tion. 

Mr.  Breithaupt  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Deacon,  that  the  motion  before  the  House 
be  amended  and  that  all  the  words  after 
"that"  be  struck  out  and  the  following 
added: 

This  House  regrets  the  lack  of  any  govern- 
ment policy  to  effectively  deal  with  the  prob- 
lems of  inflation  in  areas  of  provincial  con- 
cern; 

This  House  regrets  the  government's  failure 
to  provide  for  an  effective  review  of  price  in- 
creases by  using  a  standing  committee  of  the 
Legislature  for  such  a  purpose; 

This  House  regrets  the  government's 
failure  to  have  a  satisfactory  policy  to  re- 
duce housing  costs  and  review  rents  and 
to  stimulate  new  housing  construction 
through  such  measures  as  the  removal  of 
provincial  sales  tax  on  residential  building 
materials  and  the  servicing  of  lands  in  pro- 
vincial   landbanks    and    other   areas; 


1086 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


This     House     regrets     the     government's 

failure  to  control  exorbitant  increases  in 
the  costs  of  regional  governments  imple- 
mented by  this  government;  and 

This  House  regrets  the  government's 
failure  to  have  any  effective  programme  to 
equalize  the  costs  of  living  throughout  the 
province  or  to  plan  for  the  balanced  de- 
velopment of  northern  and  eastern  Ontario. 

Mr.  MacDonald  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  10th  order.  House 
in  committee  of  supply. 


ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF 
CORRECTIONAL  SERVICES 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  estimates  of  the  Min- 
istry of  Correctional  Services.  The  hon. 
minister. 

Hon.  R.  T.  Potter  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Services);  Mr.  Chairman,  as  my  predecessor, 
the  hon.  member  for  Kingston  and  the  Islands 
(Mr.  Apps),  did  last  year,  I  intend  to  review 
briefly  the  major  developments  of  the  past 
year  and  to  broadly  indicate  the  directions 
in  which  we  are  going  in  the  correctional 
field. 

The  ministry's  annual  report  for  the  year 
ending  March  31,  1973,  was  tabled  on 
Tuesday,  Oct.  30  last,  and  it  is  not  my 
intention  to  be  repetitious  but  rather  to  trace 
developments  from  where  that  document 
leaves  off.  In  other  words,  I  am  covering 
almost  exactly  the  fiscal  year  1973-1974  in 
my  review  and  looking  forward  principally 
over  the  period  for  which  supply  is  sought. 

Before  I  do  so,  however,  I  want  to  pay  a 
sincere  tribute  to  the  work  of  the  member  for 
Kingston  and  the  Islands  while  Minister  of 
Correctional  Services.  Preoccupied  as  I  was 
with  the  Health  portfolio,  I  confess  that  I  had 
not  realized  the  great  deal  of  work  that  my 
colleague  was  quietly  pushing  forward  with- 
out fanfare. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  during 
my  predecessor's  term  of  oflBce  such  inno- 
vative measures  as  the  development  of  group 
homes  and  the  inception  of  co-educational 
programmes  in  the  training  schools  in  On- 
tario were  initiated. 

The  concept  of  volunteer  workers  in  our 
system  and  the  expansion  of  temporary  ab- 
sence programmes  were  also  encouraged  dur- 
ing this  time,  while  the  correctional  centres 


in  the  adult  training  centres  developed  new 
and  imaginative  programmes. 

I  was  also  surprised  to  discover  just  how 
much  patient  groundwork  had  gone  into  the 
preparations  for  the  fifth  United  Nations 
Congress  on  the  Prevention  of  Crime  and  the 
Treatment  of  the  Offender,  which  is  to  be 
held  in  Toronto  in  September,  1975.  Canada 
will  be  the  host  nation  and  Ontario  the  host 
province  to  over  2,000  delegates  from  around 
the  world.  I  would  like  the  record  to  show 
the  sustained  effort  by  the  member  for 
Kingston  and  the  Islands  to  make  the  con- 
gress a  success  and  his  close  co-operation 
with  the  federal  government  on  the  various 
details  of  such  an  undertaking. 

One  of  his  efforts  which  did  come  to 
fruition  during  his  ministerial  term  of  office 
was  the  federal-provincial  conference  on 
correction,  which  was  held  in  Ottawa  Dec. 
12  to  14,  1973.  This  meeting  was  the  first 
of  its  kind  in  15  vears  and  was  "an  indica- 
tion," as  he  told  the  participants,  "of  the 
lack  of  communication  which  has  existed  in 
the  field  of  corrections."  But  his  idea  at  that 
time  won  the  day  and  the  conference  will 
henceforth  be  an  annual  event. 

The  hon.  member  was  instrumental  in 
having  continuing  committees  established, 
with  Ontario  staflF  representation,  on  parole 
jurisdiction;  federal  and  provincial  facilities 
rationalization;  services  programmes  and 
funding  arrangements  for  young  persons  in 
conflict  with  the  law;  criminal  information 
and  statistics;  native  offenders;  and  com- 
munity-based resource  or  residential  centres. 

In  the  years  to  come,  it  will  become  ap- 
parent to  everyone— as  it  is  apparent  now  to 
those  who  work  in  this  field— that  the  hon. 
member  for  Kingston  and  the  Islands  was 
the  man  who  led  this  ministry  in  the  move- 
ment from  institutional  care  to  community 
care. 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  the  all-star  record  of 
a  remarkable  gentleman,  and  I  would  like  to 
take  this  opportunity  to  salute  him  for  an 
impressive  term  of  service  to  the  people  of 
Ontario  and  for  a  job  well  done. 

As  a  result  of  the  federal-proWncial  con- 
ference, the  Solicitor-General  of  Canada  has 
assured  us  that  the  Ontario  Board  of  Parole 
will,  within  the  not-too-distant  future,  assume 
complete  responsibility  for  the  parole  of  all 
inmates  in  the  correctional  institutions  of 
this  ministry.  Ontario  has  long  urged  that 
the  continuity  of  care  can  be  assured  by 
giving  to  the  jurisdiction  with  the  responsi- 
bility for  the  institutional  care  of  an  inmate, 
the  added  responsibility  for  his   subsequent 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1067 


parole  supervision— and  the  federal  govern- 
ment has  now  conceded  this  point. 

However,  as  in  health,  Ontario  is  still 
fighting  the  battle  of  inequities  in  funding 
arising  from  the  interpretation  of  the  Canada 
Assistance  Plan.  Because  thev  are  regarded 
as  "correctionar'  rather  than  'welfare"  facili- 
ties, cost-sharing  is  denied  to  Ontario's  train- 
ing schools  and  group  homes.  The  provincial 
argument  here  is  that  the  only  tning  that 
matters  is  the  standard  of  care  provided  to 
the  wards. 

The  quality  of  our  services  is  not  in  ques- 
tion, and  our  ability  to  meet  the  spirit  of  the 
Canada  Assistance  Plan  is  not  in  question.  It 
is  only  the  reluctance  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  amend  the  Canada  Assistance  Plan 
at  this  time  that  stands  between  Ontario  and 
its  rightful  share  of  assistance.  I  am  confident 
that  justice  will  prevail  in  the  long  run  and 
that  the  Act  will  eventually  be  amended. 
In  the  interim,  Ontario's  progressive  juvenile 
programme  will  not  be  allowed  to  suffer. 

Considerable  advances  have  been  made 
this  year  in  the  treatment  and  training  for 
juveniles.  The  reception  and  assessment  cen- 
tre at  Oakville  has  proved  its  flexibility  by 
being  able  to  adapt  to  the  changing  propor- 
tions of  the  sexes  coming  into  our  care. 
Regionalization  will  no  doubt  further  influ- 
ence the  role  of  this  centre.  In  this  connec- 
tion, an  internal  task  force  has  just  reported 
on  \'arious  alternative  ways  in  which  regionali- 
zation at  the  juvenile  level  might  be  further 
carried  out. 

Let  me  stress,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  if 
further  regionalization  will  come  about  but 
how  and  at  what  rate.  All  our  recent  reforms 
in  the  juvenile  field  —  co-education,  direct 
home  placement  after  assessment  and  so  on 
—have  been  successful.  We  beh'eve  we  are  on 
the  right  track. 

Now  we  have  to  determine  the  pace  of 
change  from  what  has  been  a  predominantly 
institutionally-based  juvenile  system  to  what 
is  now  an  increasingly  community-based  sys- 
tem. As  our  dependence  on  bricks  and  mortar 
diminishes  our  reliance  on  the  skill,  training 
and  the  ability  of  our  staffs  increases.  There 
is  clearly  an  optimum  rate  at  which  innova- 
tion can  occur  if  it  is  not  to  be  disruptive 
and  as  you  are  aware,  Mr.  Chairman,  remark- 
able innovations  were  made  during  the  year 
under  review. 

The  Cecil  Facer  School  in  Sudbury  and 
Brookside  School  in  Cobourg  have  become 
co-educational  institutions.  Glendale  School, 
as  members  learned  earlier,  is  to  be  phased 
out  as  a  training  school  and  will  become  a 


young  offenders'  unit  for  the  16-18  aee  group. 
Now,  Sprucedale  School  is  ereduafiy  being 
tailored  to  become  the  regional  training  school 
for  southwestern  Ontario.  The  transition,  as  I 
said,  will  be  gradual  as  indeed  wHl  be  the 
case  with  all  such  changes. 

There  are  increasing  numbers  of  ministry 
group  homes.  Twenty-eight  are  fully  opera- 
tional, three  are  just  accepting  their  first 
wards,  and  two  have  just  been  acquired.  I 
would  like  to  add  that  these  figures  change 
very  frequently  and  they  represent  a  major 
change  in  empnasis. 

However,  they  are  only  part  of  the  place- 
ment possibilities  in  the  community  now  open 
to  selected  juveniles.  As  a  result  of  our 
improved  techniques  of  selection,  a  study 
carried  out  over  a  six-month  period  revealed 
that  19.3  per  cent  or  nearly  one  in  five  of 
the  juveniles  coming  into  our  care  are  now 
placed  directly  after  assessment  in  a  setting 
other  than  a  normal  training  school. 

Some  of  the  placement  possibilities  are: 
Their  own  homes,  under  appropriate  super- 
vision; foster  homes;  facilities  operated  by  or 
through  the  Ministry  of  Health;  contract 
group  homes,  sometimes  referred  to  as  spe- 
cial rates  homes,  where  wards  are  provided 
with  a  particular  kind  of  service  that  it  would 
be  uneconomic  for  the  ministry  to  furnish 
directly. 

We  are  reluctant  to  invest  in  hardware 
when  we  can  invest  in  skills.  This  philosophy 
underlines  not  only  the  changed  role  in 
Glendale— and  it  will  not  be  the  last  ministry 
building  to  be  adapted  to  changing  needs— 
but  also  the  ministry's  takeover  of  the  former 
St.  Joseph's  School,  which  is  now  renamed 
Ecole  Cnamplain/Champlain  School.  With  a 
30  per  cent  French-speaking  intake,  this  fa- 
cility at  Alfred  plays  a  key  part  in  our  plans 
for  eastern  Ontario.  Now  as  a  new  non- 
denominational  regional  school  it  will  have 
a  new  lease  on  life  with  those  of  the  staff 
who  have  chosen  to  remain  having  entered 
the  public  service  of  Ontario.  EUmcrest 
School,  the  former  St.  Euphrasia's,  dosed  on 
Sept.  30,  1973,  and  again,  the  success  of  the 
group  home  programme  in  the  Metropolitan 
setting  made  this  closing  possible. 

In  spite  of  what  has  been  intimated  in  the 

Sress,  I  want  to  emphasize  that  there  are  no 
enominational  overtones  to  these  closings. 
We  are  confident  that  our  wards  are  open 
today  to  the  ministrations  and  spiritual  guid- 
ance of  dedicated  volunteers  as  well  as  of 
chaplains.  As  our  programmes  become  more 
flexible,  as,  for  example,  with  Project  DARE, 
which  takes  our  wards  into  the  wilderness, 


1088 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  mobility  is  seen  as  a  unique  opportunity 
for  personal  ministry.  We  expect  spiritual 
counselling  to  be  effective  in  whatever  setting 
we  may  provide,  be  it  an  urban  group  home, 
a  training  school,  or  a  camp  on  the  fringe  of 
a  remote  lake.  We  are  gratified  that  these 
views  of  our  purpose  are  so  widely  shared. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  brief  view  I  have 
given  you  indicates  clearly,  I  beheve,  the  fact 
that  our  training  schools  programme  is  de- 
veloping on  progressive  lines,  but  I  would 
like  to  say  a  few  words  about  one  aspect  of 
our  Training  Schools  Act  which  has  always 
been  a  contentious  issue,  and  this  is  section 
8.  This  section  permits  the  court  to  admit  to 
the  training  schools  those  children  who  have 
not  committed  what  would  constitute  an  of- 
fence if  they  were  adults,  but  who  are  deem- 
ed to  be  unmanageable  or  beyond  control. 

Now  while  there  is  some  weight  to  the 
contention  that  this  section  is  a  good  preven- 
tive tool,  it  does  raise  some  very  fundamental 
questions  about  the  protection  of  the  child's 
rights.  In  the  past,  consideration  has  been 
given  to  abolishing  this  section,  andl  yet  we 
were  concerned  as  to  what  would  happen  to 
these  children  and  who  would  care  for  them. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  now  seeking  verifica- 
tion of  our  belief  that  suflBcient  alternative 
resources  are  now  available  in  the  com- 
munity for  these  children  and  if  this  proves 
to  be  the  case,  then  we  shall  seek  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Training  Schools  Act  which 
would  remove  these  cases  from  our  juris- 
diction. 

In  the  year  under  review,  the  audit  pro- 
gramme has  seen  many  changes.  The  Ontario 
Correctional  Institute,  replacing  the  Alex  G. 
Brown  Clinic  at  Mimico,  was  opened  at 
Brampton  on  Sept.  20  last.  It  has  accommo- 
dation for  200  male  inmates,  48  in  an  assess- 
ment and  classification  section  and  the  re- 
mainder in  smaller  treatment  units.  This  new 
complex  brings  diagnostic,  treatment,  aca- 
demic, recreational  and  accommodation  units 
under  one  roof,  with  improved  security 
arrangements. 

The  assessment  and  classification  section 
accepts  first  incarcerates  between  the  ages  of 
16  and  24,  who  are  serving  sentences  of  over 
six  months,  from  all  regions  of  the  province 
except  the  north,  which  is  served  by  the 
Monteith  and  Thunder  Bay  correctional 
centres. 

*In  this  new  facility  the  treatment  units  are 
separate  from  the  assessment  and  classifica- 
tion section.  Now  since  this  has  caused  some 
confusion  in  the  minds  of  members,  I  would 
Hke  to  clarify  the  point  that  the  treatment 


units  take  offenders  whether  or  not  the\'  are 
first  incarcerates,  as'  long  as  they  have  enough 
time  left  on  their  sentences— at  least  about  40 
days— to  complete  the  treatment  programme, 
as  long  as  they  have  been  assess^  locally  at 
the  institutional  level  and  recommended  for 
treatment,  and  as  long  as  they  do  not  present 
a  serious  risk  of  escape  or  injury  to  others. 

As  the  facility  has  been  phased  in,  demand 
for  the  services  of  the  Ontario  Correctional 
Institute  has  been  great  and  there  have  been 
some  delays,  but  we  are  quickly  catching  up 
with  the  backlog  of  cases  now. 

Earlier  today,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  men- 
tioned the  fact  that  Glendale  School  will 
shortiy  be  closing  as  a  training  school  and 
will  be  used  for  young  adult  offenders.  This 
enables  us  to  take  out  of  the  Guelph  Cor- 
rectional Centre  the  16-  and  the  17-year-olds 
and  to  free  bed  space  at  Guelph  which  we 
intend  to  use  for  the  expansion  of  the  neuro- 
psychiatric  centre. 

When  this  is  done,  it  will  mean  that  those 
sexual  deviates  and  those  who  must  be  kept 
in  a  secure  setting  because  of  the  danger  they 
present  to  others,  and  who  are  presently 
housed  in  Millbrook,  will  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  benefit  from  the  expanded  range 
of   treatment   services    at   Guelph. 

In  the  correctional  centre  at  Guelph,  I 
am  pleased  to  report  that  the  working  con- 
ditions and  the  general  atmosphere  have  con- 
tinued to  improve  since  the  recommendations 
of  the  study  of  staff  working  conditions,  or 
the  Eastaugh  recommendations,  were  released 
on  July  5  last. 

The  coming  of  industry  to  the  Guelph 
abattoir,  of  which  I  will  speak  later,  will 
have  a  further  effect.  The  inmates  at  Guelph 
have  already  been  involved  in  refurbishing 
the  administrative  oflBces  and  making  struc- 
tural improvements.  The  general  atmosphere 
there  has  been  very  good  as  both  staff  and 
inmates  have  been  engaged  in  a  most  pro- 
ductive period  of  activity  over  the  last  eight 
months  or  so.  As  I  mentioned  the  other  day, 
10  of  the  12  Eastaugh  recommendations 
have  already  been  implemented;  another  is 
being  implemented  now,  while  the  twelfth, 
referring  to  days  off  in  heu  of  statutory 
holidays,  is  a  matter  for  negotiation  between 
the  Civil  Service  Association  and  the  gov- 
ernment of  Ontario.  With  the  new  changes 
that  are  being  made  I  don't  think  there  will 
be  any  need  for  overtime  work. 

The  Niagara  Regional  Detention  Centre 
was  opened  on  June  20  last  year  and  re- 
places the  old  St.  Catharines  and  Welland 
jails  which  were  structurally  unsuited  to  mod- 
ern needs. 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1060 


An  hon.  member:  It's  better  equipped  than 
any  hospital  in  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  can  tell  you  it's  better 
than  a  lot  I  have  seen. 

In  all,  nine  of  the  37  jails  taken  over  by 
the  ministry  in  1968  have  been  taken  out  of 
service  as  correctional  facilities,  although 
some  have  been  put  to  other  uses.  In  the 
past  year,  we  have  closed  the  Cayuga  jail 
and  McCreight's  Camp  near  Sault  Ste.  Marie. 
The  Goderich  jail  has  become  a  museum  and 
the  Ottawa  jail  a  youth  hostel.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, after  seeing  some  of  the  antique  jails 
in  the  province,  I  am  sure  that  one  would 
make  a  damn  good  museum. 

As  you  are  aware,  Management  Board  of 
Cabinet  has  given  its  approval  for  us  to 
proceed  with  the  initial  construction  plan- 
ning for  four  new  facilities  to  be  located  in 
Hamilton,  London,  and  two  in  Toronto— one 
in  the  east  and  one  in  the  west  end.  The 
Toronto  facility  will  be  located  near  the  min- 
istry's new  main  oflBce  which  will  be  housed 
in  the  former  Scarborough  municipal  build- 
ing on  Eglinton  Ave.  E.  It  is  expected  that 
our  main  office  will  move  down  there  before 
the  end  of  this  year. 

The  Maplehurst  Correction  Centre  at  Mil- 
ton is  now  under  way  and  will  be  ready 
for  occupancy  next  April.  New  dormitories 
have  been  built  at  the  Brampton  Adult 
Training  Centre.  The  Kenora  jail  women's 
unit,  whose  purposes  were  described  on  page 
16  of  the  1973  annual  report,  is  now  in 
operation. 

These  new  facilities,  Mr.  Chairman,  make 
possible  improved  programming.  I  should 
like  to  review  some  of  the  innovative  things 
that  have  been  happening  in  the  programme 
area  in  the  past  year.  But,  obviously,  the 
programme  of  most  interest  is  the  revamping 
of  our  industries  to  make  them  more  ap- 
plicable to  the  real  world  the  inmate  will 
find  on  release,  and  so  I  would  like  to  ex- 
plain our  philosophy  in  this  context. 

In  essence,  we  plan  to  invite  business 
organizations  to  form  partnerships  with  us. 
We  will  provide  the  physical  plant,  to- 
gether with  the  labour  force,  while  the  em- 
ployer will  provide  the  expertise  in  production 
and  marketing  management  and  the  actual 
means  of  putting  the  products  on  the  gen- 
eral market. 

We  in  this  ministry  will  insist  upon  certain 
guidelines  with  regard  to  rates  of  pay  and 
those  aspects  of  working  conditions  which 
are  at  the  discretion  of  the  employer,  but  it 
is  our  intention  otherwise  to  interfere  as  little 
as  possible  with  the  way  in  which  the  busi- 


ness is  conducted.  Our  concenu  are  primarily 
that  the  rent  paid  by  employers  for  our 
facilities  is  fair  to  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario; 
that  the  type  of  work  is  consistent  with  our 
rehabilitative  aims;  that  wages  and  other 
fringe  benefits  are  commensurate  with  those 
prevailing  in  the  industry  for  persons  of 
similar  skills;  and  that  the  employer  will  show 
willingness  to  provide  employment  elsewhere 
in  his  enterprise  to  suitable  inmates  on  re- 
lease. 

In  regard  to  the  Guelph  abattoir  project, 
we  are  presently  negotiating  with  a  number 
of  companies  in  the  meat  packing  industry. 
When  talks  have  been  completed  we  shall 
call  for  formal  tenders,  and  we  expect  to 
sign  an  agreement  by  which  the  successful 
bidder  will  assume  management  of  the  plant 
within  a  month  to  six  weeks  after  the  date  of 
the  opening  of  tenders. 

At  the  present  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
discussions  are  centering  on  technical  mat- 
ters. For  example,  the  increased  water  flow 
and  waste  provision  necessary  to  the  in- 
creased volume  of  production  and  the  plant 
rearrangement  required  before  meat  prod- 
ucts can  begin  to  be  manufactured  on  the 
commercial  scale  that  we  envisage. 

We  have  been  able  to  assure  stafiF  that  no 
one  will  lose  his  job  as  a  result  of  this  change 
in  management.  We  are  working  very  closely 
with  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour  and 
we  have  no  intention  of  undercutting  the  free 
labour  market,  either  as  to  pay  or  other 
benefits. 

We  intend  to  provide  inmates  with  work 
experience  which  will  replicate  conditions 
in  the  community,  and  this  means  of  course 
that  production  cannot  be  interrupted  for 
institutional  counts  or  traditional  routines.  In 
fact,  the  inmates  will  be  as  though  they  were 
on  temporary  absence  without  leaving  the 
security  of  the  premises,  and  this  in  turn 
implies  that  the  greatest  means  of  security 
will  lie  in  the  selection  process. 

Fortunately,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  had 
over  4%  years  of  successful  experience  of 
selection  for  the  temporary  absence  program- 
me, and  we  have  maintained  a  98  per  cent 
success  rate,  so  we  shall  be  able  to  apply  the 
same  techniques  to  the  institutional  indus- 
trial programme  as  it  gets  under  way. 

By  bringing  private  industry  into  our  insti- 
tutions in  this  way,  we  are  moving  one  step 
closer  to  facing  the  inmate  with  real  choices 
and  real  responsibilities— which  is  why  the 
temporary  absence  programme  has  been  con- 
sistently more  successful  than  institutional 
programmes,   however  well   thought  out.   In 


1090 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  new  industrial  programme,  we  hope  to 
impart  good  work  habits,  which  will  help 
iimfiates  to  obtain  and  keep  steady  jobs  on 
release. 

Since  they  will  be  paid,  the  inmates  will 
have  to  contribute  to  the  maintenance  of 
their  dependents.  They  will  pay  for  their 
board  and  lodging  in  the  institution  to  the 
extent  of  $20  a  week  initially,  and,  of  course, 
we  shall  increase  that  figure  if  inflation  de- 
mands it.  Inmates  will  also  pay  federal  and 
provincial  income  taxes  and  they  will  direct 
the  balance  of  their  earnings  into  a  savings 
account  for  their  use  after  release. 

One  change  in  institutional  routines  which 
will  follow  from  the  new  programme  is  that 
we  will  have  to  provide  counselling  and  edu- 
cational programmes  outside  normal  working 
hours.  There  will  be  further  work  for  volun- 
teers here,  and  the  number  of  volunteers 
is  now  approaching  the  2,000  mark  through- 
out our  system. 

The  inmate  population  likely  to  be  em- 
ployed on  many  industrial  projects  is  young, 
of  low  educational  achievement,  serving  an 
average  sentence  of  about  six  months,  and 
having  had  a  history  of  sporadic  imskilled 
employment,  interspersed  with  periods  of  un- 
employment. As  soon  as  we  began  to  discuss 
seriously  the  revision  of  our  industrial  pro- 
gramme we  realized  that  we  would,  in  the 
absence  of  appropriate  safeguards,  leave  our- 
selves open  to  the  charge  that  we  were  creat- 
ing a  pool  of  unskilled  workers  for  subse- 
quent exploitation  at  the  minimum  wage.  We 
were  determined,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  see  that 
this  did  not  happen,  and  so  we  set  in  motion 
a  pilot  project  of  pre-release  employment 
planning  for  inmates  at  the  Mimico  Correc- 
tional Centre. 

We  expect  a  full-scale  version  of  this  pro- 
gramme will  be  carried  on  side  by  side  with 
an  industrial  programme  at  Maplehurst  where 
there  are  30,000  sq  ft  of  space  set  aside 
specifically  for  industrial  use.  Having  proved 
itself  at  Mimico,  the  programme  will  be 
greatly  expanded  and  will  become  an  after- 
work  course  at  Maplehurst  if  industry  moves 
in  there. 

This  pre-release  employment  plan  is  a  very 
practical  group  programme  in  that  all  the 
selected  members  live  together  in  the  same 
dormitory  and  they  may  be  working  together 
for  industry  as  well.  The  course  is  specifically 
geared  to  prepare  imnates  to  find  and  keep 
a  job  on  release  and  to  counter  the  sugges- 
tion and  potential  exploitation  to  which  they 
might  be  expressly  vulnerable  on  the  street. 
Dealing  with  fellow  workers,   relations  with 


supervisors,  personal  appearance  and  objec- 
tional  mannerisms,  job  safety,  the  Labour 
Relations  Act  and  the  Human  Rights  Code 
are  all  studied.  Firms  send  their  actual  appli- 
cation forms  to  be  filled  out  for  practice; 
videotape  is  used  for  interview  critiques;  and 
there  are  unobtrusively  escorted  field  trips 
into  the  community  in  this  key  life-skills 
course  by  which  we  set  great  store. 

In  fact,  Mr.  Chairman,  one  of  the  most 
promising  developments  of  the  year  has  been 
the  eagerness  with  which  inmates  have  taken 
to  the  courses  in  life  skills  wherever  they 
have  been  offered.  I  would  refer  members 
to  page  20  of  the  annual  report.  For  mem- 
bers' convenience,  I  will  have  copies  of  the 
report  brought  to  the  House  which  the  pages 
will  distribute  later. 

Inmates  in  four  northern  Ontario  jails  take 
part  in  such  a  life  skills  programme  at  North 
Bay  jail.  Launched  last  August,  the  teaching 
is  done  by  the  staff  of  Canadore  College  m 
Applied  Arts  and  Technology.  In  this  case, 
it  is  a  combination  basic  literacy  course  and 
life  skills  curriculum. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Would 
the  minister  repeat  that?  What  does  that 
mean? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Just  a  second.  The 
teachers  come  to  the  jail  two  afternoons  a 
week  and  offer  both  group  and  individual 
instruction  to  the  inmates.  Transfers  of  suit- 
able inmates  have  been  made  to  North  Bay 
jail  from  the  jails  at  Parry  Sound,  Sudbury, 
Haileybury,  and  Sault  Ste.  Marie. 

At  the  Rideau  Correctional  Centre,  Bur- 
ritt's  Rapids,  a  token  economy  system  is  in 
operation.  An  inmate's  positive  behaviour  is 
rewarded  through  a  token  system  which  al- 
lows him  to  purchase  certain  privileges  other- 
wise unavailable  to  him.  An  inmate  must 
apply  for  this  programme,  just  as  he  would 
apply  for  temporary  absence.  The  worfc  done 
here  is  non-commercial,  making  toys  for 
non-profit  organizations. 

However,  Mr.  Chairman,  inmates  who 
have  graduated  from  this  token  economy 
programme  are  then  eligible  for  the  next  step 
on  the  road  to  trust.  They  may  become 
volunteer  workers  at  the  Burritt's  Rapids  Re- 
gional Hospital,  Smiths  Falls,  or  at  the 
Brockville  Psychiatric  Hospital's  geriatric 
ward.  This  part  of  the  programme  has  proven 
so  successful  that  the  regional  hospital  man- 
agement has  offered  employment  to  at  least 
one  inmate  on  release  and  is  considering 
doing  so  to  others. 


APRIL  16,  1974 


lOGl 


At  Monteith  Correctional  and  Adult  Train- 
ing Centre,  a  daycare  programme  is  operated 
by  the  Ministry  of  Health,  the  Ministry  of 
Correctional  Services  and  the  Addiction  Re- 
search Foundation.  Intensive  group  therapy 
is  offered  four  days  a  week  for  eight  weeks. 
There  is  also  a  weekend  programme,  taking 
two  students  at  a  time,  at  the  Northeastern 
Regional  Mental  Health  Centre. 

Also  at  Monteith,  the  Northern  College 
of  Applied  Arts  and  Technology  is  co-operat- 
ing in  yet  another  variant  of  the  successful 
life  skills  curriculum.  In  this  case,  inmates 
spend  16  full  wedcs  at  the  college,  six  hours 
a  day,  five  days  a  wee^c,  on  separate  tem- 
porary absence,  and  the  Canada  Manpower 
oflSce  at  Timmins  keep  a  close  watch  on  their 
progress  with  a  view  to  helping  them  find 
work  later  on  release. 

Family  counselUng  is  now  available  to 
families  of  Toronto  Jail  inmates,  in  co-opera- 
tion with  the  Junior  League  of  Toronto, 
which  operates  from  a  church  adjacent  to 
the  jail.  At  the  Brampton  Adult  Training 
Centre,  co-operation  with  the  Manufacturers 
Life  Insurance  Co.  made  possible  the  pro- 
duction of  playground  equipment  for  the  Sir 
John  A.  Macdonald  Park  in  Kingston.  Manu- 
facturers Life  Insurance  gave  $5,000  for  the 
raw  materials  and  also  gave  recreational  and 
athletic  equipment  to  the  Adult  Training 
Centre  in  appreciation  for  the  inmates'  work. 

An  important  step  forward,  Mr.  Chairman, 
both  in  staff  training  and  inmate  programme, 
was  made  this  year  at  Camp  Bison,  a  satel- 
lite camp  of  Burwash  Correctional  Centre. 
Forty  correctional  officers  were  first  selected 
to  take  part  in  a  programme  of  reorientation 
from  a  mainly  custodial  to  a  more  rehabilita- 
tive role.  By  the  end  of  April,  1973,  four 
staflF  teams  had  been  formed  and  were  work- 
ing with  groups  of  inmates  transferred  from 
the  main  camp  six  miles  away.  For  a  fuller 
discussion  of  this  programme,  members  are 
referred  to  Vol.  1,  No.  5  of  the  ministry's 
newsletter,  and  again  the  pages  can  supply 
copies  of  these  documents  later  to  any  mem- 
ber on  request.  The  most  significant  advan- 
tage of  the  programme  has  been  its  effect 
upon  the  inmate  sub-culture,  which  has  now 
iDeen  largely  broken. 

And  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  turn  to  the  very 
imaginative  concept  of  which  mention  was 
made  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  and 
that  is  the  development  of  community  re- 
source centres. 

As  you  know,  the  group  homes  programme 
for  juveniles  has  borne  out  our  contention 
that  many  people  within  our  training  schools 


did  not  need  to  be  institutionalized  and  could 
be  cared  for  in  the  community.  The  suuoett 
of  our  temporar>'  absence  programme  hai 
equally  borne  out  our  similar  contention  that 
certain  adults,  who  do  not  constitute  a  risk 
to  the  public,  can  equally  be  supervised  and 
supported  within  the  communit>'. 

The  community  resource  centres  will.  In 
fact,  be  the  adult  equivalent  of  the  i^roup 
homes  programme,  i.e.,  they  will  house  cer- 
tain adults  who  under  present  circumstances 
are  housed  in  correctional  institutions  of 
various  kinds.  The  advantages  are  obvious. 
The  man  will  be  able  to  wodc  to  support  his 
family  and  be  given  support  and  supervision 
at  far  less  cost  to  the  public  purse  than  is 
involved  in  institutional  care.  To  a  large 
extent,  the  success  of  this  venture  will  hinge 
upon  careful  selection  but,  with  our  tem- 
porary absence  programme  experience  be- 
hind us,  we  are  confident  that  only  those 
who  are  suitable  for  this  alternative  to  in- 
carceration will  be  accepted. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  should  like  to  re- 
view briefly  matters  relating  to  staffing  and 
administration. 

We  have  gone  a  long  way  to  implement- 
ing the  Botterell  report.  Appointments  to  the 
ministry's  Health  Care  Services  Advisory 
Board  have  been  made  and  the  board  Is 
sitting  regularly.  Local  health  care  services 
committees  have  been  established  for  each  in- 
stitution. The  nursing  complement  has  been 
increased  to  the  standard  recommended  in 
the  report,  and  no  jail  or  instititution  in 
the  province  is  without  nursing  service. 
Physician's  remuneration  for  services  ren- 
dered has  been  increased  to  conform  with 
the  Ontario  Medical  Association  recom- 
mended fees;  and  relationships  with  um*- 
versity  faculties  in  the  health  care  sciences 
have  been  expanded. 

We,  in  the  ministry,  are  co-operating  very 
closely  with  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police 
and  with  other  police  forces  and  we  have 
used  on  a  number  of  occasions  the  Canadian 
Police  Information  Centre  network,  which 
is  the  new  information  system  based  on  the 
RCMP  computer  in  Ottawa.  We  have  found 
it  particularly  useful  to  advise  local  police 
of  the  presence  of  inmates  in  their  com- 
munities on  temporary  absence,  at  times  such 
as  Christmas  when  the  mails  are  particularly 
slow. 

Six  senior  members  of  my  staff  were  in- 
volved recently  in  a  four-week  exchange 
programme  with  the  Ontario  Provincial 
Police.  Their  experiences  included  the  in- 
vestigation of  a  hit-and-run  and  a  break- 
and-enter;    they    were    formal    witnesses    to 


1092 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


an  autopsy;  and  they  took  their  turn  with 
bank  surveillance  and  in  patrol  cars.  Their 
respect  for  and  understanding  of  police  work 
has,  I  am  assured,  increased  considerably.  In 
return,  six  OPP  ofiBcers  have  observed  the 
complexities  of  our  organization.  We  shall 
be  extending  this  type  of  exchange  through- 
out the  justice  policy  field. 

We  have  made  further  progress  in  the 
hiring  of  ex-offenders.  In  fact,  Mr.  Chairman, 
we  have  hired  160  of  them  since  we  began 
the  practice  several  years  ago— 86  were  hired 
to  the  ministry's  regular  staflF,  and  others 
to  temporary  or  casual  appointments.  These 
employees  have  been  of  both  sexes  and  of 
several  ethnic  backgrounds;  and  the  regular 
appraisals  of  staff  performance,  which  are 
made  in  respect  of  all  ministry  staflF,  are 
particularly  good  in  most  of  these  cases. 

In  the  Kenora  area,  we  are  planning,  in 
conjunction  with  the  Kenora  Fellowship 
Centre,  a  three-year  community-institutional 
worker  experiment.  The  selected  native  in- 
cumbent would  work  closely  with  com- 
munity agencies  on  a  crisis-intervention  pro- 
gramme, particularly  in  regard  to  the  many 
problems  which  arise  when  a  parent  is  in- 
carcerated and  has  a  family  in  a  remotely 
situated  home. 

The  amalgamation  of  the  ministry's  pro- 
bation and  parole  services  took  place  on 
Jan.  1  of  this  year.  The  transition  was  a 
little  smoother  than  we  had  expected,  largely 
as  a  result  of  the  extensive  pre-planning 
which  had  been  completed  in  the  previous 
year.  The  volunteer  programme  within  pro- 
bation and  parole  has  expanded  greatly  in 
the  past  year.  Some  institutional  staff  role^ 
now  include  responsibility  for  liaison  with 
volunteers. 

Since  January  of  this  year  the  adult  and 
juvenile  responsibilities  in  the  probation  and 
aftercare  services  have  been  completely 
separated  and  the  services  themselves  have 
been  regionalized.  The  localization  of  service 
within  regions  is  now  proceeding  rapidly 
and  we  are  encouraged  by  the  favourable 
reaction  of  family  court  judges  to  these 
changes. 

In  our  career  planning  pilot  project,  11 
candidates  selected  by  a  nomination  and 
regional  screening  process  and  a  subsequent 
2%-day  evaluation  seminar,  were  enrolled 
in  an  intensive  three-week  training  pro- 
gramme conducted  by  the  staff  of  Centennial 
College,  with  a  senior  judge,  a  Crown  at- 
torney, members  of  the  police  and  of  our 
own  senior  staff  as  resource  personnel.  Im- 
mediately following  this  course,  the  trainees 
were   posted   to   selected   assignments   in   all 


types  of  institutions  and  in  several  branches 
of  the  ministry. 

These  staff  members  are  rotated  to  new 
responsibilities  at  intervals  of  approximately 
three  months,  and  thus  they  acquire  an  over- 
view of  all  facets  of  the  ministry's  operation 
during  their  two-year  tour  of  duty.  Evaluation 
is  continuous  and,  based  on  finmngs  to  date, 
a  second  course  is  planned  which  we  hope 
will  begin  this  fall. 

A  new  operations  manual  has  been  issued 
by  the  ministry.  It  embodies  basic  opera- 
tional information  within  the  framework  of 
our  modern  corrections  philosophy.  The  sec- 
tions not  only  direct  staff  as  to  their  duties, 
but  also  explains  to  them  the  rationale  be- 
hind what  is  expected  of  them. 

We  are  moving  toward  automated  in- 
formation profiles  for  both  inmates  and 
wards  and  combining  them  with  data  previ- 
ously accumulated,  to  give  a  complete  pic- 
ture of  those  in  our  care.  The  juvenile  in- 
formation system  will  be  operational  in  May. 
The  adult  system  will  be  tested  in  four 
institutions  by  Dec.  31  next  and  extended 
to  all  institutions  by  April  1,  1975. 

At  the  Ontario  Correctional  Institute, 
computer  facilities  are  speeding  up  assess- 
ments, while  at  the  main  oflBce  we  are  now 
tied  into  the  central  computer  in  the  Mac- 
donald  block.  Commencing  this  month,  all 
staff,  classified  or  casual,  were  placed  on 
the  computer  payroll  system  and  we  are 
using  data  processing  for  research,  account- 
ing and  many  other  purposes. 

During  the  past  year  the  research  unit, 
as  part  of  the  planning  and  research  branch, 
has  expanded  its  role  of  providing  service 
to  operational  branches.  The  research  ad- 
visory committee  has  continued  to  review 
issues  or  requests  around  which  research 
can  assist  in  decision-making  and  pro- 
gramme planning.  The  committee  has  estab- 
lished priorities  which  complement  new 
directions  of  the  ministry,  for  example, 
greater  utilization  of  community  resources, 
alternatives  to  full  incarceration  and  the  dif- 
ferential training  and  uses  of  staff. 

Among  the  projects  under  way,  two  major 
longitudinal  studies,  one  on  the  adult 
female  and  the  other  on  the  adult  male, 
are  nearing  completion.  Comprehensive  in- 
formation has  been  collected  which  will 
provide  additional  insight  into  the  inter- 
relationships of  social  history,  attitudes,  be- 
haviour and  environment.  One  and  two-year 
follow-up  investigations  after  discharge  have 
been  completed. 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1093 


To  summarize  tfien,  Mr.  Chairman,  this 
year  has  seen  the  ministry  move  from  be- 
hind the  high  walls  into  the  community, 
for  those  in  its  care  who  can  function  with- 
out danger  to  the  public  or  themselves— and 
my  message  is  that  they  are  many,  while 
the  dangerous  offenders  are  relatively  few. 
Our  improved  selection  procedures  and  our 
growing  experience  of  psychology  and 
motivation  have  allowed  us  to  make  de- 
cisions which  we  would  have  hesitated  to 
do  in  previous  times  when  we  knew  less 
about   human  behaviour. 

Of  20,673  temporary  absences  which 
have  been  granted  since  the  inception  of 
the  programme  in  August,  1969,  20,038,  to 
be  exact,  have  been  successfully  completed. 
If  we  include  the  246  that  were  withdrawn 
because,  for  example,  an  educational 
trainee  was  not  profiting  from  an  academic 
course,  that  leaves  only  389  revoked  for 
disciplinary  reasons,  or  a  98  per  cent 
success  rate,  which  continues  to  be  main- 
tained. These  figures,  Mr.  Chairman,  were 
up  to  March  31  or  just  11  days  ago. 

We  look  forward  to  the  establishment  and 
the  development  of  the  community  resource 
centres  I  have  described.  We  welcome  the 
presence  of  increasing  ntunbers  of  trained 
volunteers  in  our  institutions.  Our  only  prob- 
lem relating  to  commimity  acceptance  is  now 
in  their  initial  opposition  to  the  siting  of  facil- 
ities, and  this  is  gradually  diminishing,  par- 
ticularly as  we  involve  oiu-selves  more  in 
commimity  participation  and  dialogue  in  the 
planning  stages  of  our  proposals. 

The  figures  teU  the  story.  Ten  years  ago 
there  were  6,115  people  under  supervision  in 
the  community  and  5,092  were  institutional- 
ized. Today,  those  in  institutions  niunber 
4,747,  which  is  down  seven  per  cent,  while 
those  functioning  in  the  conunimity  under 
supervision  now  number  over  12,000,  or  up 
120  per  cent.  The  overall  increase  in  numbers 
is,  of  course,  a  function  of  the  popiJation 
growth  and  of  lu-banization  during  the 
decade.  In  the  whole  of  oiu"  correctional  sys- 
tem, excluding  jails,  we  now  have  need  for 
only  685  cells,  a  figure  which  speaks  volimies. 

An  hon.  member:  It's  great  politics. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  We  are  certainly  looking 
foru'ard  to  the  United  Nations  Congress  here 
next  year,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  hope  that  it 
will  focus  public  attention  on  the  real  prob- 
lems of  what  has  come  to  be  known  as  social 
defence— the  whole  science  of  crime  and  cor- 
rections in  a  sociological  context.  In  the  in- 
terim, I  would  urge  all  members  who  can,  to 
visit    our    institutions    and    to    examine    our 


various  orogrammes  in  action.  W©  have  noth- 
ing to  nide.  We  only  ask  that  you  come 
singly  or  in  small  groups  so  as  not  to  change 
the  situation  by  your  presence. 

Tinally,  Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  say  that 
although  I  assumed  my  present  portfolio  only 
a  few  weeks  ago,  I  nave  already  visited 
several  of  our  institutions  and  have  met  many 
of  the  staff  in  those  institutions  and  at  main 
office.  I  want  to  say  that  I  am  truly  impressed 
by  the  remarkable  dedication  and  die  cooimit- 
ment  which  has  been  shown  by  staff  working 
in  an  area  where  there  are  certainly  only  very 
limited  tangible  rewards,  where  they  are 
working  day  after  day  with  those  whom 
society  has  rejected  and  where  they  them- 
selves are  subject  to  many  stresses  ana  strains. 

il  want  to  express  my  appreciation  to  them 
and  to  state  that  the  citizens  of  this  province 
are  indeed  well  served  by  these  men  and 
women  who  quietiy  perform  an  often  thank- 
less and  always  arduous  task. 

I  Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  be  delighted  to  try  to 
answer  any  questions  as  we  come  to  the  indi- 
vidual votes  after  hearing  the  observations  of 
the  spokesmen  for  the  opposition  parties. 
Thank  you. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruslon  (Essex-Kent):  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I  want  to  congratulate  the  new  minister 
on  his  appointment  and  his  very  complex  and 
detailed  report  of  the  ministry  for  the  past 
year.  I  notice  there  are  some  comments  in  it 
that  are  probably  in  my  remarks. 

I  would  also  like  to  take  this  opportunity 
to  thank  the  previous  minister,  the  member 
for  Kingston  and  the  Islands,  for  his  dedica- 
tion to  ms  work.  I  found  him  very  co-opera- 
tive at  all  times  and  felt  that  he  had  a  sincere 
desire  to  do  a  good  job.  I  want  to  congratu- 
late him  on  the  position  he  held  for  a  number 
of  years.  As  the  member  for  Grey-Bruce  (Mr. 
Sargent)  always  says,  he  was  a  good  stick- 
handler  and  I  guess  he  did  a  pretty  good  job 
in  his  portfolio  anyway. 

For  the  new  minister,  having  been  re- 
lieved of  the  large  portfolio  he  Ytad  as  Minis- 
ter of  Health,  I  suppose  this  is  more  or  less  a 
much  smaller  ministry  to  look  after.  There 
are  many  important  parts  of  it  dealing  with 
people  with  severe  problems  and  probably  it 
is  just  as  important  a  position  as  ms  previous 
position  but  much  less  arduous  for  the  minis- 
ter. 

I  would  hope  that  with  the  minister's  badc- 
ground  as  a  medical  doctor,  he  will  perhaps 
take  some  steps  to  improve  the  conditions  in 
our  institutions  as  far  as  medical  treatment 
goes.  I  am  sure  he  has  been  aware  of  the 
report  made  in   1972  by  Dr.  Botterell,  the 


1094 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


dean  of  medicine  at  Queen's  University,  and 
of  a  number  of  recommendations  in  there. 
With  regard  to  the  girl  who  recently  took 
her  life  in  the  Don  Jail— I  take  just  one 
thing  out  of  a  quotation— Dr.  Botterell  wrote 
in  1972  about  this  particular  institution,  "The 
psychiatric  cell  block  and  facilities  and  social 
workers'  oJBSces  are  obsolete  and  physically 
scattered  and  communications  are  very  diffi- 
cult." 

I  think  the  new  minister  can  certainly  look 
into  that  report;  there  is  a  lot  of  room  for 
improvement  in  some  of  the  institutions. 

Also  I  would  think  the  medical  profession 
in  Ontario  should  take  some  responsibility 
with  regard  to  care  in  our  institutions.  Per- 
haps this  is  one  area  where  they  have  been 
a  little  lax  and  I  would  think  that  the  mem- 
ber, now  that  he  is  minister,  can  maybe  get 
some  co-operation  in  this  line. 

I  read  recently  the  federal  report  on  in- 
carceration, and  it  felt  we  put  too  many 
people  in  jail.  It  had  an  interesting  recom- 
mendation that  the  lawbreaker  should  meet 
face  to  face  with  those  he  has  robbed,  be 
forced  to  repay  them  and  be  excused  from 
a  jail  term  provided  that  he  carries  out  his 
commitment.  It  might  work  in  some  cases 
but  it  would  have  to  be  kept  under  very 
close  scrutiny  by  correctional  and  parole 
officers.  It  is  an  interesting  comment  and  I 
would  think  that  Canada  having  the  record 
of  putting  more  people  in  institutions  than 
most  other  countries  we  may  have  to  start 
looking  at  some  other  method. 

California  tried  some  new  methods  in  San 
Quentin  by  allowing  all  prisoners  to  move 
around  at  ease  and  work  in  workshops  but 
they  found  that  hardcore  troublemakers  caus- 
ed so  much  trouble  they  had  to  put  all  of 
them  back  in  cells  to  calm  things  down.  They 
are  now  allowing  the  prisoners  who  are 
willing  to  behave  to  work  and  move  around 
at  ease,  but  have  put  the  troublemakers  in 
solitary  confinement,  each  in  his  cell,  and 
have  told  them  they  will  remain  there  until 
they  behave  like  other  prisoners. 

What  this  means  is  they  have  tried  the  kid 
glove  approach  to  all  but  have  found  that 
this  treatment  will  not  work  with  the  hard- 
core criminal  who  will  probably  have  to  be 
confined  for  most  of  his  term  away  from  his 
fellow  prisoners. 

I  would  like  to  comment  on  the  matter  of 
tendering  the  abattoir  at  Guelph.  The  min- 
ister did  mention  this  in  his  opening  remarks, 
but  I  question  whether  this  is  the  right  direc- 
tion to  be  going.  Should  we  not  be  looking 
at  hiring  two  or  three  men  with  qualifications 


to  operate  this  operation  as  a  government 
project? 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  Ministry  of  Cor- 
rectional Services  must  furnish  the  general 
manpower  and  that  perhaps  the  whole  opera- 
tion should  be  under  the  ministry's  control. 

The  hon.  member  for  Wellington  South 
(Mr.  Worton)  will  be  questioning  the  min- 
ister further  in  this  matter,  as  he  is  very 
familiar  with  the  situation  and  very  knowl- 
edgeable, since  he  is  close  to  the  operations 
there. 

I  question  the  ministry  in  its  determination 
to  keep  the  care  of  juveniles  in  this  ministry 
when  it  should  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Ser- 
vices. The  government,  in  its  stubbornness 
in  refusing  to  change  its  concept  of  juvenile 
care,  is  losing  out  on  about  $10  million  that 
is  available  from  the  government  of  Canada 
each  year  to  assist  in  the  care  of  juveniles. 

I  am  concerned  about  the  availability  of 
care  for  juveniles  in  many  parts  of  Ontario. 
I  had  a  local  lawyer  draw  my  attention  to  a 
case  he  had  of  a  14-year-old  girl  who  was 
pregnant  and  there  was  no  place  to  have  her 
stay  in  the  local  city.  She  was  sent  to  a 
juvenile  detention  centre  near  Toronto. 

We  should  have  small  group  centres  in 
different  parts  of  the  province  available  for 
such  cases,  rather  than  sending  them  so  far 
away  to  large  detention  centres. 

The  family  court  judges  are  speaking  out 
in  these  matters  now,  as  they  see  firsthand 
the  problems  facing  many  from  broken  homes 
and  those  who  are  having  trouble  coping 
with  the  problems  of  day-to-day  living  in 
our  fast-moving  society.  This  proves  also 
that  divorce,  separation  and  family  troubles 
all  should  be  dealt  with  in  one  judicial  area, 
rather  than  the  present  system  of  different 
courts  for  each  matter. 

There  are  reports  of  the  high  cost  of  prose- 
cuting criminals.  I  have  read  that  it  costs  as 
much  as  $50,000  from  the  time  a  crime  is 
committed  until  due  process  is  made  and  the 
person  may  be  committed  to  an  institution. 

I  question  whether  society  is  prepared  to 
accept  this,  and  if  we  must  find  new  meth- 
ods to  control  these  costs  as  they  are  escalat- 
ing each  year. 

In  looking  over  costs  of  this  ministry,  I 
see  the  proposed  budget  for  1974-1975  is 
$13  million  more  than  for  1973-1974.  The 
increase  from  1972-1973  to  1973-1974  was 
$10  million.  In  other  words,  we  are  increas- 
ing spending  in  this  one  ministry  by  about 
16  per  cent  in  one  year. 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1O0S 


It  is  also  interesting  to  compare  the  in- 
creases of  the  different  departments.  The 
rehabilitation  of  adult  offenders  for  1973- 
1974  was  $7  million  more  than  for  1972- 
1973,  and  the  increase  for  1974-1975  is  $8 
million,  or  16  per  cent,  over  1973-1974. 

The  increase  for  rehabiUtation  of  juveniles 
in  1973-1974  was  $5  million  higher  than  in 
1972-1973,  or  20  per  cent,  while  the  increase 
for  1974-1975  over  1973-1974  was  $3  million, 
or  12  per  cent. 

Is  this  a  squeeze  on  our  juvenile  care,  or 
are  we  allowing  more  of  them  to  be  out  on 
probation  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  have 
them  confined? 

The  cost  of  the  administration  of  the  min- 
istry for  1972-1973  was  $3,517,000,  and  in 
1973-1974  it  was  $4,106,700,  an  increase  of 
$600,000  or  17  per  cent,  while  the  cost  is 
now  $5,391,000  for  1974-1975,  an  increase 
of  $1  million  or  20  per  cent. 

When  one  ministry  increases  its  budget 
for  administration  by  20  per  cent  in  one  year, 
is  it  any  wonder  we  have  inflation  fanned 
by  government  overspending  and,  perhaps, 
wastefulness? 

The  matter  of  paroles  concerns  the  public 
a  great  deal.  When  they  hear  of  a  prisoner, 
after  being  sentenced  to  one  year  definite 
and  one  year  indefinite,  being  eligible  for 
parole  after  serving  eight  months,  they  won- 
der what  the  judge  was  thinking  when  he 
sentenced  the  person.  It  appears  that  judges 
may  be  having  their  authority  overridden  by 
parole  officers  in  the  civil  service. 

The  separation  of  first  offenders  and  juve- 
niles from  repeaters,  drug  pushers,  gun-toting 
holdup  artists,  rapists  and  pistol-whipping 
thugs  is  very  important.  I  understand  that 
with  the  building  of  new  institutions,  many 
of  these  facilities  allow  for  this  separation. 

Th^  jails  in  many  of  the  counties  that  are 
as  old  as  100  years— and  that  includes  part 
of  the  Don  Jail— are  something  of  the  past 
and  no  doubt  we  should  be  tearing  them 
down.  A  strange  thing  with  correctional  treat- 
ment is  that  none  yet  has  made  very  many 
steps  forward  in  modem  correctional  services. 
At  least  with  the  many  innovations,  there 
have  been  very  few  clear  lines  of  general  im- 
provement in  the  minds  of  those  being  held 
in  many  of  the  centres. 

However,  I  for  one,  feel  we  must  continue 
to  explore  the  many  avenues  of  new  thinking 
to  improve  the  system.  Merely  keeping  some- 
one confined  iaside  a  wall  is  not  helping  the 
country  as  a  whole,  when  you  consider  the 
cost  of  it.  We  must  be  prepared  to  continue 
to  keep  trying  to  do  our  best  to  get  to  the 


root  of  the  problems  facing  those  who  are 
sent  to  these  institutions. 

The  minister  in  his  opening  statement  last 
year  said  that  24  new  group  homes  would 
be  opened,  and  I  would  like  to  know  how 
many  more— other  than  the  original  12— have 
been  opened. 

I  would  also  like  to  know  what  work  the 
regional  administrators  are  doing  and  what 
type  of  programmes  they  have  instigated 
and    how    many    have    been    appointed. 

I  would  also  like  to  know  if  the  integra- 
tion of  probation  and  aftercare  services  has 
been  completed. 

Further,  I  would  like  to  know  what  prog- 
ress has  been  made  in  the  construction  of 
the  new  detention  centres  in  Etobicoke  and 
Scarborough,  as  these  units  are  to  replace 
the  old  part  of  Toronto  Jail. 

What  progress  has  been  made  in  the  pro- 
posed detention  centres  in  Milton,  Hamilton 
and  London? 

I  should  ask  the  minister  about  the  famous 
jail  in  Owen  Sound,  as  the  member  from 
Grey-Bruce  will  no  doubt  be  asking  him 
about  his  new  jail  in  Owen  Sound.  I  think 
that's  a  question  the  member  for  Grey-Bruce 
likes  to  ask  every  year. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  those  are  all  the  re- 
marks I  have  prepared  at  this  time.  I  have  a 
number  of  questions  I  want  to  ask  the  minis- 
ter when  we  get  into  each  individual  vote. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  hon.  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre. 

Mr.  N.  Davison  (Hamilton  Centre):  Mr. 
Chairman,  before  I  speak  on  these  estimates, 
I  would  like  to  express  my  appreciation  for 
the  efforts  the  former  Minister  of  Correctional 
Services  made  in  modernizing  the  correc- 
tional services  to  more  nearly  meet  present 
day  needs. 

I  have  been  reading  newspaper  reports  and 
recommendations  of  various  grand  juries  as 
they  inspect  our  correctional  institutions.  So 
many  of  them  seem  to  have  a  common  factor: 
the  repeated  recommendations  which  have  not 
been  carried  out  from  previous  inspections. 

Is  it  the  practice  of  this  ministry  to  Ignore 
the  grand  jury  recommendations;  or  how  does 
it  select  the  ones  it  intends  to  carry  out? 

I  notice,  too,  that  one  in  five  federal  pris- 
oners are  the  victims  of  mental  illness,  to 
varying  degrees.  I  would  suspect  that  this 
would  hold  true  at  the  provincial  level. 

Recently  there  was  a  case  in  Hamilton 
where  the  mother  of  a  young  man  turned  him 
over  to  the  police  on  a  fraud  charge  because 


1096 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


he  had  mental  problems.  She  tiiought  he 
would  receive  needed  care  in  prison.  Hamil- 
ton's Barton  St.  jail  is  a  holding  unit  and,  of 
course,  the  young  man— who  was  eventually 
released— got  no  help  at  all. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  should  make  pro- 
visions to  analyse  and  take  steps  to  treat  the 
mental  health  of  the  people  like  this  young 
man,  and  people  with  more  advanced^  prob- 
lems. It  would  also  be  sensible  to  provide 
separate  accommodation  for  these  people. 

(Both  the  present  Minister  of  Correctional 
Services  and  his  predecessor  have  com- 
mented on  the  fact  that  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment has  employed  more  than  100  people 
who  have  been  in  the  institutions— and  I  think 
this  is  good.  However,  anyone  with  a  criminal 
record  has  difficulty  securing  bonding.  Metro- 
politan Toronto  council's  appeal  for  a  govern- 
ment bonding  programme  for  ex-convicts  was 
turned  down  by  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis).  I 
would  hope  that  the  ministry  brings  its  in- 
fluence to  bear  to  obtain  a  programme  similar 
to  that  in  the  United  States.  It  works  so  well 
there  that  the  fee  has  been  reduced  since  its 
inception. 

Most  progressively-minded  people  agree 
that  rehabilitation  of  prisoners  is  the  best 
protection  the  public  can  get.  The  temporary 
absence  programme  appears  to  be  a  big  step 
along  the  way.  I  like  the  method  where  the 
inmate  works  outside  and  returns  to  jail  when 
his  day's  work  is  done,  although  I  don't  think 
$10  per  week  allowance  for  meals  and  trans- 
portation is  sufficient.  I  don't  know  what  the 
extent  of  the  operation  is,  but  I  feel  it  should 
be  initiated  in  all  institutions. 

I  particularly  like  the  idea  of  this  method 
allowing  him  to  pay  ofi^  his  debts  and  provide 
for  his  family  or,  if  single,  to  have  saved 
money  to  help  him  when  he  is  releiased.  He 
returns  to  society  free  of  the  strain  dF  being 
without  funds  and  the  pressure  of  trying  to 
find  a  job  immediately. 

Has  this  programme  been  made  available 
to  women  prisoners?  Both  inmates  and  staff 
at  the  Vanier  Centre  for  Women  state  that 
the  female  prisoner  should  have  been  placed 
on  welfare  in  advance  of  her  release  so  that 
she  could  leave  with  her  first  welfare  cheque 
in  her  hand.  Many,  they  claim,  are  forced  to 
renew  old  friendships  that  were  not  good  for 
them  or  to  enter  a  life  of  prostitution  simply 
to  be  able  to  survive. 

These  are  methods  which  extend  the  proc- 
ess of  rehabilitation  beyond  the  prison  door 
and  ease  the  return  to  a  place  in  society  and 
they  should  be  initiated  in  our  institutions 
across  Ontario. 


The  federal  government  has  taken  a  simi- 
lar approach  in  the  William  Head  Peni- 
tentiary in  British  Columbia.  There  the 
inmates  work  40  hours  a  week  building  a 
new  jail,  for  which  they  receive  the  federal 
minimum  wage.  They  will  pay  the  prison 
for  room,  board  and  clothing  and  will  pay 
income  tax  and  unemployment  insurance. 
The  advantage  of  paying  unemployment  in- 
surance, of  course,  will  be  their  ability  to 
collect  from  it  if  they  are  unemployed  after 
their  release. 

A  survey  of  1,070  adult  first  offenders  in 
1965  showed  that  in  six  years,  by  1971,  64 
per  cent  were  repeaters.  We  have  not  solved 
the  problem  in  the  past.  Perhaps  these  more 
imaginative  hiunan  approaches  will  prove 
more  effective. 

Canada  has  the  doubtful  distinction  of 
having  more  people  in  prison  per  capita 
than  any  other  country.  Holland,  on  the 
other  hand,  reduced  its  prison  popidation 
by  50  per  cent  and  its  crime  rate  has  not 
grown  beyond  the  population  growth  rate. 
There  are  only  50  men  in  Holland  serving 
more  than  four-year  sentences  and  they  have 
almost  ceased  to  imprison  women  and  have 
only  26  serving  any  length  of  sentence.  In- 
stead of  expanding  old  facilities  and  build- 
ing new  ones,  Holland  is  deciding  which 
prisons   to   close   down. 

The  deputy  chief  of  the  Dutch  prison 
administration  states: 

We  certainly  have  not  stopped  crime  in 
Holland  but  we  can  claim  it  is  not  rising 
any  faster  than  the  population  growth. 
I  am  not  going  to  claim  that  we  have 
the  answer  to  the  question  of  curing 
criminals,  because  our  present  system  is 
still  too  new  to  know  that.  All  I  can  say 
is  that  longer  sentences  and  stricter 
prisons  certainly  did  nothing  to  deter 
people  from  returning  to  a  life  of  crime, 
so  we  thought  it  worthwhile  to  try  some- 
thing else. 

This  new  approach  was  contained  in  a 
Prisons  Act  passed  in  1951,  but  the  drastic- 
ally reduced  sentences  came  about  10  years 
later.  Judges  were  not  instructed  to  reduce 
sentences  but  their  public  prosecutors  may 
recommend  sentences  and  it  would  seem 
that  they  are  doing  so. 

First  offenders  seldom  are  prosecuted  at 
all.  The  facts  are  investigated  in  the  normal 
way,  but  instead  of  taking  the  case  to 
court  the  prosecutor  will  usually  give  the 
offender  a  formal  warning  of  the  conse- 
quences of  breaking  the  law.  Only  a  minor- 
ity   of    those    warned    ever    commit    further 


APRIL  16.  1974 


1007 


offences.  Those  who  do  are  usually  fined  or 
placed  on  probation  with  the  possibility  of 
a  suspended  prison  sentence. 

Even  after  this,  there  is  a  great  reluctance 
to  jail  and  only  the  more  serious  or  un- 
balanced offenders  are  remanded  in  cus- 
tody before  their  trials,  which  usually  take 
place  before  three  judges  within  three  or 
four  months  of  arrest.  Imprisonment  is  re- 
garded as  a  failure  of  their  legal  system. 

Anyone  serving  more  than  four  months 
is  considered  to  be  a  long-term  prisoner  and 
considerable  care  is  taken  to  send  him  to 
the  institution  most  likely  to  rehabilitate 
him.  The  essential  ingredient  for  successful 
rehabilitation  seems  to  be  very  small  prisons. 
Their  largest  jail  holds   152  inmates. 

Prisoners  can  wear  their  own  clothes, 
write  and  receive  as  many  letters  as  they 
wish  and  elect  committees  which  discuss 
complaints  and  problems  with  the  prison 
director  and   his  staff. 

The  deputy  chief  said: 

Prison  is  basically  a  return  to  the  con- 
ditions of  childhood,  with  the  staff  re- 
placing parents  as  people  who  rule  what 
you  must  do  or  cannot  do.  Our  aim  is  to 
cut  down  the  adverse  effects  of  imprison- 
ment to  a  minimum.  We  can  do  that  not 
by  making  life  pleasanter  for  the  prisoners, 
but  by  modernizing  it  as  far  as  possible. 
We  must  stimulate  the  prisoners'  in- 
dependence, maturity  and  sense  of  respon- 
sibility, and  believe  me  this  puts  more 
strain  on  the  prisoners'  lives. 

The  Dutch  have  introduced  a  new  grade  of 
prison  worker  called  a  group  leader.  Many 
have  already  trained  in  social  work,  but 
there  is  an  opportunity  for  prison  officers  to 
convert  to  this  grade.  The  group  leaders 
work  with  self-contained  sections  of  in- 
mates. Often  there  will  be  four  of  them 
working  with  a  group  of  10  to  12  prisoners. 

Their  feeling  is  that  it  is  essential  for 
prison  authorities  to  realize  that  much  of 
the  outside  world  has  changed  in  recent 
years.  No  longer  can  authoritarian  governed 
islands  exist  in  the  midst  of  a  society  which 
is  becoming  more  and  more  democrab'c. 

In  Holland,  prison  oflBcers  have  generally 
adjusted  to  the  new  ways  remarkably  well, 
except  for  a  few  of  the  older  men  and 
they  are  allowed  to  volunteer  for  an  early 
retirement. 

A  small  step  has  been  made  toward  the 
Dutch  concept  in  East  York  where  no 
charges  are  made  for  minor  crimes.  The 
experiment  began  in  the  spring  of  1972  and 
covers  police  patrol   area  5411   and  was  to 


continue  for  one  year.  The  area  was  chosen 
because  of  its  average  urban  makeup  and 
because  it  had  an  average  incidence  of 
crime. 

I  am  not  certain  under  wbkh  level  of 
government  tfiis  experiment  was  involved.  If 
it  was  under  the  provincial  body  I  would 
be  most  interested  in  learning  the  outcome 
of  this  interesting  experiment,  as  I  am  sure 
other  honourable  members  in  this  House 
would   be   too. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Does  the  hon.  minister 
wish  to  respond  to  the  opening  remarks? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  before 
we  get  on  to  the  actual  section  by  section, 
earlier  the  critic  from  the  Liberal  caucus 
spoke  about  the  Botterell  report.  He  asked 
about  it  and  I  think  I  made  reference  in  my 
opening  statement  to  the  fact  that  we  had 
acted  on  the  Botterell  report  and  we  had 
pretty  well  responded  to  every  one  of  his 
recommendations  and  at  the  present  time  we 
are  interviewing  applicants  for  a  medical 
director  of  the  programme. 

Other  than  that,  as  I  told  vou  earlier, 
the  nursing  services  are  provided  now  in 
accordance  with  Botterell's  recommendation. 
There  isn't  an  institution  in  the  province  with- 
out nursing  services.  Medical  services  are 
available,  if  not  on  a  full-time  basis,  on  a 
part-time  basis  and  certainly  on  a  24-hour 
basis  in  the  institutions.  The  other  recom- 
mendations that  Botterell  recommended  have 
also  been  complied  with. 

Reference  was  made  to  the  number  of 
people  in  our  prisons,  and  all  I  can  say  to 
that,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  for  gosh  sakes  aon't 
blame  the  ministry  for  the  number  of»  people 
who  are  confined  to  our  institutions.  We  have 
nothing  to  do  with  putting  them  there.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  we  are  attempting  to  provide 
other  types  of  facilities  as  quickly  as  we  can 
throughout  the  province. 

As  you  have  already  been  informed,  we 
have  closed  one  of  the  training  schools  in 
the  province,  we  are  in  the  process  of  closing 
the  second,  and  we  hope  we  will  be  able  to 
close  the  third  within  a  short  period  of  time. 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  16-  and 
17-year-olds  and  whether  they  should  be  in 
our  ministry  or  whether  they  should  be  re- 
moved from  this  section  of  the  Act  and  come 
under  the  Ministry  of  Community  and  Social 
Services.  This  also  is  a  subject  that  requires 
a  great  deal  of  consideration. 

One  of  the  comments  we  received  from 
the  judges  themselves  and  from  lawyers  is 
that  as  long  as  they  are  covered  under  this 


1098 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


section  of  the  Act,  rather  than  commit  diese 
juveniles  to  a  penitentiary  sentence,  the 
judges  now  commit  them  to  one  of  our 
institutions  because  they  feel  they  can  get 
some  training  there.  What  would  happen  if 
it  was  under  the  Ministry  of  Community  and 
Social  Services,  I  don't  know. 

The  hon.  member  spoke  about  the  in- 
creases in  our  budget.  When  you  are  review- 
ing the  estimates,  you  will  see  that  these 
increases  are  due  to  increases  in  salaries,  and 
I  am  sure  none  of  you  will  say  that  this 
wasn't  overdue. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  great  change 
in  the  philosophy  in  our  jails.  No  longer  do 
we  have  just  turnkeys;  we  have  people  who 
must  also  be  psychologists  and  social  work- 
ers. They  assume  a  much  greater  responsi- 
bility than  they  ever  did  in  the  past.  Indeed, 
we  must  ask  the  Civil  Service  Commission  to 
be  continually  reviewing  the  roles  that  they 
play  in  jails  so  that  their  salaries  will  be 
brought  up  to  where  they  should  be. 

The  increases  are  also  due  to  increases  in 
employee  benefits  and  in  the  cost  of  food, 
services,  supplies,  clothing  and  so  on  in  the 
institutions;  the  implementation  of  recom- 
mendations as  we  have  had  in  the  Botterell 
report;  the  addition  of  moneys  for  our  new 
programmes  of  staff  training,  to  which  you 
have  made  reference  and  which  I  am  sure 
you  will  agree  were  needed;  and  additional 
moneys  whdch  have  been  pinpointed  for  re- 
search into  new  types  of  programmes  to 
which  again  you  have  made  reference  and 
which  I  am  sure  you  will  also  agree  were 
badly  needed. 

As  you  have  stated,  we  took  over  the  jails 
in  1988.  Many  of  them  were  in  terrible 
shape.  We  have  spent  a  lot  of  money  in 
trying  to  improve  the  conditions  there,  but 
I  am  sure  we  all  appreciate  that  in  some  of 
them  there  is  no  way  that  they  can  be 
brought  up  to  the  level  we  want  them  to  be 
at  and  they  are  going  to  have  to  be  replaced. 

Quite  frankly,  I  would  have  liked  to  have 
seen  our  budget  go  up  by  another  15  or  20 
per  cent  if  the  funds  had  been  available. 
Then  we  would  have  been  able  to  provide 
some  of  these  badly  needed  changes  that  you 
have  been  drawing  to  my  attention. 

Certainly  it  has  to  be  done.  But  one  of  the 
problems  we  are  faced  with  in  the  province, 
of  course,  is  that  we  have  only  so  much 
money  to  spend.  Having  come  from  a  min- 
istry that  was  accountable  for  approximately 
30  per  cent  of  the  budget— and  I  never  felt 
I  had  enough  money  there— I  can  assure  you 
it   is   not   easy   to   spring   the   money   loose. 


Priorities  must  be  set  by  government;  and  in 
doing  so,  they  made  certain  funds  available 
to  us  in  this  ministry.  We  are  attempting  to 
see  that  we  establish  our  own  priorities  and 
try  to  meet  the  most  urgent  needs  as  they 
arise. 

'I  think  that  prety  well  sinnmarizes  the 
comments.  If  there  are  any  that  I  have 
missed,  or  if  the  members  have  any  to  bring 
to  my  attention,  I  shall  be  glad  to  discuss 
them  with  you  later.  Thank  you. 

On  vote  1401: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Vote  1401  then.  You  will 
notice  that  there  are  seven  items.  Do  you 
wish  to  discuss  them  item  by  item? 

Mr.  Ruston:  Item  by  item. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Item  1  then  under  general 
administration  in  the  ministry  administration 
programme. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Would  the  minister  know  how 
many  of  the  regional  administrators  have  been 
appointed  so  far? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  There  were  six  altogether, 
four  adult  and  two  juvenile,  and  they  have  all 
been  appointed. 

Mr.  Ruston:  What  type  of  programmes  will 
these  people  be  developing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  They  will  be  responsible 
for  overseeing  the  institutional  programmes  in 
the  region  where  they  have  been  appointed. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville):  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  wanted  to  ask  of  the  minister  if 
the  ministry  is  thinking  of  using  the  services 
of  those  who  are  unfortunate  in  being  held 
within  his  institutions  in  natural  disasters, 
such  as  we  had  last  year  with  the  heavy 
flooding  that  took  part  in  the  southwestern 
part  of  the  Province  of  Ontario,  in  the  Essex 
county  area,  and  any  other  type  of  natural 
disaster  that  may  take  place. 

il  make  mention  of  this,  Mr.  Chairman, 
from  the  fact  that  in  the  State  of  Michigan, 
when  they  were  confronted  with  exactly  the 
same  situation  as  we  were  in  Ontario  they 
didn't  hesitate  to  use  the  services  of  those 
v/ho  happened  to  have  some  of  their  free- 
doms withdrawn  from  them  for  the  time 
being,  and  there  had  been  no  complaints 
whatsoever  with  their  experience.  When  we 
look  into  Michigan  and  think  of  Detroit,  then 
we  have  all  kinds  of  visions  of  the  knife  in 
the  back,  the  bullet  holes  through  the  body, 
and  everything  of  that  sort.  Rightly  or 
wrongly,  we  immediately  assume  that  those 


APRIL  16.  1974 


1099 


people  over  there  are  not  going  to  be  human 
and  may  behave  in  a  different  fashion  from 
the  Ontario  inmate. 

i  TTie  second  point  I  would  like  to  ask  of 

the  minister  too,  in  relation  to  the  use  of 
services  of  the  individuals  that  are  in  his 
institutions,  is  concerning  the  harvesting  of 
crops.  We  have  to  import  farm  labour  from 
the  four  comers  of  the  earth.  I  am  just 
wondering  if  it  is  feasible  or  practical  to  use 
services  of  the  inmates  of  your  various  in- 
stitutions to  assist  in  the  harvesting  of  crops 
and  to  assist  in  any  general  way  that  govern- 
ment may  thing  it  can  put  their  services  to 
use. 

[  Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have, 

in  fact,  used  inmates  for  this  purpose.  During 
the  flooding  last  year  they  were  used  at  Port 
Credit,  Mimico,  and  in  that  part  of  the  prov- 
ince. Several  of  them  were  employed  there 
for  several  weeks.  After  that,  they  assisted 
with  the  veterinary  services,  I  believe,  of  the 
Humane  Society  in  that  area. 

We  have  a  programme  of  assisting  with  the 
harvesting  of  crops.  This  has  been  a  concern 
to  me  as  it  has  been  to  you,  because  as  you 
are  aware  they  bring  immigrants  in  from 
other  countries— labour  from  Mexico  particu- 
larly—to do  this.  We  have  had  a  programme 
to  assist  farmers  now  for  some  time  and  we 
would  be  dehghted  if  we  could  assist  them 
again  this  year.  We  have  made  the  groups 
involved  aware  of  the  services  that  we  can 
provide.  We  expect  them  to  pay  the  going 
wage  as  they  would  to  anyone  else.  This  is 
part  of  the  temporary  absence  programme 
that  we  have  developed  for  our  inmates 
which  has  proved  so  successful.  We  are  de- 
termined to  continue  to  push  this  progranune 
because,  as  I  have  saia  earlier,  the  success 
rate  has  been  very  good. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may 
follow  up  on  that  item  for  the  time  being, 
would  the  minister  care  to  elaborate  just 
exactly  where  the  programme  was  in  opera- 
tion during  the  past  year,  the  number  of 
people  that  were  involved  and  the  type  of 
worlc  in  which  they  were  involved?  If  the 
minister  has  such  progranunes  going  in  the 
province,  I  think  it  is  the  type  of  a  project 
we  would  like  to  see  widely  expanded  in 
labour-short  areas  if  it  has  been  successful  in 
the  parts  to  which  the  minister  is  going  to 
refer  shortly. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  far  as 

the  farming  programme  is  concerned,  it  was 

done  in  the  Guelph  area  where  there  were  38 

i       inmates   from    Guelph   and   a   number   from 


Burtch.  I  haven't  got  the  total  number.  All 
we  were  asked  for  was  38. 

I  think  you'll  appreciate  this  type  of  pro- 
gramme is  not  the  type  of  programme  that 
every  inmate  is  going  to  be  allowed  to  go 
out  on.  We  must  select  very,  very  carefufiy 
because  we  want  to  make  sure  that  they 
aren't  inmates  who  are  going  to  cause  a  dis- 
turbance, that  they  aren't  people  who  are 
going  to  take  off  and  go  AWOL,  or  who 
are  going  to  do  anything  to  disturb  the  pro- 
gramme  so   that   we   can't   continue   it. 

At  the  same  time,  inmates  at  Rideau  are 
working  with  the  retarded,  as  I  said  earUer, 
at  Smiths  Falls  and  other  hospitals  in  the 
area,  and  inmates  at  Brampton  are  working 
with  the  retarded  in  Peel  county.  If  anyone 
knows  of  any  farmers  or  anyone  else  who 
wants  to  employ  this  type  of  labour  on  a 
temporary  absence  programme,  we  would  be 
delighted  to  hear  from  them. 

In  the  past  few  weeks  when  I  was  visiting 
some  of  our  institutions,  a  request  came  in 
for  help.  It  is  a  question  of  whether  the 
correctional  institutions  have  suitable  inmates 
at  the  time  when  they  are  asked  for.  I  would 
suggest  that  in  any  areas  where  there  is  a 
need  and  prospective  employers  are  asking 
for  help,  if  they'd  get  in  touch  with  us,  we'd 
be  delighted  to  try  to  work  closely  with 
them. 

'Mr.  B.  Newman:  The  ministry  isn't  actually 
trying  to  sell  the  programme  itself,  is  it?  It 
is  waiting  for  a  request  to  come  from  the 
area  in  which  there  happens  to  be  the  labour 
shortage. 

Is  there  any  merit  in  maybe  wridely 
expanding  the  salesman  portion  of  the  pro- 
gramme to  see  if  there  would  be  more  areas 
of  the  province  that  could  and  would  make 
use   of   the   services   of   the   inmates? 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Ask 
your  colleague. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Well,  quite  frankly,  I  am 
not  prepared  to  put  any  fimds  into  running 
an  advertising  campaign.  I  have  more  than 
enough  uses  for  them  at  the  present  time, 
but  I  do  think  that  all  of  us  here  have  a 
responsibility  to  let  it  be  known  in  our  own 
ridings  that  this  programme  is  available. 
We'd  be  delighted  to  work  with  evervone 
as  long  as  members  are  aware  that  we  can't 
necessarily  fill  all  the  demands  too. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  We  did  not  intend  the 
minister  to  advertise  in  newspapers  for  it, 
but  to  make  the  programme  better  known. 


1100 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Yes,  I  think  it  would  be 
a  good  idea. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  suppose  this  is  the  place  to  talk  about  the 
general  philosophy  of  the  department.  I  do 
want  to  say,  first  of  aU,  that  I  appreciate  the 
work  that  has  been  done  by  the  former  min- 
ister in  this  connection.  I  think  he  deserves 
a  good  deal  of  credit  and  I  have  found  him 
very  very  helpful  and  co-operative. 

I  also  want  to  say  that  I  have  a  very  pro- 
found respect  for  the  deputy  minister.  I 
believe  that  right  there  is  a  signal  for  a  pretty 
good  future  for  this  ministry.  I  think  you 
were  very  fortunate  in  securing  the  services 
of  the  deputy,  and  I  presume  he  is  backed 
up  by  a  staS  equally  competent,  although 
my  connection  with  this  department  over  the 
recent  years  has  not  been  as  close  as  it  was 
some  years  ago. 

I  was  very  interested  in  what  the  minister 
said— I  think  he  was  speaking  of  the  Guelph 
institution  particularly  at  the  time— when  he 
said  that  selected  personnel  have  been  train- 
ed to  change  from  the  custodial  to  the  re- 
demptive function.  The  whole  correctional 
function  is  the  one  that  is  being  stressed  now. 

For  years  and  years  of  course  that  has 
been  talked  about.  When  I  first  came  into  this 
House  and  had  some  responsibility  in  this 
department  and  was  visiting  some  of  these 
institutions  at  the  time,  the  thing  that  ap- 
palled us  was  this  matter  of  custodial  care, 
that  the  men  were  there  to  make  sure  the 
prisoners  behaved  themselves  and  didn't 
escape,  and  that  was  about  it. 

At  the  time,  successive  ministers  in  this 
department  talked  a  great  deal  about  the 
change  to  correctional  functions  and  that  the 
custodial  care  was  going  to  dim  as  the  other 
emerged  in  all  its  brilliance.  But  for  a  lot  of 
years  we  saw  no  real  change  in  this  respect. 
My  feeling  is  that  perhaps  in  very  recent 
times  there  has  been  a  change  here  and  that 
the  emphasis  is  gradually  moving  into  some- 
thing better  than  simply  custodial  things. 

Of  course,  tied  in  with  that  is  the  matter 
of  training  and  the  matter  of  salaries,  which 
must  improve.  When  the  minister  speaks  of 
his  wish  that  we  had  more  funds  for  this 
ministry,  then  I  can  sympathize  with  him, 
and  also  when  he  says  that  we  must  have 
enough  to  meet  urgent  needs.  But  the  priori- 
ties of  this  government  perhaps  are  a  little 
cockeyed  when  we  think  of  the  tremendous 
increase— just  to  use  one  example— in  the 
income  of  the  medical  profession  in  the  prov- 
ince, and  yet  we  hold  down  the  budgets  of 
ministries  such  as  this.   There  are  places   I 


think  where  these  changes  could  be  made 
and  where  a  better  balance  could  be  achieved 
in  the  allocation  of  funds  throughout  the 
government  itself. 

An  hon.  member:  Priorities  are  out  of 
whack. 

Mr.  Young:  That's  right.  It  is  simply  priori- 
ties out  of  whack  and  I  think  this  ministry 
over  the  years  has  had  too  low  a  priority  as 
far  as  this  government  is  concerned.  I  hope 
that  the  minister  and  his  staflF  are  going  to 
change  this  and  going  to  be  able  to  do  it 
and  I  would  look  forward  to  that  change. 

Now,  the  question  I  want  to  ask  the 
minister  particularly  is  what  assurance  we 
have  at  this  point  that  this  change  is  taking 
place  and  how  extensive  is  the  change 
throughout  the  institutions.  Is  it  a  change 
from  the  simply  custodial  function  in  institu- 
tion after  institution,  or  does  it  include  the 
whole  idea  that  we  are  going  to  really  em- 
phasize the  retraining  and  the  correctional 
function  in  these  particular  places? 

Certainly  we  are  getting  a  lot  of  young 
people  through  these  institutions  over  the 
years.  Year  by  year  we  find  them  coming 
in  and  going  out,  and  then  returning.  What 
can  the  minister  tell  us  to  give  us  some  real 
assurance  that  this  change  is  taking  place 
at  a  rate  which  is  commensurate  with  the 
need  that  we  see  in  this  ministry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I 
said  earlier  in  my  remarks,  I  spoke  about  the 
new  centre  at  Brampton  and  I  said  I  thought 
it  was  a  good  indication  of  the  change  that 
has  been  taking  place.  Or  we  can  go  up  to 
Guelph,  one  of  our  older  institutions— and  I 
would  invite  the  member  to  visit  there.  I  was 
in  there  just  two  weeks  ago,  and  Guelph  has 
now  been  broken  down  into  12  smaller  units. 

An  hon.  member:  How  many  are  in  Guelph 
now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  There  are  550.  It  has  been 
broken  down  into  12  units  with  each  operat- 
ing as  a  unit  itself  for  meals  and  everything 
else.  Although  it  is  still  one  big  building,  it 
is  really  12  small  units  that  can  be  more  easily 
handled  in  this  way. 

We  have  had  a  big  expansion  in  staflF,  as 
you  are  aware,  which  has  accounted  for  some 
of  the  increases  in  funding;  and  particularly 
in  professional  staflF. 

We  are  also  planning— I  think  I  made 
reference  to  this  earlier— improved  psychiatric 
facilities  in  our  Guelph  institution.  We  have 
looked  at  all  plans  for  providing  these  facili- 


APRIL  16.  1974 


1101 


ties  and  now  that  we  are  finally  able  to  close 
one  of  our  training  schools  ana  make  it  into 
an  adult  training  centre,  we  can  relieve 
Guelph  of  about  150  inmates  from  there. 
This  will  allow  us  to  convert  one  wing  into 
additional  psychiatric  facilities  to  look  after 
those  patients  I  was  describing  earlier. 

Mr.  Young:  May  I  ask  the  minister  in  that 
connection,  have  we  full-time  psychiatrists 
in  Guelph  and  the  other  institutions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Not  in  the  other  insti- 
tutions. 

Mr.  Young:  How  many  do  we  have  then? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  We  have  full-time  staflF 
in  Guelph. 

Mr.  Young:  Just  Guelph? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Yes,  we  have  four  full- 
time  and  25  part-time,  altogether.  If  the 
member  is  interested,  here  are  some  figures 
that  perhaps  will  bear  out  what  has  hap- 
pened over  the  past  six  years. 

From  the  psychiatric  services  standpoint, 
we  have  increased  our  psychologists,  psycho- 
metrists  and  so  on,  from  34  to  51.  Social 
service  workers  from  seven  to  59.  Psychia- 
trists, themselves,  from  13  to  29;  medical 
oflScers  are  about  the  same. 

Nurses  have  increased  from  57  to  92.  Den- 
tists and  dental  assistants  have  increased 
from  seven  to  23.  Academic  teachers  have 
increased  from  133  to  161.  And  while  this 
is  going  on  our  inmate  population  has  been 
dropping,  as  you  are  aware.  Chaplaincy  serv- 
ice has  increased,  too.  But  this  gives  you  an 
indication  of  the  emphasis  we  are  putting 
on  increasing  the  professional  staflF  to  provide 
the  type  of  service  that  wasn't  available  in 
the  past. 

Mr.  Young:  I  thank  the  minister  very 
much  for  the  information.  I  can  see  the 
trend  certainly  is  a  good  trend. 

In  the  days  when  I  used  to  be  wandering 
around  these  institutions,  I  would  see  doors 
with  the  title  "psychiatrist,"  "psychologist" 
or  "social  worker".  They  would  be  locked, 
but  I  would  be  assured  that  they  were  going 
to  have  those  oflBces  occupied  brfore  too  long 
or  that  part-time  people  were  coming  in  from 
towns  round  about  and  filling  those  oflBces 
one  day  a  week  or  half  a  day  a  week.  Evi- 
dently that  change  is  taking  place.  I  under- 
stood it  was;  and  I  am  deUghted  to  get  those 
figures. 

I  hope  that  this  is  significant  of  a  major 
change  that  is  taking  place,  and  I  hope  that 


this  minister  will  continue  his  struggle  as 
the  former  minister  did  to  get  funmng  for 
a  continuation  of  this  woik.  Certainly  there 
is  no  reason  why  a  province  as  rich  as  On- 
tario —  and  we  are  hearing  this  from  the 
benches  opposite  all  the  time;  the  richest 
area  in  the  world  and  the  best,  and  so  on— 
that  surely  this  province  can  aflPord  the  kind 
of  funding  which  is  needed  for  the  kind  of 
process  which  must  take  place  within  this 
department. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Thunder 
Bay. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  want  to  engage  the  minister  for  a  few 
moments  on  the  kind  of  rehabilitation  pro- 
gramme that  is  necessary  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  province. 

I  don't  know  whether  the  minister  has  had 
an  opportunity  to  discuss  the  needs  with  pro- 
bation oflBcers  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
province,  but  it  has  been  my  understanding 
in  speaking  to  people  within  the  ministry 
that  nothing  of  any  consequence  has  been 
done  to  assist  those  who  are  incarcerated  for 
minor  oflFences,  to  get  a  kind  of  a  rehabilita- 
tion programme  much  closer  to  where  they 
live. 

Of  necessity,  they  have  to  be  sent  to  for- 
eign and  alien  parts  of  the  province  where 
they  don't  know  anybody,  where  they  carmot 
have  visits  from  relatives  and  friends  on  a 
regular  basis,  where  they  can't  communicate 
on  a  regular  basis  with  those  of  their  own 
tongue. 

I  am  speaking  specifically  of  native  people 
who,  for  whatever  reason,  are  incarcerated 
and  spend  even  brief  periods  of  time  in  cor- 
rectional centres  and  facilities  of  that  kind. 

My  reason  for  speaking  about  this  at  this 
time,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  because  I  had  a 
short  dialogue  with  somebody  in  your  min- 
istry. His  name  escapes  me  at  the  moment- 
he  may  even  be  one  of  the  gentlemen  who 
are  sitting  there  advising  and  assisting  you. 

The  reason  for  bringing  it  up  at  this  time 
is  that  there  is  a  facility  in  northwestern  On- 
tario that  is  available  at  the  present  time  to 
do  this  kind  of  work.  I  am  speaking  of  the 
radar  base  in  Armstrong  that  is  about  to  be 
abandoned  by  the  federal  Department  of 
National  Defence. 

It  has  been  suggested  by  people  who  are 
socially  conscious  and  socially  aware  of  the 
need  for  rehabilitation  services  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  province,  that  people— particularly 
native  people— who  need  rehabilitation  should 
be  sent  where  they  can  have  a  rehabilitation 


1102 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


programme— a  retraining  programme  that  is 
more  oriented  to  life  as  they  know  it  and 
as  they  see  it  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
province.  If  you  were  to  conduct  programmes 
where  you  would  try  to  retrain  them  in  home 
building,  in  trapping,  in  guiding,  in  resource- 
oriented  activities,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
possibility  of  rehabilitating  this  kind  of  of- 
fender would  be  much  greater  than  if  you 
sent  them  down  to  Guelph  or  sent  them  down 
to  some  of  the  other  facilities  that  you  have 
down  here  in  the  southern  part  of  the  prov- 
ince that  are  completely  strange  to  them. 
Thev  don't  feel  at  home,  they  have  linguistic 
problems  in  many,  many  instances,  and  they 
don't  get  the  kind  of  opportunities  for  re- 
habilitation and  retraining  that  they  would 
get  if  vou  were  to  use  a  northern  setting  such 
as  could  be  available  in  Armstrong  at  the 
present  time. 

I  am  not  an  expert  in  this  field,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, and  I  don't  know  all  of  the  problems 
that  are  inherent  in  such  an  undertaking.  All 
I  do  know  is  that  there  is  a  need  for  this 
sort  of  thing,  there  is  a  facility  there  waiting 
and  I  would  like  to  hear  from  the  minister 
or  from  some  of  his  officials  to  see  whether 
they  have  done  any  digging  since  my  con- 
versation with  them  to  see  whether  this 
facility  and  this  kind  of  approach  would  be 
meaningful  and  worthwhile  and  be  condu- 
cive to  the  rehabilitation  of  the  offender, 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  earlier 
today  in  my  introductory  remarks  I  spoke 
about  the  Kenora  area  where  we  were  plan- 
ning, in  conjunction  with  Kenora  Fellowship 
Centre,  a  three-year,  community-institutional 
worker  experiment  where  the  native  incum- 
bent would  work  closely  with  the  commun- 
ity agencies  on  the  crisis-intervention  pro- 
gramme. 

I  also  mentioned  that  we  were  setting  up  a 
number  of  community  resource  centres  in  the 
province.  Hopefully  16  centres  will  be  estab- 
lished, and  we  stated  that  seven  of  these 
would  be  desif^ned  to  provide  programmes 
for  native  inmatps  and  will  be  located  prim- 
arilv  in  the  north.  Kenora,  Thunder  Bay, 
Cochrane,  Sioux  Lookout,  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
are  fill  possible  locations  and  of  course  they 
win  be  evaluated  for  individual  centres. 

I  am  delighted  to  hear  from  the  hon. 
member  the  pronosition  that  there  is  a  radar 
base  un  there  that  mi^^ht  be  used  and  we 
would  be  delighted  to  look  into  that.  I  have 
told  you  that  we  have  been  fTiven  additional 
resources  for  these  community  centres.  We 
are  determined  that  we  are  coinjr  to  develop 
a  native  probation  project,  as  I  described,  in 


that  northwestern  part  of  the  province,  which 
will  be  involving  local  volunteers  along  with 
it,  and  if  the  hon,  member  has  any  sugges- 
tions and  can  be  of  any  help  to  us  in  doing 
this  we  would  be  delighted  to  sit  down  with 
him. 

Mr.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a 
couple  of  questions  I  would  like  to  ask  of 
the  minister. 

I  wonder  if  the  minister  can  tell  us  when 
they  are  going  to  start  building  the  new 
facility  in  Hamilton.  The  other  thing  is,  on 
the  grand  jury  reports,  do  you  people  really 
do  anything  much  on  it?  I  mean  there  are 
a  lot  of  the  older  jails  on  which  the  reports 
are  coming  in  the  same  each  year,  year  after 
year,  and  there  doesn't  seem  to  be  any 
satisfaction  at  all,  nothing  is  really  done  on 
it.  What  is  the  problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  There  is  no  problem.  The 
funds  have  been  made  available,  Mr,  Chair- 
man, The  Minister  of  Government  Services 
(Mr,  Snow)  informs  me  that  plans  have  been 
finalized,  that  tenders  have  been  called,  they 
should  be  deciding  on  the  tenders  in  June, 
and  the  building  should  be  starting  very 
quickly. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Windsor 
West. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  a  couple  of  com- 
ments. 

I  was  very  interested  to  hear  last  week 
that  you  were  closing  two  of  your  training 
schools  and  possibly  a  third.  I  can't  remem- 
ber—and I  couldn't  quite  find  it  in  Hansard 
—how  it  was  you  were  able  to  do  that,  where 
you  are  replacing  the  training  school  people 
who  would  normally  be  there?  Was  it  in  a 
group  home? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Group  home  programme. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It  was  in  group  homes.  My 
one  comment  there  is  that  I  assume  that's  a 
much  smaller  group  of  people  together  and 
you  will  simply  have  more  of  those  around 
the  province  in  a  smaller  form.  Well,  I  am 
glad  that  is  taking  that  tack.  My  wife  and  I 
have  been  foster  parents  for  quite  some  time 
and  my  interest  in  it  derives  from  seeing  the 
great  need  for  foster  home  placements  out  of 
the  Gait  training  school  for  girls  some  10  or 
12  years  ago,  and  I  am  clad  to  see  that  you 
are  moving  into  the  small  home  setting, 

A  couple  of  other  points.  I  know  two  or 
three  people  in  the  volunteer  probation  pro- 
gramme   in    Windsor.    They   seem    ver\'   en- 


APRIL  16,  1974 


1103 


thused  about  being  volunteer  probation  o£B- 
cers  and  working  with  the  ministry  there,  and 
various  people  in  the  ministry  there  are  quite 
interested  in  the  programme  and  seeing  that 
they  function.  But  I  gather— and  this  feeling 
may  not  be  correct  on  the  part  of  the  full- 
time  workers  there  in  Windsor— that  the  de- 
partment has  rather  a  schizophrenic  approach 
to  this.  They  seem  to  run  three  or  four 
months  where  they  seem  to  get  the  feeling 
that  the  ministry  is  very  much  in  favour  of 
volunteer  probation  programmes  and  then 
things  blow  cool  for  three  or  four  months,  and 
they  are  never  quite  sure  whether  the  minis- 
try is  really  in  favour  of  this  or  not. 

So  if  the  ministry  really  is  finding  the  vol- 
unteer probation  programme  a  successful 
programme  and  wishes  to  expand  it,  or  at 
least  encourage  it,  I  would  be  interested  to 
hear  the  minister  say  that  today  and  maybe 
talk  a  little  bit  about  whether  they  intend  to 
expand  it  or  how  in  fact  it  is  going. 

Third,  this  may  well  be  an  easier  pro- 
gramme to  run  in  federal  institutions  where 
the  length  of  stay  is  a  bit  longer,  but  are 
there  in  our  provincial  jails,  adult  jails,  train- 
ing programmes  such  as  I  hear  IBM  is  run- 
ning in  the  federal  system?  IBM  goes  in 
and  the  person  is  on  a  full  IBM  course  and 
comes  out  with  training  as  if  he  had  taken 
that  course  on  the  outside. 

Do  we  have  various  of  these  courses,  par- 
ticularly like  IBM,  or  what  other  courses  are 
being  given  in  our  provincial  adult  institu- 
tions? I  would  be  interested  in  hearing  about 
that  aspect  of  the  programme. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  as 
the  member  mentioned  it  was  the  group 
home  programme  which  proved  so  successful 
and  allowed  us  to  close  some  of  our  training 
schools.  As  I  said  earlier,  we  have  closed 
one;  we  are  now  in  the  process  of  closing 
a  second.  We  hope  in  another  18  months  we 
will  close  a  third  and  eventually  get  away 
from  this  type  of  programme.  The  group 
homes  have  been  working  out  very  effectively. 

As  for  the  volunteers,  I  find  it  very  hard 
to  understand  why  anyone  anywhere  would 
say  that  we  blow  hot  and  we  blow  cold.  I 
have  been  quoted  on  many  occasions  as  say- 
ing—I don't  care  whether  it  is  in  health  or 
in  welfare  or  in  correctional  services,  hospital 
services,  you  name  it— without  the  volunteers 
none  of  our  programmes  would  be  as  suc- 
cessful as  they  are  today.  We  are  determined 
to  continue  to  explore  the  volunteer  pro- 
gramme and  promote  them  wherever  we  can. 

If  you  have  an  area  where  there  are  par- 
ticular  problems,   I    wish   you   would   bring 


them  to  our  attention  and  let  us  know  ex- 
actly where  they  are  so  that  we  can  go  in 
and  see  what  the  problems  are.  We  are 
ignorant  of  any  problems;  we  have  thought 
it  has  been  working  out  very  satisfactorUy. 
We  would  like  to  nave  it  if  you  have  any 
comment  on  that.  What  was  the  third  one? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Training  programmes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  The  training  program- 
mes. Of  course,  as  you  are  aware,  we  have 
short-term  inmates  who  are  sentenced  to 
two  years  less  a  day.  Many  of  them  are  in 
for  six  and  eight  months  and  by  the  time 
they  get  through  the  assessment  centre  they 
might  have  two  or  three  or  four  months  to 
serve.  We  cannot  run  a  training  programme 
which  is  going  to  qualify  an  individual  com- 
pletely, as  they  can  in  some  of  the  federal 
institutions. 

At  the  same  time  I  also  mentioned  in  my 
introductory  remarks  that  we  are  trying  to 
encourage  industry  to  come  in  with  some 
programmes.  They  will  even  send  in  their 
application  forms  so  that  the  individual  fills 
out  the  forms  and  knows  what  he  has  to 
contend  with  when  he  gets  on  the  outside. 

Perhaps  they  can  assist  in  running  some 
of  these  programmes  and  train  them  in  the 
way  they  would  be  trained  when  they  get 
on  the  outside.  We  are  anxious  to  have  the 
training  start  so  they  can  continue  when  they 
get  out.  At  the  same  time  we  are  trying  to 
be  specific  and  say  to  these  people  we  want 
them  to  run  the  programmes  but  there  is 
no  sense  in  attempting  to  run  a  programme 
unless  they  are  prepared  to  offer  job  oppor- 
tunities for  these  people  after  they  get  the 
training. 

The  province  has  provided  leadership  in 
providing  job  opportunities.  As  I  have  said, 
we  have  hired  120  odd— 70  odd  within  the 
ministry— and  I  am  determined  that  this  pol- 
icy is  going  to  continue  as  we  have  started 
over  the  past  two  or  three  years. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wonder  if 
I  could  ask  the  minister  how  many  group 
homes  does  he  have  operating  now?  That 
was  one  question  I  wanted  to  ask. 

The  other  question  was  on  how  many 
students  have  enrolled  in  the  correctional 
worker  courses  which  were  to  be  held  at 
Centennial  and  Sheridan  Colleges?  Do  you 
have  anything  on  this? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  At  the  present  time  there 
is  a  total  of  28  group  homes  in  operation,  17 
for  boys,  seven  for  girls  and  four  co-educa- 
tional. We  expect  to  have  an  additional  six 


1104 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


in  operation  by  this  fall,  three  of  which  will 
be  opening  within  the  next  month. 

In  the  community  college  programme  we 
had  28  students,  and  of  those  28,  we  were 
only  able  to  hire  27  because  the  28th  is  going 
to  Eiurope. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  On  the  same  topic,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  wanted  to  ask  of  the  minister 
if  he  is  familiar  with  the  group  called  "New 
Beginnings"  in  the  city  of  Windsor.  They 
operate  a  small  community  centre  home 
that  helps  yoimg  offenders  and  young  men 
in  need. 

They  have  in  the  past  been  funded  to  a 
certain  extent  by  the  Ministry  of  Community 
and  Social  Services.  I  wonder  if  the  present 
ministry  has  reviewed  the  programme  that 
they  have;  have  they  found  it  effective?  If 
they  have,  are  they  considering  it  as  far  as 
financial  assistance  is  concerned  so  that  they 
could  continue  the  programme  that  they 
originally  undertook  in  providing  services 
to  young  offenders  in  the  Windsor  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  As  the  hon.  member  has 
said,  they  were  funded  imder  Community 
and  Social  Services.  We  haven't  given  any 
consideration  to  any  funding. 

In  the  first  place,  we  haven't  got  the  funds. 
In  the  second  place,  I  think  with  this  type  of 
a  service  it  has  to  be  finalized  where  it's  going 
to  be;  whether  it's  going  to  be  in  Community 
and  Social  Services  or  whether  it's  going  to 
be  covered  under  this  ministry.  If  it  is,  then 
we  would  have  to  take  another  look  at  it. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Personally,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I  think  it  is  better  to  be  funding  it 
under  Community  and  Social  Services  be- 
cause of  the  sort  of  stigma  that  unnecessarily 
seems  to  be  attached  if  your  ministry  were 
funding  it,  but  if  there  is  any  way  that  your 
ministry  can  help  the  organization,  I  know  it 
certainly  would  be  appreciated,  not  only  by 
the  organization  itself  but  also  by  those  who 
have  to  use  the  services  of  the  organization. 

I  want  to  ask  of  the  minister  if  he  is  aware 
of  the  grand  jury  report  concerning  the  Essex 
county  jail,  the  Windsor  provincial  jail.  One 
of  the  conclusions  as  a  result  of  the  inspec- 
tion was  that  the  safety  of  inmates  were  in 
some  doubt  in  case  of  fire.  Has  your  minis- 
try looked  into  the  report  of  the  grand  jury 
and  taken  any  steps  to  overcoming  the  hazard 
to  inmates  in  case  of  fire  at  the  Windsor 
provincial  jail? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do 
get  the  copies  of  the  grand  jury  reports  and 
take  note  of  them.   If  there  is   any  recom- 


mendation in  there  that  should  be  looked  into, 
as  there  was  in  this  specific  case,  then  we  do 
have  it  looked  into  to  see  what  the  story  is. 

I  must  say  that  sometimes  the  grand  jury 
in  their  deliberations  don't  see  all.  They  don't 
see  everything  that  can  be  seen  in  the  short 
time  that  they  have  in  the  jail,  but  they  have 
made  recommendations  to  us  from  some  of 
them  and  many  of  the  things  they  bring  to 
our  attention  are  things  that  we  suready  are 
aware  of. 

I  brought  up  here  earlier  that  some  of  our 
institutions  were  built  well  before  Confed- 
eration. It's  only  since  1968,  since  we've  taken 
them  over,  that  people  are  saying  something 
should  be  done  about  it.  As  long  as  it  was  the 
local  responsibility  then  funds  weren't  avail- 
able and  it  was  agreed  that  nothing  could  be 
done  about  it.  Now  that  it  is  my  problem, 
they  say  get  the  funds  somewhere. 

In  this  specific  instance,  we  are  looking 
into  it  to  see  what  the  problem  is,  and  we 
will  certainly  see  that  it  is  corrected  if  we 
possibly  can. 

As  far  as  the  group  in  Windsor  is  con- 
cerned, I  wonder  if  the  hon.  member  would 
be  kind  enough  to  ask  them  to  get  in  touch 
with  us  to  see  if  there  is  some  way  that  we 
can  be  of  assistance  to  them. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I'll  do  that,  Mr.  Minister. 
I  want  to  ask  the  minister  another  question. 
I  have  had  the  opportunity  to  meet  the  indi- 
viduals who  work  for  your  ministry  in  the 
community.  They  had  a  whole  series  of  com- 
ments that  I  thought  should  be  brought  to 
the  minister's  attention,  and  if  they  can  be 
corrected,  they  certainly  should  be. 

One  of  the  comments  was  that  your  jails 
apparently  are  classified  according  to  numeri- 
cal order,  so  to  speak,  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5.  Am 
I  correct,  Mr.  Minister? 

An  hon.  member:  That's  right. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Now  the  superintendent 
of  a  jail  gets  10  per  cent  more,  according  to 
his  classification.  If  you  are  paying  the  super- 
intendent more,  are  you  considering  paying 
the  employees  more  because  they  work  in  a 
higher-class  jail  in  relation  to  one  that  may 
be  graded  lower? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  As  I  said  earlier  today,  the 
whole  question  of  wages  in  the  institutions  is 
a  matter  that  we  are  now  discussing  with 
the  Civil  Service  Commission.  It  is  entirely 
different  from  what  it  used  to  be.  It  is  not 
just  a  matter  of  the  classification  of  the 
superintendent  of  the  jail  and  what  he  is 
getting;  it  is  also  a  matter  of  the  duties  and 


APRIL  16.  1974 


1105 


responsibilities  of  all  of  those  who  are 
working  in  the  institution.  We  are  having 
discussions  at  the  present  time  with  the  Civil 
Service  Commission  to  try  to  put  these  people 
into  the  proper  category. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Another  question  concerns 
the  custodial  oflBcers.  Not  only  do  they  have 
their  responsibilities  in  the  jails  or  in  the  in- 
stitutions, they  also  have  added  hazards  and 
risks  in  the  community  itself.  The  person  who 
has  his  freedom  taken  away  sometimes 
attempts  to  take  vengeance  on  the  custodial 
oflBcer,  although  the  custodial  ofiBcer  is  only 
performing  the  duties  that  he  is  assigned  as 
a  result  of  his  employment. 

Are  there  funds  available  or  is  there  any 
compensation  to  custodial  ofBcers  and/or  for 
their  property  that  may  be  damaged  as  a 
result  of  a  former  inmate  seeking  vengeance 
on  an  oflBcer?  For  example,  the  tires  on  his 
car  could  be  flat,  a  brick  could  be  thrown 
through  a  window  of  his  home,  or  there 
could  be  just  general  harassment  of  a  cus- 
todial oflBcer  of  an  institution  on  the  part  of 
a  former  inmate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I'm  afraid  I  don't  know 
of  any  compensation  of  that  nature  that  is 
available.  I  know  that  all  of  the  employees 
would  be  covered  by  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion, just  the  same  as  anybody  else.  As  for 
damage  to  their  property,  I  would  think  they 
would  be  in  the  same  position  as  you  or  I 
if  somebody  got  mad  and  decided  to  split  our 
tires. 

The  deputy  tells  me  that  if  it's  proven 
that  some  of  their  personal  eflFects  have  been 
damaged,  then  they  are  reimbursed. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  That  is  good,  because  I 
was  left  with  the  impression  that  there  was 
no  compensation  for  them  if  they  suflFered 
adversely,  either  financially  or  otherwise,  as 
a  result  of  the  performance  of  their  responsi- 
bilities. 

Another  comment  was  that  they  always 
seem  to  have  to  wait  a  long  time  before  they 
receive  a  supply  of  uniforms  or  the  clothing 
they  wear.  Is  there  any  way  of  speeding  up 
delivery  so  that  they  could  be  taken  care 
of  at  the  proper  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  They  get  their  uniforms 
when  they  are  required,  but  unfortunately 
we  don't  have  anything  to  do  with  the  sup- 
ply houses,  which  have  been  on  strike  for 
six  months.  This  isn't  a  local  problem  as 
far  as  we  are  concerned.  It's  a  problem  all 
over  the  country.  We  get  them  as  quickly  as 


we  can,  but  as  long  as  they  are  on  strike,  we 
can't  do  much  about  it. 

Mr.  B.  Newnuui:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
minister  if,  in  his  estimation,  the  various  jails 
throughout  the  province  are  understaflFed. 
I  was  led  to  believe  that  they  are  under- 
staflFed. Whether  this  is  so  or  not,  I  have  no 
way  of  judging. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Generally  speaking,  I 
think  we  are  pretty  well  fixed  up  now.  Tnere 
are  undoubtealy  one  or  two  weak  places  that 
need  to  be  brought  up  to  strength,  but  there 
has  been  such  tremendous  improvement  over 
the  last  couple  of  years,  it  is  hardly  notice- 
able. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  The  other  topic  that  was 
discussed  was  cumulative  sick  leave.  Is  the 
ministry  considering  stacking  cumulative  sick 
leave,  so  that  the  individual  could  take  it 
all  at  the  one  period  of  time  or  be  reim- 
bursed for  it  in  the  same  way  as  they  are 
in  the  teaching  profession  where  the  indi- 
vidual can  collect  on  retirement  or  on  leaving 
the  job  50  per  cent  of  the  unused  portion? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  am  afraid  that  is  some- 
thing that  we  don't  get  involved  in.  That 
comes  under  the  Civil  Service  Association. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  see,  right.  The  other 
matter  that  I  wished  to  ask  about  was  con- 
cerning the  promotions.  I  was  led  to  believe 
that  if  an  individual  used  up  his  sick  leave, 
then  his  opportunity  for  promotion  was 
jeopardized.   I   hope   that  isn't  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  It  certainly  isn't. 

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

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Thunder 
Bay. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Yes.  I  have  one  brief  question 
of  the  minister.  He  did  mention  a  number 
of  psychiatrists  and  psychologists  who  he 
had  on  his  staflF.  I  am  wondering  what  percen- 
tage of  them,  if  any,  are  located  in  northern 
Ontario  to  assist  in  rehabilitating  oflFenders. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  HI  get  that  for  you  but 
111  have  to  take  time. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Are  there  any?  I  don't  know 
of  any. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  There  are  part-time  ones 
but  no  full-time,  but  I  will  get  the  informa- 
tion for  you. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Anything  further  on  item 
1?  Is  there  an  answer  coming? 


1106 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  No,  I  will  have  to  get  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  item  1  carried?  Is  vote 
1401  carried? 

Vote  1401  agreed  to. 

On  vote  1402: 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  under 
vote  1402,  I  wanted  to  ask  the  minister  about 
two  items.  One  was  about  a  SHEP  pro- 
gramme that  happened  to  have  been  im- 
plemented in  the  city  of  Windsor.  That  was 
a  self-help  employment  programme  for  pa- 
rolees. They  apparently  fixed  electrical 
equipment  in  a  storefront  in  the  community. 
It  happened  to  be  extremely  successful.  How- 
ever it  passed  out  of  existence.  Is  the  min- 
istry considering  funding  a  programme  such 
as  that  once  again  in  the  community  and/or 
communities   throughout  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  think  that  was  under 
a  LIP  grant,  Mr.  Chairman.  It  wasn't  one  of 
our  programmes. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Yes,  it  could  have  been 
under  the  LIP  programme.  Now  that  that 
is   not   there,   are  you  considering  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Well,  we  haven't  been 
considering  it  but  I  would  like  to  have  some 
information  on  it  that  you  might  have  for 
me. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Yes,  I'll  pass  it  on  to 
you,  Mr.  Minister. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Anything  further  on  vote 
1402? 

Mr.  Stokes:  On  the  treatment  and  training 
of  adult  offenders,  do  you  have  anyone  whose 
responsibilities  would  parallel  the  responsi- 
bilities of  a  parole  officer  to  go  into  certain 
communities  where  there  is  a  high  incidence 
of  recidivism,  where  people  keep  coming 
back? 

If  you  were  to  look  at  the  dockets  in  the 
court,  say  at  Armstrong,  you  would  find  that 
there  seems  to  be  a  high  degree  of  recidivism. 
A  lot  of  them  are  for  minor  offences,  but 
offences  nevertheless  for  which  they  have  to 
make  retribution.  If  they  can't  pay  the  fine, 
they  are  held  for  a  certain  number  of  days, 
usually  five  or  10  days.  I  am  wondering  if 
you  wouldn't  consider  putting  people  in  the 
field  where  they  would  spend  some  time  in 
preventive  kind  of  activities,  rather  than  wait 
for  these  things  to  happen. 

I  can  think  of  one  or  two  communities  in 
my  riding  that  I  won't  mention  by  name,  but 


I  will  discuss  it  in  private  with  the  minister. 
I  can  see  some  efficacy  in  spending  these 
kinds  of  dollars  to  try  to  prevent  this  from 
happening.  I  know  that  your  probation  officer 
can't  do  this.  He  has  to  wait  after  the  fact, 
so  to  speak. 

I'm  wondering  if  we  couldn't  provide  at 
least  a  pilot  project  to  see  whether  this  kind 
of  thing  would  help;  to  go  into  these  com- 
munities that  I  have  in  mind  where  you  chat 
with  these  people,  to  be  more  of  a  social 
worker,  to  remind  people  of  their  obligations 
to  society  and  how  debilitating  it  is  to  be 
hauled  up  in  court  for  liquor  offences,  and 
minor  offences  like  that  but  for  which,  never- 
theless, they  become  habitual  offenders.  And 
they  really  don't  get  any  admonition  from 
the  courts.  The  kind  of  sentence  that  is  given 
is  never  a  deterrent. 

I'm  wondering  if  you  wouldn't  consider 
some  kind  of  person  who  would  perform  this 
function,  to  go  into  a  community  to  assist 
them  in  a  good  healthy  outlook  toward  life 
and  the  law  so  that  you  get  them  before  they 
commit  these  acts  rather  than  after.  It  seems 
to  me  that  this  would  be  a  much  better  ap- 
proach than  getting  it  after  the  fact.  I'm 
wondering  if  you  wouldn't  consider  that  kind 
of  an  approach  in  the  instances  that  I've 
mentioned. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  The  Indian  volunteer  pro- 
bation programme  that  we  have  been  talking 
about  instituting  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
province  is  exactly  that.  Talking  about  the 
recidivism  and  so  forth,  we  don't  feel  that 
these  people  should  be  going  back  for  five 
or  seven  days.  That's  not  doing  a  dam  bit  of 
good  anyway.  I  think  we  have  to  appreciate, 
though,  that  within  the  ministry,  our  fiuids 
are,  as  you  have  said,  for  treatment  after  the 
fact;  we  haven't  got  funds  to  set  up  pre- 
ventive programmes.  But  what  we  would  be 
interested  in  is  setting  up  a  type  of  pro- 
gramme you're  talking  about.  This  Indian 
volunteer  probation  programme  that  we  have 
been  discussing  setting  up  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  province,  is  to  do  just  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  committee 
rise  and  report. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  resumed,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the 
chair. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  committee 
of  supply  begs  to  report  it  has  come  to  cer- 
tain resolutions  and  asks  for  leave  to  sit  again. 

Report  agreed  to. 


APRIL  16,  1974  1107 


Hon.  E.   A.   Winkler  (Chairman,   Manage-  will  deal  with  items  8  and  9  on  the  order 

ment  Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  before  paper  and,  I  would  think,  in  that  order. 
I  move  the  adjournment  of  the  House  I  would 

like  to  say  that  on  Thursday  we  will  return  to  Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjournment 

the  first  item,  and  if  that  doesn't  take  up  the  of  the  House, 
whole  time  of  the  afternoon  we  will  return 

to  item  10  again,  the  same  estimates  that  we  Motion  agreed  to. 

have  been  considering,  and   the   House  will 
not  sit  on  Thursday  evening.  On  Friday,  we  The  House  adjoui-ned  at  6  o'clock,  p.in. 


1108  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 


Tuesday,  April  16,  1974 

Bank    of    Canada    rate    increase,    questions    of   Mr.    Handleman:    Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon, 

Mr.   Deans   1059 

Housing  programmes,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.  R.   F.   Nixon,  Mr,   Sargent, 

Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Singer  1059 

Union  Gas,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  1061 

Potato  suppliers,  questions  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Shulman  1061 

Housing  programmes,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Deans  1062 

Actions  of  real  estate  agents,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:   Mr.  Deans  1062 

Warranty  on  new  homes,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Deans  1062 

Sale  of  colza  oil,  question  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Deans  1063 

Public  Service  Act  conflict,  question  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Breithaupt  1063 

Provincial  secretariats,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Roy  1064 

Employment     of     handicapped     people,     questions     of     Mr.     Guindon:     Mr.     Burr, 

Mr.  B.  Newman  1066 

Athletic  scholarships,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Sargent  1066 

Employment     of     students     in     psychiatric    hospitals,     question     of     Mr.     Timbrel!: 

Mr.    Dukszta    1067 

Sales  tax,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Wiseman  1067 

Intermediate  capacity  transit  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Sargent, 

Mr.  Cassidy  1068 

Strike  in  Guelph,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:   Mr.  Bounsall  1069 

Aid  to  tornado  victims,  question  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  EdighofFer  1069 

Lakeshore  Psychiatric  Hospital  grants,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Lawlor  1069 

Summer  employment  programme,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:   Mr.  Good  1070 

Commissioner  of  the  Legislature  Art,  1974,  bill  to  appoint,  Mr.  Singer,  first  reading    .  1071 

Business  Corporations  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Roy,  first  reading  1071 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  budget,  Mr.  Breithaupt  1071 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  MacDonald,  agreed  to  1086 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services,  Mr.  Potter  1086 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  1107 


No.  26 


«±»i 


Ontario 


Hegisilature  of  (l^ntario 


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


Thursday,  April  18,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


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


CONTENTS 


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


nil 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer  and  Minister  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs):  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  will  be  interested 
to  know  that  we  have  as  our  guest  today 
—  as  your  guest,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  your 
gallery— Mr.  William  Lane,  who  is  the  head 
of  the  British  Colunibia  land  commission. 
Perhaps  he  would  stand  for  a  moment. 

Mr.  Lane  and  his  associates  are  here  to 
confer  with  me,  my  colleagues  and  certain 
of  mv  oflBcials  with  respect  to  land  matters. 
I  must  say  the  exchange  has  been  very  in- 
teresting and  useful  to  us  and  I  am  very 
glad  to  have  him  here  as  our  guest  today. 

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


REPLACEMENT  FOR  DON  JAIL 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of 
Correctional  Services,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  he 
can  make  a  statement  to  the  House  on  the 
circumstances  in  Don  Jail  which  have  led 
to  another  tragic  death,  and  if  he  can  re- 
port to  the  House  when  the  plan  to  replace 
that  facility  with  something  more  modem 
is  going  to  come  forward?  Is  he  now  in  a 
position  to  say  that  we  are  going  to  have  a 
new  jail  in  this  area? 

Hon.  R.  T.  Potter  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  reported  to  the 
House  two  days  ago  that  plans  were  under 
way  to  replace  the  Don  Jail.  The  funds  are 
available,  as  vou  know.  Plarming  has  been 
completed,  the  Ministry  of  Government 
Services  has  advertised  for  tenders  which  I 
expec*t  will  be  completed  in  June,  and  con- 
struction will  be  .started  to  replace  the  old 
part  of  the  Don  Jail. 

The  present  unfortunate  incident  is  of 
very  great  concern  to  me  as  it  is  to  every- 
one else.  I  think  the  hon.  member  will 
appreciate  that  a]l  of  us  are  determined  to 
see  that  every  effort  is  made  so  that  this 
doesn't  happen.  But  no  matter  how  careful 
one  is  and  no  matter  what  precautions  are 
taken,  if  an  individual  is  determined  to  take 


Thursday,  April  18,  1974 

his  own  life  .sometimes  it  is  practically  im- 
po-ssible  to  ore  vent  it. 

I  should  point  out  that  last  year  in  On- 
tario we  had  1,078  suicides  reported  in  the 
province  which  were  proved  suicides.  I  am 
advised  by  the  chief  coroner  if  we  were  to 
consider  others—automobile  accidents  and 
others  that  were  not  proved  as  suicides— that 
perhaps  the  number  would  be  increased 
by  another  500  or  600.  So  it  is  not  just  within 
our  institutions  that  we  have  this  problem, 
which  is  a  very  big  problem  as  far  as  I 
am  concerned. 

As  members  know,  every  week  and  every 
weekend  there  are  a  terrific  number  of  acci- 
dents on  the  highways- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'm  talking  about  inside 
the  Don  Jail. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  —deaths  that  could  be 
prevented  if  proper  precautions  were  taken, 
but  people  are  reluctant  to  do  this. 

As  far  as  we  are  concerned  in  the  jail, 
every  effort  is  made  to  see  thai  circumstances 
are  such  that  it  doesn't  happen,  but  occasion- 
ally it  does.  Within  the  last  25  years  there 
have  been  seven  suicides  in  the  Don  Jail 
altogether,  unfortimately  two  of  them  just 
ver>'  recently. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Since 
the  last  two  have  been  quite  recent  and 
both  with  young  people— teenagers— is  the 
minister  not  concerned  that  there  should 
be  some  special  supervision  for  these  people? 
Has  he  asked  for  perhaps  a  psvchological  or 
psychiatric  report  on  what  hapx>ens  to  those 
people  when  they  get  in  that  particular  jail 
that  seems  to  be  so  seriously  and  tragically 
depressing?  What's  the  matter  with  the 
supervision  down  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly  I 
am  just  as  concerned  as  the  hon.  member 
professes  to  be. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Professes  to  be? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  think  that  what  be 
should  say  is  that  it  is  not  just  the  Don 
Jail.  There  are  other  institutions,  too,  within 
this  province  where  this  happens.  I  am  con- 
cerned about  all  of  them.  A  study  is  going 


1112 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


on.  We  have  a  continuing  study  to  determine, 
if  we  can,  what  can  be  done  to  prevent  it. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downs view):  The  min- 
ister is  a  great  studier.  He  studied  himself 
right  out  of  the  Health  department  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  did  a  pretty  good  job 
of  that  too,  didn't  I? 

Mr.  Singer:  That's  why  he  is  where  he  is 
now. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Ask  the  Pre- 
mier about  that. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  If  I 
could  ask  the  minister  a  supplementary. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  They  are  all 
jealous. 

Mr.  Roy:  Well,  send  him  to  the  back  row. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  I  understand  and  accept  some 
of  what  the  minister  says.  I  presume,  and 
I'm  asking  interrogatively,  that  he  appreciates 
that  the  Don  Jail  is  a  very  special  case  that 
seems  to  be  beset  by  continuing  problems.  To 
what  extent  the  nature  of  the  jail  fosters 
this  tragedy  is  difficult  to  determine.  But, 
given  what  has  occurred  in  the  last  few 
months  in  two  instances,  has  the  minister 
undertaken  to  launch  his  own  investigation 
into  the  supervision  and  psychological  sup- 
ports that  are  provided  in  the  Don  Jail  as 
long  as  young  people  are  inappropriately  in- 
carcerated there  for  given  periods  of  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Speaker,  yes,  I  have, 
and  not  just  within  the  Don  Jail  but  within 
the  whole  structure  of  Correctional  Services. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 


INTERMEDIATE  CAPACITY  TRANSIT 
SYSTEM 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions. In  light  of  the  fact  that  the  contract 
for  the  construction  of  the  guideway  portion 
alone  of  the  Maglev  test  track  at  the  CNE 
was  awarded  yesterday  to  C.  A.  Pitts  for 
about   $10.5  million,   which  is  almost  twice 


the  estimated  cost  for  the  guideway  and  the 
stations  combined,  is  the  minister  now  pre- 
pared to  submit  a  revised  estimate  of  the 
total  cost  of  the  experiment  at  the  CNE? 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  It's 
Trudeau-Lewis   inflation   all   over   again. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transpor- 
tation and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition  is  approxi- 
mately three  days  late.  The  same  question 
was  asked  by  the  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  (Mr.  Cassidy)  and  I  told  him  at  that 
time  I  would  get  the  information. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Now  that 
the  increases  in  these  costs  are  associated 
with  firm  bids,  can  the  minister  confirm  that 
we  are  at  least  at  the  level  of  $23  million 
from  the  original  announcement  of  the  Pre- 
mier which  was  $16  million? 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  was  higher  than  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  re- 
peat that  I  will  get  the  information  that  was 
asked  for  here— 

Mr.  Singer:  What  takes  so  long? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —and  I  will  bring  it 
before  the  House. 

Mr.  Singer:  When? 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  must  have  been 
holding  hands  with  the  Minister  of  Correc- 
tional Services. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
rather  bring  the  information  and  be  accurate 
than  just  run  around  the  subject  as  is  done 
so  well  by  the  members  of  the  opposition. 
They'll  get  the  information. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Make  it  this 
year.  We  know  more  about  it  than  the  min- 
ister does. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker:  The  minister  may 
recall  that  I  asked  for  estimates  of  the  over- 
all cost  of  the  main  system  whenever  it's,  built, 
if  ever  it's  built.  Would  he  now  be  prepared 
to  give  the  House  an  estimate  of  the  total  cost 
of  the  experimental  demonstration  system  at 
the  CNE?  How  much  has  it  gone  up  from 
the  original  estimate  of  $17  million  forecast? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  what 
I  understood  the  hon.  member  asked  for— for 
both   those   particular   matters  —  and   that  is 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1113 


exactly  what  I  am  getting  for  him.  I  didn't 
realize  he  had  only  asked  for  half  of  it. 

Mr.   Singer:   Oh,   then   apologize. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  am  getting  him  both. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Supple- 
mentary question,  Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  min- 
ister is— 

Mr.  Singer:  He  is  wrong  as  usual. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  If  the  minister  is  advised 
that  those  persons  who  made  the  original  esti- 
mates were  out  by  two  or  three  times  the 
final  amounts,  is  he  intending  to  discipline 
them  in  any  way? 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  Trudeau  inflation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
going  to  answer  these  hypothetical  questions 
that  are  being  asked  by  the  opposition  on  a 
subject  that  they  know  very  little  about. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  He  can't 
answer  them  anyway. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  have  told  the  hon. 
members  that  the  information  will  be  brought 
here  when  it  is  available. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  There  seems  to  be  some 
sort  of  a  feeling  in  that  particular  group  that 
we  should  discipline  everybody.  I  think  they 
must  beat  their  wives. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  If  the  minister  is  wrong 
he  should  resign.  He  should  resign  himself. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  This  is  not  the  Hepburn 
regime. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order  please. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  What 
happened  to  the  specific  question  that  I  asked 
the  minister  several  weeks  ago,  about  whether 
he  was  revising  the  agreement  with  Krauss- 
Maffei?  He  promised  to  give  me  an  answer 
and  he  hasn't. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


An  hon.  member:  As  soon  as  he  gets  the 
information. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  that 
time  I  think  I  advised  the  hon.  member  that 
we  were  not  revising  the  contract. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 


RENT  CONTROL 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Housing  to  report  to  the  House 
further  on  statements  that  he  has  made  that 
he  is  examining  all  the  alternatives  that  may 
lead  to  some  procedure  of  either  rent  fixing 
or  rent  control,  or  at  least  the  review  pro- 
cedures that  were  put  before  the  House  by 
way  of  amendment  to  the  Landlord  and  Ten- 
ant Act  when  it  was  before  the  House  three 
years  ago,  in  view  of  the  implications  from 
the  Toronto  city  council  motion  that  the  rents 
are  going  to  go  up  by  10  to  15  per  cent  and 
other  predictions  that  they  may  very  well  be 
up  25  per  cent  by  the  fall? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  have  already 
stated,  and  has  been  published,  is  that  we  are 
examining  all  aspects  of  the  rent  problem 
and  we  recognize  it  as  a  problem.  The  amend- 
ment the  hon.  member  mentioned,  of  course, 
will  be  taken  into  account  when  we  examine 
the  problem.  We  have  not  yet  received  the 
resolution  from  Toronto  city  council  although 
I  think  I  know  its  intent  and  its  contents.  It 
seems  on  first  glance  that  the  city  council  is 
having  diflBculty  in  devising  techniques  to 
deal  with  what  it  accepts  as  being  a  very, 
very  difiicult  problem  and  obviously  govern- 
ment policy,  if  there  is  one,  would  be  an- 
nounced to  the  Legislature  in  the  usual  way. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Singer:  If  there  is  one,  yes. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  ( Wentworth ) :  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 

An  hon.  member:  If  they  have  one. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth  have  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  regret  there  was  so  much 
noise  I  couldn't  hear. 

Mr.  Deans:  Supplementary  question,  Mr. 
Speaker:   Is  the  minister  aware  that  govern- 


1114 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ment  policy  as  stated  some  three  years  ago 
was  not  to  allow  rent  control  within  munic- 
ipalities, and  is  the  minister  now  prepared 
to  state  that  the  government  is  prepared  to 
allow  municipalities,  upon  apphcation  to  the 
government,  to  inaugurate  some  form  of  rent 
control  within  their  own  jurisdictions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  am  prepared  to 
say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  government  is 
prepared  to  consider  that  possibihty  along 
with  a  mmfiber  of  others  in  order  to  deal  with 
this  very  serious  problem. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That  is  a  cop-out. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  They 
are  three  or  foiur  years  too  late. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  By  way  of 
a  supplementary  question,  what  is  the  minister 
going  to  do  about  Mrs.  Smith,  in  my  riding, 
who  yesterday  received  a  notice  increasing 
her  rent  from  $140  to  $220? 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Ma  Smith's  rent  is  going 


up 


Mr.  Lewis:  A  notice  of  eviction. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
know  Mrs.  Smith  and  I  don't  know  the  cir- 
cumstances of  her  rent  increase.  If  the  hon. 
member  would  send  it  over  to  me  I  would 
be  glad  to  look  at  it.  At  the  present  time,  the 
answer  would  have  to  be  that  we  have  no 
measures  under  which  we  could  take  any 
action  at  this  time  in  that  type  of  a  situation. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Resign. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker,  could  the  minister  tell  us  the  extent 
to  which,  if  he  is  correctly  quoted  in  today's 
Star,  the  production  of  30,000  lots  vdthin 
three  years  is  going  to  alleviate  the  urgent 
housing  need  problem  that  exists  in  Ontario 
today? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  too  sure  it  is  a  supplementary,  but  since 
I  was  aware  of  that  article  I  will  answer  it 
anyway. 

An  hon.  member:  He  is  not  sure  of  any- 
thing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  In  the  interview, 
what  I  did  say,  and  I  think  I  am  accurately 
quoted,  was  that— 


Mr.  Singer:  Well,  that  is  a  change. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —at  the  oulset  of  the 
programme  the  target  was  approximately 
30,000  and  that  in  my  crotimistic  position  I 
feel  that  we  can  exceed  that,  and!  the  article 
did  say  that  there  would  be  more  than  30,000, 
if  the  hon.  member  will  check  to  find  out. 

Mr.  Singer:  No,  but  I  asked'  about— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  have  been  five 
supplementaries,  I  believe,  which  isi  a  reason- 
able number.  The  hon.  Leadier  of  the  Op- 
position. 


WARRANTY  ON  NEW  HOMES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Conmiercial  Rela- 
tions why  he  or  a  representative  of  his  minis- 
try did  not  take  part  in  the  conference  that 
was  scheduled  in  Ottawa,  and  took  place  on 
April  16,  by  the  Housing  and  Urban  AflFairs 
department  federally,  co-ordinating  the  pro- 
vincial consumer  departments  across  Canada 
with  CMHC,  specifically  designed'  to  discuss 
and  develop  a  home  warranty  legislation 
model? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker,  two 
people  from  my  ministry  did  attendi  in  Ottawa 
at  the  request  of  Mr.  Basford  on  April  8  in 
the  persons  of  Mr.  Graham  Adams  and  the 
chief  solicitor,  Mr.  Ed  Ciemiega.  I  understand 
the  provinces  were  asked  to  return  a  week 
later— I  suspect  that's  the  date  to  which  the 
member  refers,  April  16— when  a  committee 
was  being  formed.  The  provinces  were  in- 
vited, as  I  understand  it,  to  observe  the  work- 
ings of  that  committee  in  development  of  the 
proposed  house  warranty  programme.  Til 
check  it  out,  but  I  don't  think  my  people  re- 
attended  on  that  occasion  for  a  reason  which 
I  don't  know;  whether  or  not  they  were  in- 
vited I  don't  know.  I'm  waiting  for  a  report 
from  Mr.  Ciemiega  but  they  were  up  there 
a  week  ago. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Is  it  the 
minister's  feeling  that  model  legislation  could 
be  established  which  would  be  implemented 

Erovincially  across  Canada  but  which  could 
e  co-ordinated  by  the  federal  minister,  that 
is,  the  same  provisions  in  legislation  put  be- 
fore all  the  legislatures?  Is  that  the  aim  and 
the  goal  of  the  programme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  It  would  appear,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  question  of  house  warranties 


APRIL  18.  1974 


1115 


is  one  of  provincial  jurisdiction  but  I  can 
visualize  a  number  of  problems  being  created 
it  we  have  10  different  sets  of  rules  because 
of  the  number  of  provinces.  For  this  reason, 
it  is  one  of  the  matters  to  be  discussed  on 
the  agenda  at  a  meeting,  in  about  three 
weeks  time,  of  the  consumer  ministers  across 
Canada  to  develop,  hopefully,  uniformity  of 
legislation  on  warranties  at  the  provincial 
level. 

There  \\'ill  have  to  be  some  federal  in- 
volvement for  the  very  simple  reason  that 
there's  federal  funding  by  way  of  mortgages 
for  residential  construction  across  the  entire 
country',  namely  through  Central  Mortgage 
and  Housing.  The  consumer  minister  at  the 
federal  level,  the  hon.  Herbert  Gray,  will  be 
in  attendance  during  those  dehberations,  so 
I'm  advised. 

Mr.  Deans:  A  supplementary  question:  Am 
I  to  take  it  from  the  answer  to  the  question 
I  asked  on  Tuesday  and  the  answer  to  today's 
question  asked  by  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion that  this  government  is  prepared  to  go 
ahead  regardless  of  whether  or  not  other 
jurisdictions  are  prepared  to?  Or  is  the  min- 
ister going  to  hang  on  and  wait  until  the 
whole  thing  has  become  such  a  mess  that  it 
is  impossible  to  deal  with? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  This  government  is 
prepared  to  proceed  in  that  direction  regard- 
less of  the  decisions  of  other  provincial  gov- 
ernments but  because  of  the  nature  of  the 
subject  it  was  felt  by  the  minister  who  is 
hosting  the  conference  that  it  would  be  a 
matter  veri'  properly  placed  on  the  agenda 
to  be  discussed  by  all  the  consumer  ministers 
at  that  particular  meeting  in  the  middle  of 
May. 

Mr.  Deans:  One  final  supplementary  ques- 
tion: Has  the  ministry  prepared  legislation 
that  might  be  put  forward  as  a  model  to  the 
other  jurisdictions  and  is  the  minister  pre- 
pared to  bring  it  before  this  Legislature  this 
session? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  have  a  number  of 
proposals  before  me  not  reduced  to  legisla- 
tive form.  I  am  prepared  to  bring  forward 
legislation  along  these  lines— not  during  the 
session  but  at  the  session  which  follows,  pre- 
sumably late  this  autumn— for  introduction 
into  this  House. 

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


OIL  PRICES 

Mr.  L^wis:  A  question  of  the  Premier,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Now  that  the  Minister  of  Energy 
(Mr.  McKeough)  has  publicly  rebuked  the  oil 
companies  for  the  manner  in  which  they  set 
their  prices,  is  the  Premier  prepared  to  indi- 
cate that  the  Province  of  Ontario  will  set  a 
maximum  cost  per  gallon  of  gasoline  and 
home  fuel  oil  to  protect  the  consumers  of 
this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  govern- 
ment is  not  prepared  at  this  time  to  make 
that  statement. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  what 
kind  of  hypocrisy  is  the  government  engaging 
in  over  there?  No,  I  ask  it  seriously.  The 
Minister  of  Energy  will  use  a  public  forum  to 
attack  the  oil  companies  for  irresponsibility  in 
what  they  are  extracting  from  the  consumer 
without  the  government  stepping  in  to  de- 
fend the  consumer  as,  for  example,  the  pro- 
vincial government  of  Nova  Scotia  is  now 
doing,  in  insisting  that  the  prices  be  rolled 
back. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
say  at  this  time  I  have  no  statement  to  make 
as  to  the  price  of  fuel  oil  or  gasoline. 


INCREASE  IN  PRICE  OF  MILK 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  hope  the  two  of  them  can 
resolve  it.  Let  me  ask  the  Premier  another 
question.  How  is  it  that  the  increase  in  the 
price  of  milk  per  quart  went  3.4  cents  to  the 
farmer,  entirely  and  legitimately  justified;  and 
1.6  cents  per  quart  to  the  dairies,  totally  un- 
justified and  illegitimate?  When  is  the  govern- 
ment going  to  defend  the  consumers  of  On- 
tario in  respect  of  milk  prices? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  con- 
fess I  am  not  as  familiar  with  the  distribution 
of  cost  as  it  relates  to  the  milk  industry  as 
perhaps  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
(Mr.  Stewart)  might  be.  I  heard  the  member 
say  the  1.6  cent  increase  to  the  dairies  is  in 
his  view  unjustified.  I  am  not  sure  that  is  in 
fact  the  case. 

Mr.  Deans:  That's  right,  the  Premier  is  not 
sure. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  is 
the  member  aware,  as  Premier,  that  the  most 
recent  profit  increases  for  Silverwoods  on  a 
comparative-year  basis  was  88.9  per  cent; 
for  Dominion  Dairies,  46  per  cent;  for  Becker 
Milk  57  per  cent?  Does  he  not  realize,  as  one 


1116 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  the  people  supposedly  involved  in  protect- 
ing the  consumer,  that  we  are  paying  almost 
two  cents  more  per  quart  than  we  should  be 
paying  because  the  government  has  allowed 
the  dairies  to  rip  oflF  people  in  Ontario  rather 
than  giving  the  farmers  what  it  should  have 
given  them? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  glad 
there  is  at  least  one  area  where  we  can 
agree  with  the  hon.  member.  I  do  agree  that 
the  increase  to  the  farmers  was  justmed. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  Okay.  Who  protects  the  con- 
sinners  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Certainly  not  the  mem- 
ber. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  this  government,  not  this 
govemmient. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  see  the  member's 
father  is  going  to  support  us. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  saw  that.  Is  the  member 
going  to  do  so  as  well? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Don't  push  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  There  was  that  press 
nonsense  of  a  while  ago  about  the  member 
becoming  more  conservative;  we  now  see 
evidence  of  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  see,  I  see. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


INQUIRY  INTO  HOSPITAL 
EMPLOYEES'  REMUNERATION 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  want  to  ask  the  Premier 
another  question:  Is  he  now  prepared  to 
indicate  to  the  House  and  to  the  public  that 
before  May  1  next  the  government  will  make 
an  offer  to  the  hospital  workers  directly 
involved  in  the  12  hospitals  in  the  Toronto 
area  who  have  threatened  strike  aciton  as 
of  May  1?  I  needn't  remind  the  Premier  that 
today  is  April  18. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
hon.  member  is  correct,  it  is  the  18th;  I 
accept  that.  I  can  only  say  to  the  hon. 
member  that  meetings  were  under  way  at 
2  o'clock  this  afternoon;  and  I  really  have 
no  comment  further  than  that  at  this  point. 


Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  I 
am  not  taUdng  of  the  mediation  meetbigs; 
we  all  know  what  they  are.  I  am  asking  the 
Premier  about  a  government  commitment  in 
advance  of  May  1. 

Does  the  Premier  not  realize  the  degree 
to  which  he  is  heightening  both  the  militancy 
and  the  desperation  of  the  hospital  workers? 
Is  that  his  policy?  Or  is  he  prepared  to 
promise  an  offer? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I  don't  want  to  see  that 
strike;   I   don't   want  to   see   that   strike. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  government  wants  it 
and  they  know  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thundfer  Bay):  The  same 
thing  as  the  teachers;  they  want  the  same 
thing  as  the  teachers'  went  through. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  have  had  enough  of  the 
government's— 

Mr.  Renwick:  In  every  situation  they 
create  this  confrontation  and  thev  know  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  go  away  for  a  day  and  look 
at  what  I  return  to,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  say  to  the  Premier,  I  almost 
beg  of  the  Premier,  does  he  not  realize 
that  it's  getting  very  close  to  the  point  at 
which  it's  almost  impossible  to  defuse  things 
unless  he  makes  a  public  commitment  in 
advance  of  May  1  that  the  government  will 
meet  the  legitimate  expectations  of  the  hos- 
pital worker? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  fully 
aware  of  the  time  frame  involved,  and  I 
can  only  say  to  the  hon.  member  the  gov- 
ernment is  as  conscious  as  he  is  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  situation. 

I  can  only  say  the  matter  is  under  con- 
sideration by  the  government.  Meetings— the 
member  may  call  them  mediation,  perhaps 
that's  the  proper  term— are  under  way  at  the 
present  time.  I  just  will  not  be  provoked  into 
making  any  further  comments  until  the  time 
is  appropriate. 

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

Mr.  Reid:  Supplementary:  The  Premier 
has  been  playing  games  with  us  on  this 
issue  for  over  a  month.  Does  the  Premier 
not  realize  the  legitimacy  of  the  claims  of 
the  hospital  workers? 


APRIL  18.  1974 


1117 


Mr.  Speaker:  That's  a  repeat  of  the 
previous  question.  It  is  just  a  repeat  of  the 
original  question.  I  rule  it  out  of  order. 

Hon.   Mr.    Rhodes:    Be    original. 

Mr.  Reid:  Well  I  am  not  finished  yet, 
that's  my  preamble. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West.  All  right,  the  hon.  member 
for  Ottawa  East. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  the 
Premier  how  he  can  justify  not  making  a 
commitment  to  the  hospital  workers  now, 
when  just  over  a  month  ago  the  government 
gave  this  increase  offhandedly  to  the  doctors 
at  the  other  end  of  the  scale?  How  can 
the  Premier  procrastinate  with  these  people 
and  give  the  doctors,  who  are  making  a  lot 
of  money,  this  increase? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  great 
respect  to  the  hon.  member,  no  increase 
was  given  to  the  doctors  in  an  offhanded 
way.  If  the  member  wants  me  to  recite 
chapter  and  verse  as  to  the  procedures  tfiat 
were  used- 
Mr.  Lewis:  It  was— in  a  significant  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —I'd  be  delightedi  to  do 
so,  but  I  can  only  say  that  the  government 
accepted  a  recommendation  of  a  committee 
under  the  chairmanship  of,  I  think,  a  rela- 
tively able  and  objective  person— 

Mr.  Reid:  Do  the  same  thing  in  relation  to 
the  hospital  workers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —composed'  of  members 
from  both  the  profession  and  the  government. 
If  the  hon.  member  for  Ottawa  East  or  the 
Liberal  Party  wants  to  say— and  I'd  be  de- 
lighted' to  hear  them  say  it— if  they  think  the 
procedm-e  was  wrong,  if  they  think  the 
amount  awarded  the  profession  was  too  high, 
and  if  they  were  elected  and  would  lower  it, 
let  them  say  so  and  have  the  intestinal  forti- 
tude to  db  it. 

Mr.  Reid:  We're  talking  about  hospital 
workers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  They  can't  always  have  it 
both  ways. 

Mr.    Roy:     On    a    point    of    order,    Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.   Reid:    The   government  has   had  the 
same    kind    of    reports    about    the    hospital 
workers  and  it  hasn't  done  anything. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order- 

'Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  Just  to  clarify  my  question,  I  did 
not  attack  the  method;  I  attacked  the  increase 
to  people  already  making  a  lot  of  money— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  hon.  member  said  it 
was  offhand. 

Mr.  Roy:  -and  the  fact  that  the  eoveno- 
ment  was  forgetting  the  people  at  the  bottom 
end  of  the  scale. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  hon.  member  said  it 
was  offhand. 

Mr.  Roy:  We  know  where  the  government's 
cards  are. 

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

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Premier  decided  it 
himself.  Why  wasn't  the  Legislature  involved? 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  dido't  the  govenmient  bring 
it  here? 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Sure  he  did. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We'll  answer  the  Premier's 
question.  It  was  to  much.  It  was  wrong  for 
tne  doctors. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  These  people  don't  say  so. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  that's  fine.  We're  telling 
the  Premier  it  was  wrong. 

HOUSING  PROGRAMMES 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  one  last 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Housing,  if  I  may. 
Does  the  minister  realize  that  me  30,000 
additional  serviced  lots  he  talks  about  over 
the  neixt  three  years  will  in  fact  put  him  be- 
hind in  the  production  of  housing  in  respect 
to  the  last  three  years  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  sup- 
pose I  should  clarify  this  again.  What  I  did 
say  was  that  the  original  target  of  the  hous- 
ing action  programme  was  to  oring  on  stream 
approximately  30,000  additional— or  more  than 
normal— serviced  lots  over  the  next  three 
years.  And,  with  my  usual  optimism,  I  think 
—and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Im  almost  sure— 
that  with  full  co-operation  from  the  other 
two    sectors    we    can    achieve    considerably 


1118 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


more.    These    are    additional    lots    over    and 
above  the  normal  production. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  may  I  ask  a  supple- 
mentary? Is  the  minister  saying  than  10,000 
additional  serviced  lots  per  year  is  any  con- 
tribution to  the  housing  crisis  at  all  in  On- 
tario? Does  he  not  realize  that  that's  roughly 
10  per  cent  of  the  immediate  requirement 
within  the  next  year,  over  and  above  what 
he  intends  to  produce?  And  that's  his  total 
programme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  answer  to  the 
question,  do  I  think  that  10,000  additional 
lots  is  a  contribution,  is  yes  I  do.  If  I  am 
asked  if  I  think  it's  a  solution,  I  say  no.  There 
are  other  approaches;  this  is  part  of  the  total 
approach. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  are  they? 
Mr.  Deans:  What  are  they? 
Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary- 
Mr.  Roy:  By  way  of  supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view. 

Mr.  Singer:  Of  the  10,000  lots  that  might 
be  supplied  this  year,  how  many  in  fact  is 
the  minister  prepared  to  say  will  be  available 
to  Ontario  citizens  this  year? 

Hon.    Mr.    Handleman:    Mr.    Speaker,    we 
have  a  three-year  programme- 
Mr.  Singer:  No,  I  said  this  year. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  cannot  assure  the 
hon.  member  of  10,000  this  year  or  5,000  this 
year- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Let  the  minister 
answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  When  we  have  com- 
mitments from  the  other  two  parties  to  this 
programme,  we  will  make  the  announcement 
and  we  will  aggregate  the  lots.  It's  obviously 
impossible,  in  1974,  to  say  suddenly,  "There 
shall  be  lots."  Lots  are  now  under  develop- 
ment. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Suddenly?  The  minister  says  he 
has  been  working  on  it  for  years. 

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.  Speaker:  This  question  was  pursued 
before;  surely  there  have  been  sufiBcient  sup- 
plementaries.  It's  the  same  thing  that  was 
answered  before. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  There  have  only  been  three, 
Mr,  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  No  further  questions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right;  no  further  questions. 

The  hon.  Minister  of  Housing  has  the 
answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  will  be  refreshing. 


ORG  ADVERTISING 

Hon.    Mr.    Handleman:    Thank    you,    Mr. 
Speaker.  The  hon,  member  for  Brant  (Mr.  R. 
F.   Nixon)   asked  me  about  Ontario  Housing 
Corp.   advertising,  and  I  would  like  to  read 
the  exact  question,   because  there  is  an  er- 
roneous assumption  in  the  question  itself. 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing,  further  to  the  province's   advertising 
budget,    to    explain  why   Ontario   Housing 
Gorp.'s  advertisement  for  integrated  com- 
munity   housing    programmes    appeared— a 
display    ad— it    appeared    three    times    in 
today's  Star,  exactly  the  same  ad. 
The  answer,  Mr.  Speaker,  Ls  that  they  weren't 
exactly  the  same  ad.  They  were  three  diflPerent 
advertisements. 

Mr.  Reid:  Was  the  minister's  name  spelled 
correctly? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  A  very  casual  in- 
spection, which  I  think  is  the  hon.  member's 
usual  course  of  action,  indicated  that  they 
might  be  identical.  Reading  the  fine  print  is 
something  that  takes  some  time.  One  ad  re- 
lated to  Metropolitan  Toronto,  one  to  Missis- 
sauga,  and  one  to  Oshawa.  In  the  case  of 
Mississauga  and  Oshawa,  the  ads  covered 
more  than  one  programme. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  All  put  in  by  the  min- 
ister's department. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  That's  right.  They 
were  all  put  in  by  OHG;  they  were  directed 
to  different  people.  And  obviously  the  power 
of  advertising  worked,  because  the  hon.  mem- 
ber noticed  them. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  At  triple  the  cost— and 
did  the  minister  get  any  response? 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1110 


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

Mr.  P.  J.  MacBeth  (York  West):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications,  who 
was  here  a  minute  ago.  He  has  suddenly 
disappeared. 

Mr.  Ren  wick:  He  must  have  known  the 
member  had  a  question  for  him. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  member's  moment  of 
glory  is  gone. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  hon.  minister  not 
present?  All  right,  the  hon.  member  for  Rainy 
River  is  next. 


INDEPENDENT  SAWMILL  OPERATORS 

Mr.  Reid:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  will  catch 
him  before  he  slips  out. 

Can  the  minister  explain  his  ministry's 
policy  in  requiring  all  the  independent  cutters 
in  the  Thunder  Bay  area  to  take  all  their 
wood  to  the  Laidlaw  Co.  in  Thunder  Bay 
and  cutting  ofiF  the  independent  sawmill  oper- 
ators and  increasing  the  independent's  costs? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  made 
some  very  clear  statements  on  this.  In  fact  I 
have  sent  a  full  description  to  the  member 
for  Port  Arthur  (Mr.  Foulds),  the  member  for 
Thunder  Bay  and  the  member  for  Fort  Wil- 
liam (Mr,  Jessiman),  outlining  the  reasons 
and  the  actions  we  took  and  why  we  took 
them. 

Just  to  go  back  a  couple  of  steps,  we  were 
most  anxious  of  course  to  fulfil  the  require- 
ments and  the  government  decision  to  accept 
Design  for  Development,  Phase  2,  in  which 
x-number  of  jobs  would  be  created  in  the 
forest  industry. 

We  dealt  with  a  number  of  forest  com- 
panies who  were  interested  in  establishing  a 
fibreboard  plant  in  the  Thunder  Bay  area.  We 
asked  them  to  look  in  several  areas  of  north- 
em  Ontario  and  MacMillan  Bloedel,  who  are 
now  Laidlaw  in  Ontario,  came  to  us  with  a 
proposal  that  if  we  could  guarantee  them 
100,000  units  of  poplar  per  year  within  the 
Thunder  Bay  area,  they  were  prepared  to 
spend  up  to  $12  million  in  a  major  invest- 
ment creating  something  like  225  new  jobs 
in  the  area. 

We  looked  at  it  very  carefully  and  it  was 
obvious  that  we  had  the  wood  fibre  in  the 
Thunder  Bay  area,  but  it  was  on  Crown  land 


in  three  Crown  management  units.  We  are 
well  aware  of  the  many  small  operators  who 
are  operating  in  the  area  and  the  decision  to 
allocate  this  poplar  in  the  three  management 
units  to  Laidlaw  was  taken  with  a  great  deal 
of  thought.  We  are  convinced  that  it  is  the 
best  thing  for  the  small  operators  in  the  area. 
Some  are  saying  that  it  will  give  a  monopo- 
ly to  Laidlaw;  we  don't  think  it  will,  because 
the  poplar  off  the  private  lands  can  still  be 
sold  anywhere  that  the  individual  would  like. 
We  are  not  controlling  that  at  all.  They  still 
have  that  right;  but  we  are  directing  the  pop- 
lar from  the  three  Crown  management  units 
in  the  Thunder  Bay  area  to  this  one  industry 
so  that  will  provide  x-number  of  jobs;  and,  of 
course,  the  investment  will  come  to  northwest- 
ern Ontario. 

Mr.  Reid:  A  supplementary,  if  I  may,  Mr. 
Speaker:  When  the  ministry  puts  a  company 
like  Laidlaw  or  Boise  Cascade  in  the  Fort 
Frances  area  in  a  monopoly  position,  what  do 
they  do  to  ensure  the  independent  oi>erator 
of  a  fair  price  for  their  wood,  whether  they 
get  it  off  their  own  limits  or  Crown  land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  As  I  said  earlier,  we 
are  not  controlling  the  sale  of  poplar  from 
private  land  to  any  forest  industry  in  the  area. 
We  have  already  advised  Laidlaw  that  we 
will  monitor  the  prices  given  to  those  indi- 
viduals who  harvest  poplar  off  private  land 
and  sell  it  to  the  paper  companies.  In  no  way 
will  we  let  them  use  their  monopoly  position 
to  downgrade  the  price  of  poplar  in  the 
Thunder   Bay   area. 

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


MECHANICAL  FITNESS  CERTIFICATES 
FOR  CARS 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Speaker,  a 
question  of  the  hon.  Minister  of  Consimier 
and  Commercial  Relations:  In  view  of  stories 
which  have  recently  appeared  in  the  press  in 
connection  with  mechanical  fitness  and 
fraudulent  certificates,  as  well  as  other  in- 
stances that  have  come  to  the  attention  of 
individual  members,  has  the  minister  any 
plans  to  tighten  up  the  legislation  regarding 
administration  of  certificates  of  mechanical  fit- 
ness, so  that  aggrieved  persons  have  some 
other  resource  than  to  courts  with  attendant 
long  delays  and  costs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  in- 
volvement of  my  ministry  with  certificates  of 
mechanical  fitness  emanates  from  our  control 


1120 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


and  registration  of  the  new-  and  used-car 
business.  Whenever  it  comes  to  our  attention 
or  investigations  indicate  that  there  has  been 
a  breach  of  the  legislation  dealing  vvdth  the 
issuance  of  those  certificates,  then  we  have  in 
all  instances  prosecuted. 

The  qualifications  of  the  person  or  persons 
who  issue  those  certificates  are  within  the 
purview  of  the  Ministry  of  Colleges  and  Uni- 
versities undfer  its  educational  programme.  I 
concede  there  are  difficulties,  there  are  prob- 
lems, insofar  as  some  of  these  fraudulent 
certificates  are  issued.  I  don't  think  they're 
that  widespread  but  they  are  significant 
enough  to  cause  me  concern. 

Some  hon.  members:  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  haven't  heard  the  word  sup- 
plementary yet. 

Mr.  Young:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary? 

Mr.  Young:  Is  the  minister  satisfied  that 
measures  are  under  way  which  vdll  solve  this 
problem  because  it  still  is  a  very  great  prob- 
lem for  a  great  many  people? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm  advis- 
ed by  my  colleague,  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications,  that  his  min- 
istry is  tightening  up  on  it.  One  of  the  things 
I  would  personally  endorse  is  the  removal  of 
the  fine  only  against  the  person  who  issues 
the  fraudulent  certificate— or  one  who  is 
stretching  the  truth  to  some  degree— and  im- 
pose in  lieu  of  a  fine,  imprisonment  and/ or  a 
fine  and  the  removal  of  the  licence  for  the 
person  to  practice.  It  would  be  the  same  type 
of  penalty  as  is  borne  by  professional  and 
semi-professional  groups  already  subject  to 
other  le^slation. 

Mr.  Roy:  Could  I  just  ask  one  supple- 
mentary? 

Mr.  iSpeaker:  The  hon,  member  for  Ottawa 
East  has  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  reference  to  the  minister's 
comments  that  the  abuse  of  these  certificates 
was  not  widespread,  how  does  he  correlate 
that  with  the  comments  of  the  previous  Min- 
ister of  Transportation  and  Communications 
(Mr.  Carton)  who  said  they  were  wide- 
spread? 

Secondly,  how  does  he  expect  to  have 
proper  enforcement  of  this  type  of  certificate 
when  the  jurisdiction  is  spread  out  between 
the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Commu- 
nications, his  ministry  and  the  Ministry  of 
Colleges  and  Universities?  Doesn't  he  think 


it's  high  time,  mavbe,  the  enforcement  was 
under  one  ministry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  it's  be- 
cause of  the  very  nature  of  the  responsibilities 
themselves.  T&C  has  it  because  it  is  seized 
with  the  responsibility  of  monitoring  the 
Highway  Traffic  Act,  as  the  member  well 
knows.  The  Ministry  of  Colleges  and  Univer- 
sities deals  with  the  professional  qualifica- 
tions of  the  people  who,  in  fact,  are  issuing 
those  certificates.  The  involvement  of  my 
ministry  is  because  we  monitor  the  car  in- 
dustry. Unless  all  three  were  placed  in  the 
responsibility  of  one  ministry,  and  I  suggest 
that  would  not  be  the  answer,  we're  going 
to  have  this  fragmentation. 

Mr.  Roy:  It  would  help. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  York  West. 


GO  TRAIN  TO  GEORGETOWN 

Mr.  MacBeth:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
see  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications has  returned— 

An  hon.  member:  Welcome  back. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  —and  I  would  ask  him 
whether  or  not  there  will  be  a  stop  at 
Rexdale  now  that  the  announcement  of  the 
GO  route  to  Georgetown  has  been  made? 
Can  he  tell  me  whether  there  will  be  a  stop 
at  Rexdale  to  serve  the  northern  part  of  the 
borough  of  Etobicoke? 

Mr.  M.  Shubnan  (High  Park):  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  will 
not  be  a  stop  at  Rexdale  inunediately.  We 
are  looking  at  the  possibility  of  putting  one 
in  there. 

Mr.  Deans:  But  the  train  will  slow  down? 

Mr.  Breitbaupt:  Will  it  slow  down  at  all? 

Mr.  Singer:  It  will  wave  at  them  as  it 
goes  by. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  If  the  member  for 
Downsview  is  on  he  can  jump  off  any  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  has  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  MacBeth:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 

West. 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1121 


Mr.  MacBeth:  Can  the  minister  give  con- 
sideration to  such  a  stop? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly, 
we've  just  recently  had  some  discussions  with 
the  mayor  of  the  borough  on  this  very  point. 
It  is  not  forgotten. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hoQ.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  is  next. 


TRAIN  JOURNEY  IN  WESTERN 
ONTARIO 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  Question  of  the  Premier.  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  he  and  the  member  for  Grey 
South  (Mr.  Winkler)  are  cooking  up  this 
journey  into  history,  and  in  view  of  the  fact 
we  don't  have  a  train  service  up  our  way- 
Mr.  Reid:  They're  rewriting  history. 

Mr.  Sargent:  —he  took  it  away  along  with 
the  federal  government— now  he's  going  to 
have  this  special  junket  through  western  On- 
tario with  a  lot  of  civic  functions,  etc.,  how 
does  he  justify  blatantly  adding  insult  to  in- 
jury by  bringing  a  train  junket  into  our  area? 
We  haven't  got  a  train  service  but  he's  going 
to  have  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He's  just  trying  to  re-elect 
the  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board.  It 
is  an  impossible  task. 

Mr.  Sargent:  How  much  is  it  going  to  cost? 
Let's  start  there,  how  much  is  it  going  to 
cost? 

Mr.  Roy:  Who  is  paying  for  it? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Treasury  Board. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winlder  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
first  of  all  I  should  straighten  out  the  mem- 
ber on  who  really  took  the  train  service  oflF 
the  tracks.  If  he  can  get  in  touch  with  his 
friends  in  Ottawa  there's  a  little  bit  of 
warmth  there  right  now  about  reinstituting 
the  service— with  which  I  agree. 

In  reference  to  the  question  he  puts,  this 
isn't  the  first  time  weve  done  it.  This  is 
about  the  third,  and  each  and  every  time  it 
funds  itself.  It  costs  nobody  anything. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for— 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  supplementary— 

An  hon.  member:  I'm  looking  forward  to 
the  trip.  I'm  going  to  drive  the  train. 

Mr.  Sargent:  If  it  funds  itself  why  the  hell 
can't  we  have  a  train  service  up  there? 


Hon.  Mr.  Davist  Why  doesn't  the  member 
ask  Mr.  Marchand? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winklen  I'm  almost  disposed  to 
answer  the  member  the  way  the  member  for 
Lakeshore  (Mr.  Lawlor)  did  the  other  week 
because  of  the  irresponsible  way  he  i^ 
proaches  a  question. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Irresponsible?  That  is  a 
very  sensible  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  He  knows  whose  re- 
sponsibility it  is  but  he  is  afraid  of  them. 

Mr.  Yakabuski:  He  drives  down  in  his 
white  Lincoln.  Why  doesn't  he  use  the  train? 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  Ontario  government  is 
giving  a  train  to  Barrie  now— \»^t's  wrong 
with  Grey-Bruce  getting  a  train? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Maybe  the  member  had 
better  look  at  himself. 

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hem.  member:  That  wasn't  much  of  an 
answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winklen  It  was  as  good  as  the 

(question  he  asked. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


REPORT  ON  LAKE  WANAPITEI 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbuiy  East):  I  have 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment, Mr.  Speaker.  In  view  of  Dr.  Balsillie's 
report  which  states,  "The  above  observations 
indicate  that  both  acute  and  chronic  injury 
are  occurring  to  vegetation  in  the  area  north 
of  Lake  Wanapitei",  could  the  minister  in- 
dicate whether  or  not  his  ministry  is  willing 
to  indicate  who  is  responsible  for  the 
damage  at  long  last?  In  other  words,  is  it 
Falconbridge  and  Inco  that  are  doing  that 
damage? 

Hon.   W.   Newman  (Minister  of  the  En- 

viroiunent):    I   missed    the    first  part   of   the 

member's    question.    Could    he  just    repeat 
the  first  part? 

Mr.  Roy:  And  the  minister  didn't  under- 
stand the  second  part. 

Mr.  Martel:  Dr.  Balsillie's  report  recently 
to  the  minister  s  o£Bce  indicated  tiie  follow- 
ing:   "The   above   observations  indicate  that 


1122 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


both  acute  and  chronic  injury  are  occurring 
to  vegetation  in  the  area  north  of  Lake 
Wanapitei."  Is  the  ministry  now  wilhng  to 
indicate  who  is  responsible  directly  lor  the 
damage? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  have  received  the 
report  and  are  studying  it  at  this  time  and 
we  will  be  back  to  the  member  on  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Supplementary- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  is  almost  as  good 
as  the  Minister  for  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications. 

Mr.  Deans:  That  was  funny  the  first  time. 

Mr.  Martel:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
ministry  has  already  condensed  Dr.  Balsillie's 
report  and  chopped  it  up  pretty  well,  I 
can't  sfee  why  it  is  necessary  for  further 
study  for  the  ministry  to  indicate  who  is 
responsible.  Would  the  minister  be  willing, 
once  he  indicates  who  is  responsible,  to 
assess  Inco  and  Falconbridge  a  certain 
amount  to  neutralize  the  water  and  restore 
the  vegetation  in  that  area? 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  What 
does    the    government    want— another    Dow? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  As  the  member  knows, 
we  are  very  much  concerned  about  that 
whole  Sudbury  basin.  We  are  doing  a  lot 
of  studies  and  we  are  doing  a  lot  of  monitor- 
ing. I've  been  writing  the  member  a  lot  of 
letters  about  the  problems  they  are  faced 
with  up  there. 

An  hon.  member:  The  government  studied 
itself  right  out  of  power  in  that  area. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Certainly  we  did  some 
research. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  has  a  right 
to  be  concerned  in  the  Sudbury  basin.  It 
will  never  have  a  seat  there,  not  one. 

Hon.  W..  Newman:  Don't  let  the  member 
kid  himself.  When  we  get  through  with 
the  work  we  are  doing  up  there,  we  may 
have  them  all. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  to  mention  the  Renfrews. 
They  are  gone  forever. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  are  just  a  few 
minutes  remaining. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
done  some  experimental  work,  as  members 
know,  up  there.  We  will  be  continuing  this 
work  this  summer. 


Mr.  Singer:  No  wonder  they  hired  McPhee. 

Mr.     Speaker:     The     hon.     member     for 
Downsview  is  next. 


BILL  25 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Premier.  Is  the  Premier  con- 
cerned about  the  police-state-like  proxisions 
in  the  statute  that  was  tabled  by  the  Min- 
ister of  Revenue  (Mr.  Meen),  Bill  25,  An 
Act  to  impose  a  Tax  on  speculative  Profits 
resulting  from  the  Disposition  of  Land,  which 
provides  in  section  18,  subsection  4,  and 
in  section  18,  subsection  6,  that  where  the 
officials  of  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  have 
ascertained  information  or  seized  documents 
in  relation  to  the  provisions  of  that  Act, 
they  can  make  that  information  available  or 
provide  the  documents  to  other  departments 
of  the  provincial  government,  to  departments 
of  the  government  of  Canada  and  to  the  min- 
istries of  other  provinces  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances? Would  the  Premier  not  agree 
that  that  would  allow  fishing  expeditions 
under  the  guise- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Singer:  —of  a  statute  like  this  and 
make  police-state-like  legislation? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I'm  informed  that 
this  is  on  the  order  paper. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  that's  all  right,  I  want 
to  stop  it. 

Interjections   by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Singer:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order,  v^'hether  it  is  on  the  order  paper 
or  not,  surely  it  is  demeaning  to  this  prov- 
ince to  have  written  in  a  statute  police- 
state-type  legislation.  I'm  trying  to  head  it 
off  before   it  gets   any  further. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  not  proper  for  the  hon. 
member  to  anticipate  any  provisions  that 
might  be  in  the  bill.  It  is  on  the  order  paper. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  there. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  your  question  is  not 
proper. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  the  Premier  just  shakes  his 
head.  He  should  be  ashamed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Singer:  Another  Bill  99. 

An  hon.  member:  What  was  wrong  with  it? 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1123 


HIRING  OF  LIQUOR  STORE 
EMPLOYEES 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations, Mr.  Speaker:  What  action  has  the 
minister  taken  since  the  letter  which  he  was 
shown  last  week  from  the  organization  repre- 
senting the  liquor  employees  of  this  province, 
in  which  they  say  there  is  now  chaos  in  the 
stores  which  he  manages  because  they  are 
being  forced  to  hire  people  who  are  mentally 
incapable  of  handling  the  jobs? 

Mr.  Reid:  The  member  means  retired 
cabinet  ministers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  checked 
into  that  allegation  which  was  so  kindly 
drawn  to  my  attention  by  the  menvber  for 
High  Park,  with  whom  I  feel  a  real  afBnity 
over  the  past  few  days. 

Mr.  R.  K.  McNeil  (Elgin):  Drinking  more 
wine? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  miss  him  every  week- 
end. 

An  hon.  member:  And  Wednesdays. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  ascertained  that 
before  a  person  is  hired  by  the  Liquor  Con- 
trol Board  of  this  province  as  a  permanent 
employee  that  person  undergoes  an  aptitude 
test  and  a  physical  examination.  This  does 
not  occur  if  the  person  is  a  temporary  em- 
ployee working  a  day  or  two  a  week. 

The  board,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  attempts 
as  much  as  possible  to  hire  people  on  a 
temporary  basis— some  of  them  quite  elderly; 
under  65  but  beyond  60  in  many  instances— 
who  do  have  some  physical  disability  so  long 
as  that  disability  will  not  interfere  with  their 
work,  i.e.,  a  back  injury,  which  would  pre- 
clude them  from  lifting  heavy  cases  of  liquor 
and  this  sort  of  thing.  But  tf  such  a  person 
becomes  a  i)ermanent  employee,  then  he  must 
undergo  the  two  tests  to  which  I  have  already 
referred. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Can  the  minister  explain  the  comments  here 
that  utter  chaos  over  which  the  staflF  has  no 
control  now  reigns  in  the  stores? 

An  hon.  member:  Nonsense,  nonsense. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Who 
wrote  that? 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  head  of  the  liquor  em- 
ployees' association. 


An  hon.  member:  The  Sun. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
consider  that  to  be— 

Hon.    Mr.    Kerr:    Is    that   for   tomorrow's 

column? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  —poetic  licence  of  the 
writer  of  that  particular  artide.  If  he  will 
describe  the  degree  of  the  chaos,  and  if  he 
will  give  me  the  particulars,  I  will  undertake 
to  look  into  it. 

I  might  point  out  that  the  writer  of  that 
article  has  in  the  past  indicated  his  interest 
in  various  matters  pertaining  to  the  employees' 
association  and  has,  in  fact,  spoken  and  met 
with  me  on  matters  of  mutual  interest  This 
has  not  been  the  subject  of  any  discussion 
between  that  particular  writer  and  myself. 

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


PYRAMID  SALES  SCHEMES 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations dealing  with  pyramid  sales: 

First  of  all,  would  the  minister  advise  how 
many  certificates  of  acceptance  have  been 
issued  in  this  province?  I  suppose  he  will  say 
none. 

Secondly,  how  can  he  tolerate  two  or  three 
different  companies  operating  in  this  province 
under  the  pyramid  sales  scheme,  one  of  them 
being  Holiday  Magic  in  Scarborough?  And 
why  is  he  waiting  to  do  something  about  it 
in  light  of  the  fact  that  the  Province  of 
'Quebec  last  week  issued  some  81  charges 
against  the  same  company? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  two  weeks 
ago  I  would  have  said  none  had  been  reg- 
istered. I  don't  know  as  of  today  how  many 
have  been  registered- 
Mr.  Roy:  None,  none. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  —because  I  have 
directed  the  acting  registrar  to  effect  reffistra- 
tion  of  those  who  have  complied  wim  the 
requirements  set  out  in  the  Act  and  the  regu- 
lations, and  I  anticipate  they  will  be  refgistered 
within  days,  if  they  have  not  alrea<fy  been 
registered  by  now. 

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

Petitions. 


Presenting  reports. 


1124 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor,  from  the  standing  private 
bills  committee,  presented  the  committee's  re- 
port which  was  read  as  follows  and  adopted: 

'Yom-  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bills  without  amendment: 

Bill  Pr4,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Hamilton. 

Bill  Pr6,  An  Act  respecting  the  Wellington 
Coimty  Board  of  Education. 

Bill  Prl6,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Orillia. 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bill  with  certain  amendments: 

'Bill  Pr3,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Hamilt(»i. 

Your  committee  would  recommend  that  the 
time  for  presenting  reports  by  the  committee 
be  extended  to  Thursday,  May  2,  1974. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes  presented  the  annual  re- 
port to  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  of  the  Ontario  Highway 
Transport  Board  on  its  affairs  for  the  year 
ending  Dec.  31,  1973,  for  the  information  of 
the  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  any  further  re- 
ports? 

Mr.  Shulman:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  House  leader 
have  any  reports? 


ANSWER  TO  WRITTEN  QUESTION 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  No,  I  don't  have  a  re- 
port,. Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  would  like  to  table 
the  answer  to  question  3  standing  on  the 
order  paper.  (See  sessional  paper  No.  35). 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


UNLAWFUL  FUNDS  INVESTMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Shulman  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  to  prevent  the  Inve«stment 
of  Funds  Obtained  Unlawfully. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  prevent  the  investment  in  On- 
tario, by  or  under  the  control  of  persons!  en- 
gaged in  unlawful  activities,  of  the  imlawful 
proceeds  and  to  prevent  the  laundering  of 
imlawful  proceeds  to  secure  their  source. 

'I  would  like  to  give  a  word  of  thanks  to 
Mr.  Stone  of  the  legislative  counsel  for  his 


kind  work  in  assisting  me  and  to  the  Sohcitor 
General  for  his  consideration  and  help  in 
looking  at  the  bill. 


POINT  OF  ORDER 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order  just 
before  the  orders  of  the  day,  I  wonder  if  the 
Minister  of  Revenue  could  assist  us  since  he 
has  indicated  that  there  may  be  amendments 
to  the  land  tax  bill,  which  I  imdierstand  it  is 
expected  would  be  debated  on  second  read- 
ing tomorrow.  Is  it  possible  that  we  might  see 
those  proposed  amendments  before  we 
approach  the  bill  on  second  reading  so  that 
we  know  the  areas  where  the  minister  feels 
that  the  bill  is  aheady  wanting?  We  might 
then  modify  our  approach  to  some  extent. 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  public  and  many  of  my  col- 
leagues are  presently  providing  me  with  some 
very,  very  useful  comment  on  these  bills, 
particularly  on  the  Land  Speculation  Tax  Act. 
To  the  extent  that  my  ministry  and  I  may 
have  reached  some  firm  conclusions  on  the 
amendments  which  I  would  propose  to  intro- 
duce when  the  bill  is  in  committee,  I  think 
there  would  be  no  difBculty  in  my  providing 
those  to  the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
and  to  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  if  they  would  both  wish  to  have  those. 

I  want  to  emphasize  that  because  we  are, 
for  the  agrarians  in  this  House,  ploughing  vir- 
gin soil— and  perhaps  for  the  boaters  and 
nautical  types  in  this  House  I  am  sailing  some 
uncharted  waters— there  are  bound  to  be  some 
rocks  in  all  of  this  and  we're  encountering 
problems  virtually  daily  which  I  am  wrestling 
with— 

Mr.  J.  E.  BuUbrook  (Samia):  That's  an  apt 
description  if  I  ever  heard  one:  "Ploughing 
virgin  soil." 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —and  there  will  conse- 
quently be  the  very  great  likelihood  of 
amendbnents  being  generated  right  up  to  the 
time  when  we  do  get  into  the  committee  of 
the  whole  House  on  this.  Indeed,  I  will  be 
listening  with  interest  this  afternoon  to  the 
speech  of  the  former  leader  of  the  NDP,  in 
which  I  would  expect  he  will  have  some  com- 
ments to  make  on  this  bill.  In  the  course  of 
the  debate  on  the  bill  on  second  reading  there 
may  well  also  be  some  very  useful  ideas  put 
forward  which  I  would  like  to  be  able  to  take 
under  consideration. 

Therefore,  I  do  want  to  emphasize  that  if  I 
am  able  to  provide  the  hon.  members  with 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1125 


some  thoughts  on  my  proposed  amendments 
that  those  amendments  by  no  means  represent 
a  fixed  position. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  If  I  might  speak  to  that 
point  of  my  leader  to  the  minister.  If  there 
are  some  considerations  given  to  amendments 
and  if  we  are  to  proceed,  as  I  understand  it, 
with  second  reading  debate  beginning  to- 
morrow, is  the  minister  at  least  considering 
having  the  bill  go  to  standing  committee  for— 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Very  good  idea. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  —the  committee  process  so 
that  perhaps  other  members  of  the  public- 
Mr.  Bullbrook:  Why  not? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  —who  may  wish  to  give 
additional  information  could  possibly  be  in- 
cluded, in  the  best  interests  of  having  as 
good  a  bill  as  we  could  have? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
given  that  some  thought,  but  in  view  of  the 
urgency  of  passage  of  both  of  these  biMs  and 
particularly  the  Land  Transfer  Tax  Act  and 
the  present  uncertainty  in  the  commercial 
areas  of  activity  in  this  province  today  be- 
cause the  bills  are  not  law,  it  is  essential  that 
they  be  passed  as  quickly  as  possible. 

What  the  Treasurer  said  in  his  budget 
speech  and  what  I  have  gone  to  considerable 
length  to  say  also  since  that  time,  is  that 
we  are  very  flexible.  On  the  other  hand,  I 
think  the  people  of  Ontario  have  to  know 
where  they  stand  as  accurately  as  possible  and 
as  quickly  as  possible. 

Therefore,  for  the  initial  stages  of  passage 
of  the  bill  in  order  that  it  can  become  law,  I 
would  propose  to  take  it  to  the  committee  of 
the  whole  House  rather  than  to  the  standing 
committee  at  this  time,  although  I  certainly 
invite— and  I  am  receiving  these  submissions 
daily— submissions  from  the  public  as  well  as 
from  our  colleagues  in  this  House  which  I 
can  take  imder  advisement,  when  looking 
at  the  Act,  when  looking  at  the  regulations 
that  will  be  drafted,  and  indeed  we  are  work- 
ing on  those  now. 

So  over  the  next  few  months  when  we  get 
a  feel  for  this  Act  and  this  new  form  of  legis- 
lation we  will  have  a  much  better  idea  of 
where  we  are  going,  and  in  the  fall  session 
might  then  follow  the  course  of  action  which 
the  hon.  member  for  Kitchener  has  suggested. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  same 
point  of  order,  doesn't  the  minister  think  that 
in  view  of  the  substantial  reservations  which 
are  being  raised  in  the  business  community 


and  elsewhere,  as  he  himself  agrees  is  now 
taking  place,  that  wisdom  would  dictate  that 
the  principle  of  the  bill  will  obviously  be 
afiPected  by  the  extent  and  nature  of  the 
amendments  which  the  minister  proposes  to 
introduce  or  incorporate,  and  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  him  to  resolve  the  problem  of  the 
immediate  passage  of  that  bill  with  a  proper 
and  adequate  public  debate  in  consideration 
of  this  immensely  important  principle? 
Wouldn't  the  minister  consider  suggesting  to 
the  House  leader  that  discretion  requires  that 
the  bill  be  not  debated  tomorrow  morning 
on  second  reading  but  be  debated  at  the  point 
in  time  when  the  ministry  has  made  up  its 
mind  what  road  it  is  going  to  take,  having 
regard  to  the  public  reservations  about  the 
biU? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  appear  to 
be  returning  to  the  question  period.  To  both 
those  questions  I  think  I  would  just  simply 
say  no,  not  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  want  to  say  on  this  point  that  the 
minister  is  absiu-dly  inflexible  and  that  once 
again  we  are  traducing  the  Legislature,  be- 
cause a  debate  is  necessarily  unproductive 
when  he  intends  to  introduce  major  changes 
by  way  of  amendment,  when  he  as  minister 
is  receiving  submissions  from  the  public,  when 
we  as  legislators  are  still  receiving  submissions 
from  the  public,  when  he  has  already  indi- 
cated to  the  House  that  he  will  provide  no 
forum  for  the  public  and  he  forces  us  into  a 
debate  tomorrow  morning  on  the  principle 
when  he  himself  has  indicated  that  the  prin- 
ciple may  be  altered.  That's  just  bloody- 
mindedness.  It's  silly,  it's  childish  and  it's 
obviously  going  to  be  destructive. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order  please. 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  Tm  tired  of  that  kind  of 
role. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  fact  it's  mean. 

Mr.  Lewis  t  Even  nasty. 


POINT  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Mr.  C.  J.  S.  Apps  (Kingston  and  the 
Islands):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  connection  with  a 
statement  made  by  the  oflBcial  opposition 
critic  during  the  budget  debate  on  page  1083 
of  Hansard  he  said. 

The  population  of  Kingston  is  dropping  by  on* 
per  cent  per  decade. 


1126 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  tried  to  oorrect  him  at  that  time  with 
very  little  success  so  I  got  the  proper  figures. 
The  population  of  Kiagston  in  1963  was 
50,011.  In  1973  it  was  59,289,  an  increase  of 
18.6  per  cent. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Apps:  That  is  just  about  as  accurate 
as  his  critic's  figures  were. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Check  the  Financial  Post. 

Mr.  Apps:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  find  it  rather 
amazing  that  the— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber is  permitted  to  correct  a  wrong  impres- 
sion that  has  been  created  but  there  should 
be  no  further  statements. 

Mr.  Apps:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  other 
than  the  fact  that  probably  the  member  who 
spoke  should  apologize  to  the  Legislature  for 
quoting  a  very  inaccurate  figure. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  that  is  not  necessary, 
nor  is  it  customary. 

Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 
ing the  adjourned  debate  on  the  amendment 
to  the  motion  that  this  House  approves  in 
general  the  budgetary  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment. 


BUDGET  DEBATE 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  I 
hope  I  don't  disappoint  the  new  Minister  of 
Revenue  ( Mr.  Meen )  too  completely,  but  111 
have  some  comments  on  the  matter  of  his 
current  preoccupation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  outstanding  characteristic 
of  the  budget  that  was  presented  to  us  last 
week  is  one  of  an  illusion  of  progress  with 
very  littie  reality.  And  that  is  why  my  first 
reaction  was  to  dub  it  a  streaker's  budget— 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Who  wrote  that? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  —because  at  first  glance 
it's  attractive  but  it  doesn't  stand  up  to  any 
closer  examination. 

The  only  people  still  being  taken  in  by  this 
budget  appear  to  be  the  government  back- 
benchers. They  were  so  depressed  by  the 
relentless  succession  of  bad  fortune  suffered 
by  their  party,  some  self-inflicted  and  some 
fortuitous,  that  they  can  be  forgiven  their 
rather  euphoric  reaction;  but  the  general  pub- 


lic has  learned  from  experience  to  view 
critically  what  this  government  does  and  what 
it  leaves  undone. 

But  it  was  characteristic,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  provincial  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  should 
bring  in  this  kind  of  a  budget.  He  is  a  streaker 
by  nature,  the  provincial  Treasurer. 

An  hon.  member:  Yes,  he  was  bom  that 
way. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  A  streaker  by  nature.  I 
repeat,  a  streaker  by  nature. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  is  the  only  hoe.  mem- 
ber in  this  House— with  the  possible  excep- 
tion of  the  hon.  member  for  High  Park  (Mr. 
Shulman)— who  has  the  necessary  combination 
of  energy,  courage  and  indiscretion  to  physi- 
cally streak  through  this  Legislature;  but  I 
suppose  that  would  be  too  much  of  an  affront 
to  the  traditions  of  the  House,  so  instead  he 
does  it  by  way  of  the  budget. 

For  a  fleeting  moment  it  was  smnething  of 
a  dazzling  performance.  But  upon  furaier 
thought  and  closer  study,  I'm  not  so  sure,  Mr. 
Speaker,  but  that  my  reaction  was  too  gen- 
erous as  far  as  the  provincial  Treasurer  is 
concerned.  I  have  a  growing  suspicion  that 
even  I  was  taken  in  a  little. 

An  hon.  member:  No. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  You  see,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
rather  like  the  provincial  Treasurer.  He  is  an 
interesting  guy. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  is  somewhat  offbeat. 
He  is  certainly  unpredictable.  He  has  some- 
thing more  than  mere  pretensions  to  intel- 
lectualism.  In  all,  he  is  rather  a  pleasant  relief 
to  the  kind  of  stuffy  atmosphere  created  by 
some  of  his  cabinet  colleagues. 

But  my  sober  second  thoughts,  when  I  had 
gotten  over  this  rather  kind  reaction  to  the 
provincial  Treasurer,  led  m©  to  the  conclusion 
that  with  this  budget  the  provincial  Treas- 
urer has  established  himself  as  the  leading 
flim-flam  artist  in  Ontario  budgetary  history. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member, 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  want  to  spend  an  hour 
or  two  this  afternoon  exploring  the  true  rami- 
fications of  his  flim-flamming  exercise,  other- 
wise known  as  the  budget  in  1974, 

The  provincial  Treasurer's  whole  budgetary- 
posture,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  one  of  anti-inflation, 
because  it  is  tlie  thing  to  do  today.  It  looks 


APRIL  18.  1974 


1127 


well.  Unfortunately,  the  facts  beHe  his  pos- 
ture. 

The  budget  of  the  last  Rcbarts  year 
reached  $5.2  billion.  During  the  first  four 
years  of  this  government's  budgets,  they  have 
climbed  from  $6  billion  to  |6.5  billion  to 
$7.3  billion,  and  this  year  to  $8.3  billion. 

It  is  interestirtg  to  recall  that  in  the  first 
100  years  of  Ontario's  history,  from  1867  to 
1967,  we  didn't  quite  reach  our  first  $2  billion 
budget;  and  yet  within  the  first  four  years  of 
this  government  it  has  added  a  cool  $3  billion 
more  to  the  budget. 

Those  figures  give  the  He  to  the  govern- 
ment's contention  that  they  are  successfully 
restraining  expenditures  aivd  therefore  play- 
ing their  part  in  checking  inflation;  one  of 
the  basic  argimients  advanced  by  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  many,  many  times. 

In  fact,  the  premise  upon  which  this  budget 
was  built  is  one  of  an  acceptance  of  inflation. 
The  government  is  living  off  the  profits  of 
inflation.  It  even  speaks  of  sharing  those 
profits  with  the  municipalities.  That  was  a 
headline  in  the  budget  text. 

The  net  tax  increase  was  nil.  Taxes  were 
cut  by  $140  million  on  one  hand  and  in- 
creased by  $147  million  on  another;  a  minor 
shift  to  the  hitherto  lightly-tapped  corporate 
and  resource  sources  of  revenue  to  compen- 
sate for  the  government's  gesture  of  greater 
tax  equity  for  those  who  have  been  carrying 
too  much  of  the  burden  for  too  long. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
when  the  BC  budget  was  recently  brought 
in,  Premier  Barrett  dubbed  it  the  resource 
dividend  budget.  The  expansion  of  services 
to  the  people  is  being  financed  by  more  equit- 
able levies  on  the  resources  of  the  province. 

Here  in  Ontario  our  provincial  Treasurer 
has  brought  in  an  inflation  dividend  budget, 
all  the  while  contending  that  he  is  freely  en- 
gaged in  an  all  out  fight  against  inflation.  It 
is  a  flagrant  exercise  in  flim-flamming  the 
public.  Let  me  take  a  moment  to  document  it. 

IThe  haUmark  of  the  1974  budget  is  that 
we  are  getting  something  for  nothing.  Imagine 
that  philosophy  coming  from  the  Tories- 
getting  somerthing  for  nothing. 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer,  Minister  of  Eco- 
nomics and  Intergovernmental  Affairs):  No 
wonder  the  member  smiles  when  he  says  that. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Pardon? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  No  wonder  the  member 
is  saying  those  things  with  a  smile. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  That's  be- 
cause he  likes  the  Treasurer. 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  member  for  York 
South  knows  that  what  he  is  saying  is  flim- 
flam. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Do  I?  Well,  the  Treasurer 
should  wait  until  I  have  laid  all  the  facts  on 
the  table  and  then  he  will  be  flim-flammed 
into  silence  and  perhaps  into  some  effort  to 
reply  substantively. 

As  I  was  saying,  the  hallmaric  of  the  1974 
budget  is  that  we  are  getting  something  for 
nothing— a  kind  of  philosophy  that  normally 
is  condemned  on  the  other  side  of  the  Hotise. 

For  example,  transit  fares  are  being  frozen; 
pensioners  are  getting  GAINS;  municipaHties 
are  being  revenue-shared;  not  to  mention  the 
housing  prices  stabilized— and  we  are  not 
paying  anything  for  it!  Tax  rates  are  not  be- 
ing changed  for  anybody  except  the  nasty 
speculators  and  foreigners  and  the  resources 
corporations,  who  supposedly  are  going  to  be 
taJced  until  they  beg  for  mercy. 

True  we  are  spending  $1  billion  more  this 
year— a  cool  billion  dollars  more— but  the 
speculation  tax,  mines  taxes  and  timber  royal- 
ties only  add  up  to  $150  million.  Where 
does  the  rest  of  the  money  come  from?  Why 
it's  collected  from  that  money  tree  that  the 
Treasurer  keeps  in  the  vault  in  the  Frost 
Building,  or  it's  financed  out  of  the  public 
debt  that  we  don't  have. 

We  don't  pay  taxes  to  the  "Ontari-ari-ari-o" 
government,  do  we  Mr.  Speaker?  We  pay 
taxes  to  the  greedy  "feds,'  and  the  kindly 
provincial  Treasurer  just  gives  us  more  and 
more  tax  credits  and  labels  it  on  the  tax 
forms  to  make  certain  that  he  gets  the  credit. 
And  just  to  make  sure,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  they 
don't  forget  it,  next  year  he  is  going  to  bestow 
the  goodies  all  by  himself  and  not  through 
the  federal  tax  system. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That  is  not  so. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Now  let's  take  a  look. 
Let's  take  a  look  at  how  the  Province  of 
Ontario  is  living  off  the  avails  of  inflation 
and  boasting  about  it  in  the  process.  You 
would  expect  that  kind  of  a  thing  from  the 
swinging  provincial  Treasurer. 

During  1974  to  1975,  Ontario's  revenue 
increase  is  forecast  at  $833  million.  That 
figure  breaks  down  as  follows:  15.7  per  cent 
is  $131  million  net  from  new  taxes  and 
royalties;  48.4  per  cent  is  the  $403  million 
from  inflation  and  the  sales  tax,  the  personal 
income  tax,  the  corporation  tax  and  LCBO 
profit;  13.14  per  cent  is  $112  million  from 
non-inflationary  expansion  of  the  tax  base; 
14.2  per  cent  is  $118  million  added  revenue 
from  the   federal   govermnent;   and  8.3   per 


1128 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cent  is  the  $69  million  from  interest  on  in- 
vestments. Thus  it  is  seen  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  largest  component,  48.4  per  cent— almost 
half  of  Ontario's  new  revenue  next  year— is  a 
windfall  from  inflation. 

Now,  one  or  two  of  the  components  of  that 
revenue  breakdown  that  I  have  just  given  you 
deserve  a  little  more  comment.  It's  interest- 
ing, for  example,  that  the  government  doesn't 
expect  to  increase  revenues  significantly 
through  inflation  in  the  corporate  income. 
Even  including  the  $75  million  payment  from 
the  federal  government  to  compensate  for  a 
federal  tax  concession  to  corporations,  the 
corporation  income  tax  will  yield  only  $41 
million  more  in  1974  to  1975  than  it  did  in 
1973-1974.  Part  of  the  explanation,  of  course, 
is  the  $21  million  in  tax  concessions  which 
were  granted  to  corporations  in  this  budget. 

Also,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  the  LCBO  profits  of  $312  million  for  the 
next  year  will  bring  in  more  revenue  than 
the  combined  total  of  the  speculation  tax,  the 
foreign  land  transfer  tax,  the  mines  profits 
tax,  all  the  timber  royalties  and  succession 
duties.  So  eat,  drink  and  be  merry,  for 
tomorrow  we  may  have  to  tax  Inco.  That's 
the  kind  of  approach  of  the  government  to- 
day. 

In  the  face  of  these  figures,  what  eflErontery 
it  is  for  the  provincial  Treasm-er  to  try  and 
kid  the  public  that  his  budget  is  anti-infla- 
tionary. Why  Mr.  Speaker,  fltai-flam  is  almost 
too  kind  a  comment. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It's  the 
La  Scala  budget 

Mr.  MacDonald:  La  Scalal 

Let  me  broaden  out  beyond  the  budget  for 
a  moment,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  consider  related 
activities  on  the  part  of  this  administration. 

Throughout  this  session  the  Davis  admin- 
istration has  sought  to  create  the  public  image 
of  an  all-out  fight  against  inflation.  Thus  we 
have  the  Throne  Speech,  and  I  quote: 

My  government  will  employ  all  practical 

means  at  its  disposal  to  alleviate  the  causes 

and  effects  of  inflation. 

And  now  in  the  budget,  I  quote: 

The  government  of  Ontario  is  willing  to 
use  every  practical  measure  within  its  con- 
stitutional jurisdiction  to  combat  inflation. 

Well  Mr.  Speaker,  it  simply  isn't  true.  Here 
we  have  the  flim-flam  artists  at  their  mis- 
leading best.  Admittedly  the  government  has 
done  some  things  to  alleviate  the  efi^ects  of 
inflation.  I  shall  deal  with  them  in  more 
detail   in   a  moment.    But  as   for   alleviating 


the  causes  of  inflation,  this  government  is 
guflty  of  an  almost  complete  cop-out.  It  at- 
tempts to  flim-flam  the  public  about  using 
all  practical  means  at  its  disposal,  "every 
practical  measure  within  its  constitutional 
jurisdiction,"  but  its  record  in  this  connection 
is  virtually  blank. 

I  dealt  with  this  to  some  extent  in  an 
abbreviated  contribution  to  the  Throne  Speech 
debate.  Just  let  me  recap  some  of  the  points 
I  made  then,  and  then  I  can  proceed. 

First,  since  last  summer's  public  furore 
over  food  prices,  the  government  has  sought 
to  create  a  public  image  of  great  concern. 
The  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Conmiercial 
Relations  (Mr.  Clement)  has  promised,  often 
in  tones  of  pained  belHgerence,  that  he 
would  bring  in  a  business  practices  Act  to 
prohibit  unfair  and  deceptive  practices;  give 
the  courts  power  to  rule  on  what  is  an 
unconscionable  profit;  explore  cease  and  de- 
sist orders  in  case  of  excessive  price  in- 
creases; arm  the  government  with  authority 
to  act  against  food  hoarding,  speculating, 
profiteering  and  fraud;  and  monitor  regional 
price  disparities. 

It  sounds  like  a  pretty  impressive  pro- 
gramme. But  after  months  of  huflBng  and 
puflSng  all  we  have  is  part  one  of  a  long- 
term  study.  The  minister  asserts  that  he  can 
do  nothing  until  he  gets  all  the  facts.  And 
he  stresses  how  hard  it's  going  to  be  to  get 
the  facts.  All  these  promises  were  at  least 
premature.  In  reality  they  were  flim-flam,  an 
illusion  of  action  where  there  is  no  action 
taking  place  at  all. 

In  a  second  area,  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  misrepresents 
the  picture  by  asserting  that  all,  or  at  least 
most,  of  the  consumer  price  increases  for 
food  are  going  back  to  the  farmer.  And 
heaven  knows  the  farmer  needs  them  after 
20  years  of  depressed  prices  between  1951 
and  1971.  Nobody  denies  that. 

But  the  primary  producer  represents  only 
20  per  cent  of  tfie  giant  food  industry.  A 
growing  number  of  middlemen,  ranging  from 
storage  to  transportation  to  processing  to 
retailing,  represent  the  remaining  80  per 
cent. 

The  food  processors,  for  example,  enjoyed 
an  81  per  cent  increase  in  profits  during  the 
last  quarter  of  1973,  as  compared  with  the 
final  quarter  of  1972.  The  supermarket  re- 
tailers enjoy  a  good  return  on  equity,  pub- 
licly disguised  as  only  one  per  cent  of  the 
consumer's  dollar;  to  which  is  added  a 
highly  wasteful  10  per  cent  in  advertising 
and  another  five  per  cent  in  gimmickry 
and  super-plush  quarters,  for  all  of  which 
the  consumer  pays. 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1129 


And  what  does  this  government  do  about 
these  middlemen  operations  which  cut  re- 
turns to  the  farmers  and  boost  costs  to  the 
consumers?  NothingI 

Well  that's  not  quite  right.  The  govern- 
ment is  never  completely  passive.  While 
conceding  that  they  don't  really  have  all  the 
facts,  their  spokesmen  nevertheless  con- 
tinuously defend  price  increases  by  the 
middlemen  saying  that  their  costs  are  going 
up  too.  There's  no  eflFort  to  find  out  whether 
the    price    increases    are    justified. 

For  example,  the  four  western  provinces, 
including  the  Tory  government  of  Peter 
Loughe^  in  Alberta,  have  set  up  price  re- 
view machinery  to  dig  out  the  facts  on  the 
two  major  farm  input  costs,  namely  fertilizer 
and  machinery.  But  this  government  does 
nothing.  Instead  it  hosts  an  exi)ensive  fer- 
tilizer conference  to  prove  what  everybody 
knew  beforehand,  that  fertilizer  is  in  short 
supply  and  that  the  oligopoly  of  the  industry 
is  capitalizing  on  the  situation  with  higher 
prices.  No  wonder  farm  leaders  in  the  OFA, 
the  NFU  and  the  Christian  Farmers'  Federa- 
tion unanimously  dismiss  the  whole  exercise 
as  a  whitewash,  as  reported  on  the  front- 
page news  story  of  Farm  and  Country. 

It  is  clearly  within  the  constitutional  juris- 
diction of  the  province,  first  to  investigate, 
and  second  to  control,  and  where  necessary 
roll  back,  prices  within  the  Province  of  On- 
taiio.  This  is  a  "practical"  means— that  word 
that  the  government  used  in  the  Throne 
Speech  and  the  budget— this  is  a  practical 
means  of  imposing  some  check  on  rising 
prices;  but  it  is  cavalierly  dismissed  by  this 
government  at  every  turn. 

All  of  which  underlines  a  third  area  for 
action,  a  prices  review  board,  either  on 
isolated  commodities  such  as  fertilizer  or 
farm  machinery  or  across  the  board. 

If  there  was  a  will,  this  government  could 
smoke  out  flagrant  and  unjustified  price  in- 
creases. There  is  a  way  to  do  it,  but  there  is 
no  will  on  the  part  of  this  government— and 
that's  our  problem. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  They  have  no 
sense  of  responsibility. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Why?  In  addition  to 
ha\ing  no  sense  of  responsibility,  their  lack 
of  responsibility  springs,  I  want  to  suggest, 
from  their  basic  philosophy.  This  government 
is  so  firmly  committed  to  a  doctrinaire  belief 
in  the  eflBcacy  of  the  free-market  operation 
that  it  seeks  one  excuse  after  another  to 
justify  its  inaction.  They  are  shirking  what 
is  not  only  a  clear  constitutional  responsi- 
bility but  an  obligation. 

As  a  result,  there  is  nobody  to  champion 
the   consumers,   except  a  minister  with   that 


name,  who  joins  the  provincial  Treasurer  as 
the  gold  dust  twins  of  the  flim-flam  circus. 
Well,  let  me  turn— he's  smiling;  mind  you, 
he  is  smiling,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South):  The  Min- 
ister of  Agriculture  and  Food  is  showing 
remarkable  restraint. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  It  isn't  easy- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  After  that  budget  and 
that  calculated  deception  of  the  people  of 
Ontario,  I  can  quite  understand  why  the 
minister  would  feel  a  little  conscience- 
stricken. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  No,  it  isn't  easy  to  smile 
while  the  member  is  on  his  feet  It  is  very 

difficult. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  However,  let  me  turn  to 

a  final  area  where  the  need  is  perhaps  im- 
mediately greatest  and  where  5ie  govern- 
ment has  a  mechanism  at  hand  that  could 
be  assigned  to  the  job,  and  where  the  Min- 
ister of  Energy  (Mr.  McKeough)  stubbornly 
refuses  to  do  anything  about  it.  I  refer  to 
the  prosx>ective  hike  in  energy  costs  from 
crude  oil. 

In  mid-May,  so  we  are  told,  gasoline  costs 
will  go  up  10  cents  a  gallon,  with  an  equiva- 
lent rise  for  home  fuel  oil.  For  every  cent  in- 
crease in  the  price  of  gasoline,  there  will  be 
$5.60  increase  in  the  cost  of  living  for  every 
Ontarian  on  an  average,  >*iiether  mey  own  a 
car  or  not  so  to  speak. 

If  the  increase  is  10  cents,  that  is  a  per 
capita  outlay  of  $56  a  year,  or  $224  for  an 
average  family  of  four.  This  government  as- 
serts that  seven  cents  of  that  increase  is 
justified  by  the  boost  in  crude  oil  to  $6.50  per 
barrel.  That  represents  a  cooi  $313  million 
more  from  the  consumers  of  Ontario. 

Does  the  government  have  the  facts  to  con- 
firm whether  that  seven  cents  is  justified?  No. 
They  continue  to  accept  the  ofl  companies' 
self-serving  statistics. 

Furthermore,  experts  in  Ottawa  estimate 
that  the  non-crude  increase  in  cost  would  be 
covered  by  another  half  cent  per  gallon.  But 
the  oil  companies  propose  to  cream  oflF  an 
extra  2%  cents  per  gallon  when  the  price  goes 
up  on  May  15.  That  extra  2%-cent  unjustified 
ripoff  represents  $14  for  each  man,  woman 
and  child  in  the  Provii»ce  of  Ontario,  or  a 
total  of  $112  million  a  year— well  over  one- 
haH  of  the  outlay  represented  by  the  govern- 
ment's much-vaunted  anti-inflation  measures 
in  this  budget. 

What  the  government  puts  in  one  pocket  of 
the  consumer,  all  the  while  preening  itself  as 


H30 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  champion  of  the  anti-inflation  fight,  it 
stands  idly  by  while  the  multinational  corpor- 
ations take  it  out  of  the  other  pocket. 

Are  there  practical  means  to  cope  with  this, 
Mr.  Speaker?  Is  it  within  the  province's  con- 
stitutional jurisdiction  to  do  anything  about 
gas  and  oil  prices?  Of  course  it  is.  As  the  lead- 
er of  the  New  Democratic  Party  pointed  out 
earlier  in  question  period,  Nova  Scotia  has 
just  proven  how  effective  corrective  actions 
can  be. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  That's  a 
good  Liberal  government. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Yes,  a  Liberal  government 
that  is  acting  out  of  character  for  the  Liberals. 
Show  me  another  one  that  is  doing  the  same 
thing. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It's  a  good  Liberal  gov- 
ernment. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  There  aren't  many  of  them 
around. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Does  the  hon.  member 
mean  that  if  a  Liberal  government  acts  out  of 
character  it  becomes  a  good  Liberal  govern- 
ment? Well,  I  will  reflect  on  that  one  tonight. 

Mr.  Ferrier:  There  are  not  many  Liberal 
governments  around  these  days. 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  think  there  are  just  as  many 
as  there  are  NDP  governments. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Down  in  the  Atlantic 
Provinces  last  fall,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Nova 
Scotia  Legislature  extended  the  powers  of 
the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Public  Utilities 
to  investigate  price  increases  and  to  impose 
a  price  rollback  where  the  increases  were  not 
justified. 

And  just  last  week,  following  February 
hearings,  that  Nova  Scotia  provincial  board 
forced  a  rollback  in  prices  on  Imperial  Oil; 
even  more,  reimbursements  of  the  overcharge 
to  the  consumers. 

In  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  age  of  miracles 
isn't  over.  Earlier  this  year,  in  face  of  an  in- 
vestigation that  was  only  pending,  the  Irving 
Oil  Company  voluntarily  rolled  back  one 
price  increase  and  reimbursed  its  consumers. 
That  Santa  Claus  role  on  the  part  of  K.  C. 
Irving  has  Maritimers  stfll  a  bit  aghast. 

Now  in  the  Ontario  Energy  Board  this  gov- 
ernment has  the  mechanism  for  price  review 
and  rollback.  All  we  need  to  do  is  what  they 
did  in  Nova  Scotia;  pass  the  necessary  amend- 
ment to  the  Act,  as  was  done  last  fall,  and 
grant  our  Energy  Board  those  powers. 


In  fact  last  June  the  hon.  member  for  Chat- 
ham-Kent (Mr.  McKeough)  reported  to  the 
Premier  that  this  expanded  role  for  the  En- 
ergy Board  should  be  studied  by  the  energy 
secretariat  which  his  report  was  proposing. 
He  pointed  to  the  obvious  anomaly  that  nat- 
ural gas  prices,  and  now  Hydro  prices,  are 
subject  to  review  by  the  Energy  Board;  so 
why  not  gasoline  and  oil  prices,  why  should 
they  be  exempted? 

The  Premier  has  made  excuses  that  oil 
companies  are  different.  They  deal  in  inter- 
provincial  and  international  trade,  one  of  the 
1,001  excuses.  But  insofar  as  they  operate 
in  Ontario  and  retail  to  Ontario  consumers, 
their  prices  are  subject  to  our  jurisdiction. 
Nova  Scotia  has  proven  what  everybody 
knew;  everybody,  that  is,  except  this  govern- 
ment. 

What  does  the  government  do?  It  simply 
ignores  the  $112  million  ripoff  scheduled  for 
commencement  on  May  15.  The  Ministry  of 
Energy  now  encompasses  the  energy  secre- 
tariat which  the  member  for  Chatham-Kent 
said  last  June  should  study  this  matter.  The 
member  for  Chatham-Kent  is  himself  the 
minister  presiding  over  that  secretariat.  But 
nothing  happens.  The  silence  is  deafening. 
Ensconced  high  atop  the  Sunoco  building, 
symbolizing  the  Ministry  of  Energy's  cosy 
relationship  with  the  oil  companies,  in  spite 
of  the  odd  rather  belligerent  speech  with  re- 
gard to  them,  the  Minister  of  Energy  sits  idly 
by  while  the  consumers  are  being  subjected 
to  another  multi-million  dollar  fleecing. 

Well  sitting  idly  by  maybe  isn't  quite 
accurate,  Mr.  Speaker.  For  the  Minister  of 
Energy  never  sits.  He's  a  very  energetic 
person,  delivering  a  speech  a  day  on  prob- 
lems, domestic  and  international.  In  fact  what 
he  has  done  is  to  join  that  chorus  of  flim-flam 
artists  posing  as  champions  of  anti-inflation 
measures  while  steadfastly  refusing  to  use  all 
of  those  practical  measures  to  which  other 
provinces  are  now  resorting.  Meanwhile  the 
Minister  of  Energy  keeps  singing  his  siren 
song.  It's  the  solo  effort,  highlighting  the 
continual  performance  of  other  Davis  flim- 
flam artists. 

On  the  one  hand  he  laments  the  oligopolic 
practices  of  the  international  oil  cartel  of  the 
Middle  East,  which  as  the  minister  says 
engaged  in  the  classical  monopolistic  prac- 
tice of  creating  artificial  shortages  and  then 
escalating  prices. 

But  meanwhile  he  ignores  the  documented 
testimony  of  congressional  investigations  in 
Washington  that  these  same  oil  companies  in 
the  Middle  East  acted  in  concert  with  the 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1131 


"Sheiks  of  Araby"  to  help  boost  oil  prices,  and 
therefore  their  own  profits.  He  chooses  to 
ignore  the  operations  of  those  self  same  oil 
companies,  Canadian  subsidiaries  of  the  inter- 
national cartel,  operating  in  precisely  the 
same  manner  back  here  in  Canada. 

Consider,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  testimony  of 
the  chief  spokesman  for  Imperial  Oil  before 
the  hearings  of  the  Nova  Scotia  Board  of 
Commissioners  of  Public  Utilities  as  carried 
on  the  front  page  of  the  Feb.  16  Globe  and 
Mail.  And  I  quote: 

"Pricing  is  not  a  cost-plus  formula.  We 
don't  determine  in  our  pricing  the  cost  of 
our  product,  we  get  what  we  can  from 
the  tone  of  the  market."  The  Imperial  Oil 
spokesman  told  the  hearing  that  pricing 
involves  a  great  deal  of  judgement.  "It's 
one  of  the  great  mystics  of  our  industry." 

It  surely  is  one  of  the  greatest  mystics  of 
their  industry.  But  let  me  continue;  he  elab- 
orates on  the  mystic  mildly. 

At  another  point  he  said:  "Costs  are 
only  one  consideration  in  pricing  policy. 
And  if  they  go  down  that  doesnt  neces- 
sarily mean  that  the  prices  of  fuel,  for 
example,  will  go  down.  Our  ability  to  move 
prices  is  not  our  costs.  [So  spake  Imperial 
Oil.]  We  make  our  price  increases  funda- 
mentally on  whether  market  conditions  will 
allow  us." 

In  other  words,  we  have  been  given  by  the 
oil  industry  here  in  Canada— subsidiaries  of 
that  international  cartel  that  the  Minister  of 
Energy  has  spent  so  much  time  chastizing— 
an  updating  of  that  illuminating,  refreshingly 
frank  statement  of  the  late  J.  S.  MacLean  of 
Canada  Packers  some  years  ago  when  he  said: 
"We  pay  the  farmers  as  little  as  possible  and 
we  charge  the  consumers  as  much  as  the 
traflBc  will  bear.  That  is  business." 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  In  1948.  I  remember  it 
well. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  In  1948,  was  it?  Maybe 
the  Treasurer  wrote  the  speech  for  him. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Deans:  It's  in  keeping  with  the  Treas- 
urer's beliefs. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Quite  true,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Deacon:  What  did  the  member  do 
when  he  sold  his  old  car  and  bought  a  new 
one? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  But  where  are  the  cham- 
pions   of    the    consumers,    to    protect    them 


against  this  open,  blatant  exploitation?  The 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations is  studying  the  problem. 

Mr.  Deans:  Does  the  member  for  York 
Centre  believe  that  is  the  right  way  to  do 
business? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  hon.  member  for 
York  Centre  can  have  his  speech  later.  He 
can  speak  later.  He  should  not  try  to  run 
interference  as  though  he  was  back  in  the 
leadership  race  or  something  like  that. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  aggravation  by  the  NDP 
House  leader  is  causing  that. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  was  asking  where  were 
the  champions  of  the  consumers  in  Ontario. 
The  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  is  studying  that  problem  and  that 
can  be  a  life-long  pursuit.  The  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  is  holding  national  con- 
ferences to  document  the  obvious.  The  Min- 
ister of  Energy  is  high  atop  the  Sunoco  build- 
ing preparing  his  next  speech— 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul^ 
ture  and  Food):  Why  not  tell  us  what  the 
western  provinces  are  going  to  do  about  the 
report  on  their  investigation  into  the  fertilizer 
industry? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  We  will  find  out.  They 
are  in  the  process  of  doing  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  They  have  had  the 
report  for  a  month  and  haven't  moved  an  inch 
on  it;  not  an  inch.  Now  let's  be  reasonable. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  At  least  they  got  the 
facts  out  and  the  minister  will  find  out  they 
are  going  to  do  something  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  That  is  great.  We  will 
wait  with  bated  breath,  but  not  holding  our 
breath— that  wouldn't  be  safe. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  As  I  said,  the  Minister  of 
Energy  is  high  atop  the  Sunoco  building  pre- 
paring his  next  speech  for  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  in  Chatham  or  Whitby  or  Kapus- 
kasing.  And  where  are  the  provincial  Treasurer, 
the  Premier,  the  whole  government?  They  are 
handing  back  a  little  of  the  people's  own 
money  to  ease  the  pain  and  suffering  caused 
by  inflationary  prices,  while  doing  nothing  to 
check  the  causes  of  the  disease  itself.  It  is  as 
impressive  an  array  of  flim-flam  artists  as  this 
province  has  ever  seen. 

Well,  so  much  for  the  government's  own 
sins  of  omission.  I  suppose  you  can't  really  be 


1132 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


pinned  for  sins  of  omission  as  eflFectively  or 
as  solidly  as  the  sins  of  commission,  so  let's 
consider  them  specifically  in  this  budget. 

The  simple  truth  is  that  the  average  Ontario 
family  is  worse  off  because  of  this  budget. 
Now  that  doesn't  square  with  the  govern- 
ment's efforts  at  image  making,  so  I  would 
like  to  analyse  the  impact  of  the  average 
family  to  document  my  conclusions. 

There  are  two  identifiable  areas  of  savings 
brought  on  by  this  budget. 

First,  there  are  the  tax  credits.  Despite  the 
budget  claim  that  the  property  tax  credit  will 
be  doubled  from  $90  to  $180;  and  that  that 
"will  more  than  offset  the  increase  in  heating 
bills  for  these  low-income  families  and  indivi- 
duals least  able  to  bear  such  a  cost  increase", 
changes  in  this  will  do  little  for  the  average 
family— two  adults  and  two  children  under  16 
on  the  average  family  income  of  approxi- 
mately $12,000-in  Ontario.  Table  9  on  page 
A- 11  shows  that  such  a  family  will  actuaUy 
receive  total  tax  credits  of  $124,  an  increase 
of  $18  over  the  1973  figure.  There  is  the 
average  Ontario  family.  Its  tax  credits,  in 
total,  go  up  from  $106  to  $124. 

Second,  sales  tax  exemptions:  The  average 
family  will  save  about  $22  in  1974  from  the 
added  exemptions.  This  is  calculated  by 
dividing  the  $43  million  which  the  govern- 
ment itself  expects  to  lose  by  the  Ontario 
population  of  eight  million  and  multiplying 
by  four  for  an  average  family. 

There  will  be  an  additional  saving  to  public 
transit  users  of  between  $30  and  $40  for  each 
daily  commuter.  This  will  be  limited,  how- 
ever, to  only  some  residents— some  residents, 
not  all— of  six  cities.  Famihes  with  no  transit 
users  in  those  cities  and  all  families  living  in 
other  municipalities  will  have  no  saving  at  all. 

Let's  turn  now  to  expenses  brought  on  by 
this  budget.  Estimated  increases  in  the  cost 
of  heating  oil  and  gasoline  may  mean  an 
increase  of  approximately  $185  per  family. 
On  increased  beer  prices,  assuming,  I  suppose 
this  is  a  rash  assumption,  a  case  of  24  every 
two  weeks,  that  would  be  an  increase— 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That  is  quite  a  conserva- 
tive assumption. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Always  in  criticizing  this 
government,  I  err  on  the  conservative  side. 
That  would  be  an  increase  of  $13  a  year  per 
family,  a  sizable  contribution  to  the  extra 
$31  million  of  LCBO  revenue  as  shown  in 
the  budget. 

Finally,  municipal  governments  are  ex- 
pected to   experience   a  financing   deficit   of 


$182  million,  of  which  the  government  will 
provide  only  $124  million. 

If  I  may  just  interject  here,  Mr.  Speaker, 
for  years  the  government  has  been  arguing— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Just  listen  for  a  moment— 
that  the  increase  in  grants  to  the  mimicipalities 
exceeded  the  increases  the  municipalities  were 
going  to  experience  so  that  their  mill  rates 
could  come  down.  The  government  boasts 
about  the  extent  to  which  they  have  come 
down.  Take  note  di  the  fact  that  we've  come 
to  the  end  of  that  happy  trail.  This  year  in- 
augurates, and  it  was  backed  up  verbally,  the 
fact  that  the  government  is  not  now  going  to 
cover  the  whole  cost  of  the  increase;  it  is 
going  to  leave  some  of  it  to  the  municipalities. 
In  fact,  in  the  coming  year  the  difference  of 
$58  million  will  probably  mean  an  increase  of 
3.2  mills. 

Hon,  Mr.  White:  The  member  is  overlook- 
ing the  tax  balance. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well- 
Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  No,  he  has 
taken  those  into  account. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I've  taken  those  into 
account  in  another  coimection. 

Assuming  the  tax  rate  is  100  mills,  roughly 
the  current  rate  in  Metro,  the  increase  on  a 
house  assessed  at  $5,000  would  be  $16. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  amount  for  the  increase  in 
heating  oil,  the  increase  in  beer,  the  increase 
in  the  mill  rate,  totals  $214  extra  expenses 
brought  on  by  this  budget.  What  is  the  net 
result?  Tax  credit  and  expanded  sales  tax 
exemptions  will  mean  a  saving  of  $40  for  a 
family  of  four  living  on  the  average  Ontario 
family  income  of  $12,000.  For  those  living  in 
selective  cities  where  the  transit  subsidy  will 
be  effective  the  saving  could  be  up  to  ?80. 

However,  provisions  in  the  budget  regard- 
ing fuel,  municipal  taxation  and  sundry  items 
such  as  LCBO  profits  will  result  in  further 
expenses  which  will  far  exceed  the  savings. 

There  are  other  items  which  mi^t  be  in- 
cluded in  both  saviiigs  and  expense  categories, 
such  as  the  ripple  effect  of  fuel  price  increases 
throughout  the  economy,  but  those  listed  are 
the  most  identifiable.  Therefore  we  come  to 
this  overall  conclusion.  For  those  families 
benefiting  from  the  transit  fare  increase,  ex- 
penses will  exceed  savings  by  $134  per  family. 
That's  what  this  budget  costs  the  average 
family  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1133 


Mr.  Deans:  Shame. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  And  for  other  families- 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That  is  absolute  non- 
sease. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  And  for  other  families 
who  don't  get  the  public  transit,  the  expenses 
will  exceed  the  savings  by  $174. 

In  short,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Treasurer  has 
fiddled  around  with  some  taxes.  He  has 
focused  some  assistance  on  worthy  groups 
such  as  senior  citizens  but  the  average  On- 
tario family  is  definitely  worse  oflF  and  no 
amount  of  flim-flamming  can  disguise  that 
fact. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  The  meniber  is  definitely 
mistaken. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  EHd  the  provincial  Trea- 
surer really  have  something  to  say? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  He  has  carefully  over- 
looked the  increase  in  per  household  incomes, 
which  will  approximate  10  per  cent 

Mr.  Deans:  What  is  he  talking  about? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  I'm  talking  about— 

Mr.  Deans:  He  doesn't  even  imderstand. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I'm  talking  about  the 
impact  of  the  budget  in  terms  of  the  greater 
expenses  and  of  the  benefits  it  included.  I 
come  up  with  the  figure  that  for  the  average 
family  at  least  $134  and  perhaps  $174  more 
is  what  he  is  going  to  have  to  pay.  He  is 
going  to  be  that  much  worse  o£F;  and  let's 
have  some  challenge  of  those  figures  instead 
of  some  irrelevancies  such  as  the  Treasurer  is 
now  bringing  in. 

Now  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  consider  the  one 
group,  the  senior  citizens,  where  the  govern- 
ment did  belatedly  move  in  the  buaget  to 
provide  more  adequate  income.  We  have 
another  alphabet  soup  name— GAINS— On- 
tario's guaranteed  annual  income  system. 

Mr.  Deans:  It  reflects  on  dog  food.  That  is 
what  most  of  them  were  eating. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Gainsburgers?  Is  that  where 
the  Treasm-er  got  the  idea? 

Mr.  A.  Camithers  (Durham):  More  water 
for  the  windmill. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  In  several  important  re- 
spects, Mr.  Speaker,  Ontario's  GAINS  pro- 
gramme is  cribbed  from  the  BC  income  plan. 
I  notice  the  minister  doesn't  deny  that.  One 
can  be  thankful  that  Ontario  has  finally  at 


least  pointed  itself  in  the  right  directkm.  The 
provincial  Treasurer  doesn't  publicly  admit,  of 
course,  that  the  BG  plan  was  the  source  of 
Ontario's  inspiration  or  challenee;  but  I  was 
interested  to  learn  from  the  meaia  representa- 
tives that  in  the  private  briefings,  ministry 
spokesmen  were  at  great  pains  to  trv  to  con- 
vince them  that  Ontario's  paocage  of 
GAINS— prescription  drugs,  property  tax  re- 
bate, et  all— was  actually  more  generous  than 
that  of  BC. 


for  once  it  will  have  to  be  ad- 
mitted, even  by  the  cabinet  spokesmen,  that 
Ontario  is  just  catching  up  on  some  other 
jurisdiction  in  Canada  and  the  western  world 
and  the  imiverse.  For  while  emulation  is  the 
highest  form  of  praise,  there  are  significant 
problems  and  omissions  in  Ontario's  GAINS. 

In  the  first  place,  the  age  of  eligibility  is  65 
while  in  BC  their  resource  dividend  made  it 
possible  for  them  to  lower  the  age  to  60. 
Such  a  change  in  Ontario  would  add  another 
50,000  people  to  the  relatively  limited  num- 
ber of  30,000  who  are  going  to  benefit  in 
the  first  instance  from  GAINS. 

Secondly,  the  budget  provides  only  for 
income  levels  that  will  be  raised  in  the  tutiure 
to  compensate  for  increased  costs  of  living. 
Why  this  chiselling  approach?  Why  not  a 
built-in  escalator  clause,  which  has  become 
accepted  as  the  only  fair  way  to  maintain 
purcnasing  power  in  pensions  or  things  of 
this  nature?  Is  the  government  reserving 
piecemeal  handouts  to  be  made  on  the  appro- 
priate political  occasions,  say  just  before  the 
next  election?  Is  that  what  they  have  in 
mind? 

Thirdly,  residency  requirements  are  estab- 
lished for  GAINS-five  years  in  Canada  or 
one  in  Ontario.  BC  has  no  such  requirement 
And  what  is  more  important,  the  Canada 
Assistance  Plan  specifically  excludes  any  fed- 
eral sharing  in  the  funding  where  residency 
requirements  are  imposed.  Has  Ontario  work- 
ed out  a  special  deal  with  the  "feds"?  Or 
is  it  just  a  stupid  way  of  cutting  Ontario  out 
of  this  federal  source  of  funding  so  that 
government  spokesmen  will  have  something 
more  to  complain  about  with  Ottawa? 

I  don't  want  to  sound  ungenerous,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  my  reaction  to  the  government's 
move  in  the  right  direction  by  providing  more 
adequate  income  for  our  senior  citizens,  but 
last  December,  when  we  were  debating  the 
$50  Christmas  bonus  which  "Santa  Glaus 
Davis"  handed  out-and  incidentally  that  $17 
million  one-shot  present  is  now  going  to  be 
eliminated  by  or  absorbed  in  the  $75  million 
spent  on   GAINS-there  was  a  bewildering 


1134 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


array  of  excuses  from  the  government  side  as 
to  why  they  could  do  no  more. 

They  ranged  from  the  fatuous  comments 
of  the  hon.  member  for  Algoma  (Mr.  Gilbert- 
son)  that  the  senior  citizens  didn't  want  the 
bonus  and  would  hand  it  back;  or  that  their 
admiring  sons,  daughters  and  grandchildren 
would  prefer  to  look  after  the  grandparents; 
to  the  more  carefully  worded  statement  of 
cabinet  spokesmen  that  it  was  not  in  the 
government's  priorities  at  that  time. 

Well,  we're  glad  that  it  has  now  come  into 
the  government's  list  of  higher  priorities— with 
at  least  a  beginning  on  what  is  going  to  be- 
come a  basic  social  security  measure  of  the 
future.  And  once  again,  the  NDP  has  pro- 
vided the  ideas  and  the  goading  to  leaven 
the  stale  loaf  of  so-called  Tory  compassion. 

Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  turn 
now  to  the  two  areas  of  tax  increases:  The 
new  speculation  tax  and  the  land  transfer 
tax.  Clearly,  the  goverrmient  deemed  them 
to  be  of  major  public  image-making  potential. 

First,  there  is  the  land  speculation  tax,  and 
particularly  its  influence  on  housing.  I  am 
not  going  to  go  into  the  kind  of  detail  the 
hon.  Minister  of  Revenue  was  expressing  hope 
for  earlier  this  afternoon  so  he  can  be  guided 
towards  bringing  in  an  effective  bill;  I  think 
the  appropriate  time  to  deal  with  that  is  on 
the  bill.  I  want  to  try  to  look  at  it  in  terms 
of  the  overall  impact  on  policy,  and  particu- 
larly housing  policy. 

Clearly,  the  government  regarded  its  50 
per  cent  land  speculation  tax  as  the  headline- 
grabber  of  the  budget.  But  I  venture  the 
prediction  that  it  will  be  the  prize  example 
of  flim-flamming  in  a  budget  which  is  replete 
with  it. 

In  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  rather  inter- 
ested to  note  on  the  day  of  the  budget,  that 
among  the  material  distributed  to  the  media 
was  a  picture  of  a  baby  with  his  hands  to 
his  head  and  his  tongue  out,  screaming, 
"Oops"  or  "Aah."  And  the  cutline  was,  "Fifty 
per  cent?!" 

Apparently  the  government  and  the  whiz 
kids  in  the  ministry  had  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  this  depicted  what  they  deemed 
to  be  the  public  reaction— one  of  startled  sur- 
prise. Imagine,  a  50  per  cent  tax  on  land 
speculation!  Imagine  it.  Well,  it's  flim-flam, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  tax,  so  the  pro- 
vincial Treasurer  argues,  can  be  judged  in 
advance  by  the  fact  that  it  will  result  in  only 
$25  million  of  revenue.  The  argument  is  that 
it's  going  to  be  so  effective  there  will  be  no 


speculation,    no    gains    made,    and   therefore 
very  little  revenue  will  come  in. 

Well  Mr.  Speaker,  that's  as  self-serving  a 
statement  as  Ive  ever  heard.  It  assumes  the 
tax  will  check  speculation  so  effectively  that 
there  won't  be  revenue.  But  bear  in  mind 
that  most  of  the  major  developers  have  made 
about  $75  million  each  in  the  last  year  or  so. 
So  the  proposition  of  $25  million  coming  in 
as  the  whole  take  from  this  tax  is  really 
rather  picayune. 

In  fact,  there  are  so  many  exemptions 
granted  and  so  many  potential  loopholes  in 
this  tax  that  the  limited  amount  of  revenue 
will  be  a  measure  of  its  ineffectiveness,  not 
of  its  effectiveness. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  That's 
right. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  lawyers  are  going  to 
have  Roman  holiday,  and  the  developers  will 
still  be  laughing  all  the  way  to  the  bank.  In 
fact,  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  new  tax  is 
confirmed  by  the  relative  silence  with  which 
it  has  been  accepted  by  thoise  who  were  sup- 
posed to  be  victimized  by  it. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  He  is 
right  on. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  provincial  Treasurer 
recognizes  its  likely  ineffectiveness  himself.  A 
number  of  times  since  the  budget  he's  re- 
vealed his  basic  concern  by  blustering  away 
at  the  developers.  "If  these  present  proposals 
don't  do  the  trick,"  says  he,  "then  the  govern- 
ment will  resort  to  something  else  that  will  do 
it." 

There  is  also  the  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of 
the  incidence  of  the  tax.  Will'  it  be  passed 
on?  Of  course,  it's  going  to  be  passed  on.  Only 
a  market  that  is  firm  enough  to  resist  upward 
pressure  will  stop  that  tax  being  passed  on, 
and  the  continuing  inadequacies  of  the  gov- 
ernment's housing  programme  will  keep  hous- 
ing in  such  short  supply  as  to  keep  the  market 
bullish. 

In  fact,  the  exemptions  are  so  wide-ranging 
they're  almost  certain  to  guarantee  that 
speculative  profits  will  continue  to  be  built 
into  land  and  housing  prices. 

Undeveloped  land  and  properties  on  which 
the  tax  would  apply  will  simply  not  be  sold 
until  some  loophole  in  the  Act  or  its  regula- 
tions can  be  found  to  provide  a  way  out.  The 
net  result  will  be  to  slow  up  development 
at  a  time  when  the  government  contends  that 
the  overall  objective  of  its  policy  is  to  ac- 
celerate development. 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1135 


As  for  the  land  transfer  tax,  on  the  surface 
there  does  not  appear  to  be  as  many  loop- 
holes or  exemptions.  But  when  the  lawyers 
ha\e  worked  it  over,  it  will  be  interesting  to 
see  how  much  of  the  foreign  takeover  of 
Ontario  housing  property  and  land  will  have 
been  avoided.  Time  alone  will  tell  the  tale, 
so  for  the  moment  I'm  simply  going  to  reassert 
my  doubts. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Why 
doesn't  the  government  adopt  the  select  com- 
mittee report? 

Mr.  Camithers:  The  hon.  member  always 
was  a  doubtful  cuss. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Right.  I  was  doubtful  of 
the  energy  tax  last  year.  And  one  minute  later 
the  hon.  member  became  doubtful. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  basic  problem,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  what  the  government  is  at- 
tempting to  do  in  this  is  to  regulate  behaviour 
by  a  tax.  And  quite  frankly,  there  is  a  wealth 
of  experience  to  indicate  that  is  not  an  eflFec- 
tive  approach. 

As  the  minister  himself  confesses,  if  we 
attempt  to  regulate  behaviour  by  a  tax  it's 
going  to  take  us  about  two  or  three  years 
to  be  able  to  build  a  tax  that  is  effective. 
And  this  is  the  dilemma  that  the  minister 
faces  at  the  present  time,  of  bringing  in  a 
bill  in  which  he  is  getting  advice  from  all 
quarters.  He  is  not  going  to  get  a  conclHisive 
amount  of  advice  so  that  he  can  have  the  best 
possible  bill.  He  is  just  going  to  rush  the 
thing  through  knowing  that  six  months  from 
now,  in  the  fall  or  next  year,  we  are  going 
to  revamp  it,  and  hopefully,  two  or  three 
years  from  now,  the  minister  might  have 
some  idea  of  how  a  bill  could  be  e£Fective 
to  regulate  behaviour  through  taxes. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Civens  (York-Forest  HQl):  But 
he's  showing  us  he's  doing  something.  He's 
showing  that  he's  doing  something,  that's  fair 
enough. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well  that's  the  whole 
point,  that's  the  flim-flam. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  doesn't  he  adopt  the 
select  committee  report? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That's  the  flim-flam,  be- 
cause he  is  not  going  to  be  doing  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  don't  those  people  adopt 
the  select  committee  report?  The  Minister  of 
Housing  (Mr.  Handleman)  was  on  it. 


Mr.   MacDonald:   May  I  tay  to  the  hon. 
member  for  York-Forest  Hill,  the  overall  ef- 
fect of  these  taxes  will  be  to  consolidate  the 
speculative  profits  of  the  past- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  —into  the  land  and  hous- 
ing prices,  while  giving  no  assurance  that 
the  speculative  profits  of  the  future  are  going 
to  be  checked. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  And  that  adds  up  to 
nothing— nothing. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Once  again,  we  are  back 
to  the  unbelievable  proportions  of  the  flim- 
flamming  in  this  budget  Here  where  the 
government  is  presumably  coming  to  grips 
with  perhaps  the  most  outrageous  manifesta- 
tion of  inflation,  it  has  officially  embedded 
those  speculative  profits  in  today's  prices  and 
it  has  given  no  real  assurance  that  those 
prices  won't  continue  in  the  future.  All  this 
from  a  provincial  Treasurer  who  poses  as  the 
white  knight  challenging  the  rampaging 
forces  of  inflation.  You  know,  Mr.  Speaker, 
it's  really  quite  a  joke  if  it  weren't  such  a 
serious  matter. 

However,  let  me  get  back  to  the  important 
question  of  housing  policy,  which  is  so 
affected  by  this.  Presmnably  diese  taxes  were 
simply  a  means  to  certain  ends,  namely  the 
maximization  of  property  holdings,  chiefly 
residential  property,  in  Canadian  hands. 

Interestingly  enough  neither  Comay  nor 
any  of  that  rapid  succession  of  ministers 
responsible  for  housing  gave  any  attention  to 
speculators  as  role  players  in  the  housing 
crisis.  If  they  did,  it  was  not  done  publicly. 
Suddenly  the  government  has  identified 
speculators  as  the  bad  guys.  The  next  step 
is  to  convince  the  public  that  the  bad  guys 
are  the  cause  of  the  problem;  presimiably 
that  will  be  done  through  the  new  Minister 
of  Housing,  backed  by  the  provincial  Treas- 
urer and  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  And  hav- 
ing convinced  the  public  the  speculators  arc 
a  major  cause  of  rapid  inflation  of  housing 
prices,  the  government  has  now  unveiled  the 
speculation  tax  as  the  solution  to  the  prob- 
lem. 

As  I  have  already  suggested,  experience  is 
likely  to  prove  that  solution  to  be  ineffective, 
and  therefore  the  real  bad  guy  emerges  as 
this  government— this  government. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 


1136 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  the  bad  guy  that  has 
brought  in  taxation  measures,  frankly 
accepting  and  consolidating  the  scandalous 
inflation  of  the  past  year,  as  well  as  giving 
no  assurance  of  it  being  halted  in  the  ibture. 

But  even  more  critical,  all  the  statements 
of  the  new  Minister  of  Housing,  vague  and 
vulnerable  as  they  are,  give  no  assurance 
that  the  overall  result  will  be  any  significant 
increase  in  the  new  stock  of  housing. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right. 

Mr.  MacDonald  Overall  housing  starts  are 
down.  The  government  is  playing  at  the 
age-old  game  of  housing  by  headlines  and 
you  can  t  live  in  a  headline. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Givens:  The  Minister  of  Revenue 
should  have  stayed  in  bed. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Since  the  government  has 
sat  idly  by  for  so  long  while  housing  costs 
have  zoomed  beyond  the  reach  of  an  ever- 
growing majority  of  our  people,  it  is  left 
with  only  one  alternative,  a  massive- 
Mr.  Martel:  Resign! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well  yes,   I  suppose  on 
second  thought- 
Mr.  Martel:  Resignl 

Mr.  MacDonald:  —on  second  thought, 
that's  better.  But  for  the  moment  I  was 
going  to  be  constructive  on  the  policy  point 
of  view. 

What  this  government  has  got  to  do  is  to 
move  into  a  massive  public  housing  pro- 
gramme such  as  it  has  never  even  dreamed 
of  considering  in  the  past.  Only  in  that  way 
is  it  going  to  be  able  to  take  the  upward 
pressure  oflF  the  housing  market. 

For  example,  it's  significant  to  note  that 
in  1971,  again  the  last  year  for  which  we 
have  figures,  the  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
owned  only  0.65  per  cent— less  than  one  per 
cent— of  the  province's  housing  stock,  and 
rented  only  5.13  per  cent  of  it.  Compare 
that,  for  example,  with  the  situation  which 
has  traditionally  existed  in  Europe.  More 
than  25  per  cent  of  Britain's  housing  stock 
is  rented  from  local  public  housing  au- 
thorities. In  fact  that  is  a  low  estimate  of 
the  total  government  involvement,  since  it 
covers  only  public  housing  and  in  addition 
there  is  government  assistance  for  co-op  and 
other  kinds  of  housing  authorities. 

In  other  words,  added  to  whatever  this  gov- 
ernment may  do  by  way  of  encouraging  the 
private  sector,  this  govenmient  should  set 
itself  the  target  of  building  from  25  to  40  per 


cent  of  the  housing  stock  of  this  province 
through  the  OHC.  Olily  in  this  way  can  hous- 
ing be  re-geared  to  income  because  it  has 
gotten  away  beyond  income  for  the  majority 
of  our  people.  Only  in  this  way  can  the 
market  be  cooled'  suflBciently  to  dampen  the 
fires  of  inflation. 

An  hon.  member:  Right  on. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  time  has  come,  Mr. 
Spedcer,  to  quit  boasting  that  the  OHC  has 
a  larger  housing  stock  than  all  the  other 
provinces  put  together.  That  may  be  true, 
but  it  is  irrelevant  and  it  does  nothing  either 
to  acknowledge  or  to  meet  a  need!  that  is 
growing  greater  every  day. 

Now,  let  me  turn  to  the  second'  tax  where 
the  government  has  felt  that  it  had  reial  poten- 
tial for  image  making,  namely  the  new  re- 
sources taxes. 

Following  the  budget,  the  newspaper  headi- 
hnes  spoke  of  "heavy  new  taxes  on  the 
mining  industry."  Well,  let's  get  this  picture 
back  into  perspective,  back  in'  touch  with 
reality. 

The  new  mining  revenue  is  forecast  at  a 
mere  $50  million.  That  means,  with  this 
added  contribution  of  the  mining  industry,  as 
a  percentage  of  total  provindal  revenues, 
their  share  will  rise  from  1.1  per  cent  last 
year  to  1.6  per  cent  this  year. 

(This  government  has  traditionally  kept  the 
profits  of  mining  companies  shrouded  in 
secrecy.  It's  all  part  of  their  cosy  relationship 
with  the  industry.  But  Ontario  s  production 
represents  44  per  cent  of  our  national  out- 
put and  on  the  relatively  safe  assumption  that 
Ontario's  mining  profits  would  be  at  least  44 
per  cent  of  the  total,  the  figure!  of  $425 
million  for  Ontario  can  be  ded'uced  from  the 
Statistics  Canada  information'. 

But  that  figure,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  for  1970- 
the  last  year  tor  which  statistics  are  available. 
Let's  remind  ourselves  that  the  provincial 
Treasurer  reports  that  Ontario's  revenues  from 
the  mines  profits  tax  doubled  in  the  past  year 
from  $20  million  to  $45  million,  and  one  can, 
therefore,  assiune  that  Ontario's  mining  profits 
have  gone  up  from  $425  million  in  1970  to 
about  $900  million-  in  1973. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  Ontario's  mines  profits 
tax  revenues  represent  approximately  five  per 
cent  of  the  industry's  actual  profits.  And  since 
the  revenues  for  1974  are  forecast  at  $88 
million,  that  will  be  approximately  10  per 
cent  of  the  total  profits,  assuming  that  they 
hold  at  the  1973  level. 

So  the  government,  despite  its  boost  of 
doubhng  the  tax  on  mines,  is  still  getting  only 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1137 


an  estimated  10  per  cent  of  the  profits  een- 
erated  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  Well  let's 

fet  that  into  perspective,  Mr.  Speaker.  Just 
ow  light  that  tax  burden  is  can  be  judged 
by  comparisons  with  other  industries  reported 
in  the  taxation  statistics  of  Statistics  Canada. 

The  1970  figures  revealed  that  the  taxable 
income  of  the  metal  mining  industry  was  only 
23.5  per  cent  of  its  book  profits  before  taxes. 
The  taxable  income  of  mineral  fuels  was  even 
worse,  only  3.1  per  cent  of  book  profits- 
something  the  Minister  of  Energy  should  bear 
in  mind. 

By  comparison,  manufacturing  has  a  tax- 
able income  of  64.3  per  cent  of  book  profits, 
and  the  wholesale  and  the  retail  trade  about 
84  per  cent  of  book  profits.  Mining  was  only 
23.5.  No  wonder  that  the  Globe  and  Mail  in 
its  lead  editorial  of  April  3  designated  the 
mining  industry  as,  and  I  quote:  "an  in- 
creasingly likely  candidate  for  a  greater  share 
of  the  tax  burden."  And  it  added  that  while 
"the  provinces  with  NDP  governments  have 
moved  first  and  farthest"  in  correcting  this 
situation,  all  governments  whatever  their 
ideology  are  going  to  be  forced  to  move  in 
the  same  direction. 

Of  course,  in  general  terms  there  is  nothing 
new  in  this.  It  is  the  NDP's  familiar  corporate 
ripofF  theme  in  the  tax  fields.  Nowhere  is  it 
more  flagrant  than  in  the  resources  indus- 
tries. The  point  that  shouldn't  be  missed  in 
Ontario's  moves  in  this  year's  budget  is  that 
that  ripoJff  continues  with  only  marginal  reme- 
diation. The  government  has  taken  a  little 
here  in  taxes,  but  granted  a  little  there,  so 
that  the  burden  is   only  marginally  greater. 

For  example,  the  exemption  levels  have 
been  doubled  in  mining  from  $50,000  to 
$100,000.  This  simply  means  a  tax  saving  to 
small  companies  with  profits  just  under  $100,- 
000  or  15  per  cent  of  the  added  $50,000 
exemption.  In  other  words,  a  tax-saving  of 
about  $7,500. 

For  example,  while  there  has  been  a  dis- 
allowance of  the  deductions  of  resources 
taxes  in  cal^culatkig  income  taxes  and  an 
end  to  the  three-year  holiday  for  new  mines 
and  a  repeal  of  the  mine  and  mill  allow- 
ances in  computing  capital  taxes,  this  has 
been  significantly  compensated  for  by  an  ex- 
tension of  the  accelerated  depreciation  privi- 
leges. 

This  raises  the  whole  question  of  the  gov- 
ernment opting  for  a  mines  profits  tax  rather 
than  royalties,  arguing  that  the  profits  tax  is 
fairer  because  it  takes  into  account  the  ex- 
penses in  extracting  ore  and  consequently 
does  not  encourage  the  mining  of  high-grade 


But  mining  companies  are  allowed  so  many 
deductions  from  income  by  mining  assessors, 
who  are  given  a  great  deal  of  discretion  under 
the  Act,  that  their  taxable  income  is  a  pale 
shadow  of  their  operating  profits.  So  the 
higher  rates  are  applied  to  a  very  narrow 
base,  and  for  that  reason  they  produce  only 
$50  million  in  revenue. 

We  contend  that  a  profits  base  is  a  poor 
measure  as  long  as  companies  are  allowed 
to  deduct  expenses,  such  as  exploration  and 
development,  generous  depreciation  of  assets, 
depletion  allowances,  and  so  on.  In  providing 
such  a  write-off^  for  exploration  and  develop- 
ment, the  public  is  really  paying  the  com- 
panies to  find  the  minerals  and  then  they  ex- 
ploit them  at  very  lighUy  taxed  profits. 

The  mining  companies  can  hardly  plead 
inability  to  pay.  A  recent  Globe  and  Mail 
survey,  for  example,  showed  that  metal  mines 
profits  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  1973  were  up 
358  per  cent  over  the  same  period  for  1972; 
for  the  entire  year  they  were  up  237  per  cent 
over  1972. 

But  the  government's  main  rationale,  Mr. 
Speaker,  for  further  tax  concessions,  not  only 
to  the  mining  companies  but  to  all  corpora- 
tions, is  that  risk  investment  in  exploration 
and  development  must  be  increased. 

But  would  these  higher  taxes  on  the  mining 
industry  mean  less  exploration?  Not  neces- 
sarily. When  we  permit  the  companies  to 
make  excess  profits  we  have  no  guarantee  that 
they  will  invest  them  in  exploration  in  On- 
tario. They  may  invest  them  in  a  variety  of 
other  businesses,  such  as  Noranda  has  done, 
and  become  a  great  conglomerate.  They  may 
invest  abroad.  In  1973  Noranda  spent  only  47 
per  cent  of  its  exploration  money  in  Canada; 
23  per  cent  in  Australia,  17  per  cent  in  the 
USA  and  13  per  cent  in  other  countries. 
Inco  reported  that  exploration  expenditures 
were  made  in  Canada,  USA,  Australia,  New 
Zealand  and  the  Philippines;  and  Falcon- 
bridge  reported  exploration  expenditures  in 
Canada,  Australia,  South  America,  Norway 
and  South  Africa. 

The  real  question  is  whether  we  give  the 
exploration  money  to  the  companies  through 
tax  concessions  and  let  them  end  up  con- 
trolling the  reserves,  to  be  capped  and  de- 
veloped at  their  pleasure;  or  whether  we 
take  the  same  money  in  taxes  and  be  sure 
that  it  is  invested  in  Ontario.  Then  the  people 
of  Ontario  will  have  control  of  the  new- 
found reserves  and  can  exploit  them  through 
a  public  corporation,  or  let  the  existing  com- 
panies exploit  them  on  a  public  utility  basis, 
that  is  earn  a  normal  rate  of  return  for  the 
undertaking  of  the  work  of  development. 


1138 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


In  fact,  the  validity  of  this  approach  is  im- 
plicity  conceded  by  the  government  itself  in 
its  announced  intention  to  develop  a  Crown 
corporation  to  engage  in  exploration  and  de- 
velopment. If  the  higher  taxes  make  it  less 
attractive  for  the  private  sector  to  continue 
operating  in  this  province,  they  will  them- 
selves clarify  the  role  for  the  public  corpo- 
ration to  step  in  where  they  drop  out.  In 
short,  events  are  inexorably  forcing  even  this 
Tory  government  to  adopt,  piecemeal,  the 
philosophy  of  the  NDP.  It  is  so  basic  and  so 
increasingly  important  that  I  want  to  restate 
our  approach,  Mr.  Speaker. 

The  NDP  believes  the  natural  resources 
of  Ontario  are  rightfully  the  property  of  the 
people  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Right  on. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Our  objective  is  to  obtain 
full  economic  rent  from  these  resources  for 
the  people.  Economic  rent  is  the  value  of  the 
resources.  We  have  let  the  companies  walk 
off  with  most  of  it  in  the  past. 

The  rate  and  the  nature  of  resource  devel- 
opment should  be  determined  by  the  people 
of  Ontario  and  be  tied  in  with  our  overall 
industrial  strategy. 

What  would  an  NDP  government  do? 
Briefly  this: 

1.  Take  a  more  active  role  in  exploration, 
development,  processing,  refining  and  distribu- 
tion of  our  mineral  resources  through  resource 
development  Crown  corporations; 

2.  Insist  that  the  private  sector  in  the  min- 
eral industry  must  conduct  its  activities  more 
consistently  with  overall  social  and  economic 
objectives; 

3.  Increase  resource  taxation  to  gain  the 
full  economic  rent;  substitute  a  production  tax 
averaging  15  per  cent  from  the  mines*  profits 
and  add  a  tax  on  reserves  in  the  ground. 
These  measures  would  bring  in  as  much  as 
$400  million  a  year  instead  <rf  the  $88  million 
now  expected  from  the  mines'  profits  tax- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  That  is  where  we  shoidd  be 

getting  our  revenue. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Going  on: 

4.  In  addition,  obtain  windfall  profits  result- 
ing from  scarcity,  and  enhance  value  of  our 
natural  resources  through  a  tax  based  on  price 
increases  above  a  certain  basic  level; 

5.  Regain  ownership  of  all  our  resources 
and  mineral  rights  through  a  combination  of 
taxation  and  purchase; 

6.  Increase  processing  of  resources  in  On- 
tario; exemptions  have  been  granted  for  ex- 


port in  such  profusion  that  they  have  made  a 
mockery  of  the  existing  legislation;  only  half 
of  Ontario's  ores  are  processed  in  Canada; 

7.  Develop  secondary  industries,  based  on 
Ontario's   resources,   located  as  close  to  the 
resources  as  feasible- 
Mr.  Foulds:  Hear,  hear. 

Mr.  Martel:  Hear,  hear. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  expected  an  echo  of 
approval  from  the  north  on  that. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Absolutely  right. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Finally: 

8.  Provide  compensation  for  individuals 
with  small  shareholdings  in  resource  com- 
panies who  are  adversely  aflFected  by  the 
implementation  of  these  policies. 

Well,  that  is  something  of  an  initial  re- 
action with  regard  to  the  resources  industry, 
and  I  need  not  warn  the  hon.  members  in 
advance  that  I  know  many  of  my  colleagues 
will  be  folloAving  through. 

I  want  now  to  deal  briefly  with  one  change 
which  the  government  didn't  make,  namely, 
dropping  the  sales  tax  on  buflding  materials. 

For  years  the  removal  of  the  sales  tax  on 
building  materials  has  always  been  on  the 
political  agenda.  But  at  the  moment,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  situation  has  really  become  a  bit 
ridiculous.  In  Ottawa,  the  opposition  Tories 
are  demanding  that  it  should  be  removed, 
while  the  governing  Liberals  resist.  In  To- 
ronto, the  opposition  Liberals  are  demanding 
that  it  be  removed,  while  the  governing  Tories 
resist. 

The  time  has  come  when  this  perennial 
issue  should  be  treated  as  something  more 
than  just  a  political  ploy. 

Quite  frankly,  the  NDP  has  never  been  a 
very  enthusiastic  proponent  of  the  sales  tax 
removal  from  building  materials  as  the 
Liberals  and  Conservatives  have  been.  The 
reasons,  I  suspect,  are  precisely  those  which 
lead  Liberals  and  Conservatives  to  retain  it 
when  they  are  in  jwwer,  even  though  they 
continue  to  urge  its  removal  when  they  are  in 
the  opposition. 

Briefly  put,  those  reasons  are  that  the  sales 
tax  removal  is  likely  to  benefit  the  builder 
or  developer  without  any  reduction  being 
passed  on  to  the  ultimate  purchaser  of  the 
property. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  agree. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Now,  if  old-party  govern- 
ments had  been  willing  to  develop  effective 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1139 


mechanisms  for  isolating  price  components, 
for  example  in  a  new  home,  there  might  be 
some  assurance  that  the  sales  tax  could  be 
passed  on  to  the  ultimate  homeowner.  But 
old-party  governments  have  traditionally  re- 
sisted the  establishment  of  any  kind  of  prices 
review  board. 

If  the  sales  tax  on  building  materials  were 
removed  today,  as  federal  PC  leader  Robert 
Stanfield  demanded  again  as  late  as  last 
Friday,  the  benefit  would  certainly  go  to  some 
middleman. 

There  are  ways  in  which  the  objective  of 
reducing  costs  for  homeowners  might  be 
achieved.  Let  me  suggest  a  couple. 

First,  the  sales  tax  on  building  materials 
could  be  removed  on  small  purchases  of  mate- 
rials, say  any  purchase  imder  $100,  to  help 
people  undertalcing  home  improvements. 

Secondly,  it  could  be  covered'  by  a  rebate 
applied  for  direcdy  by  the  purchaser  of  a  new 
home.  This  would  avoid  windfall  profits  go- 
ing to  builders  and  developers  and  not  being 
passed  on  to  the  ultimate  home  purchaser. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  would  be  pos- 
sible, and  I  suggest  desirable,  that  the  rebate 
be  limited  to  nomes  below  a  certain  value, 
thereby  fulfilling  the  government's  objective, 
with  rebates  and  tax  credits,  of  channelling 
assistance  to  those  whose  need  is  greatest.  It 
would  also  ensure  that  relief  did  not  go  to 
commercial  and  industrial  buildings  as  would 
happen  if  the  tax  were  simply  removed  com- 
pletely. 

'The  provincial  Treasurer  has  estimated  that 
sales  tax  on  building  materials  is  generating 
approximately  $190  million  in  the  Province 
or  Ontario.  If  it  were  removed  only  for  build- 
ing improvement  purposes,  bought  in  limited 
quantities  as  I  have  suggested,  or  for  new 
homes  of  modest  values,  I  suspect  the  loss  to 
the  provincial  Treasury  would  be  limited  to 
no  more  than  10  or  15  per  cent  of  the  total 
building  materials  sales  tax  revenue— in  other 
words  no  more  than  $25  million  to  $30 
million.  That,  I  suggest,  might  well  be  a 
worthy  contribution  to  reducing  costs  for 
homeowners  and  the  encouragement  of  home 
ownership. 

Certainly  such  a  procedure  would  also 
avoid  the  encouragement  of  unnecessary  eco- 
nomic activity  at  a  time  when  federal  fiscal 
polic>''  has  just  boosted  central  bank  rates  to 
the  highest  in  history  in  order,  so  the  shapers 
of  fiscal  policy  hope,  to  dampen  the  raging 
fires  of  inflation. 

(While  on  the  budget  itself,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
want  to  deal,  with  a  final  comment,  with  the 
government's  stance  with  regard  to  the  pubh'c 
debt.   During   the  past  year,   the   provincial 


Treasurer  boasts,  he  has  reduced  the  out- 
standing public  debt  bv  $225  million  and 
during  the  coming  year  he  expects  to  reduce 
it  by  another  $449  million.  It  all  sounds  very 
impressive.  The  public  is  left,  and  deliberately 
so,  with  the  image  that  the  government  is 
living  within  its  income. 

<Yet  during  the  coming  year  the  provincial 
Treasurer  forecasts  that  expenditures  will  ex- 
ceed revenues  by  some  $708  million.  In  the 
budgetary  tables  it  is  noted  that  during  the 
year  the  net  debt  of  the  province  will  jump 
from  $2.94  billion  to  $3.56  billion-in  other 
words  frcwn  under  $3  billion  to  over  $3.5 
billion— representing  a  per  capita  increase 
from  $366.14  to  $437.31. 

What  sort  of  a  magician  have  we  got  in 
our  provincial  Treasurer  that  he  can  be  re- 
ducing public  debt  while  increasing  the  net 
or  per  capita  debt  in  this  spectacular  fashion? 
Actually,  nowhere  in  the  budget  is  the  pro- 
vincial Treasurer  engaged  in  a  more  calcu- 
lated flim-flamming  exercise  than  in  his  mis- 
leading boast  regarding  the  debt.  The  expla- 
nation as  to  what  is  happening,  of  course,  is  a 
simple  one  to  be  found  in  the  distinction  be- 
tween public  debt  bonded  on  the  open  market 
and  internal  debt  financed  from  captive  pen- 
sion plans  like  the  CPP,  the  teachers'  super- 
annuation fund  and  OMERS. 

iTo  illustrate:  Over  the  next  year  the  gov- 
ernment will  spend  beyond  its  revenues  to 
the  extent  of  $708  million.  In  days  gone  by 
that  would  have  been  designated  as  a  deficit 
of  $708  million,  but  during  the  coming  year 
the  government  will  benefit  from  a  cash  flow 
from  captive  pension  funds  to  the  extent  of 
$1,044,000,000.  Thus  he  contends  that  he  will 
have  surplus  cash  to  the  amount  of  $336 
million  with  which  he  will  reduce  the  out- 
standing public  debt.  He  intends  to  add  an- 
other $113  million  by  reducing  cash  balances 
—liquid  reserves— and  thereby  arrives  at  his 
objective  of  public  debt  reduction  of  $449 
million  during  1974-1975. 

All  of  this,  Mr.  Speaker,  may  have  some 
merit.  If  the  interest  paid  on  public  debt 
is  higher  than  that  paid  on  pension  funds, 
the  public  Treasury  will  benefit;  except,  let 
us  note,  that  that  simply  means  the  public 
pensions  are  going  to  be  subsidizing  the 
public  debt  to  some  extent,  as  well  as  under- 
writing it.  There  could  also  be  beneficial 
eff^ects  on  the  money  market,  since  those  re- 
paid may  turn  around  and  lend  it  to  others- 
such  as  municipalities. 

However,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  highly  mis- 
leading for  the  provincial  Treasurer  to  talk 
about  a  total  target  for  debt  reduction  of  $449 
mfllion,  when  he  himself  forecasts  that  the 


1140 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


overall  debt  picture  is  going  to  be  up  by 
$625  million— about  the  amount  of  the  bud- 
getary deficit.  All  the  provincial  Treasurer  is 
doing  is  switching  some  of  his  debt  from  the 
public  bondholders  to  pension  fund  con- 
tributors. 

In  short,  the  people  of  Ontario,  more  di- 
rectly through  their  Canada  Pension  contri- 
butions or  their  contributions  as  teachers  or 
municipal  employees,  are  now  underwriting 
a  growing  proportion  of  Ontario's  public  debt. 
And  since  they  are  doing  it  at  an  interest 
rate  below  the  current  bond  market,  it  is  time 
the  government  were  frank  with  the  people 
of  Ontario.  But  being  frank  with  the  people 
of  Ontario  isn't  the  objective  of  the  flim-flam 
artists  who  now  make  up  the  Davis  govern- 
ment. 

So,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  budget  has  been  pre- 
sented as  a  very  rosy  document;  what  the 
government  deemed  to  be  a  sunshine  budget 
after  last  year's  rather  stormy  budget.  But 
much  of  the  sunshine  is  mere  glitter— almost 
the  false  glitter  of  fool's  gold.  It  was  cer- 
tainly designed  to  provide  a  bright  picture; 
and  if  nobody  else,  it  captured  the  govern- 
ment members.  As  I  indicated  earlier,  they 
were  so  relieved  after  the  last  two  years,  so 
much  in  need  of  a  euphoric  boost,  that  most 
of  them  haven't  come  down  off  cloud  nine 
yet.  But  along  with  the  budget's  false  glitter, 
buried  in  the  accompanying  papers,  there  is 
the  provincial  Treasurer's  own  sober  economic 
forecast  for  the  coming  year;  and  once  again 
it  tarnishes  the  budget  image  somewhat. 

For  example,  appendix  C  of  the  budget 
statement  has  a  number  of  facts.  The  Treas- 
urer paints  a  gloomy  picture  for  1974: 

1.  A  real  growth  rate  of  only  five  per  cent, 
compared  to  7.2  per  cent  in  1973. 

2.  The  unemployment  rate  rising  to  4.5 
per  cent  from  4.1  per  cent  in  1973. 

3.  Employment  rising  at  only  3.1  per  cent, 
compared  to  4.6  per  cent  in  1973. 

4.  The  labour  force  continuing  to  grow 
at  almost  the  same  rate  as  last  year;  Ontario 
has  one  of  the  highest  rates  in  Canada. 

5.  The  consumer  price  index  for  Canada 
could  rise  10  per  cent  or  more.  It  rose  7.6 
per  cent  in  1973. 

Now  despite  these  ominous  clouds  on  the 
horizon,  the  provincial  Treasurer  has  no  pro- 
gramme in  his  budget  for  increasing  jobs.  He 
anticipates  there  will  be  21,000  more  people 
unemployed  in  Ontario  in  1974  than  in  1973, 
but  his  budget  has  no  compassion  for  them. 
His  peroration  on  page  27  was  an  empty 
boast.   The  measures  proposed  in  the   1974 


budget  befit  a  strong  and  compassionate  prov- 
ince. 

And  when  you  turn  to  corporation  profits, 
Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a  very  interesting  thing. 
The  Treasurer  forecasts  an  increase  in  cor- 
poration profits  before  taxes  of  only  seven 
per  cent  in  1974,  after  an  increase  of  36  per 
cent  in  1973  and  20  per  cent  in  1972. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  nearly  went  bankrupt  in 
1973. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Now  while  it  may  be 
difficult  for  the  corporations  to  keep  up  the 
fantastic  rate  of  profit  increase  that  was 
registered  in  1973,  few  analysts  are  as  low 
as  seven  per  cent  in  their  forecasts  of  profit 
gains  for  1974;  but  there  is  no  sign  of  an 
excess  profits  tax. 

Maybe  that's  the  reason  for  this  excessive- 
ly low  calculation.  There's  no  sign  of  an 
excess  profits  tax  in  the  budget  to  syphon  off 
windfall  profits  which  the  oil  companies  and 
other  corporations  are  obtaining  from  the 
present  inflation.  The  increased  rates  of 
mines  profits  tax  may  appear  to  be  such, 
but  it  is  well  known,  as  I've  already  pointed 
out,  that  the  mines  are  able  to  deduct  so 
many  things  from  their  operating  profits  be- 
fore arriving  at  taxable  profits  that  there's 
nothing  left  to  apply  the  higher  rates  to. 
Forty  per  cent  of  nothing  is  still  nothing. 

On  housing,  as  mentioned  elsewhere  in 
the  budget  comments,  the  Treasiu-er  is  pre- 
dicting no  increase  in  housing  starts.  It's  in- 
teresting that  the  Minister  of  Housing  should 
be  attempting  to  contradict  that  public  ix)s- 
ture  now.  The  Treasiurer  is  predicting  no 
increase  in  housing  starts  and  only  a  nine 
per  cent  increase  in  residential  construction 
compared  to  16  per  cent  in  non-residential. 
With  soaring  prices  in  rents  this  hardly  seems 
a  compassionate  approach  to  home  seekers. 

Finally  in  terms  of  the  economic  outlook 
is  the  overall  stance  that  the  govenmient  is 
taking.  The  Treasurer  calls  it  "a  neutral 
economic  impact  budget."  Members  will  find 
that  on  page  24.  He  does  so  on  the  ground 
that  his  expenditures  are  going  up  not  much 
faster  than  the  gross  provincial  product.  But 
he  predicts  GPP  growth  for  1974  at  only 
13  per  cent;  so  he's  taking  more  of  the  total 
product,  and  considerably  more  if  he  spends 
the  $200  million  for  escarpment  and  park- 
way land  acquisition  which  is  not  included. 
If  included,  it  would  raise  his  expenditure 
increase  to  16.9  per  cent. 

It's  not  a  neutral  budget.  It's  an  in- 
flationary budget.  That's  the  whole  theme, 
the  whole  documentation  which  I  have  at- 
tempted to  put  on  the  record  this  afternoon. 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1141 


And  moreover,  he  is  not  compensating  the 
local  government  for  the  full  amount  of  their 
anticipated  shortfall.  Mill  rates  are  going  to 
continue  to  go  up. 

In  short,  Mr.  Speaker,  it's  not  the  kind  of 
budget  which  would  draw  support  from  this 
side  of  the  House.  Of  course,  it  couldn't 
It's  for  that  reason  that  I'd  hke  to  try  to 
put  on  the  record  in  summary,  in  addition 
to  what  has  already  been  done  by  the 
Liberal  Party,  a  subamendment  indicating 
our  disappointment. 


sources  and  its  exhibition  of  naJvety  in 
assuming  that  a  $I25-million  return  from 
close  to  $2  billion  production  in  the  mining 
industry  is  a  fair  share  for  the  owners  of 
those  resources; 

7.  The  government's  substitution  of  largely 
ineffective  land  taxes  for  real  action  In  ac- 
quiring and  servicing  development  land  and 
bringing  down  prices  of  lots. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  debate. 


Hon.  Mr.  White:  Any  volunteers  to  second  Motion  agreed  to. 


it? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  was  that  comment? 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  Any  volunteers? 

Mr.  Breitbaupt:  He's  got  lots  of  volun- 
teers. 

Mr.  FouJds:  More  than  the  Treasurer  had 
Ikst  year.  . 

Mr.  Deans:  Actually  he  had  volunteers 
from  the  Toiy  party  to  second  it  but  we 
turned  them  down. 

Mr.  MacDonald  moves  that  the  amendment 
moved  by  the  hon.  member  for  Kitchener  be 
itself  amended  by  adding  the  following:  And 
this  House  further  regrets: 

1.  The  government's  failure  to  pass  back 
to  consumers  more  than  a  tiny  fraction  of  the 
huge  revenue  gains  in  sales  tax  and  income 
tax  resulting  from  inflation; 

2.  The  government's  failure  to  protect  On- 
tario families  from  the  serious  effects  of  in- 
flation by  increasing  the  supply  of  houses, 
cutting  gasoline  taxes  and  establishing  price 
and  rent  review  boards  with  power  to  re- 
quire rollbatks  when  justified; 

3.  The  government's  failure  to  recognize  the 
plight  of  the  60  to  65  age  group  many  of 
whom  are  imable  to  find  work  and  are  forced 
to  live  on  minimal  fixed  incomes  but  are 
denied  eligibility  for  GAINS  and  the  free 
prescription  drug  progranmie; 

4.  The  government's  failure  to  increase 
grants  to  northern  municipalities  by  an 
amount  whdch  would  adequately  compensate 
them  for  the  increased  cost  of  services  in 
northern  areas  and  their  lack  of  flnflticjlfll  re- 
sources to  meet  these  needs; 

5.  The  government's  failure  to  impose  an 
excess  profits  tax  on  corporations  which  are 
obtaining  windfall  profits  from  world  scar- 
cities and  the  consequent  enhanced  value 
of  their  products; 

6.  The  government's  failure  to  obtain  for 
the  people  of  Ontario  full  "economic  rent" 
from    the    exploitation    of   their    natural    re- 


Clerk  of  the  House:  The  10th  order;  House 
in  committee  of  supply. 


ESTIMATES  MINISTRY  OF 

CORRECTIONAL  SERVICES 

(concluded) 

On  vote  1402: 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  In  con- 
nection with  the  matter  of  community  services 
for  adults,  some  of  those  who  have  served 
their  time  and  are  on  parole  are  faced  with 
serious  problems  when  they  try  to  get  em- 
ployment and  the  employment  requires  bond- 
ing. We  brought  this  matter  up  before  and  I 
find  there  is  still  difficulty  in  getting  bonding 
on  someone  who  has  served  time. 

I  was  wondering  if  the  ministry  would  not 
consider  setting  up  its  own  bonding  service 
to  offset  the  problem  or  in  some  way  back 
up  these  fellows  so  they  can  get  employment. 
There  are  so  many  jobs  where  bonding  is  re- 
quired and  it  really  restricts  the  opportimities 
for  them  and  it  impedes  their  getting  back 
into  the  stream  of  activities  that  can  assure 
they  will  stay  on  the  right  track.  Can  the 
minister  comment  on  that? 

Hon.  R.  T.  Potter  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Services):  Mr.  Chairman,  the  probation  and 
parole  services  of  the  ministry  have  establish- 
ed and  maintained  contact  with  an  insurance 
company,  the  Norwich  Union  Insurance  Co. 
in  Toronto,  whereby  ex-inmates  of  Ontario 
correctional  institutions  may  be  considered  for 
bonding.  There  is  a  procedure  which  we  go 
through;  if  you  like  I  will  read  it  to  you. 

First  of  all  when  applying  for  a  bond  an 
ex-inmate  must  have  employment  confirmed  in 
which  bonding  is  required.  Our  staff  contact 
the  bonding  company  presendy  covering  the 
employee  and  discuss  the  possibility  of  obtain- 
ing a  bond.  If  the  employee's  bonding  com- 
pany rejects  the  application  then  an  applica- 


1142 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tion  is  made  to  Norwich  Union  and  an  inter- 
view with  the  apphcant  is  then  arranged. 

Our  staff  accompanies  the  apphcant  for  the 
interview  and  they  share  information  regard- 
ing the  ex-inmate's  background  with  the  in- 
surance company;  this  is  done  of  course  with 
the  consent  of  the  ex-inmate.  In  most  cases 
when  we  offer  to  share  background  informa- 
tion about  the  individual  of  this  nature  and 
make  positive  recommendations  we  find  the 
bonding  company  will  usually  accept  the  ap- 
plication and  grant  the  bond. 

There  is  a  programme  set  up  in  co-oper- 
ation with  the  federal  Solicitor  General's  de- 
partment, the  John  Howard  Society  and  other 
private  aftercare  agencies,  and  the  Insiu"ance 
Bureau  ol^  Canada  where  almost  90  per  cent 
of  applications  have  been  accepted  for  bond- 
ing. 

It  is  important  to  point  out  that  even  in  the 
private  sector  everyone  is  not  accepted,  so 
that  there  will  be  refusals  but  at  the  present 
time  I  think  it's  working  quite  favourably 
there.  The  assistance  is  there.  We  have  the 
arrangement  with  the  Norwich  Union  Insur- 
ance Co.  and,  as  I  pointed  out,  90  per  cent 
are  being  accepted,  I  think. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Is  the  percentage  being 
accepted  similar  to  that  being  accepted  out- 
side this  programme,  just  normal  applications? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Right.  That's  it. 

Mr.  Deacon:  What  percentage  is  being  re- 
jected? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  can't  give  you  the  exact 
percentage.  I  think  it's  a  little  higher  than 
what  has  been  accepted  in  the  private  sector. 

Mr.  Deacon:  That  speaks  very  well  for  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Hamilton 
Centre. 

Mr.  N.  Davison  (Hamilton  Centre):  Mr. 
Chairman,  through  you  to  the  minister,  could 
you  tell  me  the  percentage  of  girls  at  Vanier 
Institute  who  are  out  on  temporary  pro- 
grammes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  The  percentage  or  the 
numbers? 

Mr.  Davison:  Pardon? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  You  mean  to  date?  This 
goes  on,  as  you  know,  from  week  to  week. 
The  numbers  vary. 


Mr.  Davison:  Could  you  tell  me  how  many 
were  out  last  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Yes,  I  can  get  it  for  you. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Does  the  minister  mean  at 
a  later  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  think  I  have  it  right 
here,  as  a  matter  of  fact.  I'll  give  it  to  you 
in  a  few  minutes  if  you  will  wait. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Anything  further? 
Mr.  Davison:  Well- 
Mr.  Chairman:  Yes,  the  member  for  Hamil- 
ton Centre. 

Mn  Davison:  Could  you  tell  me  how  many         ] 
men    in    the    last    year    were    on    temporary 
absence  programmes? 

Hon.   Mr.   Potter:   I   have  the  information         i 
here  as  of  last  week,  for  instance.  \ 

Mr.   Chairman,   as  from  April   1,   1973,  to         \ 
the    end    of   January,    1974— would-  that    be 
sufficient  for  you? 

Under  the  temporary  absence  programme  ^ 

application  system,  as  of  April  1,  1973,  there  ' 

were  101  academic  applications  received;  42  : 

were    activated;    five    were    revoked.    Seven  \ 

were  paroled  by  the  Ontario  Parole  Board,  ' 
six   by  the   National   Parole   Board   and  the 
sentences    of    31    had    expired.    Programmes 

completed;  five  of  them  completed  the  pro-  i 

gramme  prior  to  their  release.  \ 

Under    the    vocational    programme,    there         ! 
were  137  applications  received;  63  were  ap-  ] 

proved;   seven  were  withdrawn;   seven  were 
revoked;    13    were    paroled    by    the    Ontario  j 

Parole    Board;    and    seven    by   the    National  j 

Parole  Board;  33  were  discharged  because  of         \ 
expiration  of  their  sentences.  One  completed 
the  programme  before  expiration  of  his  sen-  ! 

tence  and  there  are  21  presently  active.  \ 

One    thousand    and    six   applications   were  i 

made  for  temporary  absence  for  employment  ! 

of  which  494  were  activated;  34  of  these  were  i 

paroled  by  the  Ontario  Parole  Board;  31  by  I 
the  National  Parole  Board;  361  finished  their 

sentences  and  were  discharged;  12  completed  ':. 

the  programme  prior  to  release  and  84  were  ] 

active  in  the  programme  at  the  end  of  Janu-  ] 

ary  this  year.  \ 

So   if  we   go  into   the   totals,   there   were  ] 

11,239  applications  received,  5,767  were  ap-  h 

proved,  141  withdrawn,  93  revoked  and  the  | 

others  were  finished.  Can  I  send  you  a  copy  I 

of  this  perhaps?  | 


APRIL  18,  1974 


114S 


Mr.  Davison:  I  wonder  if  you  could  tell  me 
how  many  people  were  in  our  institutions  at 
that  time  these  5,000  were  approved. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  can't  tell  you  the  num- 
ber. I  will  have  to  get  that  information.  I 
will  see  that  you  get  it  though.  It  is  changing 
daily,  as  you  know,  but  I  will  get  the  infor- 
mation for  you  and  get  it  to  you. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Welling- 
ton South. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  would  like  to  get  some  more 
advice  from  the  minister  in  regard  to  the 
future  operation  of  the  abattoir  at  the  Guelph 
correctional  centre. 

Going  back  some  years  ago,  Mr.  Minister, 
the  member  for  Kent  (Mr.  Spence)  and  I 
received  considerable  criticism  from  the  pack- 
ing industry  about  the  money  that  was  being 
expended  on  the  new  abattoir  that  was  built. 
And,  of  course,  now  it's  the  intention  to  turn 
it  over  to  private  industry  to  try  and  provide 
more  jobs  for  the  inmates  after  their  release 
and  to  provide  more  jobs  in  the  industry. 

But  one  thing  has  kind  of  concerned  me, 
Mr.  Minister.  I  want  to  say  that  your  deputy, 
along  with  his  assistants,  sent  a  man  up  to 
explain  the  programme  to  me  and  to  try  and 
show  the  benefits  that  would  accrue  from 
doing  this,  but  I  would  just  like  to  be  satis- 
fied that  your  department  has  done  every- 
thing possible  to  say,  "Here,  can  we  hire  a 
man  of  our  own  or  is  there  somebody  on  the 
staff  there  who  can  expand  this  industry 
without  having  to  bring  in   outsiders  to   do 

itr 

It  <:eems  to  me  that  it  has  bf>en  in  opera- 
tion for  many  years  and  I  think  that  if  you 
would  say,  "Well,  we'll  hire  the  ripht  type  of 
man  who  knows  how  to  expand  this  opera- 
tion, who  can  get  the  best  work  nossible 
out  of  the  inmates"  and  so  on,  it  would  avoid 
bringing  private  industry  into  it.  I  think  that 
they  were  very  critical  of  the  abattoir  when 
it  was  built.  A  number  of  the  packing  firms 
thought  we  were  overdoing  it  in  spending 
money,  although  little  did  they  realize  that 
people  in  these  institutions  had  to  be  pro- 
vided with  some  type  of  occupation.  I  would 
iust  like  to  be  satisfied  that  everything  has 
been  done  to  try  to  provide  a  successful 
operation  without  having  to  go  outside. 

I  would  also  like  to  be  assured  that  the 
people  who  have  been  providing  the  institu- 
tion with  hogs  and  cattle  are  going  to  have 
this  market  maintained.  I  have  a  feeling  that 
once  a  large  firm  gets  in  there,  they  are 
going  to  start  centralizing  their  buying  and 


this  is  going  to  be  done  away  with,  and  that 
was  one  of  the  issues,  going  bade  20  years, 
why  this  was  maintained. 

They  were  going  to  do  away  with  it  at 
one  time  but  it  provided  a  local  market  to 
farmers  as  far  away  as  Stratford  and  the 
Guelph  area.  I  would  like  to  have  some 
assurance  that  this  is  going  to  be  maintained 
and  that  everything  possible  has  been  done 
to  try  and  provide  local  staff  who  would  make 
it  a  successful  operation.  I  understand  that 
thev  are  handling  about  60  head  of  cattle 
and  60  hogs  now  and  I  would  like  to  know 
how  many  you  feel  they  can  turn  out.  No 
doubt  you  have  a  larger  market  with  the 
number  of  institutions  that  are  tmder  your 
control,  through  the  Ministry  of  Health,  but 
I  would  like  to  know  just  how  much  you 
hope  to  expand  this. 

You  have  assured  us  in  your  speech  that 
the  staff  is  going  to  be  maintained  and  that 
the  inmates  are  going  to  be  paid  a  salary 
comparable  with  those  working  in  the  in- 
dustry, but  I  would  like  to  know  if  there  is 
going  to  be  a  difference  between  the  ones 
who  are  teaching  the  job  and  the  ones  who 
are  getting  paid  to  do  the  work.  Who  is 
going  to  be  penalized  in  this  business?  The 
staff  that's  working  there  now,  or  the  in- 
mates? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I 
pointed  out  before,  the  reason  for  doing  this 
is  that  we  want  to  increase  the  potential  of 
the  plant.  We  want  to  give  more  irunates  an 
opportunity  of  being  employed  in  the  plant 
and  making  some  money  for  themselves. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  turning  the  plant 
over  to  an  industry.  It  is  a  question  of  rent- 
ing the  facilities  to  an  industry  and  having 
them  run  it.  The  industry  will  make  a  com- 
mitment to  hire  inmates  on  their  release  in 
some  of  their  other  plants.  It  is  our  hope 
that  we  will  not  only  double  but  we  will 
perhaps  triple  the  output. 

As  far  as  the  suppliers  are  concerned,  they 
are  going  to  be  asked  to  supply  more  cattle 
to  the  institution  than  they  are  today,  so  I 
don't  think  they  need  to  have  any  worry  in 
that  area  at  all.  We  are  asking  them  to 
increase  production  and.  of  course,  increased 
production,  as  I  said  before,  means  increased 
employment  for  the  inmates.  As  I  mentioned 
in  my  introductory  remarks,  while  the  firm 
that  will  get  the  contract  will  be  actually 
running  the  plant,  we  will  insist  on  certain 
procedures  as  they  relate  to  hiring  and  to 
pay  and  other  things. 

When  you  talk  about  the  payment  that  the 
inmates  get  as  compared  to  the  payment  for 


1144 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


supervision,  it's  the  same  in  any  industry 
isn't  it?  The  better  the  job  you  have— straw 
bosses,  supervisors,  section  foremen  and  so  on 
—as  you  go  up  the  ladder  the  pay  increases, 
so  I  would  expect  that  we  would  find  the 
same  situation  here. 

I  have  given  you  all  the  assurance  I  can 
that  we  will  insist  that  those  presently  em- 
ployed at  the  institution  will  continue  to  be 
employed.  I  can  only  tell  you  that  this  is  our 
intention  and  that  we  will  certainly  see  that 
it  is  d^ne. 

Mr.  Worton:  Well,  what  I  am  getting  at 
though  is  comparable  rates  to  the  industry— 
we'll  say  some  of  the  packing  firms.  I  dcna't 
know  whether  the  industry  rates  are  not  some- 
what higher  than  those  of  the  staff  on  full- 
time  pay  if  you  are  going  to  give  comparable 
rates. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Again,  Mr.  Chairman, 
through  you,  if  we  are  going  to  have  com- 
parable rates  and  if  there  is  a  differential 
then  obviously  it  is  going  to  have  to  be 
maintained  too,  isn't  it? 

Mr.  Worton:  As  long  as  you  do  it,  that's 
fine. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  I  see  what  you  are 
suggesting.  There  is  no  way  in  the  world  that 
you  can  say  we  will  allow  the  wages  to  be 
of  such  a  nature  that  the  supervisory  staff  are 
getting  less  than  the  men  who  are  employed. 

Mr.  Worton:  I  am  worried  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Well  don't.  We'll  get  in 
on  that  one. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Anything  further  on  vote 
1402? 

Mr.  Worton:  Are  you  sure  that  the  pack- 
ing firm  which  is  going  to  receive  this  tender 
is  not  going  to  take  it  out  of  a  pool  rather 
than  the  individual  farmers,  as  is  the  case 
now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  As  I  said  earlier,  Mr. 
Chairman,  we  are  asking  for  proposals  and 
before  any  tender  is  accepted  we  will  build 
into  the  tender  what  we  want  done. 

Mr.  Worton:  All  right.  Fair  enough. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Kent. 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  Mr.  Chairman, 
may  I  ask  the  minister,  why  wouldn't  you 
operate  this  abattoir  yourselves?  I  would  say 
that  you  are  big  enough  and  I  woidd  say 
that  you  are  the  most  qualified  to  expand  this 
business  instead  of  rent  it  out  to  private 
industry. 


Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have 
been  running  the  plant  as  you  have  said.  I 
spoke  the  other  day  about  inviting  A'arious 
types  of  industries  to  come  in  and  offer  pro- 
posals so  we  might  provide  greater  job  oppor- 
tunities  and  training  opportunities  for  these 
people  in  the  institutions. 

This  is  strictly  an  experiment.  Perhaps  we 
will  find  after  we  tried  it  that  it  is  not  going 
to  be  as  successful  as  we  hope  it  is.  If  it 
isn't  we  certainly  won't  continue  it.  But  I 
think  it  is  worth  a  try  to  show  what  can  be 
done  in  this  sector  and  if  it  is  as  successful 
as  we  think  it  is  going  to  be,  why,  we  have 
great  hopes  for  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  WindsOT- 
Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville) :  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  wanted  to  ask  of  the  minister  if 
the  ministry  funds  organizations  that  are  in- 
volved in  work  before  the  individual  gets 
into  serious  diflBculty. 

'I  specifically  make  mention  of  a  group 
known  as  the  Crossroads  Human  Growth 
Community  back  in  the  Essex  county  area, 
not  the  city  area,  who  attempt  to  provide  a 
total  living  environment  for  adolescent,  drug- 
abusing,  problem  youth  to  enable  them  to 
establish  a  satisfying,  productive,  non-drug- 
dependent  lifestyle. 

If  something  is  not  done  for  these  people 
at  that  stage,  you  know  where  they  are  go- 
ing to  end  up  several  years  later  if  the  drug 
itself  doesn't  actually  kill  the  individual  or 
put  him  into  one  of  our  institutions. 

Would  it  not  be  of  some  \alue  to  your 
department,  Mr.  Minister,  to  maybe  do  a 
httie  work  before  the  individual  is  actually 
put  into  one  of  your  institutions  rather  than 
waiting  for  him  to  be  placed,  if  you  can 
see  an  organization  or  an  association  can 
accomplish  some  meaningful  work  in  pre- 
vention rather  than  working  after  the  results 
are  known? 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  As  in  health,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, there  is  a  terrific  amount  of  work 
remaining  to  be  done  in  preventive  aspects. 
As  far  as  my  ministry  is  concerned,  we  are 
only  involved  with  individuals  after  they 
are  committed  to  one  of  our  institutions.  We 
are  not  involved  at  all  in  some  of  tlie  pro- 
grammes that  you  have  been  describing. 
I  would  think  that  these  would  come  under 
the  Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Ser- 
vices, but  I  agree  it  is  an  area  that  we  sliould 
take  a  good  look  at. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
ask    the   minister   if   the    department   assists, 


APRIL  18.  1974 


1145 


either  financially  or  with  other  resources, 
organizations  that  attempt  to  help  in  cases 
where  the  husband  or  wife  is  in  an  institu- 
tion and  the  members  of  their  family  or 
relatives  involved  band  together  to  try  to 
communicate  with  their  relatives  in  the  in- 
stitutions and  in  that  way  probably  assist 
in  rehabilitating  them.  One  of  the  organiza- 
tions is  known  as  Wives  and  Families  of 
Offenders.  I  can  recall  attending  several  of 
their  meetings  in  the  dty  of  Windsor.  They 
planned  trips  to  the  various  institutions 
where  the  husband  or  son  or  daughter  of 
the  individual  happened  to  be  detained.  I 
think  the  work  they  did  was  extremely  worth- 
while because  it  hurried  the  release  and  the 
rehabilitation  of  the  son,  daughter  or  loved 
one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  don't 
allocate  any  funds  to  these  organizations.  As 
I  mentioned  earlier  in  my  comments,  we  have 
over  2,000  volunteers  who  are  assisting,  par- 
ticularly from  the  Junior  League,  the  John 
Howard  Society,  the  Elizabeth  Fry  Society 
and  so  on,  but  we  don't  actually  fund  any 
of  the  organizations  that  the  member  is 
describing. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  vote  1402  carry? 

Vote  1402  agreed  to. 

On  vote  1403: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Vote  1403,  rehabilitation 
of  juveniles  programme. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  On  vote 
1403  I  would  like  to  make  some  general  re- 
marks and  to  ask  some  general  questions  on 
this  particular  matter. 

First  of  all,  on  the  question  of  this  whole 
juvenile  programme,  could  the  minister 
advise  us  now  as  to  whether  further  con- 
sideration has  been  given  to  the  transfer 
of  this  programme  from  the  Ministry  of 
Correctional  Services  to  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services? 

I  feel  that  there  is  a  great  deal  to  be 
done  in  the  whole  area  of  rehabilitation. 
Perhaps  the  $13  million  which  we  would 
then  have  from  the  federal  government 
could  be  used  for  this  purpose.  And  it  might 
be  more  effective  than  it  seems  to  me  it 
is  now. 

I  would  like  to  hear  what  the  minister 
can  tell  us  now  about  the  experience  of  the 
Oakville  assessment  centre,  particularly  hav- 
ing in  mind  the  statement  in  the  Throne 
Speech  that  indicates  there  is  a  policy  that 
these  young  people  shall  be  in  training 
schools  closer  to  home. 


I  would  like  to  know  whether  that  is  now 
an  absolute  policy  or  whether  any  con- 
sideration can  be  given  to  giving  juveniles 
the  opportunity  for  new  experiences,  par- 
ticularly outside  of  major  urban  centres,  so 
that  they  could  perhaps  break  away  from 
some  of  the  lifestyle  that  they  have  had 
established. 

I  would  like  to  have  the  answer  on  the 
basis  of  whether  or  not  such  a  polic>'  would 
be  proposed  for  the  benefit  of  the  diild  or 
for  the  benefit  of  the  parents. 

Finally,  at  this  stage,  I  would  like  to 
know  to  what  extent  this  ministry  is  goine 
to  enlarge  the  programme  of  probationaT 
services  where  we  will  have  persons  >*^o 
can  communicate  with  the  parents  of  these 
young  people,  as  probation  officers  must  do 
if  they  are  going  to  do  the  total  job,  in  die 
language  of  the  parents. 

As  you  know  there  are  great  gaps  in  this 
service.  I  understand  that  your  predecessor 
was  concerned  about  it,  particularly  in 
Toronto.  I  would  like  to  know  whether  there 
is  a  policy  or  whether  it  will  continue  on  an 
ad  hoc  basis  as  pressure  may  be  applied  from 
communities  to  involve  the  various  ethnic 
groups  in  the  probation  services,  other  than 
as  volunteers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman^  concern- 
ing the  first  question  as  it  relates  to  transfer 
to  Community  and  Social  Services,  in  my 
comments  when  I  introduced  my  estimate,  I 
si)oke  about  section  8.  I  don't  think  the  mem- 
ber for  St.  George  was  here.  I  referred  to  one 
aspect  of  the  Training  Schools  Act,  which  is 
a  very  contentious  issue— as  a  matter  of  fact, 
she  and  I  have  spoken  about  this  before— 
under  which  children  who  haven't  committed 
any  crime  are  committed  to  an  institution. 

Around  43  or  45  per  cent  of  children  com- 
ing into  our  institutions  come  in  under  section 
8.  I  feel  very  strongly  about  this,  as  do  many 
of  my  colleagues.  We're  taking  a  look  at  it 
now  to  be  sure.  There  has  always  been  the 
argument  that  if  you  don't  do  it  this  way, 
what's  going  to  happen  to  them  because 
there  is  nothing  set  up  under  any  other 
ministry  or  any  other  section  bv  which  they 
can  be  dealt  with?  We  just  don't  accept  that. 

We  are  now  exploring  ways  to  make  sure 
that  these  children  can  be  looked  after.  I 
think  they  can  be,  quite  adequately.  If  the 
agencies  that  are  responsible  for  that  toda>' 
aren't  prepared  to  look  after  them,  then  per- 
haps we  should  make  some  changes  there. 
I'm  hopeful  that  we  will  be  able  to  bring  in 
the  recommendation  that  section  8  be  re- 
moved from  the  Act.  At  the  present  time, 
we're  looking  at  it  very,  very  carefully. 


1146 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


As  far  as  funding  is  concerned,  again  it  is 
the  same  thing  that  we  were  running  into  in 
the  Health  Ministry  with  funding  on  many  of 
our  programmes.  We  don't  get  any  cost- 
sharing  here  with  this,  but  we  have  been 
assured  by  the  federal  government  that  by  the 
end  of  this  year  they  will  make  arrangements 
that  we  will  get  funding  to  assist  in  this  pro- 
gramme. 

The  member  spoke  about  the  Oakville 
Training  Centre.  Details  haven't  been  finalized 
but  we  are  going  along  with  the  regionaliza- 
tion  that  we  spoke  about  before.  It  is  being 
developed.  Our  intention  at  the  present  time 
is  to  keep  the  child  as  near  home  as  possible, 
whenever  it  is  possible.  There  are  times  when 
it  just  isn't  possible  to  keep  a  child  in  his 
own  environment.  It  is  our  intention  to  ex- 
amine the  role  of  the  Oakville  centre  at  the 
present  time  as  part  of  our  regionalization 
studies  to  see  how  eflFective  it  is.  We  are 
now  in  the  process  of  doing  this. 

We're  concerned,  too,  about  expansion  of 
our  parole  system  and  our  parole  oflBcers.  At 
the  present  time,  we  have  one  Portuguese- 
speaking  individual  to  whom  we  have  offered 
a  position  as  a  probation  and  aftercare 
officer- 
Mrs.  Campbell:  I  think  I  might  have  had 
something  to  do  with  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  —I  think  probably  you 
did— and  we  are  hopeful  that  we'll  be  able  to 
expand  this.  I  believe  at  the  present  time  he 
has  a  commitment  until  June  with  another 
organization.  Again,  you  are  probably  more 
familiar  with  this  than  I  am,  but  we  are 
hopeful  that  he  will  accept  this  position  and 
that  will  be  a  beginning,  and  then  we  will  be 
able  to  get  people  working  with  our  ministry 
who  can  talk  their  own  language,  so  to 
speak,  and  not  just  interpret. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Excuse  me.  May  I  have  a 
supplementary? 

I  am  still  concerned,  and  I  would  like  the 
minister  to  elaborate,  on  this  matter  of 
keeping  the  child  in  a  facility  close  to  his  or 
her  home  as  an  absolute  principle.  I  think 
there  are  many  cases  when  this  is  quite 
proper  and  quite  correct,  but  I  believe  that 
there  are  equally  so  many  cases  where  the 
child  is  in  deep  trouble  because  of  the  home 
environment  or  because  of  the  school  environ- 
ment, that  is,  the  children  with  whom  he 
comes  in  contact,  particularly  if  he  is  a 
member  of  an  ethnic  group.  Sometimes,  be- 
cause they  are  lonely,  they  have  a  gap 
between  them  and  their  parents,  they  are 
seeking   to    have    some    communication   with 


school  mates  and  they  get  into  some  pretty 
serious  problems  because  of  it.  But  when  you 
spoke  I  was  concerned  that  you  seemed  to 
be  saying  that  this  was  a  principle.  I  would 
like  to  see  some  flexibility  in  that  sitution  if 
the  minister  would  comment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  No,  that  is  not  an  abso- 
lute policy,  Mr.  Chairman.  We  too  agree.  I 
couldn't  agree  with  you  more  wholeheartedly. 
But  in  many,  many  instances  we  try  to  ac- 
commodate people  if  we  can,  and  if  they 
want  them  in  their  own  area,  and  we  consider 
it  is  in  their  best  interests  if  they  go  there, 
then  we  try  to  do  it.  We  aren't  always  able 
to  do  that  but  we  try  to. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  you  have  just  pointed 
out,  there  are  equally  as  many  cases  where 
it's  in  the  child's  best  interests  not  to  put 
them  in  their  local  environment.  Then,  by  the 
same  token,  we  attempt  then  to  try  to  put 
them  in  an  area  that  is  best  suited  to  them 
and  try  to  put  them  where  the  training  is  of 
the  nature  that  is  best  suited  to  their  specific 


Mrs.  Campbell:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
encourage  the  minister— in  follow-up  to  a 
question  of  my  colleague— in  the  use  of  more 
and  more  people  who  are  familiar  with  more 
than  just  the  English  language,  who  can 
speak  Polish,  Ukrainian,  Hungarian— you  name  : 

it.  In  certain  communities,  for  example  in  the  i 

Toronto   area,   the   Italian  community  is  ex-  ; 

tremely  strong,  and  I  think  the  probation  offi-  < 

cers  wherever  possible  should  have  the  ability         | 
to  be  able  to  converse  in  more  than  just  the 
one  language,  because  it  is  a  real  asset  in  the 
whote  approach  to  rehabilitation.  . 

One  of  the  problems  really  is  communica-         ' 
tion,  and  if  you  have  someone  who  can  com-         ' 
municate    with    an    individual    in   his    native 
tongue,  you  know  how  much  easier  it  is.  I 
find  myself  very  fortunate  in  being  able  to 
speak  almost  half  a  dozen  different  languages,  ! 

and  as  a  result  I  can  communicate  with  ' 
people  that  you,  Mr.  Minister,  might  have  \ 
difficulty  with.  I  think  it  would  be  to  the  | 
advantage  of  the  ministry  if,  where  possible,  ; 
they  do  employ  people  who  are  multilingual;  j 
not  that  they  should  be  multilingual,  but  j 
wherever  possible  employ  mutilingual  as 
opposed  to  unilingual  people.  ■* 

Hon.    Mr.    Potter:    Yes,    Mr.   Chairman,    I        \ 
mentioned    a    few    minutes    ago    the    Portu-         \ 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1147 


guese  officer.  We  also  have  one  Italian  pro- 
baticiu  officer  and  we  have  one  German,  One 
of  the  problems  that  we  have  run  into  is  the 
standards  that  are  required  by  the  Civil 
Service  Commission,  and  just  recently  the 
Civil  Service  Commission  agreed  that  it  would 
lower  some  of  its  qualifications  as  they  relate 
to  immigrant  applicants. 

I  would  go  a  step  further,  with  all  due  re- 
spect, and  suggest  that  it  is  not  just  a  multi- 
lingual probation  officer  that  we  require.  I 
think  it's  fine  to  have  someone  who  can 
speak  their  language,  but  I  think  it's  much 
better  if  it's  one  of  their  own  countrymen 
who  they  can  relate  to.  I  think  they  can  re- 
late to  them  much  easier. 

If  I  could  speak  Portuguese  and  talk  to 
them  they're  not  going  to  pay  as  much  at- 
tention to  me  as  they  are  to  one  of  their  own 
countrymen.  They  can  sit  down  and  talk,  not 
about  their  own  problem  here,  but  some  of 
their  own  family  problems,  living  conditions, 
conditions  in  Portugal  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  What  you  say,  Mr.  Min- 
ister, is  absolutely  true  and  it  would  be  ideal 
if  we  could  come  along  and  get  that  type  of 
individual.  I  know  it's  difficult  in  many  cases. 

I  notice  that  the  Toronto  police  depart- 
ment now  is  looking  at  the  various  ethnic 
groups  in  the  community.  They  know  that 
the  individual,  such  as  you  made  mention  of, 
a  countryman,  is  always  on  a  better  com- 
municative level  than  is  someone  who  can 
simply  speak  the  language  as  a  result  of 
university  training,  or  high  school  training, 
or  even  as  a  result  of  asociation  with  the  vari- 
ous ethnic  communities. 

I  think  the  civil  service  may  have  to  look 
at  that  as  an  added  requirement.  I  don't 
think  we  should  downgrade  the  qualifications 
of  the  individual,  but  I  think  that,  where  all 
things  are  equal  and  the  individual  is  con- 
versant in  more  than  one  language,  there 
should  be  some  type  of  preference  in  that 
area. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth).  May  I  just 
say  a  word  about  this?  I  can  appreciate  the 
point  being  made  by  the  members,  about  hav- 
ing people  whose  ethnic  background  will  al- 
low them  to  communicate  with  others.  But 
surely  the  answer  isn't  to  have  this  great 
number  of  people  in  every  ministry  that  deals 
with  people— Community  and  Social  Services, 
Health,  Correctional  Services  and  so  on.  In 
other  words,  you  can't  hire  people  in  every 
ministry  to  do  that.  What  the  government 
has  to  do  is  to  have  a  policy  whereby  there 
are  ethnic  centres  in  every  major  community 


and  the  ethnic  centres  have  within  them 
people  who  speak  the  language  and  who 
have  an  ethnic  background,  who  can  be  used 
by  any  of  the  ministries  in  communicating 
with  people  of  an  ethnic  origin,  the  first 
generation  ethnic  people. 

I'm  really  reluctant  to  see  the  sort  of  build- 
up of  bureaucracy  that  would  occur  if  every 
ministry  had  to  hire  people  all  of  different 
ethnic  tongues.  I  think  what  should  be  done 
is  that  there  should  be  a  coming  together  of 
all  the  ministers  under  the  Proviricial  Sec- 
retary for  Social  Development  (Mrs.  Birch), 
and  each  major  conmiunity  should  have  with- 
in it  a  centre  where  there  are  people  avail- 
able who  would  not  only  speak  the  language 
but  understand  the  ethnic  backgrounds  of 
the  community  itself,  so  that  the  Correctional 
Services  Ministry,  or  the  Community  and 
Social  Services  Ministry,  or  the  Health  Min- 
istry, or  any  other  ministry  that  deals  pri- 
marily with  the  affairs  and  problems  of  peo- 
ple, could  call  upon  that  centre  and  have  a 
person  made  available  to  them  who  could 
communicate  and  who  could  develop  a  re- 
lationship. 

I  don't  happen  to  think  that  the  aftercare 
work  is  so  specialized.  I  think  it's  very  much 
a  problem  of  the  abihty  to  communicate,  a 
feeling  of  people  for  people.  I  think  there  is— 

Mrs.  Campbell:  It  is  specialized  work. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  don't  know.  I've  done  a  little 
bit  of  it,  too,  and  I  want  to  tell  you  that  I 
don't  think  it's  any  more  specialized  than  in 
Community  and  Social  Services  dealing  with 
the  breakup  of  a  home  and  trying  to  come 
to  grips  with  the  emotional  and  background 
problems  that  arise  in  that  kind  of  a  situa- 
tion. I  think  that  there  could  well  be  some 
setup  whereby  there  would  be  people  avail- 
able, without  having  each  ministry  burgeon- 
ing to  the  point  where  there  would  be  far 
too  many  civil  servants  in  a  bureaucracy  we 
couldn't  afford. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  agree 
with  the  hon.  member  that  the  type  of  facility 
he's  speaking  about  would  be  a  wonderful 
thing  for  information  purposes.  But  we're 
dealing  with  two  different  things  here. 

I  just  can't  accept  that  we're  talking  about 
the  same  thing  when  we're  talking  about  how 
practical  it  would  be  for  aftercare  and  super- 
vision of  probationers.  I  think  this  is  a  very, 
very  important  aspect  of  Correctional  Ser- 
vices, and  I'm  sure  the  member  for  St.  George 
can  perhaps  give  us  some  of  her  views  on 
this,  because  she  has  been  very,  very  actively 
involved  in  it. 


1148 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


But  when  we're  talking  about  employing 
probation  oflBcers  of  various  ethnic  back- 
grounds, let  us  remember  that  this  isn't  going 
to  be  in  every  community,  in  every  city  in 
Ontario,  because  it's  not  necessary.  But  there 
are  areas,  particularly  in  the  large  metropoli- 
tan areas,  where  there  is  a  need— in  fact,  there 
is  a  great  need— for  a  probation  oflBcer  in  this 
specific  case. 

Mr.  Deans:  In  every  single  major  munic- 
ipality there  is  a  need. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  No,  I  can't  agree  with 
that;  there  isn't. 

Mr.  Deans:   In  Windsor  there  is  a  need; 

in  Hamilton  there  is  a  need;  in  Toronto  there 

is  a  need- 
Mr.  Chairman:   The  hon.   member  for  St. 

George. 

Mr.  Deans:  —in  Sudbury  there  is  a  need, 
because  there  are  large  ethnic  communities 
there. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order,  please. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  sym- 
pathize with  what  has  been  said.  I  am  not 
one  who  supports  a  large  bureaucracy,  but 
when  it  comes  to  the  matter  of  probation 
services— and  I  must  confess  that  on  the 
whole  my  experience  with  probation  services 
was  far  more  satisfactory  than  my  experience 
with  aftercare.  I  think  they  were  two  dif- 
ferent things.  The  quality  of  concern  also 
was  different  in  the  two.  And  I  hope  that 
in  aftercare  we  will  perhaps  improve  that 
element. 

Speaking  of  specific  cases  in  terms  of 
aftercare  programmes,  it  was  very  interesting 
for  me  to  note  how  many  time  a  boy,  for 
example,  would  be  in  trouble  because  of 
having  too  much  time  on  his  hands.  The 
aftercare  worker  wasn't  concerned,  for  ex- 
ample, about  the  boy  not  being  in  school  or 
not  having  any  kind  of  a  programme.  In  one 
specific  case  he  knew  the  boy  was  spending 
his  time  at  large  in  the  community  without 
any  kind  of  schedule  and  presumably  would 
and  in  fact  did  get  into  further  trouble. 

On  the  matter  of  probation  services, 
though— and  I  can't  answer  at  all  as  to  the 
caseload  of  probation  oflRcers,  although  I 
know  the  Italian  probation  officers  are  very 
busy— I  can't  see  how  we  could  give  other 
functions  to  most  of  them  in  the  way  in 
which  it  has  been  suggested,  otherwise  they 
would  not  perform  the  function  which  is  of 
primary  importance  between  the  child  and 
the  family  and  the  child  and  the  community. 


The  other  matter  I  want  to  speak  to  is 
what  the  minister  said  about  section  8  appli- 
cations. The  minister  knows  this  is  a  matter  of 
the  gravest  concern  to  anyone  functioning  in 
the  family  court.  But  I  was  a  little  puzzled 
by  his  remarks:  "If  the  organization  can't 
look  after  them  then  we  must  change  the 
organizations."  That,  I  understand,  is  what 
he  said. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  that  the  Chil- 
dren's Aid  Societies,  for  example,  are  of  the 
first  line  in  this  kind  of  a  situation;  and  it  is 
only  when  they,  plus  the  parents  or  the 
guardians,  come  forward  and  say  they  are 
totally  unable  to  look  after  this  child  and 
there  is  in  fact  no  other  facility  in  the  com- 
munity that  can  look  after  this  child,  that  a 
judge,  very  reluctantly  and  with  the  gravest 
sense  that  it  is  a  lack  of  facility  of  this 
government  as  an  alternative,  may  and  does, 
as  the  minister  suggests,  place  a  child  in  a 
training  school. 

Of  course,  there  are  all  sorts  of  other 
things.  Sometimes  a  child  is  too  young  to  be 
guilty  of  an  offence  but  may  be  quite  a 
danger  to  the  community.  I  can  remember  one 
seven-year-old  arsonist;  it  is  a  littie  difficult 
to  know  how  to  handle  a  situation  like  that 
with  no  alternative  facilities. 

The  position  of  the  Children's  Aid  Societies, 
with  their  group  homes— and  they  have  great 
trouble  with  group  homes  in  trying  to  get 
staff— their  position  often  is,  can  they  afford 
to  take  this  one  child  in  and  perhaps  lose  the 
advantage  of  the  work  we  have  been  able  to 
do  with  eight  or  nine  othersi  in  the  same 
facility?  I  would  not  like  to  stand  here  or  to 
sit  here  and  have  the  impression  abroad  that 
the  Children's  Aid  are  somehow  at  fault  if 
they  cannot  handle  all  of  these  children.  I 
would  hope  that  there  would  be  greater 
facilities  than  we  presently  have  for  children 
of  this  kind  who  are  deeply  disturbed'. 

I  would  like  to  hear  the  minister— if  I  madfe 
a  mistake  in  what  he  said,  of  course  I  would 
apologize  for  it,  but  if  that  is  what  he  said 
I  would  like  him  to  tell  me  in  what  way  the 
Children's  Aid  should  be  able  to  function  in 
these  areas  where  they  are  not  already  func- 
tioning. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  my 
opening  comments  I  said  that  we  were  ex- 
ploring the  abolition  of  section  8. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Potter:  We  certainly  have  no 
intention  of  recommending  that  it  be  abolished 
unless    we    are    convinced    that    alternative 


APRIL  18,  1974 


1149 


arrangements  can  be  made  to  look  after  these 
chiklren.  I  wasn't  referring  to  any  specific 
group  or  any  specific  society  when  I  said 
they  were  unable  to  look  after  them.  What  I 
am  saying  is  that  as  a  society  ourselves  if  we 
are  unable  to  look  after  them  we  have  to  find 
some  better  way  of  doing  it.  I  want  to  make 
sure  that  that  is  arranged  before  we  start 
saying  let's  abohsh  this  section. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  vote  1403  carried? 

Vote  1403  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  This  completes  the  study  of 
the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  Correctional 
Services. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  conmiittee 
rise  and  report. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  resumed; 
chair. 


Mr,   Speaker  in  the 


Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  committee 
of  supply  begs  to  report  it  has  come  to  certain 
resolutions  and  asks  for  leave  to  sit  again. 

Report  agreed  to. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  before 
I  adjourn  the  House  for  the  day,  I  would  like 
to  say  as  previously  armounced  tfiat  tomorrow 
and  through  Monday  we  wall  be  dealing  with 
items  No.  9,  8  and  6  on  the  order  paper  in 
that  order. 


Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
wonder  if,  before  the  adjournment  motion  is 

Sut,  I  mav  ask  the  House  leader  whether  he 
oesn't  think  that,  since  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  (Mr.  Meens)  has  indicated  there  will 
be  substantial  amendment  to  at  least  one  of 
the  bills  he  has  cane<l,  we  shouldn't  debate 
the  principle  of  the  bill  until  after  we  see  the 
amendments?  In  fact,  the  principle  of  the  bill 
may  well  be  considerably  different  after  it 
has  been  amended  in  committee  if  the  amend- 
ments are  as  substantial  as  the  minister  has 
indicated  they  will  be. 

I'm  not  suggesting  for  a  momerrt  that  we 
not  proceed  but  I  do  think  that  if  there  are 
to  be  amendments  of  the  type  indicated  or  if 
they  are  likely  to  be  forthcoming,  for  us  to 
continue  with  the  debate  on  the  principle  of 
the  bill,  not  knowing  what  the  principle  itself 
may  well  turn  out  to  be,  is  not  in  keeping 
with  the  rules  of  the  House. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  quite 
sure  the  fears  of  the  hon.  member  will  be 
allayed.  I  think  in  calling  the  legislation  as  I 
have  called  it,  bringing  Bill  26  forth  first,  we 
may  well  solve  that  problem  before  we  reach 
the  second  order. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  5:10  o'clock,  p.m. 


1150  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  April  18,  1974 

Replacement  for  Don  Jail,  questions  of  Mr.  Potter:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  1111 

Intermediate   capacity   transit   system,    questions   of   Mr.   Rhodes:    Mr.   R.    F.   Nixon, 

Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.  Givens  1112 

Rent  control,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Renwick, 

Mr.   Singer  1113 

Warranty  on  new  homes,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Deans  1114 

Oil  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis  1115 

Increase  in  price  of  milk,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis  1115 

Inquiry  into  hospital  employees'  remuneration,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  Lewis, 

Mr.   Roy   1116 

Housing  programmes,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Singer 1117 

OHC  advertising,  question  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  1118 

Independent  sawmill  operators,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Reid  1119 

Mechanical  fitness  certificates  for  cars,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Young,  Mr.  Roy  1119 

GO  train  to  Georgetown,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  MacBeth  1120 

Train  journey  in  western  Ontario,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr,  Sargent  1121 

Report  on  Lake  Wanapitei,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Martel  1121 

Bill  25,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Singer  1122 

Hiring  of  liquor  store  employees,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Shulman  1123 

Pyramid  sales  schemes,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Roy  1123 

Report,  standing  private  bills  committee,  Mr.  Taylor  1124 

Report,  Ontario  Highway  Transport  Board,  Mr.  Rhodes  1124 

Tabling  answer  to  question  3  on  order  paper,  Mr.  Winkler  1124 

Unlawful  Funds  Investment  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Shulman,  firet  reading  1124 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Budget,  Mr.  MacDonald  1128 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  1141 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services,  Mr.  Potter,  concluded  1141 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  1149 


No.  27 


Ontario 


iLesisilature  of  ([Ontario 


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


Friday,  April  19, 1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


1153 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  o'clock,  a.m. 
Prayers. 


F^uDAY,  April  19,  1074 

in  the  standing  orders  that  requires  a  ques- 
tion be  answered  in  one  way  or  another.  It 
may  be  answered  but  it  need  not  be 
answered. 


POINT  OF  ORDER 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Mr.  Speaker, 
on  a  point  of  order.  Yesterday  the  govern- 
ment- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  hardly  see  how  it  can  be  a 
point  of  order  at  this  moment.  The  proceed- 
ings haven't  started— nothing  is  out  of  order. 
It  may  be  a  point  of  privilege. 

Mr.  Shulman:  It  refers  to  yesterday's 
proceedings,  sir. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Was  the  hon.  member  present 
when  the  alleged  breach  of  order  occurred? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  should  have  been  brought 
up  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  couldn't;  I  didn't  know  it 
was  occurring.  The  government  House 
leader  yesterday  said  he  was  giving  the 
answer  to  question  3  on  the  order  paper.  I 
presumed  he  was  giving  the  answer.  How 
could  I  know  he  wasn't?  That  is  the  point 
of  order  I  would  like  to  raise. 

The  information  he  supplied  was  not  the 
information  requested.  The  information  re- 
quested which  referred  to  certain  dates  has 
still  not  been  supplied,  and  the  question  is  off 
the  order  paper. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Well, 
that's  just  outrageous,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  let  the  minister  supply 
the  right  information.  He  shouldn't  be  a  patsy 
to  his  colleagues. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  should  point  out  that  any 
question,  whether  it  be  oral  or  whether  it 
be  written,  may  be  answered  in  whatever 
manner  the  hon.  minister  to  whom  the  ques- 
tion was  directed  sees  fit.  There  is  nc^iing 


POINT  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  A  point  of 
privilege,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  have  been  trying  to  get  information  from 
the  Provincial  Auditor  both  on  the  amount 
of  moneys  being  paid  to  Robert  Macaulay 
who  has  been  retained  at  $75  an  hour  to 
the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  McKeough)  and 
on  other  matters  of  equal  importance  in  the 
public  interest  and  the  Provincial  Auditor 
refuses  to  give  me  any  information.  His  posi- 
tion is  that  the  information  should  be  re- 
quested in  the  form  of  a  question  to  the 
ministry  or  in  the  public  accounts  committee. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  simple  facts  are  that  the 
public  accoimts  committee  has  information 
18  months  old  and  the  ministry  will  not  give 
information  if  it  is  embarrassing,  but  will 
cover  it  up.  So  I'm  trying  to  get  across  this 
position.  If  we  are  going  to  do  a  meaningful 
job  here,  on  behalf  of  the  taxpayers  of  On- 
tario, in  weeding  out  these  inequities  and 
what  is  going  on,  then  we  must  have  access 
to  this  information. 

The  fact  is  that  these  public  ser\'ants  know 
this  information;  I  am  not  allowed  to  know 
it  but  they  know  it.  I,  as  an  elected  oflBcial, 
have  a  right  to  that  information  and  I  think 
it  is  time  that  we  resolve  this,  immediately, 
because  the  job  we  are  doing  is  not  meaning- 
ful if  this  is  allowed  to  be  continued.  So  I 
ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  weigh  this  ques- 
tion that  the  Provincial  Auditor  must  furnish 
this  information  to  us,  each  hon.  member  of 
the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  should  comment  upon  the 
remarks  of  the  hon.  member.  First  of  all  I 
believe  he  did  rise  in  reference  to  what  he 
alleged  was  a  point  of  privilege.  Privilege, 
of  course,  is  a  right  conferred  upon  a  mem- 
ber of  Parliament  or  the  hon.  members  of 
Parliament  collectively,  which  right  or 
privilege  is  not  conferred  upon  the  members 
of  the  general  public.  The  hon.  member  per- 


1154 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


haps  has  a  vaUd  complaint,  but  certainly  it  is 
not  a  point  of  privilege  as  referred  to  in  the 
parliamentary  rules. 

He  has  made  his  point  and  I  think  that 
it  should  be  pursued,  but  certainly  it  is  not, 
in  my  opinion,  a  point  of  privilege.  It  can  be 
pursued  to  determine  just  whether  or  not 
the  hon.  member  has  the  right  to  this  in- 
formation, but  it  is  not  a  parhamentary 
pri\'ilege  to  which  he  referred,  therefore 
there  is  no  action  which  can  be  taken  on  my 
part.  As  far  as  the  Speaker  is  concerned,  I 
can  in  no  way  impel  the  auditor  or  anyone 
else  to  divulge  information.  There  are  other 
means  by  which  the  hon.  member  may 
pursue  this. 


POINT  OF  ORDER 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  raise  a  point  of  order, 
since  you  entertained  the  previous  point  of 
order.  I  have  asked  a  number  of  my  col- 
leagues on  all  sides  of  the  House  and  I  get 
different  answers.  I  would  like  to  know,  sir, 
when  ministers  reply  with  written  answers— 
when  ordinarily  they  would  be  expected  to 
reply  in  the  House  to  oral  questions  and  their 
answers  would  be  the  soul  of  brevity— gener- 
ally when  they  prepare  written  replies  they 
come  out  about  six  times  longer  than  they 
should.  Do  you  in  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  stop  the 
clock  with  respect  to  these  replies,  having  to 
do  with  the  time  allotted  for  the  oral  ques- 
tion period,  or  do  you  not?  May  I  have  an 
authoritative  answer,  please? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  is  asking 
for  an  authoritative  answer.  The  only 
authority  is  the  Speaker,  because  there  is 
nothing  in  the  standing  orders  which  stipu- 
lates what  shall  or  shall  not  be  done  in  certain 
circumstances.  I  believe  the  hon.  member  has 
observed  the  custom  and  the  practice  in  the 
House  and  he  has  a  copy  of  the  standing 
orders.  There  is  a  45-minute  period  provided 
for  oral  questions,  and  a  reasonable  number 
of  supplementaries  may  be  directed  to  the 
minister.  Again,  this  is  left  at  the  discretion 
of  the  Speaker  to  determine  what  is  a  reason- 
able number  of  questions.  In  that  respect  I 
do  have  to  consider  the  nature  of  the  question 
in  the  first  place,  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion, whether  or  not  two  or  three  or  four  or 
five  supplementaries  are  in  order. 

Regarding  the  time  taken  to  provide  an 
answer  by  the  hon.  minister,  I  have  worked 
out  a  programme  where  if  I  feel  that  the 
question  has  constituted  something  that  would 
more  properly  have  been  a  ministerial  state- 
ment, then  I  have  added  two  or  three  or  four 


minutes  to  the  question  period  time.  I  might 
say  to  the  hon.  members  that  in  my  opinion, 
two  or  2\^  minutes  would  be  a  reasonable 
length  of  time,  at  the  most,  in  which  to  pro- 
vide an  answer  to  any  question.  If  it  goes 
beyond  that  then  I  do  add  one  or  two  or 
three  minutes  to  the  question  period  time.  I 
trust  that  answers  the  hon.  member. 


POINT  OF  ORDER 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Mr. 
Speaker,  since  this  seems  to  be  order  time 
rather  than  question  time,  let  me  raise  a 
point  of  order  too.  This  morning,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  we  are  going  to  continue,  at  the 
appropriate  time,  wdth  the  estimates  of  the 
Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General.  At  the  same 
time,  the  House  leader  has  indicated  to  us 
that  perhaps  he  is  going  to  call  second  read- 
ing of  the  two  taxing  bills  which  stand  on  the 
order  paper.  This  places  a  very  substantial 
burden  on  many  hon.  members  of  this  House 
who  would  like  to  take  part  in  both  of  the 
debates  and  I  appeal  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
perhaps  to  suggest  to  the  House  leader  that 
he  might  be  able  to  order  the  business  of  the 
House  so  that  those  who  are  interested  in 
both  of  these  events  might  be  able  to  take 
part  in  them  at  different  times. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sure  that  the  hon. 
member  for  Downsview  doesn't  really  believe 
that  I  should  direct,  in  any  way,  the  House 
leader  as  to  the  order  of  business- 
Mr.  Singer:  I  did  not  ask  you  to  direct 
him. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  beheve  that  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Dovmsview  intended  only  to  get  his 
point  across  to  the  House,  which  he  has  done. 
In  no  way  can  I  direct  the  hon.  House  leader 
what  we  will  do. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Somebody 
should. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  further  point  of 
order,  I  only  heard  part  of  the  question  asked 
of  you,  sir,  by  the  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce,  but  I  would  suggest  that  if  he  puts 
that  question  on  the  onler  paper  it  will  be 
answered. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  didn't  hear  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  would  suggest  that 
if  the  hon.  member  is  concerned  about  cer- 
tain expenditures  and  if  he  puts  a  question 
on  the  order  paper,  it  will  be  answered. 


APRIL  19.  1974 


1155 


Mr.  Sargent:  Doesn't  the  minister  know  the 
answer  himself  without  me  putting  the  ques- 
tion on  the  order  paper? 

Mr:  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  point  <rf 
view  I  want  to  raise  with  you. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  That's  un- 
usual. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
[  ment  Board  of  Cabinet):  How  is  the  hon. 
I        member  going  to  put  it  forward? 

Mr.  Lewis:  In  one  of  the  galleries,  east  or 
west,  there  are  politics  students  from  Wex- 
ford Collegiate,  many  of  whom  reside  in  my 
riding,  and  I'd  hke  to  introduce  them  to  the 
House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  From  that  point  of  view,  it's 
perfectly  in  order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  member  for  Kitchener. 


AD  IN  GLOBE  AND  MAIL 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Rev- 
enue: Can  the  minister  advise  as  to  the  cost 
of  the  full-page  advertisement  in  this  morn- 
ing's Globe  and  Mail  and  whether,  in  addi- 
tion, item  10  is  correct  when  it  says:  "On- 
tario will  reduce  its  outstanding  public  debt 
to  a  target  figure  of  $449  million  utilizing 
cash  flow  surplus  and  excessive  liquid  re- 
serves"? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Misleading  the  public. 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not  seen  that  advertise- 
ment. I'll  get  the  information  for  the  hon. 
member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  minister  okayed  the  ad, 
didn't  he? 


OFFICE  FURNISHING  STANDARDS 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Government  Services:  Following  the  in- 
fonnation  in  his  ministry's  supply  standards 
catalogue,    can    the    minister   justify   for   me 


the  requirements  of  the  basic  entitlement  of 
ministers  of  the  government  to  have,  amone 
other  things,  a  double-pedestal  desk  valued 
up  to  $950  and  ashtrays  of  $15  each,  for  a 
possible  total  of  some  $6,673,  in  their  par- 
ticular offices?  Can  he  advise  me  as  well  how 
he  can  justify  that  cost  for  a  desk,  when  in 
Grand  and  'Toy's  present  catalogue  the  most 
expensive  desk  they  sell  is  priced  at  $565 
and  even  that  one  is  on  sale  at  $318? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Rcid  (Rainy  River):  His  father- 
in-law  sells  them. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Go\emment 
Services):  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  supply  stan- 
dards catalogue  specifies  certain  classes  of 
furniture,  with  which  I'm  sure  the  hon.  mem- 
ber is  familiar,  for  different  offices.  We  also 
have  standards  as  to  space  for  different  types 
of  accommodation,  whether  it  be  an  office 
for  a  minister,  a  deputy  minister  or  an  execu- 
tive director. 

Mr.  Singer:  He  didn't  read  the  X-rated 
catalogue. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  These  standards  that  have 
been  developed  are  certainly  maximums.  I 
don't  believe  any  of  the  ministers  that  I  know 
of  have  had  any  more  elaborate  desks  than 
would  be  anticipated.  These  are  maximum 
standards  that  have  been  approved  by  Man- 
agement Board  and  they  are  the  standards 
that  we  live  with. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  As  an  additional  question, 
Mr.  Speaker,  to  go  further  into  this  rug- 
ranking  problem,  can  the  minister  justify  how 
a  government  secretary,  again  according  to 
this  manual,  is  entitled  to  some  $239  wOTth 
of  office  amenities  while  a  ministerial  private 
secretary  is  entitled  to  $1,943,  eight  times  as 
much? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Well,  again,  these  stan- 
dards are  set  up.  The  normal  secretarial 
furniture  that  the  government  uses  is  stan- 
dard steel  furniture.  Normally,  furniture  for 
ministerial  secretarial  offices  is  wood  furni- 
ture. This  makes  some  of  the  difference.  It  is 
normally  of  a  design  that  blends  with  the 
other  furniture  in  the  office. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  a  matter  of  blend,  is  it? 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary: Do  the  prices  that  have  been  indi- 
cated by  my  colleague  reflect  the  benefits 
and  the  savings  that  accnie  to  taxpayers  by 
centralized  purchasing  in  this  province?  Why 
can't  the  government  show  any  evidence  of 


1156 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


economy    and    consciousness    of    inflationary 
costs  in  the  way  of  operating  this? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  these  supply 
catalogues  have  not  been  changed.  There 
have  been  no  inflationaTy  increases  built  in. 
This  furniture  is— 

Interjections  by  bon.  members. 

Hon.   Mr.   Snow:   Does  the  hon.   member 
want  an  answer  or  doesn't  he?  If  his  col- 
leagues would  quit  shouting- 
Mr.  Reid:  We  would  like  an  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  can  assure  the  hon. 
member  that  all  of  this  furniture  is  bought 
by  public  tender  and  is  bought  under  the 
bulk  purchasing  system  of  a  larger  order  put 
together,  and  the  tenders  are  called  on  this 
at  varying  intervals. 

All  our  furniture  is  publicly  tendered 
through  the  central  purchasing  system  and  is 
bought  for  all  ministries  under  the  bulk 
system.  When  we  buy  filing  cabinets,  we 
don't  go  out  to  Grand  and  Toy,  as  the  hon. 
member  may  be  suggesting,  and  buy  one 
filing  cabinet  at  retail  price. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  It 
would  be  a  lot  cheaper  if  they  did. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  We  call  tenders  on  the 
supply  of  the  necessary  filing  cabinets  that 
we  need  or  anticipate  that  we  will  need  in 
one  year.  Then  as  the  requirements  come  up, 
these  materials,  whether  they  be  filing  cab- 
inets, whether  they  be  typewriters  or  whether 
they  be  wastepaper  baskets,  are  supphed 
against  oiu:  overall  purchasing  contract  for 
that  commodity. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  further  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  the  minister  not  agree  that 
the  specifications  for  this  equipment  should 
be  reviewed,  because  it's  obvious  that  the 
prices  are  completely  out  of  line  to  what's 
appropriate? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  No,  I  would  not  agree  at 
all  with  that,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  have  another  question  of 
the  same  minister,  Mr.  Spedcer:  Can  the  min- 
ister provide  us  with  the  information— I  real- 
ize he  can't  perhaps  do  it  right  now— of  any 
costs  for  improvements  that  have  been  neces- 
sitated by  the  recent  five  appointments  to  the 
cabinet? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  To  my  knowledge,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  wiU  check  into  this  further, 
there  have  been  no  changes  or  no  refumish- 


ings  of  any  type  in  any  minister's  oflBces  with 
these  last  changes  or  appointments.  In  fact, 
there  have  been  very  few  changes  or  very 
little  new  furniture  for  any  minister  in  the 
two  years  that  I  have  been  minister  of  the 
department. 

Mr.  Lewis:  In  fact,  there  is  no  space  to 
put  the  furniture  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  desk  and 
the  furniture  in  my  oflBce  are  exactly  the  same 
that  was  put  there  when  the  building  was 
built. 

Mr.  Reid:  Oh,  antiques! 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  The  furniture  my  pre- 
decessor, three  removed,  the  hon.  Ray  Con- 
nell,  selected  in  that  office  is  still  there  and 
has  been  used  by  each  minister  since  and  is 
still  serving  me  very  adequately. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Perhaps  if  it  was  used 
harder,  it  might  wear  out.  That's  possible, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


DENTURE  THERAPISTS 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Health.  Can  the  minister  advise 
us  if  there  is  any  new  information  that  he 
can  give  us  with  respect  to  the  situation  of 
the  denturists,  particularly  as  to  whether  there 
have  been  any  further  charges  laid  or  whether 
the  minister  can  advise  us  of  expected 
changes  that  will  hopefully  resolve  this  par- 
ticular problem? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  first  part  of  the  question, 
I  can  make  no  more  comment  at  this  point 
in  time.  On  the  second  part  of  the  question, 
to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  no  more  charges 
have  been  made.  However,  charges  are  not 
brought  by  the  Ministry  of  HealSi,  as  I  am 
sure  the  hon.  gentleman  knows;  they  are 
brought  by  the  normal  people  who  can  lay 
charges. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  By  whom- 
ever it  is. 

Mr.  Sargent:  By  normal  people? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  That  leaves  the  member 
for  Grey-Bruce  out.  I  am  certainly  hopeful 
that  a  final  decision  will  be  forthcoming  soon. 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1157 


AD  IN  GLOBE  AND  MAIL 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order,  before  we  go  on  to  the  next  ques- 
tion, the  hon.  member  for  Kitchener  asked 
me  about  an  advertisement  placed  in  the 
Globe  this  morning  which  I  hadn't  seen  and 
I  readily  conceded  that,  but  I  can  see  now 
wh\'  I  was  not  aware  of  it.  It's  placed  by  my 
colleague,  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White),  and  by 
the  Premier.  It  seems  to  me  the  questions 
raised  by  the  member  for  Kitchener  should 
more  properly  have  been  directed  to  one  or 
other  of  those  two  of  my  colleagues,  rather 
than  to  me  and  to  my  ministry. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  reason 
I  did  that  was  because  one  wasn't  here,  and 
I  didn't  think  the  other  one  would  know. 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  sorry.  The  minister  had 
risen  on  a  point  of  order.  There  can  be  no 
supplementary  to  a  point  of  order. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Well,  he's  totally  wrong 
anywa>'. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  I  like  that. 


INQUIRY  INTO  HOSPITAL 
EMPLOYEES'  REMUNERATION 

Mr.  Lewis:  Since  mediation  began  yester- 
day in  the  hospital  worker  controversy,  can 
the  Minister  of  Health  make  a  statement  to 
the  House  today  about  any  intentions  he 
may  have  of  resolving  that  dispute,  specifi- 
cally before  this  month  ends? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  said 
this  wasn't  one  of  the  most  important  prob- 
lems to  me  I  would  not  be  speaking  the 
truth. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Then  don't  say  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  am  very  concerned 
about  the  outcome  of  those  negotiations. 
However,  I  think  the  member  would  agree 
with  me  that  the  free  bargaining  process 
should  be  given  every  chance  to  find  a 
resolution  to  the  problem. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Not 
if  the  go\emment  withholds  the  wherewithal 
for  settling  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  It  is  working  now  and 
it  is  my  hope  that  a  solution  will  be  found 
via  that  means.  I  am  in  close  contact  with 


various  people  involved  In  the  process  antl 
am  keeping  myself  as  well  informed  as  I 
can.  I  think  any  other  comments  I  might 
make  at  this  time  would  defeat  the  puri>08e 
of  the  free  bargaining  process. 

Mr.   Reid:   A  supplementary. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  may:  The  minister  will  know  that  we 
all  believe  in  the  free  collective  bargaining 
process  but  he's  not  pretending,  siirely,  that 
there  will  be  any  resolution  of  the  hospital 
worker  controversy  without  additional  money 
from  the  government?  Surely  he  knows  that 
is  true.  Therefore,  I  must  ask  him,  since  the 
days  pass  and  the  strike  psychology  acceler- 
ates and  the  workers  live  on  the  razor's  edge, 
why  will  he  not  say  he  intends,  presumably 
at  some  point,  to  make  an  offer?  Does  he 
intend  to  make  an  offer  to  increase  the  ceil- 
ings or  provide  additional  moneys  for  these 
hospitals  before  May  1? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
anything  we  say  here  which  is  reported  in 
the  'press  could  have  a  very  negative  effect 
upon  the  bargaining  process. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  could  have  a  very  positive 
effect  in  possibly  avoiding  the  strike. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  the  negotiations 
should  go  on  between  the  bodies  appointed 
to  do  them  at  this  point  in  time  without  my 
offering  advice  to  them  in  either  direction. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  The  govern- 
ment is  the  silent  partner. 

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

Mr.  Reid:  Does  the  minister  really  believe 
that  the  free  collective  bargaining  process  can 
continue  when  the  ceilings  are  still  on  and 
the  workers  are  in  the  position  of  knowing 
that  under  the  present  circumstances  they 
can't  be  brought  up  to  a  reasonable  wage? 

Secondly,  if  I  may,  Mr.  Speaker,  does  he 
have  within  his  ministry  a  report  on  the 
wages  and  salaries  of  the  hospital  workers 
in  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  The  first  part  of  the 
question  assumes  that  when  the  ceilings  for 
this  year— one  of  the  quick  assumptions 
everybody  made  is  that  when  the  ceilings  in 
hospitals  went  up  by  roughly  eight  per  cent 
it  meant  that  salaries  were  limited  to  an 
eight  per  cent  change.  That  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Of  course  it  does. 


1158 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Reid:  Where  else  are  they  going  to 
get  the  money? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Come  on,  why  is  the  minister 
doing  this  to  the  workers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  This  is  one  of  the 
reasons,  of  course,  why  there  are  two  studies 
going  on  to  answer  that  very  question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  why  is  he  forcing  them 
to  strike? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  am  not  forcing  them 
to  strike  and  I  sincerely— 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  leaves  them  no  alter- 
native. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  is  he  doing  it  to  them? 
Why  is  he  pushing  them  to  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  sincerely  hope  that 
the  imions  will  respect  the  law  as  it  is 
written  and  not  ask  their  members  to  go  on 
strike. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Does  the  minister  respect 
their  right  to  live?  Does  he  respect  their 
right  to  a  wage? 

Hon.  Mr.  MiUer:  I  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Renwick:  He  can't  procrastinate. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  will  permit  supple- 
mentaries  in  their  proper  order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sorry,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  On  the  second  part  of  the 
question  as  to  studies  on  salaries,  I  have  seen 
a  number  of  studies  on  salaries  for  hospital 
workers  in  various  areas.  I  wouldn't  want  to 
say  any  on©  of  them  was  a  total  provincial 
picture.  Certainly  I  have  seen  studies  of  the 
Toronto  area  and  of  certain  of  the  imions 
involved. 

Mr.  Reid:  If  I  may  ask,  by  way  of  further 
supplementary,  if  the  minister  has  those 
studies  as  he  suggests,  is  there  any  point  in 
waiting  for  the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr. 
Guindon)  to  come  up  with  his  report?  Why  is 
he  using  that  as  an  excuse  not  to  make  a 
statement  in  this  Legislature  that  the  hospital 
workers  will,  in  fact,  be  given  a  decent  wage? 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-^Walkerville):  And 
that  they  are  not  bound  by  the  eight  per 
cent. 


Mr.  Reid:  And  that  they  shouldn't  be 
boimd  by  the  eight  per  cent  limit? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  of  course,  they  are 
not  bound  by  the  eight  per  cent  limit;  I  take 
exception  to  that  one  point.  I  could  show  that 
categorically  in  the  estimates  that  were  given 
us  before  the  year  began. 

I  can  only  say  this:  With  bargaining  going 
on  at  this  point  in  time,  I  am  very  anxious 
to  give  it  its  full  opportunity  to  resolve  the 
problems  within  the  parameters  we  have 
given. 

Mr.  Reid:  How  much  more  time  does  the 
minister  need? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  may  I  ask  a  supple- 
mentary? The  unions  in  good  faith  have  told 
the  minister  what  they  intend  to  do  on  May 
1.  What  is  the  Ministry  of  Health's  response 
going  to  be  if,  in  fact,  it  has  forced  the 
workers  out  on  that  day? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  that  is  a  hypo- 
thetical question  at  this  point  in  time. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  is  not  hypothetical. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  not.  They  are  the  minis- 
ter's hospitals;  it  is  his  jurisdiction. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  They  are  not  my  hospitals 
in  that  sense;  they  are  not  my  employees  in 
that  sense. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sure  they  are.  The  minister  is 
the  partner  at  the  bargaining  table. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  am  certainly  a  partner. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right.  What  is  he  going 
to  do?  He  is  the  Minister  of  Health. 

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


PRICE  FIXING  IN  SUPERMARKETS 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question!  of  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  if  I 
may:  In  his  analysis  of  the  various  super- 
market chains,  did  he  look  at  the  possibiHties 
of  internal-administered  price  fixing  and 
vertical  integration  after  looking  at  their 
profits? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial!  Relations):  No,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  study  was  prepared  from  the  pubHc 
financial  statements,  made  available  by  the 
industries  to  the  public  as  required  under  the 
securities  legislation  of  this  province. 


APRIL  19.  1974 


1159 


I  should  point  out  that  in  those  particular 
studies  they  leave  something  to  be  desired, 
particularly  when  we  don't  have  a  breakdown 
as  to  food  sales  as  opposed  to  sales  of  other 
objects  in  supermarkets.  As  the  hon.  leader 
of  the  NDP  knows,  in  supermarkets  today 
one  can  buy  anything  ranging  from  cleaning 
cloths  to  mops,  brooms,  dishes,  books  of 
knowledge,  or  things  of  that  nature;  and  yet 
the  sales  indicate  total  sales,  and  don't  give 
us  the  breakdown— what  is  allocated  for  rood 
sales  as  opposed  to  those  other  items— and  it 
concerns  me. 

Mr.  Reid:  Yes,  one  can't  aflFord  to  buy  the 
food. 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I,  by  way  of  supple- 
mentary, ask  the  minister  to  extend  his  in- 
quiry into  the  possibilities  of  internal- 
administered  price  fixing  in  the  Weston 
empire,  based  on  this  set  of  assumptions,  or 
this  information: 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  Loblaws  said 
they  had  to  raise  the  price  of  bread  because 
of  the  increased  cost  to  the  supplier,  the 
suppher  being  Weston's,  which  owns  Loblaws 
—as  the  minister  knows?  Weston's  said  it 
had  to  raise  the  price  because  of  the  increased 
costs  to  its  suppliers  for  milk  and  sugar;  the 
suppliers  for  Weston's  are  Donlands  and 
Royal  Dairy  and  West  Cane  Sugar,  all  owned 
by  Weston  s.  Weston's  then  said  that  the  flour 
had  gcme  up  from  their  suppliers,  the  sup- 
phers  being  McCarthy  Mill  otf  Streetsville  and 
Soo  Line  of  Winnipeg,  both  wholly-owned 
subsidiaries  of  Weston  s.  They  then  said  that 
the  distribution  costs  were  going  up  \dbich 
would  require  an  increase  in  bread'— 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Question? 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  the  distributors  involved 


Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Is  this  a  speech? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  is  the  kind  of  speech 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  doesn't  like. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —National  Grocers  and  York 
Trading,  both  subsidiaries  of  the  Weston  em- 
pire. 

Now  since  all  of  the  price  mechanism  is 
controlled  within  the  same  corporate  em- 
pire, is  the  minister  going  to  look  at  the 
possibility  of  price  fixing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  price  fix- 
ing, if  it  can  be  proved  and  is  against  the 
public  interest,  is  an  offence  under  the  Com- 
bines Investigation  Act.  May  I  point  out  that 
while   the    matters    the    hon.    leader   of   the 


NDP  has  described  may  well  occur,  that  not 
only  did  the  price  of  those  products  go  up 
to  subsidiaries  of  the  industry  or  the  company 
named  by  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party,  they  went  up  in  other  sectors  with  the 
competitors  paying  pretty  much  the  same 
prices  for  the  basic  product  as  they  obtained 
it  from  the  market  for  resale,  too. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 
Supplementary— the  hon.  member  ior  York 
Centre. 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  connection  with  the  segre- 
gation of  food  items  and  food  sales  from 
other  sales,  would  it  not  be  possible  for  the 
minister,  through  the  Minister  of  Revenue, 
to  find  out  the  type  of  sales  by  supermarkets, 
as  the  returns  unaer  the  sales  tax  would  indi- 
cate the  division  between  sales;  because  all 
items  that  are  non-food  items  are  subject  to 
sales  tax? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  have  written  to  the 
president  of  each  of  the  companies  named  in 
the  study  requesting  their  making  available 
additional  information,  not  only  to  the  share- 
holders by  way  of  the  obligatory  financial 
statements,  but  so  that  the  consumers  of  this 
province  have  some  knowledge  of  what  is 
involved  in  their  wholesale  operations  for  the 
previous  year. 

Insofar  as  the  member's  question  is  con- 
cerned, I  suppose  that  mathematically  it  could 
be  roughly  computed.  I  think  it  would  be 
much  more  advisable  if  the  company  on  its 
own  gave  a  statement  breaking  down  the  food 
sales  as  opposed  to  those  other  items.  I  don't 
know— I  haven't  discussed  it  with  my  col- 
league, the  Minister  of  Revenue— but  it  might 
well  be  that  his  staff  is  precluded  from 
making  that  information  available  to  me 
under  their  legislation. 

Mr.  Deac(Mi:  Is  that  the  case? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  don't  know. 

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

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  a 
supplementary  question,  is  it,  by  any  chance, 
by  reason  of  an  exemption  granted  by  the 
(Ontario  Securities  Commission  to  each  of 
these  companies  under  the  Securities  Act  that 
they  are  not  required  to  provide  a  breakdown 
of  their  sales  figures?  If  it  is,  as  my  surmise 
would  lead  me  to  believe,  will  the  minister 
deal  with  the  Securities  Commission  and  ask 
them  to  withdraw  that  exemption  and  to 
require  the  kind  of  information  on  the  gross 


1160 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


sales  figures  which  he  now  requires   in  the 
public  interest? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm  not 
aware  that  any  such  exemption  has  been 
granted  by  the  Ontario  Securities  Commis- 
sion, but  I  will  inquire  and  find  out  if  such 
is  the  case. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No  wonder  the  price  is  right. 


UNION  GAS 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Energy  if  he  has  received  complaints  from 
farmers  and  municipal  officials  in  Raleigh 
township  about  the  behaviour  of  Union  Gas 
when  it  digs  on  farms  and  cuts  across  road- 
ways, in  terms  of  what  it  pays  and  the  vari- 
ous costs  of  repairs  and  the  dismemberment 
that   is   left?   Has   he   been   dealing   in   that 


Ad  hon.  member:  To  beat  the  property 
speculation  tax. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  any  further  ques- 
tions from  the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough 
West? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  minister  responsible 
for  the  Youth  Secretariat  has  the  answer  to  a 
question  asked  previously. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrel!  (Minister  without 
Portfolio):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  question  came 
from  the  member  for  Parkdale  ( Mr.  Dukszta ) 
and,  due  to  his  absence  from  the  House  today, 
if  I  may,  I  will  hold  it  over  until  he's  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right.  The  hon.  Minister 
of  Health  has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously.  Then  the  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  is  next. 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Raleigh  township? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Raleigh  township. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  No,  not  to  my  knowl- 
edge, I  haven't.  I  think  if  there  were  such 
complaints  they  might  well  go  to  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  who 
has  the  pipeline  inspection  branch,  or  they 
might  come  to  the  Ontario  Energy  Board,  but 
I'm  not  familiar  with  any  complaints. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Could  I  ask  the  minister  to 
make  inquiries  in  that  direction? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  shall  do  so. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 


SALE  OF  LAND  ON 
MANITOULIN  ISLAND 

Mr.  Lewis:  One  last  question  of  the 
Premier,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Is  the  Premier  aware  that  the  Ontario  Paper 
Co.  Ltd.  has  put  up  for  sale  on  Manitoulin 
Island  some  80,000  acres  of  what  I  believe 
amounts  to  prime  recreational  land  with  some 
65  miles  of  lakefront?  As  I  understand  it, 
there  are  two  prospective  American  buyers 
but,  as  yet,  no  others.  Would  the  Premier 
consider  taking  this  land  into  public  park 
ownership? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources  (Mr.  Bemier)  is  having 
some  discussions  now  with  the  Ontario  Paper 
Co. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  that  so? 


SALE  OF  COLZA  OIL 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  Tuesday, 
the  member  for  Wentworth  asked  me  about 
colza  oil  and  its  effects  upon  the  human  body. 
I  have  looked  into  the  background  of  this 
and  found  the  following  information. 

For  many  years,  rapeseed  oil  has  been  a 
common  edible  oil  ingredient  of  certain  foods, 
margarine,  salad  oil,  cooking  oil  and  mayon- 
naise. However,  in  the  past  five  years,  labora- 
tory evidence  accumulated  in  several  parts  of 
the  world  indicated  that  high-level  feeding 
to  laboratory  animals  resulted  in  degenerative 
lesions  in  the  heart  muscles— lesions  attrib- 
utable to  erucic  acid  in  the  oil.  For  the 
interest  of  the  rest  of  the  hon.  members,  it's 
a  C22  mono-eloic  acid. 

An  hon.  member:  Wowl 

Mr.  Deans:  I  realize  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  are  all  aware  of  that.  The 
minister  doesn't  have  to  be  condescending. 
That's  old  stuff. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  It  sounds  a  little  better 
than  colza  oil,  I  thought. 

The  mass  of  evidence  does  not  support  the 
contention  that  sterility  also  results.  An  inter- 
esting aside  is  that  a  judge  in  Italy  overruled 
the  health  authorities  and  said  it  caused 
sterility.  The  health  officials  never  claimed 
that. 

As  a  result  of  laboratory  findings  in  August, 
1973,  tho  health  protection  branch  of  the 
Department  of  National  Health  and  Welfare, 


APRIL  19.  1974 


1161 


Canada,  issued  a  bulletin  to  all  suppliers  and 
processors,  both  foreign  and  domestic,  asking 
for  a  voluntary  restriction  of  the  erucic  add 
content  of  ediole  oil  products  to  five  per  cent 
of  the  total  fatty  acid  content. 

A  survey  of  market  food  products  contain- 
ing rapeseed  oil,  just  completed  by  the  fed- 
eral authorities,  found  that  only  one  out  of 
359  exceeded  the  five  per  cent  level.  This 
represents  a  good  response  on  the  part  of  the 
food  industry  by  monitoring  the  erucic  acid 
content,  and  it  will  continue  as  a  matter  of 
routine. 

The  control  of  the  chemical  content  of 
nationally  distributed  foods  is  a  responsibility 
of  the  Department  of  National  Health  and 
Welfare,  Canada.  Ofiicials  of  this  department 
have  expressed  the  view  that  the  rapeseed  oil 
content  at  existing  levels  does  not  represent 
a  threat  to  public  health. 

Mr.  Deans:  Just  one  supplementary  ques- 
tion for  clarification.  Am  I  correct  in  assuming 
that  this  applies  equally  to  imported  oils  ana 
to  domestically  produced  oils? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  That  is  my  understand- 
ing. 

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


HYDRO  INVOLVEMENT 
IN  PRIVATE  SECTOR 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Premier.  Will  he  advise  the  House 
if  he  has  approved,  and  the  extent,  of  allow- 
ing large  consortiums  to  have^in  the  Minister 
of  Energy's  words  "to  give  them  a  piece  of 
the  action  of  Hydro"?  What  is  the  form  of 
policy  allowing  Hydro  to  be  involved  with 
the  private  sector  and  in  the  words  of  the 
Minister  of  Energy  "having  secret  negotia- 
tions with  these  consortiums'  ?  In  other  words, 
is  this  approved  government  policy  now  or 
is  it  just  a  lot  of  talk? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  there 
are  several  sections  to  that  question  from  the 
hon.  member  for  Grey-Bruce.  As  to  whether 
the  government  approves  of  the  suggestions 
made  by  the  Minister  of  Energy,  I  would 
say  categorically  yes. 

The  Minister  of  Energy  has  made  some 
suggestions  that  I  think  are  very  creative  and 
that  would  help  resolve  some  of  the  capital 
problems  that  Ontario  Hydro  and  the  public 
generally  might  face  and  which  I  think  might 
be  an  excellent  utilization  of  the  nuclear 
technology    that   is    available   to  us.    As   the 


question  rdates  to  the  procedures,  the  pos- 
sibility of  this  and  how  it  mi^t  function,  I 
would  say  with  respect,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  might  direct  that  to  the  Minister  of 
Energy  himself. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary:  I  think  the 
Premier  should  know  what  is  going  on  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  that  is  a  supplementary 
question,  I  can  only  say- 
Mr.  Sargent:  No,  that's  a  statement. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —being  very  humble, 
while  I  don't  purport  to  know  eveiything  that 
is  going  on,  in  some  ways  I  feel  that  perhaps 
I  know  a  little  more  about  what  is  going  on 
than  the  hon.  member  for  Grey-Bruce. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  would  hope  so. 
Supplementary:  Mr.  Speaker,  does  the  first 
minister  of  this  province  not  realize  the  mag- 
m'tude  of  allowing  Hydro— which  for  68  years 
has  been  a  public  body— allowing  the  friends 
of  the  government  to  get  a  piece  of  this 
action?  Might  I  ask  the  Premier— and  he 
should  know  this— is  the  $15-billion  pro- 
gramme the  government  is  in  line  for  now— 
he  admits  that  we  are  being  drained  but  we 
are  not  broke- 
Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  Question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Will  the  Premier  tell  me  that 
it  is  because  the  government  can't  aff"ord 
that  $15  billion  that  he  is  going  to  allow 
them  to  take  a  part  of  the  action?  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  The  mem- 
ber for  Grey-Bruce  didn't  approve  of  his 
friends  having  action  either? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  find  this  an  unusual 
question  from  the  member  for  Grey-Bruce 
who  is  something  of  a  free  enteiprise  entre- 
preneur, as  I  understand  it,  himself— 

Mr.  MacDcHiald:  Free  wheeling,  free  entre- 
preneur. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That  has  nothing  to  do  with 
it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —that  he  would  object  to 
government  utilizing  the  private  sector. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  certainly  do,  especially  the 
way  the  government  does  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  suggest  to  the  hon. 
member  that  he  can  be  as  critical  as  he  likes 
of  Ontario  Hydro  but  I  think  it  is  abundandy 
clear,  and  increasingly  so,  that  Ontario  Hydro 


1162 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


has  an  excellent  record  in  production  of 
energy  costs  that  will  compare  favourably 
with  any  public  utility  anywhere  on  this 
continent. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That  is  what  you  call  stick- 
handhng,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  should  know. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand^ 
wich-Riverside. 


WIND  ENERGY  SEMINAR 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Energy  regarding  his  statement  two  weeks 
ago  today  that  he  would  not  send  anyone  to 
the  wind  energy  conversion  seminar  in  Sher- 
brooke,  Que. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  going  to  lose 
this  debate  in  the  long  run. 

Mr.  Burr:  This  is  the  first  opportunity  I 
have  had  to  ask  this  question,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Why  did  he  make  this  announcement  two 
weeks  ago  today,  after  notifying  me  the  pre>- 
vious  day  that  he  had  suggested  to  his  senior 
technical  stafF  that  they  send  someone  to  this 
seminar?  Who  is  running  the  minister's  de- 
partment, he  or  the  civil  service? 

Mr.  l«wis:  And  why? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
an  excellent  question  on  a  Friday  morning.  I 
can  only  assure  the  member  that  I  do,  but  at 
times  Im  impressed  by  their  logic. 

Mr.  Burr:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary- 
Mr.  Sargent:  He  is  talking  about  the  min- 
ister. That's  why  the  minister  is  good.   He 
has  lots  of  hot  air. 

Mr.  Burr:  Why  did  his— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  There  is  a  better  judge 
in  the  House  of  that  than  the  member. 

Mr.  Burr:  Why  did  his  deputy- 
Mr.  Sargent:  I  will  get  the  Premier  next. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Is  that  a  promise  or  a 
threat? 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Let  the  mem- 
ber for  Sandwich-Riverside  go  on. 

Mr.  Burr:  Are  there  any  more  supplemen- 
taries? 


Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Is  it  Good  Friday  this 
Friday? 

An  hon.  member:  The  farmers  got  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Burr:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  supplementary 
is,  why  did  the  ministers  deputy  go  to 
Thunder  Bay  to  address  a  meeting  of  engi- 
neers and  virtually  plead  with  them  to  give 
him  all  the  information  they  could  on  vari- 
ous forms  of  energy— and  he  specifically  men- 
tioned wind  power— then,  when  I  inform  the 
minister  of  a  meeting  at  which  the  most 
knowledgeable  people  in  this  area  are  going 
to  be  present,  he  shows  no  interest? 

An  hon.  memben  Because  he  knows  the 
member  is  not  going  to  vote  for  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  sup- 
pose the  key  word  there  womd  be  "give." 
The  deputy  minister  is  asking  people  to  send 
information  in  so  that  we  don't  have  to  send 
people  to  conferences. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member- 
Mr.  Burr:  A  supplementary:  Is  the  min- 
ister going  to  continue  the  policy  of  getting 
information  on  various  forms  of  solar  ener^ 
from  the  Atomic  Energy  Commission  which 
is  part  of  the  nuclear  establishment?  Why 
doesn't  he  go  to  the  source  of  knowledge 
instead  of  to  rival  and  competing  establish- 
ments? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  he  talk  to  the 
member  for  Sandwich-Riverside?  * 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I 
said  before,  we  are  monitoring  some  of  these 
things.  When  the  time  arrives  we  will  take  a 
greater  interest  than  we  are  obviously  taking 
now.  We  do  continue  to  follow  them.  We 
don't  think,  as  I  have  said  before,  that  the 
day  of  wind  energy  has  arrived  or  that  we 
should  be  spending  public  money  in  pursuit 
of  something  which  is  not  yet— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  been  around  for  about 
3,000,  4,000,  or  5,000  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —in  any  way  proved 
or,  in  our  view,  suitable  for  use  here  in 
Ontario.  I  can  assure  the  member  that  we— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —continue  to  read  a 
great  number  of  technical  journals.  We  keep 


APRIL  19.  1974 


1163 


abreast  of  this  and  of  course,  we  are  follow- 
ing the  member's  speeches  with  great  inter- 
est and  we  know  that  he  will  keep  us  in- 
formed of  the  latest  developments  in  wind 
energv-,  geothermal  energy  and  solar  energy. 

Mr.    MacDonald:    The    minister    is    right 
there. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  going  to  end  up  as  the 
Don  Quixote  of  this  House. 

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


READMISSIONS  TO  ONTARIO 
HOSPITALS 

Mrs.  Campbell:  My  question,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  of  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  De- 
velopment, in  the  absence  of  the  Minister  of 
Health.  Could  she  advise  this  House  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  ministry  will  release  the 
information  and  statistics  on  readmissions  to 
Ontario  Hospitals? 

Hon.  M.  Birch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the 
hon.  member,  I  will  make  sure  she  receives 
this  information. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  am  sony? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  I'll  make  sure  she  re- 
ceives the  information. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


LIQUOR  LICENCE  FOR  HOLIDAY 
INN  AT  OWEN  SOUND 

Mr.  Sbulman:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Can  he  give  any  explanation  what- 
soever of  the  fact  that  the  Liquor  Licence 
Board  has  deliberately  contravened  the  law 
which  states  that  no  manufacturer  of  liquor 
may  have  an  interest  in  a  retail  outlet?  I 
am  referring  to  section  30,  paragraph  d  which 
says: 

No  licence  may  be  issued  or  renewed 
under  this  Act  for  premises  in  which  a 
manufacturer  of  liquor  has  an  interest, 
whether  freehold  or  leasehold,  or  by  way 
of  mortgage  or  charge  or  other  encum- 
brance or  by  way  of  mortgage  lien  or 
charge  upon  any  chattel  property  therein, 
and  whether  such  interest  is  direct  or  in- 


direct or  contingent  or  by  way  of  stiretyship 
or  guarantee. 

Despite  this  being  drawn  to  the  attentioo  of 
the  Liquor  Licence  Board,  can  he  explain  why 
the  board  gave  a  licence  to  the  HoUday  Inn  in 
Owen  Sound  when  the  land  is  owned  by 
Parham  Investments  Ltd.  whose  directors  are 
one  Alex  Graydon,  Bruce  Pritchard  and  John 
Harrison,  two  of  whom  are  on  the  board  of 
Labatt's? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  thought  the  member 
would  never  ask,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  minister  wishes  he'd  never 
askedl 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  I'd  be  glad  to  read 
the  letter,  with  the  indulgence  of  the  mem- 
bers. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  It  was  sent  to  the  mem- 
ber for  Grey-Bruce  on  Sept.  21.  It's  pointed 
out  by  the  Liquor  Licence  Board,  as  a  residt 
of  an  inquiry  which  came  from  that  particular 
member,  that  the  Holiday  in  at  Owen  Sound 
is  owned  by  Parham  Investments  Ltd.  and 
Commonwealth  Holiday  Inns  of  Canada  Ltd. 
as  tenants  in  common.  The  inn  is  operated 
by  Commonwealth  Inns  of  Canada  Ltd.  under 
a  lease  with  the  owners.  The  i^phcant, 
namely  Commonwealth  Holiday  Inns  of 
Canada  Ltd.  is  the  tenant  and  operator  of  the 
inn.  None  of  the  directors  of  the  applicant  is 
in  any  way  connected  with  the  liquor  in- 
dustry. They  are  not  directors  of  any  breweiy 
or  any  vintner. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  the  legal  oflScer  of 
the  Liquor  Licence  Board  at  that  time  that 
there  was  no  infraction  of  section  30  of  the 
Act  in  issuing  the  licence  to  that  particular 
establishment.  I  had  this  supplied  to  me  this 
morning  as  a  result  of  another  inquiry. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Shot  down  again. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeouf^:  Relax— 

Mr.  Shufanan:  A  supplementary,  if  I  may, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  member  remembers  Talis- 
man? Same  deal. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Is  the  minister  saying  that 
the  Act- 


1164 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Sargent:  The  laws  don't  mean  a  damn 
thing. 

Mr.  Shulman:  —may  be  simply  avoided  by 
putting  the  application  in  in  someone  else's 
name?  Is  the  minister  denying  that  Labatt's 
owns  that  place? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  Labatt's 
are  not  the  applicant  or  the  owner  of  that 
particular  enterprise. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Of  course  they  are  not  the 
applicant,  somebody  else  applied  for  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  The  Liquor  Licence 
Board  of  Ontario  has  absolutely  no  intention 
of  licensing  anybody  contrary  to  section  30  of 
the  Act;  that  is  the  very  purpose  of  having 
section  30  contained  in  the  Act. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Labatt's  owns  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  An  inquiry  was  made— 
and  it  was  a  valid  inquiry,  I  have  no  reason 
to  criticize  it— in  April,  1973. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Labatt's  used  somebody  else 
to  apply  for  them,  that's  all. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  We  took  the  opinion 
from  the  legal  officer  for  the  board  at  that 
time.  I  have  the  letter  here  before  me.  Per- 
haps the  member  would  like  to  read  it  so  I 
don't  waste  the  time  of  the  rest  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature,  and  see  the  opinion 
of  the  law  oflBcer. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Just  ignoring  the  law. 

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


ACCOMMODATION  PROVIDED  OISE 
AND  OETA 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  question  of  the  Premier: 
Why  has  it  taken  so  long  to  answer  the 
question  I  asked  on  May  24,  1973,  requesting 
information  on  the  accommodation  provided 
OISE  and  OETA?  It  has  been  on  the  order 
paper  all  that  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  question 
related  to  the  institute  was  discussed  very 
thoroughly,  if  memory  serves  me  correctly. 
Just  about  six  years  ago  I  can  recall  very 
well  the  member  for  Scarborough  raising 
this  matter.  The  ofiBcials  from  the  institute 
were  there  and  it  was  gone  into  in  some 
depth. 

If  memory  serves  me  correctly  as  well,  and 
perhaps  the  hon.  member  might  consult  with 
some  of  his  colleagues  on  the  committee,  the 


question  of  accommodation  was  very  fully 
dealt  with  at  the  standing  committee  dealing 
with  the  estimates— I  thinK  of  the  Ministry  of 
Education  or  Colleges  and  Universities— just 
in  the  past  session. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  supplementary':  This  ques- 
tion asked  for  details  concerning  the  pro- 
posals, and  in  none  of  those  records  could  I 
find  the  details  being  given.  That  is  why— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  was  thoroughly  dis- 
cussed six  years  ago. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Well,  it  is  a  matter  of  dis'- 
cussion;  that  does  not  say  the  questions  were 
answered.  I  have  asked  for  answers  to  the 
questions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  they  were  answered. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Essex- 
all  right,  I  must  recognize  the  hon.  member 
for  Sandwich-Riverside. 


SOLAR  ENERGY  REPORT 

Mr.  Burr:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Energy:  Has  the  minister  yet  re- 
ceived a  copy  of  the  solar  energy  panel  report 
of  December,  1972,  that  was  given  to  Presi- 
dent Nixon?  This  was  a  report  by  40  scientists 
of  NASA  and  the  National  Science  Founda- 
tion. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  personally  aware  of  the  report,  no. 

Mr.  Burr:  A  supplementary:  Does  the  min- 
ister mean  to  tell  me  that  after  I  notified 
him  back  in  December  he  still  has  not  got  a 
copy  of  this  most  important  report? 

Mr.  Deans:  Don't  they  do  any  work  over 
there? 

An  hon.  member:  Hasn't  the  minister  read 
his  correspondence? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  has  a  big  technical 
staflF,  what  do  they  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  We  do  not  have  a 
big  technical  staff.  I  am  sure  that  some  of  the 
staff  are  reading  it,  and  if  they  think  it  is 
important  enough  will  forward  it  to  me. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They  keep  the  minister  in 
the  dark. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
land  South. 


APRIL  19,  1974 


lies 


RAPID  DATA  CORP. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  I  would 
like  to  direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Connnercial  Relations.  On 
March  29  I  asked  him  a  question  in  the 
House.  Has  the  minister  taken  any  steps  to 
ensure  that  the  $6.5  million  in  Eaton's  em- 
ployees' pension  fund  that  was  invested  in 
Rapid  Data  Corp.  is  protected  now?  Has  he 
—and  I  believe  he  said  that  they  were  going 
to  meet  that  morning— has  he  anything  further 
to  report  on  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  apol(^ize  to  the  mem- 
ber for  Welland  South.  I  nave  overlooked 
getting  back  to  him.  I  remember  the  question 
verv  well  and  I  haven't  got  the  information.  I 
will  get  it  and  get  back  to  him  right  way. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Is  the  minister  aw^re  of  the  Finan- 
cial Post  report  of  April  6,  1974,  that  the 
E]aton  retirem«it  annuity  plan  with  the 
T.  Eaton  Co.  is  a  secured  credit  to  the 
amount  of  $6.3  million  and  will  receive 
nothing  directly  on  dissolution? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  not  aware  of  that. 


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


GASOLINE  SAVING  DEVICES 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
miracle  gas  savers  and  mileage  boosters  are 
becoming  more  and  more  apparent  on  the 
market,  does  the  minister  plan  to  require 
companies  that  are  involved  to  produce  proof 
of  their  claims  before  he  will  permit  the  sale 
of  these  mileage  savers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  there 
was  an  oflFence  committed  under  the  Con- 
sumer Protection  Act  as  to  any  misleading 
advertising,  then  we  would  have  to  prosecute 
or  the  federal  people  would  have  to  prose- 
cute under  their  legislation. 

I  have  no  way  of  compelling.  I  have  no 
legislative  authority  to  compel  them  to  submit 
any  proof  to  me. 

It  has  been  our  experience  in  matters 
that  we  have  inquired  about  that  whatever 
industry  we  direct  the  inquiry  to  has  answer- 
ed responsibly,  but  I  point  out  they  don't 
have  to  and  I  have  no  way  of  compelling 
them  to  produce  such  information. 


Now  I  read  with  interest  the  other  day, 
I  believe,  that  there  have  been  federal 
charges  laid  against  the  manufacturer  of 
motor  vehicles  for  what  is  alleged  to  be 
fraudulent  advertising  relating  to  the  per- 
formance of  one  of  its  vehicles  in  a  crOfes- 
country  race  some  two  or  three  years  ago. 
That's  the  only  knowledge  I  have. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Did  somebody  say  supple- 
mentary? 

The  hon.  member  for  High  Parfc. 


HIRING  OF  LIQUOR  STORE 
EMPLOYEES 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  question  of  the  Minister 

of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Can  the  minister  explain  the  dis- 
crimination against  women  that  is  used  by 
the  Liquor  Control  Board  in  their  hiring? 
Can  the  minister  explain  why  no  women— 
although  in  theory  they  are  invited  to  J^>ply 
for  permanent  clerk  i)Ositions— are  hired  in 
those  positions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
not  true.  Women  are  being  hired  by  the 
Liquor  Control  and  Liquor  Licence  Boards— 
particularly  by  the  Liquor  Control  Board 
for  self-serve  stores,  where  in  most  instances 
they  perform  the  function  of  cashiers. 

With  reference  to  the  existing  stores  that 
are  not  self-service,  I  must  point  out  to  the 
hon.  member  that  there  are  some  diflBculties. 
One  of  the  diflBculties  is  that  the  stafF  are 
called  on  to  stack  cases,  many  of  them  con- 
taining bottles  weighing  40  ounces;  they  are 
very,  very  heavy.  That's  one  problem. 

The  second  problem  is  the  sanitary  facili- 
ties. Many  of  the  stores  have  only  one  wash- 
room and  if  we  hire  female  staflF  we  are 
obliged  to  put  additional  washrooms  in  for 
them. 

So  we  are  using  women  as  cashiers  in  those 
areas  that  have  self-serve  stores,  but  we  are 
not  utilizing  them  in  other  areas— having 
them  stack  cases  and  unload  trucks  and  this 
sort  of  tfiing. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  really  not  aware  that  each 
and  every  woman  who  has  been  hired  as  a 
cashier  in  the  self-service  stores  has  been 
hired  as  a  temporary,  not  a  permanent  em- 
ployee, paid  only  for  the  hours  she  works 
and  limited  to  27%  hours  per  week? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  I  am  well  aware 
of  that  because  the  board  hires  all  its  staff 


1166 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


initially  on  a  temporary  basis.  And  if  the 
vacancy  continues  and  the  performance  of 
that  individual  is  satisfactory  they  go  on  to 
permanent  staff  after  a  waiting  period. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Supplementary  over 
here. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  In  an  attempt  to  increase 
the  opportunity  for  the  handicapped  in  ob- 
taining employment,  would  the  minister  con- 
sider the  employment  of  handicapped  women 
as  cashiers  in  some  of  the  self-serve  stores? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Yes,  if  they  can  do  the 
Job  I'm  snre  the  board  would  seriously  con- 
sider that.  It  might  be  a  very  good  role  for 
a  person  so  afflicted. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  I  have  a  supplementary. 
The  minister  is  not  seriously  accepting  the 
board's  argument  about  washroom  facilities 
as  a  device  to  discriminate  against  women? 
I  mean,  he  is  not  advancing  that  as  though 
it  were  plausible,  surely? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  our  friends  at  the  board. 
Why  trot  that  out? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  member  is  a  real  paper 
tiger— all  mouth. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  just  pointing  out, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  these  are  considerations. 
I've  got  stores  down  in  my  area  that  have 
been  there  for  five  or  10  years  that  were 
initially  designed  with  one  set  of  washrooms. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  can  add  to  the 
facilities,  for  heaven's  sake. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  All  right.  Fine.  We  are 
converting  in  the  self-service  stores;  this  thing 
will  clear  itself.  But  perhaps  the  hon.  mem- 
ber is  aware  that  if  we  do  have  female  staff 
it's  mandatory  that  they  have  individual 
washrooms. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Of  course  it  is.  So  do  some- 
thing about  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplemen- 
tary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  only  a  couple  of 
minutes  remaining.  I  think— 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  very  short  one? 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  there  have  been  suffi- 
cient supplementaries. 

Mr.  Shulman:  How  come  none  of  the 
board's  temporary  staff  have  ever  been  made 
permanent?  They  are  female;  not  one  of  the 
minister's  cashiers  has  been  made  permanent. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That's  a  statement.  I  believe 
the  hon.  member  for  Waterloo  North  was  up 
first. 

Mr.  Reid:  I  believe  you  are  wrong,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  if  the  hon.  member  for 
Waterloo  North  will  defer  to  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Rainy  River,  111  call  him. 


DAY  NURSERIES  ACT  REGULATIONS 

Mr.  Good:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Community  and  Social  Services:  Could  the 
minister  tell  us  whether  the  new  regulations 
imder  the  Day  Niuseries  Act  regarding  the 
setting  up  of  day  nurseries  by  charitable  and 
other  non-profit  organizations  are  now  in 
effect?  And  how  much  money  will  be  desig- 
nated for  this  additional  function  during  this 
next  fiscal  year? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  inform  the  member  that  the  regu- 
lations are  now  in  effect.  As  far  as  the  amoimt 
is  concerned  it  will  be  a  substantial  amount, 
but  at  this  time  it  is  not  known.  Our  budget 
will  be— 

Mr.  Good:  A  supplementary:  How  many 
applications  does  the  minister  have  under 
that  section? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  for  oral  questions 
has  been  exceeded. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Mr.  Havrot  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Taylor 
from  the  standing  administration  of  justice 
committee,  reported  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved:  That  supply  in  the  follow- 
ing amount  and  to  defray  the  expenses  of 
the  Justice  Policy  Secretariat  be  granted 
to  Her  Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
March  31,  1975: 

Justice  Policy  Secretariat 
Justice  policy  programme  $401,000 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1167 


Mr.  Singen  What  happened  to  the  18? 
We  want  to  get  rid  of  that,  too. 

Mr.  Speaken  Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  Mr.  Havrot 
be  substituted  for  Mr.  Dymond  on  the  stand- 
ing public  accounts  committee. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  motion  carry? 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  object  in  principle  but  let 
it  carry.  My  colleague,  the  non.  member  for 
Nidcel  Belt  (Mr.  Laughren)  would  not  for- 
give me  were  we  not  to  say  that. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills. 


CITY  OF  CORNWALL 
ANNEXATION  ACT 

Mr.  Irvine  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Annexation 
of  Certain  Land  for  the  City  of  Cornwall 
Act,  1974. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  The  Minister  of  Labour  is  not  in  his 
seat. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  hon.  member  suggest- 
ing he  is  in  his  wrong  seat?  Will  the  hon. 
Minister  of  Labour  please  take  his  right  seat. 
Now,  shall  the  motion  carry? 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  provides  for  tfie 
annexation  odF  approximately  62  acres  of  the 
township  of  Cornwall  to  the  citv  of  Corn- 
wall. This  small  parcel  of  land,  which  is  now 
owned  by  Ontario  Hydro  and  the  St.  Law- 
rence Parks  Commission,  is  located  between 
Lake  St.  Lavvrence  and  Highway  No.  2  on 
the  west  side  of  the  city.  It  will  be  the  site 
of  the  new  Combustion  Engineering  plant. 
My  colleague,  the  Minister  of  Labour  and 
myself  met  with  members  of  the  dty  and 
township  council  at  Cornwall  on  Monday  last. 
They  agreed  that  the  government  should  pro- 
ceed in  this  way  in  order  to  facilitate  tfie 
early  establishment  of  this  industry— one  of 
the  major  elements  in  the  regional  economic 
development  programme  in  Cornwall. 

In  addition  to  the  annexation,  the  bill  pro- 
vides for  the  designation  of  the  annexed  area, 
together  with  an  adjacent  18-acre  parcel  in 
the  city,  for  industrial  use. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  very  anxious  to  pro- 
ceed as  quickly  as  possible  with  this  bill,  and 


I  will  be  taking  it  throa^  the  legislative 
process  myself. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  HOUSE  ACT 

Mr.  Shulman  moves  first  reading  of  biH 
intituled,  An  Act  to  regulate  the  Prooeedfogs 
of  the  House  Act 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Shulman:  As  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  backbenchers 
have  been  chipped  away  in  the  last  eight 
years.  This  is  an  attempt  to  reverse  that  pro- 
cedure. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 


LAND  TRANSFER  TAX  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  second  reading  of 
Bill  26,  An  Act  respecting  the  Land  Transfer 
Tax  Act,  1974. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  Mr.  Speaker, 
on  a  point  of  order:  A  request  was  made  to 
the  minister  yesterday  to  provide  us  with 
copies  of  any  proposed  amendments  to  the 
bill.  My  point  is  simply  whether  or  not  we 
can  debate  the  bill  on  second  reading  if  we 
do  not  have  the  amendments  which  the  min- 
ister proposed  to  introduce  in  the  conrse  o£ 
this  debate. 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  hoped  I  might  have  copies 
of  the  amendments  which  my  sta£F  and  I  are 
presently  working  on  availaole  for  the  hon. 
members  at  this  time.  Regrettably,  they  are 
not  ready  yet. 

I  could  perhaps  take  a  moment  at  this 
point,  however,  and  outline  two  or  three  of 
the  areas  in  which  I  do  expect  to  have 
amendments  available  when  we  get  into 
committee.  I  guess  that  would  be  next  week. 

If  the  House  would  like  me  to  do  so,  I 
could  cover  what  I  have.  I  have  two  or  three. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  this  be  accratable  to 
the  hon.  members  who  have  raised  the  point? 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  pownsview):  Well  it 
would  give  us  a  little  information.  It  is  high 
time  we  had  it,  we  have  been  addng  for  it 
for  a  week. 

Mr.  Spei^r:  In  view  of  the  fact  it's  high 
time,  the  hon.  minister  may  proceed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit 
it's  high  time,  Mr.  Speaker. 


1168 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Singer:  No;  the  minister  is  not  pre- 
pared, period. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  am  prepared  to  tell  hon. 
members  of  a  couple  of  areas  in  which  sub- 
missions have  been  made  to  me  and  in  which, 
I  think,  we  are  going  to  be  able  to  make  some 
amendments. 

If  hon.  members  refer  to  section  1,  sub  1, 
sub  f,  sub  ii,  they  will  note  that  we  set  in 
that  subsection  one  of  the  criteria  for  the 
designation  of  a  non-resident  corporation  as 
being  a  corporation  in  which  any  one  share- 
holder held  a  block  of  25  per  cent  or  more 
of  the  shares,  it  being  obvious  under  a  pre- 
vious subsection  that  if  50  per  cent  or  more 
were  held  by  non-resident  shareholders  that 
would  be  a  non-resident  corporation. 

•However,  it  has  come  to  my  attention  that 
it's  entirely  possible  that  a  25  per  cent  share 
in  a  corporation  could  be  held  by  a  non- 
resident, but  in  fact  the  corporation  could  be 
controlled  by  resident  Canadians  or  by  people 
falling  in  the  category  of  residents.  I  will 
therefore  propose  in  due  com"se  an  amend- 
ment that  would  modify  that  section  so  that 
it  would  be  essentially  25  per  cent  but  it 
would  be  possible  if  it  is  demonstrated,  I 
suppose  to  my  satisfaction,  to  tlie  satisfaction 
of  the  minister,  that  the  corporation  is  in  fact 
controlled  by  residents,  that  it  would  then  not 
be  automatically,  as  would  otherwise  be  the 
case  under  sub  ii,  a  non-resident  corporation 
for  the  purposes  of  the  Act. 

Section  6,  subsection  1,  is  another  section 
which  has  caused  a  good  deal  of  consterna- 
tion among  mortgage  lenders.  Thd  first  mort- 
gagees on  building  loans,  for  example,  have 
been  concerned  that  the  potential  hen  that 
would  arise  if  the  property  presently  being 
built,  let's  say  by  a  builder  and  during  the 
course  of  the  construction  he's  receiving  mort- 
gage advances,  if  that  property  were  sub- 
sequently sold  to  a  non-resident,  the  pro- 
visions of  section  6,  sub  1,  would  place  the 
lien  for  the  20  per  cent  tax  in  priority  to  all 
of  those  mortgage  advances. 

That  had  not  been  my  intention.  The  in- 
tention had  been  to  preclude  an  arrangement 
whereby  property  was  sold  with  a  mortgage 
back— sold  to  a  non-resident,  then  the  mort- 
gage back— it  is  our  intention  that  the  lien  for 
the  tax  would  be  in  priority  to  that  kind  of 
mortgage,  but  not  in  priority  to  mortgage 
advances  made  in  good  faith  by  a  lending 
institution,  or  any  other  person  for  that 
matter,  in  the  course  of  the  construction  of  a 
dwelling;  so  I  will  have  an  amendment  to 
that  effect  in  committee. 


Lastly,  section  16,  sub  1,  is  in  the  opinion 
of  my  legal  advisers  somewhat  more  limited 
than  it  should  be  to  permit  the  imposition  of 
a  lien  for  unpaid  non-resident  tax  where  we 
wish  to  postpone  that  lien  in  favour  of  mort- 
gage advances. 

It's  roughly  the  same  sort  of  thing.  What 
we  anticipate  under  section  16  is  the  non- 
resident corporation  dividing  building  lands 
and  developing  them  to  the  point  of  sale 
for  construction  purposes.  At  that  stage  or 
at  some  stage  in  the  course  of  acquisition  it 
would  normally  be  subject  to  the  20  per  cent 
non-resident  tax.  We  don't  want  to  do  that 
if  the  corporation  eventually  sells  those  lands 
back  to  Canadians  or  to  residents. 

Therefore,  what  we  propose  to  do— and 
we  thought  we  had  sufficiently  broad  lan- 
guage in  section  16,  subsection  1,  to  accom- 
plish that— is  to  take  a  lien  for  the  unpaid  tax 
and  if  the  property  is  eventually  sold  to 
resident  Canadians  to  wipe  out  the  lien.  That 
lien  would,  once  again,  have  priority  over 
mortgage  advances  and  other  securities  for 
moneys  advanced,  which  we  don't  really  want 
to  do.  I  want  to  have  the  authority,  as  the 
minister,  to  postpone  the  lien  in  favour  of 
mortgage  advances  which  come  along  and  to 
provide  for  partial  discharges  of  that  lien 
with  respect  to  smaller  parcels  within  the 
subdivision  as  they  are  eventually  sold  off 
from  time  to  time  to  resident  Canadians. 

I  will  have  an  amendment  to  section  16 
which  will  extend  somewhat  broader  au- 
thority to  the  minister  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Kitchener  on 
Bill  26. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Yes,  Mr. 
Speaker.  On  Bill  26,  there  are  a  couple  of 
points  I  would  particularly  like  to  raise  with 
the  minister.  I  realize  thiat  the  minister,  of 
course,  has  made  certain  comments  on  reports 
in  the  press  that  flowed  originally  from  the 
comments  made  by  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White) 
in  his  budget. 

I  think  we  are  all  particularly  concerned 
with  the  effect  of  Bill  26  because  the  min- 
ister has  stated  that  this  is  one  of  the  policies 
which  this  government  is  intending  to  de- 
velop in  order  that  eventually  the  supply  of 
housing  and  residential  accommodation  gen- 
erally would  be  improved  for  the  people  of 
this  province. 

There  are  some  specific  questions,  I  think, 
which  should  be  put  to  the  minister  and 
these,  I  hope,  will  enable  us  to  have  a  better 
bill  or  at  least  have  various  points  clarified. 
As  I  had  suggested  to  the  minister  yesterday, 


APRIL  19,  1974 


nee 


I  felt  there  was  some  merit  in  obviously 
encouraging  the  greatest  amotmt  of  public 
involvement  that  could  be  possible.  I  sug- 
gested, you  will  recall  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it 
might  well  be  in  the  best  interests  of  all 
parties  concerned  that  we  would  put  this  bill 
in  standing  committee  eventually  so  that  the 
public  could,  in  fact,  appear  before  the 
committee  so  that  there  could  be  the  broad- 
est possible  public  discussion  with  builders, 
with  persons  who  frankly  speculate  in  the 
price  of  land,  with  municipal  authorities  and 
with  the  various  oflBcers  of  financial  houses 
which  are  involved  in  this  kind  of  develop- 
ment. I  still  believe  that  would  be  worth- 
while. However,  we  shall  see  if  that  can  be 
accomplished. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  It  would 
be  a  very  rare  thing  if  it  does  get  to  standing 
committee. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  minister,  of  course,  is 
of  the  view,  as  he  has  expressed  it,  that  the 
law  must  be  clear  and  must  be  known  as 
quickly  as  possible.  My  view  of  that,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  I  would  not  want  a  bad  bill 
just  because  we  were  in  a  hurry  to  pass  one. 
I  would  rather  use  the  powers  which  the  min- 
ister has  to  have  an  effective  date  of  April  9, 
which  is  a  date  after  which  all  transactions 
will  be  reviewed.  The  minister  has  suggested, 
indeed,  that  matters  until  September  will  be 
subject  to  this  review  so  that  the  kiting  of 
oflFers  which  was  referred  to  earlier  can  be 
reviewed  and  certainly  looked  into  in  some 
depth. 

I  am  certain,  of  course,  that  there  will  be 
some  who  will  attempt  to  avoid  the  interest 
the  minister  has  shown  in  trying  to  regularize 
this  kind  of  a  situation.  Those  persons  who 
choose  to  break  the  law  in  spirit  if  not  in 
letter  are  going  to  have  the  ministry's  oflBcials 
involved  in  reviewing  their  particular  trans- 
actions. I  think  that  is  certainly  valid. 

Since  that  power  does  exist,  I  would  suggest 
the  minister  could  well  reconsider  his  earlier 
comment  with  respect  to  the  future  develop- 
ment of  this  bill.  I  think  that  if  the  power 
exists  to  review  all  of  the  circumstances  we 
can  well  take  several  weeks,  if  necessary,  to 
come  up  with  a  better  bill,  once  we  have  had 
a  full  discussion  of  all  the  possibilities  of  all 
the  problems  and  indeed  of  the  future  devel- 
opment of  this  area,  and  once  we  have  in- 
volved all  the  segments  of  our  society  that  are 
interested  in  this  particular  situation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  bill  itself  you  will 
recall  that  I  made  some  comments,  in  my 
lead-off  on  the  budget  debate  for  the  opposi- 
tion last  Tuesday,  specifically  with  respect  to 


the  point  that  was  raised  that  this  tax  imposi- 
tion will,  in  fact,  discourage  ofwnenhlp  of 
land.  I  suggested  that  foreign  interestf,  be> 
cause  of  the  safety  and  because  of  the  desire 
to  be  involved  in  a  growing  economy,  may 
well  accept  this  20  per  cent  simply  as  a  cost 
of  doing  business  as  they  see  it.  I  suggest 
further  to  vou,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  if  that  is 
the  case,  it  interests  in  Europe,  in  Asia,  are 
prepared  to  buy  into  Canada  at  any  price, 
then  of  course  the  ultimate  price  they  pay 
will  be  reflected  in  the  return  they  are  going 
to  want  to  have.  If  we  have  done  nothing  but 
add  20  per  cent  onto  the  cost  of  a  facility, 
then  the  eventual  resident,  the  home  buyer, 
the  apartment  dweller,  the  condominium 
purchaser,  are  going  to  be  sharing  in  that 
additional  cost. 

So  I  caution  the  minister;  I  suggest  to  him 
that  if  he  is  serious  about  this,  I  presume  he 
would  say  that  no  foreign  interest  could  pur- 
chase land.  If  he  simply  thinks  that  he  is 
going  to  avoid  the  foreign  purchase  of  land 
by  the  imposition  of  this  tax,  then  I  suggest 
he  is  incorrect.  I  think  this  might  have  a  very 
slight  effect,  but  in  the  overall  long-term 
point  of  view  the  attraction  of  our  economy  is 
going  to  simply  have  this  imposition  of  tax 
treated  as  another  business  expense.  I  think 
that  we  are  only  going  to  be  kidding  ourselves 
if  we  think  this  tax  is  going  to  suddenly 
avoid  the  problem  that  the  minister  foresees. 

In  my  part  of  Ontario,  in  the  city  of  Kit- 
chener, there  has  been  tremendous  growth 
and  development,  much  of  it  stimulated  by 
foreign  capital.  I  have  received  several  letters 
from  various  dealers  and  persons  who  are 
involved  as  agents,  particularly  for  German 
funds,  and  they  raise  some  particularly  inter- 
esting points.  Certainly,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  standing  here  as  tneir  mouthpiece  in  the 
sense  that  I  may  necessarily  agree  with  the 
point  of  view  they  take,  but  I  thiiJc  the  points 
they  raise  should  at  least  be  discussed.  The 
reason  for  this  is  that  if  we  discourage  cer- 
tain building  and  certain  procedures,  this  may 
be  a  decision  the  government  openly  chooses 
to  make;  but  the  point  which  was  raised  to 
me  was  the  one  which  I  have  already  just 
made  for  you,  Mr.  Speaker;  and  that  was,  of 
course,  that  it  is  most  important  to  ensure 
that  if  we  are  interested  in  stopping  foreign 
investment  there  are  ways  to  do  it,  and  this  is 
likely  not  the  way  that  is  going  to  be  success- 
ful. 

Now  I  noted,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there  were 
several  areas  of  concern  which  were  sug- 
gested in  press  reports.  The  persons  who  are 
dealing  solely  in  vacant  lands  and  the  trans- 
fer of  them  from  one  party  to  another  are 


1170 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  persons  which  this  kind  of  a  tax  also  is 
going  to  harm.  I  think  that  this  tax,  as  it  is 
looked  upon  as  a  companion  to  Bill  25,  An 
Act  to  impose  a  Tax  on  speculative  Profits 
resulting  from  the  Disposition  of  Land,  that 
together  they  are  two  instruments  which  the 
ministry  has  chosen  to  develop  in  order  to 
attempt  to  resolve  a  problem. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  have  suggested  in  my 
budget  speech,  this  will  not  resolve  the  prob- 
lem. This  bill  will  not  bring  any  more  hous- 
ing onto  om-  market,  certainly  not  this  year 
and  certainly  not  next  year.  The  only  way  to 
resolve  that  problem  is  by  increasing  large 
areas  of  serviced  land  immediately,  but  I  will 
not  repeat  the  remarks  I  made  in  that  earlier 
debate. 

I  would  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there 
are  some  particular  points  on  which  I  would 
like  to  hear  from  the  minister  as  he  responds 
with  respect  to  the  principle  of  this  bill.  Is 
it  true  that  the  oflBcials  in  his  ministry  at 
least  consider  that  this  tax  may  be  accepted 
as  a  cost  of  doing  business  in  this  province? 
Is  it  true  that  vendors  may  be  induced  to 
hang  onto  their  properties,  and  therefore 
since  they  do  not  have  a  ready  market  avail- 
able to  them,  the  supply  of  housing  ulti- 
mately will  not  be  developed  in  the  way  it 
is  hoped  this  kind  of  bill  might  assist? 

There  are  various  problems  that  are  going 
to  come  up,  particularly  when  we  look  at 
the  carrying  costs  of  these  various  persons 
who  are  speculating,  and  the  persons  to  whom 
they  might  like  to  sell  their  properties.  If,  for 
example,  we  deal  with  Ontario  residents  who 
are  going  to  be  encouraged  to  purchase  land 
and  develop  it,  what  sort  of  a  mechanism  will 
we  really  have  available  to  us  to  track  down 
whether  in  fact  these  persons  are  acting  for 
themselves,  for  foreign  interests,  for  non- 
residents, for  others  who  may  in  fact  be 
putting  up  the  money? 

It  was  interesting  to  talk  yesterday  with  a 
person  who,  as  an  accountant,  has  been  in- 
volved with  speculation.  He  said  to  me  that 
the  greatest  thing  they  feared  was  the  un- 
certainty of  having  matters  reviewed  in  the 
minister's  oflBce.  If  there  was  a  definition  they 
could  find  a  way  around  it;  and  this,  of 
course,  I  think  is  what  we  are  going  to  see. 
If  there  is  a  definition  made  obviously  there 
are  going  to  be  persons  who  will  lie  awake 
nights  attempting  to  avoid  the  results  of  that 
definition.  And  if  the  definition  says  20  per 
cent  or  40  per  cent  or  whatever,  then  in 
effect  we  are  going  to  have  persons  who  are 
going  to  attempt  to  avoid  the  problem. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  really  don't  wish  to  take  up 
too  much  of  the  time  of  the  House  in  re- 


viewing this  bill,  because  I  think  that  we 
are  agreed  that  there  are  certainly  things 
which  have  to  be  done  in  order  to  encourage 
housing  within  the  province.  However,  I  feel 
that  we  are  also  disagreed  as  to  the  kinds  of 
things  which,  in  fact,  should  be  done  and 
the  best  manner  of  putting  onto  the  market 
housing  which  of  course  is  badly  needed 
within  the  province. 

If  this  20  per  cent  land  transfer  tax  is 
going  to  apply  to  non-resident  sales  of  apart- 
ment buildings  then  we  may  well  be  in  a 
diflScult  position  when  we  look  to  the  lands 
of  capital  developments  we  need  in  order  to 
construct  apartments.  I  think  that  it  may 
well  be  that  the  tax  is  vahdly  going  to  be 
imposed  on  those  persons  who  are  interested 
solely  in  land  speculation.  However,  I  do 
suggest  that  some  consideration  could  well 
be  given  to  the  matter  of  applying  this  tax 
to  the  ownership  of  completed  projects.  There 
are  many  builders  who  are  developing  their 
properties  here  within  the  province  as  a  re- 
sult of  investment  of  foreign  funds.  I  think 
that  if  we  are  going  to  cut  out  those  foreign 
funds  by  this  tax  then  we  may  well  have 
some  difficulty. 

The  minister  shakes  his  head,  and  indeed 
this  may  be  one  of  the  points  he  will  want 
to  clarify.  Certainly  it's  one  of  the  points 
which  I  think  is  important  to  have  as  clear 
as  possible.  \ 

I  believe  the  shortages  of  apartment  con-         j 
struction,  especially  as  we  approach  a  zero         j 
vacancy  rate  in  cities  like  my  own  and  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto,  are  going  to  give  us 
a  series  of  problems  to  get  accommodation         j 
on  stream  and  developed  as  quickly  as  pos- 
sible.  It  may  be  that  this  tax  will  have  a 
serious  effect  on  that  matter,  and  surely  there         j 
is  not  much  merit  in  putting  in  a  tax  if  it         \ 
is  actually  going  to  harm  housing  develop- 
ment during  this  period  which  the  govern- 
ment admits  is  one  of  crisis. 

Mr.  Speaker,  those  are  just  a  few  remarks.  ! 

I  think  that  we  would  like  to  hear  from 
the  minister  and  I'm  sure  that  many  other  i 

members  will  wish  to  make  their  comments, 
so   that   the   various   points   that  have  been         \ 
raised  are  clarified  and  so  that  our  people         ] 
know,  as  a  result  of  this  debate,  the  directions  i 

in  which  the  ministry  is  moving. 

Mr.   Speaker:  We  want  to  give  the  Min- 
ister of  Labour  an  opportunity  to  introduce 
a    group    which   he   wishes   to   introduce   to         ] 
the  House.  j 

Hon.    F.    Cuindon    (Minister    of    Labour):  ] 

Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Speaker.  I'm  sure         \ 
the  hon.  members  would  like  to  join  me  this  i 


APWL  19.  1974 


1171 


morning  in  welcoming  students  from  the 
Etienne  Brule  French  high  school,  Toronto, 
in  the  west  gallery. 

Monsieur  le  President,  je  vous  remercie. 
Au  nombre  de  nos  visiteurs  ce  matin  je  suis 
heureiix  de  signaler  la  pr^ence  des  6tudiants 
de  r^ole  secondaire  frangaise  Etienne  Br{iI6 
de  Toronto  qui  sent  aocompagn^  de  leur 
professeur.  Au  nom  de  tous  mes  collogues  je 
leur  souhaite  la  plus  cordiale  bienvenue  k  la 
Legislature  ontarienne. 

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

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  too  have  a  few  comments  I  want  to  make 
about  the  bill. 

An  hon.  member:  Quite  a  few. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  want  to  begin  by  saying 
that  I  must  say  to  the  member  for  Kitchener 
I'm  not  quite  clear  whether  his  party  is  in 
favour  or  opposed  to  the  bill.  I  gathered 
from  his  leader's  comments  on  the  day  the 
legislation  was  introduced  that  the  Liberal 
Party  was  very  much  in  favour  of  what  the 
government  was  doing  in  regard  to  this  bill. 
Ill  be  very  interested  in  watching  how  the 
vote  goes,  just  to  determine  whether  we  are 
back  into  the  education  debate  again. 

I  want  to  say  to  the  minister  one  thing  to 
begin  with.  We've  raised  a  niunber  of  times 
the  problem  of  separating  policy  from  ad- 
ministration in  the  area  of  taxation.  I  believe 
the  Treasurer  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  has 
an  obligation  to  be  here  today  to  defend  his 
policies  with  regard  to  this  particular  legis- 
lation. The  minister  who  is  before  us  is 
dealing  only  with  the  application  of  the 
legislation,  how  it  will  be  applied,  including 
the  force  in  the  province,  rather  than  the 
policy  considerations  that  resulted  in  the 
legislation  coming  forward  from  the  cabinet. 
I  think  at  this  time  we  should  in  fact  be 
dealing  with  the  policy,  what  the  policy 
really  is  of  the  government  and  what  the 
intention  of  this  legislation  is  supposed  to  be. 

An  hon.  member:  Bankrupt! 

An  hon.  member:  That's  what  the  first 
speaker  was. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  think  it  wotdd  serve  the 
government  well  if  the  Treasurer  were  to  find 
the  time  to  come  into  the  Legislature  and  to 
listen  to  the  reasons  why  other  people  here 
feel  that  perhaps  this  is  not  an  appropriate 
way  to  deal  with  a  very  severe  problem  in 
this  province. 


I  want  to  state  right  o£F  the  bat,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  we  will  oppose  the  legislation. 
We  will  oppose  the  legislation  because  it  it 
not  the  kind  of  thing  that  should  be  done  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario  if  the  government's 
intention  is  to  eliminate  both  speculation  and 
land  holdings  of  foreigners  in  Ontario. 

The  Legislature  set  up  a  select  committee 
and  that  select  committee  studied  the  matter 
of  the  foreign  land  holdings  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario.  In  fact,  the  current  member  in  the 
chair  is  the  chairman  of  thai  committee.  The 
committee  studied  at  some  length  the  impact 
of  foreign  ownership  of  land  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario.  The  committee  gave  a  great  deal 
of  consideration  and  produced  a  report,  the 
entire  report  being  some  60  pages  long,  deal- 
ing entirely  with  the  matter  of  foreign  owner- 
ship of  land,  foreign  ownership  of  real  estate. 
The  committee  considered  whether  or  not 
there  should  be  a  tax  applied  to  the  foreign 
ownership  at  the  time  of  sale  and  the  com- 
mittee rejected  it  as  being  an  imwoHcable 
and  an  unnecessary  way  to  do  business.  The 
committee  rejected  it,  saying- 
Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Did  the 
minister  read  the  report? 

Mr.  Deans:  —that  the  time  had  come  in 
Ontario  for  us  to  reclaim  for  Ontarians  and 
future  Ontarians  the  ownership  of  land  in 
this  province. 

The  committee  went  on  to  say  it  believed 
that  it  was  necessary  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
further  purchase  of  land  by  non-residents  and 
by  foreigners  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  That 
was  after  careful  deliberation.  That  was  after 
the  committee  had  taken  the  time  to  hear 
many  representations  from  many  representa- 
tives of  a  number  of  groups  across  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario.  The  committee  had  the 
benefit  of  the  expert  advice,  the  best  advice 
available,  in  the  province.  The  committee 
came  to  a  number  of  conclusions  and  the 
government  has  decided,  for  reasons  which  I 
can't  understand,  to  completely— 

Mr.  Martel:  Ignore. 

Mr.  Deans:  —ignore  the  recommendations 
and  conclusions  reached  bv  that  committee.  I 
happen  to  be  a  member  of  that  committee,  as 
is  my  colleague  from  Sudbury  who  will  speak, 
and  I  know  the  member  for  York  Centre 
wants  to  speak.  I  want  to  say  that  that  com- 
mittee's recommendations  were  far-reaching. 
If  that  committee's  recommendations  had 
been  followed,  this  particular  tax  would  not 
have  been  brought  forward  by  the  govern- 
ment at  this  time. 


1172 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  member  for  Kitchener  says  that  it  will 
become  a  cost  of  doing  business  in  the  prov- 
ince of  Ontario.  A  20  per  cent  tax  at  this 
time  will  not  only  become  a  cost  of  doing 
business,  it  will  be  a  force  that  will  increase 
the  cost  of  land  and  holdings  in  Ontario. 

The  20  per  cent  tax,  rather  than  being  a 
deterrent  against  the  purchase  of  property, 
will  become  simply  a  built-in  cost  that  will 
add  to  the  inflationary  spiral  of  land  costs  in 
this  province.  And  it  is  not  going  to  solve 
the  problem.  It's  not  even  going  to  begin  to 
solve  the  problem.  In  fact,  it  could  be  fair  to 
say  that  this  is  going  to  add  to  the  problem; 
it  is  going  to  add  to  the  inflationary  spiral 
and  it  is  going  to  increase  the  cost  of  land  in 
Ontario.  And  this  is  exactly  the  opposite  to 
what  the  government  has  stated  its  intentions 
to  be. 

We  will  oppose  it  because  it  is  basically 
wrong,  it  is  silly  and  it  doesn't  meet  the  ob- 
jectives of  the  government  in  providing  any 
kind  of  stop  to  the  spiralling  costs. 

If  this  government  had  taken  even  a 
moment  to  read  the  recommendations  of  the 
committee,  if  this  government  had  honestly 
believed  that  the  setting  up  of  that  select 
committee  was  a  worthwhile  endeavour  and 
that  the  time  spent  by  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  in  studying  this  matter  deserved 
even  a  tiny  consideration,  then  they  could 
never  have  come  down  with  this  kind  of 
legislation. 

What  did  the  committee  recommend?  I 
think  this  is  important  and  germane  to  the 
argument  that  we  are  going  to  have.  Let  me 
refer  all  members  of  the  House  to  the  interim 
report  of  the  select  committee,  dated  1973, 
on  foreign  ownership  of  Ontario  real  estate. 
It  deals  specifically  with  this  very  problem. 

Mr.  Martel:  It's  signed  by  seven  Tories. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  let  me  read  from  page  53 
in  the  summary  of  recommendations: 

Ownership  of  real  estate  by  individuals: 
1.  The  committee  recommends,  subject 
to  recommendation  2,  that  all  future  trans- 
fers of  legal  or  equitable  (including  lease- 
ihold)  interests  in  real  property  in  Ontario 
to  individuals,  directly  or  indirectly,  be  re- 
stricted to  Canadian  citizens  and  landed 
immigrants  resident  in  Canada. 

Mr.  Martel:  Did  the  minister  hear  that? 

Mr.  Deans:  That's  point  No.  1. 

Mr.  Martel:  And  it  was  signed  by  seven 
Tories. 


Mr.  Deans:  This  bill  doesn't  even  begin  to 
deal  with  that. 

'2.  The  committee  recommends  that  indi- 
viduals who  are  neither  Canadian  citizens 
nor  resident  landed  immigrants  be  entitled 
to  lease  real  property  in  Ontario  for  a  maxi- 
anum  period  of  one  year  without  option  of 
renewal  being  included  in  the  arrangement. 

'3.  The  committee  recommends  that  per- 
sons who,  subsequent  to  the  implementa- 
tion of  recommendation  1,  acquire  real 
property  in  Ontario  (other  than  by  short- 
term  lease)  as  landed  immigrants  resident 
in  Canada,  and  who  subsequently  lose  their 
resident  landed  immigrant  status  other  than 
by  becoming  Canadian  citizens,  be  required 
to  dispose  of  property  so  acquired,  within 
ithree  years  of  the  effective  date  of  their 
change  in  status. 

4.  The  committee  recommends  that  indi- 
viduals otherwise  ineligible  to  acquire  real 
property  in  Ontario  who  are  designated  as 
beneficiaries  of  real  property  in  Ontario 
under  a  will  or  intestacy  be  required  to  dis- 
•pose  of  the  property  so  acquired  \vithin 
three  years. 

5.  The  committee  recommends  that 
municipalities  in  Ontario  be  empowered  to 
levy  a  surcharge  of  up  to  50  per  cent  of 
'the  real  property  tax  otherwise  applicable 
in  respect  of  land  owners  in  Ontario  not 
ordinarily  resident  in  Canada. 

6.  The  committee  recommends  that  the 
policy  and  practice  with  respect  to  real 
'estate  on  which  property  tax  obligations 
are  in  default  be  reviewed  with  particular 
attention  to  public  advertisement,  notifica- 
tion to  adjoining  owners,  auctioning  and 
tendering,  and  uniformity  of  procedure. 

I'll  go  on  in  a  moment,  but  at  the  outset  I 
want  to  suggest  to  the  government  that  if  it 
is  their  intention  to  reclaim  for  Ontario  the 
land  that  rightfully  belongs  to  us,  then  these 
are  the  kinds  of  recommendations  and  the 
kinds  of  actions  that  have  to  be  undertaken. 

And  if  it  is  their  intention  to  drive  down 
the  cost  of  land  in  the  Province  of  Ontario, 
to  decrease  the  cost  of  real  estate  in  the 
'Province  of  Ontario,  then  adding  a  20  per 
cent  tax  isn't  going  to  do  it,  and  we  are 
opposed  to  it. 

If  there  is  any  value  at  all  in  using  tlie  tax 
mechanisms  of  the  province  to  drive  down 
the  cost  of  land,  then  the  only  way  they  will 
be  effective  is  if  the  tax  is  100  per  cent,  and 
anything  less  than  100  per  cent  becomes  a 
cost  of  doing  business  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  Tliis  20  per  cent  will  simply  mean 
that  land  and  property  which  was  previously 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1173 


at  a  levrf  almost  out  of  the  reach  of  anyone 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario  will  have,  as  an 
additional  cost,  20  per  cent  added'  on.  And 
we  don't  see  that  as  being  a  worthwhile  way 
to  deal  with  what  has  become  a  major  prob- 
lem confronting  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  resi- 
dents. 

Under  the  area  of  commercial  and  corpor- 
ate real  estate  ownership,  the  committee  made 
further  recommendations;  and  we  numbered 
them  starting  at  No.  7,  again  on  page  53: 
i7.   The  committee  recommends,  subject 
to  recommendation  8,  that  all  future  acquis- 
•iticMis   of   land   in   Ontario   other  than  by 
individuals  be  restricted  to  corporations  or 
ventures  not  less  than  75  per  cent  owned 
by  Canadian  citizens  or  landed  immigrants 
resident  in  Canada. 

TTiat  is  not  being  done  by  this  bill. 

8.  The  committee  recommends  that  cor- 
porations less  than  75  per  cent  owned  by 
Canadian  citizens  or  resident  landed  immig- 
rants, who  can  establish  that  it  is  bona  fide 
in  the  nature  of  their  business  to  acquire 
dand  on  a  regular  basis  for  real  estate  de- 
(velopment  or  finance,  have  the  option  of 
(becoming  75  per  cent  owned  by  Canadian 
citizens  or  resident  landed  immigrants  as 
'a  condition  of  being  entitied'  to  continue 
to  acquire  land  during  the  period  required 
to  obtain  a  fair  price  for  the  corporation's 
shares  on  the  Canadian  market. 

And  that  is  not  being  done  by  this  bill. 

9.  The  committee  recommends  that  cor- 
porations or  ventures  less  than  75  per  cent 
owned  by  Canadian  citizens  or  resident 
landed  immigrants  be  entitled  to  obtain 
leasehold  interest  in  land  in  Ontario  on 
terms  appropriate  to  their  commercial 
needs. 

And  that  is  not  being  done  by  this  bill  of 

this  government. 

I  turn  to  No.   11— they  all  are  applicable, 

but  they  don't  all  have  to  be  read  into  the 

record: 

11.  The  committee  recommends  that 
foreign  ownership  of  or  investment  in  real 
estate  other  than  land  in  Ontario  should  be 
investigated  further  as  a  priority  matter, 
with  a  specific  view  to  assessing  the  desir- 
ability of  extending  the  committee's  recom- 
mendations regarding  commercial  and  cor- 
porate ownership  of  land  to  all  real  prop- 
erty in  the  province.  A  study  should  in- 
clude examination  of: 

(a)  the  role  of  foreign  investment  in  the 
behaviour  and  performance  of  markets  for 
and  development  of  real  estate  other  than 
land  in  Ontario; 


(b)  the  extent  and  nature  of  Ontario's 
requirements,  if  any,  for  foreign  capital  for 
real  estate  development; 

(c)  the  other  various  aspects  of  foreign 
ownership  of  or  investment  in  real  prop- 
erty other  than  land  identified  in  the  fore- 
going discussion. 

And  that  didn't  take  place!  And  that  should 
have  taken  place!  Ana  that  should  have  been 
one  of  the  priority  matters  of  the  government 
if  it  really  believes  as  a  government  that  there 
is  a  need  to  do  something  in  Ontario  about 
the  rapidly  escalating  costs  of  real  property 
and  land  and  the  inflationary  spiral  that  is 
forcing  many  Ontario  citizens  to  tne  wall  with 
regard  to  their  inability  to  meet  their  com- 
mitments to  provide  basic  shelter  for  their 
families. 

I  want  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I 
seriously  wonder  now  at  the  value  of  the 
study  that  was  conducted  by  this  committee. 

This  committee  conducted  a  study  I  sus- 
pect unlike  any  ever  conducted  by  any  com- 
mittee of  this  Legislature  heretofore.  I  think 
it  fair  to  say  that  there  was  more  time  and 
effort  put  into  the  compilation  of  the  reports 
of  this  committee  than  any  other  single  com- 
mittee that  ever  was  struck  by  this  Legisla- 
ture. 

We  sat  for  days  and  days  on  end,  just  on 
land  alone.  We  met  with  people  who  express- 
ed any  interest  at  all  in  the  problem  of  land. 

We  met  with  developers;  we  met  with 
builders;  we  met  with  speculators;  we  met 
with  financiers.  We  spoke  to  people  outside 
of  the  country  about  the  impact  of  the  pro- 
posals we  were  making.  We  spoke  to  them 
in  Switzerland,  because  it  was  important.  We 
spoke  to  them  in  New  York,  because  it  utis 
important.  We  wanted  to  see  the  impact  of 
what  we  were  going  to  do  and  what  we  %vere 
going  to  recommend. 

We  attempted  to  come  up  with  recom- 
mendations which  would  protect  the  interest 
of  Ontario  against  the  intrusion— the  unwar- 
ranted, unjustified  and  unnecessary  intrusion 
—of  financiers  from  outside  of  Canada.  We 
came  down,  we  believe,  with  recommenda- 
tions which,  if  implemented  by  this  govern- 
ment, would  have  made  this  kind  of  tax 
unnecessary;  they  would  have  made  this  kind 
of  move  by  the  government  completely  and 
totally  out  of  character  with  what  we  were 
trying  to  get. 

It's  hard  to  convince  the  government,  ob- 
viously, that  the  impact  of  what  it  is  doing 
is  going  to  be  exactly  the  opposite  of  what  it 
intends.  What's  going  to  hapi)en  in  Ontario  is 
that  those  people  who  already  have  suflBcient 


1174 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


capital  to  invest  and  who  are  outside  the 
Province  of  Ontario  and  outside  the  Dominion 
of  Canada  as  investors  are  simply  going  to 
add  on  the  additional  cost  of  doing  business 
here,  and  when  the  time  comes  to  pass  it  on 
to  the  Ontario  resident;  that  will  be  a  cost 
which  we  in  Ontario  wiU  have  to  bear. 

That  will  be  a  cost  which  will  be  built  in 
in  the  final  analysis.  The  minister  shakes  his 
head  and  holds  his  arms  up. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  On  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Deans:  On  a  point  of  order? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It's  really  quite  contrary 
to  the  point  I  have  already  made.  If  a  foreign 
investor  comes  in  on  this  basis  to  develop 
lands  for  the  benefit  of  Canadians  or  Cana- 
dian residents,  we  will  give  him  a  waiver  of 
that  tax.  If  he  eventually  does  meet  his  com- 
mitment and  sells  to  Canadian  residents,  the 
tax  will  be  written  oflF.  There  will  be  no 
obligation,  not  even  interest. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  problem- 
Mr.   R.    D.    Kennedy   (Peel    South):    It   is 
obvious  the  member  hasn't  read  the  bill. 

Mr.  Deans:  We  have  read  the  bill  and  I 
understand  the  bill. 

The  point  the  minister  makes  is  wrong. 
That's  not  what  is  going  to  happen,  because 
the  speculator  in  land  invariably  turns  the 
land  over  from  time  to  time  through  other 
speculative  processes.  It  goes  from  the  specu- 
lator to  the  developer  and  there  will  be  no 
appreciation  of  value.  There  wiU  be  no 
development  taking  place.  There  has  never 
been  in  the  past;  there  is  not  going  to  be  in 
the  future.  The  speculator  in  land  who  is 
going  to  be— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  are  not  talking  about 
the  speculation  tax. 

Mr.  Deans:  We  are.  We  are  talking  about 
the  foreign  holdings  and  it  will  include  the 
speculators  in  lands.  It  will  include  the 
speculators.  What's  going  to  happen  is  that 
they  are  going  to  develop  a  process  whereby 
when  they  turn  the  land  or  the  property  or 
whatever  over  from  their  holding  company 
to  the  Canadian  operation  or  to  the  operation 
here  that  cost  will  become  a  cost  added 
into  the  cost  of  doing  business. 

It  will  inflate  the  price  of  property  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  It  will  not  deflate  it. 
Even  in  the  case  of  the  speculator,  even  in 
the  case  where  the  land  is  sold  from  foreign 
hands  to  foreign  hands,  that  cost  will  be 
built    in.    That    will    establish    the    market 


value.     This    is    what    I    am    trying   to    get 
through  to  the  minister. 

As  those  properties  change  hands  and  that 
cost  becomes  a  built-in  cost,  that  cost  will 
be  part  of  the  basis  of  establishing  market 
value  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  It  will  have 
an  impact,  an  upward  thrust,  on  the  value 
of  property.  When  the  foreign  speculator 
or  investor  sells  his  land  to  another  foreign 
speculator  or  investor  and  is  forced  to  pay 
the  tax— or  in  reverse  when  it's  sold  from 
Canadian  to  foreign  hands  and  there  has 
to  be  a  tax  paid— that  tax  will  be  added  in. 
That  will  then  become  the  value  of  the 
property  for  the  next  sale. 

It  will  continue  the  upward  escalation  of 
prices;  and  that's  where  the  minister  is 
wrong.  That's  where  the  tax  isn't  going  to 
work  and  that's  why  we  say  that  is  not  the 
way  in  which  to  deal  with  the  problem. 
If  the  minister  coidd  prove  to  me  there  was 
going  to  be  a  two-pricing  system  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario  whereby  those  who  were 
involved  and  had  this  tax  applied  against 
the  sale  would  have  a  higher  price  to  pay 
or  would  be  unable  to  absorb  the  cost  into 
the  final  value,  okay.  But  he  can't  do  that, 
because  no  matter  what  the  costs  are  they 
become  the  costs  to  everyone  else  and  it 
simply  means  there  will  be  a  larger  profit 
which  will  take  into  account  what  would 
normally  be  a  20  per  cent  tax  as  set  out  in 
the  bill. 

The  minister  is  wrong  in  the  way  in  which 
he  sees  the  tax  working.  I  don't  doubt  for 
a  moment  that  he  envisages  it  as  working 
diff^erently,  but  it  can't. 

Mr.  Speaker,  to  go  on.  The  committee  of 
which  the  member  for— 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Sud- 
bury East? 

Mr.  Deans:  No,  the  chairman. 

Mr.    Lewis:   Northumberland   (Mr.   Rowe). 

Mr.  Deans:  The  committee  of  which  the 
member  for  Northumberland  was  the  chair- 
man undertook  to  try  to  meet  the  problems. 
It  undertook  to  try  to  come  up  with  recom- 
mendations which  would  have  met  not  only 
this  particular  projadem  but  many  of  the 
other  problems  involving  both  land  specula- 
tion and  foreign  holdings  of  real  estate  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario.  If  this  government 
had  had  any  intention  at  all  of  meeting  its 
commitments  to  the  people  of  the  province, 
they  would  have  followed  the  recommenda- 
tions. 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1175 


But  the  government  wasn't  in  the  business 
of  trying  to  meet  its  commitments  to  the 
people  of  the  province.  The  government 
seems,  these  days,  to  be  in  the  business  of 
trying  to  sell  to  the  people  of  Ontario,  by 
way  of  great  press  statements,  the  idea  they're 
doing  something  about  the  housing  needs 
while  in  fact  they  are  playing  Ae  game 
alongside  the  speculator. 

This  go\emment,  in  fact,  has  even  been 
part  of  the  speculation  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  This  government  has,  over  the  years, 
steadfastly  refused  to  use  the  lands  which  it 
held  within  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  to  pres- 
sure down  the  cost  of  land  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario.  Even  though  these  things  were 
brought  to  its  attention,  this  government  has 
never  recognized  its  obligation  to  put  an  end 
to  speculation  in  the  essentials.  This  govern- 
ment has  never  taken  a  step  to  try  to  end, 
once  and  for  all,  the  speculative  impact  of 
people  who  have  no  interest  in  the  welfare 
of  the  province,  reaping  from  the  jniblic  mas- 
sive amounts  of  money  without  any  substan- 
tial input  into  the  economy.  This  is  where 
the  problem  really  lies. 

I'm  going  to  tell  you  Mr.  Speaker,  un- 
less the  government  is  prepared  to  put  an 
end  to  speculation  in  land— an  end  to  it— 
unless  the  government  is  prepared  to  make 
the  tax  on  speculation  so  severe  as  to  make 
speculation  unprofitable,  then  it  will  con- 
tinue. It  will  continue  here  in  this  bill,  and 
it  will  continue  in  the  companion  legislation. 
Bill  25. 

I'm  not  the  only  one  who  thinks  that  the 
speculator  is  going  to  find  ways  of  building 
this  particular  tax  into  the  final  sale  price. 
Everyone  else  believes  it.  Even  those  dealing 
in  land  beheve  that  this  will  be  built  in. 

Let  me  read  something  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  can  find  it.  I  just  can't  pick  out  the  spot 
but  there  is  an  article  in  the  Financial  Post 
of  April  20  which  says,  "but  few  exi)ect  the 
tax  to  reduce  prices  in  the  near  future."  I 
can't  just  pick  it  out,  but  it  says  that  it  will 
become  a  cost  of  doing  business  in  Ontario 
and  that  the  speculator  in  land  and  the 
foreign  holders  of  land  wiU  simply  add  that 
tax  in. 

I  ask  the  minister,  I  ask  him  seriously:  Does 
the  government  intend  to  stop  foreign  owner- 
ship of  land  in  Ontario? 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  the  issue.  That  is 
really  the  issue. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  it  the  intention  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  put  an  end  to  foreign  ownership 
of  land  in  Ontario?  Because  that's  the  key 
question. 


If  it's  the  intention  of  the  eovemment  to 
put  an  end  to  foreign  ownership  then  you 
simply  stop  it  by  law,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  you 
don't  run  the  ri^  of  further  escalating  prices 
by  way  of  an  additional  tax  whidi  by  the 
government's  own  statement  really  is  not  in- 
tended to  yield  much  by  way  of  revenue  in 
any  event. 

If  the  government  doesn't  intend  to  stop 
speculation  in  Ontario  then  it  must  stop  play- 
ing games  with  the  public.  It  must  not  pre- 
tend these  two  taxing  measures  are  going  to 
suddenly  reap  for  the  public  of  Ontario  a 
great  benefit  with  regard  to  a  reduction  in 
realty  costs,  because  the  real  estate  agents 
don't  believe  it,  the  developers  don't  believe 
it,  the  speculators  don't  believe  it  and  the 
pubhc  doesn't  believe  it. 

If  the  minister  honestly  feels  there  is  a 
need  to  put  an  end  to  what  has  become  one 
of  the  greatest  single  problems  confronting 
Ontario  residents,  particularly  young  people, 
then  I  suggest  to  him  that  he  withdraw  this 
bill  and  come  back  into  the  Legislature  with 
a  bill  that  will  say  clearly  ana  equivocally 
that  we  will  not  permit  any  further  foreign 
investment  in  Ontario  and  that  we  will  put 
an  end  to  the  speculative  aspects  of  the 
moneys  already  here.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Before  the  hon.  member  for 
York  Centre  proceeds,  perhaps  I  might  be 
granted  a  moment  to  inform  the  House  that 
in  the  name  of  Her  Majesty,  the  Queen,  the 
Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  has 
been  pleased  to  assent  to  certain  bills  in  her 
chambers. 


ROYAL  ASSENT 

Tlie  Clerk  Assistant:  The  following  are  the 
titles  of  the  bills  to  which  Her  Honour  has 
assented: 

Bill  20,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Farm 
Products  Grades  and  Sales  Act. 

Bill  27,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act. 


LAND  TRANSFER  TAX  ACT 
(continued) 

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

Mr.  Deacon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  find  this 
bill  one  of  the  most  maddening  pieces  of 
legislation  that  has  ever  been  brought  before 
this  House.  It  is  another  example  of  a  govern- 
ment   sham    or    pretence    of    accomplishing 


1176 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


something  it  knows  the  public  wants  to  see 
achieved.  It  knows  the  public  is  concerned 
about  the  fact  that  foreigners  are  second  only 
to  this  government  in  fanning  and  fueUing  the 
fires  of  land  speculation. 

This  government  is  buying  up  land  and 
putting  funds  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have 
found  out  ahead  of  time  where  it  is  going  to 
buy  and  then  allowing  them  to  go  and  buy 
new  areas  of  land.  This  government  has  failed 
to  recognize  that  only  when  there  is  a  surplus 
of  a  product  will  there  not  be  speculation. 

What  bothers  me  here  is  that  the  govern- 
ment is  trying  to  pretend  that  it  is  concerned, 
as  was  the  select  committee,  about  foreign 
buying  of  land  in  Canada  and  is  making  it 
more  difficult  for  Canadians  to  own  their  own 
country. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  the  Liberals  welcomed  it 
on  budget  day.  They  welcomed  it.  They 
applauded  the  government  on  budget  day. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  principle. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  are  all  over  the  baU  park. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  applauded  them  for  both 
taxes  on  budget  day. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  welcomed  the  tax,  and 
they  were  going  to  support  it. 

An  Hon.  member:  No,  we  said- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Deacon:  Who  has  got  the  floor? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Martel:  They're  the  greatest  flip-flop 
artists  around. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please;  order. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Twenty  minutes  ago  they  were 
going  to  support  the  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  member  for 
York  Centre  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Martel:  Twenty  minutes  ago  they  were 

supporting  the  bill. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  ( Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Next  budget,  when 
the  press  asks  for  comment,  wait  24  hours. 


Mr.  Lewis:  What  to  say  is:  "Maybe." 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Say  to  them,  "I'll  tell 
you  in  a  few  hours." 

Mr.  Martel:  It  didn't  even  take  that  long. 
Mr.  Deacon:  The  thing  that  bothers- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Know  what  I  am  doing  now?  I 
am  taking  a  couple  of  headache  pills.  The 
hon.  member  is  giving  me  a  headache. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Well,  I  am  glad  the  hon. 
member  is  buying  a  foreign  pill. 

•The  thing  that  really  concerns  me  here  is 
that  surely  some  of  the  people  who  are  taken 
in  by  th^  sort  of  pretence  might  be  some 
members  of  our  own  party. 

The  public  as  a  Whole  is  very  conscious 
of  the  need  to  restrict  buying  of  land  to 
Canadians.  But  just  because  we  happen  to 
have  a  huge  land  mass  in  this  coimtry  doesn't 
mean  that  we  have  an  imlimited  supph'  of 
land  for  the  purposes  that  we  want  as  Cana- 
dians—for example,  building  sites,  recreational 
cottage  lots  and  recreational  land.  Indeed', 
there  is  a  definite  restricted  availability  of 
such  sites  in  this  province.  We  know  that 
other  countries  throughout  the  world  are 
recognizing  that  unless  they  own  their  own 
land  they  indeed  are  going  to  be  threatened 
with  losing  their  sovereignty  over  the  land 
they  are  supposed  to  have. 

Our  select  committee  recognized  the  need 
not  to  discourage  development  of  housing  or 
other  developments  that  would  add  to  the 
economic  activity  and  strength  of  our  prov- 
ince. It  recognized  there  are  alternatives  to 
owning  land,  that  in  most  cases  the  only 
reason  foreigners  are  anxious  to  own  land  is 
so  that  they  can  ride  up  with  the  inflation  in 
land  values  that  this  government  has  caused 
by  its  policies  over  the  last  20  years.  In  fact, 
there  are  many  examples  of  excellent  develop- 
ments carried  out  by  all  types  of  investors,  of 
improvements  to  properties,  buildings  and 
different  deals  on  land-lease  deals. 

No  impediment  is  caused  by  the  fact  that 
one  cannot  own  the  property  outright— none 
at  all.  There  are  all  kinds  of  ways  for 
improvements  to  properties  to  be  made  by 
those  who  bring  in  capital  from  outside  this 
country,  as  well  as  those  who  have  ordinary 
domestic  capital  to  develop  and  improve 
property.  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
tear  the  results  of  outright  prohibition  of  land 
ownership  by  foreigners  and  non-resident 
Canadians. 

I  want  to  indicate  that  this  government  has 
really  pulled  the  wool  over  the  eyes  of  the 


APRIL  ra.  1974 


I1T7 


people  o£  this  province  by  this  device  of  a 
transfer  tax,  hoping  that  it  will  indeed  make 
people  feel  it  is  recognizing  a  problem  of 
foreign  ownership  of  land  and  doing  some- 
thing about  it.  It  isn't.  It  is  a  sham.  It  is  a 
shell 

It  is  going  to  be  ineffective,  and  particu- 
larly ineffective  because  it  is  dealing  with  a 
situation  at  this  time  where  there  is  a  short- 
age of  building  sites  and  there  is  a  shortage 
of  recreational  land.  And  under  these  cir- 
cumstances all  that  happens  in  a  situation 
where  it  is  a  sellers'  market  is  that  prices 
have  increased  so  that  any  cost  such  as  this 
tax  imposes  is  just  passed  on  to  the  buyer. 

Surely  this  government  can  find  better 
ways  to  get  revenues  than  this,  because  this 
is  not  going  to  do  anything  except  penalize 
the  end  buyer;  the  person  who  is  trying  to 
rent  an  apartment  or  is  leasing  space  or 
accommodation.  We  are  oaly  making  it  pos- 
sible, by  what  we  are  doing  here,  for  the 
government  to  pretend  it  is  doing  something 
when,  in  fact,  it  isn't  doing  anything  at  afi 
to  help  the  basic  problem  we  face  in  Ontario 
from  foreign  ovmership  of  land.  And  it  is  for 
that  reason  I  certainly  feel  this  bill  is  a  fraud 
and  a  deceit. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury 
East. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  say  before 
I  get  into  the  principle  of  this  bill,  that  I 
watched  with  amazement  this  morning  the 
transition  that  took  place  to  my  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Don't  be  surprised'  any  more. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  far  right-I  think  it  is  even 
further  right  than  the  Conservative  Party  if 
that  is  possible— but  it  took  place  again  this 
morning,  much  like  the  teachers.  Within  20 
minutes  after  my  colleague,  the  member  for 
Wentworth,  started  to  speak,  they  had  de- 
cided they  would  flip-flop.  The  welcome  of 
the  bill  by  the  leader  (rf  the  Liberal  Party 
the  other  day  was  gone,  the  remarks  of  the 
member  for  Kitchener  were  gone,  and  we 
heard  the  last  speaker.  They  v*rere  in— 

Mr.  Deacon:  Did  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  hear  the  first  speaker  support  the  biU? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Did  I  support  the  bill? 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  the  member  for  Kitchener 
didn't  say  he  was  going  to  welcome  it;  in 
fact  he  was  very  careful  not  to  indicate  where 
he  was  going  to  stand  on  it.  He  wanted  to 
find  out  which  way  the  political  winds  were 
going  to  go  before  he  would  take  a  position; 


and   that   is   typically   Uberal.    It   it   cdled 
flexibility. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Whv  doesn't  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  speak  on  the  bill? 

Mr.  Martel:  They  call  it  something  else. 

An  hon.  member:  Middle  of  the  road,  isn't 
it? 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  tell 
you  that  I  oppose  the  bill.  After  a  year  of 
study  on  this,  I  guess,  it  is  amazing.  I  am 
absolutely  convinced  not  a  cabinet  minister 
read  the  bill  or  the  select  committee  report. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  The 
member  doesn't  want  any  controls  at  all,  does 
he? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  for  WeUand 
South  will  hear  what  I  want  in  a  few 
moments.  Don't  get  excited;  he  will  hear 
what  I  want  in  a  few  moments. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  member  is  opposed  to 
any  controls  at  all;  that  is  what  he  is  telling 


Mr.  Martel:  No,  I  am  not  opposed  to 
controls. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  That  is  what  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  just  got  through  saying. 

Mr.   Martel:   If  the  member  for  Welland 
South   will   just   restrain   himsdlf  for  a  few 
moments,  just  a  couple  of  moments,  I  will 
get  to  what  our  position  is. 
Mr.  Speaker,  after  a  year- 
Mr.  Kennedy:  It  would  be  nice  to  know. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  the  member  for  Peel 
South  should  know;  he  was  on  the  com- 
mittee. 

After  a  year  of  study,  my  colleague  in- 
dicated what  the  recommendations  were  by 
the  select  committee— an  Il-man  ccmmiittee 
made  up  of  seven  Conservatives,  who  sup- 
ported the  recommendations- 
Mr.  Kennedy:  Some  of  them;  some  of  die 
recommendations . 

Mr.  L.  M.  Reilly  (Eglinton):  Some  of  them. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  sure  the  member  for 
Peel  South  who  is  now  interjecting— 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  North):  There 
were  some  dissenters. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  coming  to  that.  I  wanted 
to  make  sure  I  cleared  that  up— there  were 


1178 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


some  dissenters— but  the  overall  principle  of 
the  report  was  accepted  by  all  the  members. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  member  for  Sudbury 
East  is  one  of  those  who  dissented. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  right,  and  I  want  to  tell 
the  member  that  I  further  dissent  to  this 
bill.  The  important  thing  is,  though,  that 
despite  some  dissent— in  fact  I  want  to  read 
one  of  the  dissents,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  will  show 
you  how  ludicrous  the  position  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Revenue  is.  These  are  dissenting 
opinions  of  Messrs.  Kennedy,  Newman,  Rowe 
and  Walker.  And  do  you  know  what  they 
were  dissenting  to,  Mr.  Speaker?  Listen  to 
this:  "In  our  view  it  would  be  improper  to 
levy  a  surcharge  of  the  sort  proposed  on 
non-resident  taxpayers." 

They  didn't  want  a  surcharge  on  non- 
resident taxpayers  for  recreational  land.  What 
the  government  is  doing  is  it  is  imposing  20 
per  cent— and  are  the  members  going  to 
support  it? 

Mr.  Kennedy:  That's  individual  existing 
recreational  cottage  areas.  The  member  is  all 
mixed  up  between  the  report  and  the  bill. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  will  read  the  rest,  Mr. 
Speaker:  "Non-resident  land  owners  are  in 
effect  tourists,  who  when  visiting  Canada  do 
contribute  to  the  general  revenues  of  all 
three  levels  of  government." 

What  difference  does  that  make  if  they 
buy  it  tomorrow?  What  difference  does  it 
make  if  under  the  new  bill  they  are  going 
to  pay  20  per  cent  more  for  the  right  to 
purchase  property  in  Ontario?  But  the  gov- 
ernment is  dissenting  to  anything. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Does  the  member  want  to 
practise  discrimination  right  now? 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  the  government  is  prac- 
tising discrimination.  It  is  going  to  dis- 
criminate against  anyone  why  buys  land 
in  Ontario  tomorrow. 

Mr.  Keimedy:  Yes,  but— 

Mr.  Martel:  The  government  can't  have  it 
both  ways. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  But  that  is  known  in  ad- 
vance. The  member  can't  have  it  both  ways. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  known  in  advance?  It's 
going  to  be  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  see 
where  these  four  gentlemen  vote. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  No  problem. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  really  going  to  be  in- 
teresting, Mr.  Speaker,  because  you  hear  the 


member  for  Peel  South,  as  he  argues  this  50 
per  cent  surcharge  suggested  by  the  com- 
mittee is  discriminatory  and  he  is  now  say- 
ing it's  okay  to  put  20  per  cent  on  though. 
If  that's  not  discriminatory,  I  wonder  what 
you  call  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  It  is  not  in  imfair  taxes. 
Mr.  Martel:  It  goes  on  to  say- 
Mr.    Kennedy:    The   member   has   an   ob- 
session. 

Mr.  Martel:  —"a  surcharge  which  would 
fall  on  non-Canadians  who  own  vacation 
lands  in  this  country  would  be  discrimina- 
tory." 

The  same  would  apply  to  those  business- 
men then  who  bought  land  and  had  to  pay 
20  per  cent  more.  Wouldn't  that  be  dis- 
criminatory? The  government  is  all  over  the 
ball  park. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Applying  that  surcharge  on 
a  few  people  is  frivolous. 

Mr.  Martel:  Isn't  that  interesting?  It's  going 
to  be  interesting  to  see  whether  the  member 
for  Peel  South  votes  for  discrimination  or  not. 
The  member  for  Victoria-Haliburton  (Mr.  R. 
G.  Hodgson)  is  enjoying  this  because  he  sup- 
ported the  recommendations  of  this  report,  all 
of  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Just  a  frivolous  levy. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  did  we  oppose  any  more 
foreign  domination?  It  is  unfortunate  the 
member  for  Welland  South  is  not  in  Iiis  seat, 
because  I  want  to  make  the  point,  as  my 
colleague  from  Wentworth  did,  that  the  ques- 
tion is  a  very  simple  one:  Do  we  allow  more 
takeover  by  the  foreign  sector  of  land  in 
Ontario?  Tiie  select  committee  said  no  on 
all  counts. 

It's  obvious  the  Minister  of  Revenue  did 
not  read  the  report.  It's  obvious  his  advisers 
didn't  take  time  to  look  at  what  an  11 -man 
committee  of  this  Legislature,  who  had  coun- 
sel and  who  had  researchers  to  work  with 
them,  recommended.  In  fact,  the  last  recom- 
mendation of  this  report  states,  and  I  want 
to  put  it  on  the  record  because  it's  very 
important: 

The  committee  recommends  review  and 
implementation  of  its  recommendations  as 
a  matter  of  urgency  and  priority,  and  that 
consideration  be  given  to  the  early  pro- 
mulgation of  a  date  on  which  the  imple- 
mentation of  the  committee's  recommenda- 
tions would  take  effect. 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1179 


The  minister  has  ignored  it  in  totality.  Who 
in  God's  name  on  that  committee  of  his  or 
in  the  Treasury  even  looked  at  this  report? 
Who  looked  at  it?  Who  looked  at  the  recom- 
mendations of  an  11-man  committee  who  had 
counsel  themselves,  who  had  a  research  staff 
themselves,  and  for  over  a  year  wrestled  with 
this  problem,  bringing  in  everyone  who  had  a 
say  at  all?  My  friend,  the  member  for  Peel 
South,  knew  what  we  haggled  about  and 
what  we  finally  decided  it  was  based  on. 

Let  me  put  a  paragraph  from  the  report 
on  the  record. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Would  the  member  permit 
a  question? 

Mr.  Mattel:  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  A  few  minutes  ago  the 
member  said  that  the  committee  agreed  on 
all  cotmts.  Does  he  mean  by  that  on  all 
classes  of  real  estate? 

Mr.  Martel:  No.  On  the  principle  of  land 
ownership,  on  the  basic  principle.  There  was 
some  difference  of  opinion  on  commercial 
land. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Well  now,  the  member  is 
misleading  this  House  because— 

Mr.  Martel:  On  the  basic  principle. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Peel 
South  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker.  The  hon.  member,  with  all  respect, 
is  misleading  the  House,  because  he  implies 
that  the  11-man  committee  agreed  on  all 
counts  if  he  said  the  words  which  I  think  he 
means— "all  categories  of  land."  There  was 
substantial  dissent  with  respect  to  commer- 
cial and  industrial  lands.  I  think  that  should 
go  on  the  record  for  clarification. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  wasn't  implying  it;  he  was 
explicitly  asserting. 

Mr.  Breitbaupt:  He  said  it. 

Hon,  Mr.  Grossman:  He  was  giving  the 
impression  of  some  other  things. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  say  that 
on  page  12— 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Do  you  accept  that  point  of 
order,  Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  Martel:  —is  one  of  the  things  that 
decided  the  committee's  eventual  report.  It 
says: 


On  the  other  hand,  the  committee  does 
not  feel  the  issue  of  foreign  ownership  of 
land  or  other  real  estate  is  appropriately 
dealt  with  merely  by  arrivine  at  a  judge- 
ment about  the  present  level  and  signifi- 
cance of  land  holdings.  Attaining  optimal 
development  and  land  utilization  for  the 
people  of  Ontario  and  Canada  demandl 
long-term  perspectives  and  solutions.  The 
committee  is  of  the  view  that  the  nature 
and  patterns  of  foreign  demand  for  real 
estate  in  Ontario  merit  careful  considera- 
tion in  this  context. 

A  20  per  cent  siircharge  isn't  going  to  do  a 
thing  about  it. 

I'm  not  sure  if  the  minister  is  aware  that 
immediately  to  the  south  of  us— and  this  is 
one  of  the  things  which  impressed  the  com- 
mittee—is a  population  of  100  million  Amer- 
icans—just immediately  to  the  south  of  us  in 
the  "golden  horseshoe"  area- who  have  as 
much  leisure  time  as  Canadians,  higher 
wages,  more  disposable  income,  and  who  in 
fact  are  screaming  for  hmd.  One  hundred 
milHonl 

I'm  wondering  again  if  the  minister  is 
aware  that  certain  countries,  such  as  Ger- 
many, provide  special  tax  laws  which  encour- 
age the  purchase  of  land  in  other  countries 
and  give  concessions  for  that  purchase  back 
in  their  own  state,  such  as  Germany. 

My  friend  the  member  for  Victoria- Hali- 
burton  knows.  He  has  whole  townships  tied 
up  by  German  capital  because  they  have 
special  tax  laws  in  Germany  which  encourage 
the  purchase  of  land  in  Ontario  or  in  coun- 
tries other  than  their  own.  It's  a  very  easy 
matter  for  those  laws  in  Germany  to  be  modi- 
fied to  take  into  account  the  20  per  cent  and 
it  won't  change  a  thing.  When  this  report 
was  being  drafted  one  ming  taken  into  con- 
sideration was  the  amount  of  money  for  in- 
vestment that  the  Arab  world  has  now  and 
the  fact  that  they  are  looking  for  investments 
and  looking  for  an  oudet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  So  K>ng  as  they  don't 

buy  in  Forest  Hill. 

Mr.  Deans:  Hiat's  a  problem. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  just  might. 

Mr.  Deans:  That's  exactly  the  problem. 

Mr.  Martel:  iTie  point  is,  we  have  tre- 
mendous masses  to  the  south  with  more 
money.  What  happens  when  they  start  buying 
land  for  any  purpose?  Recreational  land  for 
private  individuals  is  not  stopped. 

An  hon.  member:  No,  it's  the  oil  wells. 


1180 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Martel:  They  can  pay  more  because 
they  have  more  disposable  income.  What 
does  that  do  for  the  population  of  Ontario 
and  for  Canada  if  Canadians,  other  than 
those  dwelling  in  Ontario,  want  to  purchase 
land  in  Ontario?  What  happens  to  that  land 
as  it  is  being  driven  up  because  Americans 
have  more  money  to  spend?  The  20  per  cent 
isn't  going  to  do  it.  They'll  be  willing  to  pay 
the  20  per  cent  because  they  haven't  got 
land  in  the  United  States.  They  must  come 
here. 

We're  talking  about  100  million  immedi- 
ately to  the  south  of  us  and  we're  talking 
about  a  population  of  200  million.  What 
happens  witib  the  special  tax  laws  of  other 
countries  which  encourage  investment  in  On- 
tario in  the  form  of  real  estate? 

One  wonders  again,  as  my  colleague  said 
earlier,  what  good  is  the  select  committee?  Is 
it  just  to  appease  the  public  because  we're 
studying  it?  Are  any  of  the  recommendations 
of  a  select  committee  ever  taken  seriously? 
We  spend  $1  million  to  prepare  reports  and 
these  two  bills,  particularly  the  one  we're 
debating  today,  fly  totally  in  the  face  of  the 
report.  Why  have  it?  It's  a  waste  of  time. 

'Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want  to  quote  a  few 
sections  from  this.  It  says: 

An  important  source  of  foreign  demand, 
as  is  wddely  known,  is  the  United  States. 
Two  facts  place  the  issue  in  stark  perspec- 
tive: the  states  neighbouring  Ontario  are 
'among  the  most  populous  in  the  United 
States  and  the  wealthiest  in  the  world. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  if  the  member  thinks  20 
per  cent  is  going  to  prevent  them  from  buy- 
ing into  Canada  or  into  Ontario,  he  is 
wmstling  in  the  dark.  It  goes  on: 

Over  100  million  persons  live  in  the 
northeast  and  north-central  regions  of  the 
United  States  adjacent  to  Ontario,  and  with 
the  exception  of  California,  these  areas  have 
the  highest  incomes  in  the  world. 

For  other  reasons  too,  Ontario  and 
Canada  are  and'  have  been  attractive  places 
to  buy  land;  and  for  real  estate  in  general. 
From  a  general  business  standpoint,  On- 
tario has  been  and  is  a  desirable  place  to 
establish  business  operations. 

'Further,  particularly  in  or  near  urban 
regions,  investment  in  real  estate  in  On- 
ttario  has  been  attractive  to  both  foreign 
and  domestic  investors.  In  particular, 
British,  other  European  and  Japanese  in- 
vestors, encouraged  by  substantial  upward 
revaluation  of  their  currency  relative  to  the 


Canadian    dollar,    are    active    participants 
in  Ontario  real  estate  markets. 

All  these  factors  translate  into  significant 
foreign  demand  for  land  and  buildings  in 
Ontario,  and  point  to  an  acceleration  rather 
than  an  abatement  of  the  acquisition  of 
Ontario  real  estate  by  non-Canadians,  The 
nature  and  implications  of  developing  pat- 
terns and  trends  of  foreign  ownership  are 
considered  below. 

And  I'll  just  put  on  the  record,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  might,  a  couple  of  figures  I  had  with 
respect  to  who  owns  what  and  where  the  in- 
vestment lies.  Well,  I'll  come  to  them  in  a 
moment. 

For  example,  on  page  27,  it  says: 

Representatives  of  the  Urban  Develop- 
ment Institute  estimated  before  the  com- 
mittee that  of  the  order  of  50  per  cent  of 
the  developable  land  in  zone  1  of  the 
Toronto-centred  region  is  owned  by  foreign- 
ovmed  developers.  [Fifty  per  cent  in  the 
Toronto-centred  region  is  foreign  owned.] 
For  example,  it  was  given  in  evidence 
before  the  committee  that  95  per  cent  of 
the  property  managed  by  the  Metropolitan 
Trust  Co.  is  foreign  owned. 

Does  the  minister  think  20  per  cent  is  going 
to  change  any  of  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Is  the  member  suggesting 
we  expropriate  them? 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  I  am  suggesting— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Confiscate  them? 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  there  is  a  recommenda- 
tion in  here— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  What  does  the  member 
suggest? 

Mr.  Martel:  Did  the  minister  read  the 
report? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes,  I  have  read  some 
sections  of  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  report?  Even  the  recom- 
mend^ations?  Did  he  read  them?  Because  there 
is  a  recommendation  which  says  that  they 
would  have  three  years.  It  says: 

The  committee  recommends  that  individ- 
uals [and  the  same  could  apply  to  corpora- 
tions] otherwise  ineligible  to  acquire  real 
property  in  Ontario  who  are  designated  as 
beneficiaries  of  real  estate  property  in 
Ontario  under  a  will  or  intestacy  be  re- 
quired to  dispose  of  the  property  so 
acquired  in  three  years. 


APRIL  19.  1974 


1181 


Or  the  minister  could  do  the  other  thing  that 
we  have  discussed,  that  I— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Now  members  opposite 
are  against  that  too. 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  there  are  always  a  few 
who  are  not  very  bright. 

Mr.  Martel:  Or  he  could  do  as  recommen- 
dation No.  8  says. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  But  the  committee  recommen- 
ded it. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  minister  couldn't  even  con- 
vince his  own  colleagues  that  we  were  wrong. 

Mr.  Martel:  Recommendation  No.  8  could 
take  care  of  that.  He  could  do  that  with  real 
estate. 

Mr.  Deans:  He  couldn't  convince  them  we 
were  wrong. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  convinced  them  mem- 
bers opposite  were  wrong,  that  was  no 
problem. 

Mr.  Martel:  Recommendation  No.  8  says: 

The  committee  recommends  that  cor- 
porations less  than  75  per  cent  owned  by 
Canadian  citizens  or  resident  landed  immi- 
grants, who  can  establish  that  it  is  bona 
fide  in  the  nature  of  their  business  to 
acquire  land  on  a  regular  basis  for  real 
estate  development  or  finance,  have  the 
option  of  becoming  75  per  cent  owned  by 
Canadian  citizens  or  resident  landed  immi- 
grants as  a  condition  of  being  entitled  to 
continue  to  acquire  land  during  the  period 
required  to  obtain  a  fair  price  for  the 
corporations'  shares  on  the  Canadian 
market. 

The  menrjber  didn't  read  this  report;  it  is 
obvious.  It  is  so  obvious.  It  is  pathetic  that 
he  would  be  in  here  trying  to  sell  us  a  bill 
when  he  doesn't  even  know  what  the  select 
committee  that  studied  the  situation  for 
a  year  discovered. 

Mr.  Renwick:  And  when  the  Treasurer 
says  this  is  on  interim  step  towards  serious 
consideration  of  these  propositions. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  has  gone  by  some  adviser. 
Could  the  minister  not  at  least  take  into 
consideration  his  cabinet  colleague,  the  Mini- 
ster of  Housing  (Mr.  Handleman).  The  Mini- 
ster of  Housing  signed  this  report  along  with 
the  rest  of  us  before  he  became  Minister  of 


Housing.  He  is  vitaUv  concerned  with  land. 
Why  isn't  he  here  tociay? 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  he  didn't  dissent. 

Mr.  Martel:  In  fact  he  wrote  that  he  was 
not  dissenting  to  all  of  the  content  in  this 
report.  He  is  the  man  now  responsible  for 
housing.  I'm  wondering  when  the  Treasurer 
and  the  Minister  of  Revenue  drafted  the 
bill  if  they  consulted  the  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing. I  suspect  they  didn't,  because  he  agreed 
with  everything  in  the  report,  and  there  is 
a  statement  in  this  report  to  that  efi'ect.  He 
recognized,  as  others  of  us  did,  that  it  is  a 
fundamental  question:  Do  we  allow  more 
intrusion  into  Canada  and  into  Ontario  of 
foreign  interests  in  the  real  estate  field? 

Mr.  Deans:  Or  do  we  say:  "You  can  in- 
trude if  you  can  aflFord  it,"  because  that  is 
what  this  minister  is  saying:  "Intrude  all 
you  want  as  long  as  you  pay  the  tax." 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Minister  of  Housing  said 
no.  He  said  we  can't. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  crazy. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  said  we  have  to  make  sure 
there  is  land  in  perpetuity  in  our  area  and 
that  we,  in  fact,  will  lease  lands.  If  you  will 
look  on  pages  57  to  59,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
Minister  of  Housing  indicated  that  he  sup- 
ported every  principle  in  this  bill.  There  was 
only  one  thing  he  cautioned  about.  He  said 
let's  do  it  slowly  and  let's  make  sure  that  we 
have  a  study  and  know  what  we  are  doing. 

It  is  obvious,  Mr.  Speaker,  he  wasn't  con- 
sulted. In  fact  it  is  obvious  that  he  was 
excluded  from  discussions,  because  the  bill 
flies  in  the  face  of  everything  that  he  as 
Minister  of  Housing  signed— not  as  Minister 
of  Housing  at  the  time,  he  has  since  come 
into  that  portfolio.  But  he,  like  the  rest  of  us, 
after  over  a  year  of  study  recognized  what 
the  problem  was  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  thought  the  member 
said  not  a  single  cabinet  minister  read  that 
report. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  wasn't  a  cabinet  minister 
at  the  time.  That's  why  I  say  the  Minister 
of  Revenue  must  have  excluded  him  from 
the  discussions,  because  he  wouldn't  have  — 
did  he  support  the  bill  by  the  way? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Oh  sure! 

Mr.  Deans:  Tell  us  about  the  cabinet  dis- 
cussions. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  supported  the  bill? 


1182 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  all  supported  the 
bill. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Tell  us  about  the  discus- 
sions about  the  percentages. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  so 
many  reasons.  We  had  before  us  so  many 
people,  and  we  ultimately  came  down  to 
this  decision  that  all  land  would  either  be 
leased  or  would  be  owned  by  Canadians  and 
landed  immigrants.  For  business  purposes, 
corporations,  whether  commercial  or  indus- 
trial, could  lease  land  from  Canadians.  In 
fact  we  were  told  as  a  committee  over  and 
over  again  that  in  Britain,  and  to  a  greater 
extent  in  the  United  States  today,  corpora- 
tions aren't  buying  land.  They  are  leasing 
land  on  long-term  leases.  They  don't  even 
attempt   to   purchase   the   land   any   longer. 

Mr.  Speaker  you  could  go  on  and  on  listing 
the  reasons  the  committee  came  to  the  con- 
clusion it  did.  To  have  the  government 
simply  fly  in  the  face  of  these  reports,  this 
study,  these  recommendations  —  one  would 
like  to  get  into  the  cabinet  room  just  once 
to  hear  what  type  of  discussions  this  would 
be. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  member  will  never 
get  the  chance  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Martel:  Whether  it  was  the  Treasurer 
or  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  saying:  "That's 
it.  This  is  the  way  it  will  be  accepted." 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Is  the  member  sure 
he  just  wants  to  get  in  once? 

Mr.  Martel:  Just  once  —  that  would  be 
enough.  I'd  like  to  hear  what  went  on  in 
this  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Some  day  in  the  fu- 
ture he  may  have  an  opportunity.  That's  all 
he  needs  is  one  opportunity— that's  all  the 
public  will  go  for.  If  he  gets  in  there  once 
they'll  throw  him  out. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Actually  he  is  just  angling  for 
a  cabinet  post.  He  wants  this  kind  of  public 
commitment. 

The  member  for  Sudbury  East  has  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Have  I  got  it? 
Mr.  Lewis:  He  has  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Thank  you. 

It  is  hard  to  understand  how  the  govern- 
ment arrives  at  this  sort  of  legislation.  Is  it 
the  politicians  who  decide  it;  or  some  back- 
room boy?  Or  is  it  civil  servants?  Who  de- 
cides these  things  when  an  11 -man  committee 


of  this  Legislature  makes  a  recommendation 
or  a  series  of  recommendations? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Way  down  in  Fort  Lauder- 
dale. 

Mr.  Martel:  Is  that  Where  it  was  made? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Yes  sure,  down  there— that 
highrise  complex. 

An  hon.  member:  Condominium. 

Mr.  Deans:  It  was  made  on  a  trip  through 
the  Black  Forest. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  as 
we  put  this  all  together  it  was  intriguing. 
We  had  before  us  all  of  the  various  people 
representing  the  major  corporations  involved 
in  commercial  and  industrial  development 
and  for  two  days  we  tried  to  get  answers 
from  them— answers  as  to  how  much  land 
they  held.  You  couldn't.  Ask  the  Minister  of 
Housing.  For  two  days  we  tried  to  find  out 
about  their  financing  and  at  the  end  of  two 
days  we  were  left  in  the  cold. 

We  tried  to  find  out  how  much— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  investigation  was 
very  poorly  done,  because  the  list  of  land 
available  was  made  public  about  five  or  six 
months  ago.  Does  the  member  remember,  at 
the  invitation  of  the  federal  minister  we  did 
it,  the  city  did  it  and  then  he  didn't  provide 
the  member  with  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh  yes.  Oh  yes. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  know  he  is  talking,  but  I 
want  to  just  correct  that  statement  by  the 
minister. 
It  says: 

To  the  committee's  knowledge  [and  we 
had  our  research  stafF  do  it  and  we  had 
our  legal  counsel  do  it]  no  systematic  and 
comprehensive  study  of  die  extent  and  pat- 
tern of  foreign  ownership  of  real  property 
in  the  province  has  been  undertaken. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Thev  weren't  talking 
about  foreign  ownership.  They  are  referring 
to  the  land  that  the  Minister  of  Housing 
should  have  available  to  him— 

Interjections   by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh  no;  oh  no. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  no,  no. 

Mr.  Martel:  Let  the  minister  go  back  and 
read  his  paper. 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1183 


Hon.   Mr.   Grossman:    I   am    reading   the 

member's  speech. 

'Mr.  Martel:  Well,  read  my  speech  then. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  A  prevdous  one. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  attempted  to  find  out  how 
much  land  was  in  the  developers'  hands,  not 
for  commercial  purposes  in  the  sense  of  com- 
mercial buildings  but  for  housing.  The  fig- 
ures varied  depending  on  which  group  you 
were  talking  to. 

In  fact  the  committee,  at  the  end  of  two 
days,  was  absolutely  frustrated,  and  you  know 
it  was  because  we  couldn't  get  a  handle  on 
any  of  this.  It  is  because,  as  the  report  states, 
there  is  no  study  of  land  in  foreign  owner- 
ship. It  is  because  of  the  amount  that  we 
know  is  there  in  certain  key  areas  and  in 
certain  key  sectors.  It  is  because  we  know 
that  special  tax  laws  are  made  abroad  to 
encourage  investment  here.  And  finally  it  is 
because  we  know  there  are  so  many  people 
to  the  south  of  us  that  we  came  through 
with  these  recommendations. 

I  suggest  to  the  minister  that  before  he 
goes  any  further  with  this  bill  that  he  in 
fact  consults,  at  least,  with  his  seven  col- 
leagues on  his  side  of  the  House  who  sat  in 
on  this  committee  for  over  a  year  looking 
at  land.  The  minister  shouldn't  just  go  by 
maybe  a  few  civil  servants,  maybe  some 
backroom  boy.  Why  doesn't  he  sit  down 
with  his  colleagues  over  supper  some  night 
—like  tonight— and  ask  why  three  of  them 
endorsed  every  recommendation  here?  Three 
—and  the  other  four  were  split  on  certain 
recommendations,  but  nonetheless  the  over- 
all import  of  the  report  they  agreed  to. 

I  suggest  that  if  the  minister  did  this,  he 
would  by  next  Monday  withdraw  this  bill  and 
he  would  come  in  with  a  bill  designed  to 
protect  land— and  by  that  I  mean  stating 
categorically  landed  immigrants  and  Cana- 
dians are  the  only  ones  who  own  land.  That 
is  how  we  will  resolve  the  problem,  otherwise 
it  is  just  an  exercise  in  futility  which  is  going 
to  drive  prices  up,  because  those  outsidb  have 
more  money  to  spend  than  the  citizens  of 
Ontario. 

It  is  so  obvious,  you  know.  In  recreational 
land  today  even— in  recreational  landl  They 
were  leasing  lots  last  year  in  the  Parry  Sound 
district— $400  a  year  for  a  leased  lot  for 
recreational  purposes,  because  of  the  type  of 
system  the  government  has  introduced;  not 
the  lottery  but  the  auction— there's  a  prime 
example  that  was  proved. 


Land  that  was  leased  the  year  before  was 
100  bucks,  but  as  people  can  afford  more 
they  continue  to  drive  up  the  price  for  re- 
creational land  on  a  year-lease  tMsit,  and  in 
the  Parry  Sound  area  last  year  land  was 
leasing  at  $400  a  year.  And  I  suspect  it  will 
go  up  to  $500. 

That's  exactly  what's  going  to  happen 
when  the  government  imposes  a  20  per  cent 
tax,  because  it  is  just  going  to  drive  up  prices. 
It's  unfortunate  that  the  minister  doesn't 
recognize  it— that  before  he  plunges  ahead 
with  this  bill  he  doesn't  at  least  indicate  to 
this  Legislature  what  he  is  really  trying  to 
accomplish.  I  am  not  convinced  that  it  is 
accomplishing  much. 

Mr.  Deans:  Bring  the  Treasurer  in  and 
make  him  answer  for  his  sins. 

Mr.  Martel:  Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  my  col- 
league the  member  for  Wentworth  and  I, 
just  feel  that  any  participation  in  a  select 
committee  is  an  exercise  in  futility  because  of 
this  bill. 

We  think  that  any  further  sittings  of  the 
select  committee  on  economic  and  cultural 
nationalism  should  be  discontinued.  We  just 
think  that  it's  nothing  but  a  sop  to  try  to  ap- 
pease Canadians  who  are  concerned  about 
foreign  domination.  The  government  puts  up 
a  facade  about  it. 

We    in    northern    Ontario    recognize    that 
probably    more    than    anyone.    It    has    been 
window  dressing  up  there  for  30  years- 
Mr.  Haggerty:  Just  window  dressing. 

Mr.  Martd:  —and  we  are  absolutely  con- 
vinced that  for  us  to  continue— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Pretty  good  window, 

it  needs  good  dressing. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  the  government  party 
won't  have  that  many  seats  left  come  next 
election. 

Mr.  Deans:  My  colleague  is  authorized  to 
tell  them  I  won't  sit  again. 

Mr.  Martel:  And  my  colleague,  as  you  have 
heard  Mr.  Speaker,  suggests  that  to  sit  again 
is  absolutely  useless  because  the  government 
doesn't  intend  to  do  anything  but  mislead  the 
public  with  various  reports.  Thank  you  very 
much,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Any  other  member  wish  to 
speak  before  the  minister  replies  on  Bill  26? 
The  hon.  minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Mcen:  Mr.  Speaker,  the— 


1184 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Renwick:  Perhaps  before  the  minister 
rephes— 

An  hon.  member:  Hey,  what  goes  on? 

An.  hon.  member:  What  gives? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  They're  afraid  they  won't 
have  enough  supporters  to  vote. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Liberals  are  with  us  now. 

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

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities):  So  what's  new?  Theyve 
been  on  and  off  for  months. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  started  out  supporting  us. 

Hon.  Mr.  Mean:  I  would  like  to  hear  from 
the  member  for  Riverdale. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  Mr. 
Speaker— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  has  nothing  to  say, 
but  he  is  having  a  hard  time  thinking  about 
it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  To  conclude 
my  remarks- 
Mr.  Renwick:  To  conclude  my  remarks, 
since  the  leader  of  the  party  has  now  arrived, 
I  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  of  participat- 
ing in  this  debate. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  This  speech  will  even  be 
better. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  colleague  from 
Riverdale  is  reserving  his  contribution.  All 
of  the  members  in  this  House  are  fair  minded 
and  will  view  his  remarks  on  Monday  as  an 
appropriate  contribution  to  the  debate.  My 
apologies,  I  had  to  run  out  on  something 
rather  quickly. 

Mr.  Speaker,  t  want  to  add  my  voice  to 
the  modest  crescendo  of  opposition  that's 
mounting  to  this  bill.  I  think  you  have  got 
a  tremendous  hornet's  nest  on  your  hands 
and  the  minister  hasn't  realized  the  extent 
of  it.  He  hasn't  begun  to  realize  to  what 
extent  public  opposition  and  pohtical  oppo- 
sition is  going  to  mount  —  not  only  on  this 
bill  but  on  the  50  per  cent  land  speculation 


bill,  because  they  are  both  fraudulent.  They 
are  both  faulty  right  at  the  root.  Neither 
of  them  make  any  significant  contribution  to 
the  problems  they  are  allegedly  designed  to 
alter,  or  to  correct  fundamentally,  and  that 
kind  of  bill  in  public  terms  begins  to  evoke 
resentment  and  opposition  which  ultimately 
presents  the  government  with  a  major  con- 
frontation. And  that's  just  what  we  are 
now  on  the  verge  of. 

I  predict  that  before  we  have  finished 
these  bills,  the  government  is  going  to  find 
itself  in  a  debate,  publicly,  the  Tike  of  which 
it  never  believed  possible.  It  will,  in  fact, 
compare  with  the  kind  of  debate  we  had 
over  the  land  use  legislation  and  the  Niagara 
Escarpment  and  the  parkway  belt  west,  none 
of  which  was  anticipated  by  the  government 
because  it  assumed  simply  by  introducing 
those  bills  it  would  win  sufficient  public 
favour. 

I  want  to  add  to  the  remarks  of  my  col- 
leagues from  Wentworth  and  from  Sudbury 
East  in  a  number  of  specific  ways.  We  really 
resent  this  bill.  This  bill  shouldn't  be  in  the 
House.  It  is  a  bad  piece  of  legislation;  it 
is  a  bogus  piece  of  legislation.  The  govern- 
ment is  pretending  with  this  bill;  it  is  toying 
with  the  political  process  more  flagrantly  in 
this  bill  than  it  has  done  in  almost  any 
other.  It  is  introducing  a  number  of  anti- 
social principles  which  are  of  absolutely  no 
use;  and  I  will  refer  to  them  in  a  moment. 
The  provincial  Treasurer  of  Ontario 
brought  in  his  budget  about  10  days  ago 
now  and  in  the  budget,  under  the  Land 
Transfer  Act  section  he  said: 

In  examining  the  problem  of  rapidly 
rising  prices  for  real  property  in  Ontario, 
it  is  becoming  increasingly  apparent  that 
large  scale  acquisition  of  land  by  non- 
'residents  of  Canada  is  a  significant  factor. 
The  matter  of  control  of  non-resident  own- 
ership of  Canadian  land  is  a  current  con- 
stitutional issue  which  has  not  been  fully 
resolved.  The  problem  has  been  studied, 
however,  and  has  been  reported  on  re- 
icently  by  Ontario's  select  committee  on 
economic  and  cultural  nationalism. 

Mr.  Martel:  Flew  in  the  face  of  every  re- 
port. 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  then  what  flows  within 
the  budget  statement  in  the  next  half  dozen 
paragraphs  is  a  clear  implication.  Mr.  Speak- 
er, that  somehow  the  recommendations  em- 
bodied in  the  select  committee's  report  are 
reflected  in  the  tax  policy  announced  by  the 
provincial   Treasurer.    This   statement   in   the 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1185 


budget  is  a  very  dever  little  piece  of  dupli- 
city in  itself. 

What  the  budget  might  have  said,  to  be 
honest,  is  that  the  "select  committee  on 
economic  and  cultural  nationalism  analysed 
this  subject,  investigated  it  thoroughly,  made 
a  number  of  recommendations  and  we,  the 
cabinet,  have  decided  to  repudiate  every 
single  recommendation  the  select  committee 
made."  That  might  have  been  honest,  not 
to  say  honourable. 

The  government  chose  instead  to  imply 
that  the  select  committee's  recommendations 
were  embodied  in  the  legislation  which  would 
follow;  and  that,  of  course,  is  not  the  truth 
at  all. 

As  my  colleagues  have  pointed  out,  par- 
ticularly the  member  for  Sudbury  East,  the 
select  committee  recommendations  in  this 
field  were  recommendations  that  were  em- 
braced by  a  number  of  Conservative  back- 
benchers, including  among  them  men  who 
are  now  in  the  caoinet.  Let  me  read  to  you 
what  the  Minister  of  Housing  said  very  ex- 
plicitly at  the  end  of  the  select  committee 
report: 

On  the  basis  of  information  available  to 
us  both  from  the  evidence  given  before 
the  committee  and  from  ths  research  con- 
ducted by  the  committee's  staff,  we  support 
the  comments  and  recommendations  con- 
tained in  this  report. 

Those  were  the  members  for  Carleton  (Mr. 
Handleman),  Victoria-Haliburton  and  Hum- 
ber  (Mr.  Leluk);  three  perceptive  mortals 
in  this  instance.   They  go  on  to  say: 

In  our  view  a  nation  is  firmly  rooted 
in  its  history,  its  people  and  its  primacy 
over  the  land  which  it  occupies.  Owner- 
ship of  Canadian  soil  by  our  citizens  and 
those  who  have  committed  themselves  to 
this  country  by  immigrating  to  it,  can  only 
strengthen  the  nation.  Perception  by  the 
young  of  the  Legislature's  resolve  to  retain 
ownership  for  them  of  their  natural  heri- 
tage will  impress  on  them  the  fact  that 
government  is  for  them  and  their  future 
as  well  as  for  the  here  and  now. 

You  know  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  it  is  not 
lyrical,  but  it  is  pretty  good.  It  is  a  pretty 
assertive  statement  about  the  quality  of  the 
Canadian  identity  and  about  the  need  to  do 
something  for  it.  Let  me  point  out,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  other  members  of  the  com- 
mittee who  were  Tories,  while  they  dissented 
on  specific  recommendations— one,  two,  three 
or  four  of  them;  from  time  to  time— on  bal- 
ance they  embraced  the  recommendations  of 
the  report,  the  thrust  of  the  document,  and 


certainly  the  kind  of  sentiment*  expressed 
by  the  now  Minister  of  Housing  and  his 
colleagues. 

I  don't  know  whether  one  could  say  the 
Minister  of  Housing  is  in  a  conflict  of  in- 
terest. I  don't  mean  a  personal  conflict  of 
interest;  I  mean  an  intellectual  conflict  of 
interest.  I  tell  the  government  what  it  is 
doing  in  this  legislation  today  damns  the 
recommendations  and  the  position  of  the 
Minister  of  Housing.  If  in  fact  it  is  dealing 
in  matters  related  to  land,  it  severely  com- 
promises him  as  Minister  cf  Housing  in  the 
cabinet  now. 

This  minister  may  not  have  thought  of 
that  when  he  introduced  this  legislation  but 
that  is  precisely  what  he  is  doing.  He  is 
compromising  the  Minister  of  Housing  hope- 
lessly because  he  is  rejecting  the  basic  foun- 
dation of  his  personal  commitment  as 
expressed  through  the  select  committee's 
report. 

I  understand  the  kind  of  resentment  and 
frustration  which  the  member  for  York  Cen- 
tre feels;  which  the  member  for  Wentworth 
feels;  which  the  member  for  Sudbury  East 
feels;  maybe  to  some  extent  which  the  mem- 
ber for  Victoria-Haliburton  feels  —  I  cannot 
speak  for  him.  It  is  the  resentment  and  frus- 
tration of  having  come  together,  dealt  with 
a  subject,  dealt  with  it  in  good  faitii  and  at 
lenc^h,  and  then  having  the  government  in- 
trod»ice  legislation  which  is  not  only  incom- 
patible with  the  recommendations  of  the 
select  committee  report  but  in  no  way  reflects 
their  intent. 

If  ever  the  select  committee  process  has 
been  reduced  to  mockery  in  this  House,  It 
is  in  this  case.  That  cabinet  over  there  has 
said  to  hell  with  the  select  committee  on 
economic  and  cultural  nationalism.  It  has 
clearly  thumbed  its  nose  at  it.  It  again  has 
asked  the  select  committee  to  indulge  in  the 
kind  of  exercise  which  is  totally  futile.  The 
mim'sters  have  no  blessed  respect  for  the 
legislative  process  at  all,  be  it  their  own 
backbenchers  or  the  opposition. 

It's  worse  still,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  as  I 
stand  here  there  is  no  question  in  my  mind 
that  the  recommendations  of  the  select  com- 
mittee on  economic  and  cultural  nationalism, 
where  they  respected  ownership  of  real  estate 
in  Ontario,  were  simply  neither  read  nor  ab- 
sorbed by  those  engaged  in  the  policy  in 
this  bill.  The  Minister  of  Revenue  says  in 
that  congenial  aside  of  his,  "I  read  some 
of  the  recommendations." 

I'll  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  did  not  read  this  report.  He  may 
have  read  bits  of  it.  He  may  hurry  home  and 


1186 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


read  it  now  but  he's  bringing  in  a  bill  which 
is  central  to  this  report  and  he  hasn't  even 
absorbed  it. 

The  people  in  the  cabinet  live  in  their 
own  world.  That's  why  much  of  it  is  crum- 
bling around  them.  They  have  absolutely  no 
interest  in  the  process  and  nothing  but  con- 
tempt for  the  contributions  which  members 
make  or  for  the  social  policy  which  may  flow 
from  select  committees  or  anything  else.  If 
ever  there  was  a  case  of  it,  it's  right  here  in 
this  bill. 

Let  me  go  on  to  another  point  I  wanted 
to  make,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  use  of  taxation 
policy.  My  colleague  from  Riverdale  put  it 
to  me  very  strongly  this  morning  when  we 
were  talking  about  this  bill  in  advance.  He 
was  saying  to  me  —  and  I  might  as  well  put 
it  the  way  he  put  it  —  the  use  of  taxation 
policy  is  normally  a  revenue-gathering  use. 
It  is  normally  a  device  for  redistributing  in- 
come, for  reapportioning  wealth,  for  bud- 
getary and  fiscal  matters.  The  use  of  tax 
policy  is  the  central  fiscal  device  which  the 
government  has.  It  is  not  an  appropriate 
instrument  for  the  implementation  of  social 
policy  of  this  kind.  It  isn't  appropriate  in  this 
bill  and  it  isn't  appropriate  in  the  land  specu- 
lation tax  bill. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  neither  case  does 
the  minister  anticipate  raising  very  mudi 
revenue,  if  any.  In  both  cases,  he  has  made 
provision  for  returning  the  revenue  raised 
over  an  extended  period  of  time  if  certain 
requirements  are  met. 

In  other  words,  he  is  taking  a  piece  of 
legislation  which  is  tax  legislation  and  he  is 
trying  to  serve  social  ends  not  fiscal  ends. 
In  so  doing,  he  is  mocking  the  effective  use 
of  tax  statutes,  which  is  essentially  a  redis- 
tributive  function  out  there  in-  the  incomes 
place,  and  he  is  trying  to  achieve  certain 
social  objectives  whidi  just  cannot  be 
achieved  through  this  legislation. 

And  as  it  happens,  he  has  rejected  every 
major  recommendation  that  has  been  put 
to  him  on  the  question  of  foreign  ownership 
of  land  in  Ontario.  He  has  rejected  it  in 
order  to  institute  a  fiscal  device  that  is 
doomed'  to  failure  from  the  outset. 

So  the  bill  is  absurd,  and  the  minister 
can't  ask  us  to  support  it.  It  is  faulty  even 
in  its  philosophic  intent,  let  alone  in  its 
inability  to  cope  with  the  problems  he  has 
laid  out.  Let  me  talk  about  that  for  a  mo- 
ment. 

The  basic  principle  of  the  bill  is  that  the 
minister  is  instituting  a  20  per  cent  tax  on 
land  transfers  for  those  from  outside  Ontario 
who   would   wish   to   purchase   Ontario.    All 


right.  What  the  devil  is  the  minister  saying? 
Let's  clear  all  the  clutter.  The  minister  is 
saying  it  is  going  to  cost  20  per  cent  more 
to  buy  Ontario.  That  is  what  he  is  saying. 
Is  that  fair? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Isn't  that  what  this  whole 
idiotic  bill  says?  It  says  to  the  American, 
Swiss  and  German  entrepreneurs:  "Look, 
fellows,  do  you  want  to  buy  us  out?  Fine, 
but  it  is  going  to  cost  you  20  per  cent  more 
from  now  on. ' 

Mr.  Deans:  It  is  crazy. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  what  kind  of  unutterable 
doggerel  is  that? 

Mr.  Deans:  It  is  crazy. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  kind  of  nonsense  is 
that?  We  are  not  going  to  deter  any  of  the 
major  land  developers  and  entrepreneurs 
around  the  world  from  buying  Ontario  be- 
cause it  is  going  to  cost  them  20  per  cent 
more.   They  are  laughing  up  their  sleeves. 

There  was  a  party  on  the  night  of  the 
budget.  In  fact,  I  heard  about  a  munber  of 
parties  on  the  night  of  the  budget.  A  number 
of  them  were  land  developers  who  got  to- 
gether and  simply  laughed  about  this  bill  and 
about  the  land  speculation  bill. 

Mr.  Deans:  They  didn't  even  drink.  They 
just  laughed. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  just  chuckled,  because 
all  the  inconvenience  it  caused  them  was  one 
phone  call  to  their  lawyer  late  in  the  after- 
noon to  find  out  if  the  loopholes  were  suf- 
ficient. In  one  bill,  the  land  speculation  tax 
bill,  the  loopholes  are  not  only  suflBcient,  they 
are  positively  an  invitation  to  personal  and 
corporate  exemption.  And  in  this  bill  it  may 
cost  them  a  few  dollars  more.  So  what. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  They'll  pay  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  the  minister  has  done  in 
this  bill  is  he  has  put  up  a  little  sign  outside 
the  legislative  buildings,  symbolic  of  Ontario, 
which  says:  "Ontario  for  purchase.  It  costs  a 
little  bit  more  today  than  it  cost  last  week." 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  fact,  we'll  make  a  special 
dteal. 

Mr.  Lewis:  To  pretend  that  that  in  some 
way  protects  Ontario  real  estate  is  like  say- 
ing to  Inco:  "You  are  going  to  have  serious 
problems  with  your  balance  sheet  because  we 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1187 


are  taking  a  few  million  dollars  more  from 
you  next  year  in  resource  taxation  than  we 
took  from  you  last  year." 

Inco  simply  builds  it  into  all  the  other 
factors  that  are  true  of  a  major  corporation, 
and  smiles  quietly  in  the  corporate  board 
rooms  that  the  Tories  and  Inco  have  again 
managed  to  get  together  in  what  appears  to 
be  a  mutually  beneficial  undertaking.  The 
public  may  think  it  has  hope,  but  it  has  none 
whatsoever.  This  bill  is  absolutely  prepos- 
terous. My  colleague  from  Riverdale  says  to 
me— is  that  "even"  at  the  top? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Yes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  he  means  is,  moreover, 
furthermore  or  in  addition:  "The  tax  they  pay 
in  Ontario  they  will  be  able  to  recover  by 
credit  in  the  foreign  country  from  whence 
they  came."  You  can  see  that  is  from  the 
hon.  member  for  Riverdale,  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
cause I  never  use  "whence."  But  I  point  out 
that  the  argument  that  he  makes  is  exactly 
right. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  wouldn't  surprise  me 
if  there  was  a  device  in  the  tax  world  that 
would  make  it  profitable  for  them  to  pay  20 
per  cent  more  in  taxes  here  than  in  their 
country  of  origin. 

Mr.  Deans:  If  there  isn't  one,  tiheyll  find 
one. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  select  committee  pointed 
that  out. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  the  select  committee  did 
point  out  there  were  devices  whereby  it  could 
be  positively  profitable. 

Mr.  Martel:  Germany  does  it  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  If  there  are  German  laws,  which 
clearly  have  been  identified  by  the  select 
conmiittee,  that  encourage  and  give  special 
exemptions  for  the  purchase  of  property  out- 
side the  coimtry,  then  presumably  the  more 
you  pay  the  higher  the  exemption. 

Mr.  Deans:  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  minister  might  have  to 
read  the  report. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  really  want  to  re-emphasize, 

Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Deans:  Withdraw  this  bill,  for  heaven's 

sake. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  the  minister  is  doing  in 
this  bill  is  saying:  "We  will  not  change  the 
rules  of  the  game  at  all."  Ontario  is  still  up 


for  sale.  Foreign  real  estate  will  continue  to 
dominate  in  Ontario.  The  land  can  be  pur- 
chased —  commercial,  industrial,  residential, 
agricultural— Ontario  is  still  for  sale  to  the 
highest  bidder.  He  hasn't  changed  social 
policy  one  jot.  He  hasn't  done  a  single  thing 
to  protect  this  province  against  foreign  owner- 
ship of  our  land.  And  that  is  wrong. 

Mr.   Deans:  They  have  further  escalated 

costs. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  socially  wrong  and  mor- 
ally wrong,  because  the  minister  Knows  the 
way  the  people  of  this  province  feel  about 
our  real  estate.  He  knows  he  should  be 
bringing  in  legislation  to  protect  the  Province 
of  Ontario,  not  simply  to  escalate  the  infla- 
tionary speculative  dimension  of  foreign 
ownership  of  Ontario's  economy  and  Ontario's 
land. 

As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  this  bill  is  so 
flawed  we  wouldn't  give  it  five  minutes'  no- 
tice in  our  caucus.  All  we  were  willing  to  do 
with  it  was  to  talk  about  the  nature  of  the 
opposition.  The  minister  couldn't  have  sus- 
tained the  argument  with  us  for  a  moment. 

My  colleague  from  Wentworth  pointed  out 
that  the  dlect,  ironically,  which  resides 
in  this  bill,  in  addition  to  the  other  things 
the  minister  is  doing  is  that  it  is  going  to 
raise  prices  of  land  in  Ontario.  That  is  just 
absurd.  I  can't  beheve  that  a  cabinet  gets 
itself  into  the  position  where  it  brings  in  a 
bill  the  effect  of  which  will  be  to  sell  On- 
tario and  to  make  it  cost  more  for  residents 
of  Canada. 

Mr.  Deans:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  only  is  the  minister  per- 
versely reinforcing  the  foreign  ownership  of 
our  land  but  if  we  ever  buy  it  back  it's  going 
to  cost  us  20  per  cent  more  than  it  would 
cost  us  today.  He  is  penalizing  Ontario  and 
Canadian  residents  on  that  mmt  as  well. 
What  perversity  compels  him  to  do  all  this 
is  something  I,  for  one,  wiD  never  under- 
stand. 

Somehow  sanity  has  to  take  over  in  that 
cabinet.  Somehow  its  members  have  to 
understand  just  how  destructive  they  are 
being,  and  that  they  have  to  respond  sensi- 
tively and  feelingly  to  the  kinds  of  objections 
whidi  have  been  expressed  about  foreign 
ownership  in  Ontario's  land.  The  only  way 
to  make  that  response,  I  say  to  them,  is  b> 
legislation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  be  absolutely  specific. 
There  is  now  significant  ownership  of  the 
beaches  of  Lake  Erie  — 


1188 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  hon.  member:  By  whom? 

Mr.  Lewis:  —  by  foreigners.  There  may 
be  a  few  more  tracts  of  land,  an  occasional 
frontage,  available  for  public  purchase.  If 
the  government  wants  to  stop  that  land  from 
being  purchased  by  foreigners,  it  has  to 
bring  in  legislation  which  says  that  no  non- 
resident of  Canada  can  own  more  land  on 
the  beaches  of  Lake  Erie.  That's  what  the 
legislation  has  to  say. 

Mr.  Deans:  Furthermore  — 

Mr.  Lewis:  This  Act  will  not  do  it.  This  is 
no  deterrent  at  all. 

Furthermore,  it  has  to  bring  in  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Beds  of  Navigable  Waters  Act 
which  will  allow  Canadians  or  Ontarians 
access  to  the  beaches  of  Lake  Erie.  More 
than  that,  it  is  going  to  have  to  expropriate 
some  of  that  property  and,  providing  due 
compensation,  reinstate  for  public  use  what 
is  now  in  the  hands  of  private  cottage  owners 
resident  in  Buffalo. 

All  of  these  things  have  to  be  done  if  the 
government  is  serious  about  retrieving  land 
for  Ontario.  The  one  thing  this  bill  will 
not  do,  the  one  thing  it  will  assuredly  not 
do,  is  protect  Ontario's  real  estate. 

'That's  the  essential  sham  of  the  budget. 
That's  why  it  is  —  and  the  member  for  York 
Centre  used  quite  a  legitimate  word  at  the 
outset  of  his  remarks  —  that's  why  it  is  so 
maddening.  For  us  there  is  counterpoint  of 
madness  —  it's  the  capacity  of  the  Liberal 
Party  to  take  one  stand  one  day  and  ^lother 
stand  the  next. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Quite  so. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  kind  of  undermines  the  soli- 
darity its  members  bring  to  their  passion. 
It  depletes  it  a  little. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Does  it? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  understand  those  problems. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  maddening.  The 
government  brings  in  a  budget  and  the  head- 
line quality  of  the  budget  is:  "Tories  in 
Ontario  concerned  about  land  speculation, 
clap   on  50  per  cent  land  speculation  tax." 

Mr.  Deans:  Right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  only  way  in  which  one 
judges  a  land  speculation  tax  is  in  the  context 
of  housing  in  Ontario.  The  land  speculation 
tax  isn't  going  to  put  one  additional  house 
on  the  market  at  a  reasonable  price.  So  that 
whole  policy  is  bogus. 


Then,  knowing  that  there  is  this  kind  of 
consistent  theme  of  unease  in  the  public 
about  foreign  control  of  Ontario,  the  gov- 
ernment brings  in  a  taxing  device  which 
says  20  per  cent  more  on  purchases  of  land 
by  non-residents,  as  if  to  imply  that  some- 
how that's  a  protection  for  Ontario's  real 
estate— again,  completely  bogus. 

The  government  are  the  most  artful  dod- 
gers I  have  ever  seen.  It's  catching  up  with 
them  though.  They  have  fooled  too  many 
too  often  and  there  is  nothing  but  scepti- 
cism out  there  now  for  every  single  policy 
they  introduce— nothing  but  scepticism.  When 
the  full  import  of  this  piece  of  legislation 
and  other  pieces  of  legislation  begin  to  be 
felt  by  the  Ontario  public,  let  me  say  they 
are  coming  closer  to  those  numbered  days 
that  they  have  left. 

I  simply  say  in  summary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  we  will  divide  the  House.  We  oppose 
the  bill.  We  will  resist  it  clause  by  clause, 
as  we  have  resisted  it  on  second  reading. 
We  will  make  whatever  amendments  we  need 
make.  We  want  the  minister  to  know  that 
we're  not  really  interested  in  his  technical, 
administrative  apparatus  that  he's  got  set  up 
to  govern  this  bill.  My  colleague  from 
Wentworth  was  right  on  those  grounds  as 
well. 

We  never  get  the  minister  in  here  who 
is  responsible  for  the  policy.  All  we  get  is 
the  sophisticated'  bureaucrat.  That's  all  we 
have.  I  don't  mean  that  in  a  deprecating 
way.  He  is  Minister  of  Revenue  and,  like  his 
predecessors,  all  he  sees  is  land  of  a  nit- 
picking function.  He  is  here  to  administer  the 
laws.  We  can't  discuss  social  policy  with  him. 
This  bill  is  nothing  but  social  policy.  The 
minister  has  no  other  point  to  it.  It's  wrong 
in  social  policy;  it's  wrong-headed. 

I  don't  really  know  why  we  are  debating 
it  with  the  minister.  I  suppose  we  have  to 
debate  it  with  someone,  but  why  with  him? 
I  hold  no  personal  malice.  They  are  nice 
fellows,  maybe  honourable  men  and  wonjen. 
So  be  they  all,  but  they  are  incapable  of 
responding  to  social  change.  That's  their 
problem,  and  if  ever  it  was  demonstrated  it 
was  demonstrated  in  this  piece  of  legislation. 

The  government  has  made  a  decision.  I 
don't  know  why  they  made  this  decision. 
They  have  made  a  calculated  decision  as  a 
cabinet  that  they  will  not  protect  Ontario's 
lands  from  foreign  acquisition.  They  have 
made  a  decision  as  a  cabinet  that  Ontario's 
land  is  up  for  ransom  to  those  that  pay. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  is  not  true. 


APRIL  19.  1974 


1189 


Mr.  Deans:  It  is  true. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  have  made  a  decision  as 
a  cabinet  that  every  single  policy  recommen- 
dation- 
Mr.  Maitel:  Is  useless. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —of  the  select  committee  which 
involves  protection  of  commercial,  industrial, 
recreational,  housing  or  private  land  is  to  be 
repudiated.  They  have  made  a  decision  as  a 
cabinet  that  they  will  bring  in  a  taxing  device 
which  they  know  will  fail  in  its  objective 
from  the  moment  they  introduce  it.  They 
have  made  a  decision  as  a  cabinet  that  the 
world  can  own  Ontario  and  they'll  never 
move  in  to  protect  the  residents  of  this  prov- 
ince in  terms  of  future  generations. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Not  so. 

Mr.  Deans:  As  long  as  they  pay  the  price. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  have  said  that  thev  have 
their  price  and  that  they  are  just  jacldng  it 
up  by  20  per  cent.  They  are  an  extremely 
cynical  and  manipulative  cabinet. 

Mr.  Martel:  Stupid  is  a  better  word. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  have  made  a  conscious 
decision  about  it  because  it  is— 

Mr.  Martel:  Not  one  of  them  has  spoken 
today. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —impossible  to  construe  it 
otherwise.  I'll  tell  the  minister  this  as  a 
member  of  a  party  which  has  been  torn  in- 
ternally often  on  questions  of  foreign  owner- 
ship, and  how  far  we  should  go  in  preserving 
the  Canadian  economy  and  repatriating  every- 
thing from  land  to  resources.  I  tell  Mm  as  a 
member  of  this  party  that  we  can  often  be 
engaged  in  diflBcult  policy  areas,  with  enor- 
mous economic  repercussions  and  all  kinds  of 
internal  tensions  and  very  great  uncertainties, 
but  just  as  it  runs  through  this  party  so  it 
runs  through  the  country  as  a  whole  that 
something  has  to  be  done  to  protect  our  cul- 
tural inheritance,  of  which  land  is  essential, 
from  foreign  acquisition.  Seven  members  of 
the  Tories  endorsed  that  in  a  select  committee 
report. 

Mr.  Martel:  Not  one  of  them  has  spoken 
today. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  brought  in  a 
bill  which  simply  says,  "To  the  devil  with  all 
of  that.  We  believe  in  foreign  ownership  of 
Ontario  and  what's  more,  we  are  simply  go- 
ing to  preserve  it."  I  want  to  see  where  those 
members  stand  when  the  vote  comes. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Hieh 
Park.  ^ 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Does  the 
member  for  Victoria-Haliburton  want  to 
speak? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Haliburton): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want  to  take  a  few  min- 
utes. I  think  what  we  are  doing  here  is  mix- 
ing apples  and  oranges,  because  our  report, 
in  my  opinion  does  not  deal  with  the  same 
principles  as  being  enunciated  in  this  bilL 

Mr.  Martel:   Don't  prostitute  yourself. 

Mr.  R.  C.  Hodgson:  I  think  what  is  being 
dealt  with  in  this  bill  goes  a  long  way  to  meet 
some  of  the  concern  tnat  we  expressed. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  How  for  example? 

Mr.  Deans:  Don't  do  this  to  yourself. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Well,  if  the  members 
wait  a  minute  maybe  I'll  tell  them  something. 

Mr.  Deans:  Don't  do  this  to  yourself.  You 
are  too  nice  a  guy  to  go  on  the  hook  for  that. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  You  will  remember 
that  in  our  report  we  mentioned  a  very  vital 
concern  with  regard  to  the  recommendations 
that  we  were  making,  and  that  is  the  legal 
basis  on  the  constitutional  position  with  re- 
gard to  our  recommendations  and  the  prin- 
ciples enunciated. 

Mr.  Deans:  And  what  did  the  member 
recommend? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Come  o£F  it,  let  him 
speak.  We  listened  to  the  opposition  mem- 
bers. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  minister  did  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  We  certainly  did.  You 
fellows  never  said  a  word. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  committee  recommends 
that  the  government  of  Ontario  take  the 
position  that  legislation  of  the  kind  that  the 
committee  recommended  be  proceeded  with. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  As  if  he  were  talking 
intelligently. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  That  is  why  he  is  over 
there  and  we  are  over  here. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  thidc  that's  the 
crucial  point. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  Deans:  Read  the  recommendation  of 
the  constitutional  issues. 


1190 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Now  the  member  is 
getting  lis  annoyed.  ' 

Mr.  Fi.  G.  Hodgson:  I  agree  with  the 
member  for  Riverdale  on  the  principle  of 
taxing  policies.  I  see  no  conflict,  in  my 
opinion,  with  that  principle  in  this  bill.  But 
they  talk  out  of  both  sides  of  their  mouths 
apparently  when  they  say  that  they  think 
the  taxing  policy  should  only  deal  on  one 
principle  and  then  say  it  should  be  used  for 
social  principles  as  well.  I  can't  quite  follow 
them  in  that. 

Mr.  Deians:  The  member  didn't  understand 
the  argument. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  understood  the  ar- 
gument I  think  all  too  true.  What  they  are 
trying  to  do  is  to  say  that  this  government 
did  not  meet  the  recommendations  nor  the 
suggestions  made  in  the  report  of  the  select 
committee. 

Mr.  Deans :   And  that  isn't  true? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Then  they  are  trying 
to  say,  on  the  other  hand,  that  because  they 
brought  in  a  taxing  policy  measure  to  raise 
the  tax  on  land  to  somewhat  toward  that— 
and  it  will  have  an  effect- 
Mr.  Lewis:  What  effect? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  —and  they  will  have 
to  admit  that. 

An  hon.  member:   That's  right. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  If  anyone  has  to  pay 
20  per  cent  more  for  land,  for  a  tax— 

An  hon.  member:  It's  not  going  to  hap- 
pen. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  —you  will  have  to 
realize  that  the  values  of  land  will  go  up 
to  those  people  who  would  be  subject  to  that 
tax.-       •,  •     .    , 

Mr.  Xycwis:  That's  right. 

Mr.   Breit^aupt:   They  will  pass  it  on. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  more  costly  for  every- 
one th^n. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South).  Add 
another  20  per  cent. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  That  will  deter  cer- 
tain people  from  coming  into  this  country 
and  purchasing  land.  But  to  confuse  the  two, 
I  don't  understand  them. 


Mr.  Deans:   Then  don't,  please. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  The  member  for  Sud- 
bury East  did  his  best  to  wrap  us  into  an 
all-encompassing  approach  in  the  recommen- 
dations. That  isn't  true.  Then,  the  member 
for  Scarborough  West  points  out  that  our 
position— that  is,  the  member  for  Humber, 
the  Minister  of  Housing  and  myself— dif- 
fered, and  that  the  principle  that  was  enun- 
ciated by  the  member  for  Sudbury  East— 
that  we  are  all-encompassing  and  all  agree- 
able on  everything  in  the  report— was  not 
true.  So  I  have  to  say  that— 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  endorsed  every- 
thing in  the  report. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Yes  I  did,  except  for 
the  caution  that  we  raised. 

Mr.  Martel:  Except  for  the  caution,  okay. 
Come  on. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  So  he  didn't  endorse  it  all. 
So  the  member  is  wrong  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  said  on  all  counts. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  would  simply  say 
that  they  are  mixing  apples  and  oranges.  I 
think  the  taxing  policy— and  I  have  no  prob- 
lem in  supporting  the  taxing  policy— that  is 
enunciated  in  this  bill  doesn't  really  deal 
with  the  issue  of  the  ownership  issue- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Exactly. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Except  perversely  and 
adversely. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  And  it  is  unfortunate, 
in  my  opinion,  that  so  much  attention  is  paid 
to  the  principles  that  we  enunciated  and 
then  confusing  those  with  the  principle  ill 
this  bill. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  can  he  not  pay  attention 
to  them? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson*  I  think  it  is  unfortu- 
nate that  people  are  drawing  the  conclusion 
that  they  are  one  and  the  same. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  are. 

Mr.  Deans:  They  are. 

Mr.  Lewis:  This  is  the  government's  an- 
swer to  foreign  ownership.  That  is  what  the 
budget  says. 


APRIL  19,  1974 


1191 


Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  This  government, 
when  it  has  studied  the  legal  implications, 
in  my  opinion,  will  come  down  very  sub- 
stantially on  the  basis  of  our  report. 

Mr.  Martel:  Did  the  member  read  the 
budget  speech? 

Mr.  Deans:  The  government  doesn't  even 

read  the  reports, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  Oh,  is  my  friend 
saying  that  ministers  who  were  part  of  the 
report,  who  signed  the  report,  did  not  read 
it?  He  has  to  be  wrong.  He  has  to  be  wrong. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  am  saying  that  the  minister 
who  brought  the  bill  in  didn't  read  the  re- 
port and  I  am  saying  that  the  report  was 
never  considered  by  the  cabinet. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
bers have  had  an  opportunity  to  speak  to 
the  bill. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member's  selling  price  is 
pretty  cheap. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Let  the  hon.  member  say 
what  he  has  to  say  about  the  bill. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  think  that  what  the 
government  has  done  here  in  this  bill  will 
go  a  long  way  to  ease  some  of  the  problems. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  it  won't. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  It  is  not  the  total  an- 
swer. I  don't  think  anyone  in  our  party 
would  say  it's  a  total  answer.  We  haven't 
recognized  yet  all  the  instances  and  com- 
plications because  they  are  not  all  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  Legislature.  There  will 
be  complications  with  this  legislation,  as  I 
see  it,  which  we  won't  even  run  across 
until  the  tax  is  applied.  Then  we  will  know 
the  problems  that  will  have  to  be  dealt  with 
by  this  government.  They  will  have  to  be 
dealt  with  in  a  constructive  way,  and  I  have 
no  doubt  that  they  will  be. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  He  said  that  in  the  budget. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson:  I  feel,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  I  will  have  no  problem  in  supporting 
this  legislation.  I  don  t  appreciate,  however, 
all  the  references  to  the  principles  and  the 
recommendations  in  the  select  committee  as 
being  waived  or  thrown  out  by  this  govern- 
ment- 
Mr.  Deans:  No,  because  they  happened 
to  make  the  member's  position  wrong. 


Mr.  R.  G.  Hodjcton: -because  further  study 
is  needed  and  there  are  further  comphca- 
tions  that  have  to  l>e  understood  and  worked 
out.  I  feel  free  to  express  my  \ye\k4  that  this 
government  will  dt*al  with  them  adequately. 
Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park.  ^ 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Now  tbe  member 
will  explain  that  his  leader  is  wrong,  that 
it  won't  cost  20  per  cent  more.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  L«wis:  Well,  it  doesn't  have  to.  They 

can  get  around  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  There  are  so  many  ways 
around  this  bill  that  one  can  drive  a  truck 
through  it.  The  government  is  not  going  to 
collect  that  20  per  cent.  Does  the  minister 
know  who  it  will  collect  from? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We'll  close  more 
doors  if  that  happens. 

Mr.  Shulman:  They  are  going  to  have  a  lot 
of  doors  to  close— more  than  they  had  before. 

Does  the  minister  know  who  the  govern- 
ment will  collect  from?  They  will  collect 
from  the  fellow  in  Detroit  who  works  at 
General  Motors  and  comes  over  and  buys  a 
cottage  on  the  Canadian  side. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler:  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  The  NDP  have  got 
something    going    over   there,    haven't   they? 

Mr.  Shulman:  He  is  going  to  pay  the  20 
per  cent,  because  for  the  sake  of  the  $1,000 
that's  involved,  it  isn't  worth  his  while  to  go 
around  it. 

But  for  the  man  who  lives  in  Lugano  and 
who  wants  to  buy  a  piece  of  Ontario,  be- 
cause it's  a  great  place  to  stand  and  to  invest 
one's  money,  he's  not  going  to  pay  the  mil- 
lions of  dollars  that  would  be  involved  in  the 
20  per  cent  tax  because  it  is  just  too  easy  to 
get  around. 

I  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  government 
didn't  seriously  want  to  stop  those  people 
coming  in,  because  if  they  diJ— if  you  look  at 
the  bill— they  would  have  put  in  some  pen- 
alties. Will  someone  be  sent  to  jail  for  10 
years  if  they  bring  in  a  false  affidavit?  Are 
they  given  some  terrible  penalty?  No.  What 
is  the  penalty?  They  would  have  to  pay  the 
amount  they  evaded,  if  they  are  caught,  plus 
an  amount  not  less  than  $50  and  not  more 
than  $1,000.  We  are  talking  in  terms  of  mil- 
lioas  and  millions  of  dollars,  and  the  minister 
is  talking  about  a  $50  fine.  It's  ludicrous. 


1192 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


If  the  minister  really  was  serious,  he  would 
have  brought  in  a  bill  that  had  teeth.  He 
would'  have  brought  in  a  bill  that  said,  "All 
right.  We  recognize  there  are  going  to  be 
people  who  are  going  to  try  to  avoid  paying 
this  huge  tax.  Therefore,  we  must  have  penal- 
ties that  are  going  to  be  serious  enough  to 
act  as  a  deterrent." 

But  what  do  they  do  instead?  They  say, 
"We  are  going  to  bring  in  deterrents.  The 
deterrent  will  be  a  $50  fine."  Mr.  Speaker, 
they  don't  really  intend  to  enforce  the  bill. 

I  predict— and  I  speak  to  the  former  Minis- 
ter of  Revenue  (Mr.  Grossman)— I  predict 
that  when  all  the  smoke  clears  and  this  bill 
has  been  enforced  for  12  months,  he  will 
find  that  the  government  will  have  collected 
a  few  hundred  thousand  dollars  from  the 
small  people  who  are  buying  summer  cot- 
tages. But  the  total  receipts  will  be  a  tiny 
fraction  of  what  the  Treasurer  predicted 
would  be  brought  in  during  the  first  year. 

This  bill  is  not  quite  as  ludicrous  as  the  one 
to  follow  it,  the  speculative  land  tax,  but  in 
itself  it's  bad.  It's  bad  because  the  govern- 
ment's deluding  the  public,  leading  them  to 
believe  that  we  are  going  to  stop  the  foreign 
takeover  of  land— and  the  government  is  not 
going  to  do  it.  It  is  not  going  to  do  anything. 
It  is  going  to  produce  a  little  more  Ontario 
revenue,  mind  you— not  for  the  province,  not 


for  the  people,  but  for  the  lawyers.  Ah,  the 
lawyers  love  this  bill.  They  see  in  it  the 
prospect  of  a  huge  increase  in  income  in  the 
next  year.  The  Conservatives  will  have  a  solid 
lawyer  vote  across  the  province  in  the  next 
election. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  go  on  to  a  diffeent 
aspect,  but  perhaps  this  is  a  proper  time 
to  adjourn  the  debate. 

Mr.  Shulman  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  House,  I  would 
like  to  tell  my  fellow  members  that  we  will 
proceed  as  was  announced  yesterday  and  con- 
tinue with  this  item,  No.  9,  then  No.  8  and 
No.  6. 

The  House  will  not  sit  on  Monday  evening, 
but  I  expect  we  will  on  Tuesday  evening 
and  I  will  probably  then  be  able  to  give  the 
members  an  additional  schedule  of  the 
estimates. 

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

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1  o'clock,  p.m. 


APRIL  19.  1974  1103 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  April  19,  1974 

Ad  in  Globe  and  Mail,  question  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Breithaupt  1155 

Office  furnishing  standards,  questions  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.  Deacon  1155 

Denture  therapists,  question  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Breithaupt  1156 

Ad  in  Globe  and  Mail,  question  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Breithaupt  1157 

Inquiry  into  hospital  employees'  remuneration,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:   Mr.  Lewis, 

Mr.   Reid    1157 

Price   fixing   in   supermarkets,   questions  of  Mr.  Clement:   Mr.   Lewis,  Mr.   Deacon, 

Mr.   Renwick   1158 

Union  Gas,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Lewis  1160 

Sale  of  land  on  Manitoulin  Island,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis  1160 

Sale  of  colza  oil,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Deans  1160 

Hydro  involvement  in  private  sector,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Sargent  1161 

Wind  energy  seminar,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Burr  1162 

Readmissions  to  Ontario  hospitals,  question  of  Mrs.  Birch:  Mrs.  Campbell  1163 


Liquor    licence    for    Holiday    Inn    at    Owen    Sound,    questions    of    Mr. 

Mr.   Shulman   1163 

Accommodation  provided  OISE  and  OETA,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Deacon  1164 

Solar  energy  report,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Burr  1164 

Rapid  Data  Corp.,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Haggerty  1165 

Gasoline  saving  devices,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  B.  Newman  1165 

Hiring    of    liquor    store    employees,    questions    of    Mr.    Clement:     Mr.     Shulman, 

Mr.  B.  Newman,  Mr.  Lewis  1165 

Day  Nurseries  Act  regulations,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Good  1166 

Report,  standing  administration  of  justice  committee,  Mr.  Havrot  1166 

City  of  Cornwall  Annexation  Act,  bill  to  provide  for,  Mr.  Irvine,  first  reading  1167 

Proceedings  of  the  House  Act,  bill  to  regulate,  Mr.  Sliulman,  first  reading  1167 

Land  Transfer  Tax  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Meen,  on  second  reading  1167 

Royal  assent  to  certain  bills,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  1175 

Land  Transfer  Tax  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Meen,  on  second  reading  1175 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  1192 


::J 


No.  28 


Ontario 


Hegiglature  of  Ontario 


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


Monday,  April  22,  1974 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


?nce  -per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  ParliamerU  Bldgs.,  TororOo 


CONTENTS 


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


1197 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

ESTIMATES 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet ) :  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  message  here  from  the  Honourable  the 
Lieutenant  Governor,  signed  by  her  own  hand. 

Mr.  Speaker:  By  her  own  hand,  Pauline  M. 
McCibbon,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant 
Governor,  transmits  estimates  of  certain  sums 
required  for  the  services  of  the  province  for 
the  year  ending  March  31,  1975,  and  recom- 
mends them  to  the  legislative  assembly,  To- 
ronto, April  27,  1974. 

Mr.  D.  W.  Ewen  (Wentworth  North):  Mr. 
Speaker,  it  is  a  pleasure  for  me  today  to 
introduce  to  you  and  to  the  hon.  members  of 
this  Legislature,  grade  12  students  of  Mount 
Mary  Immaculate  Academy  of  Ancaster,  sit- 
ting in  the  west  gallery. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  ( Minister  of  Government 
Services).  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  draw 
to  the  attention  of  the  hon.  members  that  we 
also  have  visiting  us  today,  a  group  of  stu- 
dents from  the  T.  A.  Blakelock  High  School 
in  Oakville  seated  in  the  west  gallery. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  introduce  a  class  of 
grade  7  students  from  St.  Stanislaus  School 
in  the  great  city  of  Thunder  Bay;  they  are 
sitting  in  the  east  gallery. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


INQUIRY  INTO  HOSPITAL 
EMPLOYEES'  REMUNERATION 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of 
Labour,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  he  can  give  a  report 
to  the  House  on  the  status  of  the  special 
negotiation  with  the  hospital  workers  which 
the    Premier  (Mr.    Davis)    alluded    to    last 


Monday,  April  22,  1974 

Thursday;  including  any  indication  ai  to 
whether  the  government  is  going  to  make  a 
policy  statement  that  in  some  way  will  relieve 
the  threat  of  yet  another  strike  under  these 
circumstances.  •' 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour): 
Yes,  Mr.  Speaker;  as  of  last  week  it  was 
obvious  to  us  that  the  parties  needed  some 
assistance,  perhaps  technical  assistance,  from 
the  Ministry  of  Labour.  This  assistance  has 
been  given;  there  were  meetings  held  last 
week  and  other  meetings  are  taking,  place 
today. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Would 
the  minister  not  agree  that  as  well  as  the 
technical  assistance  which  he  can  undoubtedly 
offer,  what  is  really  needed  is  a  dear  state- 
ment of  government  policy  that  the  funds 
will  be  available  so  the  hospitals  can  enter 
into  meaningful  negotiations,  so  that  the 
hospital  workers  can  contemplate  acceptance 
of  a  settlement  that  would  be  in  their  best 
interests,  without  being  forced  by  government 
policy  to  go  out  on  another  illegal  strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  As  I  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
meetings  are  taking  place  at  present,  and  I'm 
expecting  a  report  from  my  staff. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  I'm 
aware  the  minister  does  not  want  to  say  more, 
but  can  he  give  an  assurance  to  the  House 
that  something  other  than  the  provision  of 
some  expert  assistance  in  negotiation  is  taking 
place?  Is  there  some  specific  commitment  on 
the  part  of  the  government,  either  through  the 
Minister  of  Labour  or  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Miller),  that  funds  are  going  to  be  able 
to  be  spent  by  the  hospitals  to  reach  a  fair 
settlement? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Min- 
ister of  Labour  is  not  shirking  his  responsibil- 
ity. I'm  very  close  to  the  situation;  and  as  I 
say  meetings  are  going  on. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Another 
non-answer. 

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

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  By  way  of 
a  supplementary  question  of  the  Minister  of 


1198 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Labour,  Mr.  Speaker,  will  the  minister  tell  me, 
for  example,  whether  he  has  received  the 
conciliation  report  in  the  dispute  between  the 
Riverdale  Hospital  and  Local  79  of  the  Cana- 
dian Union  of  Public  Employees?  If  not, 
when  does  he  expect  to  get  it,  since  it  has 
been  outstanding  since  some  time  in  Febru- 
ary? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  cannot  say  for  sure 
insofar  as  the  Riverdale  Hospital  is  concerned. 
I  know  that  at  one  point  last  week  conciliation 
services  had  been  provided  to  three  or  four  of 
the  12  hospitals. 

Mr.  Renwick:   Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  a 

further  supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary  over  here— 

the  hon.  member  for  Rainy  River. 

Mr.  Reid:  Thaidc  you.  Is  the  minister  aware 
that  the  provincial  executive  of  the  OSSTF 
reconfirmed  their  support  for  the  hospital 
workers  over  the  weekend  and  have  recom- 
mended to  their  people  that  they  support  the 
hospital  workers,  including  support  on  the 
picket  lines  if  necessary?  Doesn't  the  minister 
tihink  this  escalation  has  gone  far  enough  and 
that  he  should  make  some  kind  of  statement 
as  to  the  moneys  that  are  going  to  be  made 
available? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  once 
and  for  all,  I  want  to  assure  the  hon.  members 
that  if  there  is  one  member  concerned  in  this 
Legislature  today,  it  is  the  Minister  of 
Labour;  I  hope  that  by  next  Wednesday  I 
may  have  a  statement  to  make. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  That  is  all  the 
minister  is  saying,  though.  Let  him  give  us 
some  evidence. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  new  question. 
An  hon.  member:  Oh,  supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I'll  permit  one  more  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  a 
further  supplementary  question,  will  the  min- 
ister make  a  definitive  statement  tomorrow 
about  the  exact  state  of  negotiations  between 
the  Canadian  Union  of  Public  Employees  and 
each  of  the  hospitals  in  Metropolitan  Toronto, 
so  that  we  know  exactly  the  state  of  the 
negotiations  in  each  of  those  hospitals  and 
can  see  what  can  be  done  to  bring  them  to  a 
successful  conclusion? 


Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  this 
particular  case  and  for  the  first  time  I  think, 
the  parties  are  trying  to  bargain  on  a  regional 
basis,  so  I  don't  Know  if  I  could  give  a  report 
for  every  local.  However,  as  I  said  earlier,  I 
am  planning  to  be  in  a  position  to  make  a 
statement  in  the  middle  of  the  week. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  director  of  Riverdale 
Hospital  is  waiting  for  the  conciliation  report. 

Mr.  Spe^er:  Has  the  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  a  new  question? 


POTATO  SUPPLIERS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  question  of  the  Minis- 
ter of  Agriculture  and  Food,  further  to  a 
question  a  week  ago  based  on  an  article  in 
tne  Globe  and  Mail  about  potato  pricing  in 
the  Metropolitan  area  which,  it  is  allied, 
comes  under  unnecessary  and  unfeir  re- 
strictions, particularly  the  funding  of  the  pro- 
cedures \^ereby  potato  pricing  does  come 
imder  the  unnatural  controls  which  were  re- 
ferred to  in  that  article.  Is  the  minister  now 
prepared  to  report  to  the  House,  either  from 
the  Food  Council  or  from  his  independent 
research,  whether  there  is  a  procedure 
whereby  potato  prices  in  the  Toronto  area 
are  maintained  at  an  unnaturally  high  level, 
and  not  to  the  benefit  of  the  producers?  Is 
there  any  indication  that  money  from  illegal 
sources  is  being  channelled  into  the  facilities 
that  make  this  procedure  possible? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  matter  is 
under  investigation  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  This  is 
the  second  time  the  matter  has  been  raised; 
it  is  something  other  than  just  a  routine  ques- 
tion. Can  the  minister  indicate  to  me  if  it  is 
being  investigated  by  the  police  forces  or  if  it 
is  still  being  looked  into  by  some  assistant 
deputy  minister  in  the  agricultural  ministry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  matter 
is  under  investigation,  and  I  have  nothing 
more  to  add  at  this  particular  time.  It  is  a 
very  serious  matter. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  By  whom? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  think  the  report  as  was 
printed  in  the  press— certainly  there  are  many 
things  about  tnis  that  we  want  to  look  at 
very  carefully  and  I  can  assure  the  member 
it  is  being  done,  and  done  in  depth. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  By  the  OPP  or  by  the 

agriculture  oflBcials? 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1199 


Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  It  has  been 
known  for  years.  Why  does  it  take  the  Globe 
to  bring  it  to  the  minister  s  attention? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supple- 
mentary to  the  minister:  By  the  OPP  or  by 
the  agricultural  o£Bcia)s? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  have  nothing  further 
to  add,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  can  tdl  my  hon. 
friend  it's  under  very  definite,  very  dose  and 
indepth  investigation. 

I  Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 

^       position. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downs view):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  minister  says  he  has 
nothing  further  to  add.  Therefore  there  can 
be  no  more  supplementaries.  The  hon.  Leader 
of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  Singer:  He  can  be  asked. 

Mr.    Shulman:    Ask   the   Solicitor   General 

(Mr.  Kerr). 


LAND  PURCHASES  IN 
HALDIMAND-NORFOLK 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
of  the  Treasurer:  Has  any  action  been  taken 
to  examine  the  possibility  of  making  a  pur- 
chase of  land,  in  Haldimand-Norfolk,  in  the 
area  which  the  minister  knows  very  well, 
amounting  to  12,000  acres  in  the  former 
Townsena  township— that  is,  mostly  in  Towns- 
end  township— which  would  evidently  still  be 
available  at  the  option  price  of  $1,600  per 
acre?  Is  the  minister  either  negotiating  him- 
self, or  prepared  to  turn  over  to  the  newly 
elected  regional  council,  the  responsibility  for 
making  decisions  on  thie  possible  acquisition 
of  this  land? 

Hon.  J.  White  (Treasurer,  Minister  of  Eco- 
nomics and  Intergovernmental  AfiFairs):  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  have  been  proposals  made 
from  time  to  time  by  a  representative  of  the 
consortium  with  respect  to  these  lands.  The 
early  proposals  were  not  acceptable  to  me 
because  they  involved  a  form  of  joint  ven- 
ture which  I  thought  was  not  appropriate. 
The  most  recent  proposal,  which  followed 
a  conversation  with  the  representative  of  the 
consortium,  oflFers  the  lands  for  sale  imcon- 
ditionally  at  their  cost  plus  certain  expenses, 
plus  an  acquisition  fee. 

On  receipt  of  that  proposal,  I  sent  it  to  the 
Minister  of  Government  Services  whose  ex- 
perts have  been  asked  to  evaluate  it.  More 


recently,  in  fact.  I  think  last  Friday,  die 
Clarkson  Gordon  company  has  been  asked 
to  vet  certain  of  the  information  contained 
in  the  proposal  and  that  accounting  firm  will 
have  a  reply  for  us,  an  evaluation  for  us. 
about  seven  days  hence. 

I  had  a  conversation  this  morning  with  the 
chairman  of  Haldimand-Norfdk.  The  execu- 
tive committee  is  meeting  on  Wednesday  and 
will  get  an  expression  of  opinion  from  the 
members  of  the  executive  committee.  The 
council  proper  will  meet  on  Thursday  and 
each  member  of  the  regional  council  will  be 
asked  to  express  his  opinion  about  the  suit- 
ability of  the  alternative  townsites  available 
to  us.  When  we  have  that  input  from  the 
region,  the  government  will  have  to  make  a 
decision  as  to  whether  or  not  the  consortium 
lands  are  suitable  and  whether  the  financial 
proposal  or  some  modification  therefore  is 
acceptable. 


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question,  finally 
Mr.  Speaker,  with  yoiu-  permission,  of  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions. With  reference  to  the  report  that  was 
made  available  from  his  oflBce,  entitled  "Pre- 
liminary Report  on  Station  Configurations  and 
Dimensions  for  the  GO-Urban  Transit  Sys- 
tem", it  now  appears  this  preliminary  report 
indicates  that  the  stations  tor  the  GO-Urt)an 
system  may  very  well  be  something  less  than 
what  the  Premier  described  in  November, 
1972.  It  does  not  appear,  from  the  aesthetir 
point  of  view,  that  they  will  fit  very  well 
into  the  modem  city,  since  their  lengths  wfll 
run  up  to  1,000  feet  and  more  and  their 
widths  up  to  50  to  60  feet.  Can  the  minister 
indicate  whether  the  policy  group  over  which 
he  has  jurisdiction  has  considered  this  pre- 
liminary report,  and  if  they  are  still  intent 
on  going  forward  with  the  expenditures  asso- 
ciated with  the  GO-Urban  programme  since 
these  reports,  one  after  the  other,  indicate 
the  concept  is  not  fitting  into  the  needs  of  the 
modem  cities? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transpor- 
tation and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
don't  believe  the  policy  committee  has,  in 
fact,  seen  that  particidar  report. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Well  what 
have  they  seen? 

Mr.  Roy:  Has  the  minister  seen  it? 

Mr.  Singer:  Maybe  that's  because  the  re- 
port is  labelled  December,  1974. 


1200 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  particular  report 
being  referred  to  was  one  that  was  made 
available  to  the  study  group  that  was  looking 
into  the  Scarborough  Expressway  and  other 
transportation  studies  that  were  going  on.  It 
was  an  internal  report  made  available  to  them 
for  their  information. 

I  would  point  out,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  some 
of  the  points  that  have  been  made  in  the 
article  to  which  the  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  is  referring  really  are  not  that 
accurate  as  to  the  size,  because  the  figures 
that  were  used  in  the  report  indicate  the 
total  length  of  the  station,  including  the 
switching  area  required.  In  fact,  the  stations 
themselves  would  not  be  at  all  in  excess  of 
1,000  feet  as  referred  to  in  the  article. 

•  Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Sup- 
plementary, Mr.  Speaker:  Considering  my 
leader's  previous  question,  and  considering 
the  fact  that  the  minister's  ofiBcials  now  esti- 
mate the  total  cost  of  the  experiment  at  the 
CNE  is  increased  by  40  per  cent,  does  the 
minister  intend  to  live  up  to  the  promise 
made  by  his  predecessor  that:  "There  will  be 
$17.5  million  spent  in  total  on  the  Toronto 
demonstration  system  and  not  a  dime  spent 
further  until  that  is,  in  fact,  successful"? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  what  he  said. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot— 

Mr.  Singer:  Be  bound! 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —be  bound  if  you  will, 
by  previous  comments  that  have  been  made. 

Mr.  Reid:  The  minister  won't  last  long. 
After  making  his  promises  they'll  be  putting 
him  back. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  would  suggest,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  hon.  members,  I  think,  will 
appreciate  that  a  figure  of  $17  million  as  was 
quoted  at  that  time,  obviously  is  subject  to 
the  inflationary  factors  that  we  are  living  with 
in  this  country. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  So  long 
ago! 

Mr.  Givens:  Supplementary. 

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

Mr.  Givens:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Scarborough  West. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  What's  the  mat- 


ter with  the  member  for  Scarborough  West? 
Can't  he  hear? 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker:  Now  that  the  estimates 
are  verging  on  an  increase  in  excess  of  50 
per  cent  of  the  first  figiu-e  calculated,  when 
is  the  minister  going  to  have,  for  the  Legis- 
lature, his  set  of  predictions,  presumably  for 
his  successor  then  to  deal  with?  When  will 
he  have  that? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  When  will  he  repudiate 
it? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  the  last  two  minutes  it 
has  gone  from  40  to  50  per  cent.    , 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  said  to 
the  House  last  week  I  would  get  the  figures 
that  were  asked  for  and  I  will  bring  them 
before  the  House.  I'm  in  the  t>rocess  of 
doing  that. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  This  year? 

Mr.  Givens:  This  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Yes,  this  year  they'll 
be  here. 

Mr.  Reid:  Even  if  he  isn't  the  minister? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  don't  intend,  as  I  said 
last  week,  to  bring  them  in  piece  by  piece. 
I'll  bring  in  what  the  members  asked  for  and 
present   it  to   them   at  that  time. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We'll  keep  asking. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  if  I  may:  Will 
the  minister  not  agree  the  figures  that  are 
now  being  used  have  very  little  to  do  with 
inflationary  factors  but  have  a  great  deal 
to  do  with  the  underestimate  which  was 
originally  contained  in  the  government's 
analysis?  Is  there  a  ceiling  beyond  which  the 
government  will  not  go?  Can  the  minister 
indicate  that  publicly? 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  $17.5  million.'       ■ 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'still  feel 
that  most  of  the  cost  figures-and  again  these 
will  be  brought  here-indicate  there  is,  a  very 
very  real  factor  involving  the  inflationary 
problem  in  this  country  today  that's,  adding 
to  these  costs.  Members  will  bave  ^a.  chance 
to  see  it.  ' 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  It's  all 
inflation? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1201 


Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Well  do  the  members 

not  recognize  that? 

Mr.  Lewis:  It's  not  inflation.  Ten  per  cent 
is  inflation,  but  not  50  per  cent. 

H<Mi.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  will  have 
to  revise  his  figures  then,  because  he  has 
been  tailking  over  the  last  four  years  at  10 
per  cent  a  year. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  in  the  months  we've  talked 
about  this  project. 

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

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  member  can't  have 
it  both  ways.  Either  there  is  inflation  or  there 
isn't 

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

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 


POTATO  SUPPLIERS 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Solicitor  General  if  I  may.  Are  any  of  the 
police  f^orces  associated  with  or  attached  to 
his  ministry  entering  into  an  investigation 
into  the  potato  matter  which  was  raised  with 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food? 

Mr..  E,,  M.  Havrpt  (Timiskaming):  Potato 
jdbipSo  r.  ■' . 

Hoii.  C.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  it  is  my  understanding  that  the 
investigation  is  being  carried  out  under  the 
aegis    of    the    Ministry    of   Agriculture    and 

F9(4,  ..;,    ,    :  ,.        ^.  '.^._,.^ 

*  I  4im  inot  aware  that  any  police  force  it- 
self i^  inycplyed  in  this  investigation.  I  under- 
stand It  IS  a  matter  of  the  Food  Council 
being  involved  and  also  the  possibility  of 
charges  being  laid  under  the  Combines  In- 
vestigation Act.  .    ;        :. 

Mr.  Le^'is:  By  way  of  supplementaiy,  does 
that  mean  that  no  one  in  the  Solicitor 
General's  ministry  that  he  knows  of— and  I 
presurtie  that  would  also  be  true  of  the 
Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General— has  yet 
been  called  in  on  the  investigation  with 
Agriailture  and  Food? 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  I  am  not  aware  of  any 
such  request,  Mr.  Speaker. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon. 
borough  West 


member  for  Scai> 


HEALTH  AND  SAFETY  HAZARDS 
AT  ELLIOT  LAKE 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes,  a  questicm  of  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources: 

Can  I  ask  the  minister  what  he  intends  to 
do  about  the  emergency  situation  in  Elliot 
Lake,  where  700  workers  in  the  Denison 
Mines  have  been  on  a  wildcat  strike  now 
since  Friday— I  believe  it  is  since  Friday— 
in  objection  to  the  safety  and  health  hazards 
that  exist  in  the  mine? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  ^Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure  the  hon, 
member  is  much  aware  of  the  efforts  we  arc 
employing  in  the  Elliot  Lake  area.  We  are 
working  very  closely  with  the  Ministry  of 
Health;  just  last  week  I  had  the  ofiicials  of 
the  union  in  my  office  and  we  discussed  the 
matter  in  complete  detail.  We  are  moving 
ahead  and  they  seemed  quite  satisfied  when 
they  left  my  office  at  that  particular  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  can 
the  minister  explain  the  measure  of  satisfac- 
tion, since  for  the  first  time  in  the  18  year 
history  of  the  mine,  700  people  have  walked 
off  the  job  because  of  safety  hazards;  60 
safety  hazards  enumerated  on  Saturday,  many 
of  which  contravened  the  Mining  Act  as  it  is 
now  constituted?  What  does  his  ministry  in- 
tend to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  ministry 
and  the  officials  of  my  department  of  mining 
section  are  on  top  of  this  matter.  I  am  just 
waiting  for  a  full  report  from  them  and  when 
I  have  that  I  will  take  further  steps. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  is 
the  minister  aware  that  on  Nqy.  6,  1973,  and 
again  on  April  16,  1973,  his  chief  mining 
engineer  for  Ontario,  Mr.  Davis,  indicated 
there  were  no  reports  of  safety  problems  in 
the  Denison  Mines?  Therefore  how  can  he  say 
he  IS  on. top  of  the  matter  when  700  people 
are  out  on  strike  for  that  reason  now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
entirely  on  top  of  the  matter.  We  have  been  * 
on  top  of  it  for  some  considerable  time  and 
studies  and  discussions  have  been  going  on 
with  the  union.  In  fact  the  Ministry  of  Health 
has  done  extensive  x-rays  of  the  miners  in  that 
particular  area. 

We  have  done  some  very  exhaustive  studies 
and  we  have  had  experts  in  the  field.  We 


1202 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


have  had  difficulty  getting  the  type  of  experts 
in  ventilation  and  the  various  problems  that 
are  associated  with  a  uranium  mine.  These 
experts  are  pulled  together  now  and  we  are 
moving  ahead  with  what  they  are  asking  for. 

Mr.  J,  F.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  high 
incidence  of  siHcosis  in  the  uranimn  mines  at 
Elliot  Lake,  what  does  the  minister,  in  con- 
cert with  his  colleague  the  Minister  of  Health, 
intend  to  do  to  insist  that  that  industry  clean 
up? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure 
the  hon.  member  for  Thunder  Bay  is  aware 
of  the  very  intensive  study  we  have  em- 
barked upon,  in  fact  it  is  at  the  press  right 
nofw.  It  was  prepared  by  Prof.  Patterson.  That 
report,  of  course,  wiU  give  us  some  indication 
as  to  the  seriousness  of  the  matter  and  maybe 
some  direction  as  to  which  way  we  should 
go- 

We  are  also  working  very  closely  with  the 
Ministry  of  Health,  as  I  pointed  out  just  a 
moment  ago,  in  the  x-ray  field  where  we  are 
moving  at  great  speed.  In  fact  we  have  made 
more  marks  and  made  more  mileage  in  the 
last  six  or  eight  months  than  we  have  in  the 
previous  three  or  four  years.  So  we  are  well 
aware  of  the  situation  and  we  are  moving  in 
the  right  direction,  I  am  positive. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour:  Is  the  Minister  of  Lalbour  aware  that 
since  the  legislation  has  been  changed,  107 
pensions  have  been  granted  by  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Board  between  Jan.  1  and 
March  1  of  1974,  for  sihcotic  victims,  primar- 
ily from  the  Elliot  Lake  area;  and  is  the 
minister  prepared  to  put  some  pressure  on  his 
colleague  to  do  something  about  the  unheard 
of  conditions  in  the  Denison  Mines  and  the 
Rio  Algoma  areas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
working  very  closely  with  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  and  I  will  make  it  a  point 
to  look  into  it  myself  perscmally. 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Health  a  question? 

After  the  promises  made  in  November, 
1973,  to  the  workers  in  Elliot  Lake  about 
silicosis,  about  tuberculosis  and  about  radia- 
tion hazards  prompting  the  possible  incidence 
of  cancer,  why  is  it  that  they  had  to  come 
back  this  month  and  beg  for  the  kind  of 
health  survey  which  the  minister  had  indi- 
cated would  be  undertaken  and  have  not  yet 
been    undertaken;    and    now    we    have    700 


people  out  on  strike  because  of  the  health  and 
safety  hazards  in  the  uranium  industry? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  haven't  any  fast  reply  to  that 
question.  It  is  one  of  those  issues  we  have 
been  looking  at  in  connection  with  occupa- 
tional hazards  in  industries,  and  just  this 
morning  I  spent  quite  a  bit  of  time  talking 
about  it.  We  are  very  anxious  to  determine,  in 
fact,  the  cause  and  effect  relationships  in  that 
industry. 

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

Mr.  Lewis:  One  last  question,  of  the 
Premier:  Given  the  government's  emphasis  on 
uranium  now;  given  the  contracts  raitered 
into  with  Japan  and  Spain;  and  given  the  de- 
scription of  incredible  conditions  in  the  mine 
—about  heavy  equipment  operated  with  less 
power  than  is  required,  wim  dust  conditions 
where  workers  cannot  see  each  other,  with 
ventilation  problems  which  leave  people  gasp- 
ing in  the  mine— can  the  Premier  somehow 
co-ordinate  the  activities  of  the  ministries  in 
order  to  respond  energetically  to  the  prob- 
lems of  ElHot  Lake  which  have  forced  these 
700  men  to  leave  their  work? 

Mr.  Roy:  The  Premier  needs  a  super- 
minister,  tiiat's  what  he  needs;  some  more 
superministers. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
as  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  pointed 
out,  his  ministry  has  been  very  much  aware 
of  the  situation  and  is  working  towards  solu- 
tions to  some  of  the  problems.  If  it  would 
help  the  hon.  member,  I'd  be  delighted  to 
discuss  it  with  him  again  and  with  the  Minis- 
ter of  Health.  The  government  is  concerned 
and  is  quite  prepared  to  take  whatever  steps 
will  help  resolve  the  situation.  As  the  minister 
pointed  out,  he  met  with  some  of  the  repre- 
sentatives just  last  week  on  this  very  subject. 

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


INTERNS'  AND  RESIDENTS' 
DISPUTE  WITH  HOSPITALS 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health.  Could  the  Minister 
of  Health  tell  us  if  he  is  going  to  do  anything 
about  the  problem  raised  to  him  by  the 
Interns  and  Residents  Association  of  Ontario, 
because  his  letter  of  March  19  addressed  to 
the  Ontario  Council  of  Administrators  of 
Teaching  Hospitals,  suggesting  that  the  Min- 
ister of  Labour  might  supply  mediation  or 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1203 


that  individual  hospital  boards  might  have 
another  look  at  the  situation,  has  obviously 
been  ignored  and  the  problems  of  salaries, 
working  conditions  and  tne  very  serious  prob- 
lems raised  by  the  interns  and  residents  re- 
main unsolved  and  cx)ntinue  as  a  festering 
sore  in  our  health  service  system? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  an 
opp<^tunity  to  meet  some  of  these  interns 
and  residents  not  too  long  ago  on  an  unoflBdal 
basis  and  I  believe  they  too  have  had  some 
change  in  their  approach  to  things.  We  felt, 
at  that  time,  that  the  proper  place  for  these 
discussions  on  salaries  and  hours  was  within 
the  teaching  hospitals  and  universities.  I  still 
feel  that  is  the  proper  place  for  these  dis- 


Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  a 
supplementary,  I  presume  the  minister  refers 
to  a  meeting  held  close  to  the  March  19  date, 
which  is  the  date  of  the  letter  that  he  sent 
forward.  Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  since 
sending  forward  the  letter  the  situation  hasn't 
changed  one  bit;  that  the  Minister  of  Labour 
has  not  been  accepted  as  the  conciliator  nor 
have  any  of  the  individual  hospitals  chosen 
to  bargain?  I  am  advised  that  the  interns  and 
residents  are  more  angry  than  ever  and  that 
the  minister  is  doing  nothing  except  exacei> 
bate  an  already  very  difficult  and  unfair 
situation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  look 
into  this,  but  there  is  a  tendency  always  to 
assume  the  minister  should  interpose  himself 
into  operations  that  are  quite  properly  be- 
tween two  other  parties.  It  is  a  good  thing 
not  to  interfere  with  those  operations  until 
you're  needed. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  the  minister  is  needed 
right  now. 

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


LAKE  SUPERIOR  OUTFLOWS 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  I  have  a 
question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the  Premier.  In 
view  of  the  failure  of  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  (Mr.  W.  Newman)  to  meet  his 
commitment  to  me  on  April  9  to  supply  this 
Legislature  with  the  detailed  information  on 
the  regulation  of  Lake  Superior;  and  in  view 
of  the  meeting  reported  by  Canadian  Press 
on  April  11  between  himself  and  Governor 
Milliken  of  Michigan  in  which,  and  I'm  quot- 
ing: 


The  two  leaders  agreed  tfiat  the  Inter- 
national Joint  Commission  should  adopt  a 
new  water  regulation  plan  for  Lake 
(Superior  and  that  the  two  federal  govern- 
ments should  provide  compensation  for 
power  interests  at  Sauk  Ste.  Marie  and 
property  owners  along  Lake  Superior  dam- 
aged by  higher  water  levels. 

Is  the  Premier  now  prepared  to  tell  Ae 
people  of  Ontario  what  specific  regulation 
plan  for  Lake  Superior  he  has  agreed  to  and 
whether  or  not  he  is  prepared  to  agree  to  the 
use  of  Lake  Superior  as  a  reservoir  for  the 
Great  Lakes  water  system? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  think 
the  Governor  of  Michigan  and  I  made  those 
final  determinations.  I  think  what  we  did 
agree  to,  or  what  we  felt  had  merit,  was  to 
have  the  International  Joint  Commission, 
which  is  I  think  the  approoriate  body  in  this 
case,  deal  with  it.  That  really  is  the  substance 
of  what  was  said  by  both  Governor  Milliken 
and  myself. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  mav.  Why  then  does  the  story  say— \%iiich 

fives  tne  implication  that  an  agreement  has 
een  reachea  and  he  has  agreed  with  the 
federal  plan— that  there  should  be  compensa- 
tion for  nieher  water  levels  on  Lake  Superior? 
If  he  says  he  has  not  agreed  to  any  plan,  why 
is  he  saying  there  should  be  compensation 
for  proposed  higher  water  levels? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  recall 
the  discussions  and  the  statement,  it  referred 
to  the  responsibilities  of  the  International 
Joint  Commission,  and  if  in  its  wisdom— and 
this  would  have  to  be  accepted  by  both 
federal  governments,  not  by  the  State  of 
Michigan  or  the  Province  of  Ontario-thls 
led  to  a  programme  which  did  have  some 
negative  effect,  and  obviously  some  very  posi- 
tive effect,  the  question  of  compensation 
should  be  something  that  the  International 
Joint  Commission  should  study  in  its  recom- 
mendations. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  final  supplementary,  if  I 
may,  Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  Premier  not  aware 
that  in  fact  the  federal  Canadian  government 
and  the  federal  US  government  nave  agreed 
in  principle  to  a  regulation  plan  and  that 
they  are  awaiting  concurrence  from  the  gov- 
ernment of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  recognize 
the  federal  government  at  Ottawa  ana  the 
American  government  have  had  discussions 
on  this  issue  and  on  a  number  of  other  issues. 
I'm  not  sure  there   is  an  agreement.   I  will 


1204 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


check  that  out  and  find  out  whether  there 
is  in  fact  an  agreement. 

I  mean,  we  had  an  agreement  with  Canada 
and  the  United  States  with  respect  to  water 
quality,  which  was  really  the  main  basis  for 
my  discussions  with  Governor  Milliken,  but 
the  American  government  has  not  met  its 
commitment  under  that  agreement.  Our  con- 
cern is  that  this  be  approached  through  the 
International  Joint  Commission  and  this  is 
really  the  essence  of  that  part  of  the  state- 
ment made  by  Governor  MHliken  and  myself. 

Mr.'  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
East. 

Mr.  t'oulds:  Point  of  order— 

Mr*  Speaker:  I  had  three  supplementaries 
from  the  same  member;  it  is  suflBcient, 

Mr,  Foulds:  A  point  of  order,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Point  of  order. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  would  like  to  inform  you 
and  will  further  inform  you  in  writing  that  I 
do  not  deem  the  minister's  answer  satisfac- 
tory and  under  standing  order  27(g)  will  re^ 
quest  a  debate  tomorrow  night. 

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

Mr.  Roy:  The  Premier  is  going  to  have  to 
come  back  Tuesday. 

An  hon.  member:  The  late  show. 

Mr.,  Roy:  Does  the  member  like  the  late 
show?. 


.  SMITHS  FALLS  HOSPITALS 

M^  -Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Health,  and  the  question  deals 
with ; the- Smiths  Falls  situation:  In  view  ,  of 
the '  fact .  there  has  been  improper  utilization 
of  hospital  beds  and  a  report  of  the  College 
of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  in  fact  indicated 
that  80  per  cent  of  the  beds  in  both  hos- 
pitals were  being  misused— something  like 
109  beds  out  of  189— what  does  his  ministry 
plan  to  do  to  correct  that  situation  and  save 
the  taxpayers  from  abuses  by  the  hospitals 
and  by  certain  physicians  in  that  city? 

An  hon.  member:  He's  going  to  make  the 
beds. 

Hpn.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  situa- 
tion in  Smiths  Falls  is  not  unique  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario,  where  we  have- 


Mr.  Roy:  What  he  is  admitting  is  that  he 
is  wasting  millions. 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  listen  to  the  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  May  I  suggest  that  when 
we  try  to  take  remedial  measures  in  some  of 
the  areas  that  are  in  the  member's  riding, 
that  he  should  assist  us,  too. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  am  prepared  to  co-operate  in 
anything. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  It  is  very  simple  to  talk 
about  the  things  the  government  should  do 
as  long  as  they  are  not  in  the  member's  own 
riding. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Rreithaupt:  He  has  to  cover  that  riding, 
too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  There  are  two  hospitals 
in  that  town,  as  I  understand,  and  that  is 
true  through  many  rural  Ontario  communi- 
ties. It  is  true  not  only  of  rural  municipali- 
ties, but  it  is  particularly  true  of  rural  munic- 
ipalities where  perhaps  sound  economics 
would  dictate  only  one  or  a  combination  of 
services. 

Our  ministry  has  been  working  very  ac- 
tively with  both  hospitals  in  that  municipality 
—firstly,  in  an  attempt  to  buy  one  of  the 
hospitals,  I  believe  the  member  will  find;  and 
secondly,  to  amalgamate  services  and  define 
the  roles  if  that  course  of  action  doesn't 
materialize.  We  are  still,  I  think,  having  a 
good  deal  of  co-operation  and  assistance  from 
the  people  in  both  hospitals  in  that  munic- 
ipality and  I  hope  we  are  on  the  verge  of 
solving  the  problems. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  I  might,  as  a  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker:  In  light  of  the  fact  that  last 
year  the  deputy  minister  made  a  suggestion 
that  18  active  treatment  beds  be  reclassified 
as  chronic  care  beds  in  Smiths  Falls,  and  if 
was  subsequent  to  pressure  from  certain  Tory 
doctors  on  the  minister's  predecessor  that  the 
ministry's  mind  was  changed,  does  he  plan 
to  continue  this  approach  to  bend  to  the 
will  of  the  doctors  who  are  abusing  these 
beds?  In  fact,  may  I  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
this  question  is  the  minister  not  in  fact 
admitting  that  the  situation  rrl  Smiths  Falls— 
which  by  conservative  estimates  is  a  waste 
of  about  $1  million  a  year— goes  on  through- 
out the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
has  been  the  policy  of  this  ministry  over  the 
past  year  and  a  half  to  take  some  ver>'  real 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1205 


steps  in  terms  of  rationalizing  the  hospital 
bed  situation  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  We 
can  show  that  some  1,700  beds  were  taken 
out  of  active  treatment  service  during  the 
past  12  months,  in  an  attempt  to  provide  the 
services  that  people  need  at  the  price  they 
can  afford.  There  is  no  question  that  in  this 
particular  area  we  would  be  better  oflF  to 
take  some  of  the  beds  and  put  them  into 
chronic  hospital  use,  and  that  is  the  basis 
on  which  our  discussions  are  going  on. 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  did  the  ministry  back  oflF 
last  year? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Thun- 
der Bay. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  can 
assess  or  evaluate  the  applications  a  great 
deal  more  quickly  than  that,  but  at  times  it 
requires  the  assistance  of  the  applicants  to 
make  sure  they  have  all  of  the  information 
filed  with  ODC,  NODC  or  EODC.  Quite 
often  we  find  that  information  is  not  avail- 
able and  for  some  period  of  time  it's  held 
up  by  the  applicant.  Until  they  have  it  in, 
sir,  we  cannot  make  a  final  decision. 

They  were  informed  that  if  the  information 
was  not  in  the  hands  of  the  development 
corporations  before  the  end  of  December, 
1973,  the  applications  would  be  waived  in 
default  as  a  dead  file. 

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


ODC  PERFORMANCE  LOANS 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Industry  and  Tourism.  Can  the 
minister  explain  why  18  performance  loans 
in  the  amount  of  $1.5  million  have  been 
granted  by  the  Ontario  Development  Corp. 
seven  full  months  after  the  announced  can- 
cellation of  the  granting  of  forgivable  loans 
or  performance  loans? 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  time  we  an- 
nounced the  cancellation  of  the  performance 
loans  we  made  it  extremely  clear  to  this 
House  that  we  would  be  looking  at  applica- 
tions for  about  a  six-month  period  there- 
after. Applications  that  had  been  filed  by  the 
end  of  July  of  last  year  would  be  looked 
at  up  until  December  of  that  same  year. 
Those  loans  were  extended  on  that  basis. 

Mr.  Stokes:  A  supplementary:  Is  it  an  ad- 
mission, then,  by  the  minister,  that  it  takes 
six  to  seven  months  to  evaluate  the  apph'ca- 
tions  for  performance  loans  that  are  coming 
into  the  Northern  Ontario  Development 
Corp.  or  the  Ontario  Development  Corp.?  Is 
that  the  minister's  admission  that  it  takes 
them  seven  years  to  evaluate  these  applica- 
tions? ^ 

An  hon.  member:  Seven  months,  seven 
months. 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  for  Thunder 
Bay  said  seven  years. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Seven  months. 

Mr.  Reid:  Seven  years  is  closer. 


U.S.  REACTION  TO  LAND  TRANSFER 
TAX 

Mr.  Givens:  Could  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  whether  it  is  true  that  various 
American  mortgage-lending  institutions  are 
now  holding  up  all  mortgage  loans  pending 
the  passage  of  the  land  transfer  tax  and 
speculative  tax  legislation  to  determine 
whether  these  pieces  of  legislation  will  ad- 
versely affect  them;  and  that  this  will  have 
a  devastating  effect  on  the  quantiun  of 
mortgage  loans  in  this  province? 

Mr.  Shulman:   It's  on  the  order  paper. 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  it  has  not  come  to  my  atten- 
tion directly  that  any  number  of  corpora- 
tions may  be  doing  this.  I  mentioned  last 
week  that  it  had  come  to  my  attention  that 
there  was  at  least  one  such  lending  institu- 
tion that  was  concerned  about  the  matter; 
and  in  that  instance  I  assured  their  counsel 
that  their  mortgage  advances  being  made  to 
their  builders  would  not  be  in  a  secondary 
position  to  any  liens  which  my  ministry 
took  back  in  the  event  the  property  were 
eventually  sold  to  a  non-resident  Canadian. 

Now  whether  others  may  be  doing  that 
at  this  time,  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  say. 

Mr.  Shulman:  All  are,  all  are. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  might  observe,  though, 
that  that  happens  to  be  one  of  the  reasons 
why  I  have  indicated  my  anxiety  and  my 
desire  to  get  on  with  the  completion  of  the 
Land  Transfer  Tax  Act. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  is  drying  up 
all  the  mortgage  funds,  land— 


1206 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  the  Premier  talking 
about?  He  is  going  to  make  it  tougher  to 
get  housing  than  it  is  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order;  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  High  Park  is  next. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  leader  of  the  NDP 
would  not  have  a  nickel  of  mortgage  money 
going. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  just  wasn't  aware  of 
it.  I  didn't  catch  the  number.  Did  the  mem- 
ber say  300  and— 

Mr.  Shulman:  There  were  301  out  of  the 

319  smashed  on  arrival. 

An  hon.  member:  Call  the  shipper— 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  see.  Were  they 
smashed  when  they  arrived  or  after  they  got 
here? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Both. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Thanks  very  much. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kit- 
chener. 


LOSSES  FROM  BROKEN  LIQUOR  CASES 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  we  may  turn 
to   a  lighter  minister,   the   Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  is  not  a  light  weight. 
Mr.  Roy:  He  is  better  looking. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Can  the  minister  comment 
on  the  unique  packaging  and  cartage  methods 
used  by  his  department  which  resulted  in 
301  out  of  319  cases  that  arrived  at  Freedland 
St.  last  Thursday  being  smashed;  and  can  the 
minister  comment  on  how  much  material  dis- 
appeared out  of  those  smashed  cases  en  route? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Cases  of  what? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Beverage  of  some  kind. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Oh  beverages;  oh,  I  see. 
Is  that  milk? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations ) :  Well,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  not  aware  there  were  any  cases 
of,  I  gather  alcoholic  beverages  being  broken. 
I  will  find  out— unless  the  hon.  member  wishes 
to  work  through  his  usual  sources. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  wishes  he  had  been 
there  instead  of  the  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  There  is  an  issue  to 
get  the  member's  party  elected. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  need  one. 


TORONTO  AREA  GARBAGE  DISPOSAL 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  might  have  been  the 
stafF  that  was  "smashed". 

Anyway,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment.  Is  the  minister 
investigating  the  private  garbage  disposal 
business  in  the  Toronto  area  further  to  the 
recent  reports  in  the  press  that  two  American 
companies  are  apparently  taking  over  the  in- 
dustry and  forcing  smaller  operators  out  of 
business? 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  die  En- 
viroimient):  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  aware  of  all 
the  potential  sites  in  the  greater  Metro  area 
and  who  owns  them  at  this  point  in  time;  and 
we  are  investigating  all  the  sites,  as  a  matter 
of  fact. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  is  familiar  with  the 
garbage  business,  isn't  he? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  for 
Ottawa  East  knows  all  about  garbage. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkei-ville ) : 
Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary;  yes. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Could  I  ask  the  minister 
to  consider  looking  into  the  ownership  of  that 
type  of  industry  in  other  areas  besides  the 
city  of  Toronto,  because  in  my  local  area 
Sasso  Disposal  are  owned  by  Browning-Ferris 
of  Dallas,  Texas. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Yes;  I  must  be  careful 
in  answering  the  question.  We  are  looking  at 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1207 


the  total  right  throughout  the  province,  at  all 
these  sites. 

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


FINES  FOR  VIOLATIONS  OF 
CONSTRUCTION  SAFETY  ACT 

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour. 

Doesn't  the  minister  agree  with  the  inspec- 
tor under  the  Construction  Safety  Act  that  the 
fines  that  are  levied  by  provincial  judges  for 
violations  under  the  Act  become  a  licence  for 
the  construction  industry  to  violate  the  Act, 
since  they  are  much  lower  than  the  penalty 
clauses  normally  incorporated  into  their  con- 
tracts? And  does  he  not  believe  that  it  might 
be  necessary  at  this  time  to  establish  a  mini- 
mum fine  in  addition  to  a  maximum  fine,  in 
order  to  bring  the  fines  into  line  and  to  bring 
about  better  construction  safety? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
wouldn't  dare  to  make  a  statement  at  this 
time  until  I  have  really  looked  at  the  whole 
matter  myself. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  the 
fines  for  violations  under  the  Construction 
Safety  Act  average  no  more  than  $150,  even 
though  the  maximum  is  $10,000;  and  that  a 
$150  fine  in  a  major  construction  project  is, 
in  fact,  no  fine  at  all? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  The  hon.  member 
knows  full  well  that  we  have  up  to  a  maxi- 
mum of  $10,000  and  it  is  left  to  the  court  to 
decide  as  to  the  amount  of  the  fine.  So  I 
doubt  if  the  Minister  of  Labour  should  really 
interfere  with  the  court  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Essex- 
Kent. 


NURSING  HOMES  RESIDENCE 
AGREEMENT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Health.  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  some  nursing  homes  have 
a  clause  in  their  residence  agreement  that  in 
the  event  of  death  the  resident  is  obligated 
to  pay  the  full  month's  care  regardless  of  the 
day  die  person  expires? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  to  say 
no,  I  am  not  aware;  but  I  would  be  glad  to 
look  at  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 


REHABILITATION  OF 
PSYCHIATRIC  PATIENTS 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Health: 
What  provision  has  the  ministry  made  for  tihe 
care  and  rehabilitation  of  patients  from  the 
St.  Thomas  Psychiatric  Hospital  whose  dis- 
charge back  into  the  Windsor  area  is  being, 
or  already  has  been,  directed? 

Hon.  Mr.  MiUer:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are,  as 
I  am  sure  the  member  knows,  taking  steps  to 
rehabilitate  quite  a  few  people  from  oor 
psychiatric  hospitals.  We  are  trying  to  move 
them  out  of  the  major  institutions  and  back  to 
a  form  of  care  that  is  more  useful  to  them. 

In  many  instances  we  are  moving  people 
into  homes  for  special  care,  as  I  am  sure  he 
is  aware,  in  an  attempt  to  bring  them  into  a 
less  institutional  environment.  Tliis  is  the 
approach  we  are  taking  in  that  general  area; 
in  fact  one  might  say  in  the  general  area 
around  any  of  our  psychiatric  hospitals,  which 
at  this  point  in  time  are  considered  to  be  fuH 
of,  say  chronic  psychiatric  patients  rather  than 
active  treatment  psychiatric  patients. 

Mr.  Burr;  A  supplementary:  Is  it  the  policy 
of  the  mmistry  to  establish  halfway  nouses 
or  sheltered  workshops  for  such  patients  in 
those  areas? 

Hon.  Mr.   Miller:   I   can  safely  say  it  is 

ministry  policy  to  assist  in  halfway  houses  for 
psychiatric  patients.  One  of  the  problems,  of 
courses,  is  obtaining  the  proper  Idnd  of  loca- 
tion and  management  for  these;  both  for  the 
psychiatric  patient  and  for  other  types  of 
patients,  such  as  the  alcoholic. 

Mr.  Burr:  A  supplementary:  Does  that 
mean  the  minister  looks  with  favour  on 
sheltered  workshops  and  halfway  houses? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  have  just  read  a  brief 
on  that  area  of  activity,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I 
would  say  yes,  I  look  with  favour  upon  that 
kind  of  thing. 

Mr.  Speaker:  iTie  hon.  member  for  Huron. 


MARKETING  OF  "FANCY  HONEY" 

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

A  question  of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food:  Is  he  aware  that  an  artificial 
product  has  been  introduced  to  the  consimier 
within  relatively  recent  times  called  Fancy 
Honey,  whidi  is  a  sugared  syrup  artificially 
flavoured  to  resemble  honey  but  it  is  any- 


1208 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


thing  but  the  product  of  honey  bees?  Is  it 
not  contrary  to  the  Farm  Products  Grades  and 
Sales  Act  to  give  an  artificial  product  a 
natural  product  name,  and  such  being  the 
case  would  he  see  that  the  word  "honey"  is 
removed  from  this  product? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  had  a 
meeting  with  the  honey  producers'  executive 
last  week  on  this  point  and  the  matter  is 
under  consideration  to  see  how  we  can  pos- 
sibly deal  with  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


PRESCRIPTION  OF  DRUGS 
BY  OPTOMETRISTS 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker:  Can  the  minister  ex- 
plain why  he  has  gone  against  the  advice  of 
his  own  experts  and  allowed  optometrists  the 
use  of  drugs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all  I 
am  very  pleased  to  have  a  question  from  the 
member  for  High  Park.  I  had  stopped  eating 
apples  some  time  ago,  when  he  stopped  ask- 
ing me  questions,  in  the  hope  that  he  might 
return  to  his  daily  procedure— and  it  has 
finally  worked. 

I  suppose  he  is  jumping  to  a  oonclusion 
that  I  received  one  piece  of  information  from 
one  person  in  a  matter  of  advice.  I  under- 
stand the  hon.  member  has  a  copy  and  I 
know  that  a  munber  of  other  people  have  a 
copy  of  this  advice.  Just  how  mey  got  it  I'm 
not  quite  sure,  but  I'm  very  curious  to  know. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why? 

Mr.  Shulman:  It  was  delivered'  by  hand. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  the  minister  asks  me,  I  will  tell 
him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  can  safely  say  that  this 
one  issue  received  a  great  deal  of  considera- 
tion and  a  great  deal  of  advice  was  given 
about  it.  The  position  the  ministry  took  in 
enunciating  the  health  disciplines  bill  was 
taken  after  a  very  great  deal  of  thought.  I 
believe  it  is  a  fair  position. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary.  I  won- 
der- 
Mr.  Shulman:  May  I  ask  the  first  supple- 
mentar)'? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  I  think  the  hon.  member 
who  asked  the  question  should  be  entitled  to 
ask  the  first  supplementary. 


Mr.  Shulman:  Can  the  minister  name  one 
senior  person  within  his  department  who  sup- 
ports his  view? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can, 
but  I  won't. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'd  like  to  ask  the  min- 
ister if  he  doesn't  feel  the  situation  he  is 
responding  to  in  this  question  is  almost  iden- 
tically analogous  to  the  situation  involving 
dentists  and  denturists?  Why  should  he  take 
such  a  strange  position  with  the  denturists 
since  he  is  prepared  to  allow  the  optom- 
etrists this  particular  responsibility? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Certainly  it's  a  good 
thing  that  the  hon.  member  is  not  in  the 
governing  party,  because  I  think  he  would 
find  there  is  a  fundamental  difference  be- 
tween the  denturists  and  the  optometrists. 
One  is  a  graduate  of  university  in  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario;  the  other  person  has  not  yet 
proved  his  competence  by  any  method  of 
testing. 

Mr.  Roy:  Obviously  the  minister,  didn't 
understand  the  question. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  a  supplementary: 
Is  the  minister  not  then  prepared- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  min- 
ister saying  in  his  answer  that  the  position 
regarding  denturists  is  not  going  to  change 
and  that  he  is  going  to  work  with  the  At- 
torney General  (Mr.  Welch)  to  continue  the 
raids  on  the  denturists'  premises  and  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  charges  against  them? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Did  he  say  all  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Again,  I  would  point  out 
to  the  hon.  member  that  he  is  jumping  to 
conclusions  not  based  upon  fact. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  which  is  not  true. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  last  ques- 
tion was  asked  by  a  member  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party.  There  are  just  a  few  mo- 
ments left  and  we  shouldn't  have  any  more 
supplementaries. 

The  hon.  member  for  Welland  South. 


STUDY  OF  VINYL  CHLORIDE 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.   I  would  like  to  direct  a 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1209 


question  to  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Is  his 
ministry  considering  an  extensive  study  of 
vinyl  xroloride  as  to  its  ability  to  cause  cancer 
among  certain  employees  employed  in  re- 
lated wdustries? 

Hqn.  Mr.  Guindon:  Well  I  don't  think  we 
have  "any  money  in  our  budget  this  year 
concerning  such  a  study.  Perhaps  I  can  look 
for  money  in  next  year's  budget. 

Mr.;Speakcn  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
CentT&. 


PRESCRIPTION  OF  DRUGS 
■  'BY  OPTOMETRISTS 


Mr.  Cassidy:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Health,  Mr.  Speaker:  Can  the  minister  say 
what  drugs  he  intends  to  give  optometrists 
the  power  to  prescribe;  whether  some  of 
those  drugs  are  lethal  in  certain  quantities; 
and  what  training  he  believes  that  optom- 
etrists have  in  the  use  of  these  drugs? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well  I  am  interested  to 
note,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  hon.  mem- 
ber is  an  advocate  of  the  medical  point  of 
view. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Isn't 
the  minister  jumping  to  conclusions? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Answer  the  question. 

Hon,  Mr.  Miller:  I  will  be  glad  to.  In  the 
bill,  if  the  hon.  member  has  taken  the  time 
to  read  it,  we  say  that  an  optometrist  may 
use  such  drugs  for  such  purposes  as  are  per- 
mitted in  the  regulations.  That  is  the  way 
the  bill  reads. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes,  but  what  are  those  drugs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  The  drugs  that  are  to  be 
permitted,  insofar  as  I  understand  it  at  this 
point  in  time,  although  the  regulations  are 
not  finalized,  are  the  topical  anaesthetics  for 
the  use  of  tonometry  only. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supple- 
mentary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  One  supplementary  orJy. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  the  minister  not  aware 
that  some  of  those  drugs  are  lethal  in  certain 
quantities;  and  what  controls  does  he  intend 
to  apply  to  the  non-medical  use  of  those 
drugs? 


Hon.  Mr.  MiUert  Mr.  Speaker,  Aspirin  is 
lethal  in  certain  quantities. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Don't  put  it  in  the  eye. 

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


DAAL  SPECIALTIES  LTD. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Xh/wik  vou,  Mr.  Speakei* 
I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour. 
Is  the  Minister  of  Labour  aware  that  Allied 
Chemical,  the  American  owner  of  Daal  Spe- 
cialties Ltd.  in  Windsor,  is  plarming  on  eitncr 
moving  the  facility  from  the  Windsor  area 
or  completely  closing  the  plant? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes  Mr.  Speaker;  there 
have  been  a  nimiber  of  rumours  floating 
around  the  Windsor  area  in  connection  witn 
the  Daal  Specialties  plant.  This  plant,  I 
understand,  employs  some  400  people,  300 
of  them  being  female.  The  company  is  en- 
gaged in  the  fabrication  of  seat  belts,  and  I 
am  informed  that  because  of  a  reduction  in 
prodtiction  and  technical  changes  it  would 
appear  that  the  company  has  been  affected. 
I  understand  that  two  of  their  plants  already 
have  been  closed  down  in  the  United  States. 
However,  this  is  only  rumour,  as  I  state;  I 
haven't  had  any  oflBcial  notice  from  the  com- 
pany. I  did  hear,  as  well  as  my  hon.  friend 
did  perhaps,  that  rumours  have  it  they  might 
leave  Windsor  to  go  to  the  Collingwood 
plant  but  I  wouldn't  want  him  to  think  for  a 
moment  this  is  oflBcial.  They  are  only  rum- 
ours. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  for  oral  questions 
has  now  been  exceeded. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  the  estimates 
of  the  following  ministries  be  referred  to  the 
standing  resources  development  committee: 
the  Ministry  of  the  Environment;  the  Min- 
istry of  Natural  Resources;  the  Ministry  of 
Transportation  and  Communications;  and  the 
Ministry  of  Labour. 

Mr.  Stokes:  In  that  order? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Not  necessarily.  I  will 
inform  members  later  today. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills. 


1210 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


EDUCATIONAL  COMMUNICATIONS 
AUTHORITY  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Educational 
Communications  Authority  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities):  Mr.  Speaiker,  this  amend- 
ment removes  the  requirement  that  not  fewer 
than  three  and  not  mare  than  four  members 
of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  authority  be 
civil  servants. 


MASTER  AND  FELLOWS  OF 
MASSEY  COLLEGE  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Master  and 
Fellows  of  Massey  College  Act,  1960-1961. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Lewis:  About  time,  that  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Great  stuff. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  one  the  minister 
could  nationalize. 

Hon.  Mr.  Anld:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  amend- 
ment would  allow  a  student,  either  male  or 
female,  who  is  a  graduate  student  studying 
for  a  further  degree  at  the  University  of 
Toronto  to  be  a  resident  of  Massey  College.  I 
hope  members  wont  ask  to  change  the  name 
of  the  biU. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  ninth  order,  re- 
suming the  adjourned  debate  on  the  motion 
for  second  reading  of  Bill  26,  the  Land 
Transfer  Tax  Act,  1974. 


LAND  TRANSFER  TAX  ACT 
(continued) 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Tell  them 
what  is  wrong  with  the  bill. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park) :  I  am  a  Httle 
embarrassed  by  this  bill,  because  I  am  attack- 
ing the  wrong  minister  here.  I  know  the  hon. 
Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  was  responsible  for 
bringing  it  forth.  I  consider  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  (Mr,  Meen)  one  of  my  friends  in 
this  House  and  for  what  I  am  about  to  do  to 
him  I  apologize  as  one  friend  to  another. 

Without  a  doubt,  this  is  the  worst  bill— not 
as  to  intent  but  as  to  result— that  has  ever 


been  brought  into  this  House.  The  minister 
intended  two  purposes  when  he  brought  the 
bill  in.  He  wanted  to  stop  foreign  money  com- 
ing into  the  country  in  the  form  of  equity 
ownership  but  he  wanted  to  encourage  debt 
to  come  in. 

He  wanted  the  mortgage  money  to  continue 
to  come  because  it  has  to  come  in.  If  it  stops 
coming  in,  interest  rates  are  going  to  rise  very 
rapidly  and  people  just  aren't  going  to  be 
able  to  get  mortgages.  The  result  of  the  bill 
is  going  to  be  exactly  the  opposite  of  what  he 
intended. 

Last  Thursday,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  telephoned 
one  of  the  lawyers  who  specializes  in  real 
estate  in  this  city.  I  am  not  going  to  use  his 
name  because  it  would  embarrass  him  with 
his  clients— I  am  one  of  them— and  I  said  to 
him,  "I  have  some  friends  who  are  not  Cana- 
dian citizens.  Actually,  they  live  in  Switzer- 
land. They  have  been  doing  a  great  deal  of 
purchasing  of  land  in  this  province  and  they 
would  like  to  continue  to  do  so  but  they  don't 
wish  to  pay  the  20  per  cent  penalty.  On  the 
other  hand  they  don't  wish  to  break  the  law 
and  in  fact,  they  insist  the  law  not  be  brc^en. 
Is  it  possible  for  them  to  continue  to  buy 
land  here  in  this  province,  without  paying 
the  penalty  and  by  remaining  within  the 
law?"  I  received  this  reply  back  from  him, 
delivered  by  hand,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  would 
like  to  read  it  to  the  minister.  First  of  all, 
let's  take  care  of  the  equity  half  of  the  matter. 
We  will  come  to  the  debt  shortly. 

Dear  Mr.  Shulman: 

You  asked  me  to  lay  out  a  method 
whereby  your  Swiss  friends  may  make  a  $2 
imillion  purchase  of  Brampton  real  estate 
without  paying  the  new  20  per  cent  land 
transfer  tax.  I  understand  tmt  they  insist 
(that  everything  be  done  perfectly  legally 
and,  of  course,  that  is  the  only  way  I 
would  go  along  with  it  in  any  case.  There 
lis  really  no  problem  at  all.  As  soon  as  your 
people  are  prepared  to  proceed  I  will  set 
up  a  new  Ontario  corporation  with  two 
classes  of  stock,  common  and  class  A.  Our 
firm  will  hold  51  per  cent  of  the  common 
'and  the  remaining  shares  will  be  divided 
up  betwefen  the  Swiss,  but  no  individual 
may  hold  more  than  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Eaton  (Middlesex  South):  That 
is  a  loyal  Canadian. 

Mr.  Shulman:  To  continue: 

It  is,  of  course,  fully  understood  that  the 
common  shares  will  have  complete  control 
of  the  management  of  the  company  and 
will  make  the  decisions  as  to  which  land  is 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1211 


to  be  purchased  althou^  w©  will,  of 
course.  Be  pleased  to  receive  advice  from 
the  minority  shareholders,  your  clients. 

The  class  A  shares  will  be  held  entirely 
by  your  Swiss  friends  and  provisions  will 
be  put  into  the  charter  to  the  effect  that  all 
(income  and  disbursements  of  capital  to  the 
extent  of  99  per  cent  of  both  shall  be  dis- 
tributed to  tne  class  A  stock.  Using  this 
method  the  provisions  of  Bill  26  are  not 
violated  in  any  way  and  your  friends  will 
be  able  to  make  their  purchases  without 
the  added  20  per  cent  expense  because,  of 
course,  control  remains  in  Canada. 

The  cost  will  be  nominal.  Please  forward 
'a  cheque  for  $2,500  and  there  will  be  in 
addition  the  usual  management  charges. 

Yours  sincerely. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breilhaupt  (Kitchener):  Is  that 
just  for  the  letter? 

Mr.  Deans:  That  is  an  expensive  letter. 

Mr.  Shulman:  That  is  for  setting  up  the 
corporation.  The  $2,500  is  for  setting  up  the 
corporation  and  for  doing  the  other  various 
researches  that  are  necessary. 

Mr.  Deans:  What  does  the  minister  say  to 
that? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sorry  the 
Treasurer  has  left  because  he  is  the  man  who 
brought  this  bill  in.  Over  the  phone  the 
lawyer  made  one  other  comment  to  me  and 
I  hate  to  pass  this  on,  but  in  this  small  body 
I  am  sure  it  wouldn't  be  reported.  He  said, 
"Having  read  the  bill  it  was  my  impression 
it  was  drawn  up  by  someone's  junior  although, 
on  second  thought,  it  might  have  been  drawn 
up  by  one  of  the  lawyers  in  the  Attorney 
General's  department.  Perhaps  that  is  the  ex- 
planation." 

I  know  that  is  not  the  explanation.  The 
explanation  is  quite  different.  I  will  come  to 
the  explanation  shortly  but  first  of  all,  before 
we  le^ve  that  aspect  of  it,  I  want  to  come  to 
the  other  half.  The  minister  says  he  doesn't 
want  equity  to  come  in  but  he  does  want 
debt.  He  wants  the  mortgage  money.  In  fact, 
he  needs  the  mortgage  money  but  what  every- 
body forgot  when  mey  set  up  this  bill— and 
it  is  so  simple  that  it  boggles  my  mind  that 
they  forgot  it— is  no  more  mortgage  money 
can  come  in  because  they  can  never  foreclose. 
Who  is  going  to  put  up  mortgage  money 
where  if  he  has  to  foreclose,  if  the  payments 
are  not  kept  up,  he  suddenly  has  a  20  per 
cent  tax  put  upon  him?  In  order  to  do  that, 
if  the  minister  really  wants  to  put  on  the  20 
per  cent  tax,  if  he  really  wants  to  run  the 


risk  of  having  this  happen,  he  has  to  ndte 
the  interest  rates  at  least  two  or  diree  per 
cent  a  year. 

Let's  suppose  the  minister  is  gping  to  bring 
in  an  amendment  saying  foreclcsuret  woo^ 
be  covered.  He  has  to  do  that  or  the  there  H 
not  going  to  be  any  more  mortgi^  money. 
It  is  nnisned;  dried  up. 

Hon.   A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 

Did  the  member  read  the  bottom? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Yes,  I  read  the  bottom.  If  tbe 
minister  brings  in  an  amendment  to  that,  say- 
ing foreclosures  will  be  allowed  or  eacempdons 
can  be  allowed,  suddenly  we  have  a  hole  so 
big  one  can  drive  a  truck  throu^  because 
when  equity  wants  to  come  in,  it  doesn't  come 
in  as  owners;  it  comes  in  as  mortgagors.  So 
we  are  had  if  we  do  and  we  are  nad  if  we 
don't.  It  is  just  an  impossible  situation. 

In  actual  fact,  he  doesn't  have  to  worry 
because,  although  he  may  only  be  aware  of 
one  company  involved,  every  foreign  mort- 
gage company  has  stopped  lending  in  Ontario. 
They  stopped  last  weelc  and  if  one  goes  out 
and  tries  to  get  a  mortgage  today  from  any 
of  them,  one  can't  get  it.  All  tne  minister 
has  to  do  is  get  on  the  phone  and  he  will 
find  that  out. 

The  member  for  York-Forest  Hill  is  per- 
fectly right;  they  are  suflBciently  upset  about 
the  implications  and  lack  of  thought  in  the 
bill  that  there  isn't  mortgage  money  available. 
In  fact,  it  has  gone  a  little  further.  All  real 
estate  transactions,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
have  stopped.  There  is  a  sudden  lull;  where 
everything  was  rushing  through,  now  every- 
thing has  stopped  because  nobody  knows 
what  is  going  to  happen.  They  know  die  bUl 
can't  live  as  it  is.  It  has  to  be  radically 
changed.  But  can  it  be  dianged  sufficiently 
to  alrow  these  various  inequities  to  be  ironed 
out  and  still  have  any  of  the  original  effects 
the  minister  intended?  I  doubt  it.  So  do  Ae 
lawyers;  so  do  the  mortgage  companies. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  They 
think  the  government  is  a  bunch  of  amateurs. 

Mr.  Shulman:  They  are  not  amateurs.  I 
can  explain  what  happened. 

Mr.  Givens:  But  he  used  to  close  so  many 
deals  himself. 

Mr.  Shulman:  He  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  bill;  it  was  the  good  old  Treasurer.  The 
Treasurer  said  one  day,  "We've  got  to  have  a 
great  budget  here  and  what  are  we  going 
to  put  in  it?  We  really  haven't  got  mudi 
to  put  in  the  budget.  What  would  be  great 


1212. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


would  be  a  land  transfer  tax."  He  said  to 
the  people  in  his  department— and  where  he 
made  his  mistake  was  he  didn't  give  them 
enough  time— "I  want  a  50  per  cent  land 
transfer  tax."  That  was  turned  down  by  the 
cabinet,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  cabinet  refused 
that.  He  went  back  and  said,  "How  about 
a  20  per  cent  land  transfer  tax?" 

The  cabinet  bought  it  but  they  didn't  leave 
enough  time  for  the  people  in  his  depart- 
ment to  draw  up  the  bill;  it  was  drawn  up 
hastily.  They  had  about  2%  to  three  days  to 
do  it  and  they  didn't  have  time  to  think 
through  the  implications.  The  lawyers  made 
the  mistake  but  I  can't  blame  them  because 
the  government  didn't  give  them  enough 
time.  That  is  purely  and  simply  the  answer. 

I;  don't  want  to  belabour  the  point.  The 
bill  is  an  abomination.  It  is  going  to  force 
up  the  price  of  land.  It  is  going  to  force  up 
the  price  of  mortgagiiig.  It  is  going  to  force 
up  the  price  of  real  estate.  It  is  not  going 
to  do  the  things  which  the  minister  wants 
it  to  do,  which  is  keep  out  foreign  owner- 
ship. In  the  odd  case  of  small  people,  the 
guy  who  is  buying  a  cottage  or  something, 
he  will  come  in  and  buy  his  little  piece  of 
land  and  pay  the  20  per  cent  transfer  tax; 
but  he  is  just  going  to  add  that  on  when 
he  resells  it.  The  minister  is  going  to  force 
up   the  price  of  little  housing,   too. 

The  bill  is  such  a  mistake  that  I  have  one 
piece  of  advice  to  offer  the  minister— with- 
draw the  bill;  take  it  back.  We  agree  with 
the  intention  behind  it;  we  know  he  was 
trying  to  do  the  right  tiling  but  it  was  just 
badly  thought  out;  perhaps  I  should  say  it 
was  not  thought  out.  I  offer  the  minister 
as  a  friendly  suggestion— and  I  really  mean 
it  this  way— the  bill  won't  work. 

If  he  lets  it  go  through  over  his  name, 
six  roonths  from  now  he  is  going  to  cry 
"uncle"  and  he  is  going  to  wish  he  had 
never  heard  of  this  bill. 

The  price  of  land,  the  price  of  real  estate 
in  this  province  is  going  to  be  up  by  at 
least  20  to  25  per  cent  within  that  time. 
The  foreign  money  will  come  in  as  before 
except  it  won't  be  coming  in  as  debt  which 
is  how  he  needs  it;  the  price  of  mortgages 
will  be  15  per  cent  in  this  province.  He  can 
come  back  and  laugh  at  me  if  I  am  wrong. 
If  he  puts  this  bill  through,  by  Christmas 
we  will  have  15  per  cent  first  mortgages  in 
this  province  because  there  just  isn't  enough 
Canadian  money  to  supply  the  mortgages 
and  we  are  not  going  to  get  the  foreign 
money  any  more.  The  minister  has  scared  the 
hell  out  of  them. 


Mr.  Speaker,  I  won't  belabour  this  any 
further.  I  can  only  say  that  amendments  will 
not  save  this  bill;  the  bill  is  going  to  pro- 
duce exactly  the  opposite  of  what  the  min- 
ister intended.  I  very  strongly  recommend 
to  him,  as  a  friend  of  the  government,  that 
he  repent  and  withdraw  and  bring  it  back 
in  a  more  acceptable  form. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Who  is  the  friend? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Rainy 
River. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  It  is  with  somewhat  mixed 
feelings  that  I  rise  to  take  part  in  this  de- 
bate. It  is  always  a  problem  if  one  is  not 
the  first  or  third  or  fourth  speaker  on  these 
matters,  because  most  of  those  great  ideas 
one  has  had  have  been  pretty  well  covered 
by  other  speakers. 

First  of  all,  I  would  continue  saying  as  my 
colleagues  have  and  the  NDP  have,  the  bill 
will    not    work.    It    is    too    flawed,    has    too  < 

many    loopholes    and,    really,    as    has    been  j 

pointed  out  on  occasions  before,  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  bill  in  itself  is  flawed.  We  have 
yet  to  hear  really  what  the  principle  of  the 
bill  is,  what  it  really  intends  to  do. 

If  it  intends  to  cut  oflF  equity  investment 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario  obviously  it 
doesn't  do  that.  All  it  does  is  make  the  cost 
of  doing  business  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  '', 

20  per  cent  more  expensive.  If  that  was  the 
reason,  obviously  it  is  not  going  to  work.  ; 

If,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  principle  of  the  bill 
was  to  improve  the  amount  of  housing  on 
the  market  in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  ob- 
viously   it   is    not   going   to   do   that   either. 

What   then   is   the   principle   of   the   bill?         i 
The   member   for   High   Park   has    probably 
given  as  logical   an  explanation  as  to  what 
has   happened   as   anyone   else.   The   cabinet 
decided  in  their  wisdom  that  they  had  to  do         i 
something.    The    Minister    of    Housing    (Mr.         | 
Handleman)     was     making     great     speeches         ] 
aroimd  the  province  that  he  was  going  to  do 
something    about    speculators,    and    so    they 
came   up  almost   overnight   with   some   kind         ■ 
of  policy  to  try  to  combat  this  situation  and 
a  policy  somehow  to  control  it. 

It's  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  Treas-         j 
urer,  whose  last  budget  perhaps  was  supposed         \ 
to  be  his  monument,  is  having  problems  with 
this  budget.  You  will  recall  last  year  one  of 
the   principal    items   that   the   Treasurer  put         | 
forward  for  the  general  benefit  of  the  people         t 
of  the  Province  of  Ontario  was  an  increase 
in  the   sales   tax  with  an   added  seven  per        \ 
cent  new  tax  on  home  heating  oil  and  fuel.         j 


APRIL  22.  1974 


1213 


The  Treasurer  was  forced  to  retreat  on  that. 
I  would  suggest  that  if  he  and  his  colleagues, 
particularly  the  Minister  of  Revenue,  will 
give  this  bill  a  sober  second  look,  they  will 
take  it  back  and  bring  in  a  new  bill  which 
will  not  confuse  and  dismay  not  only  people 
outside  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  but  cer- 
tainly Ontario  residents  themselves. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it's  a  continuation  really  of 
the  government's  programme  to  govern  by 
headline.  If  you  talk  to  a  lot  of  ordinary 
citizens  who  would  not  ordinarily  deal  in 
these  kinds  of  matters,  they  will  say  the 
government  is  doing  great  things;  but  it's  a 
farce  and  a  sham  and  it's  hypocritical  to  pro- 
ceed with  this  bill  as  it  is  now. 

My  OUT!  political  philosophy  is  that  we 
should  not  allow  Ontario  land  to  be  sold  to 
non-residents.  I  said  that  over  the  years.  I 
was  one  of  those  who  pushed  originally  for 
the  cutting  oflF  of  recreation  land  to  non- 
residents. I  might  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I 
come  from  an  area  that  to  a  great  extent  in 
some  particular  cases  depends  a  great  deal 
on  American  investment  in  Ontario  recrea- 
tion land.  Some  of  the  small  communities  in 
my  riding  and  in  other  areas  of  northern 
Ontario  depend  almost  entirely  on  Americans 
coming  up  to  their  summer  homes  or  buying 
summer  homes  in  that  part  of  the  world  and 
having  them  built  and  spending  money  on 
supplies  and  so  on.  I  might  just  add  as  an 
I  aside  that  there's  another  interesting  phe- 
I  nomenon  going  on  in  that  we  are  now  attract- 
ing German  people  in  particular.  Even  some 
Japanese  have  been  showing  interest  in  our 

»area. 
I  would  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
I  don't  want  to  get  into  a  long  philosophical 
debate  about  the  ownership  of  land,  unless 
of  course  you  insist,  that  land  is  the  most 
precious  heritage  we  have.  What  gives  value 
to  that  land  is  the  character  of  the  people 
who  inhabit  it  and  surroimd  it  and  the  sta- 
bility of  the  governmental  institutions  which 
give  stability  also  to  the  ownership  of  that 
land.  So  I  would  say  that  I  am  categorically 
against  the  sale  of  land  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  to  non-residents. 

I  might  also  add,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  have 
a  personal  problem  in  this  regard.  A  few 
years  ago,  two  friends  of  mine  and  myself 
purchased  a  defunct  mining  town  complete 
with  houses,  sewer  and  water,  hydro,  roads 
and  so  on.  We  bought  that  with  the  intention 
of  perhaps  developing  it  but  hopefully  selling 
that  property,  perhaps  subdividing  it  ana, 
quite  frankly,  making  a  profit.  In  those  days 
there  was  nothing  wrong  with  that  concept, 
and  I  suppose  there  is  really  nothing  wrong 


with  it  these  days  either.  We  caa't  dMuige 
the  rules  of  the  game  that  itat 

My  friends  and  I  have  been  to  the  federtl 
government  to  interest  them  in  this  property. 
They  have  not  been  interested.  We  have 
been  to  the  Ontario  government  and  offered  to 
sell  this  property  to  them  and  thev  have 
shown  no  interest.  We  have  advertised  acrosi 
Canada  from  Vancouver  to  Halifax,  including 
Toronto  amongst  other  places,  and  Calgary, 
Winnipeg  and  so  on,  to  sell  this  partiailar 
piece  of  property  to  Canadians  because  we 
wanted  this  property  to  remain  in  Canadian 
hands.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  bought  it  wi& 
that  aspect  in  mind  because  we  understood 
some  Americans  were  trying  to  buy;  it- and 
w©  wanted  to  retain  this  piece  of;  property^ 
which  is  a  particularly  beautiful  recreatian 
spot,  in  Canadian  hands. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Very,  very  high-minded. 

Mr.  Reid:  Right.  Unfortunately,  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  found  that  there  weren't  any 
Canadians  interested.  Neither  the  fedeial  nor 
the  provincial  government  nor  anyone 
seriously  answered  any  of  the  ads  that  we 
placed  in  the  papers  across  Canada.  The  only 
interest  that  was  shown  was  by  some  people 
from  the  United  States  who  had  heard  about 
the  property  and  who  came  up  to  see  it. 

So,  I  have  a  personal  conflict  there,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  this  particidar  matter  could  put 
me  in  severe  financial  straits.  I  think  this  is 
something  that  the  Legislature  should  also 
keep  in  mind,  that  these  are  some  of  die  side 
effects  that  will  happen.  But  I  continue  to 
state,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  believe  that  land 
should  be  sold  to  non-residents  of  Canada  or 
the  Province  of  Ontario. 

'Unfortunately,  because  of  market  condi- 
tions, some  people  are  going  to  be  in  a  posi- 
tion of  being  forced  to  oo  so  imless  diis 
government  ^es  action  to  outlaw  the  orac- 
tioe  altogether,  which  I  believe  it  shoula  do. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  think  also  that  the 
government  should  set  up  a  system  whereby 
it  will  be,  if  we  want  to  put  it  that  way,  a 
buyer  of  last  resort  of  not  only  recreation 
land,  but  farmland  and  commercial  land. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixont  And  nxinlng  towns. 

Mr.  Reid:  And  defunct  mining  towns  par- 
ticularly,  perhaps. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  concerned  me  somewhat 
when  I  first  saw  this  bill  to  see  what  exactly 
the  effects  of  it  would  be.  As  I've  said,  all  it 
will  do  is  increase  the  cost  of  doing  business 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario  and  add  to  our 


1214 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


already  high  inflation  rate.  Therefore,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  aspect  in  itself  is  enough  to 
have  the  government  withdraw  the  bill,  re- 
think its  position  and  bring  in  a  bill  which, 
in  fact,  will  control  the  situation. 

I  give  you  another  example  that  happened 
within  my  riding  just  wiUiin  the  past  few 
months,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  had  a  farmer  come 
in  to  see  me,  frustrated,  upset  and  facing  a 
very  serious  economic  crisis.  For  some  years 
he  had  used  or  rented  the  adjoining  farm  from 
a  person  who  lived  in  Manitoba.  He  used  to 
run  his  cattle  there  and  the  cattle  used  that 
farm  for  pasture  land.  Not  to  go  into  all 
the  circumstances  of  the  matter,  Mr.  Speaker, 
v/hsit  happened  just  recently  was  that  the 
gendeman  from  Manitoba,  and  perhaps  he 
had  good  reason— I  do  not  know— sold  to  an 
American  the  farm  that  he  had  next  door  to 
the  farmer  in  my  riding.  The  American,  as 
far  ^  I  know,  has  no  plans  to  use  that  land 
other  than  to  sit  on  it  and  use  it  pethaps  as  a 
speculation  in  that  he  hopes  he'll  be  able  to 
make  a  profit  in  years  to  come. 

What  has  happened  in  this  particular  small 
instance,  and  one  that's  probably  very  micro- 
scopic in  the  economic  life  of  the  Province 
of  Ontario,  is  the  fact  that  a  Canadian  farmer, 
an  Ontario  farmer,  was  not  able  to  purchase 
that  land.  He  is  now  deprived  of  the  use  of 
that  land  perhaps.  It  is  now  owned  and  con- 
trolled, which  is  probably  as  important,  out- 
side the  Province  of  Ontario  and  outside 
Canada.  These  are  serious  matters  that  must 
be  dealt  with  and  yet  are  not  being  dealt 
with  in  this  bill. 

As  also  has  been  pointed  out,  talking  to 
this  particular  minister— whose  only  function 
really  as  a  minister  is  to  administer  his  de- 
partment and  not  set  policy— is  perhaps  a 
waste  of  time.  I  would  have  thought  that  we 
could  have  heard  the  Treasurer  speak  on  these 
matters. 

It's  interesting  to  note,  Mr.  S'peaker,  from 
the  report  of  the  select  committee  on  eco- 
nomic and  cultural  nationalism,  particularly 
in.  regard  to  foreign  ownership  of  Ontario 
real  estate,  that  me  matter  was  debated 
thwoughly,  and  that  they  did  have  the  facts 
and  figures  when  they  recommended  in  their 

Trt  that  the  sale  of  foreign  lands  be  cut 
Having  gone  through  the  report  to  re- 
fresh my  memory,  as  I  recall  it,  the  report 
indicated  that  there  was  a  net  inflow  of 
capital  or  equity  investment  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario,  in  relation  to  commercial  land  in 
particular,  of  some  $100  million.  The  figures 
that  were  extrapolated  from  that  indicated 
that  that  probably  meant  a  gross  investment 
of  close  to  $1  billion. 


In  other  words,  another  $900  million  or  so 
was  raised  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  or 
in  Canada,  or  was  taken  back  by  way  of 
mortgage.  The  net  investment  in  dollar 
terms  in  any  given  year,  according  to  the 
committee  in  any  case,  was  something  like 
$100  million.  The  rest  was  raised  primarily 
in  Canada,  as  I  say,  by  way  of  mortgage, 
bank  loan  or  so  on. 

Does  that  mean,  if  that  equity  investment 
was  wiped  out,  by  not  allowing  foreign 
ownership  of  land,  that  we  woidd  in  fact 
lose  that  investment?  I  think  not,  and  the 
committee,  which  had  a  majority  of  Con- 
servatives who  signed  this  report  and  sup- 
posedly agreed  with  the  recommendations, 
obviously  felt  the  same  way. 

You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  diere  was  a  time 
in  Canadian  history  when  equity  investment 
was  important  in  our  comnwrcial  operations, 
in  our  industries  and  in  our  natural  resource  i 
extraction.  It  was  important  not  only  for  \ 
the  dollars  it  brought  in,  but  the  expertise 
that  it  brought  with  it.  In  a  lot  of  cases  we 
needed  the  knowledge  of  foreign  investors 
in  the  way  to  develop  our  industries  and  our 
natural  resources. 

I  would  suggest  to  you  most  respectfully, 
sir,  that  those  days  are  now  gone,  and  that 
to  a  large  extent  in  the  world  today  Canada 
is  in  fact  exporting  the  expertise,  the  en- 
trepreneurship  and  the  managerial  ability 
that  we  imported  when  we  originally  im- 
ported the  equity  investment  in  dollar  terms 
into  Canada. 

I  would  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  bill       j 
is  not  only  flawed,  it  is  wrong  in  principle. 
The  principle  should  be  no  foreign  owner- 
ship  of  land  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.   I       ] 
would    suggest   that   the   bill   is   only   going       I 
to  add  to  inflationary  pressures  in  the  prov- 
ince by  some  20  per  cent— a  larger  increase 
than    we    have    seen— in    the   price   of   food 
and  other  goods  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

I   would   suggest  most  strongly  that  the 
minister   take  the  bill  back   to  cabinet  and 
bring  in  a  bill  that  will  deal  with  and  con-       | 
trol  the  situation.  ' 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
South.  j 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDooald  (York  South):  Mr. 

Speaker,    everything   that   needs   to  be   said  ^ 

about   this   bill  already  has  been  said.   Un-  | 

fortunately  that  doesn't  mean  that  we  cease  - 

talking  about  it,  because  the  government  has  1 

committed    itself   to    it,    and   sometimes    the  j 

process  of  uncommitting  it  takes  a  little  time.  | 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1215 


I  think  what  has  to  be  done  is  to  take  the 
major  points,  which  have  already  been  made, 
and  to  drive  them  home  in  the  hope  that 
perhaps  tibe  minister  will  recognize  the  folly 
of  what  has  been  imposed  upon  him  by  his 
colleague,  the  provincial  Treasurer. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I 
was  listening  to  some  oi  the  observations  of 
my  colleague  from  High  Paric,  a  moment 
ago,  I  was  thinking  that  in  a  strange  way 
this  is  this  year's  energy  tax. 

Last  year  the  energy  tax  was  conceived 
in  the  administrative  portions  of  the  depart- 
ment. It  wasn't  thou^t  through.  Its  political 
consequences  weren't  considered  at  any  great 
length.  It  was  the  kind  of  thing  that  hkd  a 
certain  inexorable  logic  that  fascinated  the 
provincial  Treasurer,  so  he  brought  it  in. 
But  it  exploded  in  his  face,  and  within  one 
week  be  came  back  to  €umounoe  its  with- 
drawal and  told  a  press  conference  that  95 
or  99  per  cent  of  tbe  people  were  opposed 
to  it. 

How  a  minister  could  be  so  insensitive  to 
95  or  99  per  cent  of  the  people  being 
opposed  to  it  and  bring  it  in  in  the  first 
instance  was  always  a  little  bit  puzzling. 

This  bill  really  should  be  withdrawn  too. 
Unfortunately  I  don't  think  it  is  the  kind 
of  thing  that  most  people  are  going  to 
personally  react  to  in  order  to  create  the 
kind  of  public  furore  which  will  residt  in 
its  withdrawal.  But  it  should  be  withdrawn, 
because  it  is  as  misconceived  as  was  the 
energy  tax  last  year.  Apart  from  the  minister, 
the  only  Tory  who  has  spoken  for  it  so  far 
—that  smiling  member  for  Victoria-Halibur- 
ton  (Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson)— was  really  doing 
his  level  best  to  rationalize  the  irreconcilable, 
namely,  the  position  that  he  agreed  with 
in  the  select  committee  on  economic  national- 
ism and  this  bill  and,  hopefully,  saying  that 
there  was  nothing  in  conflict  and  that  the 
government  would  move  some  time  later  to 
implement  the  full  recommendations  of  that 
committee.  I  repeat,  that  was  the  supreme 
rationalization  and  nothing  more. 

What  is  the  purpose  of  this  bill,  Mr. 
Speaker?  It  seems  to  me  one  should  perhaps 
focus  on  that  for  a  moment.  There's  no  doubt 
about  it  that  the  purpose  of  the  bill  was  this 
government's  gesture  to  Canadian  nationalism. 
In  fact,  I  now  recall  during  the  press  brief- 
ings prior  to  the  unveiling  of  the  budget,  and 
in  the  subsequent  meetings  in  which  me  min- 
ister has  had  with  various  representatives  of 
the  business  world  and  the  trade  unions,  that 
he  referred  to  this  bill  as  "our  expression  of 
nationalism."  The  protection  of  Canadian  in- 
terests, the  halting  of  the  foreign  takeover  of 


Canada,  has  now  become  something  which 
people  from  all  parties  support.  All  parties 
have  to  pay  lip-service  to  it  and  this  is  this 
government's  hp-service  to  that  particular 
clause. 

I  was  fascinated  at  the  observation  of  the 
hon.  member  for  Hi^  Park— and  I  suspect 
with  his  capacity  for  getting  inside  informa- 
tion that  he's  conrect-that,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  make  the  thing  logical,  the 
proposal  was  that  the  bill  was  going  to  have 
a  50  per  cent  tax,  but  M^dien  that  went  to  the 
cabinet  it  was  killed;  it  was  brought  back 
with  a  20  per  cent  tax  and  it  was  accepted. 

The  simple  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  if  the 
government's  objective  in  this  bill  is  to  hak 
the  further  acquisition  of  Ontario  lands  by 
foreigners  it  simply  will  not  do  it.  As  has  been 
pointed  out,  I  thinic  in  very  weD  chosen  words, 
almost  a  slogan,  by  my  two  colleagues,  the 
leader  of  the  party  and  the  hon.  member 
for  Wentworth,  the  only  difFerence  is  On- 
tario is  still  up  for  sale  but  now  it's  going  to 
cost  a  little  bit  more. 

So  the  government  has  really  fallen  between 
two  stools.  It  has  set  itself  up  an  objective 
to  halt  this  acquisition  of  land  by  foreigners 
but  it  has  come  in  with  a  procedure  which 
simply  isn't  going  to  achieve  it  at  all.  The  net 
result— and  this  is  what  the  supreme  irony  of 
it  is,  Mr.  Speaker— is  that  in  the  process  it  is, 
as  a  government  posing  as  a  champion  fighting 
against  the  inflation  forces,  going  to  be 
accelerating  those  inflation  forces  by  boosting 
land  costs  all  across  the  Province  of  Ontaria 
That  20  per  cent  on  all  land  that  is  going  to 
be  bought  by  foreigners  will  become  a  built- 
in  figure  adding  to  that  cost  of  land,  and  as 
soon  as  the  government  begins  to  add  it  in 
there  it  will  have  that  competitive  value  that 
will  drive  the  land  up  to  that  level.  So  that, 
while  posing  as  the  champion  erf  anti-inflation, 
the  government  is  accelerating  the  inflation 
forces. 

Again,  just  by  way  of  a  brief  digression, 
the  irony  of  it  is  that  this  bill  and  its 
partner,  the  Land  Speculation  Tax  Act,  are 
again  doing  precisely  tiie  opposite  of  what 
presumably  was  the  government's  objective. 
They  are  going  to  consolidate  the  inflation 
that  has  built  up  in  such  a  scandalom  fashioo 
over  die  last  year  or  so.  They  are  sort  of 
going  to  institutionalize  it.  It  will  now  be- 
come part  of  the  \i^ole  price  structure  of  the 
nation  and,  because  the  Acts  are  themselves 
ineffective,  they  are  going  to  add  to  the  in- 
creased inflation  in  the  instance  of  the  land 
speculation  tax  and,  in  this  instance,  they  are 
going  to  sort  of  nail  on  another  20  per  cent 
by  all  those  purchases  by  foreign  interests. 


1216 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  clearly,  that  in  Itself  is  solid 
evidence  as  to  why  the  bill  should  be  with- 
drawn. However,  what  I  wanted  to  draw 
attention  to  in  the  main  body  of  the  remainder 
of  my  remarks  is  what  exactly  the  goverrmient 
turned  away  from  in  the  report  of  the  select 
committee.  Here  was  a  select  committee  that 
had  12  members  on  it,  eight  of  whom  were 
Conservatives,  and  all  of  them  signed  it,  ad- 
mittedly some  with  varying  degrees  of  reser- 
vations with  regard  to  various  recommenda- 
tions. But,  generally  speaking,  everybody  sup- 
ported the  general  thrust  of  this  bill,  which 
was  to  halt  the  acquisition  of  Ontario  by 
foreigners. 

Let  me,  for  example,  just  put  it  on  the 
record.  It's  been  referred  to,  but  for  those 
who  perhaps  pick  up  their  information  from 
only  the  record  of  Hansard,  I  think  it  is  well 
tliat  some  of  the  recommendations  be  right 
there  so  that  they  can  read  them  and  see 
them  in  their  stark,  unqualified  extent. 

Page  23  of  the  report,  for  example,  dealt 
with  foreign  ownership  of  Ontario  real  estate. 
In  reference  to  ownership  of  land  by  individu- 
als, this  is  what  it  said: 

The  committee  recommends,  subject  to 
recommendation  2,  that  all  future  transfers 
of  legal  or  equitable,  including  leasehold, 
interest  in  real  property  in  Ontario  to  in- 
dividuals, directly  or  indirectly,  be  restrict- 
ed to  Canadian  citizens  and  landed  immi- 
grants resident  in  Canada. 

That's  pretty  solid  and  unqualified.  It  came, 
I  repeat,  as  a  unanimous  report  of  12  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature,  two-thirds  of  whom 
were  Tories.  Why  would  the  government 
bring  in  a  bill  which  so  clearly  does  not  fulfil 
the  recommendations? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Even  the  Minister  of 
Housing  recommended  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Even  the  Minister  of 
Housing  recommended  it.  Mr.  Speaker,  if  you 
want  to  prohibit  the  foreign  takeover  of  lands 
and  you  decide  that  you  are  going  to  use  tax- 
ing as  your  mechanism  for  doing  it,  you  have 
got  to  have  a  tax  which  is  prohibitive.  It  is  as 
simple  as  that.  If  you  want  to  prohibit  it,  you 
have  got  to  have  a  prohibitive  tax.  The  propo- 
sition that  a  20  per  cent  tax  is  going  to  be 
prohibitive  is  only  a  tax  that  is  automatically 
going  to  be  built  into  the  price  of  land  all 
across  the  Province  of  Ontario,  as  I  have 
already  indicated. 

And  so  the  government  backed  oflF,  if  it  is 
correct  that  it  was  considered  at  50  per  cent 
to  l3egin  with.  It  backed  oflF  and  it  went  back 
to  a  20  per  cent  which  is  aborting  the  whole 


objective  and  the  whole  professed  purpose  of 
the  bill.  But  there  was  the  recommendation 
that  it  backed  away  from. 

Let  me  go  on  now  to  point  to  the  nature 
of  the  recommendation  that  was  made  with 
regard  to  corporate  holdings  of  land.  On  page 
37,  there  was  a  conclusion  which  reads  as 
follows:  "Having  regard  to  all  of  the  factors—" 
just  le  me  interject  there,  Mr.  Speaker.  The 
report  carefully  considers  a  lot  of  counter 
arguments,  a  lot  of  consequences  that  might 
be  something  one  should  bear  in  mind.  They 
didn't  simplistically  and  blithely  come  .to  a 
conclusion.  They  considered  all  of  these  con^ 
sequences,  and  then  they  said  in  their  con- 
clusion: 

Having  regard  to  all  of  the  factors,  the 
committee  has  concluded  that  it  would  be 
desirable  for  futiure  acquisitions  of  .land  in 
Ontario  to  be  restricted  to  corporations  sub- 
stantially owned  in  Canada. 

What  does  "substantially  owned  in  Canada" 
mean?  We  find  out  when  we  turn  to  the 
recommendations.  I  will  read  the  first  three  of 
them  without  interruption  so  that  they  can 
stand  there  for  posterity  to  be  reminded  once 
again: 

1.  The  committee  recommends,  subject  to 
recommendation  2,  that  all  future  acquisi- 
tions of  land  in  Ontario,  other  than  by  in- 
dividuals, be  restricted  to  corporations  or 
ventures  not  less  than  75  per  cent  owned 
by  Canadian  citizens  or  landed  immigrants 
resident  in  Canada. 

2.  The  committee  recommends  that  cor- 
porations or  ventures  less  than  75  per  cent 
owned  by  Canadian  citizens  or  resident 
landed  immigrants,  who  can  establish  that 
it  is  bona  fide  in  the  nature  of  their  busi- 
nes  to  acquire  land  on  a  regular  basis  for 
real  estate  development  or  finance  have 
the  option  of  becoming  75  per  cent  owned 
by  Canadian  citizens  or  resident  landed  im- 
migrants as  a  condition  of  being  entitled  to 
continue  to  acquire  land  diuring  the  period 
required  to  obtain  a  fair  price  for  the  cor- 
poration shares  on  the  Canadian  market. 

3.  The  committee  recommends  that  cor- 
porations or  ventures  less  than  75  per  cent 
owned  by  Canadian  citizens  or  resident 
landed  immigrants  be  entitled  to  obtain 
leasehold  interest  in  land  in  Ontario  on 
terms  appropriate  to  their  conmiercial 
needs. 

What  that  means,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  simple  and 
unqualified.  The  committee  didn't  horse 
around.  It  didn't  play  games.  It  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  this  government  was  worried 
about  the  foreign  takeover  of  Canada  insofar 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1817 


as  Ontario,  its  responsibility,  is  concerned  and 
it  came  to  a  conclusion  that  it  wasn't  desir- 
able. So  it  makes  a  specific,  unqualified  pro- 
posal. And  what  does  the  government  do 
about  it?  It  waters  down  the  proposal  and 
comes  in  with  a  sort  of  a  panty-waist  alterna- 
tive that  simply  isn't  going  to  achieve  the 
objective  at  all— not  at  all. 

How  might  they  achieve  this,  Mr.  Speaker? 
Before  I  leave  this  report,  I  diink  it  would 
be  interesting  to  draw  attention  to  something 
that  again  was  discussed  a  number  of  times 
in  the  post-budget  debates  with  various 
people.  On  page  24  of  the  report  in  the 
recommendations,  there  is  one  that  I  suggest 
that  the  minister  should  take  a  look  at,  if 
indeed  it  is  the  government's  intention  to  do 
something  about  the  extensive  foreign  hold- 
ings in  Ontario  at  the  moment  as  well  as 
dissuade  those  foreigners  who  wish  to  con- 
tinue to  buy  up. 

Recommendation  5  to  be  found  on  page  24 
says  as  follows: 

The  committee  recommends  that  munic- 
ipalities in  Ontario  be  empowered  to  levy 
a  surcharge  of  up  to  50  per  cent  of  the 
real  property  tax  otherwise  applicable  in 
respect  of  land  ownership  in  Ontario  not 
ordinarily  resident  in  Canada. 

The  immediate  reaction,  like  the  reaction, 
for  example,  of  the  government  when  it 
found  the  proposal  was  going  to  be  for  a 
50  per  cent  land  transfer  tax  is,  "How  hor- 
rible. It's  confiscatory.  It's  not  fair."  But  one 
can't  have  it  both  ways.  If  the  government 
wants  to  prohibit,  it  must  have  a  prohibitive 
tax,  otherwise  it  is  not  prohibiting. 


Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  have  no  right  to  do 


it. 


Mr.  MacDonald:  Pardon? 

Hon.  "Mr.  Meen:  We  have  to  have  the 
constitutional  capacity  to  do  it 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  does  he  mean  by 
the  constitutional  capacity? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  committee  decided 
the  government  did  have  it. 

Mr.   MacDonald:   The  conunittee  decided 
the  government  had  it  and  as  anybody- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Is  the  minister  suggesting, 
for  example,  that  the  municipality  wouldnt 
have  the  right  to  put  a  50  per  cent  surcharge 
on  any  land  it  chose? 


Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm  suggest- 
ing that  in  circumstances  in  which  it  became 
confiscatory  when  we  are  dealing  with  non- 
residents and  with  aliens,  we  are  into  an 
area  which  is  grey.  Counsel  to  that  select 
committee  as  well  as  the  best  legal  advice 
we  have  indicate  it  is  dubious  whether  that's 
within  the  constitutional  competence  of  the 
provinces. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  all  Fve  got 
to  say  to  the  minister  who,  for  better  or  Tor 
worse,  is  now  the  minister  on  whom  this  bill 
is  pinned,  is  that  he  has  joined  the  flim-flam 
artists  deluxe.  He  is  posing;  he  is  presenting 
this  bill  as  a  bill  to  do  something  respecting 
the  integrity  of  Canadian  nation^ism;  to  do 
something  to  halt  the  takeover  of  lands  by 
foreigners  and  presimiably  to  regain  it  Now, 
in  effect,  he  is  saying  that  to  do  it  and  do  it 
eflFectively  so  that  his  objective  would  really 
be  achieved  is  unconstitutional. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen.  No.  On  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What?  Let's  clarify  this. 
I  don't  object;  he  has  the  floor, 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  That  is  not  what  I  am 
saying.  I'm  saying  if  we  get  into  a  confisca- 
tory nature  thats  another  matter.  We  do 
have  the  capacity  to  tax  real  estate  and  that's 
the  approach  we  are  taking.  HI  have  more 
to  say  about  that  in  my  reply. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  will  just  say  to  him 
that  the  conmiittee  considered  it;  he  will 
have  his  chance  later.  I  appreciate  that. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  He's  as 
pusillanimous  as  they  come. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I'm  looking  forward  to 
that 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  sought  the  clarification 
because  I  think  it  is  well  to  see  the  further 
inconsistencies  in  the  government's  position. 
To  resort  to  the  areument  that  to  put  on  ft 
tax  which  would  be  so  prohibitive  as  to 
achieve  the  professed  objective  of  the  bill  Is 
unconstitutional  just  shows  that  his  whole 
position  is  so  riddled  with  inconsistencies  that 
it's  untenable.  He  should  withdraw. 

The  point  I  wanted  to  make  is  that  if  the 
government  was  really  interested,  for  ex- 
ample, in  contributing  to  a  more  effective 
housing  policy— which,  presimiably,  is  one  of 
the  objectives  of  these  land  speculation  bflk 
and  the  land  transfer  tax  and  everything  else 
—here  is  a  way  in  whidi  it  could  have 
achieved  its  objective  for  this  bill,  by  putting 


1218 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


on  at  least  a  50  per  cent  surcharge  on  the 
property  tax.  Then  we  would  see  that  land 
would  be  returned  to  Canadians  in  a  hurry 
and  it  wouldn't  be  bought  up  by  others.  Pre- 
sumably this  is  what  it  is  seeking  to  do. 

At  the  same  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  gov- 
ernment would  provide  the  municipalities 
with  the  moneys  they  need  to  service  land  so 
they  could  get  more  serviced  lots  and  flood 
the  market  with  available  land  for  the  con- 
struction of  homes.  This  would  do  something 
to  take  the  upward  pressure  oflF  the  market. 
That,  again,  I  assume,  is  the  overall  hope  of 
the  government.  But  it  is  not  doing  it. 

'In  fact,  all  throughout,  what  the  minister 
has  done  is  walk  away  from  firm,  clear  and 
valid  recommendations  and  clear  techniques 
for  achieving  those  reconunendations.  He  has 
come  in  with  something  which,  as  it  has  been 
pointed  out  to  him  many  times  already,  simply 
will  not  work, 

I  suggest  to  the  minister  that  even  if  this 
isn't  the  kind  of  bill  which  will  produce  a 
pubhc  furore  reminiscent  of  the  energy  tax 
last  year,  he  should  at  least  be  prescient 
enough  to  look  ahead  and  to  recognize  the 
consequences  a  few  months  from  now  and  try 
to  persuade  his  colleagues  to  withdraw  it.  If 
we  are  not  going  to  get  the  public  furore  out- 
side, let's  have  some  enlightenment  and 
common  sense  in  here  so  that  he  will  take 
the  initiative  himself. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  One  of  the  interesting 
things  about  the  debate  on  this  bill  and  the 
government's  statement  with  reference  to  it, 
is  that  all  three  parties  are  agreed  that  the 
ability  of  foreigners  or  non-residents  to  own 
property  here  should  not  just  be  controlled 
but  should  be  removed. 

'The  government  has  chosen— and  the  min- 
ister has  reinforced  its  attitude  through  his 
interjections— to  use  the  imdoubted  powers  of 
the  taxation  on  property  to  impose  what, 
according  to  government  statements,  is  sup- 

Ced  to  restrict  and  in  fact  stop  any  further 
3ign  buying  into  the  Canadian  real  estate 
market. 

This  is,  of  course,  a  tremendous  break- 
through in  the  attitude  of  the  government.  I 
can  well  recall  putting  this  to  the  former 
Premier,  Mr.  Robarts,  and  his  response  was, 
"Well,  surely  you  should  have  the  ri^t  to  buy 
property  in  Florida  if  you  want.  Therefore, 
we  cannot  interfere  with  the  right  of  Amer- 
icans or  any  other  foreigners  to  buy  property 
here." 


Fortunately,  that  attitude  has  been  lost  by 
the  governing  party  and  the  attitude  ex- 
pressed in  the  statement  associated  with  this 
bill  is  directed  toward  not  just  controlling 
foreign  ownership  but  stopping  it. 

The  second  thing  I  want  to  say  in  this  re- 
gard, Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  I  agree  with  the 
other  speakers  who  say  that  the  government 
did  have  access  to  the  legislative  alternative 
of  prohibition— not  using  the  tax  base,  but 
simply  prohibiting  non-residents  from  buying 
ana  acquiring  tide  to  any  further  properties 
here. 

I,  too,  have  examined  carefully  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  select  committee  on  eco- 
nomic and  cultural  nationalism.  The  member 
for  Nipissing  (Mr.  R.  S.  Smith)  and  the 
member  for  York  Centre  (Mr.  Deacon)  were 
active  members  of  that  committee  and  had  a 
role  to  play  in  the  wording,  I  understand,  of 
the  recommendations  that  eventually  were 
accepted  unanimously  by  the  committee. 

Now  it  may  be  the  ministry's  wisdom  that 
a  prohibition  by  law  would  not  stand  up  in 
court,  but  surely  that  should  have  been  the 
approach  to  explain  the  attitude  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  to  put  it  forward  sbrongly-and 
let  the  government  of  Canada  protest  if  it  so 
chose.  Obviously,  it  would  then  be  tested  in 
the  courts. 

In  my  view,  the  government  of  Canada 
would  not  protest.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
should  move  with  similar  ledslation  at  the 
federal  level,  or  at  least  co-ordinate  the  prov- 
inces in  bringing  forward  this.,  type  of 
legislation^ 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  remember  you  paying  care- 
ful attention  to  my  remarks  in  reply  to  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne.  You  may  Recall  that 
on  that  occasion  I  put  forward  statistics  asso- 
ciated with  the  huge  increase  in  foreign  own- 
ership, not  of  recreation  land  and  fiirmland, 
but  of  commercial  properties  between  Oshawa 
and  Burlington  and  particularly  in  the  jnetro- 
politan  area. 

The  hst  could  have  gone  on  endlessly- 
some  of  the  people  listening  to  my  speech 
thought  that  it  was  endless  in  that  regard— 
and  it  is  frightening  that  foreign  capital  is 
moving  into  Canada  because  tiiiey  consider 
this  a  safe  place  for  investment.  They  are  not 
prepared  to  put  it  into  a  banana  republic  or 
perhaps  another  area  of  the  world  where  their 
moneys  and  their  investments  will  be  invested 
at  some  risk.  Because  of  the  sureness  of  in- 
vestment here,  those  people  are  prepared  to 
accept  a  relatively  low  rate  of  return. 

For  that  reason,  the  20  per  cent  imposition 
that  would  be  brought  forward  under  Bill  26 


APRIL  22.  1974 


1219 


is  not  going  to  be  the  deterrent  that  the 
minister  envisages.  I  believe  it  was  the  min* 
ister  who  said,  "If  20  per  cent  isn't  enoueh. 
we  will  double  it  or  make  it  as  high  as  it  has 
to  be." 

If  the  principle  that  the  government  wants 
to  put  forward  is  to  prohibit  the  ownership  of 
land  in  this  province  by  non-residents,  then 
this  bill  does  not  express  it.  In  fact,  it  puts 
on  a  20  per  cent  tax,  which  for  most  people 
might  be  prohibitive  but  which  in  the  circum- 
stances of  international  investment  in  real 
property  is  anything  but  prohibitive. 

In  the  present  state  of  the  marfcet  the  tax 
can  readilv  be  passed  on,  and  for  the  investors 
who  are  looking  for  something  in  which  to 
put  their  huge  pools  of  international  capital, 
this  20  per  cent  will  not  be  a  deterrent,  and 
this  has  been  put  before  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
quite  specifically. 

In  reference  to  the  commercial  properties, 
I  didn't  for  a  moment  want  to  say  that  in 
my  view  recreation  and  agricultural  properties 
are  not  of  equally  great  importance.  On 
previous  occasions,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  and  my 
colleagues  and  others  have  brought  to  your 
attention  the  frightening  rate  at  which  our 
best  recreational  properties  are  being  lost  to 
foreign  sale. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  noticed  the  Premier's 
special  assistant,  the  former  Attorney  Gen- 
eral (Mr.  Bales),  under  the  gallery  just  a 
few  moments  ago,  and  I  specifically  remem- 
ber discussing  in  this  Legislature  a  strip  of 
some  of  the  finest  recreational  property  north 
of  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  several  miles  of  lafcefront, 
in  which  the  only  Canadian  owner  at  that 
time  was  the  then  Attorney  General  himself. 
He  may  even— since  he's  so  busy  in  Toronto- 
have  already  passed  that  property  on  to  some 
other  owner. 

There  is  no  doubt,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  when 
it  comes  to  agricultural  property,  you  being 
a  farmer  yourself  and  interested  in  the  value 
of  agricultural  land,  are  as  aware  as  I  am  that 
is  is  the  uimatural  and  dislocating  pressures 
of  foreign  capital  brought  into  the  Province 
of  Ontario  for  the  express  purpose  of  buying 
properties  at  any  price— the  price  has  no 
significance  whatsoever— as  long  as  the  prop- 
erty can  be  acquired;  and  this  20  per  cent 
tax  is  not  in  any  way  going  to  restrict  that 
particular  matter. 

Now,  I  will  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
if  the  government  in  principle  is  saying  that 
sale  of  our  properties  to  foreign  interests,  at 
least  to  non-residents,  must  be  stopped,  then 
of  course  the  principle  of  the  bill  is  one  that 
is  supportable.  But,  obviously,  the  20  per 
cent  tax  does  not  achieve  that. 


We  on  this  side  support  the 
tions  made  by  the  select  committee,  which 
were  clear  and  entered  into  after  careful 
research  and  apparently  after  extensive  debate 
among  the  members  of  the  committee.  We 
feel  that  it  is  a  sham  that  the  Minister  of 
Revenue,  or  those  who  make  the  financial 
policy  were  not  persuaded  to  accept  thoae 
recommendations. 

If  it  had  to  be  tested  in  court,  so  be  it; 
but  surely  a  politician  looking  at  the  chances 
of  such  a  test  would  see  that  it  would  not  be 
contested  by  the  government  of  Canada  and 
that  surely  it  is  a  provincial  right  so  to 
legislate. 

It  is  regrettable  that  Bill  26  does  not,  in 
fact,  state  the  principle  that  should  be  sup- 
ported by  all  three  parties;  that,  in  fact,  it 
could  have  been  a  breakthrough  of  tre- 
mendous proportions. 

The  bill  in  its  present  form  cannot  bo 
supported  and  we  would  hope  that  the  min- 
ister is  not  only  prepared  to  bring  forward 
some  amendments,  as  he  has  indicated  that 
he  would  in  this  bill,  but  to  put  in  the  place 
of  the  operative  clause  the  principle  that,  in 
fact,  our  property  can  no  longer  be  pur- 
chased by  non-residents. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very  sur- 
prised in  this  debate  that  we  haven't  heard 
a  word  from  any  of  the  Conservative  mem- 
bers—apart from  the  member  for  Victoria- 
Haliburton,  who  spoke  on  Friday.  I  think  it 
sx>eaks  badly  for  the  Conservatives  and  badly 
for  this  measure  that  there  is  not  a  sin^e 
person,  apart  from  the  one  I  have  mentioned, 
who  is  willing  to  defend  the  bill  except  the 
minister. 

Mr.    MacDonald:    And    he    did    it    pietty 

weakly   with   tongue   in  cheek. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right;  and  the  minister 
is  just  simply  a  technician  in  these  aflFairs.  It 
reminds  me  of  the  debates  that  I  had  with 
the  minister  over  regional  government  bills 
when  he  was  an  assistant  to  the  Treasnrer 
in  the  municipal  field.  At  that  time  he  would 
get  up  on  things  like  the  Haldimand-Norfolk 
bill,  or  the  bills  that  established  the  regions 
of  Peel  and  of  Halton,  and  he  woukl  say: 
"Look,  I  am  not  responsible  for  the  overall 
policy;  that's  got  to  do  with  somebody  else. 
I  am  simply  here  as  a  technician." 

He  was  very  clear  in  the  introduction  of 
this  bill  on  Friday.  I  regret  that  I  wasn't 
here,  but  I  read  the  debate.  In  that  intro- 
duction, the  minister  said:   "Wdl,  we  have 


1220 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


got  some  changes  to  section  6  and  to  sec- 
tion 16.  I  have  got  a  nice  little  piece  of 
technical  apparatus  here;  and  here  you  are, 
a   nice   little  piece   of  clockwork." 

He  is  putting  it  on  the  table  at  the  direc- 
tion of  the  provincial  Treasurer.  It  is  the 
Treasurer  who  should  be  seeking  to  defend 
this  bill,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  not  the  Minister 
of  Revenue.  As  is  well  known,  the  Minister 
of  Revenue— and  his  predecessor,  who  is 
also  sitting  in  the  House— simply  comes  for- 
ward and  looks  to  the  nuts  and  the  bolts. 

Frankly,  I  really  question  whether  the 
present  Minister  of  Revenue  is  capable  of 
trying  to  defend  or  comprehend  the  wider 
ramifications  of  this  particular  bill.  He  has 
not  given  us  that  evidence  in  the  Legislature 
up  until  now  and  his— 

Mr.  Speaker:  What  about  the  principle  of 
the  bill?  Order,  please.  We  are  talking  about 
Bill  26. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right.  On  Bill  26,  Mr. 
Speaker,  his  interventions  up  until  now  sug- 
gest at  the  very  least  a  pusillanimous  atti- 
tude toward  any  kind  of  innovation  in  the 
province. 

He's  saying,  "Well,  we  can  have  a  bit,  we 
can  fiddle  around,  but  we  can't  do  anything 
meaningful  in  the  taxing  field,  because  that 
would  be  unconstitutional  or  discriminatory, 
or  that  wouldn't  be  right,  or  the  foreign 
corporations  that  provide  funds  to  help  the 
Conservative  Party  wouldn't  go  along." 

I  don't  know  what  the  reasons  are.  Pos- 
sibly he  might  come  dean  on  this  and  he 
might  explain  just  why  it  is  that  the  gov- 
ernment has  come  in  with  such  a  piece  of 
window  dressing,  a  tax  which  is  riddled 
with  so  many  loopholes  and  a  tax  which 
just  plainly  isn't  going  to  work  in  the  de- 
clared purposes  that  were  given  it  in  the 
budget. 

I  wish  that  the  Treasurer  would  speak  in 
this  debate,  or  for  that  matter,  the  hon. 
member  for  Peel  South  (Mr.  Kennedy),  who 
has  left  the  House,  the  hon.  member  for 
Northumberland  (Mr.  Rowe),  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Carleton,  the  Minister  of  Housing, 
the  hon.  member  for  Humber  (Mr.  Leluk), 
the  hon.  Minister  of  the  Envirormient,  the 
member  for  Ontario  South  (Mr.  W. 
Newman),  or  the  hon.  member  for  London 
North  (Mr.  Walker).  None  of  those  members 
is  in  the  Legislature  right  now,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Not  one  of  them. 

Yet  these  were  the  people  in  the  Con- 
servative Party— two  of  them  are  now  in  the 
cabinet,   two  more  are  parliamentary  assist- 


ants to  ministers— who  unequivocally  re- 
jected the  approach  now  being  taken  by  the 
government.  It  seems  to  me  they  should 
either  defend  the  flip-flop  on  their  position 
if  they  have  now  changed  their  minds,  or 
they  should  come  into  this  Legislature  and 
unequivocally  tell  the  Minister  of  Revenue 
that  they  cannot  go  along,  that  they  have 
analysed  the  question  and  that  a  total  pro- 
hibition on  foreign  acquisition  of  real  estate 
in  the  province  is  what  is  required  for  the 
kind  of  circumstances  that  we  have  today. 
They're  in  an  untenable  position  and  they 
have  been  put  there  by  the  present  minister, 
by  the  Treasm-er  and  by  the  cabinet. 

It's  curious  to  me  that  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  and  the  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing, both  of  whom  have  a  pretty  direct 
concern  with  the  land  of  the  province, 
should  have  been  participants  in  the  cabinet 
when  the  decision  to  bring  in  this  woebegone 
tax  was  made. 

I  understand,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  dis- 
cussions that  went  on  behind  the  scenes 
rather  looked  like  this:  A  nimiber  of  people 
in  the  government  and  among  the  civil  ser- 
vants advising  the  Treasurer  told  him  that 
something  had  to  be  done.  Their  estimates, 
according  to  the  budget,  indicate  that  some 
$300  million  minimum  was  flowing  into  the 
province  every  year  in  foreign  real  estate  in- 
vestment. It  was  probably  much  more  since, 
presumably,  one  of  the  intentions  of  this  par- 
ticular 20  per  cent  tax,  on  the  government's 
reckoning,  is  that  the  amount  of  foreign 
acquisition  will  decrease.  I  assume  that  the 
minister  believes  that.  If  he  doesn't  believe  it 
then  the  tax  is  of  course  completely  useless. 

But  at  any  rate,  it's  $300  million,  $500 
milhon,  or  maybe  $1  bilhon  a  year  flowing 
into  Ontario  real  estate  from  Singapore,  from 
Hong  Kong,  from  Switzerland,  from  Gennany, 
from  the  United  States,  from  Britain  and  pre- 
sumably—now that  there  are  so  many  billions 
flowing  into  the  Middle  East— from  the  Middle 
East.  If  anything,  the  liability  was  that  this 
amount  was  going  to  increase  rather  than  not. 

The  oflBcials  came  there— and  I  wish  the 
minister  would  table  some  figures  on  their 
estimates— and  said,  "Look,  there's  a  serious 
problem."  The  Treasurer,  who  likes  to  think 
of  himself  as  a  red  Tory,  said,  "Okay,  we 
better  do  something,"  and  asked  his  officials, 
"Now  what  shall  we  do?"  And!  the  oflBcials 
told  him,  in  the  time-honoured  way  of 
bureaucrats,  "You  have  three  options."  TTiis  is 
the  way  that  officials  do  these  things  in 
cabinets.  They  give  you  an  extreme  which  is 
tough,  an  extreme  which  is  soft  and  in- 
effective and  something  in  between.   That's 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1221 


the  wav  the  oflBcials  trv  to  direct  eovemmcnt 
to  do  the  things  that  tne  o£BciaIs  mink  would 
be  effective. 

Now,  knowing  the  way  that  the  oflBcials 
of  this  government  work,  it's  safe  to  assume 
that  what  they  thought  would  be  effective 
would  probably  be  inadequate,  because  of 
the  fact  that  they  have  been  brainwashed  and 
conditioned,  inevitably  and  helplessly  ahnost, 
by  having  to  be  in  close  juxtaposition  with 
members  of  the  Conservative  government  and 
cabinet  for  so  many  years. 

*Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Did  the  member  say 
we  brairrwashed  the  civil  service? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I'm  suggesting  that  it's  diflB- 
cult  for  them  to  come  up  and  offer  the 
measures  which  they  know  to  be  adequate 
because  of— 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They've  been  put  down  so 
often. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —the  tolerance  of  the  ministers 
for  progressive  social  legislation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That's  hardly  what 
he  said. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What's  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  sounds  b^er  since 
he  fixed  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Okay,  that's  fine. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Isn't  the  member  glad 
I  gave  him  a  chance  to  change  the  record? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  appreciate  the  former  Min- 
ister of  Revenue's  intervention,  Mr,  Speaker. 
At  any  rate,  as  we  understand  it,  there  were 
the  three  options.  One  of  them  has  been 
sketched  in  by  the  members  of  the  select 
conunittee,  and  that  was  a  prohibition  on 
foreign  acquisition  of  real  estate  in  the  prov- 
ince. The  oflBcials  put  that  one  forward  as 
the  hard  option,  because  in  their  hearts  they 
knew  that,  whatever  the  backbenchers  said 
and  whatever  the  Minister  of  Housing  and  the 
Minister  of  the  Eliviroimient  had  said  in 
committee,  the  cabinet  wouldn't  buy  it.  This 
cabinet  and  this  government  are  simply  too 
much  the  handmaiden  of  private  interests  to 
stop  fweign  acquisition.  iTiey  still  believe 
that  Ontario  is  for  sale  to  anybody  anywhere 
in  the  world. 

The  second  option  that  they  put  forward 
was  that  the  tax  on  transfers  of  property  to 
non-residents  be  a  minimum  of  about  50  per 
cent.  I'm  saying  that  that  is  inadequate.  If 
they  had  suggested  that  the  transfer  tax  be 


a  minimum  of  100  per  cent,  then  maybe  they 
would  have  found  the  middle  ground.  At  any 
rate,  the  middle  ground  that  they  suggested 
was  a  tax  of  50  per  cent. 

Then  they  came  up  with  the  soft  option— 
and  it  is  the  soft  option  that  has  been  taken 
by  the  government— that  is,  the  transfer  tax 
of  20  per  cent  on  some  foreign  land  acquis- 
itions—not all  acquisitions,  though;  die 
number  of  exemptions  is  legion.  And  the  min- 
ister, when  he  introduced  the  bill  on  Friday, 
indicated  that  the  exemptions  would  be  fur- 
ther increased  and  further  widened  by  giving 
priority  to  mortgage  lenders  over  the  lien  and 
by  saying  that  any  foreign  investor  y^ho  was 
willing  to  say  that  he  was  holding  property 
temporarily  for  resale  to  Canadians  upon  de- 
velopment, would  likewise  be  permitted  to 
continue  and  not  be  interfered  with  by  the 
tax. 

As  far  as  the  government  is  concerned,  it 
doesn't  matter  where  a  speculator  comes 
from:  if  he's  eventually  going  to  unload  the 
property  to  a  Canadian,  then  he  will  not  be 
liable  to  the  tax. 

What  this  means,  very  simply,  is  that  most 
of  the  people  who  have  been  buying  property 
in  Canada  will  be  put  in  a  position  where 
they  can  say:  "Yes,  of  course,  we  are  honestly 
developing  this  property.  We  therefore  seek, 
and  presumably  will  get,  the  waiver."  And 
after  four  or  five  years  they  will  hand  the 
property  back  to  Canadians  at  a  highly  in- 
flated price.  The  bulk  of  the  speculative  ac- 
tivity indulged  in  by  foreigners  will  con- 
tinue. 

It's  worth  looking  at  the  kinds  of  spectda- 
tion  or  the  kinds  of  investment  that  go  on  by 
foreigners  in  order  to  see  if  the  government 
really  has  got  to  the  root  of  the  problem  or 
whether  the  50  per  cent  or  100  per  cent  tax 
—that  is,  the  tax  that  was  rejected  by  this 
government— might  have  had  some  eflFect. 

It  staggers  me,  not  only  that  the  govern- 
ment rejected  the  conclusions  of  the  select 
committee,  but  also  that  it  is  seemingfly  so 
unaware  of  the  very  sensitive  analysis  that 
was  made  by  the  select  committee  and  sub- 
mitted to  the  government,  I  believe,  about  a 
year  and  a  half  ago. 

I  have  no  evidence— and  we  haven't  heard 
from  any  of  the  Tory  members,  the  ministers 
or  anybody  else— to  show  that  the  government 
has  done  any  of  the  research  that  was  sug- 
gested by  the  committee  in  order  to  look  into 
this  problem  fiuther. 

The  govenmient,  in  the  estimates  given  by 
the  Treasurer,  is  telling  us  that  a  minimum 
of  $300  million  is  going  to  be  invested  in 


1222 


ONTAMO  LEGISLATURE 


Ontario  by  foreigners  over  the  coming  year, 
because  that's  the  revenue  it  expects  to  get 
from  the  tax.  If  the  minister  wants  the  calcu- 
lations, the  Treasurer  has  said  that  $60  million 
will  be  recouped  from  this  tax,  and  that  is  20 
per  cent  of  $300  million.  That  does  not  in- 
clude, however,  the  exempt  investment  of  de- 
velopers who  are  foreign-owned,  nor  of  for- 
eign-owned companies  who  presumably  will 
be  given  an  exemption  as  well,  according  to 
what  the  budget  has  said. 

The  select  committee  argued  very  strongly 
that  there  ought  to  be  a  thorough  study  of 
what  was  going  on.  But  the  government,  in 
its  budget,  was  unable  to  give  any  indication 
of  what  the  true  picture  was.  The  minister 
acknowledges  that  he  doesn't  know.  His  oflB- 
cials  seemingly  acknowledge  that  they  don't 
know  either,  because  in  the  budget  papers, 
where  they  discuss  the  various  taxes,  there  is 
no  attempt  to  estimate  what  the  amounts  of 
foreign  investment  have  been,  what  the  trends 
in  foreign  investment  have  been,  or  even  to 
say  what  the  amount  of  foreign  investment  in 
land  and  property  in  Ontario  might  have  been 
in  this  current  year  and  what  it  will  reduce 
to,  if  it  will  be  reduced  at  all,  because  of  the 
tax.  Nor  is  there  any  attempt  to  estimate  how 
much  of  the  foreign  investment  will  be  ex- 
empt and  how  much  will  be  hit  by  the  tax. 

We're  going  into  an  area  which  is  totally 
uncharted,  despite  the  fact  that  a  year  and  a 
half  ago  the  select  committee  said:  "Look, 
this  is  too  important  to  be  left  to  guesstimates 
and  to  Donald  Kirkup  and  to  people  like  Mr. 
Elliot  Yarmon  and  others  in  the  real  estate 
industry  who  have  been  used  to  dealing  with 
foreign  real  estate  investors." 

When  you  look  at  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, Mr.  Speaker,  they  mention  a  whole 
variety  of  means  by  which  foreigners  invest 
in  Ontario  real  estate:  wholly  owned  corpo- 
rations; trusts;  trust  companies;  joint  ventures; 
equity  or  profit  participation,  investment  in 
existing  real  estate  companies,  which  inci- 
dentally won't  be  covered  by  this  particular 
bill;  options,  which  in  certain  cases  will  but 
in  other  cases  will  not  be  covered— for  ex- 
ample, options  in  the  shares  of  Canadian  con- 
trolled real  estate  companies  set  up  for  the 
express  purpose  of  investing  in  real  estate; 
a  variety  of  complicated  contractual  arrange- 
ments, and  then  of  course  developers,  mort- 
gage finance  and  land  leasing  companies. 

Then  there  are  the  questions  of  profit  par- 
ticipation agreements  which  are  reached  by 
mortgage  lenders  who  are  putting  in  debt 
capital,  but  capital  in  which  the  grounds  be- 
tween debt  and  equity  investment  are  much 
fuzzier  than  they  were  back  in  the  days  when 


the  minister  learned  his  law  and  his  chartered 
accountancy.  The  lines  are  far  fuzzier  than 
they  used  to  be  and  it  is  clear  that  those 
gradations  and  those  technical  problems  have 
not  been  adequately  anticipated  in  this  par- 
ticular bill.  The  loopholes  are  there  for  the 
high-priced  tax  lawyers  and  the  high-priced 
accountants.  They  will  make  a  very  large 
amount  of  money  in  seeking  and  in  finding 
means  of  evading  the  bill. 

The  member  for  High  Park  has  aheady 
given  a  very  good  example  of  a  loophole,  and 
that  is  in  the  case  of  companies  which  are 
set  up  with  a  very  small  amoimt  of  A  shares 
which  carry  the  voting  rights  and  a  very  large 
quantity  or  foreign-owned  B  preferred  shares 
to  which  most  of  the  income  will  go.  In  these 
cases,  the  A  shares  will  be  handed  to  trust- 
worthy Canadians  who  are  willing  to  do  the 
bidding  of  the  foreign  investors  who  hold  the 
B  shares,  because  they  are  receiving  legal  fees 
and  that  is  simply  the  way  the  game  happens 
to  work. 

There  is  no  provision  in  the  bill  against  thin 
capitahzation  that  is  necessary  in  order  to 
prevent  that  particular  loophole  being  ex- 
ploited. I  see  the  minister  is  nodding  his 
head.  I  know  he  is  going  to  get  up  in  the 
debate  and  say,  "Look,  we  have  to  plug  up 
the  loopholes.  We  are  aware  of  that  and  we 
will  be  doing  that  as  time  goes  on." 

What  kind  of  commitment  is  that,  if  the 
minister  and  the  Treasurer  and  the  Treasury 
have  only  so  recently  converted  to  the  idea 
of  this  bill  that  they  come  up  with  something 
that  is  quite  thoroughly  ineflFective,  not  only 
on  the  grounds  that  the  tax  is  too  little  but 
also  on  the  grounds  that  the  bill  is  technically 
offensive  and  objectionable  and  ineffective? 
The  biU  is  not  an  adequate  technical  instru- 
ment even  to  do  the  things  that  the  minister 
says  it  might  want  to  do.  As  a  technician  he 
has  failed,  just  as  this  particular  bill  is  a 
failure  as  an  instrument  of  social  policy. 

The  early  indications  from  the  minister,  Mr. 
Speaker,  are  that  he  is  going  to  be  intent  not 
on  narrowing  the  loopholes  but  on  widening 
the  loopholes  in  this  particular  bill.  I  would 
like  to  ask  a  few  questions  about  general 
policy,  because  I  think  that  the  alternatives 
which  were  discussed  by  the  select  committee 
and  which  are  obviously  available  to  the  min- 
ister but  which  were  rejected  out  of  hand  by 
the  cabinet,  that  is,  the  alternative  of  a  com- 
plete block  to  foreign  equity  investment  in 
Ontario  real  estate,  really  was  the  course  that 
ought  to  have  been  taken. 

I  do  not  see  what  the  constitutional  prob- 
lems were.   The  only  constitutional  problem 


APRIL  22.  1974 


1223 


that  might  have  arisen  would  be  a  question 
as  to  whether  persons  who  were  not  resident 
in  Ontario  but  who  were  Canadian  citizens 
would  have  been  able  to  acquire  Ontario  real 
estate.  It  is  a  question  worth  posing  as  to 
whether  Ontario  wished  to  rule  out  Quebec 
residents,  or  Saskatchewan  residents  from 
accjuiring  or,  for  that  matter,  from  dealing  in 
Ontario  real  estate.  But  that  could  have  been 
handled  separately  and  if,  in  fact,  Ontario  had 
had  a  rule  against  non-residents  acquiring 
real  estate,  then  it  could  have  established  very 
easily  a  legal  means  by  which  Canadian 
citizens  from  other  provinces  could  have  con- 
tinued to  enjoy  their  rights. 

The  example,  I  think,  is  Prince  Edward 
Island,  which  the  minister  may  know  has  an 
outright  prohibition  on  people  who  are  not 
islanaers  holding  real  estate  of  more  than  10 
acres.  They  have  had  to  take  this  crisis  move 
because  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  they 
have. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  What  the  member  means 
is  they  had  and  it  has  been  overturned  in  the 
courts.  It  has  been  held  ultra  vires. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That  bill  has  been  held  ultra 
vires?  All  right,  then  we  will  find  another 
means  of  doing  it.  In  the  meantime,  if  On- 
tario declares  that  that  is  to  be  its  intention, 
there  are  two  or  three  things  that  flow  from 
that.  In  the  first  place,  a  large  nimiber  of 
foreigners  just  back  off,  if  the  bill  is  genuinely 
ultra  vires.  I  don't  beheve  that  that  kind  of 
problem  cannot  be  overcome.  After  all,  it  is 
the  provincial  government  and  not  the  federal 
government  which  has  jurisdiction  over  the 
questions  of  property  and  civil  ri^ts.  We 
nave  the  power  to  make  the  declaration  on 
that. 

If  the  PEI  legislation  was  judged  to  be 
discriminatory,  then  it  seems  to  me  to  follow 
that  this  particular  bill  can  be  judged  to  be 
discriminatory  as  well.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
a  tax  measure  is  not  judged  to  be  discrimina- 
tory, but  the  PEI  legislation  was  judged  to  be 
discriminatory,  then  the  middle  route  pro- 
posed to  cabinet  bv  the  ofiBcials  of  the 
Treasury  could  have  been  made  to  work. 

Let  us  suppose  that  100  per  cent  tax  was 
required  on  transfers  of  Ontario  property  to 
foreigners;  there  is  no  way  in  which  that  tax 
can  be  deemed  to  be  confiscatory.  It  con- 
fiscates nothing.  It  is  simply  a  tax  on  what 
the  foreigner  wishes  to  do.  He  pays  $1  million 
for  a  property  and  he  is  required  to  pay 
$1  million  in  tax,  and  that  is  the  beginning 
and  the  end  of  it.  It  does  not  prevent  him 
from  doing  it;  it  just  simply  adds  to  the  cost 


and  reduces  the  return  which  he  %vill  get 
from  that  particular  piece  of  businen.  I  am 
sure  that  that  particular  tax  would  have  been 
permitted,  even  if  constitutional  changes  may 
be  need  in  order  to  permit  the  PEI  MJution, 
which  is  one  that  we  would  prefer. 

A  confiscatory  tax  is  where,  for  exam{^,  a 
tax  on  income  is  levied  at  90  or  05  or  98 
per  cent  where,  in  other  words,  the  indi- 
vidual reaps  no  return  from  his  income.  But 
this  other  kind  of  tax  would  not  qualify. 
Where,  for  that  matter  then,  is  the  dividing 
line?  You  cannot  decide  a  dividing  line,  Mr. 
Speaker.  You  could  argue  that  any  tax  which 
discriminates  between  a  foreigner  and  a  resi- 
dent of  Canada  or  a  citizen  is  ultra  vires  on 
those  grounds,  because  it  discriminates  against 
that  particular  fellow  and  therefore  makes  it 
more  difficult  fcx  him  to  do  business. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  more 
was  known,  if  the  government  knew  more 
about  the  market  and  about  the  reasons  that 
bring  foreigners  into  this  market,  they  would 
realize  that  the  present  tax  may  shake  out 
a  few  cottage  owners,  as  people  have  said. 
But  let's  take  the  situation  of  people  in  infla- 
tion-ridden countries  with  an  unstable  polit- 
ical environment  who  are  looking  for  a  safe 
haven  for  their  money  and  are  looking  for 
some  place  where  their  returns  are  rather 
higher  than,  say,  in  Switzerland,  where  it  is 
well  known  the  returns  that  are  paid  are 
very  low. 

If  they  are  buying  investment  property  in 
Ontario  to  hold,  the  additional  20  per  cent 
tax  that  is  being  levied  by  the  province  is  of 
very  little  import  to  them.  Right  now  they 
are  in  a  situation  where  the  values  of  prop- 
erty are  rising  by  20  or  25  per  cent  a  year. 
The  return  over  time,  therefore,  that  they 
are  anticipating  may  be  to  double  or  treble 
their  money  or  at  least  to  keep  pace  with 
inflation  on  a  worldwide  basis.  The  fact  that 
they  have  20  per  cent  taken  off  the  top  at 
the  beginning  is  of  very  litUe  significance. 
The  fact  that  their  annual  return  is  reduced 
by  20  per  cent  is  also  of  very  lltde  signifi- 
cance because,  as  the  minister  knows,  in 
certain  cases  the  return  they  actually  get  on 
an  annual  basis  may  only  be  as  little  as  one 
or  two  per  cent.  This  is  property  which  is 
being  lodced  up  for  a  very  lon^  term.  That 
particular  kind  of  investment  isn  t  affected. 

Then  we  get  people  who  are  dealing  on 
a  very  short-term  basis  and  who  are  coming 
in,  developing  the  property  and  getting  rid 
of  it,  presumably  to  Canadians.  Thev  are  not 
affected  because  they  will  not  be  obliged  to 
pay  the  tax.  We  get  foreign-owned  corpora- 
tions  which   are   buying  land   for   industrial 


1224 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


purposes.  Again,  they  get  a  waiver  from  the 
tax;  they  are  not  affected.  If  anything,  they 
may  be  more  affected  by  the  new  screening 
mechanism  of  the  federal  legislation  than 
they  are  by  this  particular  tax. 

Ultimately  we  come  down  to  a  certain 
segment  of  the  market,  a  few  unfortunates 
who  actually  intend  to  move  up  here  some- 
time because  they  want  to  get  out  of 
wherever  they  happen  to  live  and  find  they 
may  have  to  pay  the  tax  because  they  arent 
yet  landed  immigrants.  People  buying  resi- 
dential recreational  property  will  be  airected 
and  so  will  some  people  who  were  ill-advised 
and  who  were  buying,  say,  for  a  period  of 
between  five  and  10  or  15  years.  They  may 
be  affected  and  a  few  of  them  may  be  shaken 
out  of  the  market. 

Let's  look  at  this  in  a  different  way, 
though.  The  ministry  says  $300  million  will 
be  spent  by  foreigners  on  Ontario  real  estate 
in  the  coming  year,  maybe  a  bit  more.  The 
total  increase  and  the  yield  from  the  tax 
expected  by  the  government  is  of  the  order 
of  $75  million  and  if  that  were  all  to  be  the 
result  of  foreign  real  estate,  then  $375  million 
will  be  spent  by  foreigners. 

Now,  if  we  work  it  out— if  the  average 
cost  of  a  home,  of  a  housing  unit  in  Ontario, 
is  about  $35,000,  that  means  10,000  single- 
family  or  semi-detached  housing  units  could 
be  acquired  by  foreigners  during  the  coming 
year.  That's  a  very  substantial  chunk  and  a 
very  substantial  contribution  to  the  infla- 
tionary pressures  that  exist  within  the  housing 
market. 

It  means  20,000  apartment  units,  Mr. 
Speaker,  100  major  highrise  towers  acquired 
by  foreigners.  That  isn't  exactly  easing  the 
foreign  speculators  out  of  the  market. 

Or  it  means  25,000  recreational  prop- 
erties, or  50,000  acres  of  development  land 
at  $7j500  an  acre,  which  is  the  price  being 
charged  around  major  cities.  Or  if  we  want 
to  gio  to  the  downtown  areas  of  Toronto, 
Ottawa  or  Hamilton  or  other  cities  like  that, 
it  would  be  somewhere  between— let  me  see 
if  I  can  work  it  out.  Four  hundred  acres? 
That's  about,  I  think,  1.6  million  ft  of  down- 
town property  which  can  go  into  foreign 
hands,  and  will  go  into  foreign  hands  quite 
cheerfully  according  to  the  minister  and  the 
ministry,  despite  this  particular  tax.  That's 
a  helluva  deterrent  when  that  amount  of 
urban  real  estate  can  still  go  into  foreign 
hands. 

It  just  isn't  going  to  work.  It's  simply  an 
added  cost  of  doing  business,  and  as  a 
number  of  speakers  have  said  it  will  be 
passed  on  if  the  number  of  foreigners  who 


are  continuing  to  be  active  in  our  market 
is  as  great  as  the  government  seems  to  in- 
dicate. If  this  tax  were  going  to  be  effective, 
and  the  yields  from  the  tax  would  be 
miniscule  and  it  would  be  only  a  few  cottage 
owners  and  other  people  like  that  who  were 
paying  the  tax,  we  would  see  a  very  great 
departure  of  foreigners  from  our  market. 

There  are  some  other  points  as  well,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  these  are  maybe  social  points 
that  I  might  make.  One  is  to  assess  this  par- 
ticular 20  per  cent  land  transfer  tax  and 
the  loophole-ridden  tax  on  speculative  profits 
against  the  whole  context  of  the  government 
housing  policy.  We  have  argued  that  heavy 
taxes  are  needed  on  speculation,  but  always 
in  the  context  of  a  general  housing  policy 
which  puts  forward  supply  measures  as  well 
in  order  to  ensure  tlmt  decent  housing  at 
reasonable  cost  is  available  to  people  across 
the  province. 

The  government  doesn't  see  it  that  way. 
It  doesn't  see  it  that  way  at  aU.  It  is  copping 
out  on  its  public  responsibility  to  ensure 
that  adequate  housing  is  on  the  way.  It  is 
copping  out  on  its  public  responsibility  to 
ensure  that  urban  land  is  managed,  to  en- 
sure that  housing  units  come  on  stream  at 
prices  people  can  afford-$30,000,  $25,000 
or  $20,000  a  unit.  Stacked  townhouses,  all 
kinds  of  different  mixes,  are  not  becoming 
available. 

For  eight  months  we  get  words  from  the 
ministry  about  the  housing  action  programme; 
now  we  are  told  that  over  three  years  we 
may  get  an  additional  10,000  units  a  year 
under  that  particular  programme.  But  that 
only  matches  the  number  of  housing  units 
which  will  continue  to  be  going  into  foreign 
hands  if  the  figures  being  given  by  the 
ministry  are  to  be  believed  about  the 
amount  of  foreign  investment  that  will  con- 
tinue. Foreigners  will  be  buying  as  much 
real  estate  in  Ontario  as  is  being  provided 
additionally  to  the  market  under  tibe  housing 
action  programme. 

The  budget  provided  a  couple  of  taxes 
which  were  meant  to  be  sexy  politically. 
Yet  when  it  came  down  to  the  nuts  and 
bolts  of  what  was  being  done  to  make  sure 
that  more  lots  were  available,  or  to  make 
sure  that  more  housing  was  available,  or  to 
make  sure  that  more  people  earning  under 
$10,000  and  $12,000  could  rent  or  buy  homes 
that  they  could  afford,  you  find— what?  An 
$11  million  subsidy  for  servicing;  less  than 
$20  million  being  provided  for  the  housing 
action  programme,  a  plan  whose  details  we 
have  yet  to  see;  and  discussion  of  an  Ontario 
land  corporation  whose  major  impact  will,  it 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1225 


seems  to  be  clear,  be  directed  to  long-term 
policy  in  areas  like  eastern  and  northern  On- 
tario. There  is  nothing  ensuring  a  massive 
progranune  of  public  land  acquisition  in  or- 
der to  ensure  that  objectives  in  land  and 
housing  policy  can  be  fulfilled. 

The  mtmicipalities,  Mr.  Speaker,  have  told 
the  minister,  and  told  the  ministry,  that  at 
least  one-third  or  maybe  one-half  of  urban 
development  land  should  be  publicly  owned. 
There  is  no  such  commitment  in  the  budget 
and  no  such  commitment  in  this  particular 
bill.  The  government  is  clearly  still  resting 
on  developers  to  do  its  job  of  deciding  the 
mix  and  kinds  of  housing  that  shall  be  de- 
veloped. Not  only  that,  but  it's  saying  there 
are  not  the  Canadians  to  do  the  job  and 
therefore  it  will  leave  it  up  to  foreign 
developers  to  continue  to  play  their  role 
in  our  market. 

If  wfc  knew  more  about  the  role  of  these 
foreigners,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me  that 
we  might  find  they  really  don't  contribute 
very-  much  at  all.  We  might  well  find  that 
much  of  the  capital  they  supposedly  bring 
into  housing  in  Ontario  is  raised  from 
domestic  sources  in  the  form  of  mortgages. 
We  might  also  find  that  the  foreign  mortgage 
capital  that's  coming  into  Canada,  which  is 
competing  for  a  limited  supply  of  building 
materials  that  are  mainly  locally  produced 
and  which  is  competing  for  a  limited  supply 
of  land— that  again  can  t  be  imported  to  nelp 
the  situation— you  would  simply  find  that  that 
foreign  equity  capital  and  that  foreign  mort- 
gage capital,  and  the  Canadian  mortgage 
money  which  is  going  along  with  the  foreign 
equity,  is  helping  to  hop  up  the  market  but 
is  not  contributing  any  additional  housing  be- 
yond what  we  could  contribute  ourselves. 

That's  a  very  real  possibility,  Mr.  Speaker. 
And  yet  foreign  money  is  continuing  to  be 
invited  into  the  country  and  into  the  province 
and  is  being  levied  a  penalty  in  certain  cases; 
and  the  penalty  will  then  be  passed  on  to 
Canadians  who  wish  simply  to  have  housing 
of  thedr  own. 

I'm  questioning,  Mr.  Speaker— and  maybe 
the  member  for  High  Park  and  I  aren't  totally 
at  one  in  this— I'm  questioning  whether  its 
healthy  to  have  a  lot  of  foreign  mortgage 
money  coming  into  this  coimtry.  I  certainly 
question  whether  it's  healthy  to  have  foreign 
equity  coming  into  the  country,  when  it  is  all 
competing  for  the  scarce  land  around  our 
cities  and  for  scarce  building  materials. 

If  you  look  at  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  if  the 
minister  looks  at  it,  he  would  find,  among 
other  things,  that  a  great  amount  of  foreign 
money  has  gone  into  commercial  and  shop- 


centre  development,  for  purpotes  wfaidi 
Frankly  I  can't  defend  under  a  situatioo  wfaeie 
rents  are  rising  by  15  or  20  per  cent;  and  a 
situation  where  housing  is  in  aesperat^  short 
supply,  where  both  housing  for  purchase  and 
for  rental  is  becoming  increasingly  scaroe  in 
the  urban  Ontario  market;  and  in  a  situatioo 
where  housing  starts  are  in  fact  decretdng 
rather  than  increasing.  If  that  foreign  mooey 
wasn't  going  into  commercial  development, 
Mr.  Speaker,  then  there  would  be  more  build- 
ing materials  available  at  more  reasonable 
prices  to  go  into  apartments,  to  go  into  town- 
houses,  to  go  into  homes,  to  go  into  public 
housing,  to  go  into  co-operatives  and  all  the 
other  kinds  of  housing  that  we  need  in  the 
province  and  we  wouldn't  have  such  a  crisis 
as  we  have  right  now. 

But  the  ministry,  and  the  government,  are 
sort  of  seized  by  this  growth  ethic.  They  can- 
not see  that  it  may,  in  fact,  be  healthy  to 
discourage  some  of  the  actors  in  the  housing 
market  and  that  those  private  people  should 
be  replaced  by  public  people,  mimicipalities, 
co-ops,  non-profit  organizations  and  the  gov- 
ernment itself  in  determining  the  land  of 
housing  that  shotdd  be  built  and  where  it 
should  be  built  and  what  incomes  it  should 
be  looking  for. 

Now  Mr.  Speaker,  when  we  get  to  the 
committee  stage  of  this  particular  bill  we 
will  be  looking  at  the  loopholes  in  detail.  I 
want  to  say  something  about  one  concern 
that  I  have  here,  though,  and  that  is  tfiat 
there  is  nothing  in  this  bill  that  prevents 
foreigners  from  continuing  to  acquire  prop- 
erty in  Ontario,  and  in  fact  from  mortgaging 
in  order  to  pay  the  tax. 

Now  that's  one  of  the  most  incredible  situa- 
tions that  I  can  think  about.  All  they  need 
to  do  is  to  tdl  the  mortgagor  that  the  market 
value  of  the  land  will  be  what  they  pay  for 
it  plus  20  per  cent  and  they  want  a  90  per 
cent  mortgage  please;  and  the  mortgagor  will 
then  proceed  to  pay  80  per  cent  oiF  the  tax 
that  they  have  to  pass  on  to  the  Ontario 
government  if  diey  don't  happen  to  find  a 
way  around  the  loopholes. 

There  is  nothing  to  stop  that,  Mr.  Speaker, 
nor  is  there  anything  to  put  uncertainty  into 
the  heart  of  a  foreign  speculator  or  of  his 
financial  backer  in  the  way  of  die  lien  Aat 
the  tax  represents.  The  tax  is  being  given 
second  status  to  any  mortgage  claims  on  the 
property,  and  that  again  undermines  Ae 
minister's  claim  that  the  ministry  intends  to 
stop  or  seriously  deter  foreign  speculators 
from  coming  in.  What  they  are  really  doing 
is  trying  to  pick  up  a  bit  of  dough  and  then 


1226 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


put  Iwdf  of  that  amount  into  the  housing 
action  programme  and  other  programme. 

There  is  nothing  about  thin  capitalization. 
There  is  nothing  about  investment  in  real 
estate  companies.  There  is  nothing  about 
options  on  real  estate  companies.  Tliere  are 
any  number  of  devices  that  could  be  used  in 
order  to  evade  the  tax. 

I  just  want  to  know  why  the  government 
has  copped  out  on  this.  I  want  to  know  why 
the  member  for  Peel  South  isn't  going  to 
speak  on  this  particular  bill— maybe  he  is,  I 
see  him  making  some  notes.  I  hope  he  does 
join  us.  Is  he  going  to  speak  on  this  bill? 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South);  I  am 
not  making  notes. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  All  right,  because  there  is 
only  one  member  of  the  select  committee 
from  the  Tory  benches  who  has  gotten  up  and 
he  said,  well  he's  got  infinite  faith  in  the 
government  that  some  time,  in  the  fullness 
of  time,  they  might  adopt  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  select  committee.  Only  one  mem- 
ber, the  other  seven  have  sat  there  mute. 
What's  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Maybe  the  hon.  mem- 
ber doesn't  believe  in  repetition,  as  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  does. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  No,  I  am  sure  he  would  have 
something  fresh  and  original  to  say  in  the 
debate,  either  why  he  disagrees  with  the 
government  or  why  he  has  changed  his  posi- 
tion so  radically  and  so  completely— 

Mr.  Kennedy:  No  position  has  changed. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —from  being  in  favour  of  a 
ban  on  foreign  acquisition  to  coming  up  with 
a  namby-pamby,  Mickey  Mouse  piece  of 
legislation  which  is  ridmed  with  loopholes, 
which  will  not  work,  which  will  increase  the 
cost  to  Canadians,  which  will  not  deter  the 
long-term  investors  from  abroad  who  want  to 
hold  our  property  for  10  or  15  years  and 
which  simply  is  not  an  effective  answer  to 
Ontario's  needs. 

Those  needs  are  that  we  bring  down  the 
price  of  land  and  that  we  provide  housing 
for  Canadians,  for  Ontario  residents,  at  prices 
that  they  can  afford.  It  just  isn't  here  in  the 
tax.  It  isn't  here  in  the  other  tax.  It  isn't  here 
in  the  budget,  and  as  far  as  we  are  concerned 
we  don't  know  where  it  is  in  the  government. 
We  haven't  heard  when  they  are  going  to 
come  up  with  some  effective  answers  in  the 
field  of  housing  or  of  land. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Do  any  other  hon.  members 
wish  to  speak  to  this  bill?  If  not,  the  hon. 
minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  have  lost  count  of  the  number  of  members 
who  addressed  themselves  to  this  bill,  but  I 
will  endeavour  to  touch  on  all  the  points  they 
have  raised.  To  begin  with,  may  I  just  observe 
what  I  think  the  principle  of  the  bill  may  be. 
I  want  to  talk  to  the  principle- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  "May  be?"  Doesn't  the  min- 
ister know? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes,  indeed  I  do  know 
the  principle  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  If  you  listen,  maybe  you'll 
get  to  learn  something. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It's  a  part,  and  it's  a  very 
vital  part,  of  our  government's  attadc  on  the 
costs  of  land  and  the  costs  of  housing,  the 
very  points  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre 
was  touching  on. 

Interjections  by  h<Mi.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It  is  an  attempt  to  dis- 
courage foreign  money  from  pressing  up  Ac 
land  prices  that  are,  therefore,  affecting  in 
the  same  direction— 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  By  adding 
20  per  cent  how  is  the  minister  stopping 
foreign  investment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —the  price  of  land  and 
houses.  It's  an  indicator— I  want  to  emphasize 
this,  and  it  should  be  noted— it's  an  indicator 
of  the  way  the  government  is  thinking  with 
respect  to  our  economic  and  cultural  goals- 
Mr.  Singer:  Yes. 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes. 

Mr.  Singer:  We'll  go  along  with  that  one. 
Mr.  Reid:  That's  certainly  a  mouthful. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Foreign  ownership  of  our 
land  and  of  our  heritage  has  to  be  a  matter 
of  major  concern  to  all  of  us. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Does  the  minister  agree  with 
it  or  does  he  disagree  with  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  bill  is  not  our  in- 
tended answer  to  the  select  committee  on 
economic  and  cultural  nationalism.  It  is  not 
intended  to  be  the  whole  of  our  anti-inflation 
measures  either.  Contrary  to  the  suggestions 
made   by   some  hon.   members,   it   is   not   a 


APRIL  22.  1974 


1227 


fraud.  It  isn't  bogus  legislation.  It  isn't  bad 
And  it  isn't  intended  to  discourage  foreign 
loan  investments  here,  as  opposed  to  foreign 
equity  investments  which  it  is  intended  to 
discourage  in  respect  of  land. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  By  how  much? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  might  just  mention 
briefly,  Mr.  Speaker,  some  other  portions  of 
our  programme,  of  which  this  bill  is  a  part: 
The  housing  action  programme,  the  Land 
Speculation  Tax  Act  and  other  potential  in- 
centives—and I  might  put  "incentives'*  in 
auotes-to  get  serviced  lots  on  the  market  for 
dwelling  unit  construction. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  are  all  as  Mickey  Mouse 
as  this  measure. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meeo:  I  want  to  touch  on  a 
few  of  these  matters  in  somewhat  greater 
detail. 

You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  supposed 
to  be  talking  about  the  principle  of  this  bill, 
but  so  much  of  the  debate  from  members 
opposite  has  surrounded  the  select  commit- 
tee report,  which  really  doesn't  get  to  the 
principle  of  this  bill  in  any  great  detail. 

I  feel,  though,  that  I  should  direct  some 
of  my  comments  to  the  select  committee  re- 
port on  economic  and  cultural  nationalism. 
That  interim  report,  along  with  others,  has 
been  received  by  the  government— they  have 
been  coming  in  over  the  last  few  months.  As 
we  announced  earlier  this  month,  the  justice 
policy  field  committee  and  the  social  develop- 
ment policy  field  committee,  co-ordinated  by 
H.  Ian  Macdonald  who  is  now  special  assist- 
ant to  the  Premier  and  who  until  April  9 
was  the  Deputy  Treasurer  of  the  province, 
are  studying  these  reports  and  we  expect  to 
have  their  views  and  their  reports  by  early 
fall. 

I  would  expect  that,  fn  the  course  of  their 
studies  of  the  recommendations  of  the  re- 
ports, they  will  be  looking  at  the  question  of 
what  percentage  by  way  of  a  tax  might  or 
might  not  be  construed  as  confiscatory.  And 
I  note  the  views  of  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  on  the  matter.  He  says  it  might  be 
held  to  be  confiscatory.  Well  I  would  sug- 
gest to  him  that  it  might  be  held  to  be 
confiscatory,  because  if  it  were  so  lar^e  that 
it  was  prohibitive,  then  a  court  could  well 
say  that  we  were  attempting  to  do  directly, 
by  way  of  tax,  what  we  cannot  do  indirectly 
under  our  present  constitution.  He's  talking 
about  amending  the  constitution- 


Mr.  Singert  Surely  if  it  is  the  govemment'f 
intention  to  stop  foreign  ownership,  it  could 
do  that  directly. 

Hon-  Mr.  Meen:  Well  If  the  hon.  member 
had  been  interested  in  this  debtte  he  would 
have  got  into  it  earlier.  But  he  has  not  par- 
ticipated in  this  debate  and  Td  appreciate  it 
if  he  would  let  me  carry  on  with  my  remarki. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  will  interject  when  I  deem 
it  is  proper  and  appropriate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Crotsmant  He  can  only  do  that 
with  permission  of  the  Speaker. 

Mr.  Singer:  Subject  always  to  the  Speaker- 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  would  suggest  to  the 
hon.  member  that  there  are  some  very  serious 
constitutional  issues.  The  select  committee 
itself  recognized  the  constitutional  problem 
and  it  recommended  that  we  press  on  any- 
way. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes;  some  pressi 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  What  they  said— and  may 
I  read  from  page  45  I  think  it  is,  under  item 
10.2: 

Specifically,  and  in  relation  to  the  com- 
mittee's conclusions  with  respect  to  indi- 
vidual ownership  of  land,  the  committee 
imderstands  that  the  scope  of  the  federal 
jurisdiction  in  relation  to  naturalization 
and  aliens  is  in  some  doubt  on  the  basis 
of  jurisprudence  to  date,  and  particularly 
in  its  interface  with  exclusive  provincial 
jurisdiction  in  respect  of  property  and 
civil  rights  in  the  province  and  matters  of 
a  local  and  private  nature. 

The  committee  recommends  that  the 
government  of  Ontario  take  the  position 
that  legislation  along  the  lines  proposed 
by  the  committee  is  unambiguously  in  re- 
lation to  property  and  dvil  rights  in  the 
province  and  matters  of  a  local  and  private 
nature. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  say  the  minister  can  do  it 
directly;  just  what  he  said  he  couldn't  do. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grocsman:  Can't  you  keep  that 
member  in  order,  Mr.  Speaker? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  In  other  words,  what  they 
were  saying  was,  "Press  on  with  anti-foreign 
legislation  with  respect  to  real  estate,"  and 
to  quote  the  old  expression,  "damn  the  tor- 
pedoes." 

Frankly,  I  would  observe  that  I  have  some 
sympathy  for  this  and  some  of  my  competent 
colleagues  have  some  sympathy  for  this.  Pass 
a  bill  banning  or  restricting  foreign  real  estate 


1228 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


holdings  and  let  it  get  tested  in  the  courts, 
because  that  is  what  they  were  suggesting. 
In  fact  I  as  much  as  said  this  in  the  press 
conference  preceding  the  budget  ddbate  dur- 
ing the  lockup  on  Tuesday,  April  9  last. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Did  the  minister  fight  very 
hard  in  the  cabinet? 

Mr.  Singer:  What  did  he  say:  "I  have 
sympathy  for  it?* 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  seems  to  have  more  sym- 
pathy for  the  foreign  speculators. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  But  there  is  another  side 
to  this.  Have  members  thought  of  what  tur- 
moil would  be  created  in  investment  circles? 
What  would  this  do  to  Ontario  and  Canada? 
In  fact  it  would  do  us  no  good  at  all.  As  I 
mentioned  to  the  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre,  Prince  Edward  Island  tried  a  version 
of  this  and  it  was  held  ultra  vires. 

My  colleague,  the  Minister  of  Housing, 
and  the  members  for  Victoria-HaHburton 
and  Humber  express  very  well  their  reserva- 
tions about  such  hasty  action  in  this  area. 

Let  me  read,  for  the  benefit  of  hon.  mem- 
bers present  and  for  Hansard,  from  page  59 
of  the  same  interim  report  on  'Foreign 
Ownership  of  Ontario  Real  Estate." 

Mr.  Singer:  If  one  doesn't  like  the  majority, 
well  read  the  minority  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  If  the  member  doesn't 
like  facts,  then  he  doesn't  have  to  read  the 
majority  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Why  doesn't  the  member 
hang  around,  he  might  just  hear  this  for  the 
first  time. 

Mr.  Singer:  It's  too  much  for  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  doesn't  want  to  be 
confused  with  the  facts. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  He  has  made  up  his  mind, 
he  doesn't  want  to  be  confused  wiA  the 
facts. 

My  colleague  said: 

In  our  view,  a  nation  is  firmly  rooted 
dn  its  history,  its  people  and  its  primacy 
lover  the  land  which  it  occupies.  Owner- 
ship of  Canadian  soil  by  our  citizens  and 
those  who  have  committed  themselves  to 
this  country  by  immigrating  to  it  can  only 
•strengthen  the  nation.  Perception  by  the 
young  of  the  Legislature's  resolve  to  re- 
tain ownership  for  them  of  their  natural 
heritage  will  impress  on  them  the  fact 
that  government  is  for  them  and  their  fu- 
ture as  well  as  for     the  here  and  now. 


Having  come  to  the  above  conclusion 
on  personal  and  philosophical  grounds, 
•we  readily  admit  that  tne  nature  and 
breadth  of  the  committee's  inquiries  was 
limited  by  time,  money  and  depth  of  staff. 
We  do  not  wish  to  minimze  the  dedication, 
'skill  and  sheer  hard  work  which  the  staff 
has  devoted  to  the  studies  carried  out  on 
fcehalf  of  the  committee. 

It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  we  are  not 
fully  informed  of  the  recommendations, 
particularly  as  they  apply  to  the  commer- 
cial and  industrial  use  of  land.  Nor  can  it 
be  said  with  any  confidence  that  the  com- 
mittee has  complete  data  as  to  the  com- 
plex international  money  market  or  the 
manner  in  which  our  recommendations  may 
affect  this  very  delicate  system. 

We  are,  therefore,  in  a  dilemma.  While 
accepting  the  report  and  its  recommenda- 
tions we  are  concerned  that  their  immedi- 
ate [and  they  put  "immediate"  in  italics] 
implementation  by  the  government  -could 
have  unanticipated  implications  at  some 
time  in  the  indefinite  future.  It  would  be 
irresponsible  on  our  part  to  satisfy  oiu: 
.personal  and  philosophical  leanings  by 
urging  early  implementation  of  the  reoom- 
•mendations  without  knowing  the  long- 
range  economic  price  which  may  have  to 
be    paid    by    the    people    of    Ontario. 

It  may  very  well  be  that,  once  known, 
the  price  will  be  low  in  relation  to  the 
(benefits.  If  the  government  can  satisfy 
itself  on  that  point,  then  there  is,  in  oiu: 
'opinion,  no  other  reason  to  delay  the  im- 
plementation  of   all   recommeowktions. 

Now  I  think  they  have  taken  a  very  respon- 
sible approach  to  this  very  interesting  subject. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  If  the  minister  had  accepted 
that  argument  he  woxJdn't  even'  have  im- 
posed me  tax  at  all;  he  would  be  so  afraid 
of  doing  anything  to  interfere  widi  the 
market. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Haliburton): 
Oh  ridiculous.  The  member  is  being  ridicu- 
lous. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  There  is  a  lot  to  be  said 
for  the  recommendations  but  as  my  col- 
leagues pointed  out  in  the  section'  which  I 
have  just  read— and  which  I  see  the  hon. 
member  for  Riverdale  will  now  have  to  read 
in  Hansard— they  recommend,  and  their  view 
was,  that  we  approach  it  very  cautiously. 

The  government  concluded,  my  colleagues 
and  I  concluded,  that  we  could  not,  at  this 
time,  follow  the  course  of  action  the  com- 


APRIL  22.  1974 


1229 


mittee  recommended.  We  feel  that  we  must 
await  the  outcome  of  the  studies  when  re- 
ported on  by  Mr.  Macdonald  and  by  the 
policy  field  committees  in  the  early  fall. 

However,  in  the  meantime  we  just  can't  sit 
around  on  our  hands.  We  c-an't  sit  idly  by,  as 
my  colleague  the  Treasurer  said  in  his  budget 
statement.  In  reference  to  this,  the  member 
for  Scarborough  West  (Mr,  Lewis)  said  last 
Friday— let  me  read  at  page  1083  of  Hansard. 
He  said:  "And  then  wnat  flows"— I  think  he 
meant  follows— "within  the  budget  statement" 
—that  was  following  my  Treasurer's  com- 
ments... 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  Well  it  was 
a  committee  report  with  dissents. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  member  says: 

In  the  next  half-dozen  paragraphs  there's  a  clear 
implication,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  somehow  the  recom- 
mendations embodied  in  the  select  committee's  re- 
port are  reflected  in  the  tax  policy  announced  by 
the  provincial  Treasurer.  And  this  report,  this  state- 
ment in  the  budget,  is  a  very  clever  little  piece  of 
duplicity  in  itself.  What  the  budget  might  have  said, 
to  be  honest,  is  that  the  select  committee  on  eco- 
nomic and  cultural  nationalism  analysed  this  subject, 
investigated  it  thoroughly,  made  a  number  of  re- 
commendations and,  "we,  the  cabinet,  have  de- 
cided to  repudiate  every  single  recommendation  the 
select  committee  made." 

What  arrant  nonsense.  Our  colleagues  have 
pointed  out  that  the  select  committee  did  not 
nave  access  to  all  the  information  necessary. 
They  have  pointed  out  that  there  was  much 
more  study  which  had  to  be  done;  and  that's 
precisely  why  we  wish  to  now  take  some 
intermediate  step. 

Mr.  Renwkk:  But  the  committee's  report 
is  more  important  than  the  dissents. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  right.  That  didn't  stop 
the  government  from  cooking  up  a  tax  in  two 
weeks  and  puttirig  it  in.  The  minister  doesn't 
know  anything  more  about  the  Ontario  land 
market  than  the  committee  did  a  year  ago. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Just  to  clarify  the  point 
of  just  what  was  said  by  my  colleague,  the 
Treasurer,  let  me  read  to  members— it's  ap- 
peared in  Hansard  a  few  times  and  the  mem- 
ber for  Scarborough  West  quoted  the  first 
paragraph  himself;  but  he  quoted  that  para- 
graph out  of  context  and  then  went  on  to 
draw  the  illogical  conclusion  to  which  I  have 
just  made  reference. 

Mr.  Renwick:  He  didn't  quote  it  out  of 
context.  He  read  the  whole  budget  statement. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Let  me  read  the  entire 
three  paragraphs. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  minister  doesn't  need  to 
read  the  whole  three  paragraphs.  We've  all 
listened  to  it. 


Hon.  Mr.  Meent  My  colleague  oommented 
as  follows. 

Interjections  by  hon.  memben. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  In  reference  to  this  bill, 
the  Land  Transfer  Tax  Act: 


In  examining  the  problem  of  rapidly  rising  _ 
for  real  estate  in  Ontario,  it  has  become  increanncly 
apparent  that  large-scale  ac(;^uijition  of  land  by  noo- 
residents  of  Canada  is  a  significant  factor.  The  matter 
of  control  of  non-resident  ownership  of  Canadian  land 
is  a  current  constitutional  issue  which  haf  not  been 
fully  resolved.  The  problem  has  been  studied,  how- 
ever, and  has  been  reported  on  recently  by  Ontario's 
select  committee  on  economic  and  cultural  national- 
ism. 

That    part    the    member   for    Scarborough 

West  quoted.  Then  he  went  on  to  draw  his 

conclusions  that  the  following  six  paragraphs 

negated  everything  we  had  just  said.  Let  me 

read  the  members  the  next  two  paragraphs 

which  follow: 

The  government  of  Ontario  recognizes  that  positive 
action  on  this  matter  is  required  now  in  otder  to 
maximize  Canadian  ownership  of  our  real  estate. 

Mr.  Deans:  We  consider  this  to  be  negative 
action. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  Treasurer  said: 

The  government  has  decided,  therefore,  to  take 
interim  steps  using  the  instruments  at  its  ditpoaal. 
Accordingly,  I  am  proposing  to  increase  substantially 
the  land  transfer  tax  on  purchases  of  land  by  non- 
residents of  Canada  to  20  per  cent  from  6/10  of  one 
per  cent  effective  at  midnight  tonight. 

And  a  33  times  increase  in  tax  is  not  pea- 
nuts. It's  a  very  significant  increase. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  One  small 
step  for  mankind. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  That,  I  hope,  sets  the  re- 
cord straight. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  peanuts  when  you  can 
avoid  it  most  of  the  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  What  about  the  other 
programmes? 

Mr.  Renwick:  By  the  way.  is  the  minister 
satisfied  it  is  direct  taxation  within  the 
province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  In  the  housing  action  pro- 
gramme mv  colleague  the  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing is  taking  steps  to  streamline  the  plans 
administration  branch  operations. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh  yes,  oh  yes. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  signed  the  report  of 

the  select  committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes,  and  he  also  happens 
to  have  been  one  of  those  whom  I  have  just 
quoted  in  the  select  committee  report. 


1230 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  he  certainly  streamlined  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  And  he  is  going  to  have 
more  to  say  on  his  programmes  in  me  weeks 
ahead. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  have  the  land  specu- 
lation Tax  Act- 
Interjections   by  hon.   members. 

Hon.'  Mr.  Meen:  —which  I  suggest  is  a 
disincentive  to  hold  on  to  land.  Its  an  in- 
centive to  get  it  out  into  the  mai^ket,  either 
with  finished  dwelling  or  with  covenants 
from  builders  who  wifi  themselves  construct 
within  a  period  of,  say  a  year. 

I  might  mention  one  other  thing:  By  the 
end  of  this  year,  my  ministry  will  have  com- 
plete information,  on  a  print-out  basis  through 
our  computers,  of  every  serviced  but  unde- 
veloped lot  in  Ontario.  It  would  therefore  be 
possible— and  the  government  is  looking  at 
the  possibilities- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  And  the  government  will  sell 
copies  to  everyone  who  wants  a  house.  Is 
that  right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —to  consider  certain  in- 
centives to  get  these  lots  into  the  housing 
stream  either  by  the  method  suggested  by 
the  select  committee— and  we  might  note  this 
could  be  applied  by  way  of,  say  authority 
to  municipalities  for  certain  tax  surcharges 
on  the  basis  of  non-residency— or  it  could  be 
done  simply  on  the  basis  of  a  serviced, 
undeveloped  lot. 

These  are  some  further  elements  that  form 
part  of  oiu-  entire  programme  towards  getting 
more  lots  on  the  market  and  hopefully,  there- 
fore, with  supply  getting  closer  to  demand, 
helping  to  depress  prices,  and  in  addition 
making  more  land  available  for  housing. 

So  we  have  three  or  four  arrows  in  our 
quiver  as  we  take  aim  at  the  elusive  spectre 
of  land  speculation- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Did  the  minister  say  he  has 
arrows  in  his  quiver? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  None  of  these  should  be 
expected  to  do  it  alone,  but  we  believe  that 
together  they  will  accomplish  this  task. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  yeoman  of  the  cabinet 
is  drawing  his  bow  on  Ontario's  housing 
problem,  eh? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  And  we  think  we  would 
be  derelict  in  our  duties  if  we  didn't  under- 
take it  now,  rather  than  wait  until  the  fall. 
We  just  can't  aflFord  to  wait  until  then. 


Mr.  Renwick:  Has  the  minister  any  idea 
how  many  serviced  but  undeveloped  lots 
there  are  in  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  There  are  quite  a  num- 
ber. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Has  the  minister  any  idea? 
Has  he  any  estimate? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  question  of  whether 
the  20  per  cent  tax  would  be  reflected  in 
the  sale  price  has  also  been  raised  by  a 
niunber  of  members  opposite.  We  don't  think 
so,  and  there  are  two  reasons  for  this. 

The  first  is  that  in  the  case  of  the  20 
per  cent  tax  on  non-resident  builders  who 
undertdce  to  develop  and  resell  to  Canadians 
or  to  Canadian  residents,  then  the  tax  is 
deferred  without  interest.  On  that  basis,  then, 
there  is  no  reason  for  any  potential  cost  of 
this  20  per  cent  to  be  borne  in  Ae  resale 
price. 

Mr.  Reid:  It  has  to  be  paid  sometime. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  only  instance  I  can 
think  of  in  which  that  philosophy  might  ap- 
ply would  be  where  a  corporation  deemed 
to  be  a  non-resident  under  the  Act  sold  a 
completed  dwelling  to  a  non-resident,  in 
which  event  not  only  would  the  20  per  cent 
presumably  be  included  in  the  sale  price,  but 
the  non-resident  purchaser  of  the  dwelling 
would  pay  another  20  per  cent  on  top  of 
the  original  20  per  cent,  for  a  total  sur- 
charge of  some  44  per  cent.  That  would  be 
a  real  disincentive  to  the  sale  of  that  com- 
pleted dwelling  to  a  non-resident. 

Mr.  Renwick:  But  what  about  a  purchase 
by  a  non-resident  for  investment  and  then 
the  renting  of  the  accommodation?  Will  that 
not  be  reflected  in  the  rent  that  is  paid? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  suggest  to  the  hon.  member  for  River- 
dale,  who  had  his  opportunity  to  speak  on 
Friday  and  didn't  use  it- 
Mr.  Renwick:  I  didn't  have  my  opportunity 
on  Friday,  thank  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —that  he  might  withhold 
some  of  those  questions.  I  will  endeavour 
to  answer  them  when  we  are  in  committee, 
and  I'll  be  happy  to  explain  the  sections  to 
him.   I  am   sure  hell  understand  them. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  R.  Gisbom  (Hamilton  East):  He  can 
still  speak  this  afternoon,  if  he  wishes. 


APRIL  22,  1974 


12S1 


Mr.   Ren  wick:    I   still   wish  to   speak  this 

afternoon. 

Hon.    Mr.    Meen:    Now   there   is   another 
reason- 
Mr.   Singer:    If  the  minister  knew  some- 
thing about  the  biU  he  wouldn't  have  to  be 
so  sensitive. 

Mr.  Deans:  The  member  for  Riverdale, 
with  'the  imanimous  consent  of  the  House, 
would  be  prepared  to  speak  now. 

Mr.  Renwidc:  I  will  save  all  the  arrows 
in  my  quiver  imtil  committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  second  reason,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  think  it's  even  more  important, 
is  that  the  best  economic  advice  we  can  get 
tells  us  in  cases  such  as  we  have  with  land 
in  Ontario,  where  demand  exceeds  supply— 
and  this  applies  to  any  commodity  where  de- 
mand exceeds  supply,  but  Fm  speaking  spe- 
cifically in  reference  to  land— the  price  is 
established  not  by  the  cost  of  the  article 
but  by  the  demand. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  chairman  of  the  Bank 
of  Montreal  said  that  the  other  day. 

Mr.  Deans:  One  can  manipulate  demand 
and  supply. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Contrary  to  the  views 
expressed  by  the  economist  from  Wentworth 
and  the  economist  from  Sudbury  East  and 
a  few  other  instant  economists  we've  had 
around  here  from  time  to  time,  a  20  per 
cent  factor  then  is  not  reflected  in  the  sale 
price;  it  would  simply  be  a  further  profit 
to  be  made.  It  is  a  disincentive  in  this  case. 
Let  me  clarify  that  it's  a  disincentive  to  a 
foreign  investor  to  go  into  this  market  witfi 
an  additional  markup  of  20  per  cent  on  his 
cost,  which  he  will  not  be  successful  in  re- 
flecting in  the  sale  price. 

Mr.  Renwidc:  He  will  be  able  to  reflect 
it  in  the  sale  price. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It  will  be  part  of  his  cost 
of  acquisition,  but  it  will  not  adversely^ 
upwardly— increase  the  sale  price.  In  fact, 
it  will  detract  from  the  demand  and  hope- 
fully, will  depress  the  basic  market  value. 

Mr.  Renwick:   There  is  no  way  it  will. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  No.  I  recommend  that  the 
minister    studies    the    theory    of    oligopoly. 

An  hon.  member:  Except  that  he  doesn't 

know  what  that  is. 


Hon.  Mr.  Meent  The  cotti  of  these  landc 
are  not  influenced  by  market  price.  With  our 
other  measures  we  think  it  wiH  hdp  to 
stabilize  the  real  estate  market,  not  drive  it 
up. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Stabilize.  We  all  know  what 
a  stable  is. 

Mr.  Deang}  Who  is  giving  the  minister 
his  economic  advice? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  hon.  member  for 
Wentworth  has  just  asked  an  interesting 
question.  I  have  access  to  very  good  eco- 
nomic advice  from  within  the  government, 
probably  from  the  best  economists  in  the 
land. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Like  the  Treasurer. 

Mr.  Deans:  They  have  made  an  awful 
error  this  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Let  me  just  add  this. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  are  not  the  problem. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Where  did 
the  member  for  Wentworth  get  his? 

Mr.  Deans:  I  get  my  economic  advice  from 
Marion  Bryden,  the  same  place  as  the  mem- 
ber gets  his.  It  is  good  advice.  She  didn't 
advise  this. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Deans:  I'm  sorry.  Am  I  interrupting? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Section  22  of  the  bill 
refers  specifically  to  the  20  per  cent  non- 
resident tax.  I've  been  turning  over  in  my 
mind  whether  there  woiddn't  be  some  merit 
in  permitting  some  flexibihty,  by  regulation, 
to  adjust  that  figure  upward,  in  case  we 
saw,  when  we  monitor  this  Act  and  its  effect 
over  the  next  few  months,  whether  or  not 
the  20  per  cent  is  reaping  in  a  tremendous 
revenue  to  the  province  but  not  deterring 
foreign  investments. 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  know  of  no  tax  that  can 
be  levied  by  regiJation  in  this  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It  would  be  interesting 
to  see  what  the  thoughts  of  the  House  would 
be  on  something  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Just  trust  usi 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Just  raise  it  to  100  per  cent 
and  the  minister  may  get  our  support 

Mr.  Singer:  Pass  a  general  Act  that  we 
will  tax  whatever  we  want  and  well  tell 
members  in  regulations.  What  an  idea  that  is! 


1232 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Renwick:  We  cannot  allow  the  gov- 
ernment to  tax  by  regulation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Singer:  They  don't  need  a  budget; 
they  just  pass  one  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  As  to  specifics,  I  am  sorry 
the  member  for  Kitchener  is  not  in  his  seat 
at  the  present  time.  He  asked  a  number  of 
pertinent  questions  that  were  on  the  subject 
of  the  bill,  contrary  to  so  many  that  were 
not. 

He  ksked  about  a  lien  review  procedure  up 
to  Sept.  30.  We  do  have  that  procedure  but 
that  is  oiily  with  respect  to  liens  that  will 
accme  from  and  beginning  April  10  last  until 
the  date  of  proclamation  of  the  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  review  procedure 
will  go  on,  as  we  look  over  those  various 
transactions,  until  Sept.  30. 

The  question  arose  of  whether  the  bill 
might  increase  the  price  of  vacant  land.  I 
think  I  dealt  with  that  one,  but  I  would  just 
point  out  to  him  and  to  his  colleagues  here 
in  the  House  that,  whether  we  are  dealing 
with  vacant  land  or  not,  we  are  really  deal- 
ing with  the  matter  of  non-residency  and  not 
the  nature  of  land,  whether  it's  vacant  or 
whether  it's  developed. 

He  asked  if  the  tax  is  a  cost  of  doing 
business  for  income  tax  purposes,  and  as 
far  as  I  can  ascertain  the  answer  to  that 
question  is  yes. 

Mr.  Singer:  How  did  the  minister  ascer- 
tain that?  The  federal  government  has  not 
given  any  such  indication. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  He  asked  if  vendors  may 
be  anticipated  to  hang  on  to  land. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon;  Mr.  Meen:  I  would  say  yes,  that 
could  be.  If  so,  then  perhaps  that's  because 
of  a  lack  of  non-resident  buyers.  If  that  is 
the  case,  I'd  suggest  that  maybe  the  bill  is 
doing  the  job  we  want  it  to  do. 

Now  he  asked  also,  could  my  ministry 
track  down  foreign  sources  which  act  through 
Ontario  agents?  Well  I  would  say  that  in 
some  cases  such  foreign  sources  might  be 
able  to  escape  if  the  nature  of  their  trans- 
action is  suppressed.  But,  quite  honestly,  I 
would  expect  that  the  number  of  false  aflB- 
davits  would  be  few. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Can  the  minister  explain 
why? 


Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  want  also  to  emphasize 
once  more  that  we  are  not  trying  to  dis- 
courage foreign  investment  by  non-residents 
for  development  purposes  or  in  any  other 
sense.  He  had  questioned  that  one,  as  I 
recall. 

He-  talked  also  about  accountants  wanting 
precision  so  they  would  be  able  to  identify 
the  loopholes.  Perhaps  in  answer  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Downsview  I'd  say  that  is  sort 
of  the  opposite  side  of  the  coin,  I  like  a 
little  flexibility  so  that  the  minute  we  find 
one  I  can  move  in  and  plug  it  up. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  with  or  without  the 
Legislature;  preferably  without. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Well  if  the  Legislature 
is  in  session,  then  fine.  But  if  the  Legislature 
is  not  in  session  we  could  have  some  diflB- 
culties. 

Mr.  Singer:  Surely  the  minister  is  not 
serious    about    taxing   by   regulation? 

Mr.  Renwick:   He  is  not  really? 

Mr.   Singer:   Is  that  government  policy? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Singer:  He  just  wants  to  tax  by  regu- 
lation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  hon.  member  for 
High  Park  raised  a  number  of  points.  He 
talked  about  false  afiidavits,  how  easy  it 
would  be,  the  minimum  fine  of  $50,  the 
maximum  of  $1,000.  Let  me  point  out  to 
him  section  122  of  the  Criminal  Code,  with 
which  he  may  not  have  been  familiar  since 
he  wouldn't  have  had  any  personal  involve- 
ment with  it.  It  imposes  a  penalty  of  up  to 
14  years  imprisonment  for  knowingly  making 
any  false  afiidavit,  and  I  think  that  ought  to 
be  enough  to  discourage  some  people. 

I  think  it  was  he  who  also  mentioned  that 
the  mortgage  market  had  dried  up  utterly 
as  a  result  of  this  bill,  that  foreign  invest- 
ments through  the  lending  process  were 
simply  stopped  dead,  taking  no  steps  what- 
ever pending  whatever  developments  they 
thought  might  occur  up  here. 

I  had  my  staff  check  this  afternoon  and 
I'm  advised  that  as  recently  as  this  afternoon 
the  Toronto  Real  Estate  Board  had  no  indi- 
cation of  mortgage  money  shortage  attribu- 
table to  this  bill.  They  do  indicate  there  may 
be  some  problems  arising  because  of  the 
Bank  of  Canada's  recentiy  announced  interest 
rate,  but  that  if  there  are  any  doubts  in  that 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1233 


area  they  arise  through  that  bank  action 
and  not  tlirough  the  steps  we  have  taken. 

I  had  indicated  very  early,  following  the 
introduction  of  the  bill,  that  the  matter  of 
a  final  order  of  foreclosure  being  a  very  clear 
loophole  we  had  plugged  it.  In  other  words, 
we  had  not  provided  in  tlie  bill  that  a  final 
order  of  foreclosure  taken  by  a  non-resident 
mortgagee  would  give  him  title  to  the  land. 

The  reason  was  that  that  would  be  a  very 
clear  loophole  through  the  Act  if  we  were  to 
allow  the  mortgage  process  to  be  used  for 
the  basis  of  acquisition  of  land  by  a  non- 
resident. 

It  became  apparent,  though,  that  some 
lenders  were  a  bit  concerned  about  this 
matter,  and  we  will  be  issuing  a  statement. 
It  is  in  preparation  now.  It  will  make  it 
abundantly  clear  that  where  the  ministry  is 
satisfied  the  mortgage  under  foreclosure  did 
not  in  any  way  arise  through  a  collusive  ar- 
rangement with  the  mortgagor  in  order  to 
permit  the  mortgagee  to  acquire  title  to  the 
property  via  the  foreclosure  route,  we  would 
then  waive  the  tax. 

When  I  wrote  to  every  member  of  the  legal 

profession  under  date  of  April  9— the  letter 

was  mailed  at  4  o'clock  that  afternoon  at  the 

same  time  as  the  budget  address  was  going 

on— I  added  this  addendum  to  the  references 

to  the  Land  Transfer  Tax  Act,  and  I  quote, 

just  finishing  oflF  the  last  part  of  the  sentence: 

...  for  a  final  order  of  foreclosure  of  the 

eauity   of   redemption   under   a   mortgage, 

where  it  is  established  to  the  satisfaction 

of  the  minister  that  such  order  is  not  part 

of  a  collusive  arrangement  to  avoid  the  tax. 

Now  that,  hopefully,  had  gotten  to  every 
practising  solicitor  in  Ontario.  As  I  say,  I  did 
have  one  call  and  I  believe  that  was  clarified. 
We  certainly  do  not  expect  to  have  any 
difficulities;  and  certainly  I  would  not  believe 
the  mortgage  market  had  dried  up. 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  conclusion- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  What  about  the  amount  of 
foreign  investment  before  tax? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —may  I  just  observe  that 
as  usual  the  oflRcial  opposition  seems  to  be 
on  both  sides  of  this  issue? 

Mr.  Singer:  If  the  minister  would  listen 
he  could  comment  sensibly. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Although  they  have  now 
indicated  they  don't  propose  to  support  ft, 
originally  their  leader  said  that  they  would. 

Mr.  Singer:  He  said  no  such  thing! 


Hon.  Mr.  Meent  I  couldn't  tell  which  side 
of  the- 

Mr.  Singer:  He  .said  no  such  thing;  the 
minister  is  deliberately  misleading  the  House 
and  he  knows  iti 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  -fence  the  hon.  member 
for  Kitchener  was  on  because  he  didn't  say. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  minister  is  deliberately 
misleading  the  House! 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  But  I  noted  the  observa- 
tions by  the  hon.  member  for  York  Centre- 
he  was  vehemendy  opposed-and  frankly  they 
surprised  me,  Mr.  Speaker.  Recognizing  that  a 
20  per  cent  disincentive  to  foreign  investment 
in  the  real  estate  field  is  then  going  to  be  a 
greater  incentive  to  those  foreign  investors  to 
put  their  money,  that's  floating  around  look- 
ing for  a  nice  safe  place  to  land,  that  those 
foreign  investors  might  be  far  more  likely 
now  to  put  their  money  into  the  stock  broker- 
age equity  investment  field,  I'm  astonished 
that  the  hon.  member  for  York  Centre,  ex- 
stockbroker  that  he  is,  would  have  been  so 
perturbed  by  this  bill. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  Don't 
believe  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  And  yet  he  seemed  mainly 
opposed— as  I  read  his  remarks  in  Hansard— he 
seemed  mainly  opposed  because  it  didn't  ap- 
pear to  implement  fully  the  recommendations 
of  the  Select  Committee  on  Ecorwmic  and 
Cultural  Nationalism.  And  of  course  I  think 
I've  made  it  abundantly  clear  that  we're  do- 
ing what  we  can  at  this  time. 

An  hon.  member:  How's  he  doing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Well  maybe  by  now  he's 
had  a  chance  to  see  the  light,  I  don't  know. 

As  for  the  NDP,  well  I  guess  they're  wholly 
predictable.  They  certainly  are  more  pre- 
dictable than  the  official  opposition.  Because 
after  all,  they're  opposed  to  everythine.  They 
opposed  the  Niagara  Escarpment  legislation- 
Mr.  Renwick:  That's  a  helpful  remark; 
that's  a  really  helpful  remark. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  They  opposed  the  parkway 

legislation. 

Mr.   Renwick:    We   are   talking  about  the 

principle  of  this  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Thev  opposed  the  plan- 
ning and  development  legislation.  They  op- 
posed every  one  of  my— 


1234 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Renwick:  We  are  talking  about  the 
principle  of  this  bill.  Stick  to  the  bill! 

Mr.  Cassidy:  We're  opposed  to  the  way 
the  government  is  numing  the  province.  It's 
doing  a  bad  job.  It's  trying  to— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It's  none  of  these  things. 
This  legislation  by  this  government  is  an 
honest  attempt,  by  constitutional  means,  to 
put  a  damper  on  the  pressure  of  foreign 
moneys  in  this  market- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Three  hundred  million  a  year 
is  dampening?  Nonsense! 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —to  do  what  we  could  not 
otherwise  do  by  other  courses  of  action, 
whether  recommended  by  the  select  com- 
mittee or  not— 

Mr.  Singer:  Utter  rot. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  government  will  allow  a 
third  of  a  billion  in  foreign  money  to  come 
in— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  will  constantly  monitor 
the  effect  of  this  legislation  and  its  compan- 
ion legislation  over  the  next  few  months. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  government  doesn't  know 
what's  happening  there  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  will  inspect  the  aflS- 
davits  that  are  filed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  will  inspect  the  rec- 
ords and  we  will  be  keeping  records  over 
the  next  few  months.  If  it  appears  this  legis- 
lation has  loopholes,  we  will  plug  them  as 
swiftly  as  we  possibly  can— either  by  regula- 
tion or  by  amendments  to  this  legislation  later 
on  this  session,  or  possibly  in  the  fall. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  or  by  regulations. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  have  left  a  lot  to  plug. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  princi- 
ples are  sound  and  frankly  they  deserve  sup- 
port from  all  sides,  from  all  members  who  are 
anxious  to  see  that  our  natural  heritage,  our 
land  of  this  province,  is  preserved  for  the 
maximum  benefit  of  all  residents  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Singer:  Rot! 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  motion  is  for  second 
reading  of  Bill  26. 

The  House  divided  on  the  motion  for 
second  reading  of  Bill  26,  which  was  ap- 
proved on  the  following  vote: 


Ayes 


Nays 


Allan 

Breithaupt 

Beckett 

Burr 

Bennett 

Campbell 

Bemier 

Cassidy 

Birch 

Davison 

Brunelle 

Deacon 

Carton 

Deans 

Clement 

Dukszta 

Davis 

Edighoffer 
Foulds 

Downer 

Dymond 

Germa 

Eaton 

Gisbom 

Evans 

Givens 

Grossman 

Good 

Hamilton 

Haggerty 
Lawlor 

Havrot 

Henderson 

Lewis 

Hodgson 

Newman 

(Victoria- 

(Windsor- 

Haliburton) 

Walkerville) 

Hodgson 

Nixon 

(York  North) 

(Brant) 

Irvine 

Paterson 

Jessiman 

Reid 

Kennedy 

Renwick 

Ken- 

Riddell 

Lawrence 

Roy 

Leluk 

Ruston 

MacBeth 

Singer 

Maeck 

Smith 

Mcllveen 

(Nipissing) 

McNeil 

Stokes 

Meen 

Worton 

Miller 

Young-30. 

Morningstar 

Newman 

(Ontario  South) 

Nixon 

(Dovercourt) 

Nuttall 

Reilly 

Rhodes 

Root 

Rowe 

Scrivener 

Snow 

Stewart 

Taylor 

Walker 

Wardle 

Welch 

Winkler 

Yaremko-48. 

Clerk  of  the  House: 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  "ayes'* 

are  48,  the  "nays"  are 

30. 

Motion  agreed  to; 

second  reading  of  the 

bill. 

APRIL  22,  1974 


1235 


Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  bill  be  referred  to 
committee  of  the  whole? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Committee  of  the  whde 
House. 

Mr.    Speaker:    Committee    of    the    whole 
House. 


POINT  OF  ORDER 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Is  there  any  possible  reason  why  this 
bill  and  its  companion  bill  could  not  go  to 
a  committee  outside  of  the  Legislature? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  no  point  of  order. 
The  minister  has  the  privilege  of  determin- 
ing which  committee  the  bill  should  go  to. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  was  admitted,  though,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  there  are  a  lot  of  loopholes  in 
the  bill  and  it  should  be  open  to  that  kind  of 
discussion. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  sorry,  there's  no  point  of 
order. 


PRIVATE  MEMBERS'  HOUR 
NOTICE  OF  MOTION  NO.  1 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Notice  of  motion  No. 
1  by  Mr.  Young. 

Resolxjtion:  That  the  government  of 
Ontario  set  provincial  standards  to  control 
the  installation  and  maintenance  of  fire 
extinguishers  in  all  buildings  except  pri- 
vate residences  and  that  a  commissioner  be 
appointed  to  supervise  and  enforce  these 
standards.. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Speaker, 
resolution  No.  1  on  the  order  paper  really 
grew  out  of  correspondence  which  was  sent 
by  a  gentleman  in  Oshawa,  by  the  name  of 
James  Gorman,  who  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
Attorney  General,  to  the  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position and  to  this  party,  in  connection  with 
a  problem  with  respect  to  fire  extinguishers. 
Mr.  Gorman  spoke  to  me  about  this  subse- 
quently, after  I  called  him,  and  provided  me 
with  a  good  deal  of  material,  some  of  which 
I  had  not  seen  before. 

I  might  say  that  Mr.  Gorman  has  been  a 
salesman  for  the  Levitt  Co.  for  some  years 
and  now  has  his  own  company  which  is 
having  some  diflBculty  because  he  is  too 
concerned  with  safety.  He  is  having  some 
diflBculties  with  competitors  which  I  will  out- 
line later. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  am  sure  the 
hon.  member  has  difficulty  in  making  him- 
self heard. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  We  are 
listening. 

Mr.  Young:  I  might  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
the  National  Building  Code  report  dealt  with 
the  matter  of  fire  safety  to  some  extent.  At 
the  present  time,  the  Ontario  fire  code  re- 
port is  coming,  when  the  conrmiittee  is  fin- 
ished. That  snould  be  complete  within  a 
reasonable  time.  But  we  do  know  that  pres- 
ent provincial  standards  do  require  fire  ex- 
tinguishers in  every  building  other  than 
private  residences. 

The  Industrial  Safety  Act,  for  example, 
requires  that  the  owner  of  an  industrial 
establishment  shall  provide  adequate  fire 
protection  and  equipment,  lays  down  rules  as 
to  the  inspection  of  these  bits  of  equipment 
every  month,  and  prohibits  extinguishers 
containing  carbontech  and  other  dangerous 
substances.  Service  stations,  nursery  homes, 
school  buses  and  other  such  items  are  cov- 
ered under  the  regulations.  TTie  Fire  Mar- 
shals Act  also  gives  the  fire  marshal  certain 
f)owers  to  confer  and  to  assist  in  setting  up 
ocal  bylaws.  He  also  has  the  power  to  re- 
auire  tiiat  these  bylaws  be  enforced  when 
ley  are  passed. 

The  Fire  Marshals  Act  also  empowers  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  to  make 
regulations  under  26(e),  "providing  for  licen- 
sing and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale, 
servicing  and  recharging  of  fire  extinguishers." 
Unfortunately,  Mr.  Speaker,  no  r^ulations 
have  ever  been  written  under  this  provision. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds   (Port  Arthur):  Shame. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Typical. 

Mr.  Young:  The  type  of  fire  extinguisher 
to  be  used  in  any  given  place  and  the  kind 
of  servicing  of  such  equipment  has  been 
pretty  well  left  to  the  insurance  industry 
and  the  local  fire  departments.  The  insurance 
industry  seems  more  interested  in  sprinkling 
systems  and  major  items  of  fire  protection 
and  leaves  the  fire  extinguishers  to  the  local 
fire  department  assuming,  not  alwaN-s  cor- 
rectly, that  they  make  sure  the  extinguishers 
are  always  in  good  working  order. 

The  Canadian  Underwriters  Association 
has  a  couple  of  very  useful  booklets  whidi 
I  have  here,  Nos.  10  and  lOA,  setting  out 
what  types  of  fire  extinguishers  should  be 
used  in  certain  situations.  They  give  general 
principles  for  the  location  of  such  equipment 
and  how  it  should  be  recharged  and  main- 


1236 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tained.  But  these  rules  are  not  enshrined  in 
legislation  and  so  are  not  enforced. 

As  I  pointed  out,  the  regulations  possible 
under  the  Fire  Marshals  Act  have  never 
been  written.  That's  vv^hat  this  resolution  is 
all  about  today. 

As  I  see  it,  there  are  four  main  problems 
in  connection  wdth  present  practices  in  re- 
spect to  fire  extinguishers.  They  may  not  be 
in  the  right  place.  They  may  not  be  of  the 
right  type  for  that  location.  They  may  not 
be  properly  maintained.  The  people  working 
nearest  them  may  not  know  how  to  operate 
them. 

The  first  of  these  need  not  take  much  dis- 
cussion. Most  fire  extinguishers  are  placed 
according  to  the  instructions  of  the  Canadian 
Underwriters  Association.  Sometimes,  how- 
ever, they  do  get  placed  at  the  convenience 
of  the  builder  or  so  that  they  don't  detract 
from  the  decor  of  the  building.  Sometimes, 
too,  in  places  like  school  buses,  they  are 
hidden  to  prevent  theft. 

*Many  smaller  communities  have  no  inspec- 
tors in  the  local  fire  department  trained  in 
the  location  of  such  equipment  and  standards 
vary  from  community  to  community.  The 
standards  outlined  in  CUA  10  need  to  be 
made  universal  in  this  province  and  local 
people  should  be  trained  in  their  implemen- 
tation. 

Second,  in  selecting  the  right  type  of  fire 
extinguisher  for  a  particular  location,  the  pur- 
chaser is  often  at  the  mercy  of  commercial 
interests  more  keen  on  sales  than  adequate 
protection.  There  is  a  very  wide  variety  of 
extinguishers,  some  based  on  water  imder 
various  kinds  of  pressure;  others  have  soda 
acid,  carbon  dioxide,  ammonium  phosphate 
and  other  chemicals.  In  looking  over  the 
whole  lot  of  them,  the  building  owner  may 
seek  the  cheapest  type  of  extinguisher  rather 
than  the  most  effective  one  for  his  situation. 

The  Canadian  Underwriters  Association 
lists  four  classes  of  fires.  These  classes  are 
as  follows:  Class  A  fire,  ordinary  combustible 
materials,  such  as  wood,  cloth,  paper,  rubber 
and  many  plastics;  class  B,  those  inflammable 
liquids,  gases  and  greases;  class  C  fires,  which 
involve  energized  electrical  equipment  where 
the  electrical  non-conductivity  of  the  extin- 
guishing media  is  of  importance;  and  class 
D  fires,  in  combustible  metals,  such  as  mag- 
nesium, titanium  and  others. 

Class  A  fires,  of  course,  can  be  handled 
by  water  extinguishers.  But  this  will  cause 
some  water  damage  while  extinguishing  the 
fire.  Water  in  class  B  fires— that  is  grease  and 
oil— will    only   spread  the   blaze.   How   often 


we  have  heard  of  grease  fires  in  kitchens  ex- 
ploding in  this  way. 

The  older  types  of  extinguishers  were  the 
best  available  when  they  were  first  sold,  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  keep  selling  them  when 
more  efficient  ones  are  now  available.  The 
modem  ammonium  phosphate  extinguishers, 
for  example,  will  serve  for  all  A,  B,  and  C 
class  fires.  They  will  handle  five  times  as 
much  fire  as  water  will  and  do  no  water 
damage. 

It's  a  strange  anomaly  that  the  commercial 
driver's  manual  issued  by  the  Transportation 
Safety  Association  of  Ontario  uses  a  1954 
fire  extinguisher  standard  and  recommends 
types  of  extinguishers  good  only  for  B  and 
C  class  fires.  The  majority  of  automotive 
fires  also  involve  class  A  fires.  Only  multi- 
purpose, dry  chemical  extinguishers  should 
be  recommended,  as  they  now  are  in  many 
states  south  of  the  border. 

Builders  of  apartments,  too,  often  install 
the  cheaper  soda  acid  extinguishers  which 
should  be  emptied  and  recharged  every  year. 
The  building  is  sold  and  the  new  owner  may 
not  be  aware  of  what  needs  to  be  done;  or 
he  may  not  care  about  recharging  as  long 
as   the  extinguishers  look  aU  right. 

I  understand  that  the  Ontario  government 
is  now  in  the  process  of  converting  all  its 
extinguishers  to  the  A,  B  and  C  type  as  re- 
placement is  required.  That's  a  good  move 
and  it  should  be  universal  in  Ontario. 

Legislation,  or  the  writing  of  adequate 
regulations  under  the  present  Fire  Marshals 
Act,  is  needed  to  phase  out  the  less  eflBcient 
type  of  extinguishers,  which  may  have  been 
the  very  best  we  had  years  ago  but  which 
are  now  obsolete,  and  to  bring  about  the 
installation  of  the  more  efficient  ones  that 
we  now  possess. 

In  the  field  of  inspection  and  maintenance, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  Canadian  Underwriters 
Association  book  lOA  provides  sound  pro- 
cedures. But  there  is  no  legislation  to  make 
them  mandatory. 

Fire  extinguisher  servicing  agencies  are 
not  licensed.  Anyone,  regardless  of  qualifica- 
tion, may  enter  the  field  and  seek  business. 
Any  person  may  seek  that  business  by  lower- 
ing his  prices  to  the  level  where  servicing 
just  can't  be  done  without  cutting  too  many 
corners. 

It's  a  highly-competitive  field,  and  for 
anyone  more  concerned  with  making  a  dol- 
lar than  in  safety,  the  way  is  wide  open  to 
tender  prices  far  too  low  to  guarantee  ade- 
quate work.  The  result  may  be  that  recharg- 
ing  the   equipment,  or   even  putting  a  new 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1237 


date  on  the  tag  after  a  quick  look  at  the 
outside  of  the  extinguisher,  is  all  that's  done. 
Careful  inspection,  maintenance  and  repair 
goes  by  the  board.  These  things  are  often 
not  covered  by  the  tender  specifications  or 
the  business  agreements. 

The  building  owner  takes  too  much  for 
granted.  To  him,  servicing  is  servicing  and 
he  doesn't  realize  how  important  thorough 
servicing  can  be  if  the  extinguisher  is  to  be 
constantly  ready  for  the  emergency  it  was 
designed  to  meet.  Seldom  is  any  detailed 
service  report  given  to  the  owner,  and  seldom 
does  he  know  what  work  he  has  actually  paid 
for.  It's  .similar  to  a  car  owner  who  is  only 
concerned  with  keeping  the  gas  tank  full, 
who  ignores  the  brakes,  the  oil,  the  tires 
and  other  vital  parts  of  the  car  equally  es- 
sential to  keeping  it  in  good  running  order. 

Mr.  Gorman  of  Oshawa,  whom  I  mentioned 
before  and  who  has  wide  experience,  says 
this: 

There  are  II  manufacturers  of  multi- 
purpose dry  chemical  —  ammonium  phos- 
phate base— fire  extinguishers  listed  in  the 
ULCs  list  of  equipment  and  materials. 
This  does  not  include  some  American 
manufacturers  that  are  not  listed  but  avail- 
able  to  Canadian  consumers. 

The  CUA  book  lOA  states  when  recharg- 
ing dry  chemical  fire  extinguishers  the 
manufacturer's  chemical  should  be  used 
or  the  extinguisher  is  void  of  its  label.  No 
servicing  company  carries  in  its  recharging 
stock  11  difi^erent  manufacturers'  chemicals. 
In  fact  most  recharging  companies  buy 
their  chemical  from  one  company;  a  com- 
pany that  sells  this  chemical  for  the  low- 
est price  and  does  not  have  any  approval 
for  the  chemical.  This  means  once  a  fire 
extinguisher  has  been  recharged  it  is  no 
longer  as  effective,  as  it  was  prjginally. 

I       He  alSb'i^a^i'':'  ^■■^'■'  ■■■'•■■  •■■^\  "'y-  '^"•^■'    '   "' 

The  Industrial  Safety  Act.  requires  pro- 
per fire  extinguishers  and  by  the  term 
"adequate*'  requires  that  they  be  in  a 
constant' ^tate  of  readiness.  The  number  of 
establfshrtieiits  that  I  have  observed  that 
have  ddrnplied  with  the  Act  would  be  less 
than  10.  r  have  been  in  over  1,000  plants 
frotti  Windsor  to  Gananoque. 

Th6  average  industry  is  incapable  of 
providing  a  record  of  their  own  fire  ex- 
tinguishers without  doing  a  plant  search. 
In  otheT  words,  they  don  t  have  any  record 
of  the  number  of  extinguishers— let  alone 
the  types  and  ages  and  locations  of  them. 
IiLstallation  of  fire  extinguishers  generally 
means  distributing  anything  with  the  words 


"fire  extinguisher"  stamped  on  it  through- 
out the  plant 

And  he  says: 

In  some  communities  the  local  fire  de- 
partment inspects  building  and  instructs 
the  owners  to  deliver  their  nre  extinguishers 
to  their  fire  department  garage.  Here  they 
recharge  the  extinguisher  in  a  substandard 
manner  and  have  the  owners  pick  up  the 
extinguisher.  They  charge  for  this,  of 
course;  and  sometimes  more  than  the  aver- 
age legitimate  fee.  While  these  units  are 
at  the  fire  department  the  owner  has  no 
fire  protection. 

Then  too,  Mr.  Speaker,  extinguishers  are 
pressure  vessels  ana  so  stand  some  danger 
of  blowing  up  if  any  weakness  develops  in 
the  outside  shell.  The  Canadian  Underwriters 
Association's  book  lOA  requires  hydrostatic 
testing  at  stated  intervals,  depending  upon  the 
type  of  equipment.  But  hydrostatic  testing  is 
done  only  at  the  request  of  the  owner  and 
most  owners  don't  even  know  that  it  should 
be  done.  There  is  no  legislation  to  cover  it 
and  little  specialized  equipment  in  this  prov- 
ince to  carry  it  out.  Outside  Metro  this  type 
of  test  equipment  just  does  not  exist. 

Near  my  oflBce  door  in  the  north  wing  is 
a  pressure  water  extinguisher.  Regulations  10a 
says  it  should  have  a  hydrostatic  test  every 
five  years;  and  it  also  says  there  should  be  a 
metal  tag  stamped  with  the  date  of  the  in- 
spection and  the  name  of  the  person  who 
does  the  inspection;  and  that  tag  self-destructs 
if  anybody  tries  to  remove  it  from  that  ex- 
tinguisher and  put  it  somewhere  else.  Well 
Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  tag  on  this  extin- 
guisher; there  is  no  tag  on  any  extinguisher 
I  have  seen  in  the  building. 

This  particular  extinguisher  was  made  in 
1964.  I  can  see  perhaps  some  reason  why  the 
government  should  leave  these  potentially  ex- 
plosive devices  in  the  offices  of  the  opposition 
members,  but  the  strange  thing  is  that  they 
also  exist  downstairs  in  the  offices  of  the 
government  members  —  and  those  extin- 
guishers have  no  metal  tags  on  them  either. 
So  evidentiy  the  hydrostatic  testing  is  not 
being  done  even  in  this  building,  unless  I 
have  not  been  able  to  see  the  tags  that  should 
be  there. 

The  final  thing  that  I  raise  is  training  for 
use.  Certainly  all  janitors  and  service  people 
in  all  buildings  should  be  trained  in  the  use 
of  this  equipment  so  they  know  exactly  what 
kinds  of  fires  partiailar  equipment  can  put 
out.  Also,  the  people  concerned  who  are 
working  near  this  equipment  should  know  as 
well. 


1238 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


For  example,  I  sit  very  close  to  a  fire  ex- 
tinguisher upstairs,  and  I  did  not  know  what 
type  it  was  imtil  I  began  to  do  a  little  re- 
search for  this  particular  resolution.  If  a  fire 
had  occurred  I  would  have  had  very  little 
information  on  what  to  do  in  handling  it. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  my  resolution  says 
there  should  be  a  commissioner  to  supervise 
and  enforce  these  standards;  and  such  a  com- 
missioner could  very  well  be  the  fire  marshal 
of  this  province.  TTie  purpose  of  appointing 
a  commissioner  of  fire  extinguishers  would 
be  to  eliminate  the  present  confusion  and 
inadequacies  that  presently  exist  in  the  fire 
extinguisher  field. 

It  would  be  the  responsibility  of  the  com- 
missioner's oflBce  to: 

1.  Establish  a  standard  for  the  installation 
and  maintenance  of  fire  extinguishers  in  all 
buildings  and  areas  where  the  public  may 
enter  and  the  possibility  of  fire  exists;  and 
to  recommend  legislation  and  regulations  to 
publish  these  standards. 

2.  Provide  pubhcation  of  these  standards 
and  other  pertinent  information  to  the  au- 
thorities of  various  jurisdictions,  fire  extin- 
guisher users,  servicing  companies  and  manu- 
facturers. 

3.  Control  the  maintenance  of  fire  extin- 
guishers through  training  and  licensing  of 
personnel  engaged  in  this  type  of  service. 

4.  Through  research,  provide  information 
and  recommendations  to  those  concerned  re- 
garding such  areas  as  discontinued  approval 
of  certain  extinguishers  and  practices,  in- 
forming the  pubhc  and  the  manufacturers 
of  new  or  advanced  methods  of  fire  fighting, 
fire  extinguisher  training  for  industry  and 
students. 

5.  Ensure  that  every  community  in  the 
province  has  an  inspector  appointea  by  their 
local  fire  department. 

I  call  upon  this  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
support  the  resolution  I  have  put  forward 
today. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Hon.  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine. 

Mr.  T.  A.  Wardle  (Beaches-Woodbine): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to  support  the  resolution 
proposed  by  the  hon.  member  for  Yorkview. 
My  hon.  friend  brings  up  an  important  mat- 
ter and  makes  what  I  think  is  a  reasonable 
argument  for  setting  provincial  standards  in 
order  to  control  the  information  and  main- 
tenance of  fire  extinguishers  in  all  buildings 
except  those  in  private  residences. 


It  seems  to  me  that  having  a  set  standard 
throughout  the  province  would  be  desirable. 
There  are  no  proper  individual  standards 
now  as  to  types  of  fire  extinguishers  and  no 
provincial  maintenance  and  inspection  pro- 
grammes. 

I  understand  this  resolution  would  provide 
an  inspection  programme  to  ensure  that  the 
type  of  extinguisher  used  on  premises  is 
adequate  for  the  purpose  it  is  intended  to 
serve,  that  is  to  extinguish  a  fire  on  those 
particular  premises.  [ 

It  is  important  also  to  give  consideration 
to   another  aspect  of  this  problem.  A  con-       i 
fectionery  or  similar  store,  it  is  hoped,  wotdd 
have  the  type  of  extinguisher  that  would  be 
suitable  for  the  type  of  stock  carried  in  such 
a   store.   However,   if  the   occupancy  of  the 
store  changed  and  it  became  a  dry  cleaning       ' 
establishment  or  a  fish  and  chip  store,  then       j 
a  different  type  of  extinguishing  agent  would 
be  required. 

For  instance,  a  confectionery  store  would 
require  a  water  pressure  type  of  fire  extin-        i 
guisher  for  paper  and  similar  stock,  while  a 
dry  cleaning  establishment  would  require  a 
carbon  dioxide  or  dry  powder  type  of  extin-        I 
guisher.    Inspections   should   be   made  when        ; 
changes  take  place  in  occupancy  of  various        | 
business    establishments;    and,    Mr.    Speaker,        i 
this   does  not  take  place  now.  A  store  will       j 
become   a   new  type   of  operation,  yet  the 
extinguishers  often  remain  the  same.  ; 

Each  extinguisher  should  be  classified  as       I 
to  the  coding.   Inspections  should  be  made       \ 
to   make   sure   that   every   establishment  has 
the   type    of   extinguisher   required  fof   that       ! 
type  of  operation.  The   extinguisher  should, 
of  course,  be  changed  when  3ie  type  of  oc- 
cupancy   or    the    type    of    stock    carried    is 
changed. 

I  feel  certain,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  uniformity  i 

in  this  regard  and  inspections  throughout  the  ! 

province     would     bring    up    the    standards  J 

throughout  Ontario.  | 

The   other  important   point,   of  course,   is  j 

not  only  that  fire  extinguishers  on  premises  j 

should  be  of  a  suitable  type  but  tiat  they  ] 

should   be   operable.   There   is   certaiidy   no  j 

point    in    having    an    extinguisher    if,    when  \ 

the  need  arises,  it  is  found  to  be  empty  or  t 
not  suitable  for  that  purpose.  And  this  does 
happen  in  some  cases  when  there  is  a  fire. 

In  brief,  there  should  be,  firstly,  the  cor-  * 

rect  type  of  extinguisher  for  the  purpose  and,  i 

secondly,   inspection   should  ensure  that  the  -| 

extinguisher  is  workable.  ^ 

Some  cities  and  towns  throughout  Ontario 
have  fire  bylaws  that  require  annual  inspec- 


APRIL  22,  1974 


1238 


tion  of  firefighting  equipment.  This  doesn't 
take  place  in  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  area, 
of  course,  and  in  some  other  cities  and  towns 
throughout  Ontario.  It  is  not  generally  the 
case  in  business  establishments  that  annual 
inspections  take  place. 

This  bill,  I  understand,  would  provide  for 
uniform  jurisdiction  throughout  the  province, 
as  opposed  to  the  present  situation  where 
there  are  several  hundred  jurisdictions.  I 
think  this  resolution  also  should  provide  that 
there  should  be  fire  bylaws  passed  in  every 
town  and  municipality  throughout  the  prov- 
ince sb  standards  would  be  set  that  would 
be  applicable. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  short  few 
momenta  that  we  have  left,  I  compliment 
the  member  for  bringing  this  resolution  for- 
ward, and  I  am  glad  to  give  my  support  to 
it.  Thank  you  very  much. 

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

Mr.  P.  G.  Civens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  will  speak  against  the  resolution. 
I  think  we  don't  need  a  commissioner.  We 
now  have  a  fire  marshal  by  the  name  of 
Hurst  who  can  look  after  matters  quite  ade- 

?[uately,  and  I  imderstand  he  does  a  pretty 
air  job. 

I  think  we  are  surrounded  with  regulations; 
maybe  they  are  not  enforced,  but  I  don't 
think  that  by  the  passing  of  legislation  we 
would  get  them  adequately  enforced.  I  think 
we  should  see  that  the  government  passes  its 
new  building  code,  which  now  is  years  be- 
hind in  its  passage.  I  don't  know  why  they 
are  delaying  further,  because  I  think  that 
fire  preventive  measures  should  be  built  into 
buildings,  and  not  have  a  multiplicity  of  fire 
extinguishers.  And  perhaps  people  who  sell 
fire  extinguishers  should  be  licensed.  The 
matter  of  maintenance  particularly  should 
also  be  looked  after,  but  that's  a  different 
subject,  and  I  don't  think  that  is  going  to  be 
solved  by  having  more  regulations. 

In  Metropolitan  Toronto,  the  various  muni- 
cipalities have  a  plethora  of  regulations.  The 
city  of  Toronto  has  a  fire  prevention  bylaw— 
I  think  it's  number  is  6069— and  we  have  a 
building  bylaw.  No.  368,  which  has  to  do 
with  the  building  of  highrise  apartment 
houses  and  so  on. 

I  think  that  when  people  get  involved  in  a 
fire,  they  should  leave  firefighting  to  the  pro- 
fessionals. They  should  get  their  wives  and 
kids  and  get  them  the  hell  out  of  there  and 
leave  the  firefighting  to  the  people  who  know 


what  they  are  dofaig,  because  when  you  talk 
about  having  an  adequate  kind  of  fire  ex- 
tinguisher you  need  a  different  fire  extin- 
guisher for  every  different  kind  of  fire  vou 
may  have  in  any  kind  of  establishment  You 
may  need  a  variety  of  a  dozen  different  Idnds 
of  fire  extinguishers,  and  the  avera^  penoo 
doesn't  know  what  fire  extinguishers  he 
should  have.  So  keep  yourself  well  insured, 
get  your  wife  and  kids  out  of  there  and  leave 
the  firefighting  to  the  professionals. 

I'll  tell  you  this,  you  pick  up  a  paper-and 
this  has  to  do  with  people  who  get  tdlled  in 
fires— and  every  so  often  there  is  a  big  fire  in 
a  rooming  house.  I  wonder  why  there  aren't 
many  more  rooming-house  fires  in  Toronto 
than  there  are  because  there  are  thousands  of 
rooming  houses.  You  know  what  causes  these 
rooming-house  fires?  Two  main  things— smok- 
ing and  drinking.  You  can  take  these  rooming 
houses  and  you  could  surround  them  with  fire 
extinguishers  and  they  would  still  bum  down. 
And  they  will  still  bum  down,  because  they 
are  too  smashed  when  they  go  to  bed  smok- 
ing to  get  up  and  to  mn  over  to  a  corner  to 
get  a  fire  extinguisher  to  put  the  fire  out. 

So  I  don't  care  how  many  regulations  we 
are  going  to  pass  and  how  many  commis- 
sioners we  are  going  to  put  in  charge  and 
how  many  inspectors  we  are  going  to  have 
roaming  around  this  province  and  how  many 
extinguishers  we  are  going  to  put  in  all  these 
establishments— it  isn't  going  to  help  the 
matter,  because  fires  are  the  result  of  care- 
lessness. 

In  an  industry,  in  a  factory,  where  people 
are  attuned  to  dealing  with  emergencies  and 
thev  can  be  trained  and  they  are  dealing  in 
a  clisciplined  way,  things  are  different.  I  am 
talking  about  residential  fires.  I  am  talking 
about  where  people  are  involved,  where  Idas 
are  involved,  women  and  children  are  in- 
volved, and  things  of  that  natiue.  I  am  not 
talking  about  industrial  fires,  like  in  a  motor 
company  or  things  of  that  nature. 

I  think  we  have  adequate  regulations.  The 
matter  is  a  question  of  enforcement  and  not  a 
matter  of  passing  more  regulations  and  put- 
ting more  people  in  charge  of  these  regula- 
tions. We've  got  enough  of  a  bureaucracy  as 
it  is  right  now. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  He  has 
persuaded  us,  we  will  vote  against  it. 

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

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  I  will  give 
wav. 


1240 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr,  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wei-  Mr.  Young:  He  wants  to  get  another  regu- 

land  South.  lation. 


Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm  finally  going  to  get  on 
my  feet  here. 

I  want  to  concur  with  the  previous  mem- 
ber who  just  spoke  that  there  are  enough 
regulations  now  that  fire  departments  can 
cover  the  matter  of  fire  extinguishers.  We 
have  the  National  Building  Code,  we  have  a 
proposed.  Ontario  Uniform  Building  Code,  we 
have  local  municipal  bylaws,  we  have  the 
Fire  Marshals  Act— which  covers  the  matter 
pretty  thoroughly  there,  and  perhaps  I  should 
read  this,  Mr.  Speaker: 

Where  in  a  municipality  a  fire  preven- 
tion oflBce  has  been  estabhshed,  or  the 
chief  of  the  fire  department  in  a  munici- 
pality has  designated  one  or  more  mem- 
ibers  of  the  fire  department  as  a  fire  pre- 
vention officer  or  officers,  or  the  fire  marshal 
has  so  designated  any  other  person,  every 
person  who  is  a  member  of  that  fire  pre- 
vention bureau  is  designated  as  an  assist- 
lant  to  the  fire  marshal  and  shall  have  all 
the  powers  of  an  assistant  to  the  fire  mar- 
shal under  this  Act. 

Of  course,  if  you  go  into  section  19  of  the 
Fire  Marshals  Act,  that  pretty  well  covers 
it.  Each  member  of  that  fire  department  or  its 
volunteer  paid  fire  department  has  the  same 
responsibility  as  the  fire  marshal  under  the 
direction  of  the  fire  chief. 

I  think  the  most  important  thing,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  there  is  a  lack  of  fire  pre- 
vention policies  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
We  don't  have  enough  education,  even  in  our 
schools  perhaps,  throughout  the  municipali- 
ties. I  th^ik  that  we  can  perhaps  reduce  the 
nmnber  .of  fires  in  Ontario  through  proper 
fire  prevention  programmes. 

(I  think  the  most  important  thing  in  this, 
that  the  mover  should  have  brought  in  with 
it,  is  that  I  would  like  to  see  heat  detectors 
placed  •  in :  every  home  and  every  multiple 
dwelhiiig.i 

Mr.  Foulds:  Don't  we  have  enough  regu- 
lations?  Isn't  that   what  the  member  said? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  This  isn't  a  regulation.  This 
is  soni6thing  that  I  think  would  pinpoint  a 
fire  perhaps  right  at  the  time  it  starts,  and 
perhaps  you  would  get  the  people  out  of 
the  building  and  you  wouldn't  need  the  fire 
extinguishers.  But  as  the  member  says  we 
have  about  four  or  five  different  types  of  ex- 
tinguishers. 


Mr.  Haggerty:  That  is,  in  fact,  under  the 
National  Fire  Code  of  Canada,  1963,  so  diat 
regulation- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  think  what  is  lacking  is 
that  we  should  have  a  good  fire  prevention 
educational  programme  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  under  the  existing  regulations.  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Managie- 
ment  Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  before 
I  move  the  adjournment  of  the  House,  I 
would  like  to  say  that  tomorrow  we  will 
continue  with  the  discussion  on  Bill  26  under 
item  2.  Following  that,  should  we  conclude 
it,  there  will  be  a  slight  change,  and  we  will 
proceed  to  item  6.  Should  we  conclude  both 
of  those  items  we  will  then  turn  our  minds 
to  No.  8.  I  am  not  sure,  of  course,  what  the 
progress  will  be  and,  depending  upon  the 
progress  tomorrow,  I  would  announce  the 
business  for  Thursday  should  it  be  that  way. 
I  also  have  the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr. 
McKeough)  standing  by  with  his  estimates 
and  I  would  ask  that  the  members  of  the 
House  prepare  themselves  for  that  possibility. 

I  would  also  like  to  say  now  in  regard  to 
the  estimates  that  are  currently  on  the  table, 
in  the  House— and  not  in  this  order;  I  will 
give  the  order  immediately  I  have  it  clear- 
are  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations, 
Energy,  Agriculture  and  Food,  Industry  and 
Tourism,  Resources  policy;  in  standing  com- 
mittee. Attorney  General— who  is  now  being 
heard- the  SoHcitor  General,  Natural  Re- 
sources, Transportation  and  Communications, 
Labour  and  Environment. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  the  minister  going  to  pVd^ 
vide  us  with  a  written  list? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Before  the  adjournment  of 
the  House,  might  I  inquire  of  the  minister 
if  it  is  his  intention  to  proceed^  with  the 
estimates  in  the  House  tomorrow  evening,  or 
will  we  follow  through  with  Bills  26,  22  and 
25,  as  may  be  expected? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Yes.  Based  on  progress 
thus  far  I  beheve  that  that  won't  be  a  prob- 
lem to  us,  but  I  would  think  that  that  would 
be  correct. 


APRIL  22.  1974  1241 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  second  point  I  would  Hon.  Mr.  Winlden  Yes,  that  will  be  nego- 

raise,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  with  respect  to  the  next  tiated  with  the  whips.  I  don't  think  there  will 

private  members'  hour.   It  will  be  the  gov-  be  a  problem  there, 

emment's  turn  but  there  are  no  bills  stand-  ».,,,,,                   i        ,, 

ing  in  the  government  members'   names.   It  ;"°"-  ^^''  W*""^'  ^^^  ^  •djoumment 

would  be   convenient  if  whatever  bill  is  to  of  the  House, 

be  proceeded  with  would  be  brought  in  to-  Motion  agreed  to. 
morrow  so  that  we  can  be  assured  of  having 

printed  copies  by  the  end  of  the  week.  The   House   adjourned   at  6  o'dodc,   p.m. 


1242  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  April  22,  1974 

Transmitting    estimates    of   certain    sums    required   for   the   service    of   Ontario,    the 

Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  1197 

Inquiry     into     hospital     employees*     remuneration,     questions     of     Mr.     Guindon: 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Renwick,  Mr.  Reid  1197 

Potato  suppliers,  questions  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  1198 

Land  purchases  in  Haldimand-Norfolk,  question  of  Mr.  White:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  1199 

GO-Urban  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Givens,  Mr.  Lewis  1199 

Potato  suppliers,  questions  of  Mr.  Kerr:  Mr.  Lewis  1201 

Health  and  safety  hazards  at  Elliot  Lake,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier,  Mr.  Guindon, 

Mr.  Miller  and  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Stokes  1201 

Interns'  and  residents'  dispute  with  hospitals,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Singer    ...  1202 

Lake  Superior  outflows,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Foulds  1203 

Smiths  Falls  hospitals,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Roy  1204 

ODC  performance  loans,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Stokes  1205 

U.S.  reaction  to  land  transfer  tax,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Givens  1205 

Losses  from  broken  liquor  cases,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Shulman  1206 

Toronto  area  garbage  disposal,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Breithaupt  1206 

Fines  for  violations  of  Construction  Safety  Act,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Deans  1207 

Nursing  homes  residence  agreement,  question  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Ruston  1207 

Rehabilitation  of  psychiatric  patients,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Burr  1207 

Marketing  of  "Fancy  Honey,"  question  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Riddell  1207 

Prescription    of    drugs    by    optometrists,    questions    of    Mr.    Miller:    Mr.    Shulman 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  1208 

Study  of  vinyl  chloride,  question  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Haggerty  1208 

Prescription  of  drugs  by  optometrists,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Cassidy  1209 

Daal  Specialties  Ltd.,  question  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  B.  Newman  1209 

Referral    of    ministry     estimates    to     standing    resources     development    committee, 

Mr.  Winkler  1209 

Educational  Communications  Authority  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Auld,  first  reading  .  1210 

Master  and  Fellows  of  Massey  College  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Auld,  first  reading  .  1210 

Land  Transfer  Tax  Act,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Meen,  second  reading  1210 


APRIL  22,  1974  1243 


Private  members*  hour 1235 

On  notice  of  motion  No.  1  re  control  of  fire  extinguishen,  Mr.  Young,  Mr.  WarcDe, 

Mr.   Givens,  Mr.   Haggerty   1235 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  1241 


No.  29 


o^ 


Ontario 


Hegtsilature  of  (J^ntario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Tuesday,  April  23,  1974 

Afternoon  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


10 


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


CONTENTS 


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


1247 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


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

Prayers. 

Mrs.  M.  Scrivener  (St.  David):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  take  pleasure  in  presenting  30  students  from 
the  Queen  Alexandra  Senior  School,  who  are 
here  in  the  west  gallery  today,  with  their 
teacher,  Mr.  David  Havery. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  ( Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  pleasure  to  introduce,  in  the  west  gallery. 
Sister  Mary  Alexander  and  a  number  of  her 
students  from  the  Adult  Day  School  of 
Dundas  St.  W.  in  Toronto,  within  the  riding 
of  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  it  is  a  great  privilege  for  me  to  intro- 
duce to  you  and  to  the  House,  32  students 
from.  Ecole  Ste.  Therese,  in  Ramore,  Ont.,  and 
three  adults,  and  they  are  being  led  here  by 
Mr.  F.  G.  Tremblay. 

Mr.  N.  G.  Leiuk  (Humber):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  would  Wee  to  welcome  60  students  from 
Runnymede  Collegiate,  in  the  riding  of  Hum- 
ber, who  are  seated  in  the  east  gallery.  They 
are  accompanied  by  Mr.  Gray  Taylor. 

Mr.  T.  A.  Wardle  (Beaches-Woodbine): 
Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  some  25  students  from 
the  George  Etienne  Cartier  Separate  School 
in  my  riding,  and  I  would  like  to  welcome 
them  to  the  Legislature  this  afternoon.  They 
are  accompanied  by  Mrs.  Doyle  and  Sister 
Riedel.  They  are  grades  7  and  8  students,  and 
they  are  sitting  in  the  east  gallery. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  ( Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  last 
week  a  public  tender  was  opened  for  the 
construction  of  a  guideway  for  the  transit 
demonstration  project  at  the  Canadian 
National  Exhibition.  The  prices  quoted  in 
those  tenders  for  the  work  at  the  CNE  are 
greater  than  were  calculated  at  the  time  we 
prepared  our  estimates  in  1972. 


TuuDAY,  April  23,  1974 

Hon.  members  will  recall  that  the  TDS 
contract  has  two  basic  price  components,  the 
first  being  a  fixed  price  component  for  the 
guideway  components,  power  substations,  the 
command  and  control  system  and  the  vehicles. 
The  price  quoted  in  May,  1973,  for  these 
components  was  $10,620,704.  This  price  is 
subject  only  to  exchange  fluctuations  and 
official  price  index  changes  in  either  Canada 
or  Germany  and  as  a  fixed  price  is  not  sub- 
ject to  further  changes. 

The  second  price  component  was  for  civil 
engineering  work  and  the  contract  called  for 
this  work  to  be  awarded  and  priced  by  the 
method  of  public  tenders.  The  work  consists 
of  a  guideway  contract,  station  contracts  and 
a  foundation  contract.  To  date,  only  the 
foundation  contract  has  been  awarded.  It 
totalled  approximately  $426,000.  The  guide- 
way  contract  was  opened  Wednesday  of  last 
week  and  the  lowest  bid  was  $10,263,160. 
The  station  contract  tenders  have  not  yet  been 
received.  The  earlier  estimates  of  the  devel- 
oper and  the  civil  engineering  consultants 
were  approximately  $6.9  million,  eivine  a  total 
of  approximately  $17.5  million  for  the  fixed 
and  tendered  price  estimate. 

The  increase  in  guideway  price  has  been 
occasioned  by  a  number  of  factors  such  as 
the  substantial  price  escalation  experienced  in 
all  heavy  construction  during  the  past  two 
years,  together  with  a  number  of  design 
changes  which  were  found  necessary  as  design 
progressed.  Many  of  these  changes  were  found 
necessary  for  aesthetic  reasons  in  Exhibition 
Paric  and  also  to  make  it  possible  to  have  the 
guideway  more  adaptable  for  continued  test- 
ing in  future  years. 

Regarding  the  increased  cost  of  all  heavy 
construction,  I  would  point  out  to  the  House 
that  not  only  have  there  been  large  increases 
in  labour  costs,  but  all  materials  used  in  this 
work  have  become  vastly  more  expensive 
during  the  past  two  years.  For  example,  the 
wage  rate  increases  for  structural  workers 
have  averaged  approximately  20  per  cent  be- 
tween 1972  and  1974.  We  know  also  that 
some  collective  agreements  are  in  existence 
which  will  further  increase  these  rates  in  1975 
and,  therefore,  affect  this  contract  by  a 
further  seven  to  10  per  cent.  Other  agree- 


1248 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


merits  will  be  expiring  this  year  and  will  be 
up  for  renegotiation.  There  is  every  indication 
of  even  higher  wage  demands  to  keep  pace 
with  inflation.  For  example,  the  ready-mix- 
concrete  truck  drivers  signed  an  agreement 
tliis  week  which  increased  their  wages  35 
per  cent,  including  fringe  benefits. 

The  increased  cost  of  material  since  the 
start  of  1972  has  been  even  more  dramatic, 
Mr.  Speaker,  when  you  consider  that  the 
main  components  of  this  contract  are  con- 
crete and  reinforcing  steel  and  that  concrete 
has  increased  in  price  in  the  past  two  years 
by  27  per  cent  and  is  expected  to  go  up  to 
40  per  cent  by  1975.  This  increase  does  not 
take  into  consideration  the  increased  wages 
referred  to  in  respect  to  the  ready-mix  truck 
drivers.  The  other  major  component,  rein- 
forcing steel,  has  increased  in  price  in  the 
two-year  period  by  115  per  cent.  A  further 
increase  is  certain  to  the  point  that  we  can 
expect  an  increase  over  1972  of  140  per  cent. 

These  are  but  examples  of  the  major  com- 
ponents, but  I  would  add  that  all  elements 
of  material  are  subjected  to  varying  degrees 
of  inflation,  somewhat  comparable  to  the  two 
mentioned.  We,  and  industry,  are  finding  it 
increasingly  diflBcult  to  obtain  firm  price  com- 
mitments for  material  to  extend  over  any 
significant  period  of  time.  In  other  words, 
changes  in  prices  and  materials  are  almost  on 
a  daily  basis. 

From  the  aforementioned  it  is  quite  appar- 
ent that  most  of  the  increases  in  the  guideway 
contract  can  be  attributed  to  the  inflation  in 
material,  service  and  labour.  I  would  further 
point  out  that  our  own  highway  construction 
work  is  being  subjected  to  these  same  pres- 
sures and  we  can  certainly  look  forward  to 
similar  increases  in  respect  to  the  new  To- 
ronto subway  contracts  which  will  soon  be 
advertised,  showing  comparable  increases  ex- 
perienced in  the  tenders  which  were  opened 
last  week  for  the  guideways. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  The  statement 
of  his  predecessor  is  non-operative,  eh? 


Act  and  certain  regulations,  it  was  not  pos- 
sible at  that  time  to  advise  vendors  of  the 
effective  date  for  implementation.  All  proce- 
dural steps  have  now  been  taken  and  the 
exemptions  will  apply  to  sales  made  on  and 
after  April  29,  1974. 

However,  due  to  the  postal  strike  we  are 
unable  to  forward  by  mail  a  supplementary 
tax  bulletin  advising  vendors  as  to  this  date. 
In  addition  to  making  this  statement,  which 
we  hope  the  press  will  pick  up,  we  are 
proceeding  to  place  notices  in  provincial 
daily  papers.  A  tax  bulletin  has  been  pre- 
pared by  the  ministry  and  will  be  mailed  to 
all  registered  vendors  once  the  mails  resume. 
In  the  interim  period,  for  clarification  of  these 
instructions  or  information  concerning  addi- 
tional exemptions,  vendors  should  phone  their 
district  tax  offices. 

We  solicit  the  general  co-operation  of  the 
House  in  passing  this  word  along  to  inter- 
ested constituents. 

Mr.  Roy:  I'll  bet  that  really  hurt  the  min- 
ister's feelings  having  to  put  ads  in  the 
paper. 

Hon.  J.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Who's  that? 

Mr.  Roy:  Does  it  have  his  name  on  it? 

Interjections  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sure  the  hon.  members 
of  the  House  would  be  interested  to  learn 
that  we  have  with  us  a  very  distinguished 
visitor  today.  The  Rt.  Hon.  Peter  Shore,  who 
is  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Trade,  is 
present  in  the  Speaker's  gallery  along  with 
his  party  and  I'm  sure  we  would  like  to 
extend  a  special  welcome  to  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Now  the  memljer  for 
Ottawa  East  should  behave  himself. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions.  The  Leader 
of  the  Opposition. 


SALES  TAX 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  on  budget  day,  retail  sales  tax 
bulletin  74-1  was  sent  to  the  approximately 
130,000  vendors  in  Ontario,  advising  them  of 
budget  proposals  which  would  remove  the 
retail  sales  tax  on  certain  specific  personal 
hygiene  and  household  cleaning  items  and 
on  footwear  which  sold  for  $30  or  less  per 
pair.  As  implementation  of  these  exemptions 
required  amendments  to  the  Retail  Sales  Tax 


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions, further  to  his  statement  just  com- 
pleted, if  he  is  now  prepared  to  give  an 
estimate  of  the  overall  financial  commitment 
of  the  government  to  prepare  the  whole 
maglev  experimental  track,  stations  and  train 
for  Use  in  the  exhibition  grounds  by  1975? 
Is  he  actually  telling  the  House  that  when 
the    estimate    was    first    prepared    about    18 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1240 


months  or  two  years  ago  there  was  no  in- 
gredient involving  the  inflationary  aspects  of 
tne  materials  ana  workmaaship  which  must 
surely  have  been  expected  by  any  reasonable 
engineering  projection? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all 
I  cannof  give  an  answer  as  to  what  sort  of 
consideration  was  given  when  that  estimate 
was  prepared  two  years  ago.  I  didn't  have 
any  part .  of  it.  Secondly,  I  can  say  that  I 
cannot  give  a  firm  figure  on  the  cost  of  the 
demonstration  project  at  the  CNE  because 
we  have  not  had  the  tenders  returned  on  the 
development  of  the  stations  which  will  be 
necessary  there.  I  can  say  to  the  hon  member, 
though,  that  his  estimate  which  he  mentioned 
here  in  the  House  of  about  $23  million,  I 
think,  is  fairly  accurate. 

Mr.  J.  IL  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):.  A  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker. 

.  Mrs.' M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  Imagine 
tiiat. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  surprised  himself. 

Mr.  R.  IF.  Nixon:  I  knew  it  was  right  but 
I  didn't  think  he  did. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  That's  the  first  time  he 
has  been  mathematically  right  in  two  years. 

Mr.  Breifhaupt:  Jf  the  itiinister "has  the 
same  ofiicials  advising  him  who  advised  his 
predecessor,  can  the  minister  inquire  of  those 
ofiRcials  as  to  what  factors  were  built  in  with 
respect  to  inflation  possibiUties? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rho^e^:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
been  in  discussion.^ wjth. the  oflBcials^. as  one 
might  assume,  and  we  are— 

tInterj.ections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixonr  Not  the  ^ame  ones  his 
predecessor  had. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  We  are  having  continual 
discussions  on  this  particular  subject  and,  as 
I  said,  I  cannot  give  a  firm  answer  at  this 
time  as  to  what  factors  were  used. 

Mr.  Roy:  An  open-ended  contract. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  certainly  don't  think 
anyone  on  either  side  of  this  House  could 
have  anticipated  in  1972  the  rate  of  increase 


we've  been  faced  with  in  nuterials,  service 
and  labour  in  1974. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  A  supple- 
mentary: Working  from  the  ininiiter's  figures 
(Ml  the  alleged  inflationary  spiral>-which  I 
think  is  really  grandly  inflattxl,  but  leaving  it 
at  that— is  he  willing  to  contemplate  a  GO- 
Urban  system  the  total  cost  of  which  may 
now  range  to  a  auarter  of  a  billion  dollars 
beyond  that  whicn  was  originally  suggested 
for  the  entire  system  when  operative?  Doen|*t 
he  think  it's  now  time  to  .strike  a  public 
strategic  retreat  to  an  akemativo  transporta- 
tion network,  modelled  on  light  rail,  and 
leave  the  entire  CO-Urban  fantasy  to  some 
other  jurisdiction  to  deal  with? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  won't  be  subject 
to  inflation,  ^h? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  this  kind  of  inflation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  1  think  that 
in  this  inflationary  period  we're  in  despitc>- 
I'm  amazed  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  says  there's  no  inflation. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Of  course  there's  inflation,  but 
not  the  kind  the  minister  is  talking  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  There  is?  He  admits 
there's  inflation? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  cost  of  the  wages  is  not 
driving  up  die  total. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  *" 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion is  simply  this,  I  would  say  that  I  don't 
think  we  can  suddenly  stop  everything  we 
are  doing.  Tile  same  inflationary  factors  apply 
to  subway  construction,  to  the  development 
\&f  light  rails.  Does  the  hon.  member  think  he 
cftfi  buy  a  streetcar  for  the  same  price  now 
as  he  could  yeah  ago? 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  out  of  control,  completely 
out  of  control. 


PUP  TRAILERS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
same  minister,  Mr.  Speaker,  if,  in  light  of  the 
accident  involving  two  large  trucks  with  pup 
trailers  designed  to  carry  petroleum,  he  can 
report  to  the  House  that  his  oflBdals  are  now 
of  a  mind  we  ought  to  bring  these  special 
types  of  trucks  under  more  strict  and  severe 
regulation;  or  that  we  might  even  contemplate 


1250 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


banning  them  on  our  roads  since  there  have 
been  so  many  accidents  associated  wdth  them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  accident 
to  which  the  hon.  member  is  referring 
occurred  around  4:30  this  morning.  It  has 
already  been  investigated  by  the  ministry. 

I  can  tell  the  House  that  in  no  way  was 
the  pup  trailer  in  any  way  responsible  for 
that  accident.  It  was  a  rear-end  collision  in 
which  a  tank  truck  ran  into  the  rear  end  of 
a  flat-bed  truck;  that  is  the  collision  to  which 
he  is  referring.  Fortunately,  there  were  no 
injuries. 

I  can  tell  members  that  we  are,  and'  con- 
tinually have  been,  looking  at  the  problem 
of  pup-trailer  trucks  on  the  highways.  It  may 
well  be  they  will  have  to  be  removed  but  I 
can't  make  a  firm  commitment  at  this  time. 

Mr.  R.  F.   Nixon:   A  supplementary?  The 
minister  is  aware  that  his  predecessor,  who 
is    referred    to    from   time    to   time   in   this 
House- 
Mr.  Breitbaupt:  Very  favourably. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Now  that 
he's   gone  he  is  a  great  fellow. 

Mr.  R,  F.  Nixon:  — had  undertaken  in  a 
very  similar  way  to  investigate  problems  of 
this  type,  particularly  in  connection  with 
petroleum  transportation.  Surely  the  time 
has  come  when  the  ministry's  ofiBcials  should 
be  able  to  say  they  are  either  safe  or  not? 
I  am  here,  Mr,  Speaker,  to  say  to  you  that 
the  community  believes  they  are  not  safe. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes;  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
it  is  fair  to  say  that  one  of  the  big  problems 
in  the  past  has  been  the  type  of  coupling 
that  was  used;  I  think  that  has  been  cor- 
rected. 

Certainly  the  ministry  has  been  dealing 
with  the  i)etroleum  industry  on  this  prob- 
lem in  an  effort  to  have  them  co-operate. 
They  have  indicated  every  intention  to  be 
as  co-operative  as  they  possibly  can  to  make 
this  a  safe  vehicle.  If  the  vehicle  is  not  safe 
then  I  will  give  the  member  this  commit- 
ment: If  it  cannot  be  made  safe  on  the 
highways  then  I  would  certainly  recommend 
it  be  taken  off  the  highways. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Put 
them  back  on  the  slow  roads  where  they  be- 
long. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Supple- 
mentary: In  view  of  the  fact  that  for  the  last 
15   months   almost  every  accident  involving 


petroleum-carrying  vehicles  of  this  sort  has 
involved  pup  trailers,  ainl  there  has  been  a 
plethora  of  them,  would  the  minister  not 
agree  it  is  already  evident  the  regulatirais 
should  be  changed  to  stop  these  pup  trailers 
being  further  used?  Obviously  this  morning's 
problem  occmred  because  the  pup  trailer 
couldn't  be  controlled  when  the  brakes  were 
applied. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  didn't 
investigate  the  accident;  I  wasn't  up  at  4:30 
this  morning,  perhaps  the  member  was. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  the  minister  should  be. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Why  wasn't  he? 
Does  he  have  a  guilty  conscience? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  can  say  that  the 
statistics  on  the  number  of  accidents  involv- 
ing these  trucks  are  as  they  are  because 
most  of  the  petroleimi  trucks  travelling  on 
our  highways  today  are  involved  with  these 
pup  trailers.  Whether  they  in  themselves  are 
the  cause  of  the  accidents  or  not,  no  one 
can  really  say;  no  more  than  the  member 
can  say  accurately  that  the  one  that  occurred 
this  morning  was  caused  by  the  pup  trailer. 


OIL  PRICES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Energy,  Mr.  Speaker:  In  light  of  the  fact 
that  Imperial  Oil  has  announced  profits  in 
the  first  quarter  of  1974  of  $92.7  million, 
twice  last  year's  profit,  is  he  now  prepared 
to  recommend— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well!  Weill 

Mr.  Roy:  Did  the  member  think  his  people 
had  a  patent  on  that  type  of  question? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:   —to  recommend  to  his 
colleagues  in  the  ministry- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  appreciate  your  intervention.  I  even  ap- 
preciate the  intervention  of  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  (Mr.  Lewis). 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  if  he  is 
prepared,  under  these  circumstances,  to  recom- 
mend to  his  colleagues  that  the  powers  of 
the  Energy  Board  be  expanded,  as  we  sug- 
gested  when  the   Energy   Board  was  estab- 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1251 


Ushed  with  new  powers  a  year  ago,  to  ex- 
tend its  controls  over  prices  to  domestic  use 

of  fuels. 

An  hon.  member:  As  has  been  done  in 
Nova  Scotia. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Say;  there  is  a  good  point. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  specifically 
recall  the  suggestion  made  by  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Nor 
do  we,  nor  do  we. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Just  check  Hansard. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  It  occurs  to  me 
that  that  great  gathering  in  a  telephone  booth 
at  Sudbury  this  weekend  might  recommend 
that  to  their  federal  party  and  they  will  do 
a  little  bit  better  job. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Since 
the  minister  supervises  the  Energy  Board  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  which  does  have 
price  control,  or  price  recommendation 
powers,  why  would  he  not  assume  the  same 
powers  can  be  used  at  the  provincial  level 
the  way  they  are,  for  example,  by  the  gov- 
ernment in  the  Province  of  Nova  Scotia? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What  kind  of  powers 
do  you  need  for  recommendations? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
reading  of  the  Act  does  not  indicate  to  me 
that  those  powers  presently  exist  in  the  On- 
tario Energy  Board  Act. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary  if  I  may;  a 
supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West,  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Surely  the  minister  would 
agree  that  an  amendment  would  give  those 
powers? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  agree 
completely  with  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
that  an  amendment  would  give  those  powers. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  Is  the  min- 
ister, in  fact,  as  has  been  reported,  reviewing 
the  possibility  of  imposing  a  price  level  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario  for  costs  for  gasoline 
and  home  fuel  oil  charged  by  the  major  oil 
companies? 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  and 
the  ministry  have  been  preoccupied  with  the 
problems  associated  with  wind  energy  but 
when  we  get  ourselves  off  that  subject  well 
turn  to  the  subject  which  has  been  suggested 
by  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic  ^irty. 

•  Mr.  Lewis:  No,  no.  I'm  not  going  to  be 
diverted  so  easily.  While  he  trumpets  around 
the  countryside  clobbering  the  oil  companies, 
are  all  of  the  minister's  speeches  dealing  in 
the  direction  of  introducing  legislation  in  the 
House  which  will  give  to  his  ministry  the 
right  to  set  or  roll  bade  prices  in  the  area 
of  gasoline  and  home  fuel  oil,  as  has  been 
suggested  in  other  jurisdictions  and  as  he  has 
indicated  publicly  he  is  now  interested  in? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  SpeiJcer,  these 
are  matters  which  are  under  consideration. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  are  not. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  A  supplementary  question, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Now  that  Shell  Oil  has  indicated 
that  it  is  wiUine  to  forgo  the  2%-cent  unneces- 
sary increase  for  non-existent  costs,  can  the 
minister  indicate  whether  that  is  likely  to  be 
a  pattern  subscribed  to  by  the  other  oil  com- 
panies? Is  he  going  to  take  any  initiative  to 
see  that  it  is  the  pattern  accepted? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  thought  they  were. 
It  sounds  like  it.  They  always  work  together. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
matter  of  the  Shell  Oil  increase,  or  non- 
increase— or  the  industry  increase,  or  non- 
increase— is  being  dealt  with,  as  the  member 
is  well  aware,  by  the  government  of  Canada 
through  the  Department  of  Energy,  Mines  and 
Resources  and  through  the  National  Energy 
Board.  That  is  a  matter  for  their  consider- 
ation. 

I  congratulate  Shell  Oil  for  the  position 
which  they  have  taken  that  this  increase  is 
perhaps  not  necessary,  in  their  view,  at  this 
moment  in  time.  But  whether  the  rest  of  the 
industry  will  follow  suit,  or  whether  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada  will  determine  that  an 
increase  is  necessary  or  not,  is  something  for 
the  government  of  Canada  to  decide  at  this 
moment.  I  would  suggest  that  the  member  get 
on  that  pipeline,  through  his  leader  to  the 
federal  leader,  and  sort  that  little  matter 
away. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Oh,  here  we  go. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  A  further  supplementary: 
If  perchance  the  federal  government  in  Ottawa 
isn't  persuaded  to  accept  its  responsibilities, 
will  the  minister  accept  his,  in  his  constitu- 


1252 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tional  jurisdiction,  of  control  of  retail  prices  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario  through  the  Ontario 
Energy  Board  to  make  certain  that  that  un- 
necessary increase  doesn't  take  place  here? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
leader  and  this  government  have  made  it  clear 
for  over  a  year  that  when  the  government  of 
Canada  is  prepared  to  come  to  grips  with  the 
problem  of  wage  and  price  controls  then  this 
government  will  co-operate  to  the  fullest. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  ( Lakeshore ) :  Answer  the 
question. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  have  been  five 
supplementaries,  which  is  reasonable  in 
accordance  with  our  standing  orders.  Does 
the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition  have 
further  questions? 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  Why  take 
him  oflF  the  hook? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  needs  to  be  taken  off 
the  hook. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  What's 
all  this  blimderbussing  as  he  goes  around  this 
province,  then? 


HOSPITAL  WAGE  CEILINGS 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Health  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker?  Does  the 
Minister  of  Health  recall  that  it  was  in 
August,  1973,  when  the  original  ceilings  in 
the  education  area  were  set  at  7.9  per  cent, 
and  it  was  Aug.  29,  1973,  when  the  ceilings  in 
the  area  of  hospitals  were  set  at  7.9  per  cent, 
and  why  have  we  allowed  an  increase  in  the 
ceilings  in  educational  expenditures  but  not 
in  hospitals? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  Mr. 
Speaker,  it's  very  tempting  to  assume  that  the 
two  fields  are  parallel.  I  do  not  feel  they  are. 
Tm  quite  aware  of  the  inflationary  pressures 
in  the  hospital  field  and  have  been  giving  a 
great  deal  of  consideration  to  them  lately. 
We  have  certain  basic  problems  to  resolve 
right  now  and  those,  of  course,  deal  with  the 
hospital  workers  who  are  threatening  to  strike 
in  Toronto.  These  negotiations  are  being  car- 
ried on,  and  I  think  quite  well  at  this  point 
in  time.  J  just  feel  that  no  such  sweeping 
statements  will  apply  to  the  health  field  at 
this  point  in  time. 


Mr.  Lewis:  Is  the  minister  ready  to  make 
any  selective  statements  in  the  health  field 
with  some  seven  days  to  go  to  a  strike  dead- 
line? Is  he  ready  to  indicate  that  he  has  given 
to  Mr.  Dickie,  the  chief  officer  of  the  Minis- 
try of  Labour,  the  authority  to  indicate  to  the 
unions  at  some  point  that  he  will  raise  the 
ceilings  on  their  wages,  as  apparently  he  is 
doing  behind  the  scenes  now  with  the  hospi- 
tals themselves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  give 
directions  to  Mr.  Dickie  directly;  he  doesn't 
work  for  my  ministry.  I  have  great  faith  in 
his  ability  and  knowledge  to  deal  with  prob- 
lems in  the  labour  field.  I'm  very  interested 
in  the  progress  he  is  making.  I'm  sure  the 
steps  he  takes  and  the  offers  he  makes  would 
be  met  by  my  ministry. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementar>%  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  the  Minister  of  Health  not 
agree  that  it  is  just  not  enough  to  say  of  the 
conciliator  made  available  from  the  Ministry 
of  Labour  that  he  doesn't  direct  him?  Surely 
there  has  got  to  be  a  policy  co-ordination 
that  in  the  interest  of  the  welfare  not  only  of 
the  hospital  workers  but  of  the  people  of  this 
province  has  got  to  result  in  an  announce- 
ment without  delay  of  government  policy 
which  will'  avert  what  could  be  a  very  acri- 
monious, serious  and  illegal  strike  that  can  be 
averted  only  by  a  statement  of  government 
intention? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  disagree  with  the  last  statement  made  by 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition.  I  don't  think  it 
can  only  be  averted  by  a  public  statement 
by  this  minister.  I  believe  in  the  process  that 
is  under  way  right  now  and  that  is  the  free 
collective  bargaining  process,  which  is  carry- 
ing on. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  can't  be-it  is  not  free. 
Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  have  every  confidence- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  has  wage  controls 
in  the  hospital  sector;  that's  not  free  collec- 
tive bargaining. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  have  every  confidence 
that  the  steps  that  are  necessary  have  been 
taken. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1253 


LICENSING  OF  LANDFILL  SITES; 

ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 

PUBLIC  WORKS 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Mixiis- 
ter  of  the  Environment.  Has  he  anything  to 
report  yet  on  the  CP  Rail  application  in  Hope 
township  for  the  land  disposal  site,  on  tne 
various  land  disposal  applications  in  Vaughan 
township,  and  on  the  inquiry  o£Bcer  hearing 
into  the  Amprior  dam? 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment): Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  Hope  site  we  are 
still  obtaining  data  and  we  are  still  doing 
work  on  that. 

An  hon.  member:  No  hope. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Still  waiting. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Regarding  the  other  site 
the  member  was  talking  about— 

Mr.   Lewis:   Vaughan  township. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Which  site  in  Vaughan 
was  the  member  talking  about? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Maple,  the  900-acre  site. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  The  900  acres?  There 
has  been  an  application,  but  no  date  has 
been  set  for  a  hearing  as  yet.  On  the  inquiry 
officer's  report,  I  have  not  made  my  report 
on  it  yet  but  hope  to  do  so  very  shortly. 

Mr.  Lewis:  So  the  minister  has  nothing 
to  report  on  any  of  them  yet? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  No. 


RENFREW  PHYSICIANS'  AND 
SURGEONS'  APPEAL 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker:  Can  the  Minister  of 
Health  tell  me  how  he  has  responded  to  the 
appeal  placed  in  local  papers  from  the  phy- 
sicians and  siu-geons  in  Renfrew  as  to  the 
deteriorating  health  conditions  in  the  county 
because  of  the  various  unilateral  cutbacks  on 
chronic  care  and  active-care  facilities  in  the 
local  hospitals? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that 
steps  were  taken  about  two  weeks  ago  in 
the  city  of  Renfrew  that,  insofar  as  I  know, 
satisfied  the  local  needs  for  those  facilities. 

There  was  talk  about  closing  down  a  re- 
habilitation facility  in  that  area.  However,  in 
our  opinion,  or  mine  at  least,  that  would 
have  been  premature  because  we  didn't  have 
alternative  facilities  available  in  that  area.  I 
believe  a  statement  was  made  that  we  will 


build  a  75-bed  nursing  home  in  the  Renfrew 
area,  and  until  such  time  as  that  75-bed 
home  is  in  fact  available,  we  do  not  intend 
to  close  any  of  the  chronic  or  rehabilitation 
beds. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  doesn't.  Can  I 
ask  him  then  about  Barry's  Bay?  Has  he  done 
anything  about  Barry's  Bay  and  the  chronic 
and  acute  treatment  problems  that  exist  in 
that  community? 

Hon.  Mr.  Mfller:  Are  we  on  a  geographic 

jaunt? 

Mr.  Roy:  What  about  Smiths  Falls? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Smiths  Falls;  that  is 
closer  to  the  member's  riding,  isn't  it?  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased  that 
the  member  is  choosing  towns  that  I  have 
visited. 

Mr.  Roy:  My  riding?  He  is  really  on  the 

ball. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  visited  Barry's  Bay, 
along  with  my  friend  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  (Mr.  Brunelle), 
back  in  early  December.  We  realized  that 
this  land  of  community,  which  is  typical  of 
very  many  small  communities  in  Ontario, 
cannot  perhaps  support  either  a  home  for  the 
aged  or  a  nursing  home  per  se.  I  can  only 
assure  the  members  that  we  are  giving  very 
active  thought  to  some  form  of  care  for  senior 
citizens,  and  the  elderly  and  the  chronic 
patients  in  towns  like  Barry's  Bay  throughout 
the  province. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  then,  by  way  of  supple- 
mentary, since  this  has  tdso  been  brougnt  to 
the  minister's  attention  from  Pembroke,  is  he 
singling  out  Renfrew  county  especially  as  an 
area  of  perverse  discrimination  in  health 
policy  where  chronic  and  convalescent  and 
nursing  home  care  are  concerned,  or  is  he 
prepared  to  free  the  funds  to  deal  with  the 
special  requirements  in  that  part  of  the  prov- 
ince where  he  has  a  considerable  component 
of  aged  population? 

Mr.  Roy:  It  depends  where  the  Conserva- 
tives are. 

Hon.  Mr.  Millen  Well,  we  certainly  recog- 
nize that  Renfrew  county  had  very  real  prob- 
lems, and  perhaps  more  aggravated  problems 
and  acute  problems  than  most  areas  of  the 
province- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  -and  it  was  on  that 
assumption    that    we    approved    the    75-bed 


1254 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


nursing  home  in  Renfrew.  I  might  also  say 
we  allowed  the  hospital  in  Pembroke  to  use, 
I  think  27  beds,  that  were  previously  closed 
for  active  treatment,  to  be  reopened  for  ex- 
tended care  patients  in  that  area.  I  think  those 
two  steps  alone  have  provided  well  over  100 
beds  in  an  area  that  badly  needed  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  has  the 
answer  to  a  question  asked  previously. 


RAPID  DATA 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
March  29  the  member  for  Welland  South 
(Mr.  Haggerty)  raised  a  question  in  regard  to 
a  $6.5  million  investment  the  T.  Eaton  re- 
tirement armuity  plan  had  in  Rapid  Data  and 
asked,  as  I  imderstand  it,  if  those  in  receipt 
of  the  pension  or  contributing  to  the  pension 
were  protected. 

Under  the  Pension  Benefits  Act  and  regu- 
lations, the  pension  fund  may  hold,  in  eligible 
investments,  up  to  seven  per  cent  of  the  total 
asset  at  book  value  in  the  fund.  The  Elaton 
annuity  plan  meets  this  requirement  and  the 
majority  of  the  fund's  total  assets  are  invested 
in  fully  secured  bonds,  debentures,  mortgages, 
and  so  on,  and  a  lesser  portion  in  blue  chip 
common  stocks.  In  this  particular  case  the 
plan  is  fully  funded— that  is,  the  assets  from 
the  plan,  even  after  deducting  the  anticipated 
loss  from  the  Rapid  Data  investment  being 
taken  into  consideration,  are  greater  than  the 
total  liabilities  of  the  plan. 

I  further  understand  that  each  year  an 
independent  actuary  and  chartered  account- 
ants verify  the  soundness  of  the  plan.  There- 
fore I  am  advising  the  member  and  the 
House,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  none  of  the  em- 
ployees who  already  have  money  in  the  plan 
or  those  who  are  presently  contributing  will 
in  any  way  have  their  deposits  or  their  pen- 
sion contributions  inhibited  in  any  way  be- 
cause of  the  anticipated  loss  from  Rapid  Data. 

Mr.  Speaker:  With  respect  to  the  three  or 
four  members  of  the  Liberal  Party  in  the 
second  row,  all  of  whom  have  had  a  ques- 
tion, I  do  believe  the  hon.  member  for 
Downsview  was  on  his  feet  first. 


OHC  TENANTS  DISPUTE 

Mr.  Singer:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Housing. 
Could  the  minister  advise  if  he  is  planning 
to  increase  the  Ontario  Housing  security 
force,     as    suggested    by    the    Metropolitan 


Toronto  police,  to  prevent  a  recurrence  of 
the  violence  that  resulted  in  several  injuries 
over  the  weekend  in  Cather  Cres.,  Lawrence 
Heights,  in  the  riding  of  Downsview? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
been  assured  that  the  security  force  in  that 
community  will'  be  strengthened.  I  have  no 
details  on  specific  numbers  by  which  it  will 
be  strengthened.  I've  asked  for  a  report  on 
that.  I  am  distressed  by  the  continued  stig- 
matization  of  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  com- 
munities of  all  kinds,  and  I  am  very  upset  by 
the  fact  that  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  seems  to 
be  singled  out  for  this  type  of  public  com- 
ment when',  in  fact,  it  is  not  common  in  many 
other  areas  of  high  density.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  are  taking  the  necessary  steps  to 
try  to  protect  the  tenants. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
could  the  minister  adviser  us  if  he  has  investi- 
gated the  allegation  that  this  particular 
trouble  was  caused  by  three  or  four  families, 
or  centres  on  three  or  four  families,  who 
occupy  one  house  on  Cather  Cres.  and  who 
apparently  block  other  tenants'  access  in 
vehicle  parking  by  the  illegal  and  improper 
parking  of  a  school  bus? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker, 
those  allegations  have  been  publicized  and  I 
have  asked  the  oflRcials  of  OHC  to  look  into 
them  to  determine  whether  or  not  they  were 
aware  of  them,  and  if  they  were,  what,  in 
fact,  the  remedies  are. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary,  yes.  The  hon. 
member  for  York  Centre. 

Mr.  Deacon:  What  steps  is  the  minister 
taking  to  give  more  authority  to,  say,  a 
tenants'  council  to  deal  with  the  root  causes 
of  problems  such  as  those  occurring  in  that 
area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  happily 
I  attended  a  tenants'  conference  in  Windsor 
on  Saturday  at  which  this  very  point  was  dis- 
cussed. The  tenants  are  of  mixed  views  them- 
selves as  to  whether  or  not  they  wish  to 
police  this  type  of  disruption  in  their  own 
communities  or  whether  they  wish  to  join  in 
a  partnership  with  OHC  in  doing  it.  We  are 
waiting  for  recommendations  arising  from 
that  conference  in  Windsor.  I  expect  they  will 
be  constructive  and  I  am  looking  forward  to 
receiving  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1255 


BAN  ON  SILENT  FILMS 
IN  LICENSED  PREMISES 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  A  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations,  Mr.  Speaker:  Has  the  minister  any 
explanation  for  the  most  recent  caper  by  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  in  which  it  has  banned 
Laurel  and  Hardy  silent  movies  in  licensetl 
premises?  • 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Which  role  is  the  member 

going  to  play,  Laurel  or  Hardy? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  How  do  you  "smash"  that 
one? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  in  a 
quandary  here.  I  have  the  responsibility  for 
tne  administration  of  the  Theatres  Act,  and  I 
wondered  perhaps  if  the  hon.  member  this 
month  might  turn  his  attention  on  Mr.  Silver- 
thorn  out  there.  I  will,  in  fact,  inquire  into 
it.  Perhaps  the  member  might  advise  me 
where  this  ban  occurred  and  whether  it  was 
this  year  or  in  the  past? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  This  is  getting  to  be 
a  pretty  good  comic  act. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  supplementary- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  think  the 
question  really  was  not  urgent  nor  of  public 
importance.  Therefore  there  shall  be  no 
supplementaries . 

The  hon.  member  for  Waterloo  North. 


TAX  EXEMPTIONS  FOR  BENEFIT 
SALES 

•  Mr.  Cood:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  A 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Revenue  regard- 
ing the  collection  of  sales  tax  at  the  Ontario 
i^ennoriite  relief  auction  sale:  Would  the 
rainister  reconsider  his  position  as  stated  in 
a  letter,  of  April  18  that  the  continuation  of 
exemption  for  this  relief  auction  sale  will  not 
be  continued  in  light  of  the  fact  that  this 
sale  has  contributed  over  $400,000  to  world- 
wide relief  in  the  past  seven  years?  Would 
the  minister  reconsider  his  decision  and  ex- 
empt this  sale  once  again  this  year  from  the 
retail  sales  tax? 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkervillc):  It's 
very  worthwhile. 


Hon.  Mr.  Meent  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Act 
presently  provides  for  exemptions  of  this 
nature  on  a  quarterly  basis  up  to,  I  believe, 
the  sum  of  $7,500  on  any  such  sale.  In  this 
instance  the  charitable  organization  has  had 
sales  which  have  jjrown,  I  imderstand  frona 
information  provided  by  the  member,  to 
something  in  the  order  of  $100,000.  It  there- 
fore gets  well  beyond  the  area  in  which  the 
minister  has  discretion,  as  the  Act  presently 
stands,  to  grant  such  exemption. 

What  I  think  may  have  occurred  in  the 
past  if,  in  fact,  exemptions  were  granted 
was  that  it  was  an  ad  hoc  arrangement,  per- 
haps even  turning  the  other  eye  so  to  speak, 
or  putting  the  telescope  to  the  bUnd  eye. 
Now  that  it  has  come  to  my  ministry's 
attention  regrettably  it  may  be  that,  as  the 
Act  presently  stands,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
enforce  that  regulation. 

I  would  say  that  to  do  that  in  this  instance 
brinj^s  into  question  all  the  charitable  func- 
tions, not  just  the  Mennonite  function  to 
which  the  member  makes  reference  and  the 
projects  of  which  are  highly  commendable, 
btit  all  the  other  charitable  functions  whidi 
take  place  in  this  province  from  time  to  time. 
If  we  are  to  do  that,  it  would  have  to  be  on 
a  much  broader  basis  than  just  the  one 
exemption  to  which  the  member  makes 
reference  because  of  its  enormity  and  its 
size,  among  other  things. 

Mr.  Good:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  the  minister  not  feel  that  it  is  incon- 
ceivable and  certainly  unwarranted  that  the 
Province  of  Ontario  should  be  the  only 
agency  which  can  possibly  benefit  from  this 
s^e,  skimming  off  $7,000  or  $8,000  in  tax 
before  it  goes  to  overseas  general  relief  when 
there  are  over  2,000  volunteers  working 
without  pay?  All  foodstuffs  and  material  are 
donated  and  not  one  cent  of  cost  is  taken 
off  the  sale  price  of  these  articles  to  defray 
any  expenses  whatsoever.  Surely  he  would 
not  put  the  province  in  the  position  of  being 
the  only  one  to  benefit  from  this  sale,  other 
than  the  people  in  the  developing  countries 
of  the  world? 

Mr.  Roy:  How  mean  can  one  get?  Has  the 
minister  no  heart? 

An  hon.  member:  How  about  the  O^-mpic 
lottery? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  minister  wish 
to  comment  or  answer? 

Mr.  Good:  Will  he  answer  that?  Mr. 
Speaker,  does  the  minister  care  to  answer? 


1256 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr*  Meen:  I  have  already  answered 
the  question,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre. 


HEALTH  DISCIPLINES  ACT 

Mr.  F.  Drea  (Scarborough  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Health:  Is  it  correct  that  the  new  Health 
Disciplines  Act  has  altered  the  rights  of 
the  members  of  the  Christian  Science 
Church  in  respect  to  their  use  of  prayer  to 
heal  the  ill? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  should 
realize  that  there  is  a  bill  on  the  order  paper 
and  he  caimot  anticipate  in  any  way  the 
provisions  of  that  bill  nor  the  debate  on  that 
bill. 

Mr.  Drea:  But  it's  there. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  ruling  was  made  to  this 
effect  just  a  few  days  ago. 

The  member  for  Port  Arthur. 


BURNING  OF  WILDERNESS  CABINS 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  A  question 
of  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  De- 
velopment: Did  the  Resources  Development 
secretariat  have  any  participation  in  and  can 
he  explain  the  decision  which  has  caused  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  to  reinstitute 
its  policy  of  burning  wilderness  cabins  in 
northwestern  Ontario  without  prior  warning 
to  the  owners  of  these  cabins?  Specifically,  is 
he  aware  of  the  ministry's  justification?  Has 
his  colleague  made  him  aware  of  the  justifica- 
tion that  the  ministry  used  for  going  into  the 
business  of  arson  and  burning  down  a  legiti- 
mate mining  claim  cabin  at  Circle  Lake  on 
Wednesday,  March  13,  and  for  threatening  to 
do  the  same  to  a  cabin  on  Fallingsnow  Lake? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  was 
a  long  question  and  pretty  detailed.  I  can  tell 
the  hon.  member,  however,  that  during  the 
time  I  have  been  provincial  secretary  of  this 
field,  the  question  has  not  been  rererred  to 
the  cabinet  committee  on  resources  develop- 
ment. It  may  have  been  referred  prior  to  my 
term  of  office.  I  will  look  at  the  records  and 
find  out  if  that  is  the  case. 

However,  I  would  suggest  the  hon.  mem- 
ber probably  would  get  a  quicker  reply  by 
asking  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  ( Mr. 
Bernier),  who  will  be  back  in  the  Legislature 


on  Thursday,  than  if  he  waited  for  me  to  go 
into  the  records. 

Quite  frankly,  however,  I  must  tell  the  hon. 
member  I  couldn't  follow  his  question.  It  was 
a  pretty  long  one.  I'll  read  it  in  Hansard. 

Mr.  Roy:  That  was  a  long  answer. 

Mr.  Foulds:  It's  a  matter  of  great  public 

importance. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  has  the  answer 
to  a  question  asked  previously,  and  then  the 
hon.  member  for  Rainy  River. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  has  already  made  a 
statement. 


SHINING  TREE  PHONE  SERVICE 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Some  time  back,  the  hon.  member  for  Nickel 
Belt  (Mr.  Laughren)  asked  me  to  look  into 
the   situation   in   the   community   of  Shining        \ 
Tree,  where  there  are  commtmications  diffi- 
culties, and  obviously  the  member  and  I  have        j 
had    communication    difficulties    as    well.    I 
apologize  for  the  delay,  part  of  which  is  his        ] 
responsibility. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That  is  rather  provocative. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Since  the  question  was 
asked,  I  have  had  an  opportunity  to  discuss 
the  subject  with  the  stafiF  of  the  ministry,  and 
I  find  that  not  only  are  they  aware  of  the 
difficulties  experienced  in  the  community  but 
they  have  had  telecommunications  engineers 
visit  the  community  to  determine  what  can 
and  should  be  done. 

For  the  information  of  the  other  members  1 
of  the  House,  this  is  a  community  of  approxi-  | 
mately  100  people  on  Highway  560  between  | 
Englehart  and  Gogama. 

Mr.  Martel:  Don't  call  it  a  highway.  It's  a  ! 
disgrace. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  community  has  been 
without    telephone    service.    Both    Northern 
Telephone  and  Ontario  Northland  are  taking        \ 
steps  to  ensure  that  this  community's  isolation 
is  ended. 

There  are  several  small  communities  such        i 
as  Shining  Tree  in  similar  predicaments.  The 
ministry  has  been  assessing  their  needs  and 
making  recommendations  to  the  carriers  in- 
volved  to   complete   the   telecommunications       J 
service.  i 

I  would  point  out,  however,  that  the  pro-  \ 
vision  of  service  is  costly  for  the  companies,        j 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1287 


with  little  hope  of  major  offsetting  revenues. 
For  example,  in  that  community  of  100,  I 
understand  it  will  cost  at  least  $360,000  to 
link  Shining  Tree  to  the  Ontario  Northland 
long-distance  network— and  that  is  not  allow- 

»ing  for  inflation. 
Following  the  question  by  the  hon.  member 
and  discussions  with  my  staff,  I  have  in- 
structed that  both  the  Ontario  Northland 
Transportation  Commission  and  the  provincial 
regulatory  body,  the  Ontario  Telephone  Serv- 
ice Commission,  should  examine  the  situation 
of  Shining  Tree  to  determine  whether  service 
can  be  completed  this  year,  knd  I  will  be 
glad  to  let  the  member  know  the  results  of 
that  examination. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Rainy  River. 

Mr.  Mattel :  Does  the  minister  call  that  a 
highway? 

VIOLENCE  IN  AMATEUR  HOCKEY 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid   (Rainy  River):   I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  regard  to 
violence  in  the  sport  oi  hockey. 
I  Is  the  minister  aware  that  a  young  man  was 

I  convicted  today  in  a  matter  resulting  from 
hostilities  in  a  hockey  game  and  that  there 
has  been  a  lot  of  violence  connected  with 
the  Junior  B  championship?  Is  the  minister, 
through  his  athletic  commission  or  as  a  result 
of  his  responsibilities,  investigating  this 
matter?  And  does  he  have  any  programme  to 
try  to  reduce  the  kind  of  violence  that  does 
go  on  in  the  game  of  hockey  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  ( Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
read  in  the  daily  press  the  report  of  the  case 
referred  to.  The  ^*^ole  question  of  violence 
in  hockey  is  one  that  certainly  merits  looking 
into,  and  I'd  be  glad  to  report  on  that  at 
some  later  time. 

Mr.  Reid:  A  supplementary:  As  a  means  of 
restraining  the  kind  of  violence  we've  been 
seeing,  will  the  minister  consider  requiring 
amateur  hockey  to  adopt  international  rules, 
which  would  cut  down  on  the  physical  con- 
tact in  the  sport? 

Mr.  Deans:  Has  the  hon.  member  read 
about  the  world  hockey  tournament? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  I  would  be  glad  to 
look  into  that  suggestion,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
burv. 


ADMISSION  TESTS  AT 
CAMBRIAN  COLLEGE 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Mr.  Spedcer. 
a  question  of  the  Minister  oJF  CoUeget  and 
Universities:  I  would  ask  the  minister  if  he 
is  prepared  to  issue  a  directive  to  Cambrian 
College  in  Sudbury  so  that  they  will  discon- 
tinue using  the  services  of  Dent  Plyclio- 
metrical  Services  of  Canton,  Ohio,  in  oroer  to 
determine  the  admissibility  of  nursing  students 
to  that  college? 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  that  specific  instance.  I  know  that 
in  a  number  of  our  post-secondary  educa- 
tional institutions- 
Mr.  Shulman:  Practically  all  of  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  -US-established  tests 
have  been  used,  mainlv  because  they  are 
used  in  a  relatively  small  number  of  institu- 
tions and  the  cost  of  establishing  ones  here 
has  been  just  too  high.  In  fact,  I  know  there 
has  been  some  discussion  with  the  Canadian 
federal  university  association  in  this  coimec- 
tion.  I  will  look  into  the  test  the  mem- 
ber mentions  and  give  a  reply  when  I  know 
a  little  more  about  it. 

Mr.  Germa:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  the  community 
college  at  North  Bay  and  the  community 
college  in  Sault  Ste.  Marie  are  conducting 
their  own  admission  tests  for  the  nursing 
courses? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  I  am  aware  of  that,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  understand  that  as  part  of  the 
general  policy  different  institutions  use  a 
different  variety  of  tests  and  recommenda- 
tions and  so  on.  I  will  look  into  the  case  the 
member  mentions. 

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


OTTAWA  AREA  LAND  SCHEME 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Housing  and  it  deals  with 
the  Marlborough  and  Huntley  township  land 
scheme  and  the  1-ft  strips  which  have  been 
ruled  illegal  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ontario. 
What  has  he  done  to  protect  the  interests  of 
the  people  who  bought  properties  from  this 
company?  Secondly,  nas  ne  investigated  the 
scheme  in  Huntley  where  1-ft  strips  were  trans- 
ferred to  the  mtmicipal  officials  without  the 


1258 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


municipal  bflficials  being  aware  of  this?  Has  he 
transferred  this  matter  to  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral to  investigate  this  situation  for  possible 
offences  under  the  Criminal  Code? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  with 
regard  to  Marlborough,  which  is  now  the 
township  of  Rideau— I  assume  my  friend  is 
aware  of  the  municipal  reorganizations  which 
have  taken  place  there? 

Mr.  Roy:  Let  the  minister  just  answer  the 
question;  I  know  that. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  W-  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Nobody  would  ever  know— 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  entire  matter 
has  been  brought  before  the  courts  once  again 
by  the  regional  municipality  and  while  it  is 
before  the  courts  my  ministry  and,  I  assume, 
other  ministries  of  the  government  v^U  not 
take  any  action.  As  far  as  Huntley  is  con- 
cerned, the  only  thing  there  is  that  there 
have  been  a  number  of  allegations  and  a 
number  of  claims.  As  far  as  my  ministry  is 
concerned,  it  has  not  been  brought  officially 
to  our  attention. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  ask  a 
supplementary:  Has  the  hon.  minister  inves- 
tigated to  see  if  this  1-ft  strip  scheme  trans- 
ferred to  the  municipality  has  been  done  in 
other  areas  of  the  province?  Is  his  reluctance 
to  look  into  and  investigate  this  situation  due 
to  the  fact  that  his  Conservative  friends  are 
involved  in  the  scheme  and  he  doesn't  want 
to  get  them  involved? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  is  another  ques- 
tion. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hohi  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
situation  in  Marlborough,  of  course,  where 
everybody  is  Conservative,  involved  only  Con- 
servatives. As  the  hon.  member  knows  I  was 
one  of  those  who  came  down  hard  and  asked 
my  predecessor  to  issue  a  ministerial  order. 
The  then  parliamentary  assistant  recommend- 
ed to  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  that  this  be 
done  and  it  was  done.  It  was  done  at  my 
request  regardless  of  the  policies  of  the  people 
who  wer6  concerned. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  about  Huntley? 

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


WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ] 

BOARD  PENSIONS 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Labour.  With  the  recog- 
nition that  the  rising  cost  of  living  aflFects 
everyone  and  that  corporate  profits  are 
thoroughly  healthy  at  this  point,  is  the  Minis- 
ter of  Labour  considering  a  revision  of  the 
pensions  under  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Act  to  be  effective  during  this  session  of 
Parliament  in  order  to  avoid  any  further  de- 
preciation of  the  ability  to  purcnase  of  those  ! 
people  presendy  in  receipt? 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  Yes, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  think  I  already  indicated  to 
the  members  of  the  House  at  one  point  or 
another  last  spring,  I  believe,  or  last  session- 
Mr.  Deans:  Last  fall.  ^ 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Last  fall,  right-that  I  \ 

would  look  into  the  benefits  of  the  Workmen's  i 

Compensation  Board.   I  haven't  been  sitting  \ 
idly  by.  I  have  looked  at  them  and  I  am  just 

about  ready  to  make  recommendation  to  gov-  ^ 

emment;  once  they  become  government  policy  \ 
I  will  be  glad  to  announce  them. 

iMr.  Reid:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker:        \ 
Among  the  recommendations  the  minister  is       \ 
making,  will  there  be  a  recommendation  for 
an  escalator  clause  with  regard  to  inflation 
for  those  pensions?  i 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  There  are  a  number  of 
recommendations  and  I  am  not  prepared  at        j 
this  time  to  tell  the  House  what  they  are  go-       i 
ing  to  be.  I  hope  to  make  a  statement  before 
too  many  weeks,  let's  say.  ; 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar-        ; 
borough  West  with  d  supplementary. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Irir  his  review  of  pension  levels 
could  the  minister  make  a  special  provision       | 
available  to  the  hundreds  of  miners  at  Elliot       j 
Lake  who  are  now  seeking  silicotic  pensions,        . 
400  of  whrnn  from  Denison  and  Rio  Algom       \ 
mines  met  last  iiight  to  set  out  their  health 
and  pension  concerns  and  who  are  still  on       | 
strike  against  Denison  because  of  the  safety 
conditions  and  the  pensions  and  all  matters 
related  to  that?  ] 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  think  in  the  past  the  ; 

Workmen's   Compensation    Board   has   never  i 
excluded   people.    They   have   considered   as 

many  injured  workmen  as  possible.  Although  | 

I  cannot  make  a  definite  promise  here  today,  \ 

I  am  sure  they  will  look  at  it.  i 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1250 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Coo- 
sumer  and  Commercial  Relations  has  the 
answer  to  a  question  a^ed  previously,  and 
Aen  the  hon.  member  for  Windsor-Walker- 
ville. 


LOSSES  FROM  BROKEN  LIQUOR  CASES 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  refer  to 
a  daily  question  asked  of  me  yesterday  from 
my  friend  from  High  Park.  The  question  was: 
"Can  the  minister  comment  on  the  uniaue 
packaging  and  cartage  methods  used  by  nis 
department  which  resulted  in  301  out  of  319 
cases  that  arrived  at  Freedkmd  St.  last  Thurs- 
day being  smashed?" 

Last  Thursday  the  Liquor  Control  Board 
did,  in  fact,  receive  a  niunber  of  cases  of 
alcoholic  beverages  which  were  received  in 
a  damaged  condition.  The  member's  informa- 
tion is  not  totally  accurate.  The  board  did 
receive  this  unsolicited  shipment  containing 
299  cases,  of  which  approximately  100  were 
damaged  in  transit.  The  unsolicited  shipment, 
as  I  understand  it,  is  a  private  order  of  which 
the  Liquor  Control  Board  of  Ontaiio  had  no 
advance  notice  and  the  board  is  not  respon- 
sible or  liable  for  any  of  the  damage.  Those 
cases  which  were  damaged  have  stickers  on 
them  which  were  placed  there  by  the  airline 
or  air  freight  handlers  indicating  damage  in 
transit. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  How  much  of  it  did 
the  member  for  High  Park  order? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  The  board  has  not 
handled  the  merchandise  but  is  awaiting  the 
attendance  of  a  representative  of  the  private 
importer.  That's  the  message  for  die  day. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  And  let  the  member 
bring  his  own  straw. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  one  was  all  wet. 


Itrterjections  by  hon.  members. 


FLOOD  INSURANCE 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Re- 
sources Development.  Is  the  secretary,  either 
on  his  own  or  in  co-operation  with  the  federal 
government,  developing  a  policy  of  flood  in- 
surance for  the  affected  landholders? 

Mr.  Roy:  It's  to  the  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development.  The  member  is 
talking  policy.  The  minister  doesn't  know 
what  the  member  is  talking  about. 


Hon.    Mr.    Groamtnt    I    am    tony,    Mr. 

Speaker,  I  thought  it  was  directed  to  anodier 

niinister. 

Mr.  Roy:  Policy,  what'*  that? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  If  I  may  repeat,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Provindal 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development  Is  the 
provincial  secretary  developing,  either  on  his 
own— that  is,  through  his  own  ministry— or  in 
co-operation  with  3ie  federal  government .  a 
scheme  of  flood  insurance  that  would  protect 
affected  landholders? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  this 
time  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  advise  the 
House  on  any  matter  of  that  nature.  If,  as 
and  when  we  come  to  a  decision  to  take  this 
matter  up,  we  will,  of  course,  advise  the 
House  when  policy  has  been  formed. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  EMO 
is  the  member's  best  insurance. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  May  we  expect  an  ans\i'er 
from  the  provincial  secretary  b«ore  the  House 
adjourns  for  its  siunmer  recess? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  a  de- 
cision is  made  by  that  time. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


METHANE  GAS 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Energy.  What  has  been  the  minister's 
reaction,  or  the  reaction  of  his  advisers,  to 
the  claim  in  the  March  issue  of  the  American 
Chemical  Society's  publication,  Chem  Tech» 
to  the  e£Fect  that  a  supply  of  natoral  gas 
can  be  assured  forever  through  mass  produc- 
tion of  various  water  and  land  plants,  such 
as  algae  and  sorghum,  and  their  conversion 
into  methane? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.    Roy:    Give    the    minister   a   glass    of 

water. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
reaction,  not  having  read  the  artide,  ia  nil. 
The  reaction  of  my  advisers  has  not  been 
communicated  to  me,  if  they  have  read  the 
article.  The  closest  I  have  come  to  this  par- 
ticular  subject,   if   I   may  put  it  that   way, 


1260 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


and  \h»t  may  be  a  little  indelicate,  was  a 
very  excellent  paper  delivered  by,  I  think, 
a  civil  servant  or  one  on  the  staff  of  the 
University  of  Guelph  under  my  colleague, 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food,  on 
this  whole  subject  of  the  use  of  methane  gas 
at  a  ^eat  conference  sponsored  by  the  Pro- 
gressive Conservative  women  of  this  province 
not  long  ago. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  At  that  particular 
conference  a  great  number  of  things  were 
brought  forward  and,  as  I  recall,  the  con- 
clusion of  that  particular  subject  was  that 
the  day  of  methane  gas  has  not  yet  arrived. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  Are  the  Conservative 
women  bothered  with  gas? 

Mr.  Speaker;  The  time  for  oral  questions 
has  expired. 

I'm  sure  the  hon.  members  will  be  in- 
terested to  learn  that  our  new  seating  plans 
are  now  available  and  will  be  distributed 
shortly. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


ONTARIO  WATER  RESOURCES  ACT 

Hon,  W.  Newman  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Ontario 
Water  Resources  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr,  Iloy:  That's  the  greatest  contribution 
the.  minister   has   made   in   the  last  year. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  And  it's  more  than 
the  member  will  ever  make. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  first 
purpose  of  this  bill  is  to  implement  the 
reorganization  of  the  Ministry  of  the  En- 
vironment so  that  the  powers  under  the  Act 
that  were  formerly  exercised  by  the  heads 
of  various  branches  of  the  ministry  will  be 
exercised  by  one  or  more  directors  appointed 
for  that  purpose  by  the  minister. 

An  appointment  may  limit  the  authority 
of  any  director  in  such  manner  as  the  min- 
ister considers  advisable  so  that  the  director 
may  be  authorized  to  act  only  with  respect 
to  a  particular  provision  of  the  Act  and  only 


for  a  specific  region,  of  the  province  or  for 
a  specified  period  of  time.  A  transitional  pro- 
vision is  designed  to  authorize  the  exercise 
of  powers  by  the  directors  appointed  under 
the  new  authority,  and  by  the  Treasurer 
and  minister  where  appropriate,  during  the 
period  of  time  from  April  1  to  the  date 
when  royal  assent  is  given  the  amendments 
bringing  them  into  force  retroactively  to 
April  1,  the  date  of  the  reorganization  of  the 
ministry. 

The  amendments  also  provide  that  all  re- 
ceipts and  expenditures  of  the  province, 
including  payments  by  municipalities  in 
respect  to  projects,  will  be  under  the  control 
of  the  Treasurer  rather  than  the  minister. 
Accounting  with  reject  to  these  payments 
will  be  carried  out  by  the  ministry. 

The  amendments  permit  sewage  and  water- 
works projects  under  agreement  entered  into 
alter  April  1  to  be  financed  by  methods 
other  than  the  sinking  fund  method,  which 
was  formerly  compulsory.  Moneys  under  proj- 
ect agreements  entered  into  before  April  1, 
1974,  with  respect  to  reserves  and  debt  re- 
tirement will  no  longer  be  treated  as  trust 
funds  under  the  control  of  an  investment 
committee  and  will  be  transferred  to  con- 
solidated accounts  in  the  consolidated  revenue 
fund. 

Provision  is  made  for  the  protection  of  the 
employees  of  the  ministry,  members  of  the 
hearing  board  and  Crown  employees  involved 
in  ministry  work  who  act  in  good  faith,  from 
legal  liability  other  than  application  for  judi- 
cial review  to  test  the  validity  of  their  actions. 
The  liability  of  the  Crown  for  the  acts  of 
such  employees  remains. 

Provision  is  made  for  the  licensing  of  water- 
works operators  in  addition  to  sewage  works 
operators.  Provision  is  made  to  limit  the  lia- 
bility of  the  ministry  on  inspections  to  the 
liability  on  common  law,  that  is  for  niegli- 
gence,  trespass  or  exceeding  authority.  The 
present  statutory  liability  imposed  by  the  Act 
is  unlimited. 

The  ofFence  of  making  a  false  statement  to 
a  minister  or  a  director  is  extended  to  cover 
false  statements  made  to  any  employee  of  the 
ministry.  The  offence  is  limited  in  that  it  only 
applies  to  false  statements  which  are  made 
knowingly. 


MINISTRY  OF  HOUSING  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman  moves  first  reading 
of  bill  intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Ministry 
of  Housing  Act,  1973. 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1261 


Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  section 
7  of  the  Ministry  of  Housing  Act  calls  upon 
the  minister  or  the  deputy  minister  to  make 
recommendations  to  the  government  of  On- 
tario in  resi>ect  of  housing  policies  and  ob- 
jectives and  the  co-ordination  thereof.  How- 
ever, as  the  Act  stands  there  is  no  provision 
for  the  implementation  of  these  recommenda- 
tions. The  purpose  of  the  new  section  7(a) 
is  to  provide  authority  for  such  implementa- 
tion. 


ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  ACT 

Hon.  W.  Newman  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Environ- 
mental Protection  Act,  1971. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  amend- 
ments are  made  to  facilitate  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  ministry  similar  to  the  changes 
made  in  the  Ontario  Water  Resources  Amend- 
ment Act. 

Similar  changes  are  made  with  respect  to 
the  Treasurer  having  control  of  all  moneys 
received  and  disbursed,  to  limit  the  liability 
of  employees  of  the  ministry,  members  of  the 
board  under  the  Act,  and  Crown  employees 
involved  in  ministry  work,  who  act  in  good 
faith,  to  limit  the  liability  of  the  ministry  on 
inspections  and  to  change  the  provisions  with 
respect  to  the  oflFence  of  making  a  false 
statement. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  What 
happened  to  noise  regulations? 


PVBLIC    HOSPITALS   ACT 

Mr.  Roy  moves  first  reading  of  bill  intitul- 
ed. An  Act  to  amend  the  Public  Hospitals 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  this 
legislation  is  to  amend  the  Public  Hospitals 
Act  to  allow  enforcement  of  a  decision  by  the 
Ontario  Hospital  Appeal  Board  pending  any 
further  appeal. 

A  case  in  point,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  case  of 
Dr.  Martin  Schiller,  who  was  given  a  favour- 
able ruling  by  the  Ontario  Hospital  Appeal 
Board,  and  the  hospital  frustrated  the  ruling 
in  the  sense  that  it  went  on  to  appeal  and 
did  not  implement  the  ruling  of  the  Ontario 
Hospital  Appeal  Board. 


The  purpose  of  this  kgisUtkm,  Mr.  Spetk- 
er,  ia  to  make  the  board's  dedskm  enforoeable 
during  an  appeal  and,  secondly,  to  make  the 
appeal  directly  to  the  Court  of  Appeal  to 
avoid  too  many  interim  appeals. 


PESTICIDES  ACT 

Hon.  W.  Newman  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Pesticides 
Act,  1973. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  amend- 
ments are  made  to  facilitate  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  ministry  similar  to  changes  made 
in  the  Ontario  Water  Resources  Amendment 
Act,  but  as  a  new  Pesticides  Act  does  not 
come  into  force  until  proclamation,  the 
amendments  are  not  retroactive  and  will  come 
into  force  in  June  at  the  same  time  that  it  is 
intended  to  bring  the  Act  into  force. 

Changes  are  similar  to  those  in  the  Ontario 
Water  Resources  Amendment  Act  and  the 
Environment  Protection  Amendment  Act  and 
are  for  the  purpose  of  providing  that  all 
receipts  and  disbursements  are  under  the 
control  of  the  Treasurer  for  the  protection 
of  the  employees  of  the  ministry.  Members  of 
the  board  under  the  Act  and  Crown  em- 
ployees involved  in  ministry  work  who  act 
in  good  faith;  and  for  limiting  the  liability 
of  the  ministry  on  inspections,  aiid  for  chang- 
ing the  provisions  with  respect  to  the  offence 
of  making  a  false  statement. 


RENT  CONTROL  AND 
SECURITY  OF  TENURE  ACT 

Mr.  Cassidy  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  to  provide  for  Rent  Control 
and  Security  of  Tenure. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  bill  was  introduced  in  June  of 
last  year  in  the  previous  session.  Tm  reintro- 
ducing it  at  a  time  when  the  need  for  rent 
regulation  in  the  province,  and  partictdarly 
in  our  major  cities,  is  even  more  pressing 
than  it  was  at  that  time. 

The  city  of  Toronto  has  just  asked  the 
province  to  move  with  emergency  legisla- 
tion. The  mayor  of  North  York,  not  noted  as 
a  radical,  has  made  a  similar  request,  and 
the  demands  are  coming  in  from  across  the 
province  from  tenants  who  are  being  vic- 
timized and  exploited  by  their  landlords. 


1262 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  bill  would  establish  a  landlord  and 
tenant  tribunal  and  a  system  of  rent  oflBcers 
in  major  cities.  It  would  establish  guidelines 
under  which  rents  would  be  determined. 
Hopefully,  the  rents  would  continue  to  be 
made  between  landlord  and  tenant. 

The  principle  would  be  that  rent  increases 
from  a  base  of  I>ecember,  1972,  would  only 
be  justified  in  relation  to  increasing  costs  and 
not  in  relation  to  the  speculative  and  exploi- 
tative factors  which  have  been  permitted  by 
the  government. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  even  encouraged  by  it. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  at  this 
time  on  a  point  of  order.  Yesterday,  during 
the  estimates  of  the  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
Welch),  the  committee  sat  for  almost  half  an 
hour,  unable  to  have  a  quorum,  because  there 
wasn't  one  Conservative  member  of  that 
committee  present- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Shame. 
Mr.  Roy;  Shame. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  —save  and  except  for  the 
chairman  and  the  minister.  At  the  conclusion 
of  the  vote,  we  were  in  the  same  position 
and  we  waited  for  another  half  an  hour.  We 
did  have  some  discussion  but,  again,  there 
wasn't  one  Conservative  member  on  that  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Roy:  Terrible. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  frustrates 
the  work  of  this  Legislature,  and  if  this  gov- 
ernment is  permitted  to  show  its  contempt 
for  the  legislative  process  in  this  way- 
Mr.  Roy:  Right. 

Mrs.    Campbell:    — having   been   provided 
with  extra  whips  to  get  meir  members  to 
order- 
Mr.  Singer:  Five  of  them  are  paid. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  —we  are  not  going  to  be 
able  to  continue  to  function  adequately  as  an 
opposition  in  reviewing  the  estimates.  I  would 
demand,  at  this  time,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber has  made  the  point  she  wished  to  make, 
and  I  would  say  it  is  not  a  point  of  order  at 
all. 

Mr.  Singer:  And  made  it  well. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  It  is  a  good 
point. 


Mr.  Speaker:  It's  not  a  point  of  order. 
There  is  nothing  in  our  standing  orders  pro- 
viding for  any  such  programme  or  procedure. 
I  think  there  are  other  means  by  which  the 
hon.  member  might  achieve  her  purpose. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  affects  the  privileges  of  this 
House,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Out  of  courtesy  to  the  hon. 
member,  I  have  permitted  her  to  continue, 
even  though  I  knew  full  well— and  Tm  sure 
she  did,  too— that  it  was  not  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  should  be  ashamed  over 
there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  before 
you  call  the  orders  of  the  dav  I  would  like 
to  inform  the  members  of  tne  House  that 
due  to  circumstances  beyond  the  control  of 
the  Minister  of  Revenue,  he  will  not  be  able 
to  be  with  us  this  evening.  I  just  want  to  say 
that  in  the  event  we  do  not  finish  Bill  26  in 
committee  of  the  whole  House,  at  8  o'clock 
we  will  proceed  to  item  No.  6  on  the  order 
paper. 

Mr.  Roy:  At  what  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Eight. 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  Mr.  Speaker, 
before  the  orders  of  the  day,  I  would  Iflce  to 
announce  to  the  hon.  members  that  tiie  page- 
boys and  girls  are  going  to  distribute  some 
maple  sugar  to  every  member's  desk,  with  the 
compliments  of  the  Ontario  maple  syrup  pro- 
ducers. 

Mr.  Roy:  Good  for  you. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  This  is  the  finest  moment  in 
our  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  might  say  there  is  nothing 
in  our  standing  orders  to  permit  tfiat,  but  I 
think  it's  quite  in  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  The  only  perks  that  are 
left. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  second  order, 
House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 


LAND  TRANSFER  TAX  ACT 

House  in  committee  on  Bill  26,  the  Land 
Transfer  Tax  Act. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Perhaps 
the  minister  would  outline  for  us  the  sections 
which  he  may  be  amending,  if  there  are  any 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1263 


amendments,  so  that  anv  remarks  we  may 
have  to  make  could  possibly  be  foreshortened 
as  a  result? 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
I'd  be  pleased  to  do  so,  Mr.  Chairman;  I 
had  already  indicated  to  you  on  second  read- 
ing that  I  would  have  amendments  to  section 
1,  and  I've  got  one.  Let  me  just  make  sure 
I've  got  this  right;  section  1,  sub  (1),  sub 
(f),  sub  (ii)  is  the  way  I  described  it.  That 
is  the  section  dealing  with  identification  of 
non-residency,  one  of  the  criteria  for  identify- 
ing the  non-resident  corporations. 

I  will  also  have  a  further  amendment  to 
section  1,  by  the  addition  of  a  clause,  sub- 
clause 3,  which  will  provide  a  definition  of 
"ordinarily  resident."  This  is  a  definition 
which  hon.  members  may  have  noticed  was 
conspicuous  by  its  absence  by  omission  from 
my  earlier  bill. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  I 
couldn't  sleep  last  night  because  of  its 
absence. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I'm  sure  you  must  have 
had  some  reason  for  lying  awake  wondering 
about  this  bill.  I  will  have  an  amendment  on 
section  6,  subsection  ( 1 ) .  On  section  9,  I 
will  have  a  small  housekeeping  amendment- 
typographical  correction  actuaUy— and  I  will 
aJso  have  small  amendments  to  section  15 
and  to  section  18. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  perhaps  the 
minister  could  place  his  amendment  to  section 
1;  and  once  that  amendment  is  put  there  may 
be  some  general  comments  that  could  be 
made  to  that  particular  section.  Would  that 
be  convenient? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is 
perfectly  satisfactory  to  me,  if  the  hon.  mem- 
bers recognize  I  still  have  a  second  amend- 
ment to  section  1,  subsection  (2). 

On  that  basis,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  that 
copies  of  my  proposed  amendments  are  not 
only  in  your  hands  but  also  in  the  hands  of 
the  hon.  members  opposite  who  will  be  par- 
ticipating in  this  debate.  There  are  extra 
copies  available.  I  see  that  my  deputy  has 
them  and  he  will  see  that  you  get  copies. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Maybe  the  pages  could  give 
them  out  after  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  While  that  is  being  dis- 
tributed, Mr.  Chairman,  perhaps  I  might  just 
make  a  comment  on  the  first  subsection,  item 
(b),  the  definition  of  the  word  "convey". 

I  was  interested  in  some  of  the  comments 
that  were  made  earlier  on  in  general  discus- 


sion on  second  reading  with  resx>ect  to  the 
matter  of  mortgages.  Now  the  hon.  minister 
will  recall  that  the  point  was  raised  concern- 
ing the  possibility  that  matters  would  be  up- 
set if  mortgages  were  placed  on  properties  and 
then  final  orders  of  foreclosure,  ii  such  should 
happen,  would  bring  certain  problems  with 
respect  to  conveyance. 

In  subsection  (c)  the  minister  does  refer, 
under  the  definition  of  the  word  "convey- 
ance", that  it  includes  not  only  the  usual 
deed  but  also  "a  final  order  of  foreclosure."  I 
presume  that  since  a  mortgage  is  technically  a 
conveyance,  subject  to  a  return  of  the  fee 
on  discharge  of  the  mortgage,  that  we  should 
have,  for  perhaps  a  more  general  knowledge 
of  this  situation,  an  amendment  or  an  in- 
clusion in  the  definition  of  the  word  "convey" 
that  would  include  the  mortgaging  aspects. 

'I  presume  it  is  the  minister's  intention  to 
include  that  aspect;  and  perhaps  we  coiJd 
have  a  comment  as  to  how  he  sees  the  prob- 
lem being  resolved  if  an  amendment  is  not 
considered  to  be  required. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  our 
opinion  that  the  term  "convey"  was  su£B- 
ciently  broad  to  cover  the  grant  of  a  mort- 
gage; recognizing,  too,  that  in  land  titles  a 
mortgage  is  a  charge  and  is  not  a  convejance. 
We  therefore  have  not  specifically  referred  to 
mortgage  in  the  definition  of  conveyance" 
but  of  the  transitive  verb  "convey."  But  when 
you  get  to  conveyance,  then  we  have  defined 
it  as  including  a  mortgage  or  charge. 

That's  the  reason,  as  I  understand  it,  for 
the  somewhat  broader,  and  it  looks  like  rather 
awkward,  wording  in  the  defim'tion  of  "con- 
vey." It  is  in  order  to  catch  all  the  areas  that 
might  affect  the  release  of  any  interest  in 
land,  a  quit  claim  and  all  the  other  manners 
of  the  transfer  of  a  fee.  Gwiveyance  then 
goes  further  to  include,  as  indicated,  the 
registration  of  a  final  order  of  foreclosure.  If 
that  is  satisfactory  to  the  member  for 
Kitchener,  perhaps  I  would  now  introduce 
copies  of  these  proposed  amendments  so  he 
will  have  copies  of  them,  and  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  as  well. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  it  the  proposed  amend- 
ment to  section  1  you  are  talking  about  now? 
To  clause  (f)? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  To  section  1,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  that  subclause  (ii)  of 
clause  (f)  of  subsection  (1)  of  section  1  of  the 
bill  be  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof: 

But  this  subclause  does  not  applv  where  it 
is  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  minister 


1264 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  such  individual  or  corporation  does  not, 
in  fact,  exercise  control  directly  or  indirectly 
over  the  corporation  that  has  issued  or 
allotted  to  such  individual  or  corporation 
shares  to  which  are  attached  25  per  cent  or 
more  of  the  voting  rights  ordinarily  exercis- 
able at  meetings  of  the  shareholders  of  the 
corporation. 

Mr.  Chaiiman:  The  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener. 

Mr.  J.  A,  Renwidc  (Riverdale):  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  my  friend  would  agree,  just  before 
we  get  to  that  particular  subsection  of  the 
bill,  I  notice,  in  looking  at  the  existing  Land 
Transfer  Tax  Act  and  subclause  (b)  of  clause 
(1)  of  section  1  of  the  Act,  you  are  now  pro- 
posing to  include  a  lease  as  a  taxable  convey- 
ance. That  is  not  now  presently  contained.  I 
noticed  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  notice  issued 
by  the  minister  with  respect  to  the  proposed 
changes,  that  he  does  propose  to  exempt  a 
lease  for  a  term  of  not  more  than  10  years.  I 
am  curious  as  to  the  reason  the  lease  is  to  be 
included  as  such  as  document  and  why  there 
was  the  selection  of  the  more  or  less  arbitrary 
term  of  10  years  as  the  definitive  period  of 
time  within  which  no  tax  will  be  levied;  and 
whether  or  not  the  same  purpose  is  likely  to 
be  accomplished  by  a  continuing  right  of 
renewal  if  the  concern  and  fear  of  the  minis- 
ter is  for  long-term  leases  to  become  a  normal 
method  of  conveying  property  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Chairman,  a  con- 
tinuing right  of  renewal  would  not  be 
acceptable  within  the  ambit  of  the  proposed 
regulation  which  would  nail  this  down  to 
10  years.  What  I  have  in  mind  in  endeavour- 
ing to  enforce  this  provision  is  that  a  lease 
must  be  registered  if  it  is  for  a  period,  in- 
cluding any  terms  of  renewal,  beyond  seven 
years.  If  I  understand  the  member  cor- 
rectly, what  he  is  saying  is  that  if  you  had 
a  lease  for  10  years  with  a  right  of  renewal, 
for  say  a  further  five  years  and  a  further 
five  years  after  that,  you  are  really  getting 
to  a  15  or  a  20-year  term  unless  there  are 
other  options  open  to  the  lessor,  as  to  say 
the  amount  of  rental  to  be  charged  or  some- 
thing of  that  sort;  giving,  in  effect,  the 
tenant  the  first  right  of  refusal  but  not  really 
an  absolute  right  to  renew. 

If  he  has  an  absolute  right  to  renew  then 
we  would  consider  that  a  lease  having  a 
longer  term  than  the  first  10-year  period 
and  would,  in  fact,  look  at  the  total  period 
for  which  he  had  an  absolute  right  to  re- 
new. If  you  have  a  period  very  much  longer 
than  10  years  it  is  possible  for  the  purchaser 
—the  lessee  in  this  case— to  treat  his  improve- 


ments on  the  property  as  though  they  were 
capital.  So  we  looked  at  this  in  an  eflFort 
to  have  it  as  short  as  possible  so  that  he 
couldn't  acquire  by  the  backdoor  what  we 
won't  let  him  do  by  the  front  door  without 
paying  the  non-resident  tax,  and  yet  have 
something  that  was  enforceable  by  way  of 
our  being  able  to  look  at  the  title  and 
through  our  registry  o£Bce  procedure  be 
able  to  keep  track  of  these  conveyances,  by 
way  of  lease  or  otherwise,  which  will  come 
to  our  attention  through  the  mechanism  of 
the  registry  oflBce. 

Therefore,  although  10  years  looks 
arbitrary,  it  is  as  short  as  we  could  make 
it.  I  suppose,  in  theory,  one  could  make  it 
seven  years;  but  in  making  it  10  years  it 
looks  like  a  reasonably  practical  period,  hav- 
ing regard  for  the  capital  aspect  of  the  ac- 
quisition by  the  non-resident. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  assimie 
the  minister  will  have  that  authority  under 
item  (a)  of  subsection  (2)  of  section  18  with 
respect  to  the  making  of  regulations. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes. 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  gather  that's  the  particular 
clause  of  the  regulatory  power  that  he  in- 
tends to  use  for  that  purpose.  He  can  speak, 
perhaps,  when  we  come  to  that  section, 
about  the  adequacy  of  it. 

The  other  clause  in  item  (b)  which  con- 
cerns me  is  the  clause  which  states: 

.   .   .   whether  the  effect  of  any  of  the 

foregoing    is    to    bring    into    existence    an 

interest  of  any  kind  in  land  .  .  . 

That's   quite   aU   right,   but   the  part   which 

concerns  me  is  the  next  part: 

...  or  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
effect  to  or  fonnal  recognition  to  any 
interest  of  whatsoever  kind  that  there- 
tofore existed  in  land  .  .  . 

It  would  appear  to  me  that  if,  in  fact,  there 
is  an  interest  in  land  and  this  particular 
docmnent  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  for- 
mal recognition,  there  should  be  some  way 
of  exempting  it. 

I  would  ask  the  minister  two  questions. 
Does  he  intend  to  exempt  it?  Secondly,  can 
he  give  me  an  example  of  the  kind  of  docu- 
ment that  would  be  included  in  that  clause 
with  respect  to  "for  the  purpose  of  giving 
effect  to  or  formal  recognition  of  any  interest 
whatsoever?" 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe, 
but  I  will  ask  my  advisers  if  they  can  assist 
me  in  providing  an  illustration  or  two  for 
the    benefit    of    hon.    members,    that   this   is 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1165 


intended  to  catch  some  of  the  less  definitive 
kinds  of  interests— an  interest  in  reversion, 
possibly  interest  through  an  estate  and 
various  undefined  ways  in  which  there  might 
be  an  interest  by  agreement,  unregistered 
or  otherwise,  on  the  title. 

I'm  not  satisfied  in  that  answer  myself, 
so  I  will  ask  them  if  they  can  provide  to 
me.,  to  be  conveyed  to  the  members,  some 
more  comprehensive  answer  to  that  rather 
sophisticated  question. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  may  have  been  a 
sophisticated  question.  It  was  asked  out  of 
sheer  ignorance  of  what  it  was  intended  to 
cover. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  further  item  in 
connection  with  the  definition  of  land  in  the 
Act.  In  the  existing  Act  the  word  "land"  is 
defined  to  include  tenements,  realty,  fixtures 
and  goodwill.  I  notice  that  in  the  main  part 
of  the  section  there  is  no  reference  to  the 
word  "fixtures."  I  see  there  is  a  reference 
qualifving  the  word  "goodwill."  I'm  curious, 
though,  as  to  whether  or  not  the  term  "lands, 
tenements,  and  hereditaments  and  any  estate, 
right  or  interest  therein,  a  leasehold  interest 
or  estate,  the  interest  or  an  optionee,  the 
interest  of  a  purchaser,"  in  fact,  picks  up  the 
term  "fixture. 

It  is  quite  obvious  that  the  following  part 
of  it— "goodwill  attributable  to  the  location 
of  land  or  to  the  existence  thereon  of  any 
building  or  fixture  and  fixtures"— leads  me  to 
wonder  whether  that  last  clause,  "and  fix- 
tures," covers  the  point  that  I  am  trying  to 
make  as  to  whether  or  not  there  is  an  in- 
advertent omission  of  the  word  "fixtures"  in 
the  early  part  of  the  definition. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Does  the  hon.  member 
mean  in  the  earlier  Act? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Whether  it  shouldn't  read, 
"including  lands,  tenements,  hereditaments, 
and  fixtures  and  any  estate,  right,  title  or 
interest  therein."  It  is  a  pretty  technical 
matter  but— 

Mr.  Chairman:  Before  the  minister  answers, 
I  should  ask  if  anyone  else  wants  to  speak 
on  clause  (b)  before  it  is  carried  and  we 
move  on.  Did  the  hon.  member  for  Kitchener 
want  to  speak  on  clause  (b)? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Not  at  this  point,  Mr. 
Chairman.  I  have  been  waiting  my  turn. 

Mr.  Chairman:  On  clause  (b)? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Well  on  section  1  in  gen- 
eral. 


Mr.  Cassidy:  I  have  a  number  of  points, 

Mr.  Chairman,  on  clause  (d). 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Before  we  deal  with  the 
entire  subsection  (1),  there  are  various  points 
on  definition,  and  perhaps  if  hon.  member* 
may  refer  to  any  of  the  items  within  sub- 
clause (1),  the  interpretation  clause,  this  may 
be  a  way  of — 

Mr.  Chairman}  Well  we  could  dttU  with 
(a),  (b),  (c)  and  (d)  with  reference  to  the 
amendment  and  go  backwards  and  forwards 
on  it. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  is  pretty  difficult  other- 
wise. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Perhaps  at  this  point, 
then,  I  might  just  try  to  answer  the  hon. 
member  for  Riverdale;  and  then  if  the  other 
hon.  members  want  me  to  go  back  over  this 
area  we  can. 

The  hon.  member  was  asking  about  the 
definition  of  land.  The  last  words  in  the 
section,  "and  fixtures"— and  the  hon.  member 
for  Riverdale  isn't  listening  at  the  moment, 
but  this  is  expressly  for  his  benefit— the  words 
"and  fixtures     moaify  the  entire  clause. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  This  is  actually  a  clarifi- 
cation of  the  earlier  section— to  which  the 
hon.  member  for  Riverdale  referred— particu- 
larly as  regards  goodwill  attributable  to  loca- 
tion, which  has  not  been  spelled  out.  A 
geographic  location  of  a  lot  may  be  somewhat 
different  because  of  its  potential  for  develop- 
ment for  some  other  use,  but  we  have  elao- 
orated  somewhat  on  this  definition. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Just  to  complete  one  p<^t 
that  was  referred  to  earlier  by  the  hon. 
member  for  Riverdale,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
that  is  the  matter  dealing  with  the  situation 
of  the  leasing  on  the  10-year  term. 

Would  it  be  the  intention  of  the  minJstry, 
then,  to  keep  some  sort  of  record  in  the 
registry  ofiices  of  leases  that  did  have  various 
options  of  renewal?  The  reason  I  am  asking 
that  is  of  course  because  the  right  to  renewu 
may  be  based  upon  various  tax  adjustments 
or  other  items  tnat  might  not  in  efiPect  be 
seen  as  an  absolute  right  to  renew  but  rather 
a  discretionary  one  on  the  lessee. 

I  am  thinking  that  if  that  is  the  case  the 
burden,  while  it  is  possibly  not  a  very  heavy 
one  and  will  be  readily  accepted  by  the 
lessee,  still  it  could  be  seen  to  be  a  burden 
which  he  might  not  choose  to  accept;  and 
as  a  result  might  not  be  as  carefully  watched 
as  would  be  the  case  with  what  would  seem 


1266 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


to  be  a  stronger  right  to  renew  without  any 
condition. 

The  question,  if  I  am  making  myself  at  all 
clear,  is  that  if  there  is  a  condition  which 
will  no  doubt  be  readily  accepted,  are  you 
going  to  keep  some  sort  of  a  record  to  see  if 
in  fact  these  leases  are  renewed?  Or  would 
you— and  I  think  it  would  be  more  practical- 
make  a  value  judgment  right  at  the  time  to 
avoid  all-  the  traditional  paper  work  or  sub- 
jective decisions?  So  that  once  the  lease  was 
proferred  for  registration,  the  decision  would 
be  made  and  I  think  you  would  save  yourself 
some  particular  problems. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  haven't 
completed  the  regulation  yet,  as  I  am  sure  the 
hon.  members  can  appreciate.  But  I  do  ex- 
pect that  we  would  make  the  value  judgement 
at  the  time  of  registration  of  the  initial  lease- 
is  it  an  absolute  term,  are  there  absolute 
rights  of  renewal,  are  they  subject  to  negotia- 
tion of  certain  terms  at  that  time. 

It  seems  to  me,  though  I  am  thinking  out 
loud  as  I  go,  that  if  with  the  lessee  there  are 
certain  options,  then  he  really  is  acquiring  at 
that  time  a  right  to  go  forward  even  if  he 
doesn't  exercise  that  right  at  a  later  time.  So 
if  he  has  a  fixed  10-year  term  or  some  term, 
which  coupled  with  an  absolute  right  of 
renewal  would  carry  him  beyond  the  total 
right  of  occupancy,  in  excess  of  10  years,  I 
think  we  would  make  the  assessment  at  that 
time  that  he  had  in  fact  acquired  it  by  way 
of  a  conveyance  within  the  definition  of  sub- 
clause (b). 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  think  the  minister  would 
agree  there  could  well  be  various  terms  put 
into  an  option  to  renew  that  might  seem 
onerous,  but  in  fact  could  be  terms  of  straw 
which  would  be  another  way  of  attempting  to 
avoid  what  the  minister  is  attempting  to 
accomplish. 

Him*  Mr.  Meen:  Yes.  Before  we  get  away 
from  subclause  (b),  Mr.  Chairman,  my 
deputy  tells  me  that  one  of  the  questions 
under  conveyance,  if  I  can  read  his  notes,  is 
that  sometimes  if  there  is  no  consideration, 
let's  say  if  there  is  no  tax,  the  court  of  appeal, 
he  has  pointed  out,  has  suggested  that  an 
equitable  interest  in  land  can  arise  with  the 
execution  of  an  offer.  I  guess  I  should  have 
remembered  that  from  my  conveyancing  days. 

Yoii  can  assign  an  offer  and  with  the  assign- 
ment of  an  offer  there  is  a  transferral  of  the 
equitable  interest.  That's  the  kind  of  thing 
we  are  trying  to  get  at;  where  people,  I  think 
I  ain  right  on  this,  maybe  trade  in  offers- 
submitting  an  offer  with  a  small  down  pay- 


ment at  a  later  time  and  transferring  that 
offer,  or  assigning  the  offer  rather  than  assign- 
ing the  deed.  That  would  be  picked  up  by 
this  very  broad  and  esoteric  description  or 
definition  of  the  term  "convey". 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Presumably  you  are  going 
to  have  as  well  the  opportunity  of  vetting  any 
of  the  various  kinds  of  documents  which 
might  otherwise  be  deposited  on  titles  as 
clouds  on  title?  Such  as— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes,  the  assignment  of  an 
agreement. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  assignment  of  an 
agreement  as  well. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes,  we  would. 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  take  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
in  that  situation— if  for  example  a  person  takes 
an  option  and  registers  the  option  and  in  due 
course  exercises  the  option— you  would  have 
to  exempt  the  second  step  if  the  tax  was 
paid  at  the  time  of  the  registration  of  the 
option  because  the  option  is  included?  Would 
I  be  correct  in  that  assumption? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  believe  so,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. The  intention  is  not  to  tax  twice  on  the 
same  agreement,  on  the  same  transfer  of  the 
fee.  If  the  tax  was  extracted  at  the  registra- 
tion of  the  option,  of  course,  it  would  not  be 
extracted  again  when  the  option  was  exercised. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  This  would  be  the  normal 
circumstance  of  any  transfer  in  trust? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes. 

Mr.  Renwick:  My  concern  is  that  you  care- 
fully spelled  out  the  fact  that  if  land  is  reg- 
isterable  in  more  than  one  land  registry  oflBce 
the  tax  is  only  payable  once.  But  I  question 
whether  at  some  point  there  shouldn't  be  a 
statement  in  here  that  you  can  only  be  taxed 
once  on  one  conveyance,  rather  than  leave  it 
to  be  dealt  with  solely  in  the  regulations. 

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

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  felt  a 
bit  crowded  aside  by  these  lawyers  who  have 
been  working  on  the  bill.  I  have  two  or  three 
general  questions  I  wanted  to  raise  with  the 
minister  which  hearken  back,  perhaps,  a  bit 
more  to  our  debate  on  the  bill  yesterday, 
although  I  have  some  points  which  may  be 
as  fine  as  those  the  member  for  Kitchener 
and  the  member  for  Riverdale  have  been  rais- 
ing. 


APRIL  23,  1074 


1207 


The  first  question  is  does  the  minister  know 
and  can  he  give  us  any  idea  of  what  kind  of 
situation  we  are  dealing  with  here?  Can  he 
give  us  a  general  idea  of  the  value  last  year 
and  the  estimated  value  this  year  of  property 
transactions  in  the  province? 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  think  the  hon.  member 
will  have  to  speak  to  the  section  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  That  has  nothing  to  do 
with  these  sections. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  traditional, 
I  believe,  that  these  more  general  questions 
about  a  bill  are  raised  at  the  outset.  If  the 
minister  wishes  I  can  raise  them  at  other 
points  but  it  seems  sensible  to  get  them 
through  at  this  particular  point. 

Mr.  Chairman:  It  isn't  appropriate  at  this 
time  anyway  because  it's  not  in  the  sections 
that  we  are  dealing  with. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  point  I 
wanted  to  follow  up  with  was  to  ask  the 
minister  what  is  the  estimated  value  of  the 
transactions  he  expects  to  be  dealing  with? 
What  would  have  been  that  value  according 
to  his  oflBciak  if  there  had  been  no  tax  levied? 
How  has  that  changed  over  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  not 
intended  as  a  tax-raising  bill.  The  Land 
Transfer  Tax  Act,  specifically  in  reference  to 
non-residents— the  element  which  is  attracting 
all  the  attention  in  the  debate  of  course-is 
not  intended  as  a  tax- raising  measure. 

Il,  in  my  ministrv,  have  no  idea  what  kind 
of  money  this  will  raise,  because  we  expect 
it  to  be  a  deterrent  on  foreign  investment  in 
real  estate,  and  therefore  I  am  not  in  a  posi- 
tion to  estimate.  Of  course  we  have  no  records 
of  this  in  the  past,  because  the  identification 
as  to  whether  purchasers  were  residents  or 
non-residents  was  never  a  requirement  of  any 
of  our  registry  oflBce  procedures.  Ergo,  we 
have  no  record  of  that  sort  of  thing. 

While  I  am  on  my  feet,  perhaps  I  could 
clarify,  the  point  made  by  the  hon.  member 
for  Riverdale  and  the  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener.  As  I  say,  it  is  not  intended  to  tax 
twice.  My  legal  counsel  point  out  to  me  that 
the  tax  that  would  be  paid  on  the  registration 
of  the  option  would  be  based  on  the  con- 
sideration paid  for  the  option.  Then,  when 
eventually  the  option  is  exercised,  the  tax 
that  would  be  charged  would  be  tax  based  on 
the  consideration  paid  on  the  exercise.  So  in 
the  end  result  you  have  not  taxed  twice, 
there  have  been  two  pieces  of  tax  paid. 


Mr.  Caatidyx  I  would  like  to  punue  this 
point,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  Treasurer  (Mr. 
White),  in  his  budget,  estimated  that  the  land 
transfer  tax  that— 

Mr.  Chairman:  Well,  we  are  not  really  deal- 
ing  with  the  tax.  You  are  out  of  order  as  far 
as  dealing  with  the  bill  before  us  is  con- 
cerned. 


Mr.  Cassidy:  At  some  point  it  is 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  House- 


Mr.  Chairman:  You  had  an  opportunity  to 
deal  with  this  on  second  reading. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  questions  were  posed,  but 
the  way  the  debate  works  the  minister  did 
not  answer  the  questions  whidi  were  posed 
at  that  time.  I  will  pose  them  at  a  further 
clause  in  the  bill,  but  it  is  reasonable  to  raise 
it  now  to  get  the  perspective  on  the  bill  and 
then  to  talk- 
Mr.  Chairman:  As  I  say,  you  are  out  of 
order  as  far  as  dealing  with  clause  1  of  this 
bill  is  concerned. 

Mr.   Cassidy:    Thank  you,   Mr.   Chairman. 
The  second  point  I  wish  to  raise- 
Mr.  Chairman:   If  the  ministCT  wishes  to 
answer  you,  why  I  will  concede  to  the  minis- 
ter's wishes. 

An  hon.  member:  There's  no  answer. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  don't  think  there  is  »n 
answer  for  you. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman:  Can  the  chairman  kindly  tell  me 
when  questions  like  this  which  are  relevant 
to  legislation,  tax  legislation  in  particular,  are 
to  be  raised? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Yes;  on  second  reading. 
The  question  you  are  asking  at  the  present 
time  could  have  been  very  well  ra^ed  at 
second  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  was  raised,  Mr.  Chairman, 
on  the  point  of  order,  but  when  is  one  to  get 
answers?  That  is  normally  done  during  the 
question  and  answer  that  is  permitted  under 
committee  stage  of  the  House.  It  seems  to  me, 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  to  rule  these  things  out  of 
order  is  not  allowing  the  committee  stage  to 
follow  its  normal  course. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Ask  him  where  he  was 
when  I  was  replying  on  second  reading? 

Mr.  Ren  wick:  If  I  may  just  speak  on  that 
point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  sug- 
gest  the  questions   raised   by   my  colleague, 


1268 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre,  would  be 
appropriately  and  properly  raised  when  we 
come  to  those  two  taxing  subsections  of  sec- 
tion 2,  which  are  of  course  where  the  tax  is 
levied  and  where  it  would  appear  to  me, 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  questions  with  respect 
to  the  extent  of  the  tax  and  how  much  the 
minister  anticipates  raising  would  be  very 
relevant  to  the  clause  by  clause  discussion  of 
the  bill. 

Mr.  Chairman:  It  could  very  well  be,  but 
I  said  it  was  out  of  order  to  deal  with  it  on 
clause  1.  One  part  here  may  be  in  order. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  second  point  I  wanted  to  raise— I  will 
try  to  be  general  at  this  point;  however,  bear- 
ing in  mind  your  approach,  Mr.  Chairman,  it 
may  be  necessary  to  raise  this  throughout  the 
bill— can  the  minister  comment  on  two  or 
three  apparently  large  loopholes  which  have 
been  suggested  in  the  bill,  as  to  whether  the 
ministry  has  taken  account  of  them  and  what 
it  intends  to  do  with  them? 

The  two  that  come  most  to  my  mind, 
which  are  apparently  legal,  are  the  ones 
raised  by  the  member  for  High  Park  (Mr. 
Shulman)  and  a  loophole  which  would  be 
involved  in  evading  the  tax  through  the  use 
of  options. 

As  the  minister  knows,  options  for  example 
can  be  bought,  for  let's  say  10  per  cent  of 
the  market  value  of  a  property.  Subsequently 
they  might  be  sold  a  year  or  two  later  on  a 
speculative  market  and  the  capital  apprecia- 
tion in  the  value  of  the  property  would  all 
attach  to  the  option.  Therefore,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  a  $10,000  option  on  a  $100,000 
property  might  be  sold  a  year  or  so  later  for 
$50,000  or  $100,000;  and  the  onlv  deterrent 
to  the  foreign  speculator  would  be  to  have 
to  pay  20  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  option, 
which  would  be  about  two  per  cent  of  the 
value  of  the  property— a  far  cry  from  having 
to  pay  20  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty. 

The  other  approach  which  was  suggested 
by  the  member  for  High  Park,  was  in  effect 
this  capitalization.  I  have  a  couple  of  amend- 
ments to  suggest  on  that  point  later  on  in 
this  section.  This  would  be  where  the  voting 
control  of  a  corporation  was  held  by  Cana- 
dians, but  where  the  preferred  shares  were 
held  by  foreigners  and  the  voting  control  was 
handed  to  trustworthy  Canadians  who  could 
be  counted  upon  not  to  violate  the  interests 
of  the  majority  of  the  shareholders,  although 
those  shareholders  would  not  have  voting 
rights. 


It  could  possibly  be  accompanied  by  a 
provision,  which  I  think  is  not  abnormal,  that 
would  give  the  preferred  shareholders  the 
power  to  seek  to  wind  up  the  company  in 
case  they  grew  to  be  unhappy  with  the  way 
in  which  it  was  being  managed.  They  would 
not  be  able  to  influence  the  decision-making 
of  the  company  in  any  legal  way,  but  they 
would  be  able  to  wind  it  up  upon  a  certain 
application. 

Those  are  two  possible  loopholes  which,  it 
seems  to  me,  would  permit  either  evasion  of 
most  of  the  tax  or,  in  the  case  of  the  thinly 
capitalized  company  with  a  very  small  pro- 
portion of  its  issued  capital  in  voting  shares, 
would  permit  complete  evasion  of  this  par- 
ticular tax. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  May  I  ask  one  point  of 
clarification  at  this  point,  Mr.  Chairman? 
Are  we  now  into  section  1(1  )(f),  which  deals 
with  the  definition  of  a  non-resident  corpora- 
tion? It  was  with  respect  to  that  section  that 
the  hon.  member  for  High  Park  raised  the 
points  on  which  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  is  talking.  Have  we  gone  on  to  that 
part  of  the  Act? 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  will  find  out. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  appreciate  the  interest  of 
the  minister  in  trying  to  sort  of  tick  off  the 
subclauses  one  by  one.  I  believe  the  ques- 
tion about  options  probably  would  come 
under  section  l(l)(b);  apart  from  that,  I'm 
quite  ready  to  go  on  to  section  l(l)(f). 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Section  l(l)(b)  then,  of 
course,  would  pick  up  the  term  "convey." 
If  an  option  is  registered  then  we  have 
some  notice  of  it,  and  the  nature  of  resi- 
dency or  non-residency  of  the  optionee  or 
other  parties  to  the  contract  would  then 
come  to  our  attention.  And  the  trading  in 
those  options  would  be  subject  to  the  tax 
in  the  normal  fashion  as  a  conveyance. 

If  they  aren't  registered  and  they  are 
traded  as  paper  without  being  registered,  I 
suppose  it  is  possible  to  avoid  the  tax,  be- 
cause at  the  moment  we  have  no  particular 
mechanism  available.  We  may  be  able  to 
develop  something  in  the  future,  but  I  don't 
picture  anything  at  the  moment,  other  than 
the  mechanism  through  the  registry  ofiice 
procedure  and  the  affidavits  required  by  the 
Act,  to  identify  the  residency  of  the  grantee, 
optionee,  lessee  or  whatever  in  the  regis- 
tered document. 

The  other  point  raised  by  the  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre  was  the  matter  mentioned 
on  Monday  by  his  colleague  from  High  Park. 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1269 


The  kind  of  company  which  his  colleague 
suggested,  in  which  the  class  A  shares  would 
be  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  of  profit  in  the 
corporation,  but  where  there  would  be  com- 
mon shares  with  exclusive  voting  rights— 
the  class  A  having  no  voting  rights  under 
that  proposal,  as  I  recall  the  suggestion  of 
the  hon.  member  for  High  Park— would  in 
fact   leave   control   still   in   Canadian   hands. 

The  question  is,  are  we  trying  to  cut 
out  all  foreign  investment  or  are  we  simply 
seeking  to  cut  out  foreign  control  of  our 
real  estate?  What  we  are  really  getting  at 
here  is  foreign  control  of  real  estate.  So  if 
foreign  moneys  see  fit  to  be  planted  in  a 
corporation  here,  in  which  they  in  fact  do 
not  have  control  and  in  fact  the  control  still 
resides  with  Ontario  citizens,  then  we  have 
still  met  the  criteria  we  are  trying  to  estab- 
lish by  retaining  the  control  of  our  land  in 
Canadian  hands. 

If  we  are  talking  about  equity  investments, 
those  moneys  might  go  into  other  stocks 
and  shares  in  other  companies  in  a  similar 
kind  of  interest.  Are  we  talking  about  bene- 
Kcml  ownership?  If  that's  the  case,  what 
are  we  talking  about  in  terms  of  normal 
in\estments  in  the  case  of  mortgage  and 
bond  investments  without  control  over  the 
destiny  of  the  company  any  more  than  those 
class  A  shares  in  the  example  given  by  the 
hon.  member  for  High  Park? 

Really,  although  he  called  it  a  loophole, 
it  is  one  facet  of  the  operation  in  which 
foreign  money  may  come  in  if  it  wants  to. 
But  it  will  come  in  under  circumstances  in 
which  it  does  not  have  contrcJ  over  our  real 
estate. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Could  I  follow  that  up  for 
a  minute?  I  really  find  it  quite  stupervdous, 
what  the  minister  has  said.  I  want  to  put 
on  the  record  the  proposal  of  the  member 
for  High  Park,  which  his  lawyer  told  him 
was  perfectly  legal. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It's  already  on  the  record. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  All  right,  and  which  the 
minister  now  says  is  legal  as  well.  In  a 
company  which  has  1,000  common  shares 
with  the  par  value  of  $1  apiece  and  999,000 
class  A  shares,  preferred  shares,  with  the 
par  value  of  $1  apiece,  the  common  and 
the  A  shares  share  equally  in  any  profits, 
dividends,  proceeds,  capital  gains  and  so 
forth  of  the  corporation.  Voting  control  is 
in  the  common  shares  which  are  held  by 
Canadians,  or  most  of  which  are  held  by 
Canadians,    who    simply    act    in    a    prudent 


manner  but  in  effect  are  investing  the 
$999,000  worth  of  share  capiUl  which  has 
oome  in  from  abroad. 

That  is  not  going  to  trouble  In  any  way 
any  investors  from  Switzerland  or  Hong 
Kong  or  the  United  States  or  other  people 
who  have  found  all  sorts  of  reasons  for  com- 
ing into  this  country.  What  the  minister  is 
outlining  is  a  perfectly  legal  way  by  which 
they  can  come  in  and  continue  to  do  what 
they  have  been  doing.  What  he  is  therefore 
saying,  is  that  apart  from  the  Detroit  auto 
workei  who  will  find  it  more  di£Bcult  to 
buy  a  cottage  along  the  St.  CUlr  River, 
there  is  no  effective  deterrent  in  this  20  per 
cent  tax  to  foreign  money  coming  into 
Ontario  real  estate.  This  is  why  the  ques- 
tions which  ni  raise  later  about  the  values 
which  are  affected  are  very  important,  be- 
cause if  what  he's  saying  is  a  wide-open 
loophole  to  anybody,  then  why  have  the 
tax  at  all?  It  is  not  an  effective  tax.  unless 
I've   grossly   misunderstood   the  minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  can  debate  this  thing, 
I  suppose,  until  the  cows  come  home,  but  the 
fact  is  that  what  we're  trying  to  get  at  is 
some  handle  on  foreign  control  of  our  real 
estate. 

Following  the  observations  made  by  the 
hon.  member  for  High  Park  yesterday  I  ob- 
served that  we  might  want  one  day,  and 
maybe  not  before  very  long  either,  to  take 
a  look  at  the  element  of  beneficial  owner- 
ship, the  true  beneficial  ownership.  I'm  not 
suggesting  that  it's  a  legitimate  loophole; 
I'm  suggesting  that  that's  one  medianism 
which  on  its  face  could  look  that  way. 

If  in  fact,  however,  those  wealthy  people 
over  in  Switzerland  or  West  Cermany  or 
Hong  Kong,  or  wherever  the  money  is  com- 
ing from  into  the  class  "A"  shares,  are  telling 
the  Toronto-based  management  firm  which  is 
holding  the  common  voting  shares  what  they 
want  done  with  the  company  which  they,  the 
non-residents,  really  own  because  they  have 
that  beneficial  ownership,  then  it's  a  very 
good  question,  say  my  legal  advisers,  as  to 
whether  they  are  not  controlling  the  corpora- 
tion. Whether  the  de  facto  control  is  in  the 
hands  of  non-residents  might  well  be  held  to 
be  the  case,  even  if  on  the  surface  the  patent 
control  were  in  the  hands  of  a  few  common 
shareholders  who  are  managing  the  corpora- 
tion. 

If  they  wish  to  try  it,  I  suppose  one  might 
say:  "Be  my  guest."  That's  the  approach  we're 
taking  right  now,  concerning  the  basic  ele- 
ment of  control,  while  at  the  same  time 
having     an  eagle  eye  out,  alerted,  as  others 


1270 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


have  also  alerted  me  before  the  member  for 
High  Park  for  that  matter,  to  this  kind  of 
potential  sway,  or  as  some  have  described  it, 
a  loophole  in  the  Act. 

I  have  yet  to  see  one  that  really  is  one.  I 
think  they're  the  figment  of  some  people's 
imagination.  By  the  time  we  have  issued  our 
body  of  regulations  with  definitions,  by  the 
time  we  have  worked  our  way  through  the 
Act  with  the  amendments  which  I  will  be 
proposing,  I  would  hope  that  we  have  an  Act 
that  is  not  fraught  with  difficulties.  I  don't  for 
one  minute  minimize  the  possibility  of  loop- 
holes being  discovered  by  clever  tax  lawyers, 
by  clever  chartered  accountants.  That's,  you 
might  say,  part  of  their  business. 

It's  a  hazard  of  running  government  too, 
that  we  pioneer  new  legislation  like  this.  We 
won't  be  surprised  if  it  turns  out  there  are 
some  deficiences  that  have  to  be  remedied 
by  amendments  to  regulations.  As  I  said  dur- 
ing the  course  of  my  reply  yesterday,  I  might 
even  be  back  before  this  session  rises  for  the 
summer  vacation  with  an  amendment  to  the 
legislation  if  I  found  it  necessary;  or,  if  it 
were  possible,  to  do  the  necessary  elements 
by  amendments  to  the  regulations  throughout 
the  summer  and  be  back  in  the  fall  almost 
without  doubt  with  some  amendments  to  the 
Act. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  In  other 
words  the  minister  is  going  on  a  fishing 
expedition. 

Mr.  Ciissidy:  Well  Mr.  Chairman,  I  suggest 
we  pass  the  amendments  the  minister  sug- 
gested. I  have  a  couple  of  proposed  amend- 
ments to  sections  (l)(f)  which  would  at- 
tempt to .  cover  the  problem  that  I  have 
raised.  And  I  offer  this  in  a  helpful  spirit 
rather  than  a  combative  one. 

I  agree  with  the  minister  that  the  de  facto 
question  may  be  other  than  the  de  jure 
question.  The  problem  is,  of  course,  that  you 
have  to  do  this  in  a  legal  manner.  If  control 
is  in  Canadian  hands,  even  though  it's  with 
only  $1,000  worth  of  shares,  your  alternatives 
may  well  be  to  ultimately  come  up  with  a 
clause  as  the  federal  Department  of  Revenue 
everitually  came  up  with  in  cases  of  dividend 
shipping  and— what  is  it?— bond  washing 
and  that  kind  of  thing.  It  simply  said  these 
situations  exist  where  the  minister  deems 
they  exist,  or  in  this  particular  case  that  a 
company  is  foreign-controlled  where  the 
minister  says  it's  foreign-controlled. 

I  wouldn't  propose  that  amendment  right 
now,  but  the  minister  might  eventually  come 
to  that  in  order  to  cover  some  of  these  situa- 


tions where  foreign  money  is  hiding  under 
a  cloak  of  control  of  friendly  lawyers  or  real 
estate  people  in  Ontario. 

After  all,  many  of  these  people  say:  "Look, 
buy  us  a  couple  of  apartment  buildings;  as 
long  as  the  return  is  above  six  per  cent  a 
year  we  are  happy." 

They  don't  care  where  they  are;  or  what 
they  are  like.  They  trust  the  people  locally  to 
come  up  with  a  reasonable  kind  of  invest- 
ment and  they  take  no  further  interest  in  it. 
It's  managed  in  Ontario.  It  hots  up  our 
market,  but  they  don't  actually  exercise  con- 
trol in  terms  of  making  day-to-day  or  month- 
to-month  management  decisions. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  hon.  member  for  Kit- 
chener. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  rather 
surprised  at  the  turn  the  debate  has  taken, 
most  particularly  because  it  would  appear  the 
minister  in  his  comments  has  acknowledged 
that  in  fact  there  are  immediate  ways  around 
the  whole  principle  of  this  bill.  I  think  that 
his  advisers  could  well  be  used  this  afternoon 
to  deal  with  the  matter  of  beneficial  owner- 
ship so  that  this  problem  is  considered  by 
the  House  before  we  pass  the  various  sections 
of  this  bill  in  committee. 

Surely  the  most  important  problem  facing 
us  is  that  of  beneficial  control.  Now,  as  the 
member  for  Ottawa  Centre  has  mentioned, 
the,  point  of  beneficial  control  and  the  setting 
up  of  a  class  structure  of  shares  was  already 
raised  by  the  member  for  High  Park.  The 
minister  is  aware  of  the  comments  concerning 
the  matters  of  trust,  but  I  think  he  would  be 
naive  if  he  thought  the  situation  in  which  a 
company  could  be  placed  through  presumed 
ownership  by  Canadians  would,  in  fact,  re- 
solve the  matter  of  foreign  capital  control. 

If  it  is  the  minister's  wish  to  resolve  this 
matter  and  effectively  to  tax,  at  least  to  the 
higher  rate,  those  -persons  who  are  non- 
resident Canadians  that  intend  to  invest  in 
Canada,  he  would  be  well  advised  now  to 
review  the  matter  of  beneficial  ownership.^ 

It  is  surely  not  enough  to  say  that  the  fact 
that  three  of  five  common  shares  in  a  private 
company  are  owned  by  Canadians  will  be 
enough  to  avoid  the  payment  of  the  tax,  if 
that  is  the  principle  that  we  are  supposed  to 
be  following  in  this  bill.  There  are  immediate 
ways  around  this  problem.  As  soon  as  we 
define  the  situation  the  minister  hopes  to 
cover,  there  will  be  means  of  subverting  the 
principle  of  that  definition  by  those  persons 
who  are  either  learned  in  the  law  or  are 
clever  in  the  matter  of  accountancy  and  such 
other  tax  matters. 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1271 


I  think  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  is 
correct  in  his  assumption  that  what  we  have 
done  today  has  really  been  to  outline  how  to 
avoid  the  implications  of  this  Act.  The  fact  of 
Canadian  share  ownership,  where  there  are  a 
small  number  of  common  shares,  is  not  going 
to  resolve  this  problem. 

It  is  not  going  to  resolve  it  in  the  same 
way  that  the  matter  of  eflFective  directorship 
of  Canadian  corp>orations  cannot  be  resolved 
by  the  simple  fact  of  naming  Canadian  citi- 
zens as  more  than  half  of  those  persons  who 
are  directors. 

We  are  all  well  aware  that  there  are  prob- 
lems that  can  be  easily  raised  and  situations, 
really,  which  can  effectively  be  avoided  by 
having  tame  directors,  as  we  will  be  having 
in  this  case  by  having  tame  shareholders  who 
may  have  some  technical  control  and  owner- 
ship of  a  small  number  of  common  shares  in 
a  private  company. 

That  company  can  pve  various  securities. 
It  can  go  into  the  class  share  situation  to 
which  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  referred. 
It  could,  by  the  granting  of  its  own  securities, 
by  a  promissory  note  with  a  reasonable  inter- 
est return,  by  a  personal  trust  situation  so 
far  as  the  ownership  of  the  shares  was  con- 
cerned, by  any  kind  of  an  obligation  or 
indenture  on  the  assets  of  the  company,  avoid 
the  fact  of  ownership.  I  think  these  matters 
should  be  considered  by  the  minister. 

If  in  our  interpretation  section  we  are  to 
define  particularly  the  non-resident  corpora- 
tion, then  to  be  complete  I  think  we  have  to 
include  the  matter  of  beneficial  ownership. 
The  minister  has  proposed  an  amendment  to 
subsection  (f)  in  which  he  refers  to  the 
control  of  25  per  cent  or  more  of  the  voting 
rights  and  he  refers  to  the  fact  that  in  this 
situation  these  are,  "voting  rights  ordinarily 
exercisable  at  meetings  of  the  shareholders  erf 
the  corporation." 

In  this  subsection,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have 
the  circumstance  of  this  ownership  of  voting 
rights,  which  perhaps  could  only  come  up  in 
case  of  certain  default  by  common  share  situ- 
ation. In  other  words,  again  it  is  the  problem 
the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  has  raised— the 
matter  of  some  kind  of  class  shareholder 
ownership  which  would  allow  parity  of  in- 
volvement, perhaps,  as  far  as  the  classes  of 
shareholders  are  concerned;  or  would  involve 
the  large  dollar  volume  of  shareholders  having 
effective  control  as  soon  as  any  minor  term  in 
the  preference  items,  which  would  be  attached 
to  their  shares,  might  be  breached  by  the 
operation  of  the  ordinary  shareholders  or  the 
management  of  the  company. 


Many  of  these  things,  of  course,  are  done 
in  matters  of  trust  by  a  real  estate  company, 
a  management  company,  a  law  office,  a  char- 
tered accountancy  office.  All  of  these  indi- 
viduals are  regaraed  by  foreign  investors,  be- 
cause of  their  own  professi<mal  approach,  as 
being  fairly  secure  persons  to  whom  to  give 
these  rights  and  these  trusts.  The  foreign 
investors  realize  they  would,  of  course,  have 
certain  professional  and  ethical  contn^  over 
any  defalcation  or  failure  to  live  up  to  the 
terms  of  a  trust  agreement  for  whi(ji  any  of 
these  various  Ontario  professionals  might  be 
responsible. 

I  think,  as  I  have  said,  the  matter  of  bene- 
ficial ownership  is  going  to  be  the  real  bug- 
bear in  this  situation.  If  the  minister  is  pre- 
pared to  consider  now  or  virtually  imme- 
diately a  further  amendment  which  is  going 
to  resolve  this  matter  he  will,  I  think,  be 
able  to  control  this  in  the  way  in  which  he 
sees  it  should  be  controlled.  He  and  I  may 
disagree  as  to  the  eventual  result  or  the 
various  ways  of  doing  it,  but  I  do  suggest, 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  tl^  minister  consider  the 
beneficial  ownership  matter.  If  he  does  not, 
his  method  of  attempting  to  control  this 
point  will  not  be  the  effective  one  he  seeks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  appre- 
ciate the  observations  made  by  the  member 
for  Kitchener.  What  I  was  trying  to  say  was 
that  I  had  raised  the  Question  of  beneficial 
ownership  with  my  advisers  to  determine 
whether  to  attack  this  sort  of  situation  was, 
perhaps,  an  appropriate  course  of  action  to 
follow. 

What  my  people  point  out  to  me  is  that 
we  have  incorporated  into  the  Act— Fm  get- 
ting ahead  of  the  story  really  because  we 
haven't  got  to  this  yet.  If  the  members  would 
like  to  look  at  subsection  (2)  of  section  1, 
we  lifted  a  definition  of  control  from  the 
constrained  share  provisions  of  the  Canada 
Corporations  Act;  if  I  may  just  read  to  them 
this  section: 

For  the  purposes  of  subclause  v  of  dause 
f  of  subsection  I,  "control"  means  control 
by  another  corporation,  individual  or  trust 
that  is  in  fact  exercising  effective  control, 
either  directly  or  indirectly.  .  .  . 

This  is  what  I  was  saying  earlier,  that  if  it 
can  be  shown  that  if  those  equity  investors 
in"  the  class  A  shares  were  in  fact  exercising 
effective  control,  regardless  of  how  that  could 
be  shown— and  I  don't  minimize  the  difficulty 
attached  to  this  aspect  of  getting  at  this  kind 
of  subterfuge— nevertheless  if  it  can  be  shown 
that  such  constitutes  eflFective  control,  then 


1272 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


indeed  it  has  become  a  non-resident  corpora- 
tion for  the  purposes  of  those  sections. 

So  it  isn't  necessary  at  this  time  to  try  to 
come  up  with  some  kind  of  definition  of 
beneficial  interest  or  control  by  those  having 
a  majority  of  the  beneficial  interest  or  what- 
ever, and  I  think  the  hon.  member  for  Kit- 
chener can  recognize  some  of  the  immense 
complexities  that  we  would  face. 

So,  having  tackled  this  situation  presently 
by  way  of  a  definition  of  control  and  taking 
the  course  of  action  foimd  desirable  in  the 
Canada  Corporations  Act  along  the  same 
lines,  I  believe  we've  tackled  it  in  the  right 
way  now  and  that  if  we  were  to  try  to 
simply  put  in  a  definition  of  beneficial  con- 
trol without  rethinking  many  of  our  other 
provisions,  we  could  have  a  meaningless  sec- 
tion in  the  Act.  I  would  recommend  against 
trying  to  do  that  at  this  time,  recognizing 
that  we  will,  over  the  next  few  months,  have 
some  time  to  analyse  the  nature  of  trans- 
actions that  come  to  our  attention,  the  nature 
of  material  that  comes  through  the  registry 
office,  and  we  may  very  well  then  have  a 
better  idea  of  how  to  get  a  handle  on  it,  if 
indeed  it  is  necessary  to  go  any  further  than 
we  are  going  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  would  appear,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  the  minister  might  then  con- 
sider that  the  Corporations  Information  Act 
is  going  to  have  to  be  amended  so  that  the 
ownership  of  all  shares  or  obligations  of  the 
company  may  have  to  become  a  record,  if 
not  a  public  record  at  least  information 
available  to  the  ministry.  Because  if  you  are 
going  to  be  able  to  review  the  changing  obli- 
gations and  the  possibility  of  control  and  its 
definition,  you  may  well  have  to  require  that 
additional  information  in  order  that  at  least 
there  will  be,  coming  through  your  companies 
branch  each  year  in  the  Ministry  of  Con- 
sumer and.  Commercial  Relations,  some  flow 
of  information  dealing  with  other  obligations 
of  thie  company  that  might  lead  you  to  suspect 
that  control  was  eff^ectively  elsewhere  than  in 
the  three  names  of  the  three  shareholders  who 
appear  in  the  ordinary  return. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  would  just  say,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  think  that  is  a  rather  interesting 
observation  that  my  colleagues  and  myself 
might  look  at. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Chairman- 
Mr.    Chairman:    Is    it    on    this    point?   On 
this  amendment? 


Mr.    Sargent:    Yes.    Mr.    Minister,    I    don't 
think  you  have  any  control  whatsoever  ' — 


inso- 


far as  your  whole  Act  is  concerned  with 
regard  to  non-resident  corporations  or  non- 
resident persons.  I  think  your  definition  of 
the  various  mechanics  defeats  what  we  in 
the  opposition  would  like  to  see.  In  effect  we 
are  closing  the  bam  door  too  late.  But  even 
this  isn't  meaningful  at  this  time  and  place 
here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Out  of  order. 

Mr.    Sargent:    Limitations    on    how    much 
land  an  individual  may  own- 
Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  This  is  not  really  germane 
to  this  section,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Well- 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  If  the  hon.  member  had 
wanted'  to  talk  about  the  principles  of  this 
bill  I  would  have  welcomed  his  observations 
during  second  reading,  but  we  are  now  into 
committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  Chairman:  We  are  deahng  with  an 
amendment  to  subsection  (1),  clause  (f). 

Mr.  R.  Gisbom  (Hamilton  East):  Give  him 
an  hour  because  he  wasn't  here  the  other  day. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  wasn't  here.  I  had  to  leave 
for  the  other  committee;  and  I'm  sorry  but  I 
want  to  register  my  opposition  to  this  whole 
piece  of  legislation. 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  knock  it  off. 

Mr.  Chairman:  No;  but  the  hon.  member 
knows  he  is  out  of  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  The  member  can't  do  that. 

Mr.  Chairman:  We  have  dealt  with  the 
principle  of  the  bill  in  second  reading.  We 
are  now  in  committee  of  the  whole  House 
dealing  with  clause  by  clause,  so  a  general 
discussion- 
Mr.  Sargent:  I  submit  respectfully  that, 
regarding  the  control  facts  he  is  talking  about, 
if  your  aim  is  bad  to  start  with,  then  we.  are 
talking  about  bad  control. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Actually,  it  seems  to  me 
that's  under  the  general  principle  of  the  bill, 
which  has  been  carried. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  this  section 
of  the  bill  he  is  talking  about  non-resident 
corporations  and  non-resident  persons. 

Mr.  Chairman:  We're  dealing  with  an 
amendment  to  this  particular  subclause. 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1273 


Mr.  Siurgent:  Subclause  (f)  refers  to  non- 
resident corporations  and  subclause  (g)  to 
non-resident  persons. 

Mr.  Chainnan:  If  you  have  some  awiment 
to  make  about  this— 

Mr.  Sargent:   If  you  will  just  keep  quiet 

for  a  minute,  I  can- 
Mr.  Chaimum:  Order,  please.  It  seems  to 

me  you  re  discussing  the  whole  bill  in  general, 

which  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Sargent:  It  seems  to  me  that  every 
time  an  opposition  member  gets  up  to  speak, 
you  interpret  what  he's  going  to  say  and 
block  him  off. 

Mr.  Chainnan:  Does  the  member  wish  to 
discuss  this  amendment  or  shall  I  rule  him 
out  of  order? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Pardon  me? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Does  the  member  wish  to 
discuss  this  amendment?  If  not,  he's  out  of 
order  with  any  further  comments. 

The  member  for  Ottawa  Centre. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  want  to 
pursue  what  the  minister  had  to  say.  I  can 
see  the  point  he  makes  about  control,  that 
there  are  certain  powers  of  discretion  in 
deeming  control  to  be  in  the  hands  of 
foreigners.  I  would  suggest,  though,  that  it's 
still  possible,  even  if  that  clause  is  effective, 
for  very  large  quantities  of  foreign  real  estate 
money  to  come  into  this  coimtry. 

There  is  clearly  some  difference  between 
his  party,  as  a  government,  and  our  party  as 
to  the  desirability  of  having  that  Icind  of 
money  coming  in  essentially  for  non-produc- 
tive purposes,  given  that  the  supply  of  build- 
ing materials,  of  land  and  other  things  are 
domestic,  are  limited  and  cannot  be  greatly 
increased  by  import  of  things  from  abroad. 

The  member  for  High  Park,  the  member 
for  Riverdale  and  myseLf  could  set  up  a  real 
estate  investment  corporation  entirely  owned 
and  directed  by  Canadians,  but  in  which  98 
per  cent  of  the  shares  were  sold  to  any  niun- 
ber  erf  foreign  investors  who  wished  to  have 
participating  shares  with  noiv-voting  rights, 
and  it  would  be  quite  legal,  according  to 
this  particular  provision.  For  that  matter,  as 
the  minister  has  already  indicated,  the  49-51 
per  cent  deals  would  continue  to  be  permis- 
sible, and  in  fact  would  be  encouragea. 

Given  the  fact  that  only  $300  million  is 
involved  in  foreign  investment  out  of  the  $10 
billion  or  $12  billion  that  changes  hands  in 
the  real  estate  market  in  Ontario  in  a  given 


year,  it  would  be  quite  simple  for  foreien 
investors  to  find  Canadian  partners  who  wotud 
take  a  51  per  cent  share. 

None  erf  that  is  discouraged  by  this  par- 
ticular bill,  and  the  bill  therefore  gets  to 
(xnly  a  very  small  part  of  the  problem. 

•I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  about  the 
constitutionality  of  taxing  non-resident  cor- 
porations in  view  of  the  points  he  raised  about 
Prince  Edward  Island  and  the  constitution- 
ality of  other  measures  during  the  course  of 
the  secoixl  reading  debate.  Specifically,  I  had 
understcxxl  that  the  PEI  bill  had  been  upheld 
in  the  PEI  Supreme  Court  and  was  now  be- 
ing appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Canada. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  You're  wrong. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  that  not  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  No. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  beg  your  pardon.  That  was 
my  understariding. 

Mr.  Renwidc:  Are  the  reasons  for  judge- 
ment out? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  can't  answer.  I  don't 
know. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Perhaps  you  could  ask  the 
officials  to  find  out,  because  the  constitu- 
tional grounds  that  huidered  the  ministry- 
from  imposing  a  ban  on  non-resident  owner- 
ship or  acquisition  of  property  didn't  seem 
to  interfere  in  making  this  particular  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  heard  what  the  hon. 
member  said,  but  I'm  wondering  if  he  reall>' 
heard  what  I  said.  What  we  were  talking 
about  is  the  constitutionality  of  the  province 
to  levy  a  tax  on  real  estate.  I  say  there's 
nothing  wrong  with  that.  We  all  know  we 
can  do  that.  And,  in  fact,  we  can  ha\e 
different  rates  for  residents  and  non-residents. 

Mr.  Renwidc:  It's  not  quite  as  easy  as 
that.  You  are  not  levying  a  tax  on  real 
estate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  All  right.  If  >'ou  levy  at 
such  a  level  that  in  fact  it  could  be  treated 
as  confiscatory— and  our  advice  and  the 
advice  to  the  select  committee  on  economic 
and  cultural  nationalism  was  potentially  the 
same,  I  understand— if  you  get  up  to  the 
level  of  50  per  cent  or  100  per  cent  of  a 
purchase  price,  whereby  you  are  increasing 
the  purchase  price  pwyable  by  a  non-resident 
or  a  foreigner  by  50  per  cent  to  100  per 
cent,  you  are  then  dealing  in  an  area  whidi 
is  within  the  constitutional  competence  of  the 


1274 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


federal  government  and  not  within  our  con- 
stitutional competence.  That  is  the  grey  area 
on  which  constitutional  lawyers  have  some 
real  arguments.  We  were  not  anxious  to 
create  the  kind  of  economic  turmoil  in  our 
economic  community  that  would  arise  if 
we  endeavoured  to  do  that  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  is  not  only  grey;  you  are 
seeking  in  the  dark. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  What  we  are  doing  is 
imposing  a  tax  on  non-residents,  whether 
they  be  Canadians  or  nationals  of  other 
countries,  at  a  rate  which  is  substantial  but 
not  confiscatory.  That's  the  purpose  of  setting 
the  figure  at  this  time  at  20  per  cent.  It 
also  signals  the  general  direction  in  which 
we  are  thinking  with  respect  to  our  national 
heritage,  the  land  we  have  around  us. 

The  other  point  made  by  the  hon.  member 
for  Ottawa  Centre  and  the  islands  concerns 
discouragement  of  foreign  money.  I'm  not 
suggesting  that  we  are  discouraging  foreign 
money  for  all  purposes.  No  one  has  sug- 
gested that.  If  we  can  simply  discourage  it 
from  getting  into  the  real  estate  investment 
field  and  prick  that  investment  balloon  from 
that  quarter,  their  monetary  investment  in- 
terest will  be  directed  elsewhere— 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  Ottawa  member  is 
smiling  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —probably,  if  they  still 
want  to  settle  that  money  here  in  Ontario, 
which  we  hope  they  would,  into  mortgage 
securities,  into  bonds  and  debentures,  into 
the  equity  investments  on  the  stock  exchange 
if  they  like  that.  But  we  hope  this  will  re- 
duce the  upward  pressure  in  the  real  estate 
market  brought  about  by  the  very  real 
presence  of  a  lot  of  foreign  money  here  in 
Ontario  at  the  time. 

Now  again  the  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  and  the  islands  is  straying  from 
subsection  (f)  and  the  amendment  which  we 
proposed,  But  perhaps  since  he  missed  my 
reply  in  the  House  yesterday  on  second 
reading  it  is  worthwhile  simply  having  re- 
peated it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  to 
me  that  a  tax  which  according  to  the  budget 
would  be  of  87  per  cent  to  a  public  cor- 
poration on  the  capital  gain  from  a  land 
deal,  and  would  be  higher  if  one  took 
into  the  account  the  20  per  cent  tax  in  the 
case  of  a  public  corporation  controlled  by 
non-residents— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  believe  the  net  result, 
when  you   take  into  account  all  the  credits 


available  and  the  way  in  which  they  are 
applied,  works  out  to  something  like  95  per 
cent. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Well  now,  a  tax  which  is  95 
per  cent  of  the  profit  might  be  deemed  to 
be  confiscatory.  A  tax  which  is  50  or  100 
per  cent  in  addition  to  what  you  pay  con- 
fiscates nothing. 

There  was  no  obligation  on  the  corporation 
to  pay  that  tax  because  they  don't  have  to 
go  through  with  the  deal.  When  they  do  go 
ahead  with  tbe  deal  they  have  an  asset, 
only  they've  had  to  pay  more  for  it.  I  simply 
reject  the  minister's  argument— I  don't  want 
to  dispute  it  ait  length— I  reject  that  argu- 
ment as  having  any  validity  at  all. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Anything  further  on  this 
amendment?  The  member  for  Riverdalfe. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  tiiink  the 
minister  is  going  to  find  that  in  a  number 
of  cases,  as  the  member  from  Waterloo  has 
said,  the  question  is  going  to  turn  on  the 
factual  one  of  who  controls  the  corporation. 
That's  going  to  be  it. 

Hon.    Mr.   Meen:    No   quarrel   about  that. 

Mr.  Renwick:  From  the  point  of  view  of 
the  local  land  registrar,  who  is  the  collector, 
when  the  document  comes  before  him,  I  think 
he's  entitled  to  have  a  much  better  kind  of 
affidavit  than  this  particular  document  which 
you  have  circulated  as  being  an  affidavit  of 
residence  under  this  particular  Act.  I  think 
you  are  going  to  have  to  have  four  kinds  of 
affidavits. 

You  are  going  to  have  to  have  an  affidavit 
where  the  transferee  is  a  corporation.  You  are 
going  to  have  one  where  the  transferee  is  a 
trust.  I  think  you  are  going  to  have  to  have 
one  where  there  is  a  partnership  syndicate  or 
other  type  of  association;  and  one  where  the 
transferee  is  an  individual. 

I  think  the  person  who  takes  that  affidavit 
is  going  to  have  to  state  in  the  affidavit  that, 
in  the  case  of  a  non-resident  corporation  or  in 
the  case  of  a  corporation  establishing  that  no 
tax  is  payable,  it  is  not  one  of  the  types  of 
corporations,  and  specify  each  and  every  one 
of  them  in  the  affidavit  so  it  can  be  ticked  off. 
Because  it  may  very  well  be  that  at  some 
point  the  examination  by  your  auditors  of  the 
affidavits  which  are  filed  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  whether  or  not  you  have  col- 
lected the  tax  which  is  going  to  be  levied, 
will  depend  a  great  deal  on  being  able  to 
establish  the  specific  accuracy  of  the  affidavits. 
Particularly  when  you  come  to  this  question 
of  control. 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1275 


I  make  this  other  point  because  in  corporate 
documents  of  any  kind,  and  the  minister  is 
well  aware  of  this,  you  have  got  to  have  a 
very  clear  statement  as  to  who  the  oflBcers 
of  the  corporation  are  who  are  going  to  make 
those  aflBdavits,  if  in  fact  they  are  going  to  be 
made  by  the  transferee  if  it  happens  to  be  a 
corporation. 

I  think  somewhere  in  your  regulations, 
when  you  prescribe  the  way  in  which  these 
affidavits  are  completed,  you  are  going  to 
have  to  specify  if  it  is  going  to  be  the  presi- 
dent or  the  vice-president  or  two  directors,  or 
some  people,  when  they  look  at  it,  are  going 
to  say:  Is  this  accurate?  You  can't  have  it 
in  the  way,  as  the  minister  knows,  of  a  con- 
ditional sale  agreement  where  the  fourth 
assistant  treasurer  can  sign  it  and  get  away 
with  it  and  the  senior  officers  would  not  be 
fixed  with  the  responsibility. 

I  think  the  nature  of  the  information  which 
is  being  provided  has  got  to  be  so  clear  in 
here  that  no  agent  authorized  in  writing  and 
no  solicitor  will  be  able  to  hide  behind  the 
fact  that  it  wasn't  specifically  clear  what  he 
was  attesting  to.  I  think  you  are  gradually 
going  to  find  that,  except  in  the  ordinary 
turnover  of  house  transactions,  in  any  sub- 
stantial real  estate  deals  the  solicitors  are 
going  to  bow  out  of  taking  those  affidavits  on 
the  back  of  the  forms.  I  just  emphasize  that 
because,  while  the  factual  situations  may  be 
in  certain  of  these  definitions  accurate,  that 
factual  question  of  control  is  very,  very  im- 
portant. 

I  make  another  minor  comment  about  the 
amendment  which  is  now  before  us.  I  suggest, 
in  the  ecumenical  spirit  in  which  my  colleague 
from  Ottawa  Centre  is  dealing  with  some 
aspects  of  this  matter,  that  perhaps  you  re- 
quire a  consequential  amendment  to  subsec- 
tion ( 2 )  of  section  1  of  the  bill,  because  you 
are  introducing  the  term  "control"  into  this 
amendment  to  item  (ii)(f).  It  may  well  be 
that  you  need  a  cross  reference  in  silbsection 
(2)  to  Subclause  (ii)  of  clause  (f)  as  well, 
because  of  your  introduction  in  the  amend- 
ment of  the  word  "control",  so  that  you  carry 
over  into  that  subsection  this  question  of  con- 
trol being  a  factual  question.  I  haven't  gone 
into  it  in  great  detail.  I  make  it  for  what 
it's  worth.  Perhaps  your  advisers  would  lode 
at  it  and  see  whether  such  an  amendment  is 
not  a  necessary  consequential  one  to  the  pro- 
ppsed  amendment. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Kitchener. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  wonder,  Mr.  Chairman, 
if  I  might  just  reply  to  those  observations  by 
the  hon.  member  for  Riverdale. 


I  couldn't  agree  with  him  more  with  respect 
to  the  affidavit.  We  all  think  that  We  had  to 
have  a  form  of  affidavit  available  on  Day  1. 
It  will  catch  and  does  catch  999  out  of  1,000 
of  all  of  the  transactions,  I  expect,  to  use  a 
figure. 

I  would  expect  that  we  will  have  several 
runs  at  far  more  elaborate  provisions  in  the 
affidavits  as  to  who  takes  them.  I  think  he's 
quite  right  that  there  isn't  a  lawyer  who 
values  his  right  to  practise  at  the  bar  who  is 
going  to  lightly  swear  one  of  these  affidavits 
without  ensuring  himself  as  to  the  facts. 
Everyone  is  going  to  be  very  careful,  as  was 
pointed  out  in  my  notice  to  the  profession,  to 
which  you  referred  earlier,  as  to  the  signifi- 
cance of  this  affidavit. 

Mr.   Cassidy:    How  manv  weeks  did  you 

spend  preparing  the  bill,  please? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It's  an  interesting  observa- 
tion the  member  for  Riverdale  makes  as  to 
subsection  ( 1 )  of  section  2.  I  hadn't  thought 
about  that,  but  my  counsel  can  take  a  quick 
look  at  it  and  see  if,  because  of  this  amend- 
ment, perhaps  we  should  take  another  look 
at  the  definition  of  section  1,  subsection  (2), 
in  light  of  my  amendment,  which  does  bring 
into  question  the  de  facto  control  of  the 
corporation. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Kitchener. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Just  a  point,  Mr.  Chairman, 
with  respect  to  the  amendment  the  minister 
has  moved  to  subsection  (l)(f)  clause  (ii); 
it's  interesting  to  see  that  he  is  including  in 
his  non-resident  corporation  the  situation  with 
respect  to  25  per  cent  or  more  of  the  voting 
rights. 

I  am  wondering,  though,  why  he  feels  the 
necessity  of  bringing  in  this  additional  sub- 
section. It  would  seem  to  me  that  what  he  is 
doing  is  saying  that  where  he  is  satisfied  that 
it  shouldn't  apply,  it  won't  apply.  Well  if  that 
is  the  case,  surely  the  statement  could  be 
proven  before  the  minister,  or  before  the 
courts.  If  the  matter  was  raised,,  the  matter 
would  resolve  itself. 

Why  doesn't  the  minister  feel  that  it  is 
necessary  to  bring  in  this  saving  clause?  Is 
it  solely  because  of  the  matter  that  he  wishes 
to  have  his  discretion  exercisable  at  this 
point?  Is  there  some  otfier  particular  reason? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  No,  Mr.  Chairman.  Actu- 
ally, I  would  rather  have  as  little  discretion 
on  this  as  possible  and  I  would  like  to  spell 
it  out  as  accurately  as  I  could.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  when  people  point  out  to  you 
that  it  is  entirely  possible  that  one  person, 


1276 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


say  a  non-resident,  could  have  a  25  per  cent 
interest  in  a  corporation,  but  that  the  balance 
could  be  held  by  as  little  as  one  person  with 
75  per  cent,  then  obviously  that  is  not  the 
kind  of  resident  corporation  we  are  trying  to 
catch. 

I  would  have  no  discretion  whatever  as 
this  Act  stands,  that  corporation  by  that 
definition  would  automatically  become  a  non- 
resident corporation  by  virtue  of  having  some 
minority  shareholder— with  no  capacity  to 
control  a  corporation— holding  25  per  cent 
of  the  shares.  Comsequently,  it  seemed  appro- 
priate there  should  be  some  flexibihty  in  here 
to  look  after  what  I  would  suppose  would 
at  least  apply  to  some  Ontario  resident  cor- 
porations which  have,  for  whatever  reason, 
some  block  of  shares  held  by  a  non-resident. 

Mr.  Chainnan:  Will  this  amending  motion 
carry? 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  there  anything  further 
on  section  1? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes. 

Mr.  Cassidy  moves  that  section  1  of  Bill 
26  be  amended  by  adding  the  following  sec- 
tions: 

1(f)  (vi)  Of  which  more  than  half  the 
value  of  all  classes  of  shares  is  owned  or 
controlled  by  one  or  more  non-resident  per- 
sons as  defined  in  this  Act  and; 

1(f)  <vii)  Of  which  more  than  half  the 
value  of  all  issued  capital  is  owned  or  con- 
trolled by  one  or  more  non-resident  persons 
as  defined  in  this  Act. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  purpose  of  these  two 
extra  clauses  is  simply  to  present  more  clearly 
the  questions  of  thin  capitalization  which  I 
have  raised. 

I  think  the  minister  will  agree  that  the 
section  which  we  just  amended,  1(f)  (ii),  in 
fact  would  be  covered  by  subsection  2— the 
general  question  about  whether  it  is  a  fac- 
tual aspect  of  control  or  not.  The  reason  that 
1(f)  (ii)— if  I  can  get  down  to  it— was  put 
in  was  so  that  you  had  a  set  of  rules  which 
were  fairly  automatic  and  you  did  not  have 
to  sit  down  and  prove  control  in  every  case; 
unless  they  could  produce  compelling  reasons 
to  the  contrary,  then  when  25  per  cent  of  the 
shares  were  in  one  person's  hands,  you 
deemed  that  that  person,  if  they  were  non- 
resident, had  control. 

I'll  send  over  those  amendments;  I  am 
sorry. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  While  that  is  going  about, 
I  must  confess  that  I  am  hearing  the  hon. 


member,  but  I  am  not  comprehending.  Could 
he  go  through  that  again? 

(I  thought  we  had  picked  up  the  various 
definitions  which  we  have  found  within  the 
constraint  share  provisions  of  the  Canada 
Corporations  Act  and  also  the  Foreign  In- 
vestment Review  Act  of  Canada,  which  have 
definitions.  We  have  used  them  and  taken 
what  I  thought  were  all  the  various  possibil- 
ities and  essential  criteria  necessary  to  identify 
a  foreign  corporation;  so  I  am  really  not  at 
all  clear  on  just  what  the  hon.  member  is 
saying. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Okay;  subsection  (f),  which 
defines  a  non-resident  corporation,  could  in 
fact  say  non-resident  corporation  means  a  cor- 
poration incorporated  in  Canada  controlled  by 
non-residents.  Then  the  definition  of  control 
would  be  what  you  have  in  subsection  (ii). 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Could  I  ask  how  he  would 

define  the  value  of  shares? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Pardon? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  How  would  the  member 
define  the  value  of  shares? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Well,  the  value  of  shares  is 
the  paid-up  capital  or  the  fair  market  value 
if  there  is  no— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  But  they  move  from  day 
to  day.  There  is  no  certainty  in  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Not  in  the  paid  up  value,  it 
does  not  move;  nor  does  the  initial  amount 
tendered  for  those  shares  vary.  The  point 
about  that  is  the  minister  has  in  fact  inserted 
on  page  3— the  top  clause— the  similar  kind  of 
thing,  as  value  of  course  would  vary  horn  day 
to  day,  when  he  states  that  a  partnership  of 
more  than  50  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the 
property  is  held  for  or  by  non-residents. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  But  you  see- 
Mr.    Cassidy:    You   are   running   into  the 

same  problems.   You  have  spent  zillions  of 

dollars  on  your  experts— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Right. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  If  you  think  you  can  do  those 
clauses  in  a  better  way  I'd  be  happy  to  see 
those  proposals.  I  am  saying,  though,  that 
rather  than  wait  for  the  Canada  Corporation 
Act  clause  to  apply  you  should  spell  it  out 
wherever  possible,  and  this  is  an  attempt  to 
do  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  When  you  are  talking 
about  real  estate  you  are  talking  about  the 
time  of  the  application  of  the  Act,  and  of 


APRIL  23.  1Q74 


lan 


course  there  is  an  evaluation  which  can  be 
established  on  that.  What  1  am  worried  about 
is  how  one  establishes  the  value  of  all  classes 
of  shares  owned  or  controlled  by  certain  per- 
sons. They  may  have  diflFerent  values  for 
certain  people,  depending  on  what  they  can 
do  with  them. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  But  presumably  at  the  time 
of  the  transfer  tax  being  paid— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Although  commendable  in 
a  sense,  I  think  it  would  cast  so  much  grave 
doubt  as  to  what  a  corporation  was  from  day 
to  day— a  resident  or  non-resident  corporation 
—that  we  have  to  have  something  far  more 
definite  than  the  value  of  the  shares  owned 
or  controlled  by  one  or  more  non-residents. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  recognize 
that  when  a  proposed  amendment  is  put  for- 
ward we  do  not  have  either  the  time  or  the 
skills  necessary  to  put  it  into  the  precise 
language  to  cover  the  precise  point.  The 
points  which  are  made  by  my  colleague  from 
Ottawa  Centre  on  this  question  are  directed 
to  assisting  the  minister.  The  member  for 
High  Park  gave  an  example  yesterday  and  I 
don't  need  to  repeat  it.  The  minister  indi- 
cated, I  think  mistakenly  or  much  too  readily, 
that  it  was  a  loophole  in  his  Act.  What  the 
hon.  member  for  Ottawa  East- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Centre. 

Mr.  Renwick:  -for  Ottawa  Centre  is  say- 
ing is  that  half  the  value  of  all  classes  of 
shares  is  owned  and  the  value,  I  take  it,  that 
the  hon.  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  is  re- 
ferring to  is  the  paid  up  capital  value  of 
those  shares. 

That  is,  in  the  case  which  the  member  for 
High  Park  spoke  about,  the  actual  number 
of  dollars  to  buy  that  piece  of  land  is  going 
to  come  from  abroad.  He  wants  to  make  cer- 
tain that  if  that  system  is  used  you  don't  just 
look  at  those  shares  carrying  the  voting  right 
under  all  circimistances,  but  you  locJc  at  the 
question  of  the  value  of  all  the  shares  for 
the  purpose  of  delimiting  this  vexed  problem 
of  ascertaining  where  the  control  is. 

I  am  very  interested  that  the  minister  put 
forward  the  proposition  that  he  and  his  ad- 
visers looked  at  the  Foreign  Investment  Re- 
view Act  of  the  federal  government.  I  suggest 
it  is  entirely  different  and  you  have  to  be 
much  more  particular  and  much  more  pre- 
cise when  you  are  talking  about  speculation 
in  land.  You  are  dealing  with  speculation  in 
land,  where  the  conveyancers  are  very  care- 
ful; the  conveyancers  have  immense  expertise. 
It  is  a  very  abstruse  art  and  the  corporate 


lawyers  are  getting  to  be  as  abttrute  as  the 
conveyancers  in  finding  their  way  around 
these  problems. 

That  kind  of  thing  would  mean  to  me  that 
the  definitions  in  the  foreign  takeover  bill  are 
quite  different  and  serve  a  different  purpose, 
and  it  is  done  openly  and  in  the  public.  Here 
you    are    dealing    with    something    which    is 

?;oing  to  depend  entirely  on  a  document 
umished  to  a  local  registrar  of  title,  who  isn't 
going  to  be  able  to  go  behind  the  document. 
Therefore,  it  seems  to  me,  you  would  bo  well 
advised  to  look  at  this  amendment.  Did  you 
move  both  amendments? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  moved  both  amendments  as 

one. 


Mr.  Renwick:  Look  at  both  the  amend- 
ments in  order  to  make  certain  that  you  have 
tightened  up  the  area  or  ruled  out  the  area 
in  which  you  are  going  to  have  to  decide 
this  question  of  control. 

Certainly  the  question  of  the  value  of  all 
classes  of  shares  can  be  related  to  the  paid-up 
capital  account  of  the  company.  You  already 
levy  a  paid-up  capital  tax  in  the  Province  erf 
Ontario  and  you  have  a  definition  of  paid-up 
capital  in  that  Act  which  includes  loans  and 
moneys  advanced  by  way  of  loans  for  the 
purpose  of  the  paid-up  capital  tax  under  the 
Corporations  Tax  Act.  Similarly  in  the  second 
amendment,  where  my  colleague  deals  with 
half  the  value  of  all  the  issued  shares  of  the 
company,  the  same  argument  applies. 

Please  do  not  close  your  mind  to  it.  The 
amendments  are  put  forward  for  the  purpose 
of  delimiting  the  problem  which  yoti  are 
obviously  going  to  face  if  you  want  this  Act 
to  be  efficacious  so  far  as  the  basic  question 
of  control  is  concerned. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes,  I  agree  that  I  do  not 
want  to  close  my  mind  to  any  of  these.  Quite 
honesdy  I  think  that  we  are  going  to  have 
to  look  at  some  other  definition  sudi  as  this 
before  we  are  finished  in  order  to  accomplish 
the  end  this  Act  seeks. 

We  have  a  general  provision  in  subclause 
(v)  dealing  with  controlling,  directly  or  in- 
directly by  one  or  more  non-resident  persons, 
including  a  non-resident  corporation  within 
the  definition.  I  think  it  gets  right  down  again 
to  the  de  facto  control  of  the  corporation— 
which  way  it  happens  to  have  control. 

I  am  not  going  to  toss  out  these  amend- 
ments. They  are  going  to  stay  in  my  file  and 
I  will  discuss  them  with  my  colleagues  and 
see  if  there  is  some  merit  in  incorporating 
something  of  diat  sort  in  some  of  our  regula- 


1278 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tions  in  order  to  define  with  greater  partic- 
ularity just  what  does  or  does  not  constitute 
control. 

Hon.  members  will  doubtless  have  more  to 
say  on  this  subject,  but  they  probably  already 
have  noticed  that  the  regulations,  as  provided 
for  under  section  18,  give  the  minister  a  fair 
amount  of  discretion  as  to  the  way  in  which 
this  Act  may  be  enforced  and  interpretations 
that  may  be  placed  in  sections  such  as  this, 
particularly  in  subclause  (g).  That's  one  I 
think  we  might  be  able  to  take  a  look  at  later. 
I  am  reluctant  to  accept  it  now  though,  for 
obvious  reasons.  Our  counsel  won't  have  had 
a  chance  to  consider  the  implications  of  those 
sections  with  respect  to  the  others. 

May  I  just  mention,  in  reply  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Riverdale,  that  we  can  adopt  an 
amendment  to  subclause  (2)  as  he  has  sug- 
gested—I think  rightly— which  would  refer  the 
exceptions  here  to  the  whole  of  subclause  (f  )• 
I  think  when  we  get  to  that  stage  that  would 
pick  up  the  objection  which  the  member  for 
Riverdale  rightly  detected, 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  to 
apologize  to  the  minister,  I  have  to  catch  a 
plane  to  my  riding.  I  appreciate  his  comments. 
Will  he  accept  from  this  side  that  the  reg- 
istrars are  into  a  new  ball  game,  because  they 
have  never  had  to  look— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I'm  sorry,  would  you  say 
that  again? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Your  registrars  of  land  titles 
have  never  had  to  look  behind  transactions  in 
the  past'  They  simply  come  in,  conveyances 
are  put;  before  them,  they  levy  the  tax,  they 
do  what  they  have  to  do,  and  it's  over  and 
done  in  a  pretty  simple  kind  of  way.  Now 
they  are  being  asked  to  be  experts  in  inter- 
national finance  and  corporate  structure  and 
so  on.  The  rnore  guidelines  you  can  give  them 
that  will ,  allow  them  to  separate  put  pretty 
quickly ;  the  990  cases— leaving  only  five  or  10 
out  of.,l,;000  for  the,  ministry  to.  delve  into  in 
the  d  pth  that  is  suggested  by  section  2— the 
better.. 

Therefore,  if  you  can  give  them  a  rule 
that  alJo\ys  them  to  pounce  on  a  company 
where,  say,  ,900,000  shares  are  without  voting 
rights  but  effectively  amount  to  control  and 
only  10,000  have  the  voting  rights,  by  aU 
means  let  them  do  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  don't  disagree  with 
that,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  think  we  will  be 
having  a  set  of  guidelines  of  that  sort.  In- 
deed, I  believe  they  have  them  now  within 
a  limited  quarter,   and  that  whenever  there 


is  any  question  the  matter  would  then  be 
referred  to  the  ministry  for  a  ruling  within 
the  regulations. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Okay. 

Mr.  Chairman:  We  will  now  have  to  deal 
with  these  two  amendments,  or  is  there 
further  discussion  on  them? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  want  to 
make  one  comment,  stimulated  as  I  always 
am  by  my  colleague  from  Ottawa  Centre.  I 
don't  want  to  find  that  you  are  elaborating 
a  large  ntunber  of  minute  detailed  regulations. 
If  you  conceptualize  the  question  simply,  in 
a  large  number  of  these  cases  you  will  find 
that  one  of  the  things  which  is  done  is  to 
provide  a  separate  corporate  vehicle  for 
each  particular  land  transaction  in  many  cases. 
And  of  course  we  now  have  these  numbered 
companies  under  the  Business  Corporations 
Act. 

I  am  suggesting  that  what  you  really  want 
to  look  at  is:  He  who  puts  up  the  money 
for  the  purchase  of  the  building  controls 
the  company.  That's  what  you  are  talking 
about,  and  not  some  artificial  elaboration  of 
how  the  share  structure  may  or  may  not  be 
made  up  so  that  you  have  accomplished  what 
you  intend  to  accomplish. 

That  doesn't  necessarily  apply  in  all  cases 
of  a  large,  diversified  real  estate  develop- 
ment company.  But  where  you  have  specific 
investments  by  foreign  money  in  specific 
developments  you  will  usually  find  that  some- 
how or  other  they  have  a  separate  corporate 
vehicle  jFor  it.  You  want  to  look  at  where 
the  money  pomes  from;  that  is  equivalent  to 
control  regardless  of  where  the  particular 
people  happen  to  reside. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It's  entirely  possible. 

Mr.  Renwick:  If  that's  it,  maybe  there  is 
some  simpler  way  rather  than  elaborating 
a  large  numbisr  of  obtuse  exceptions. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Cassidy 's  amendments 
mupit  be  de^lt  with  now.  Those  in  favour  of 
Mr.   Cassidy 's  motion  will  please  say  ."aye," 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  "nays"  have  it.  I  de- 
clare the  amendments  lost. 

Before  we  go  on,  Mr,  Speaker  has  asked 
me  to  inform  the  House  that  he  has  re- 
ceived a  notice  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  standing  orders  27(g)  and  28 
from  the  hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur  (Mr. 
Foulds),  which  states  that  he  is  dissatisfied 
with  the  response  given  to  his  question  yes- 
terday   by    the    hon.    Premier    (Mr.    Davis). 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1279 


Accordingly  he  intends  to  raise  the  ques- 
tion of  the  regulation  of  Lake  Superior  on 
the  adjournment  of  the  House  at  10:30  this 
evening. 

Is  there  anything  further  in  section  1, 
subsection   1?  The  member  for  Riverdale. 

Mr.  Renwick:  My  next  comment  is  in 
the  definition  of  value  of  consideration. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Yes,  sub  (m). 

Mr.  Renwick:  Well  I  am  rather  old- 
fashioned  about  this.  I  like  the  vi^ording  in 
the  old  Act  about  the  true  amount. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  1  thought  it  was  the 
same,  frankly. 

Mr.  Renwick:  No,  no.  "Setting  out  the 
true  consideration  for  the  transfer  or  con- 
veyance" and  "the  true  amount  in  cash," 
and  so  on.  It  seemed  to  me  that  in  this 
kind  of  a— I  don't  happen  to  agree  with  the 
Minister  of  Revenue's  interpretation  of  what 
the  Treasurer  said. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Could  I  have  a  clarifica- 
tion? Sorry  to  interrupt  the  member.  I 
thought  he  was  talking  about  value  of  con- 
sideration and  that's  sub  (m). 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  the  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  don't  see  the  reference 
to  which  the  member  is  now  addressing 
himself. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That  is  what  I  am  speaking 
about— 

Mr.   Rreithaupt:  In  the  old  Act. 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  am  speaking  about  the 
old  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Oh, 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  old  Act  has  that  de- 
lightful word  "true"  in  there.  This  is  a 
revenue-producing  statute,  which  we  can 
come  to  when  we  get  to  section  2  of  the 
bill,  but  the  present  Act  states  "setting  out 
the  true  consideration  for  the  transfer  or 
conveyance"  and  "the  true  amount." 

Now  somebody  may  say  that  is  an  over- 
elaboration  and  unnecessary  emphasis  in  this 
modern  day  and  age,  but  for  the  purposes 
of  this  kind  of  an  Act  I  don't  think  it  hurts 
to  emphasize  that  you  want  the  true  amount, 
not  some  arbitrary  or  otherwise  determined 
amount— particularly  when  there  is  nothing 
in  this  Act,  as  I  understand  it,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  value;  or  am  I  wrong? 


I  am  talking  about  when  you  state  the 
consideration  in  the  affidavit  that  supports 
the  conveyance:  Do  you  state  the  value?  How 
do  you  come  at  the  value?  How  do  you 
come  at  the  value  of  the  encumbrance  or 
charge,  which  is  relatively  easy;  but  how  do 
you  come  at  the  value  of  any  property  or 
security  exchanged  for  the  conveyance  of 
land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  have  the  mechanism 
in  the  Assessment  Act  and  through  the  assess- 
ment division  of  my  ministry,  Mr.  Chairman. 
And  under  the  definition  of  value  of  con- 
sideration I  think  we  pick  up  the  various 
elements  that  can  go  into  making  up  the 
value. 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  am  curious,  by  the  wav 
Mr.  Chairman,  what  sort  of  additional  acf- 
ministration  are  you  going  to  have  to  set  up 
to  monitor  this  bill? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  We  estimate  there  will  be 
additional  bodies  required  within  the  present 
structure  of  the  retail  sales  tax  section  of  the 
ministry,  but  I  am  presently  looking  at  a 
reorganization  of  that  aspect  and  it  is  not 
possible  for  me  to  estimate  at  this  time  the 
additional  people  who  will  be  involved.  As 
time  goes  on  expertise  will  probably  mean 
fewer  people,  but  at  the  present  time  it  is 
going  to  be  necessary  for  us  to  train  a  num- 
ber of  people  to  be  able  to  assess  these  vari- 
ous elements  in  the  transactions. 

Mr.   Chairman:   Anything  further  on  sub- 
section 1? 
Subsection  2: 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  On  subsection  2,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  would  follow  on  with  the  sug- 
gestion made  by  the  hon.  member  for  River- 
dale. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  that  section  1(2)  of 
the  bill  be  amended  by  striking  out  "sub- 
clause (v)  of  clause  (f)  in  the  first  line  so  that 
it  would  read:  "For  the  purposes  of  clause  (f)" 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  For  the  purpose  of  clarifi- 
cation—and I  regret  the  fonn  in  which  that 
amendment  reached  your  desk,  Mr.  Chairman 
—section  1(2)  would  then  read:  "For  the 
purposes  of  clause  (f)  of  subsection  1,  'con- 
trol  means  ..."  etc.,  as  in  the  section. 

Mr.  Renwick:  We're  always  glad  to  help, 
even  with  a  per\'erse  bill,  Mr.  Chairman.  In 
the  ecumenical  atmosphere  of  the  day! 

Mr.  Chairman:   Shall  the  motion  carry? 
Motion  agreed  to. 


1280 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Chairman:  The  hon.  minister  has  a 
further  amendment  to  this  section. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen  moves  that  section  (1)  of 
the  bill  be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the 
following  subsection: 

(3)  For  the  purposes  of  clause  (g)  of 
subsection  (1),  an  individual  shall  be  con- 
sidered to  be  ordinarily  resident  in  Canada 
if,  at  the  time  the  expression  is  being 
applied; 

(a)  He  has  been  lawfully  admitted  to 
Canada  for  permanent  residence  in  Can- 
ada; 

(b)  He  has  sojourned  in  Canada  during 
the  next  preceding  24  months  for  a  period 
of,  or  periods  the  aggregate  of  which  is 
366  days  or  more; 

(c)  He  is  a  member  of  the  Canadian 
forces  required  to  reside  outside  Canada; 

(d)  He  is  an  ambassador,  minister,  high 
commissioner,  officer  or  servant  of  Canada, 
or  is  an  agent  general,  officer  or  servant  of 
a  province  of  Canada,  and  resided  in  Can- 
ada immediately  prior  to  appointment  or 
employment  by  Canada  or  a  province  of 
Canada  or  is  entitled  to  receive  representa- 
tion allowances; 

(e)  He  is  performing  services  in  a  coun- 
try other  than  Canada  under  an  interna- 
tional development  assistance  programme 
of  the  government  of  Canada  that  is  pre- 
scribed for  the  purposes  of  paragraph  (d) 
of  subsection  (1),  section  250  of  the  In- 
come Tax  Act,  Canada,  and  resided  in 
Canada  at  any  time  in  the  three-month 
period  preceding  the  day  on  which  such 
services  commenced;  or 

(f)  He  resided  outside  Canada  and  is  the 
spouse  or  child  of,  and  is  living  with,  an 
individual  described  in  clauses  (c),  (d)  or 
(e). 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  this  motion  carry? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Riverdale. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Again,  I  think  the  wording 
leaves  a  considerable  amount  to  be  desired. 
The  amendment  says,  an  individual  shall  be 
considered  to  be  ordinarily  resident  in  Canada 
if  he  falls  in  any  one  of  those  classes.  I  don't 
know,  I  suppose  I  fall  under  item  (b);  I  sup- 
pose the  great  bulk  of  the  people  in  Canada 
fall  under  item  (b). 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  would  expect  so. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That's  not  the  purpose  of 
item  (b),  of  course.  If  you're  going  to  be  that 


definitive  about  it,  then  you've  got  to  include 
something  which  deals  with  the  great  ma- 
jority of  people.  And  since  I'm  not  any  one 
of  the  other  people  who  are  involved  in  this 
—has  my  friend  from  Waterloo  sojourned 
here  the  proper  period  of  time? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  I'm— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  He's  from  Kitchener,  not 
from  Waterloo. 

Mr.  Renwick:  The  member  for  Kitchener. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  think  that  does  raise  an 
interesting  point,  but  I  was  more  interested 
in  item  (f)  because  we  refer  to  a  number 
of  "he's"  and  then  we  refer  to  a  further  "he,'* 
who  is  the  spouse  of  one  of  the  "heV  referred 
to  in  ( c ) ,  ( d )  or  ( e ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  You  know  the  Interpreta- 
tation  Act  as  well  as  I  do. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  was  just  going  to  inquire 
as  to  whether  that  was  clear  so  that  we  were 
not  getting  too  many  "he's"  involved  in  this 
kind  of  situation. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  How 
about  a  few  "her's"? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It  does  cover  the  "resided 
with"  as  well  as  "spouse  of,  you  will  have 
noticed. 

Mr.  Renwick:  You  got  my  point,  Mr. 
Minister. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  this  motion  carry? 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  there  anything  on  sec- 
tion 2?  The  member  for  Riverdale. 

Mr.  Renwick:  My  colleague,  the  member 
for  Ottawa  Centre,  raised  the  point  that  this 
is  the  revenue-producing  section  of  the  bill. 
This  is  the  section  which  imposes  the  tax,  and 
I  think  it  deserves  a  little  bit  of  comment. 

First  of  all,  I'm  intrigued  by  the  minister's 
suggestion  that  he  is  taxing  non-residents 
here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Actually,  what  we  are  do- 
ing is  applying  a  tax  in  respect  of  non- 
residents but  against  the  I'and,  if  the  hon. 
member  wants  me  to  get  a  little  more  precise. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Might  I  say  that  the  consti- 
tution of  the  country  in  section  92,  subsection 
2,  or  head  2,  says  for  the  purposes  of  direct 
taxation  for  the  raising  of  revenue  for  pro- 
vincial purposes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Right. 

Mr.  Renwick:  You  can't  impose  an  indirect 
tax.  It  is  very  interesting  that  if  the  transferor 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1281 


tenders  the  document  because  the  non-resi- 
dent is  away  out  of  the  country  he  can  claim 
against  the  non-resident  for  the  tax.  I  ques- 
tion whether  or  not  that  isn't  an  indirect  tax, 
and  whether  or  not  you  are  not  going  to  be 
faced  with  a  constitutional  question,  because 
the  person  intended  to  pay  the  tax  is,  as  the 
minister  has  said,  and  as  has  been  obvious 
all  along,  is  the  non-resident  transferee. 

That's  the  person  who  has  to  pay  the  tax, 
and  if  that  is  direct  taxation  within  the  prov- 
ince then  I  think  it  may  leave  itself  open  to 
some  kind  of  constitutional  case  to  establish  it. 
I  will  be  glad  when  the  Attorney  General 
(Mr.  Welch)  is  briefed  in  that  matter  and  a 
case  goes  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Canada 
for  a  decision  as  to  whether  or  not  this  is  a 
direct  tax. 

The  second  point  I  want  to  make  is  that 
the  budget  papers  show  that  you  raised  an 
estimated  $45  million  last  year  under  the 
land  transfer  tax.  If  my  calculation  is  cor- 
rect, that  represents  transactions  in  land  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario  of  between  $7.5  bil- 
lion and  $15  billion,  assuming  my  mathe- 
matics are  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Say  that  again,  would 
you? 

Mr.  Renwidc:  If  you  raised  $45  million  by 
a  tax  which  varies  between  three-tenths  of 
one  per  cent  and  six-tenths  of  one  per  cent, 
the  maximum  amount  of  the  value  of  land 
which  could  have  been  transferred  would  be 
$15  billion  if  the  tax  had  been  all  three- 
tenths  of  one  per  cent.  At  one-sixth  of  one 
per  cent  it  would  be  $7.5  billion,  so  some- 
where between— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  On  the  contrary,  your 
arithmetic  is  in  the  wrong  direction,  unless  I 
misunderstand  it. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It  probably  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  It  would  be  $1.5  million 
if  it  were  all  at  six-tenths. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Well  three  one-thousandths 
of  $45  million  is  $15  million,  plus  three 
noughts  on  the  end  of  it,  and  that  makes  $15 
billion.  Six-tenths  of  one  per  cent  would  be 
half  that  amount,  that  is  $7.5  billion.  So  there 
were  land  transactions  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario  last  year  somewhere  between  $7.5 
billion  and  $15  billion. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Likely  about  $10  billion. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Roughly  say  $10  billion, 
which  is  a  lot  of  property  to  be  transferred. 
The  minister  had  said  in  his  budget  that  you 
anticipate  raising  $120  million  this  year  from 


this  tax,  of  which,  according  to  the  Treasurer, 
the  estimate  is  $60  million  for  this,  roughly 
20  per  cent  tax,  technically  19.4  per  cent  or 
19.7  per  cent  increased  tax. 

Therefore  I  assume  that  you  arc  anticipating 
sales  of  land  to  non-residents  of  about  $300 
million.  If  you  anticipate  raising,  at  20  per 
cent,  60  million,  you  are  obviously  antici- 
pating sales  to  non-residents  of  $300  million. 

I  am  extremely  curious  as  to  where  the 
figure  of  $60  million  came  from.  Sixt>' 
million  dollars  compared  to  $10  billioa  is 
some  percentage  which  I  can't  quite  6gure 
out.  Maybe  three  per  cent  or  something 
like  that.  I  don't  know  what  it  is. 


Hon.  Mr. 

cent. 


Meen:  It  sounds  like  nine  per 


Mr.  Renwick:  Yes.  But,  when  I  make 
that  calculation  it  is  a  meaningless  calcula- 
tion to  me  unless  I  know  how  you  arrived 
at  that  estimate  of  $60  million,  because  I 
take  it  that  the  ministry  hasn't  any  idea 
whatsoever  about  the  extent  to  which  the 
$10  billion  of  transfers  last  year  were  in 
fact  transfers  to  non-resident  persons,  who 
if  the  tax  had  been  in  force  last  year,  would 
have  been  caught  by  this  Act.  Is  there  any 
information  available  as  to  how  you  de- 
termine the  estimated  revenue  that  the  tax 
imposed  by  subsection  2  of  section  2  is 
arrived  at  by  this  Treasurer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have 
none  available.  I  don't  know  whether  this 
was  developed  through  his  Ministry  of 
Treasury  and  Economics,  or  whether  prior 
to  my  coming  on  the  scene  in  the  Ministry 
of  Revenue  my  ministry  was  able  to  provide 
certain  backup  information  to  his  ministry 
of  sales  of  the  known  nature.  We  know,  of 
course,  from  the  $45  million  in  revenue  of 
last  year  that  on  the— guesstimate  I  would 
suppose  as  much  as  anything  else  by  the 
member  for  Riverdale— $10  billion  may  not 
be  out  of  the  way.  I  don't  know  whether 
we've  dropped  a  digit  in  that  calculation. 

Mr.  Renwidc  No,  you  haven't 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  I  have  a  notion  it's  right. 

Mr.  Renwick:  It's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  So  if  that  is  the  case, 
then  the  $300  million  estimated  by  way  of 
sales  to  non-residents  has  to  be  a  guess.  It's 
very  small.  If  that's  three  per  cent  of  the 
total,  then  we  would  hope  that  it  would  be 
even  smaller,  because  as  the  Treasurer 
pointed   out  we  are  not  trying  to  raise— 


1282 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Renwick:  No,  he  didn't.  That's  very 
interesting. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  -$60  million  by  this.  We 
would  expect  that  some  will  continue  to 
be  raised.  We  can't  shut  our  eyes  to  the 
fact  that  this  will  raise  some  money.  But 
quite  frankly,  if  it  starts  raising  a  tre- 
mendous amount  of  money  we  might  just 
decide  that  20  per  cent  wasn't  a  sufiBciently 
large  enough  deterrent. 

Mr.  Renwick:  You  would  just  raise  more 
money  that  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Well,  maybe  we  would, 
or  maybe  we  would  reach,  as  the  economists 
call  it,  the  economic  maximum  return.  It 
would  be  our  goal  in  that  case  to  reach- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  Point  of  diminishing  re- 
turn. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  —and  exceed  the  point  of 
maximum  economic  return  in  order  to  de- 
ter the  same  volume  in  dollars  of  purchases 
of  Canadian  real  estate  by  non-residents. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want 
to  correct  a  fallacy  that  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  referred  to  yesterday  and  has  re- 
ferred to  again  on  two  occasions  today— 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Have  I  been  wrong  three 
times? 

Mr.  Renwick:  —that  it  was  only  with 
respect  to  the  land  speculation  tax  that  the 
Treasurer  of  Ontario  referred  to  the  fact 
that  it  was  not  a  revenue-producing  tax.  He 
was  very  careful  not  to  make  any  such 
statement  with  respect  to  this  particular 
tax.  I  am  suggesting  that  no  one  in  any 
of  the  government  departments  has  any 
conception  or  has  any  way  of  collecting  the 
basic  information  to  find  out  to  what  extent 
of  the  estimated  $10  billion  in  land  trans- 
actions in  the  Province  of  Ontario  was 
transfers  to  non-resident  persons  as  envisaged 
by  this  Act.  If  the  minister  thinks  he  doesn't 
know  of  any  way  in  which  the  government 
would  get  this  information,  the  only  true 
test  would  be  the  land  transfer  tax,  and 
certainly  the  information  in  the  Ministry  of 
Revenue  wdth  respect  to  the  collection  of 
tax  doesn't  show  that  kind  of  a  breakdown. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Therefore,  all  I  am  saying 
is  that  I  would  be  very  interested  a  year 
from  now  to  find  out  what  that  figure  is. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  So  will  the  minister. 


Mr.  Renwick:  I  am  suggesting  that  in 
fact  this  is  a  revenue-producing  tax,  that 
the  government  intends  it  to  produce 
revenue,  that  the  Treasurer  in  introducing 
his  budget— I  have  a  copy  of  the  budget 
here  if  I  can  just  find  the  precise  section 
of  it— I  think  my  colleague  from  Ottawa 
Centre  took  it— he  referred  only  to  the  land 
speculation  tax  as  not  being  a  revenue- 
producing  tax.  Now  we  will  come  to  that 
when  we  get  to  the  other  bill. 

This  one— this  20  per  cent  tax— he  ex- 
pects will  raise  $60  million.  The  50  per 
cent  tax,  in  the  land  speculation  bill,  he 
talks  of  as  raising  $25  million.  That's  the 
one  he   says   is  not  revenue  producing. 

I  am  saying  to  the  minister  the  very  thrust 
of  the  New  Democratic  Party  position  in  the 
debate  yesterday  was  that  this  is  participa- 
tion by  the  government  of  the  Province  of 
Ontario  in  the  increased  price  which  will  be 
paid  for  land  by  non-residents  who  will  be 
quite  happy  to  pay  the  extra  20  per  cent. 

There  is  a  wide  range  of  investment  per- 
mitted under  the  Land  Speculation  Tax  Act 
where  no  tax  will  be  paid  by  the  vendor 
under  that  Act  and  where  it  will  be  worth- 
while for  the  purchaser  paying  the  non-resi- 
dent tax  and  purchasing  land  under  the  Act 
to  pay  the  extra  20  per  cent  and  not  have  to 
absorb  the  land  speculation  tax. 

What  I  am  saying  is  that  I  think  the  figure 
of  $60  million  is  groundless.  It  cannot,  in  all 
charity,  be  characterized  even  as  a  guessti- 
mate because  there  is  no  information  on 
which  to  base  a  guess.  The  tax  is  estimated 
to  go  from  $45  million  to  $120  million  accord- 
ing to  the  table  as  set  out  in  the  budget 
papers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
Treasurer  estimates  there  will  be  an  increase 
in  the  volume  of  real  estate  as  our  economy 
moves  on. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Well,  that's  $15  million. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Every  year  has  shown  an 
increase  in  revenues  in  this  area.  So  he  ex- 
pects the  essential  $45  million  to  aggregate,  I 
gather,  to  $60  million.  His  economic  advisers 
look  at  the  state  of  the  provincial  economy. 

Now,  whether  he  derived  his  estimates  of 
non-resident  acquisition  of  real  estate  through 
other  sources— and  there  are  many  in  the 
Ministry  of  Treasury  and  Economics— I  can't 
say.  I  can  say  that  within  my  ministry  that 
information  has  not  been  available,  to  my 
knowledge  at  any  rate,  through  our  land 
registry  system.   We  will   be  acquiring  that 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1283 


and  I,  too,  will  be  interested  to  sec  the  in- 
formation contained  in  our  land  transfer  tax 
affidavit  over  the  next  year.  In  fact,  we  might 
even  have  something  that  we  can  look  at 
within  a  few  months'  time. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That  was  my  next  question. 
Maybe  by  the  end  of  June  you  can  tell  us. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  be  very  interested 
and  would  ask  the  minister  to  undertake, 
would  he  seriously  consider  before  the  House 
rises— as  I  assume  it  will  at  some  time  at  the 
end  of  June  or  early  in  July— to  let  us  know 
what  the  experience  has  been  on  the  collec- 
tion of  this  tax  on  the  non-resident  portion 
of  the  tax,  say,  for  the  first  two  months  of 
its  operation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen;  Mr.  Chairman,  if  that 
information  is  readily  available,  I  would  have 
no  hesitation  in  sharing  it  with  the  members 
of  the  House. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  with  respect 
to  section  2,  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre 
\vas  going  to  propose  an  amendment.  I  don't 
know  if  it  is  going  to  be  placed  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Riverdale  at  this  point  or  not.  But  the 
amendment  which  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  was  going  to  make  dealt  with  sub- 
section (2)  of  section  2. 

In  that  amendment,  I  presume  it  was  the 
intention,  as  it  states  here,  to  raise  in  sub- 
section (2)  the  matter  of  the  20  per  cent  rate 
to  100  per  cent.  I  anticipate  that  the  member 
for  Ottawa  Centre  would  comment  on  this  as 
a  possible  means  of  effectively  stopping  this 
kind  of  investment. 

It  may  be  that  amendment  will  not  be 
put,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  could  only  advise 
you  that  had  it  been  put,  I  would  not  have 
been  readily  willing  to  accept  it.  I  think  the 
minister  has  commented  on  the  matter  of 
confiscation  and  the  difficulties  that  would 
arise  there.  But  a  second  and  more  important 
point,  I  think,  is  the  one  that  would  result 
from  charging  non-residents  twice  the  price 
of  anyone  else  who  happened  to  be  a  Cana- 
dian to  buy  Canadian  land. 

Surely,  if  the  20  per  cent  figure  is  not 
eflFective,  as  some  of  us  think  it  may  not  be 
in  dealing  with  the  matter  of  foreign  owner- 
ship, then  indeed  to  simply  raise  that  total 
tax  amount  to  100  per  cent  only  advises 
persons  who  are  non-residents  in  Canada  that 
they  will  indeed  have  to  obtain  a  rather 
high  return  on  their  money  to  make  the  whole 
prospect  worthwhile.  If  we  are  to  be  con- 
sidering the  economic  and  cultural  national- 
ism committee  and  its  report  to  this  Legisla- 
ture,  then  I  think  we  have  to  consider  the 


recommendation  of  diat  committee  that  for- 
eign ownership,  that  non-resident  Canadian 
ownership  of  our  lands,  should  be  no  \onget 
considered  an  acceptable  situation  within  the 
Province  of  Ontario. 

Accordingly  if  that  is  to  be  the  case,  Mr. 
Chairman,  then  we  could  amend  subsection 
(2)  of  section  2  to  allow  the  views  of  that 
committee  to  become  the  opink>n  of  this 
Legislature. 

As  hon.  members  are  aware,  in  the  debate 
on  second  reading  of  this  bill  several  mem- 
bers who  had  served  on  that  committee  enter- 
ed into  the  debate,  including  the  member  for 
Victoria-Haliburton  (Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson). 
There  were  comments  with  respect  to  the 
exact  involvement  and  the  exact  items  within 
that  report  upon  which  all  members  agreed, 
and  certain  particulars  in  which  members  did 
not  bring  in  a  unanimous  report. 

However,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  if 
we  were  to  amend  subsection  (2)  to  ensure 
that  the  ownership  of  lands  within  the  prov- 
ince was  consistent  with  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  economic  and  cultural  national- 
ism, then  the  following  amendment  might  be 
considered  acceptable. 

Mr.  Breithaupt  moves  that  subsection  (2) 
of  section  2  of  the  bill  be  amended  so  that 
all  the  words  after  the  word  "transferee"  in 
line  3  be  struck  out  and  the  following  sub- 
stituted: "shall  contain  an  affidavit  that  the 
transferee  is  a  Canadian  citizen  or  has  landed 
immigrant  status." 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  moving 
this  amendment  I  think  that  we  have  to  look 
seriously  upon  the  suggestions  of  the  com- 
mittee on  economic  and  cultural  nationalism. 
If  standing  and  select  committees  particularly, 
are  going  to  have  meaning  witiiin  the  Legis- 
lature, then  the  reports  that  come  from  these 
committees  have  to  be  considered  serious 
documents  which  have  ordinarily  received  the 
consideration  and  the  approval  of  the  ma^r- 
ity  of  members  who  have  served  on  the 
respective  committees. 

Particularly  when  we  are  looking  at  select 
committees,  we  should  surely  be  at  the  point 
where  their  reports,  and  the  recommendations 
they  make  will  be  seen  as  influencing  govern- 
mental policy.  Because,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  they 
don't  influence  that  policy  there  seems  little 
point  in  sending  members  around  the  prov- 
ince dealing  with  particular  items.  Those 
items  are  not  only  the  ones  of  economic  and 
cultural  nationalism,  they  can  be  anything 
from  the  use  of  our  educational  resources,  to 
drainage,  to  snowmobiles. 


1284 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  think,  Mr,  Chairman,  if  we  are  serious 
about  the  work  which  that  particular  com- 
mit'ee  has  done,  then  the  House  should  give 
serious  consideration  to  this  amendment.  I 
believe  the  amendment  would  have  the  eflFect 
most  Ontario  citizens  would  like  to  see,  to 
welcome  foreign  capital  in  certain  particular 
forms,  but  to  advise  that  the  future  develop- 
ment of  our  province  is  to  be  by  our  citizens 
and  for  the  particular  benefit  of  our  citizens. 

I  believe  that,  obviously,  we  must  encour- 
age capital  of  various  forms  to  enter  into 
the  Canadian  economy  so  that  our  economy 
can  be  .  further  built  up.  But  surely  that 
development  must  be  on  our  terms.  That 
development  must  come  in  ways  which  are 
acceptable  to  us  as  Canadians  and  also  as 
residents  of  Ontario. 

I  think  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  economy 
developing  in  Canada  is  surely  going  to  be 
one  of  the  most  important  and  the  most 
powerful  in  the  world  within  the  next  20  or 
30  years,  particularly  because  of  our  avail- 
ability of  resources  and  the  abilities  of  our 
people  to  deal  with  a  very  favoured  part  of 
Canada. 

We  can't  continue  to  give  away  our  re- 
sources, as  my  colleague  from  Nickel  Belt 
(Mr.  Laughren)  has  mentioned,  but  we  also, 
of  course,  have  to  strike  a  particular  balance 
and  a  very  careful  one  as  we  look  upon  the 
development  of  our  own  resources  and 
economy. 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hope  that 
this  amendment  may  find  favour  within  the 
House,  because  I  think  that  it  might  be  a 
more  eflFective  way  of  dealing  with  a  portion 
of  this  problem  rather  than  advising  persons 
who  \yish  to  purchase  items  in  Canada  that 
if,  they  are  non-residents  the  price  has  gone 
up  20  per  cent.  In  effect,  we  would  still  be 
bargaining  away  our  resources  without  keep- 
ing the  kind  of  control  that  we  should  have 
over  them.. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Perhaps  we  should  place 
the  motidrt  first, 

Mr.  Renwick:  Would  the  hon,  member  for 
Kitcherier  read  the  section  with  the  changes 
as  he  proposes  the  amendment?  I  can't  quite 
follow  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  haven't  placed  the 
amendment  yet.  Perhaps  it  would  be  clear  if 
I  were  to  place  it. 

Mr.  Breithaupt  moves  that  subsection  (2) 
of  section  2  of  Bill  26  be  amended  so  that 
all  the  words  after  the  word  "transferee" 
in  line  3  be  struck  out  and  the  following  sub- 
stituted therefor:    "shall  contain  an   affidavit 


that  the  transferee  is  a  Canadian,  citizen  or 
has  landed  immigrant  status." 
Any  discussion? 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  take  it  that  perhaps  I  am 
a  httle  bit  obtuse.  Because  of  my  colleague 
speaking  with  me  at  the  time,  perhaps  I 
wasn't  paying  attention  as  closely  as  I  should 
have  been.  Is  the  intention  of  this  amend- 
ment, in  fact,  to  reverse  subsection  (2)  en- 
tirely and  to  provide  in  substance  that  you 
are  proposing  the  implementation  of  the 
recommendations  that  are  contained  in  the 
select  coinmittee  studies? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Yes,  that  ^  correct;  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Well,  then,  I  would  assume 
that  we  in  this  party  would  have  no  diflBculty 
in  supporting  that  amendment.  The  reasons 
are  quite  clear.  I  referred  a  little  while  ago 
to  the  spurious  nature  of  the  $60  million 
anticipated  revenue  from  this  particular  tax 
piit  forward  by  the  Treasurer,  The  second 
thrust  of  the  debate  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  yesterday  on  this  bill,  and  the  day 
before,  was  with  respect  to  the  implementa- 
tions of  the  substance  of  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  select  committee  on  economic: 
and  cultural  nationalism. 

Strangely  enough,  with  all  of  the  caveats 
which  are  involved  in  it,  apart  from  the- 
concern  of  sorne  of  the  Conservative  rpem- 
bers  of  that  committee  about  some  minor- 
delay,  no  one  objected  to  the  major  thrusts 
of  the  report.  The  essential  nature  of  this 
report  requires  that  something  be  donis  to 
ensure  the  continuing  Canadian  presence 
in  real  estate  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.. 
Arid  the  other  necessary  concomitant  part  of 
it  is  the  exclusion  of  others  from  participa- 
ting in  it.  '    '      ^ 

We  will  ,ce;rtainly  support  that  ame'ndriient 
and  I  may  say  that  I  assume  this  meets  the 
wishes  of  the  hon.  member  for  Kitchener, 
but  in  any  event  we  would  not  agree  to  stack 
this  vote.  It  would  be  our  way  of  indipiatirig 
quite  clearly  that  we  continue  to  oppose 
this  particular  bill  and  wie  are  now  focusing 
our  attention  upon  the  specific  taxing  sub- 
section of  section  2,  which  imposes  the  tax. 
We  would  therefore  call  for  a  vote  on  this 
amendment. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Right  now? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Right  now. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Are  you  ready  for  the 
motion? 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1285 


Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Unless,  of 
course,    the   minister   is   going   to  accept   it 

Mr.  Chairman:  Does  the  minister  wish  to 
respond? 

Hon.  Mr.  Mecn:  Yes.  Mr.  Chairman, 
obviously  I  can't  support  this  positicm.  It 
flies  completely  in  the  face  of  everything 
that  I  said  in  my  reply  on  second  reading. 
We  cannot  undertake  something  that  is  with- 
out our  constitutional  competence  to  have 
such  a  provision.  I  am  going  to  repeat  all 
the  arguments  I  advanced  yesterday.  The 
hon.  member  for  Kitchener  was  in  the  House 
during,  I  think,  part  of  that  debate  yester- 
day afternoon.  I  am  not  sure  that  the  mem- 
ber for  Riverdale  was  here  at  thaft  time.  But 
in  any  event  I  cannot  accept  it.  Our  provi- 
sions here  we  believe  are  within  our  consti- 
tutional competence  and  I  would  urge  the 
House  to  reject  the  amendment  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order  please.  We  are  con- 
sidering a  motion  by  Mr.  Breithaupt.  Mr. 
Breithaupt  moves  that  subsection  (2)  of 
section  2  of  Bill  26  be  amended  so  that  all 
the  words  after  the  word  "transferee"  on 
line  3  be  struck  out  and  the  following  sub- 
stituted: "shall  contain  an  affidavit  that  the 
transferee  is  a  Canadian  citizen  or  has 
landed  immigrant  status." 

The  committee  divided  on  Mr.  Breithaupt's 
amendment  which  was  negatived  on  the  fol- 
lowing vote: 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
"ayes"  are  32,  the  "nays"  are  52. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  declare  the  motion  lost 
and  the  section  carried. 

Section  2  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  comment,  question  or 
amendment  on  sections  3,  4  or  5? 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  couldn't  possibly  miss  the 
opportunity  of  speaking  when  we  have  such 
a  large  audience. 

Mr.    Chairman:    On    which    section? 

Interjections    by   hon.    members. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  We'll  fix  that 
in  a  minute. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Riverdale, 

on  which  section? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Could  I  ask  what  sec- 
tion? 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Any  section. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Three,  foui 
or  five?  That  is  what  be  asked. 

Mr.  Chairman:  On  section  3,  4  or  5. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Chairman,  a  minor  com- 
ment on  section  3.  Section  3,  for  practical 
purposes  provides  no  change,  as  I  understand 
it,  from  the— 

Hon.  Mr.  Mecn:  It  is  a  modification  of 
the  old  Act  to  adapt  it. 

Mr.  Renwick:  A  minor  modification  of  the 
old  Act,  but  in  substance  you  don't  intend 
to  change  any  collection  or  reporting  pro- 
cedure with  respect  to  the  amount  of  tax 
paid  so  far  as  the  responsibility  of  the  col- 
lector is  concerned. 

But  on  subsection  (4),  I  am  reallv  con- 
cerned about  two  aspects.  One  I  touched  on 
earlier  this  afternoon,  and  that  is  the  imme- 
diate necessity  of  revising  the  affidavits  with 
respect  to  residence  to  provide  adequate 
protection  for  the  Treasury  to  assume  col- 
lection of  the  tax. 

At  the  time  the  land  transfer  tax  was  an 
internal  operation  conducted  mainly  by  the 
legal  profession,  and  the  tax  was  not  a  mat- 
ter of  great  moment  and  there  was  little 
opportunity  for  evasion,  this  was  not  impor- 
tant and  you  could  rely  on  aflBdavit  evidence 
at  the  time  the  conveyance  was  tendered  for 
registration  to  make  certain  that  the  tax  was 
paid. 

There  was  no  problem.  I  doubt  if  there 
was  very  much  fraud  or  misrepresentation 
with  respect  to  collection  of  the  tax. 

There  is  an  immense  incentive  now  to  re- 
tain lawyers  and  others  with  great  expertise 
to  avoid  this  tax.  If  that  is  the  case,  then 
I  refer  to  the  comments  made  somewhat 
earlier  about  the  nature  of  the  affidavits 
whfch  should  be  framed  to  make  Certain 
persons  swearing  to  the  affidavits  are  fully 
aware  of  what  they  are  .swearing  to  and  to 
make  absolutely  certain  that  to  the  extent 
that  the  transferee  corporation  is  swearing 
the  affidavit,  you  get  the  responsible  officers 
to  be  the  ones  who  must  swear  the  affidavit 
and  to  make  certain  that  the  proper  t.ut  is 
paid. 

I  note  it  is  vcTy  conveniently  tucked  away 
in  this  particular  section,  but  I  raise  again 
that  this  is  the  section  which  saxTS,  when  the 
affidavit  is  made  by  the  transferor  or  his 
agent  or  solicitor,  the  transferor  is  personally 
liable    to    the    Crown    jointly    and    severally 


1286 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


with  the  transferee  for  the  amount  of  the 
tax.  It  is  a  joint  and  several  liability  imposed 
upon  the  transferor,  that  is,  the  resident  in 
Ontario  or  the  non-resident  and  the  trans- 
feree who  is  the  non-resident.  There  is  a 
further  provision  that  if  the  transferor  is  the 
one  who  has  to  pay  he  has  got  a  right  over 
against  the  transferee  to  collect  the  tax. 

I  am  suggesting  that  the  government  is 
inviting  a  constitutional  challenge  to  the  tax 
on  the  basis  that  it  is  not  direct  taxation 
within  the  province  in  order  for  the  raising 
of  revenue  for  provincial  purposes  as  re- 
quired by  the  British  North  America  Act, 
because  the  intention  of  this  Act  is  that  the 
non-resident  will  pay  the  tax.  The  event 
which  triggers  the  tax  is  tendering  the  con- 
veyance. It  is  not  a  tax  on  land;  it  is  not  a 
tax  on  the  document  which  is  tendered;  it 
is  a  tax  payable  by  and  intended  to  be  pay- 
able by  the  non-resident  person.  You  are 
imposing  a  tax  on  a  person  beyond  the  juris- 
diction of  the  province.  I  am  suggesting  to 
you— 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General): 
Everybody  pays. 

Mr.  Renwick:  —that  you  have  invited  a 
challenge  because  it  is  not  the  person  who 
tenders  the  conveyance  who  is  liable  for  the 
tax,  because  normally  the  person  who  tenders 
the  conveyance  is  either  the  solicitor  who 
closes  the  transaction  or  the  agent— 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  purchaser  pays. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Sometimes  the  purchaser's 
agent.  I  am  simply  saying  that  the  person 
who  in  his  personal  capacity  appears  at  the 
registry  oflRce  and  tenders  the  document, 
which  is  what  triggers  the  tax,  is  not  the  per- 
son who  is  liable  to  pay  the  tax  The  person 
who  is  liable  to  pay  the  tax  is  the  trans- 
feree, and  the  transferee  who  has  to  pay  the 
tax  is  a  non-resident. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  He  pays  more.  Everybo^ 
pays;  he  just  pays  more. 


Mr.  Renwick:  The  non-resident  has  to  pay 
this  particular  tax.  He  has  to  pay  more  but 
he  has  to  pay  it  under  a  different  subsection 
than  a  resident.  I  am  simply  suggesting  to 
the  ministry  that,  quite  properly,  they  have 
said  when  the  transferor  or  his  agent  or  his 
solicitor  tenders  he  is  jointly  and  severally 
liable.  That  is  a  protective  provision  to  pro- 
tect the  Treasury. 

The  intention  of  the  bill  is  to  impose  a 
substantial  increase  in  tax  at  the  rate  of  20 
per  cent  under  a  separate  section  of  the  bill 
on  the  transferee  who  is  a  non-resident.  I  am 
simply  suggesting  that  there  is  a  very  real 
question  in  my  mind  as  to  whether  or  not 
that  happens  to  be  a  direct  taxation  within 
the  province  in  order  for  the  raising  of 
revenue  for  provincial  purposes.  And  this,  Mr. 
Chairman,  will  be  a  convenient  time  to  break. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Will  there  be  further  dis- 
cussion on  this  section? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Oh,  yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  committee  of 
the  whole  House  rise  and  report  progress  and 
ask  for  leave  to  sit  again. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Deans:  Are  you  going  to  the  health 
bill  tonight? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  We  are  going  to  item 
6  this  evening. 

The  House  resumed,  Mr.  Speaker  in  the 
chair. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Speaker  the  committee 
of  the  whole  House  begs  to  report  progress 
and  asks  for  leave  to  sit  again. 

Report  agreed  to. 

It  being  6  o'clock,  p.m.,  the  House  took 
recess. 


APRIL  23.  1974  1287 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  April  23,  1974 

GO-Urban  system,  statement  by  Mr.  Rhodes  1247 

Sales  tax,  statement  by  Mr.  Meen  1248 

CO-Urban  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  1248 

Pup  trailers,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Deacon  1249 

Oil  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  MacDooald  1250 

Hospital  wage  ceilings,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  1252 

Licensing    of    landfill    sites;    environmental    impact    of    public    worics,    questkms    of 

Mr.   W.  Newman:   Mr.   Lewis   1253 

Renfrew  physicians'  and  surgeons'  appeal,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Lewis  1253 

Rapid  Data,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Haggerty  1254 

OHC  tenants  dispute,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Deacon  1254 

Ban  on  silent  films  in  licensed  premises,  question  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Shulman  1255 

Tax  exemptions  for  benefit  sales,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Good  1255 

Health  Disciplines  Act,  question  of  Mr.  Miller:   Mr.  Drea  1256 

Burning  of  wilderness  cabins,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Foulds  1256 

Shining  Tree  phone  services,  question  of  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Laughren  1256 

Violence  in  amateur  hockey,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Reid  1257 

Admissions  tests  at  Cambrian  College,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Germa  1257 

Ottawa  area  land  scheme,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Roy  1257 

Workmen's    Compensation   Board   pensions,   questions   of  Mr.   Cuindon:    Mr.   Dettns, 

Mr.   Reid,   Mr.    Lewis    1258 

Losses  from  broken  liquor  cases,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Shulman  1259 

Flood  insurance,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:   Mr.  B.  Newman  1259 

Methane  gas,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Burr  1259 

Ontario  Water  Resources  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  W.  Newman,  first  reading  1260 

Mim'stry  of  Housing  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Handleman,  first  reading  1260 

Environmental  Protection  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  W.  Newman,  first  reading  1261 

Public  Hospitals  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Roy,  first  reading  1261 

Pesticides  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  W.  Newman,  first  reading  1261 

Rent  Control  and  Security  of  Tenure  Act,  bill  to  provide  for,  Mr.  Cassidy,  first  reading  1261 

Land  Transfer  Tax  Act,  bill  respecting,  in  committee  1262 

Recess,  6  o'dodc  1286 


No.  30 


iid^ 


Ontario 


Hegisflature  of  d^ntario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Tuesday,  April  23,  1974 

Evening  Session 


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


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


Price  per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Cl'.rk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto 


CX)NTENTS 


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


1291 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The   House  resumed  at  8  o'clock,  p.m. 


HEALTH  DISCIPUNES  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller  moves  second  reading  of 
BUI   22,   the   Health   Disciplines   Act,    1974. 

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

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  The  first  comment  I  would 
like  to  make  on  the  bill  is  that  we  wish  the 
minister  well  in  the  health  field.  It  is  hoped 
that  he  will  not  continue  the  perpetration  of 
the  mistakes  made  by  his  predecessors.  I  go 
back  to  the  hon,  member  for  Carleton  East 
(Mr.  Lawrence),  the  present  Minister  of 
Education  (Mr.  Wells)  when  he  was  Minister 
of  Health,  and  this  minister's  predecessor, 
now  the  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 
(Mr.  Potter). 

This  minister  seems  to  have  been  making 
statements  lately  which  indicate  that  he 
intends  to  sort  of  fly  on  his  own— that  he 
intends  to  depart  from  some  of  the  approaches 
taken  by  his  predecessors.  But  I'm  afraid 
that  maybe  the  approach  he  is  taking  in 
relation  to  this  bill  is  certainly  not  evidence 
that  he  intends  to  deal  effectively  and 
thoroughly  and  logically  with  the  problem 
of  health  delivery  in  this  province. 

The  reason  I  say  this  is  that  some  two 
weeks  ago  we  had  presented  in  the  House 
the  Mustard  report.  In  his  statements  on  the 
Mustard  report  he  said  at  the  time,  as  I 
recall,  and  he  can  correct  me  if  I'm  wrong, 
that  he  wanted  to  study  the  recommendations 
of  the  Mustard  report  for  a  period  of  four 
or  five  months  before  bringing  in  legisla- 
tion or  legislative  changes.  Yet  he  wants  to 
press  ahead  with  the  Health  Disciplines 
Act.  That  is  not  evidence  of  any  consistency 
or  any  willingness  on  his  part  to  bring  on 
major  changes  in  the  health  field. 

Looking  at  some  of  the  recommendations 
in  the  Mustard  report,  I  can't  see  how  he 
can  proceed  vdth  the  Health  Discipbnes 
Act.  In  fact,  what  may  well  happen  is  that 
if  he  passes  certain  matters  in  this  Act, 
it  could  well  prohibit  the  adoption  of  cer- 
tain recommendations  in  the  Mustard  report. 


Tuesday,  April  23,  1974 

I  look  at  some  of  the  recommendations 
of  the  report— for  instance,  die  section  where 
they  divide  between  the  primary  contact  with 
the  public  and  the  primary  and  secondary 
aspects  of  health;  or  the  recommendation  for 
sharing  of  tasks  and  delegation  of  responsi- 
bility among  all  health  personnel  in  the 
group  in  order  to  achieve  optimum  eflBcicncy 
in  the  provisioas  of  health  service  of  hi^ 
quality;  the  establishment  and  operation  of 
an  evaluation  procedure  based  on  an  audit 
of  health  services  in  the  review  of  the  per- 
formance of  health  personnel  by  their  peers; 
the  recommendation  for  the  proposed  health 
district  services;  the  provision  of  an  effec- 
tive   WMisulting   advisory   service. 

In  other  words,  the  Mustard  report  looks 
at  the  question  of  the  health  delivery 
system,  the  various  professions,  as  a  pack- 
age, as  a  relationship  or  distribution  of 
responsibilities  in  this  field  between  pro- 
fessions, alhed  health  professionals,  and  so 
on.  Had  there  not  been  any  Mustard  report 
I  can't  see  how  the  minister  could  bring  in 
a  total  package  when  he  only  dealt  with 
five  disciplines— when  he  didn't  want  to  deal 
with  all  the  disciplines  together  and  show 
the  co-relationship  of  all  the  disciplines  in 
the  total  health  package. 

First  of  all  why  did  he  decide  to  come 
along  with  orJy  five  disciplines?  In  fact 
the  five  disciplines  have  not  changed  all 
that  much  in  their  aspect  of  responsibility. 
What  he  has  done  basically  in  diis  bfll  is 
to  take  various  Acts  and  put  them  all  under 
one  Act  called  the  Health  Disciplines  Act. 

I  congratulate  the  minister  for  setting  up 
what  is  called  the  Health  Disciplines  Board 
and  this  type  of  thing,  and  I  intend  to  make 
comments  about  this  later  on.  But  I  was 
concerned  first  of  all  that  the  minister  was 
dealing  with  only  five  disciplines,  and  sec- 
ondly and  more  importantly  the  evidence 
given  to  us  by  the  Mustard  report  in  the 
recommendations  make  it  exceeoin^y  diflS- 
cult— in  other  words  he  is  doing  things  piece- 
meal, the  problem  that  his  predecessors  ran 
into. 

I  look  at  the  present  Minister  of  Correc- 
tional Services.  His  problem  was  that  in  light 
of  the  fact  that  they  were  spending  so  much 


1292 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


money,  that  they  had  so  many  people  in- 
volved, he  kept  dealing  with  peripheral 
things.  I  would  suggest  to  the  minister  he  is 
not  really  attacking  the  problem  as  set  out 
in  the  Mustard  report. 

Let  me  read  to  him  some  of  the  things 
that  in  fact  the  Mustard  report  had  to  say 
about  the  health  problem. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  should  point  out  to  the  hon. 
member  that  in  debate  on  second  reading  we 
deal  with  the  principle  of  the  bill  as  enu- 
merated in  the  bill.  I  have  not  restricted 
some  straying  from  the  principle  but  I  think 
the  hon.  member- 
Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  He  is  right 
on  target. 

Mr.  Speaker:  —should  not  stray  too  far  by 
reading  at  any  great  length  from  any  other 
report. 

Mr.  Roy:  No,  I  don't  intend  to  read  at  any 
great  length.  But  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  dealing 
with  the  principle  of  a  bill  that  deals  with 
five  maior  disciplines.  The  Mustard  report 
gets  right  into  that  and  it  is  the  same  prin- 
ciple basically.  I  don't  want  in  any  way  to 
crowd  your  ruling. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  the  hon.  member  for 
Grey-Bruce  says  it  is  all  right,  so  proceed. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  that's  why  I 
brought  him  in  here.  I  said,  "If  the  Speaker 
gives  me  a  bad  time,  Eddie,  you  take  care 
of  him." 

In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  just 
read  some  of  the  aspects  of  the  Mustard 
report  which  deal  basically  with  the  prob- 
lem of  health  delivery,  the  question  of  pro- 
fessionals. I  read  from  page  3  of  the  report 
where  it  states: 

The  provision  of  universal  health  insur- 
ance has  not  automatically  improved  the 
level  of  health  for  the  population  of  On- 
tario. 

Rieht  there  is  quite  an  indictment  to  the 
system  as— 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  The 
Liberal  government. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  Liberal  Gjovernment?  This 
e^overnment  was  the  one  that  brought  it  in. 
It  wasn't  forced  to  come  into  that.  It  brought 
it  in.  It  can't  blame  the  Liberals  for  all  its 
mistakes— certainly  not  in  health. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Come 
off  it,  it  was  blackmail. 


Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  doesn't  know  what 
I  am  talking  about  so  he  shouldn't  make  any 
noise. 

In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker— he  is  minister 
of— what  now?  Solicitor  to  something?  The 
pinball  man. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  Solicitor  General  should 
be  downstairs,  in  the  Attorney  General's  deal. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Let's  get  back  to  the 
bill. 

Mr.    Roy:    He    is   being   provocative,    Mr. 

Speaker.    The    report    goes    on    to   say,    Mr. 

Speaker: 

While  it  is  true  that  under  OHIP  many 
people  have  been  able  to  obtain  medical 
services  that  they  could  not  afford  in  the 
past,  in  certain  areas  of  the  province  cer- 
tain residents  still  do  not  have  access  to 
the  services  they  need,  and  more  signifi- 
cantly, where  the  need  for  service  is  great- 
est new  measures  have  been  undertaken  to 
influence  the  social  and  environmental  caus- 
es of  ill  health  and  none  in  co-ordination 
with  the  provisions  of  remedial  service. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Still  not  talking  on  the 
bill. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Right 
on. 

Mr.  Roy:  This  is  supposed  to  be  an  objec- 
tive group  saying  this,  it  is  not  the  opposi- 
tion. That  is  what  we  have  been  saying  all 
along,  that  we  are  being  supported  by  this 
task  force  that  was  appointed  in  Health.  It 
goes  on  to  say: 

In  short,  no  plan  has  been  developed 
for  the  delivery  of  health  services  in  re- 
lation to  the  overall  needs  of  the  popula- 
tion. 

Again,  it  is  a  telling  indictment  of  the  ap- 
proach to  health  taken  by  this  government, 
Mr.  Speaker.  It  goes  on: 

Some  problems  inherent  in  the  current 
arran^rements  are  the  concentration  of  the 
specialtv  services  within  hospitals,  the  ran- 
dom dispersal  of  general  physicians 
throughout  the  province. 

That's  what  we  are  dealing  with  now— 
physicians. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  He's  still  not  talking  to 
the  bill. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  doesn't  understand 
"—the  lack  of  co-ordination"— read  this— "the 
lack  of  co-ordination  among  specialty  ser- 
vices—." What  is  the  Health  Disciplines  Act 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1293 


all  about?  It  is  supposed  to  be  right  on  this, 
the  co-ordination  of— 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  More  Liberal  midwives. 

Mr.  Roy:  Quoting: 

—the  lack  of  co-ordination  among  spe- 
cialty services,  family  practitioners,  public 
health  services,  and  otner  personal  nealth 
services,    the    inaccessibiilty   to   service    in 
certain  areas  of  the  province. 
Anyway,    Mr.    Speaker,    the   report   points 
out  the  deficiencies  in  the  system,  and  if  I 
might  just  deal  with  another  problem  which 
has  been  pointed  out  by  the  Mustard  report, 
it  says: 

It  was  only  to  be  expected  that  health 
costs  would  rise  in  Ontario,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  under  OHIP  more  people  were 
using  health  services  than  had  previously 
been  the  case.  The  cause  for  concern,  how- 
ever, has  been  the  proportion  of  costs 
inciured  in  providing  health  services  as 
related'  to  the  benefits  resulting  from  their 
•provision.  It  appears  that  the  two  are  not 
in  balance. 

Mr.  Speaker,  just  one  line  of  page  5  says: 
Any  changes  that  are  made  in  the  or- 
ganization of  delivery  of  health  services 
will  require  related  adjustments  in  the 
training  and  education  of  health  profes- 
sionals. 

Again  the  report  points  out  the  deficiendes 
in  relation  to  the  individuals  within  the 
system.  Another  aspect  of  the  report,  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  think  really 
the  hon.  member  should  not  completely  re- 
view the  Mustard  report.  He  should  not  be 
speaking  of  things  that  are  not  in  the  bill. 
He  should  speak  to  the  principle  of  this 
bill  before  us. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  biH  has  176 
sections  which  deal  with  five  professions- 
dentistry,  nursing,  medicine,  optometry  and 
pharmacy— and  these  individuals  are  all  dealt 
with  extensively  in  the  Mustard  report  and 
that  is  what  Im  reading.  This  is  right  on. 

Mr.    Speaker:    It   seems    to   me   die   hon. 

member  is  just- 
Mr.  Roy:  I  know  it's  embarrassing  to  the 

goverrunent,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  feel  I  must 

say  these  things.  They're  in  the  report  and 

I  feel  it's  pertinent  to  tnis. 

An  hon.  member:  The  federal  govern- 
ment is  embarrassed. 


Mr.  Roy:  We're  talking  about  tfte  ixnprove> 
ment  of  heahh  delivery.  We're  talking  about 
the  co-ordination  of  professions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  With  respect,  will  the  hon. 
member  please  keep  to  the  principle  of  this 
bill? 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes.  Right  on.  It  states  here. 
Mr.  Speaker,  just  two  Hnes:  **There  must  be 
a  shift  away  from  the  traditional  focus  of 
health  services  in  a  hospital  setting  to  com- 
munity settings  accessible  to  the  public." 
In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it's  im- 
portant that  we  ask  the  minister  how  he 
can  possibly  proceed  with  this  bill  now,  in 
light  of  the  recommendations  in  the  Mustard 
report  and  in  light  of  the  fact  that  they 
taXk  about  co-or<Snation  among  professions, 
which  he  doesn't  deal  with  here. 

He  sets  up  a  sort  of  rigidity  in  the  pro- 
fessions which  in  fact  inhibits  transferability 
of  functions,  for  instance,  in  relation  to  what 
the  nurse  practitioners  can  do.  We  feel,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  the  light  of  this  aspect  that  the 
bill  should  not  proceed  now. 

(In  fact,  it's  ironic  that  when  the  govern- 
ment asked  for  the  Mustard  report,  when  it 
set  up  this  commission,  some  of  the  terms 
of  reference  are  very  interesting.  I  think, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  read  just  briefly  the 
terms  of  reference,  which  only  have  10  lines, 
and  point  out  to  the  minister  why  he  is  de- 
laying, for  instance,  the  Mustard  report  or 
wny  he  is  going  ahead  with  this  bill.  Why 
doesn't  he  proceed  with  the  two  jointly? 

Apart  from  the  fact  that  the  conmiittee  was 
"asked  to  develop  proposals  for  a  compre- 
hensive plan  to  meet  the  health  needs  of  the 
people  of  Ontario,"  at  the  end  of  the  terms 
of  reference  it  went  on  to  say:  To  the 
maximum  extent  possible,  the  committee  is 
requested  to  employ  interim  reports  so  that 
the  most  pressing  problems  can  oe  addressed 
without  delay." 

What  is  the  mim'ster  doing  if  he's  putting 
this  over  for  four  or  five  months  and  yet 
he  is  proceeding  with  this  bill?  He  had 
asked  for  interim  reports.  He  felt  Aat  there 
were  some  pressing  problems  that  had  to  be 
dealt  witfi  immediately.  The  minister  is  not 
dealing  with  them. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  another  aspect  of  tfie 
bill  which  gives  us  great  concern  is  the 
fact  that  apparently  what  has  been  done  is  the 
taking  of  various  Acts  dealing  with  these 
various  disciplines— dentistry,  medicine  and 
so  on-and  lumping  of  them  under  this  par- 
ticular bill.  Unfortunately  a  lot  of  powers 
seem  to  have  been  left  to  the  executive  arm- 
in  other  words,  order-in-coundl  regulations, 


1294 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


which  we  will  never  see  in  this  House.  That 
is  a  great  concern  to  us.  Regulations  are 
passed.  My  God,  one  only  has  to  look  at  the 
great  stack  of  regulations— and,  of  course,  I'm 
may  be  straying  away  from  the  principle  of 
the  bill;  and  I  just  do  it  with  permission,  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  What  permission  is  that? 

Mr.  Roy:  Pardon  me?  The  regulation  com- 
mittee is  a  useless  fimction. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  No,  but  what  I— I'm  very  honest 
about  it;  I  tell  you  when  I'm  off  the  principle 
of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well  I  recognize  it— I  recog- 
nize it. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes.  In  any  event,  we  are  greatly 
concerned  about  the  fact  that  a  lot  of  matters, 
a  lot  of  aspects  of  the  practice  of  these  vari- 
ous professions,  these  various  disciphnes,  are 
going  to  be  set  up  by  way  of  regulations 
which  we  will  never  see. 

*I  think  by  the  minister's  own  admission  he 
hasn't  started  to  draft  the  regulations.  In 
fact,  in  answer  to  a  question  in  the  House 
dealing  with  the  question  of  optometrists 
and  the  diflBculties  of  the  optometrists  and 
the  opposition  they  have— the  minister  has 
the  regulations  here.  Will  we  get  to  see  them 
when  the  bill  is  being  discussed? 

I  take  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  minister 
would  answer  this  question,  this  bill  is  going 
to  standing  committee,  is  it  not?  He  shakes 
his  head  yes.  We  should  put  that  on  the 
record.  It's  going  to  standing  committee. 

In  any  event,  we  feel  that  too  many  as- 
pects of  the  bill  are  going  to  be  dealt  with 
by  regulation.  I  would  be  very  much  sur- 
prised to  see  that  he  had  all  the  regulations 
in  the  bill  for  all  the  various  professions.  He 
doesn't?  He  admits  that.  Put  that  on  the 
record.  Yes,  we've  got  to  get  that  on  the 
record. 

An  hon.  member:  The  member  is  a  very 
trusting  soul. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  any  event- 
Mr.    J.    A.    Renvnck    (Riverdale):    It    all 

goes  on  the  record. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  nodding  as  well? 

Interjections   by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Roy:  It's  a  matter  of  approach,  you 
see. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  shaking  of  the  head  is 
not  recorded  in  Hansard. 

An  hon.  member:  Yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
are  greatly  concerned  about  the  fact  that 
too  many  aspects  of  the  disciplines  will  have 
to  be  dealt  with  by  regulation.  And  surely 
there  must  be  some  way  the  minister  can  let 
us  know  about  it  in  certain  areas. 

For  instance,  we  thought  an  important  area 
is  the  opposition  by  the  medical  profession 
to  the  use  of  drugs  by  the  optometrists.  Why 
isn't  that  regulation  prepared  so  we  know 
exactly  what  drugs  the  optometrists  are 
going  to  be  using?  Is  it  prepared?  I  guess 
not— he's  shaking  his  head.  That  means  no. 
In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  feel  to  prop- 
erly support,  or  not  support  the  government 
on  this  issue,  it  would  be  wise  for  us  to  see 
the  regulation. 

Another  aspect  of  the  bill  which  makes  it 
evident  that  the  minister  doesn't  intend  to 
change  his  ways,  in  spite  of  his  statement, 
is  the  fact  that  he  is  dealing  with  the  pro- 
fession of  dentistry,  and  yet  he  has  not 
solved  the  problem  of  denturists. 

We  are  extremely  disappointed  and  sur- 
prised by  this  approach  because  it  appeared 
to  us  that  following  his  nomination  as  the 
Minister  of  Health,  he  made  certain  rum- 
blings that  he  was  reconsidering— 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Not 
nomination. 

Mr.  Roy:  —in  fact,  reconsidering  this 
whole  problem. 

An  hon.  member:  Rumination. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  What  is 
his  position  on  denturists? 

Mr.  Roy:  And  in  fact,  if  I  mi^t  read— 
and  this  is  right  on  the  principle  of  the  bill, 
Mr.  Speaker— correspondence  that  the  minis- 
ter had  with  the  denturists;  if  I  might  read 
a  reply  to  the  denturists  by  way  of  a  letter 
dated  March  12,  1974. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Is  this  one  of  mine? 

Mr.  Roy:  It  is  signed,  "Frank  S.  Miller, 
Minister  of  Health."  It  is  directed  to  the 
attention  of  Mr.  Groves,  the  president  of 
the  Licensed  Denture  Therapists  of  Ontario. 
It  says: 

Thank  you  for  your  thoughtful  letter 
concerning  the  denturists'  proolem.  I  am 
keenly  aware  of  it.  I  can  assure  you  that 
the  problem  is  not  going  unattended  at  the 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1205 


present   time.   It  may  be  a  bit  [A  bit,  he 
says!]  premature   to  make   any  comment— 

Although  at  that  time  the  minister  had  al- 
ready made  some  comments;  just  let  the  cat 
out  of  the  bag-that  sort  of  thing.  He  had 
indicated  he  was  reconsidering  the  situation 
and  was  not  strudc  by  the  former  Health 
Minister's  approach  on  the  problem.  He 
says: 

It  may  be  a  bit  premature  to  make  any 
comments  upon  possible  changes  in  the 
working  conditions  or  licensing  require- 
ments. However,  I  can  assure  you  that  a 
solution  to  the  problem  remains  one  of 
the  highest  priorities. 

Now,  what  happened  to  that?  The  minister 
has   made  certain   comments   in   the   House. 
We've  been  sitting- 
Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  It  still  re- 
mains a  high  priority. 

Mr.  Roy:  Pardon? 

Mr.  Shulman:  It  still  remains  a  high 
priority. 

Mr.    Roy:    Yes,    it    still    remains    a    high 
priority.  Well,  that's  a  good- 
Mr.   Shulman:    He   should   resign. 

Mr.  Roy:  Well,  I  wouldn't  ask  for  his 
resignation.  I'm  not  as  combative  as  the 
member  for  High  Park.  He  only  gave  the 
minister  20  days.  I  gave  him  an  extra  20 
days.  He  is  slowly  running  out  of  time  if  he 
keeps  talcing  this  approach- 
Mr.  Shulman:  He's  slowly  sinking  below 
the  waves. 

Mr.  Roy:  How  can  the  minister  deal  eflFec- 
tively  with  the  dentistry  situation,  without 
settling  once  and  for  all  this  question  of  the 
denturists?  The  bill  brought  in  by  the  minis- 
ter's predecessor  obviously  was  only  a  half- 
hearted measure.  But  he  has  gone  ahead  and 
attempted  to  lay  charges  against  certain 
people.  We  don't  know  whether  the  minister 
is  going  to  proceed  with  the  prosecutions. 
I'd  like  to  have  an  answer  on  that. 

Does  the  minister  intend  to  close  all  the 
others  who  are  practising  illegally?  If  he 
doesn't,  what  consistency  do  we  have  there? 
What  permits  the  minister  to  close  up  cer- 
tain  shops  and  to  leave  other  shops  open? 

Mr.  Shulman:  It's  a  lottery. 

Mr.  Roy:  And  in  the  light  of  the  minister's 
statement,  giving  them  a  certain  amount  of 
credence,  that  he  was  prepared  to  reconsider 


or  that  he  was  looking  at  the  situation, 
doesn't  the  minister  think  it's  high  time  that 
he  made  a  policy  decision  on  this?  And  why 
did  he  miss  the  opportunity  to  include  it  in 
this  bill?  In  fact,  sections  27  and  29  of  the 
bill  deal  with  the  question  of  denturists  up 
to  a  point  Why  didn't  the  minister  settle  it 
once  and  for  all?  And  if  he  doesn't  intend 
to  deal  with  it- 
Mr.  Shulman:  Does  the  minister  suffer 
from  indecisions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Is  that  a  disease? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Yes,  it  is  for  politicians- 
even  young  ones. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  suspect  that  possibly  as  a 
person  the  minister  is  a  very  affable  fellow- 
he  is  not  as  abrasive  as  his  predecessor. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  even  like  the  hon.  mem* 
ber  for  Ottawa  East. 

Mr.  Shulman:  We  will  give  him  a  local 
anaesthetic. 

Mr.  Roy:  It  mi^t  take  us  longer  to  get 
to  the  minister,  but  if  he  keeps  going  at 
this  rate  and  starts  dealing  offhandedly  with 
problems  such  as  this,  he  is  going  to  be  in 
big  trouble  soon,  because  he  is  going  to  be 
setting  the  same  pattern  as  two  or  three  of 
his  predecessors. 

For  instance,  why  doesn't  the  minister 
admit  to  the  House  that  in  his  opinion  the 
dentiuists  should  be  able  to  practise  without 
the  supervision  of  dentists?  And  that  it  is  a 
fact  that  the  minister  took  it  to  caucus,  that 
it  was  his  caucus  that  spoke  against  it,  and 
that's  why  he  ran  into  trouble.  The  caucus 
is  against  him.  Why  doesn't  he  wipe  the  slate 
clean  and  tell  us  about  it,  and  not  leave  us— 

Mr.  Shulman:  And  remember  that  no  Min- 
ister of  Health  has  ever  been  promoted;  they 
have  all  gone  downhill. 

Mr.  Royi  Right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  How  could  one  be  pro- 
moted? 

An  hon.  member:  It's  a  very  unhealthy 
portfolio. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  is  a  very  ambitious 
young  man.  Surely  he  wants  to  go  places. 
We  are  giving  him  advice  as  to  how  to  en- 
hance his  position. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  These  personal 
observations  are  not  in  die  bill. 


1296 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:  I  think  they  really  are,  Mr. 
Speaker— 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  They  are  on  the  principle- 
Mr.  Roy:  They  are  on  the  principle  of  the 
bill,  aren't  they? 

Hon.  Mr,  Kerr:  They  are  on  the  principle 
of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Roy:  Are  you  going  to  bring  me  to 
order  when  I  am  being  complimentary  toward 
the  Minister  of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  might.  I  might. 

Mr.  Roy:  You  might?  Anyway,  I  am  pretty 
well  finished  on  that  point.  I  can't  be  com- 
plimentary for  too  long.  But  it  seems  to  us 
that  if  the  minister  really  wanted  to  settle 
this  problem  once  and  for  all,  he  had  the 
ideal  opportunity  to  do  it  in  this  bill.  And 
we'd  like  to  know  why  he  didn't  do  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  They'll  settle  it  after  the 
next  election. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  fact,  he  went  on  a  frolic  of  his 
own  on  the  question  of  the  squabble  between 
the  medical  profession  and  the  optometrists. 
Since  the  minister  has  taken  that  approach 
toward  the  optometrists,  surely  he  must  have 
some  sympathy  for  the  denturists  if  he  is 
going  to  have  any  consistency  in  his  ap- 
proach. 

Mr.  Shulman:  If  he's  going  to  take  on  the 
doctors,  he  might  as  well  knock  off  the 
dentists  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  not?  He's  got  the  doctors 
mad.  And  the  way  it  is  now  he's  got  every- 
body mad. 

An  hon.  member:  I  am  not  mad. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Government 
Services):    Even    the    opposition. 

Mr.  Roy:  He's  got  the  dentists  mad  at 
him  because  they  think  he  is  going  to 
change  his  mind.  And  he  has  got  the  den- 
turists still  hoping  that  he  will  change  his 
mind  but  mad  at  him  because  he  can't  make 
up  his  mind. 

Mr.  Shulman:  But  the  psychiatrists  like 
him. 

Mr.  Roy:  So  he  is  losing  votes  quickly  for 
his  party. 

Mr.  W.  J.  Nuttall  (Frontenac-Addington): 
We  can  lose  a  lot  and  still  win. 


Mr.  Roy:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
felt  that  the  minister  should  have  dealt 
with  this  problem  once  and  for  all  in  this 
bill  Having  said  that,  if  I  might,  I  would 
like  to  proceed  with  certain  other  comments. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  deal  briefly 
with  certain  sections  of  the  bill.  We  don't 
intend  to  deal  with  individual  disciplines, 
but  we  certainly  support  the  government  on 
the  matter  of  setting  up  a  Health  Disciplines 
Board.  We  feel  that  this  is  an  important 
aspect  of  the  bill,  and  we  will  certainly 
support  the  government.  The  fact  that  there 
will  be  lay  representation  on  these  discipline 
committees  and  on  the  board  is  certainly 
a  step  forward. 

The  members  on  this  side  of  the  House 
take  great  pride  in  supporting  this,  because 
the  minister  will  recall,  when  he  was  a  par- 
liamentary assistant,  that  we  raised  the  ques- 
tion some  time  ago  of  conflict  of  interest 
on  the  board  of  ophthalmic  dispensers  because 
five  members  of  a  particular  company  were 
on  the  board,  and  we  suggested  that  the 
minister  should  name  one  or  two  lay  mem- 
bers to  that  board.  In  fact,  we  have  made 
some  suggestions  as  to  who  the  lay  member 
should  be. 

The  minister  accepted  our  suggestion  and 
at  least  he  has  had  the  good  sense  to 
follow  our  suggestion  by  setting  up  these 
particular  boards.  I  intend  to  come  back 
to  the  question  of  the  board.  The  member 
for  Downsview  (Mr.  Singer)  intends  to  deal 
in  depth  with  the  question  of  the  board 
and  the  powers  it  should  have  but  doesn't 
have,  such  as  the  powers  of  representation 
and  the  fact  one  can  examine  and  cross- 
examine  witnesses  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  just  make  certain 
comments  in  relation  to  the  setting  up  of 
the  board. 

For  instance,  in  section  4  of  the  bill  where 
changes  can  be  made  and  submissions  made 
to  the  minister,  we  feel  that  these  sub- 
missions should  be  made  to  a  committee; 
they  should  be  made  to  the  Legislature 
as  well. 

If  the  minister  intends  to  have  lay  repre- 
sentation, if  he  intends  really  to  have  some 
public  input,  he  should  try  as  often  as 
possible  to  involve  the  Legislature  in  de- 
cisions and  let  the  Legislature  know  what 
some  of  these  recommendations  are. 

We  feel  that  in  setting  up  the  board,  first 
of  all,  the  terms— the  regional  appointment 
on  the  board— should  be  for  a  period  of  one, 
two  or  three  years.  Mr.  Speaker,  we  feel 
there  should  be  a  time  limit  to  when  people 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1207 


can  be  appointed  to  a  board.  With  boards 
we  have  often  seen  rigidity  in  approaches 
to  problems  whether  it  is  in  health  or  any- 
where else.  We  have  seen  difficulty  in 
boards  adapting  to  relevant  community  situa- 
tions, to  the  changing  times.  We  are  in 
changing  times  and  matters  change  from  one 
year  to  the  next.  If  we  have  a  board 
appointed  with  no  term— in  other  words, 
the\'  can  be  reappointed  indefinitely— we 
suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  tends  to  cause 
certain  rigidity  in  the  board. 

We  feel  as  well  that  the  minister  should 
spell  out  whether  this  is  a  full-time  or  part- 
time  occupation  for  the  members  of  the 
board.  We  would  like  to  have  the  minister's 
comments  on  whether  these  people  are 
going  to  be  on  this  full-time.  We  feel  that 
an  important  board  such  as  this  with  a 
regulating,  in  fact,  a  watchdog  approach 
over  so  many  professions  possibly  should  be 
on  a  full-time  basis. 

We  would  like  to  know  from  the  minister, 
as  well,  what  kind  of  money  the  minister 
has  in  mind  when  he  is  going  to  be  paying 
these  people  certain  remuneration.  We  would 
like  to  know  what  amounts  he  has  in  mind. 

We  feel  that  when  the  board,  pursuant  to 
section  7,  will  be  submitting  reports,  these 
reports  should  not  only  be  made  to  the 
minister— the  reports  should  be  made  to  the 
Legislature.  It  may  well  be  that  the  minister 
may  decide  to  make  the  reports  public  to 
the  Legislature  but  we  feel  it  should  be  in 
the  legislation. 

We  are  concerned  as  well— and  I  would 
like  to  get  the  minister's  comment  on  this— 
that  the  board  will  be  composed  strictly  of 
lay  representation.  For  instance,  section  7(2) 
states  that  the  board  can  seek  legal  advice 
independent  from  the  parties.  In  other  words, 
to  assist  them  in  their  deliberations  or  in 
making  certain  decisions.  I  wonder,  when 
we  have  a  board  with  lay  representation 
like  this,  whether  the  minister  should  not 
ha\'e  in  the  legislation  as  well  that  the 
board  can  seek  expert  advice.  I  mean,  if 
the>-  are  dealing  with  technical  problems  in 
a  field,  be  it  dentistry  or  pharmacy  or 
medicine,  what  sort  of  guidance  can  a  board 
have? 

We  feel,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  should  not  only 
get  legal  advice,  it  should  be  able  to  get  ex- 
pert advice  as  well.  Of  course,  expert  advice 
can  be  obtained,  but  not  necessarily,  from 
people  who  are  within  the  certain  professions 
involved  in  the  decision.  We  feel  there  should 
be  something  in  the  legislation  that  would 
allow  this  board  to  seek  a  certain  amount  of 
guidance.  It  appears  to  me  to  be  logical  that 


lay  representatives  don't  have  sufBdeot  know- 
ledge of  some  of  these  very  technical  fields. 
Why  wouldn't  you  have  it  in  vour  legisUtioo 
when  you  say  in  section  7  (2),  for  instance, 
that  they  can  seek  legal  advice,  that  they 
could  seek  expert  advice  as  well? 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  feel  that  certain  matters 
in  the  board  could  certainly  use  improvements 
and  my  colleague,  the  member  for  Downs- 
view,  intends  to  go  into  this.  If  the  minister 
would  have  read  his  bill  that  he  presented 
in  the  House  he  would  have  seen  what  sort 
of  a  setup  he  gives  to  the  board  that  he  had 
in  mind.  We  feel  that  the  legislation  does  not 
provide  for  any  representation  before  the 
board,  the  calling  of  evidence,  the  cross- 
examining  of  witnesses.  We  feel  that  the 
legislation  does  not  provide,  when  decisions 
are  made,  for  any  reasons  given  for  the  de- 
cision. Surely  the  best  way  to  challenge  a 
decision  is  to  find  out  what  the  reasons  are. 
How  can  one  go  on  to  appeal?  There  are  pro- 
visions in  your  bill  for  appeal,  but  it  gets 
extremely  difficult  for  one  to  say  whether 
your  decision  was  good  or  bad  without  hav- 
ing any  reasons. 

We  feel,  for  instance,  that  the  board  does 
not  have  any  time  limit  for  making  a  de- 
cision. Certain  setups  in  the  board— for  in- 
stance the  complaints  from  the  registrar  and 
that— have  time  limits  to  make  certain  de- 
cisions. You  have  certain  time  limits  for  in- 
stance, in  section  9  and  section  8.  Why 
wouldn't  you  have  time  limits  for  the  board 
to  be  making  its  decision? 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  feel  that  these  aspects 
would  certainly  improve  the  board.  I  notice 
that  the  minister  inserts  in  section  11(5)  that 
the  Statutory  Powers  Procedure  Act,  section 
15  and  16,  will  be  applicable.  Why  would  he 
not  insert  that,  for  instance,  in  section  17 
which  deals  with  the  question  of  reasons 
given  for  decision?  Why  would  he  not  indude 
that  section  if  he  is  going  to  talk  about  the 
Statutory  Powers  Procedure  Act?  In  other 
words,  if  he  is  going  to  set  up  a  board  surely 
he  should  do  a  complete  and  whole  package 
of  this-set  out  the  time  limits  that  the  board 
has  to  make  a  decision. 

Secondly,  what  are  the  rights  of  individuals 
before  this  board?  Can  they  call  any  evi- 
dence? Can  they  cross-examine  witnesses?  Can 
they  have  reasons  for  their  decisions?  Is 
there  a  time  limit  when  the  board  has  to 
make  a  decision? 

We  feel,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  these  are  all 
matters  that  would  certainly  improve  this 
board.  If  these  amendments  are  not  made, 
I  can't  see  how  one  who  feels  he  has  been 


1298 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


wronged  will  feel  that  he  is  getting  a  full 
and  fair  hearing  before  this  board  if  there  are 
no  procedures  by  which  he  can  get  this  full 
and  complete  hearing. 

What  about  the  right  to  counsel  before  the 
board?  I  don't  see  anything  in  the  legislation 
here  allowing  individuals  to  have  counsel. 

Mr,  Speaker,  we  also  feel  that  certain 
aspects  of  the  legislation  go  too  far.  For 
instance,  we  feel  that  when  it  comes  to  the 
immunity  of  the  board,  the  immunity  of  the 
members  of  a  college  or  council  and  the 
comrnittee,  which  are  dealt  with  in  section 
16,  the  legislation  goes  too  far.  I  could  see 
protection  given  to  individuals  for  instance, 
for  any  act  done  in  good  faith.  But  it  seems 
to  me  that  secton  16  goes  a  bit  far  when  it 
says  that  no  action  shall  be  taken  even  for 
neglect  or  default  in  performance.  I  would 
just  like  to  get  the  minister's  comments  as  to 
why  he's  prepared  to  go  that  far. 

There's  one  aspect  of  this  bill  which  was  a 
surprise  and  was  not  fully  publicized.  This 
was  that  in  section  17  of  the  Act,  the  limita- 
tion period  is  extended  for  taking  actions 
against  the  professions  which  are  governed 
by  this  Act. 

As  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  most  pro- 
fessions had  a  time  limit  of  one  year.  The 
limitation  period  now— and  I  would  like  to 
get  the  minister's  comments  on  this— the 
way  I  read  the  section  is  that  the  limitation 
period  is  extended  for  some  two  years. 
That  is  what  I  consider  to  be  a  precedent- 
setting  piece  of  legislation.  The  court  may 
extend  the  time  for  commencing  an  action 
either  before  or  after  the  time  limit. 

I  am .  surprised  that  we  have  not  heard 
too  many  complaints  from  the  various  pro- 
fessions on  this.  The  time  limit  for  the 
starting  of  actions  has  been  extended— in 
fact,  doubled— and  jurisdiction  given  to  the 
courts  to  extend  the  limitation  period.  In 
my  limited  experience  in  the  law,  I've  never 
seen  legislation  whereby  courts  had  power 
to  extend  limitation  periods,  not  only  before 
the  limitation  has  expired,  but,  according 
to  this  legislation  here,  after  the  time  has 
been  limited.  I  would  like  to  get  the  min- 
ister's comments  on  this. 

It's  a  cardinal  rule  in  law,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  once  your  time  limit  has  expired  for 
any  particular  action,  generally  speaking  the 
court  has  no  jurisdiction  whatsoever  to  ex- 
tend the  time.  For  instance,  in  motor  vehicle 
accidents  the  time  limit  is  one  year,  and 
after  one  year  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction, 
whether  you  have  a  valid  action  or  an  action 
in  good  faith  or  not,  to  extend  the  period. 


That's  the  way  I  read  this  section  here. 
Possibly  the  minister  can  clarify  the  situa- 
tion. Possibly  my  colleague  for  Downsxiew 
might  have  some  comments  that,  in  fact,  the 
limitation  period  is  too  short— two  years.  In 
my  opinion,  this  is  something  that  we  would 
support,  especially  when  you're  dealing  with 
actions  that  are  diflBcult  and  complex,  be  it 
medical  malpractice  or  otherwise.  Very  often 
it  will  take  a  period  of  two  years  for  the 
individual  to  realize  the  seriousness  of  what- 
ever injury  or  whatever  damages  he  might 
have  incurred  because  of  the  negligence  or 
the  malpractice  of  any  individual.  Very  often 
he  is  limited.  He  is  statute-barred  because 
his  action  has  not  been  started  within  a 
period  of  a  year. 

So,  it  should  be  very  interesting,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  see  how  the  courts  interpret 
that  particular  section.  The  section  goes  on 
to  say  that  the  court  can  extend  it  on  such 
terms  as  it  considers  proper  where  it  is 
satisfied  that  there  are  prima  facie  grounds 
for  relief,  and  that  no  substantial  prejudice 
or  hardship  will  result  to  any  person  affected 
by  reason  of  delay.  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  this  type  of  legislation  will  certainly 
receive  comment  in  standing  committee. 

The  other  aspect  of  the  legislation  that 
I  would  like  to  make  a  comment  on,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  section  18  of  the  bill  where 
certain  fines  can  be  imposed  on  individuals, 
for  instance,  for  falsification  of  certification 
or  ofi^ences  involving  false  representation, 
I  would  think  that  it  might  be  wise  for  the 
minister  to  include  in  these  sections  pro- 
visions whereby  in  the  court  or  whatever 
body  it  is  that  imposes  these  fines  or  pen- 
alties the  cost  of  the  investigation  would 
be  part  of  the  penalty  imposed. 

Some  of  these  investigations  can  be  very 
long,  very  complex  and  very  expensive.  I 
would  think  that  the  court  should  be  given 
this  discretion  where  they  are  going  to  in- 
vestigate certain  situations  and  where  they 
incur  certain  expenses.  That's  the  approach 
we're  taking  to  law.  That's  better  than 
throwing  someone  in  jail  or  where  the  type 
of  retribution  is  to  make  someone  pay  for 
the  cost  of  the  investigation.  I  think  the 
Law  Society  of  Upper  Canada  in  fact  has 
instilled  this.  Very  often  when  they're  im- 
posing certain  i)enalties,  they  make  in- 
dividuals pay  the   cost  of  the  investigation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  intend  to  deal  with 
the  various  disciplines  at  length,  except  to 
make  certain  comments  about  matters  that 
have  been  raised  recently.  We  feel  that  there 
may  well  be  conflicts  of  interest  in  certain 
sections  of  this  bill.  For  instance,  in  the  sec- 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1299 


tion  dealine  with  nursing,  section  75,  there 
ma\-  well  be  a  conflict  there  in  the  sense 
that  the  discipline  body  carries  the  malprac- 
tice insurance  for  the  nurses,  and  at  the  same 
time  is  responsible  for  disciplining  them.  It 
just  appears  to  us  a  strange  situation. 

We  feel,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  section  117 
of  the  Act  might  well  be  looked  at  as  well. 
This  falls  under  the  part  relating  to  phar- 
macy. At  the  present  time,  hospitals  are 
exempted  from  the  Pharmacy  Act,  and  very 
often  the  nurse  is  expected  to  dispense  medi- 
cation if  the  hospital  pharmacist  is  not  there. 
Nurses  are  concerned  about  this  section  in 
the  Act  and  perhaps  there  should  be  some 
protection  for  the  nurse  who  has  to  dispense 
medication  in  a  hospital.  We  consider  this 
to  be  certainly  a  valid  point  and  something 
that  might  be  looked  at  by  the  minister. 

It  seems  to  us,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  since 
the  minister  will  be  distributing  the  proposed 
changes  in  legislation  to  all  health  disci- 
plines, that  the  nurses  feel  that  perhaps  when 
an  individual  college  makes  changes  these 
should  also  be  distributed  to  the  colleges  of 
other  disciplines,  which  I  think  would  be  a 
good  idea.  And  again,  that  is  consistent  with 
the  package  approach  if  the  minister  is  going 
to  (leal  with  it  as  a  group. 

Again  I  come  back  to  the  Mustard  report, 
Mr.  Speaker,  which  is  right  on  the  principle 
of  the  bill.  When  you  deal  with  a  sort  of 
package  approach  to  health— I  mean,  one 
doesn't  have  to  read  the  Mustard  report  very 
long  to  see  diflFerent  jurisdictions  and  diflFer- 
ent  sharing  of  respoiisibilities.  That  is  what 
the   minister  should   work   toward. 

I  think  he  has  really  missed  the  oppor- 
tunity to  do  so  by  bringing  in  this  bill  at 
this  time  when  he  has  decided  to  put  the 
Mustard  report  over  four  months. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  recently  we  have  had 
some  pressure  exerted.  Certain  submissions 
have  been  made  to  various  members  of  the 
assembly  here  from  either  the  optometry  as- 
sociation or  the  Ontario  Medical  Association 
dealing  with  the  question  of  the  use  of  drugs 
by  optometrists.  It  would  seem  to  us,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  we  would  like  to  hear  com- 
ments from  the  minister  as  to  why  he  has 
decided  to  allow  the  optometrists  to  use 
drugs. 

We  are  not  sayine  that  we  are  opposed 
to  this.  We  would  like  to  know,  first  of  all, 
what  was  the  basis  for  the  decision.  Was 
there  an  in-depth  survey  done,  for  instance, 
to  first  of  all  indicate  it  was  to  be  to  the 
benefit  of  the  patients  that  the  optometrist 
was   using  drugs?  Secondly,  has  he  any  evi- 


dence that  there  has  been  difficul^  by 
optometrists  using  drugs?  I  uiMJ^ynfanq  that 
in  England  optometrists  are  alknrad  to  use 
drugs.  Has  the  minister  made  any  in^dq^ 
survey  to  show  whether  there  have  been  any 
difBcnilties  there  to  support  the  dectotoo?  It 
seems  to  us  that  if  the  minister  eacpedi  the 
opposition  to  take  what  we  consider  to  be  a 
responsible  position  in  reUtion  to  an  ittoe 
like  this,  we  would  be  entitled,  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  know  what  was  the  basis  for  the  ministry 
arriving  at  that  decision. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  concerned  that  the 
medical  profession,  a  responsible  profiession. 
is  very  concerned  about  this  decision.  I  some- 
times question  the  approach  by  the  medical 
profession  in  tryine  to  push  their  weight 
around  a  bit.  I  thinJ^  it  has  been  seen  in  the 
past.  We  have  seen  this.  And  if  the  minister 
should  crumble  under  the  pressure  of  that 
profession,  he  wouldn't  be  the  first  minister 
to  do  so.  It  seems  to  us  that  the  minister's 
predecessor  most  often  was  k>oking  at  the 
ceiling,  or  looking  up  to  the  medicw  profes- 
sion, crumbling  under  them.  He  never  talked 
tough  to  the  profession,  in  other  words.  I 
recall  as  far  back  as  the  member  for  Carleton 
East,  when  he  was  Health  Minister.  He  used 
to  go  around  and  tell  the  medical  profession 
that  it  had  better  shape  up  or  something 
was  going  to  happen;  but  we  never  saw  any- 
thing happen  under  him. 

We  have  seen  the  minister's  predecessors 
talking  tough  to  the  medical  profession  and 
nothing  has  happened.  We  don't  feel  that  the 
minister  should  be  talking  toudi  and  not 
doing  anything.  If  he  feels  that  changes 
should  be  made,  he  should  make  them  ackd 
not  submit  to  any  pressure.  But  the  recent 
pressure  by  the  medical  profession  has  come 
to  the  attention  of  many  of  us  in  this  House 
—and  we  are  concerned  about  this.  In  ftwt, 
I  read  some  of  the  reports  submitted  by  the 
profession,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  undoubtedly 
you  will  be  interested  to  know  what  might 
happen  if  mistakes  are  made  in  using  a 
particular  drug.  I  will  try  to  enhghten  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  on  some  of  the  submissions  that 
have  been  made  to  us  by  the  medical  asso- 
ciation. 

An  eye  physician's  report  describes  what 
is  called  topical  ocular  anaesthetics— and  I  am 
sure  you  have  understood  that,  Mr.  Speaker. 
It  goes  on  to  say: 

Ocular  complications  of  topical  anaes- 
thetic in  the  normal  eye  are  certainly  not 
uncommon  in  the  ophthalmologist's  prac- 
tice. We  are  concerned  about  the  number 
of  local  systematic  reactions  to  topical 
anaesthesia. 


1300 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Ocular  side  effects  are  surprisingly  com- 
mon: damage  to  the  cornea  because  of 
anaesthetic  effect  with  subsequent  rubbing 
of  the  hd  by  the  patient,  cornea  ulceration, 
ciritis,  conjunctival  haemorrhage  have 
been  well  described.  Also,  allergic  contact 
dermatitis  has  been  described  in  the  litera- 
ture. 

I  take  it  the  minister  got  all  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  as  long  as  the  hon. 
member  can  assure  me  that  those  words  are 
parliamentary,  I  will  accept  them. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  they  are  parliamentary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Is  the  hon.  member  going 
to  survive  the  night? 

Mr.  Roy:  Just  listen  to  this;  the  hon.  minis- 
ter will  be  sick  by  the  time  I  am  finished. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Roy:  Going  on. 

In    fact,    every    topical    anaesthetic    in- 
stilled in  the  eye  has  been  shown  to  cause 
allergies    —    dermato-conjunctivitis    —    on 
occasion- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Roy:  Don't  interrupt  me.  I  am  having 
a  hard  time. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I'm  just  trying  to  help  the 
hon.  member  with  his  pronunciation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  Did  the  hon.  member  finish 
pre-med? 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  do  they  use  such  diflBcult 
words  in  medicine? 

Mr.  Shulman:  It  makes  it  a  nice  closed 
shop. 

An  hon.  member:  It's  a  closed  shop. 

An  hon.  member:  It  justifies  their  fees. 

Mr.  Roy:  Even  lawyers  don't  use  words 
that  are  that  big.  Anyway,  to  continue: 

Keratitis  is  not  uncommon  following 
topical  anaesthetics  such  as  tetracaine  and 
proparacaine— 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  The  member 
should  have  read  it  over  before  he  brought 
it  into  the  House. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  did  read  it.  The  member  for 
Wentworth  couldn't  do  much  better. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Mr.  Roy:  It  goes  on  to  say: 

As  well,  reference  has  been  made  in  the 
British  Journal  of  Ophthalmology,  1969  to 
intra-ocular  comphcations  such  as  my- 
driasis, cycloplegia  and  amblyopia. 

In  any  event,  apparently  these  are  some  of 
the  things  that  disturb  the  doctors  and  some- 
how I  can't  be  persuaded  that  it  is  all  that 
serious.  For  instance,  I  am  told  that  in  most 
ophthalmologists'  oflBces  it  is  the  nurses  that 
end  up  putting  the  drops  in  the  eye  an>'way. 
I  have  not  been  convinced  that  optometrists 
who  use  these  drugs  will  be  a  danger  to  the 
public.  In  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  don't  they  have 
something  like  a  four-  or  five-year  course? 
How  complex  is  a  five-year  course? 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  says  a  five-year 
course.  I  can't  be  convinced,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
after  five  years  these  optometrists  are  not  in 
a  position  to  deal  vwth  this  problem.  I  think 
the  minister  should  advise  us  as  well,  before 
a  decision  is  made  on  this,  if  he  has  any 
evidence  of  any  abuse  or  any  problems.  Does 
the  minister  have  any  documented  cases — 

Mr.  Shulman:  Well,  I  have.  The  member 
can  ask  me. 

Mr.  Roy:  Well,  I  suppose  there  are  docu- 
mented cases  in  many  professions,  but— 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  had  three  cases  within 
recent  weeks  involving  local  anaesthetic  in 
the  eye. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  it  is  important  for  the  minister  to  advise 
us  if  he  has  any  other  documented  cases, 
besides  those  of  the  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  — not  that  I  don't  accept  your  cases, 
"Morty,"  but  just  because  we  want  to  be 
convinced. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  meember  should 
not  refer  to  the  hon.  member  for  High  Park 
as    Morty. 

Mr.  Roy:  Did  I  say  that?  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  gave  him  permission. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It's  un- 
parliamentary language  —  but  he  has  been 
called  worse  than  that  by  his  own  colleagues. 

Mr.  Roy:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
apologize— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  would  like  to 
be  convinced  by  the  minister  that  it  is  going 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1301 


to  be  necessary  for  the  practice  of  optom- 
etry— 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Roy:  No,  \\v  want  to  take  a  reason- 
able approach.  If  the  minister  wants  us  to 
support  him,  let  him  convince  us  and  tell  us 
why  he  has  arrived  at  this  decision  as  well 
as  why  this  is  necessary  for  the  optometrists 
who  use  it.  Is  it  in  the  best  interests  of  the 
patient? 

We  are  concerned  as  well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
by  the  fact  that  if  it  is  necessary  for  that 
practice,  that  they  will  not  be  allowed  to 
use  it.  We  are  told  that  some  60  per  cent 
of  the  communities  in  this  province  don't  have 
ophthalmologists,  so  if  they  can't  consult  their 
optometrists  and  get  a  full  eye  test  because 
these  drugs  are  necessary,  there  is  a  certain 
amount  or  discrimination  here  against  smaller 
communities. 

Our    feeling    about    this    situation    at    the 

E resent  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  we  would 
ave  a  natural  inclination  to  think  that  the 
minister  is  right  and  we  will  support  the 
bill— 

An  hon.  member:  Just  stop  right  there. 

Mr.  Roy:  —but  we  think  it  is  important  that 
he  show  us  the  regulations  for  the  types  of 
drugs  they  use. 

Mr.  Sbulman:  There  the  Liberals  go  again. 
Mr.  Roy:  No,  I  say  we  are  flexible- 
Mr.  Deans:  We  have  principles. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  flexible.  The  member  doesn't 
know  flexibility.  He  is  hung  up  on  principle 
that  he  questions  which  days  ne  is  going  to 
get  his  hair  cut. 

Mr.  Deans:  You  can  never  get  hung  up 
on  principles. 

Mr.  Roy:  No,  we  don't  get  hung  up.  We 
bring  in  polides  which  are  relevant  to  the 
situation  at  hand.  We  are  not  hung  up  on 
principles. 

An  hon.  member:  For  obvious  reasons. 

Mr.  Roy:  Another  aspect  of  this  bill  con- 
cerns us— section  113  of  the  Act  which  deals 
with  the  optometrists.  If  I  might  just  refer  to 
section  1 13  of  the  bill- 

An  hon.  member;  The  section  on  the  sale 
of  optics. 

Mr.  Roy:  What's  that?  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker, 
this  section  applies  to  the  ophthalmic  dispens- 


ing by  ophthalmic  dispensers  registered  under 
the  Ophthalmic  Dispensers  Act.  The  Act  says 
that  retail  merchants  operating  as  part  of  this 
business  "an  optical  department  in  the  place 
of  business  where  the  practice  of  optometry 
is  carried  on"— we  arc  concerned  about  thk 
particular  section,  section  113,  subsection  2 
(a).  We  are  concerned  that  the  minister  is 
encouraging  a  situation  again  where  a  large 
monopoly  like  Imperial  Optical  can  walk  in 
and  start  hiring  certain  professionals  like 
optometrists  to  work  for  them. 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  recall  that  some  time 
ago  in  tnis  House  we  raised  a  question  of 
the  dominance  by  one  large  firm  in  not  only 
the  market  for  eyeglasses  but  also  on  the 
question  of  one  certain  profession.  It's  the 
opticians  in  this  province  who,  to  the  tune 
of  about  70  per  cent,  were  working  for  one 
large  company.  We  feel  that  this  type  of 
legislation  encourages  a  large  company  like 
Imperial  Optical  to  start  hiring  these  profes- 
sionals to  work  for  them.  We  feel  that  if  one 
is  a  professional  there  should  be  a  certain 
amount  of  independence  inherent  in  that 
profession.  In  fact,  in  the  optica]  field,  one 
of  the  professions  that  has  held  and  con- 
tinues to  hold  a  certain  amount  of  inde- 
pendence from  Imperial  Optical  has  been 
the  optometrist.  We  feel,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
if  this  type  of  legislation  is  allowed  to  go 
through,  this  section  113,  it  is  encouraging 
large  firms  to  hire  the  professionals. 

Do  you  not  feel,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  min- 
ister, that  he  should  try  always  to  encourage 
the  independence  of  these  professionals? 
Isn't  it  in  the  ethics  of  certain  of  these  pro- 
fessions that  they  have  this  independence? 
We  are  concerned  about  this  aspect  of  thia 
legislation  and  we  would  like  to  sec  an 
amendment.  If  the  minister  is  not  prepared 
to  make  an  amendment,  we  will  suggest  an 
amendment  to  him  to  avoid  encouraging  these 
monopoly  situations,  and  breaking  down  the 
independence  of  certain  of  these  profes- 
sionals. 

We  would  ask  the  minister  to  give  some 
consideration  to  our  submissions,  in  the  sense 
that  if  he  intends  to  deal  as  a  package,  if 
he  really  intends  to  deal  with  the  improve- 
ments of  health  care  in  this  province-you 
might  have  confused  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  when 
you  made  your  interjections  a  while  ago 
about  the  principle  of  the  bill-I  forgot  to 
read  page  51  of  the  Mustard  report,  just 
three  lines  of  the  Mustard  report. 

It  states  that  one  of  the  major  reasons 
for  the  difficulty  in  the  health  field  presently 
is  that  "despite  its  assumed  role  as  chi« 
financier  of  health  care,  the  provincial  gov- 


130: 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


emment  has  failed  to  develop  a  systematic 
co-ordinated  plan  for  the  organization  of  the 
health  sector."  Surely  when  the  minister's 
own  report  tells  him  that  he  lacks  systematic 
approaches,  when  he  lacks  co-ordination  in 
his  organization  of  the  health  sector,  he 
should  consider  what  he  is  doing.  He  is  en- 
couraging this  by  proceeding  witih  the  bill  at 
this  particular  stage  and  putting  off  the  re- 
commendations of  the  Mustard  report  for  four 
or  five  or  six  months.  He  says  he  wants  to 
consider  it  in  four  months.  If  things  continue 
at  this  rate,  Mr.  Speaker,  probably  we  will 
not  see  these  recommendations  for  a  period 
of  a  year.  We  will  be  forced  to  come  back 
to  this  House  if  some  of  the  recommenda- 
tions are  adopted. 

It  may  well  be  that  the  minister  has  de- 
cided to  shelve  the  Mustard  report.  In  fact, 
I  understand  that  he  spent  a  lot  of  time 
trying  to  convince  us  that  this  was  a  green 
paper  and  not  the  colour  it  is  to  show  that 
he  is  not  necessarily  locked  into  it.  The 
minister  seems  to  want  to  draw  some  distance 
away  from  the  Mustard  report. 

I  would  like  to  hear  his  comments  on 
this.  Maybe  he  is  not  prepared  to  go  into 
these  aspects  of  it?  If  the  minister  is,  it  seems 
to  us  that  in  proceeding  with  this  bill  at  this 
stage  he  will  be  inviting  some  major  and 
wholesale  legislative  changes  at  a  later  date. 
He  is  in  fact  doing  what  his  predecessors 
have  done.  He  is  unco-ordinated  and  he 
lacks  a  systematic  approach. 

We  would  like  to  see  the  minister  take 
the  opportunity  as  a  new  minister  to  change 
that  approach,  and  to  really  deal  compre- 
hensively with  the  health  delivery  system  of 
this  province. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

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

Mr.  J.  Dukszta  (Parkdale):  Mr.  Speaker, 
even  before  I  can  deal  with  the  principle  of 
this  bill,  I  would  like  to  point  out  that  in 
light  of  the  fact  that  over  50  per  cent  of 
individuals  affected  by  this  Act  are  women, 
the  Act  should  be  rewritten  to  reflect  this  fact 
by  using  the  pronoun  "he/her"  throughout. 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  come  on. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  suppose  the  Health  Dis- 
ciplines Act  is  the  government's  response  to 
the  challenge  of  existing  problems  in  the 
field  of  professional  law  and  relations  be- 
tween various  health  disciplines. 

The  Health  Disciplines  Act  has  two  major 
tracks   to   it.    The   first   track   articulates   the 


pubhc's  concern  felt  at  the  lack  of  public 
input  and  community  control  over  the  self- 
governing  professions.  The  second  track 
attempts  to  regulate  the  codes  of  the  self- 
governing  professions  and  to  make  them 
more  similar  in  terms  of  organization,  dis- 
ciphne,  systems  of  dealing  with  complaints, 
licensing  and  uniformity  of  procedures  for 
all  professions. 

The  Act  consists  of  six  parts,  one  general 
part  setting  out  the  role  of  the  Health 
Disciplines  Board  and  the  Minister  of  Health, 
and  five  parts  dealing  with  the  professions 
of  dentistry,  medicine,  nursing,  optometry 
and  pharmacy.  In  time  I  assume  the  Act  will 
be  expanded  to  include  the  numerous  other 
disciplines  outlined  in  the  original  health 
proposals. 

Each  of  the  five  disciplines  mentioned 
above  will  be  established  as  a  college— some 
of  them  already  are— which  is  responsible 
for  regulating  practice  and  establishing 
standards.  Each  college  is  administered  by 
a  council  on  which  there  is  a  minority  of 
lay  representation  and  a  majority  of  regis- 
tered professionals  who  are  members  of  the 
college. 

The  responsibility  for  administering  the  Act, 
as  a  whole,  falls  on  the  minister  and  not 
on  the  Health  Disciplines  Board  as  en- 
visaged in  the  original  proposals.  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  minister  (page  2)  to  see  that  the 
disciplines  are  "effectively  regulated  and  co- 
ordinated in  the  public  interest"  to  ensure 
appropriate  standards  and  to  see  that  the 
individuals  have  access  to  services. 

The  Health  Disciplines  Board  consists  of 
five  to  seven  members  appointed  by  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council.  No  person 
who  is  a  civil  servant  or  who  is  or  has  been 
registered  in  the  health  disciplines  may  be 
a  board  member. 

According  to  the  Act  as  it  now  stands  the 
board  conducts  hearings  and  follows  up  on 
decisions  of  the  complaints  and  registration 
committees  of  the  colleges  when  necessary. 

I  am  going  over  in  summary  some  of  the 
details  proposed.  I  intend  to  go  into  much 
more  critical  detail  on  each  point  I  am 
bringing  up  right  now. 

The  Act  establishes  within  each  college 
mechanisms  for  complaints  by  the  public— 
that  is  at  least  in  part  the  claim  of  the 
Act. 

The  complaints  committee  investigates 
written  complaints.  Should  they  be  suffi- 
ciently serious  they  are  referred  to  the 
discipline  committee.  The  latter  holds  hear- 
ings regarding  charges  of  misconduct  and  in- 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1303 


competence  and  may  take  appropriate  action 
if  the  complaints  committee  does  not  deem 
a  complaint  to  be  suflBciently  grave  to  war- 
rant referral  to  the  discipline  committee,  it 
takes  action  itself  in  accordance  with  regu- 
lations and  bylaws  of  the  college. 

I  should  like  to  examine  the  bill  in  its 
various  aspects.  It  is  surely  accepted  that 
the  whole  question  of  self-government  of 
the  health  profession  has  to  be  looked  at 
not  from  the  pwint  of  xiew  of  what  is  good 
for  the  professional  but  from  the  safeguards 
it  provides  for  the  public  against  incom- 
petent and   unscrupulous  practitioners. 

The  interest  of  a  professional  organization 
like  OMA  or  GMA,  in  spite  of  many  pious 
disclaimers  to  the  contrary,  is  to  advance 
the  interest  of  the  professionals  who  have 
banded  together  in  organizations.  On  the 
other  hand: 

The  advancement  of  the  economic  in- 
terests, prestige  and  status  of  the  practi- 
tioner is  not  the  business  of  the  statutory 
regulatory  body  whose  duty  is  to  the  pub- 
lic. For  such  a  body  to  take  on  functions 
that  are  intended  to  advance  the  interests 
of  the  practitioners  would  be  to  involve 
itself  in  a  possible  position  of  conflict  of 
interest.  .  .  . 

The  history  of  the  regulatory  bodies  in 
Ontario  abounds  in  decisions,  policies  and 
regulations  of  a  truly  or  apparently  re- 
strictive-practice nature.  .  .  .  The  practices 
of  the  professions  disclose  an  inclination 
on  the  part  of  the  statutory  governing  body 
to  see  itself  as  the  defender  of  interests 
of  the  members. 

These  remarks  come  out  of  a  volume  which 
is  published  by  Elizabeth  MacNab,  "A  Legal 
History  of  Health  Professions  in  Ontario," 
Committee  on  the  Healing  Arts,  Queen's 
Printer,  Toronto,  1970. 

Concern  about  the  professions,  the  pro- 
fessional law  and  the  direction  of  the  devel- 
opment of  the  health  profession  has  been 
voiced  in  Ontario,  Quebec  and  virtually  all 
of  Canada. 

J.  C.  McRuer,  in  his  report  on  the  royal 
commission  inquiry  into  civil  rights,  speaking 
on  the  question  of  self-government  in  the 
professions  stated: 

The  granting  of  self-government  is  a  dele- 
gation of  legislative  and  judicial  functions 
and  can  only  be  justified  as  a  safeguard 
to  the  public  interest.  The  power  is  not 
conferred  to  give  or  reinforce  a  professional 
or  occupational  status.  The  relevant  ques- 
tion is  not  "Do  the  practitioners  of  this 
occupation   desire   the   power   of  self-gov- 


ernment?** but  "Is  self-government  neces- 
sary for  the  protection  ^  the  public?"  No 
right  of  self-government  should  be  claimed 
merely  because  the  term  profession  htt 
been  attached  to  the  occupation.  The 
power  of  self-government  should  not  be 
extended  beyond  the  present  limitations 
unless  it  is  clearly  established  that  the 
public  interest  demands  it. 

In  a  statement  published  in  1966  of  the 
functions,  procedure  and  disciplinary 
jurisdiction  of  the  General  Medical  Council 
of  England,  the  purpose  of  the  power  of 
self-government  is  well  stated  in  words 
that  should  apply  to  every  self-governing 
body:  "The  general  duty  of  the  council 
is  to  protect  the  public,  in  particular  by 
supervising  and  improving  medical  edu- 
cation. .  .  .  The  council  is  not  an  ttfo- 
ciation  or  union  for  protecting  professional 
interests." 

The  major  dilemma  that  exists  is  to  deter- 
mine the  balance  between  the  issue  of  self- 
regulation  and  the  issue  of  public  regulation. 

The  principle  of  professional  self-regula- 
tion has  been  generally  accepted  in  our 
society  but  it  has  been  most  inconsistently 
applied  and  various  professional  groupings 
have  been  deferentially  treated,  in  terms  of 
privileges  and  responsibilities,  and  in  terms 
of  overall  relatedness  to  each  other.  The  pre- 
dominance of  the  dental  and  medical  profes- 
sions in  the  field  of  healdi  care  reflects  their 
status  and  the  present  extreme  degree  of 
self-government  which  is  virtually  at  the 
point  where,  like  the  Cabots  and  Lodges  in 
Boston,  the  physicians  need  only  to  talk  to 
God.  It  does  not  reflect  the  reality  of  the 
health  care  field  as  it  is  now. 

Health  care  is  presently  technologically, 
ideologically,  and  organizationally  ver\-  com- 
plex, with  other  professions  impinging  signi- 
ficantly on  what  was  originally  the  dominion 
of  the  medical  profession. 

The  present  bill  in  principle  has  made  an 
effort,  according  to  many  statements  made 
in  the  bill,  to  <5iange  the  nature  of  the  self- 
government  of  the  senior  health  professions 
by  setting  up  a  Health  Discipline  Board.  It 
is  on  this  level  and  the  level  of  this  preten- 
sion that  this  bill  has  to  be  examined  in 
detail. 

In  principle  the  thinking  underlining  the 
Act  is  that  the  public  ftmction  in  the  life  of 
a  professional  college  is  not  suflBciently  free 
from  the  socio-economic  role  of  a  profes- 
sional organization  but  this  is  not  stated  very 
clearly  nor  implemented  very  effectively  in 
the  nature  of  the  present  Health  Disciplines 


1304 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Board  as  it  is  envisaged  in  the  Act.  The  fact 
that  the  professional  organizations  have  expe- 
rienced a  definite  time  lag  with  respect  to 
contemporary  sociological  and  professional 
conditions  is  not  reflected  in  the  Act. 

The  thrust  of  my  argument  that  I  shall 
develop  in  these  remarks  is  that  the  proposed 
Act,  though  providing  some  new  state  control 
in  the  form  of  a  ministerial  control,  is  failing 
lamentably  in  implementing  the  community 
and  the  consumer  input.  For  reasons,  some 
obviously  political,  i.e.,  pressure  from  the 
professional  bodies,  the  Act  reflects  none  of 
the  recent  interest  in  the  whole  changed 
nature  of  the  health  care  field  and  the  defi- 
nition of  health,  health  care  and  the  health 
practitioners  engaged  in  the  field  up  to  now, 
and  whose  practice  is  transfigured  by  the 
changes  in  the  nature  of  health  care. 

More  simply,  the  Act  doesn't  recognize  the 
fact  that  a  different  type  of  professional  prac- 
titioner may  be  delivering  health  care  in 
addition,  concurrently  or  in  substitution  to 
the  present  duly  constituted  and  historically 
legitimated  professionals.  Thus,  in  the  words 
of  "The  Professions  and  Society,"  which  is  a 
report  of  the  commission  of  inquiry  on  health 
and  social  welfare,  part  5,  government  of 
Quebec,  1970: 

The  major  problem  of  professional  law 
and  organization  at  present  is  its  lack  of 
adaptation.  Not  only  does  professional  law 
no  longer  express  the  needs  of  modern 
society  but  often  it  goes  against  the  very 
ideological  and  technical  concepts  which 
prevail  and  which  guide  its  evolution.  As 
for  professional  organization,  it  presents 
the  major  and  hardly  acceptable  incon- 
venience (since  it  then  contradicts  its  raison 
d'etre)  of  no  longer  expressing  the  real  state 
of  professional  disciplines  and  their  reci- 
procal relations,  without,  however,  meeting 
the  specific  needs  of  those  basically  con- 
cerned, the  professionals  themselves. 

And  a  remark  which  is  added  later  on,  which 
deals  with  the  conditions  essential  to  the 
admission  to  practice  of  a  profession  estab- 
lished as  a  monopoly,  should  be  mentioned 
here,  because  it  has  some  relevance,  some 
importance  as  to  how  the  various  members  of 
the  public  who  want  to  become  professionals 
enter  the  profession.  It  says: 

Conditions  essential  to  admission  to  prac- 
tice of  a  profession  established  as  a  mon- 
opoly should  be  set  by  the  legislator;  in 
no  case  should  orders  have  the  right  to 
determine  the  qualities  required  by  candi- 
dates to  the  practice.  It  is  the  legislator,  by 
means  of  state  diplomas,  who  should  de- 


termine general  conditions  of  admission  to 
professional  practice.  The  only  role  of 
orders  [here  they  mean  the  professions]  in 
this  respect  should  be  to  assure  the  pres- 
ence of  the  qualities  required.  Anything 
resembling  limitation  of  competition  should 
be  eliminated. 

The  Province  of  Quebec  has  led  the  way  in 
formulating  realistic  recommendations  for 
legislation  which  was  undoubtedly  based  on 
two  things:  1.  Where  the  public  interest  and 
the  professional  interest  conflict,  the  public 
interest  takes  precedence;  2.  The  Province 
of  Quebec  has  looked  deeply  into  the  actual 
workings  of  the  disciplinary  process  and  has 
taken  nothing  for  granted. 

We  in  Ontario  take  it  for  granted  that 
certain  necessary  things— like  checking  the 
authenticity  of  licences— will  somehow  hap- 
pen. 

In  the  same  report  which  I  have  quoted, 
certain  recommendations  are  made  which 
formulate,  in  some  sense,  the  ideal  system 
which  should  prevail  in  terms  of  regulatory 
bodies  in  the  colleges  which  govern  the  pro- 
fessions. 

I  would  like  to  mention  them,  one  after 
another,  with  comments  on  where  we  have 
failed  here  in  Ontario,  both  in  the  existing 
Medical  Act  and  in  the  present  Act  which  is 
to  supersede  it,  the  Health  Disciplines  Act. 

The  first  major  recommendation  that  they 
suggest  is  that  "regulations  prepared  by  pro- 
fessional orders  be  the  object  of  public  con- 
sultation and  discussion  before  being  adopted 
by  the  government." 

Now,  in  Ontario,  I  think,  possibly  the 
only  way  we  could  explain  public  involve- 
ment in  the  present  Act  is  to  say  that  each 
college  vdll  have  public  representation  in 
terms  of  three  to  five  lay  people  appointed 
to  it. 

Recommendation  No.  16  is  that  the  "power 
now  held  by  certain  professional  corporations 
to  regulate  admissions  to  studies^  be  abolished 
andi  that,  thereafter,  it  not  be  granted  to 
professional  orders"— they  mean  the  profes- 
sions again. 

It  has  not  been  abolished  in  Ontario.  I  am 
not  dealing  here  specifically  with  each  disci- 
pline separately;  I  have  combined  them  and 
I  have  pointed  out  that  in  some  of  the  five, 
this  has  not  been  done.  I  am  also  pointing 
out  that  it  does  not  appear  in  the  Act  itself. 
In  that  sense,  if  one  is  going  to  question 
the  relevance  of  it,  I  am  trying  to  draw  an 
ideal  system  against  which  I  can  judge  the 
present  attempt  to  order  the  order  in  the 
health  field. 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1305 


Recommendation  No.  18  is  that  there  be 
"established  a  system  of  state  diplomas  whose 
requirements  would  be  specified  in  a  gov- 
ernment order  in  council  after  consultation 
with  the  professional  order  and  educational 
institutions  involved." 

Here,  it  is  obvious  that  the  state  does  not 
grant  diplomas,  and  I  am  not  suggesting 
that  that  particular  part  should  be  adopted 
as  our  ideal. 

Recommendation  No.  19  Is  that  the 
"professional  order  be  authorized  to  grant 
specialty  certificates  but  that  programmes  of 
studies  and  other  conditions  required  to  ob- 
tain a  specialty  certificate  be  determined  by 
universities,  after  consultation  with  profes- 
sional orders,  and  be  administered  by  them." 

Recommendation  No.  20  is  that  the 
"legislator  be  parsimonious  in  the  granting 
of  powers  to  professional  orders  to  establish 
specialities." 

Recommendation  No.  21  is  that  "profes- 
sional orders  be  authorized  to  verify  the 
equivalence  and  to  countersign  the  authen- 
ticit>-  of  non-Quebec  diplomas  before  per- 
mitting the  holder  to  make  use  of  it  to 
practice  his  profession." 

This  is,  I  think,  more  glaringly  not  done 
in  Ontario  in  respect  to  nurses.  This  Act, 
the  whole  section  on  nurses,  deals  in  fact 
only  with  registered  nurses  and  registered 
nursing  assistants  and  not  with  nurses  gen- 
erally who  practise  what  would  be  more 
broadly  defined  as  nursing. 

No  nurse  is  required  to  be  licensed  or 
registered  in  Ontario  to  practise  nursing- 
registration  is  entirely  voluntary.  A  registered 
nurse  can  be  cancelled  for  incompetence. 
There  is  nothing  to  stop  her  from  taking  a 
job  in  a  hospital  as  a  graduate  nurse  and  in 
many  cases  performing  functions  almost 
identical   to  functions  of  a  registered  nurse. 

The  Globe  and  Mail  dociunented  the  case 
of  a  newspaper  reporter  being  promised  a  job 
by  a  registry  in  a  downtown  hospital.  She 
was  not  even  asked  for  any  credentials  by 
the  registry.  While  many  hospitals  who  em- 
ploy non-registered  nurses  are  careful  to 
check  that  the  graduates  are  from  some 
nursing  school,  there  are  other  hospitals  and 
institutions   who  do  not  validate  even   this. 

And  so  it  is  possible  for  a  totally  untrained 
individual  to  be  given  major  nursing  care 
responsibility  in  Ontario.  Licensing  is  the  only 
way  to  be  sure  that  all  nurses'  credentials  are 
checked  bv  the  College  of  Nurses.  Those  who 
can't  be  licensed  could  continue  to  provide 
care  to  patients,  but  simply  should  be  called 
maybe  something  else  than  a  nurse. 


Many  individuals  have  expressed  some  fear 
that  this  would  mean  a  loss  of  jobs  to  vir- 
tually thousands  of  nurses  who  now  work  in 
Ontario.  I  am  certain  that  if  the  minister 
wants  to  accept  this  principle,  which  is  es- 
sential in  terms  of  promoting  better  health 
care,  some  arrangements  could  be  made  in 
terms  of  a  grandfather  or  grandmother 
clause  for  the  future. 

Recommendation  No.  22  is  that  the  "pro- 
fessional orders  be  endo\%'ed  with  an  internal 
appeal  mechanism  to  review  any  decision 
denying  a  candidate  a  licence  to  practise 
or  use  a  title." 

The  new  appeal  mechanism  is  in  the  Health 
Disciplines  Board;  but  I  think  there  should  be 
an    appeal    mechanism    within   each   college. 

Recommendation  No.  23  is  that  the  "pos- 
sibility of  admission  to  practise  by  private 
bill  bie  abolished  and  that  the  prohibition  be 
included    in   the   code   for   the   professions." 

I  don't  think  that  applies  here,  nor  does 
recommendation  No.  24  that  the  "dtizen 
requirement  be  abolished  for  all  professions." 

25.  That  [howeverl  the  members  of 
boards  of  directors  or  of  disciplinary  bodies 
of  professional  orders,  by  virtue  of  the 
delegated  powers  which  they  exerdsc,  be 
Canadian  citizens. 

26.  That  the  deontology  of  each  pro- 
fession be  enunciated  by  the  interested 
order. 

They  each  have  their  own  code  of  ethics. 
There  probably  should  be  a  general  code  of 
ethnics  pertaining  to  health  professions. 

27.  That  the  Code  for  the  Professions 
contain  a  provision  relieving  as  witnesses 
in  all  civil,  criminal  or  administrative  pro- 
ceedings arising  from  provincial  juriMic- 
tion,  practitioners  of  anv  profession  whose 
discretion  is  required  dv  the  public  in- 
terest. Moreover,  that  tne  voluntary  dis- 
closure by  one  of  these  practitioners  of  any 
secret  learned  during  practice  of  bis  pro- 
fession be  severely  punished. 

In  Ontario  we  have  had  a  precedent-setting 
case  in  terms  of  the  court  not  being  able  to 
compel  a  physician  to  give  confidential  in- 
formation, but  this  is  not  at  the  moment  a 
law  which  applies  to  all  the  professions  men- 
tioned in  the  Act. 

28.  That  professional  orders  whose  mem- 
bers render  services  generally  defrayed  by 
the  state  within  the  framework  of  an  agree- 
ment not  be  entitled  to  set  a  fee  schedule 
(even  on  an  indicative  basis)  for  their  non- 
contracting  members. 


1306 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


29.  That  the  government  approve  fee 
ceilings  proposed  by  professional  unions 
whose  services  are  not  defrayed  by  the 
state. 

30.  That  the  Code  for  the  Professions 
prohibit  any  flamboyant  or  commercial  ad- 
vertising in  publications  or  on  radio  or 
television,  or  by  neon  signs  or  by  any  other 
means  other  than  those  now  authorized 
for  attorneys  or  physicians. 

31.  That  the  order  be  empowered,  by 
appropriate  regulations,  to  allow  the  mem- 
bers to  inform  the  public  of  their  titles, 
availability  of  their  services  and  their  work 
schedules. 

32.  That  the  Code  for  the  Professions 
contain  a  prohibition  against  refusing  pro- 
fessional services  to  any  person  because  of 
race,  sex,  sexual  orientation,  language, 
origin,  colour,  religion,  convictions  or 
citizenship. 

33.  That  the  Code  for  the  Professions 
prohibit  all  practitioners  from  furnishing 
a  certificate  or  document  which  is  false  or 
erroneous  or  which  is  not  based  on  personal 
knowledge  of  the  facts  enunciated  in  such 
document  when  he  knows,  or  should  know, 
that  such  certificate  or  document  may  be 
used  so  that  another  person  or  some  organ- 
ization pose  an  act  or  refuse  to  pose  an 
act. 

I    do    not    think    that   this    is    specificially 
prohibited. 

34.  That  professional  orders  be  author- 
ized, in  all  cases  where  the  mental  or 
physical  health  of  a  practitioner  is  chal- 
lenged, and  when  they  consider  it  appro- 
priate, to  carry  out  an  inquiry,  to  order 
medical  examinations  and  to  take  any  other 
appropriate  measure."  [They  are  so  author- 
ized now.] 

35.  That  professional  orders,  for  the 
public  good,  be  authorized  to  issue  any 
supplementary  deontological  standards 
compatible  with  the  Code  for  the  Pro- 
fessions or  any  other  applicable  statute  in 
this  connection  in  Quebec. 

36.  That  there  be  formed  in  each  pro- 
fessional order  a  professional  inspection 
committee,  composed  of  members  of  the 
order,  representatives  of  the  public  and, 
should  the  case  arise,  representatives  of 
the  unions  involved,  charged  with  under- 
taking a  systematic  review  of  records  and 
with  the  study  of  individual  complaints  of 
the  public  with  a  view  to  laying  a  formal 
complaint,  if  it  be  in  order,  before  the 
disciplinary  tribunal   of  the  first  instance, 


and  to  resolving  certain  conflicts  between 
practitioners  and  individuals. 

I  suppose  in  some  sense  the  Health  Disciplines 
Board  may  meet  some  of  those  standards, 
but  not  in  terms  of  each  of  the  colleges. 

37.  That  there  be  formed  in  each  pro- 
fessional order  a  disciplinary  tribunal  of 
the  first  instance;  that  it  be  composed  of 
practitioners,  presided  over  by  an  attorney 
(in  good  standing  with  the  Bar  and  having 
practised  10  years)  designated  by  the  judge 
in  chief  of  the  provincial  court,  and  that  it 
hear  in  the  first  instance  any  complaint 
relative  to  acts  derogatory  to  the  honour 
and  dignity  of  the  profession. 

Well,  I  don't  have  quite  that  much  involve- 
ment in  that  particular  aspect.  I'm  not  sure 
I  consider  that  essential. 

38.  That  there  be  formed  in  each  pro- 
fessional order  a  disciplinary  tribunal  of 
the  second  instance;  that  it  be  composed  of 
practitioners,  presided  over  by  a  judge 
named  by  judge  in  chief  of  the  provincial 
court,  and  that  it  hear  any  appeal  against 
a  decision  of  the  disciplinary  tribunal  of 
the  first  instance. 

I  think  our  first  court  of  appeal  here  is 
the  Health  Disciplines  Board.  Again,  I  think 
I  would  urge  that  we  adopt  some  kind  of  an 
appeal  board  within  each  college. 

39.  That  the  courts  of  common  law  be 
invested  with  the  power  to  deal  with  any 
appeal  of  a  final  decision  of  a  disciplinary 
tribunal  of  the  second  instance. 

This  course  is  already  in  practice  in  our 
courts.  There  are  only  about  five  more  major 
ideological   statements    on   that   point. 

An  hon.  member:  Go  on.  We  are  enjoying 


Mr.  Dukszta:  I  wiU  go  on. 

40.  That  the  disciplinary  penalties  which 
orders  have  at  their  disposal  to  enforce 
their  regulations  be  made  uniform  for  all 
professions  and  be  included  in  a  single 
enumeration  inscribed  in  the  Code  for  the 
Professions. 

I'm  not  sure  whether  it's  there  but  I  doubt 
it. 

41.  That  the  list,  inserted  in  the  code 
for  the  professions,  enumerating  the  discip- 
linary penalties  enforceable  by  professional 
orders  include,  among  others  penalties, 
probation,  which  may  involve  a  supple- 
mentary internship,  and  an  examination 
of  competence  or  restrictions  on  the  right 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1807 


to    practise,    and    the    obligation    to    reim- 
burse.  [Yes,  we  have  that  in  the  Act.] 

42.  That  professional  orders,  responsible 
for  the  definition  of  deontology  and  the 
acts  which  deviate  from  it,  be  empowered 
to  attach  to  each  infraction  the  penalty 
of  their  choice,  provided  it  be  inscribed 
in  the  Code  for  the  Professions.  [It  is  in 
the  code  too.] 

43.  That  a  single  code  of  disciplinary 
procedure  for  all  professions  be  adopted 
and  integrated  into  the  Code  for  the  Pro- 
fessions. [We  don't  have  that.  We  have  it 
separately  for  each   profession.] 

44.  That  the  code  of  disciplinary  pro- 
cedure contain  provisions  aimed  at  assuring 
that: 

(a)  the  complaint  be  in  writing  and 
precise; 

(b)  the  parties  and  witnesses  be  en- 
titled to  legal  counsel; 

(c)  the  presumption  of  innocence  be 
recognized; 

(d)  the  right  to  assign,  swear  in,  ex- 
amine or  cross-examine  witnesses  be  recog- 
nized; 

(e)  the  evidence  be  recorded  in  writing; 

(f)  the  testimony  be  automatically  pro- 
tected against  use   in   other  proceedings; 

(g)  the  hearing  be  in  camera,  unless 
this  be  lifted  by  the  tribunal  in  the  public 
interest; 

(h)  the  decisions  be  rendered  in  writing, 
communicated  to  the  parties,  brought  to 
the  attention  of  those  involved  and  pub- 
lished in  collections  of  judgements; 

(i)  internal  appeal  bodies  and  courts  of 
common  law  proceed  on  the  constituted 
record  but  be  authorized  to  reopen  the 
inquiry  in  certain  cases. 

Many  of  these  recommendations  are  already 
part  of  Ontario  codes  for  various  disciplines. 
I  am  reading  and  I  have  read  most  of  the 
Quebec  recommendations  in  order  to  point 
out  how  far  we  still  have  to  go. 

On  the  question  of  lay  representation  on 
the  professional  governing  council,  the 
NDP's  view  is  that  to  appoint,  for  example, 
as  in  the  case  of  discipline  of  dentistry,  not 
fewer  than  three  and  not  more  than  five 
persons  who  are  not  members  of  a  council 
under  this  Act  or  registered  or  licensed  under 
this  Act,  or  any  other  Act  governing  a  health 
TT-actice  is  tokenistic  and  resembles  a  preva- 
lent USA  practice  in  many  industrial  com- 
bines of  appointing  as  a  receptionist  in  a 
highly    visible     entrance     area    black     girls, 


preferably  with  an  Afro  haircut.  Thoce  lay 
people  are  lost  in  practice  in  the  miA6e  of 
nine  to  12  elected  professionals  and  one 
professional  appointed  from  the  respective 
university  faculty. 

Only  a  significant  number  of  intelligent, 
informed  laymen,  preferably  approaching  50 
per  cent  of  the  composition  of  the  council, 
can  have  a  chance  of  exerting  some  counter- 
vailing power  to  the  existing  professional 
power  structure.  Finally  it  is  only  when  the 
lay  representation  is  secure  in  the  knowledge 
that  they  have  at  least  equal  power  to  be 
able  to  say  to  the  profession  that  they  do 
not  agree  with  a  particular  item  of  business 
or  decision  and  will  oppose  it  that  we  shall 
have  a  more  meaningful  consumer  partici- 
pation. 

To  go  over  the  principal  changes  that  the 
bill  is  supposedly  introducing,  in  die  ex- 
planatory note  there  are  four  points  men- 
tioned: lay  representation  on  the  professional 
governing  council;  closer  supervisory  power 
in  the  minister;  the  creation  of  a  Health 
Disciplines  Board  for  the  purposes  of  con- 
ducting hearings  and  reviews  respecting 
complaints  and  applications  for  liceasing; 
and  a  complete  system  of  hearings  and  re- 
view for  all  matters  of  licensing  and  discip- 
lining with  uniformity  of  procedures  for  all 
professions.  All  those  four  statements,  inci- 
dentally, although  I  suppose  it  is  hardly 
incidentally,  which  are  supposed  to  define 
whqt  the  Act  is  doing,  are  not  met  in  ac- 
tuality. 

The  second  intent  of  this  bill,  which  is  to 
create  a  closer  supervising  power  in  Ae 
minister,  has  indeed  been  accomplished.  It 
Is  interesting  to  reflect  here  on  the  mafor 
shift  in  emphasis  that  has  occurred  in  Ae 
role  and  the  relationship  of  the  minister  to 
the  proposed  Health  Disciplines  Board,  be- 
tween tfie  set  of  proposals  as  articulat**d  in 
the  legislative  proposals  for  the  Health  Disci- 
plines Act  of  June,  1972,  and  the  Health 
Disciplines  Act  of  1974. 

In  1972  most  of  the  new  controlling  powers 
were  vested  in  the  board,  while  in  1974  the 
government  has  decided  to  augment  the  role, 
the  functions  and  the  powers  of  the  minister 
of  the  Crown  over  the  five  senior  health  pro- 
fessions and  consequently  and  logically  over 
the  whole  health  field.  In  terms  of  ensuing 
legislation. 

The  section  of  the  Health  Disciplines 
Board,  part  1  of  the  Act,  the  general  part, 
pages  1  to  10,  outlines  the  duties  of  the 
minister  and  the  board.  It  is  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  minister  to  direct  the  councils 
to  inquire  into  the  state  of  practice  of  any 


1308 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


discipline,  to  require  councils  to  provide  in- 
formation, to  review  proposals  by  councils, 
to  amend  legislation  or  regulations,  to  advise 
councils  regarding  bylaws,  to  request  coun- 
cils to  change  regulations,  and  to  review 
legislation  concerning  the  provision  of  health 
services. 

Wherever  the  minister  has  a  request  of  the 
council  of  the  college  to  make,  amend  or 
revoke  a  regulation  and  the  council  has  not 
complied  within  60  days,  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  in  Council  may  take  the  action 
specified  in  the  request. 

The  responsibilities  of  the  board,  section 
7,  page  4,  are  vague.  It  is  to  conduct  such 
hearings  and'  perform  such  duties  we  are 
assigned  to,  by  or  under  this  or  in  the  other 
Act,  and  to  submit  an  annual  report  to  the 
minister,  not  the  Legislature.  This  means 
that  the  main  responsibility  of  the  board  will 
be  to  deal  with  appeals  arising  from  the 
complaints  procedure  and  from  the  registra- 
tion committees  (section  10,  subsection  (1), 
page  5,  and  section  11,  subsection  (7),  page 
6). 

The  division  of  responsibilities  between  the 
minister  and  the  board  has  changed  signifi- 
cantly between  the  original  proposals  and 
the  present  Act,  in  that  the  minister,  who 
was  hardly  mentioned  in  the  proposal,  now 
has  been  given  wide  authority  implicit  in  the 
above  enumeration  of  tasks.  This  introduces 
some  "interesting"  possibilities,  but  does  not 
change  the  basic  problem. 

On  the  one  hand,  if  the  minister  is  truly 
committed  to  the  principle  of  lay  control  and 
gives  the  board  a  fairly  free  range  and  if 
strong  knowledgeable  lay  representatives  are 
appointed  as  board  members,  the  Act  could 
certainly  be  a  positive  force  to  making  the 
health  professions  more  responsive  to  the 
wishes  and  needs  of  the  public. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  minister  is  un- 
willing to  delegate  authority  and  if  the  gov- 
ernment decides  to  confer  the  honour  of  board 
membership  on  individuals  who  are  tied  to  the 
notion  of  self-regulations  and  the  traditional 
independence  of  the  professions,  the  board 
could  become  little  more  than  an  innocuous 
patronage  body.  What  direction  the  board 
and  the  Act  generally  will  follow  depends 
almost  exclusively  on  the  individuals  ap- 
pointed to  the  board  and  on  the  whim  of  the 
minister.  A  statement  of  intent  is  acquired 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Act,  which  would 
clarify  to  what  end  the  board's  activities 
and  powers  should  be  directed,  what  changes 
this  Act  is  to  bring  about,  and  what  ills  it  is 
to    remedy.    But   more   importantly   some   of 


the   minister's   powers   should  be  transferred 
back  to  the  board. 

■The  Health  Disciplines  Board  is  being 
created  for  purposes  of  conducting  hearings 
and  to  review  complaints  and  applications 
for  hcensing.  The  original  board  as  envis- 
aged by  the  1972  proposal,  was  seen  as  a 
reasonably  strong  board  with  definite  powers. 
This  type  of  board  should  always  have  cer- 
tain logical  powers,  and  those  powers  are 
the  following:  the  board  should  be  able  to 
confirm,  to  alter,  to  vary,  to  substitute  and  to 
reverse,  if  necessary,  the  decisions  of  coun- 
cils of  various  colleges.  Only  some  of  these 
powers  are  now  vested  in  the  present  board 
as  it  is  envisaged  by  this  Act. 

Originally,  the  board  would  have  had  some 
permanent  staff  in  the  form  of  an  executive 
director  or  officer,  other  ofiicers,  secretaries 
and  a  budget.  Also  envisaged  were  consul- 
tants and  advisory  committees.  This  would 
have  fitted  well  with  the  recommendations 
of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Healing 
Arts.  The  board  would  also,  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in 
Council,  be  able  to  make  regulations  with 
respect  to  any  matter  that  a  council  is 
authorized  to  make  regulations  under  this 
Act.  Where  there  is  a  conflict  between  a 
regulation  made  by  council  and  a  regulation 
made  by  the  board,  the  board  shall  prevail. 
This  is  a  good  strong  point  originally  made 
in  the  proposal  which  is  no  longer  present  in 
the  Act  as  it  is  now  designed. 

Additionally,  and  very  importantly,  the 
board  was  envisaged  to  be  able  to  make 
recommendations  to  the  minister  as  to  the 
health  disciplines  to  be  designated  under  this 
Act.  I  should  add  another  point- 
Mr.  Shulman:  The  Conservatives  have  all 
left.  We  should  at  least  have  a  quorum.  Not 
one  single  minister.  Make  them  bring  in  a 
quorum. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  am  actually  hoping  to  have 
all  this  in  Hansard,  and  I  am  intending  to  at 
least  finish- 
Mr.  Shulman:  We  should  at  least  have  the 
minister.  We  don't  have  a  single  cabinet 
minister  in  the  House.  Ask  them  for  a 
quorum. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  have  always  been  able  to 
send  more  cabinet  ministers  away  from  this 
House.  I  don't  regret  this  ability. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Ask  for  a  quorum.  Pull  them 
in  out  of  their  offices. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  No,  I  am  not  going  to  call 
a  quorum. 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1309 


An  hon.  member:  There  are  three  Tories 
here.  What  more  do  you  want? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Surely  we  should  have  some- 
one from  the  Tory  side.  Surely  11  members 
is  not  really  sufficient. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  am  not  yielding  the  floor. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Well,  I  ask  for  a  quorum. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  am  not  yielding  the  floor. 

Mr.  Shulman:  On  a  point  of  order,  how 
man\-  members  have  we  got  here— 12?  With 
one  person  on  the  whole  other  side  there. 
Count  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  has  been  drawn  to  the 
Speaker\s  attention  that  we  may  not  have  a 
quorum.  Will  the  Clerk  do  a  count,  please? 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are 
14  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  appears  we  do  not  have  a 
quorum. 

Mr.  Speaker  ordered  that  tiie  bells  be  rung 
for  four  minutes. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Speaker,  tliere  is  a 
quorum  fcr  us. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  appears  to  be  a 
quorum.  Will  the  hon.  member  for  Parkdale 
continue  with  his  remarks? 

Mr.  Ehikszta:  I  need  your  guidance  Mr. 
Speaker.  Should  I  try  to  summarize  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  were  away  the  essence 
of  my  arpiments? 

An  hon.  member:  Please,  will  the  member 

summarize? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  the  member 
should  start  all  over  again. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  was  one  minor  re- 
quest to  start  over  again. 

Hon.     Mr.    MHler:     I    missed    point    22. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  will  not  smnmarize,  but 
I'll  mention  where  I  was  at.  We  were  dis- 
cussing the  powers  of  the  present  board, 
envisaged  by  the  Act. 

I  waf  making  a  point  that  one  of  the  major 
difficulties  for  this  type  of  a  board  to  func- 
tion is  that  the  board,  not  having  a  full 
secretarial  staff  or  a  full  complement  of 
full-time  staff,  will  not  really  be  able  to  deal 
with  the  number  of  complaints  that  would 
be   going   to   it.   Additionally   and   very   im- 


portantly, the  board  was  envisaeed  to  be 
able  to  make  recommendations  to  the  minister 
as  to  the  health  disciplines  to  be  designated 
under  this  Act,  originally,  not  any  longer. 
In  summary,  had  there  been  a  very  strong 
board  then  it  would  have  been  able  to  break 
the  me<lical  chain  that  stretches  from  the 
medical  profession,  the  college,  all  the  way 
to  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  the  minister. 
The  board,  as  envisaged  by  the  Health  Disci- 
plines Act,  1974,  is  an  eviscerated  and  emas- 
culated body,  largely  deprived  of  any  sub- 
stantial authority.  Not  only  will  the  proposed 
board  not  have  a  full-time  chairman  or  a 
vice-chairman  on  the  Knes  of  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission,  but  no  provisions  are 
made  for  a  fairly  extensive  staff  that  will  be 
necessary  if  the  function  of  the  board  is  to 
become  more  than  window  dressing.  All  five 
colleges  now  have  full-time  members  to  allow 
them  to  deal  with  the  load  of  daily  ordinary 
business  complaints,  licensing,  and  so  on. 
Yet  for  what  should  be  a  supervisory  board, 
very  little  money  or  staff  is  provided.  Even 
if  the  powers  of  the  board  were  not  so 
severely  limited  as  they  are,  the  very  fact  of 
time,  staff  and  money  limitations  will  make 
sure  that  the  board  will  be  ineffectual  and 
token-like. 

•In  terms  of  power,  the  sa^  of  the  board's 
functioning  has  been  severely  limited.  I  have 
outlined  already  the  numerous  powers  which 
the  board  has  lost  to  the  minister.  This  leaves 
the  board  with  few  areas  of  authority,  one  of 
which  is  following  up  on  appeals  from  de- 
cisions of  complaints  committees.  But  even 
here  the  board  is  stymied.  Section  10,  sub- 
section (1)  of  the  Act  reads  as  follows: 

The  board  may,  after  review  or  Investi- 
*gation  of  a  complaint  under  section  8  or 
9,  refer  the  complaint  to  the  complaints 
'committee  and  the  board  mav  (a)  confirm 
the  decision,  if  any,  made  oy  the  com- 
plaints committee,  (b)  make  such  recom- 
mendations to  the  complaints  committee 
as  the  board  considers  appropriate  or,  (c) 
trequire  the  complaints  committee  to  take 
such  action  or  proceedings  as  the  commit- 
tee is  authorized  to  undertake  under  the 
applicable  part  of  the  Act. 

To  be  really  effective  in  this  area,  the  board 
should  be  able  to  substitute  its  own  de- 
cisions for  that  of  a  complaints  conmiittee. 
'When  it  comes  to  dealing  with  the  spe- 
cific colleges,  the  Act  is  an  attempt  to  deal 
with  many  of  the  problems  of  prtrfessional 
self-regulations  which  the  government  has 
been  overlooking  for  so  long.  In  combination 
^vith    this    Act,    the    Statutory    Powers    Pro- 


1310 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cedur©  Act  and  the  Judicial  Review  Act  will 
tighten  up  some  of  the  mechanisms  for  re- 
view and  control  of  delegated  legislative  au- 
thority and  plug  a  lot  of  the  holes  in  the 
previous  Acts. 

There  are  a  number  of  criticisms  that  can 
be  made,  however,  and  I  offer  my  reflections 
on  the  content  of  the  Act,  recognizing  of 
course  that  the  real  test  of  the  Act's  effective- 
ness will  be  found  in  the  regulations  made 
under  it  and  in  the  procedures  for  imple- 
mentation of  a  dictate.  My  overall  concern  is 
that  the  Act  does  not  address  itself  to  the 
question  of  how  a  complaint  gets  to  the 
college  concerned  upon  which  the  whole 
structure  rests.  Nowhere  do  I  find  any  ma- 
chinery that  ensures  that  all  bona  fide  com- 
plaints would  actually  get  to  the  great  struc- 
ture and  start  revolving  around. 

Some  of  the  most  serious  deficiencies  in  the 
Act  concern  the  complaints  mechanisms  which 
tend  to  be  complicated  and  time-consuming, 
and  which  may  be  relatively  ineffective  in 
repairing  the  relationship  between  the  con- 
«jumers  of  health  care  services  and  the  pro- 
fessions. At  least,  as  far  as  the  medical  pro- 
fession is  concerned,  the  process  does  not 
significantly  deter  existing  mechanisms  but 
provides  only  an  additional  route  of  appeal. 

Sections  8,  9  and  10  (pages  4  and  5)  of  the 
general  part  (and  parallel  sections  in  each 
of  the  parts  dealing  with  specific  disciplines) 
establish  complaints  committee  and  proce- 
dures. After  a  complaints  committee  of  a 
given  college  has  investigated  a  complaint 
respecting  one  of  its  members,  it  must  send  its 
written  decision  to  both  the  complainant  and 
the  member,  either  of  which  if  not  satisfied, 
may  within  20  days,  lodge  an  appeal  to  the 
board  for  a  review. 

The  complaints  committee  is  not  compelled 
t'^  inform  the  complainant  of  the  reason  of  its 
decision.  This  should  be  changed. 

One  area  in  which  the  Act  has  been  im- 
proved over  the  proposals  is  that  there  is 
now  a  time  limit  of  60  days  (section  9,  page 
5),  for  complaints  committee  deliberations, 
where  previously  the  only  limit  was  "within 
a  reasonable  time."  If  a  committee  has  not 
acted  within  60  days,  the  board  has  the 
authority  to  require  it  to  undertake  investi- 
gations; if  this  is  unsuccessful  the  board  must 
itself  take  over  the  full  investigation. 

A  complaint  regarding  a  serious  offence, 
such  as  incompetence  or  malpractice,  would 
normally  be  referred  by  a  complaints  com- 
mittee to  the  discipline  committee  of  its 
college  (sections  12  and  13  of  the  general 
part  and  parallel  sections  in  the  other  parts). 


The  latter  then  holds  hearings  to  which  the 
college  and  the  member  of  the  college  w  hose 
conduct  is  being  investigated  are  parties. 
These  proceedings  are  held  in  camera,  except 
when  the  individual  being  investigated  re- 
quests otherwise.  The  committee  has  the 
authority  to  seek  independent  legal  advice. 
Decisions  of  the  discipline  committee  may  be 
appealed  directly  to  the  Supreme  Court,  by- 
passing the  Health  Disciplines  Board. 

Provisions  regarding  the  discipline  commit- 
tees favour  the  health  professional  and  his 
or  her  college,  as  complainants  are  not 
specifically  included  as  parties  to  the  pro- 
ceedings. It  appears  that  the  complainant  may 
be  called  as  a  witness,  but  his  or  her  right 
to  sit  through  the  entire  hearing  is  not  en- 
sured. Moreover,  while  a  professional  whose 
conduct  is  being  investigated  is  afforded  the 
opportunity  (section  12(2),  page  7,  general 
part)  to  examine  any  evidence  brought  before 
the  committee,  a  complainant  does  not  have 
this  right. 

The  whole  business  of  complaints,  per- 
taining to  both  levels  of  the  committees,  is 
obviously  complicated  and  formalized.  This 
may  be  an  adequate  way  in  which  to  deal 
with  charges  of  malpractice  and  so  on,  but 
there  is  simply  no  mechanism  for  complaints 
of  a  relatively  non-serious  nature  —  for 
example,  regarding  the  social  relationship 
between  the  professional  and  the  patient  — 
and  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  bulk 
of  complaints  from  the  public  will  fall  into 
this  latter  category. 

Perhaps  some  sort  of  a  low-level  ombuds- 
man would  be  helpful  in  settling  such  diffi- 
culties. This  could  be  an  individual  wliose 
function  would  be  to  bring  together  the 
complaint  and  the  professional  in  a  face-to- 
face  situation  and  to  mediate  informally  with 
a  minimum  of  delay. 

Another  flaw  in  this  whole  general  area 
is  that  as  far  as  assurance  of  quality  health- 
care delivery  is  concerned,  the  complaints 
procedure  is  over-emphasized;  that  is,  it  is 
assumed  that  a  high  standard  of  service  is  en- 
sured because  incompetent  or  inadequate 
practitioners  are  weeded  out  throuch  com- 
plaints by  the  public.  That's  probably  the 
big?xest  delusion  in  the  Act. 

This  punitive  action  should  be  reinforced 
by  greater  emphasis  on  preventive  measures. 
For  example,  reprimanded  practitioners 
m^aht  be  made  to  enroll  in  some  programme 
of  re-evaluation  and  and  re-education,  or  an 
ongoing  system  of  random  reviews  of  all 
registered  professionals  (not  just  physicians) 
might  be  implemented.  This  Act  must  couple 
the  complaints  mechanisms  with  some  posi- 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1311 


tive  preventive  procedures  for  ensuring  high 
quality  care. 

Despite  this,  the  Act  should  provide  for 
advertising  the  complaints  system  so  that  the 
public  is  informed  of  redress  procedures.  In 
addition,  the  names  of  reprimanded,  restricted 
or  suspended  practitioners  should  be  pub- 
licly circulated  in  some  manner— and  all  other 
professionals,  I  should  add— if  the  whole  com- 
plaints procedure  is  to  assist  the  public  at 
all.  It  is  not  quite  sufficient  that  such  names 
only  be  known  within  the  profession. 

This  whole  Act  rests  on  the  assumption 
that  the  colleges  wiH  be  informed  of  OMn- 
plaints  so  that  they  can  deal  with  them. 
Yet,  a  case  can  be  stated  for  easing  the 
access  to  the  colleges. 

It  is  well  known  that  citizens  with  valid 
complaints  are  hesitant  to  approach  large 
bureaucratic  official  bodies.  They  often  need 
help  to  make  this  complaint  in  an  articulate 
and  a  sophisticated  manner  without  feeling 
intimidated.  There  should  be,  I  quote,  "a 
patient  advocate"— someone  who  will  know 
where  the  complaint  should  go  and  how  to 
present  it. 

The  colleges  do  not  advertise  their  pre- 
sence nor  go  out  of  their  way  to  make  it 
eas\'  for  the  complainant.  Indeed,  they  often 
make  it  very  difficult  for  the  patient  to  be 
heard.  In  other  words,  under  our  present 
system  a  citizen  must  be  rich,  well-educated 
and  persistent  to  gain  satisfaction  for  his  or 
her  grievances. 

He  or  she  needs  a  patient  advocate— a 
person  quite  outside  the  system  and  inde- 
pendent of  the  colleges  and  the  ministry— 
who  would  make  every  citizen  "rich,  well- 
educated  and  persistent." 

It  is  my  contention  that  the  system  of  self- 
government  which  depends  on  written  com- 
plaints from  a  grieved  patient  is  doomed 
to  fail  him.  As  a  reference  here,  one  should 
look  at  the  institute  for  the  study  of  resp<m- 
sive  law  in  New  York. 

What  we  need  here  is  something  along  the 
lines  of  New  Zealand's  ombudsman,  except 
dealir>g  specifically  with  health  care  matters. 

I  was  going  to  mention  a  particular  case 
as  an  example  to  show  that  a  more  informal 
approach,  maybe  with  someone  like  a  patient 
advocate,  would  have  saved  many  problems. 
It  is  a  fairly  famous  case  of  Mrs.  Coy  and 
was  reported  by  Sidney  Katz  in  an  article 
in  the  Toronto  Star,  Saturday,  Dec.  29,  1973. 
She  was,  in  fact,  in  the  wrong.  She  believed 
a  particular  procedure  followed  by  a  phy- 
sician was  a  contributing  cause  in  her 
husband   developing   cancer   and   dying. 


As  I  said,  she  was  quite  wrong;  but  the 
unv  she  had  to  deal  with  it  involved  a  most 
elaborate  way  of  approaching  the  College 
of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  of  Ontario.  They 
reacted  somewhat  negatively  and  stated  the 
obvious  truth  as  to  what  the  problem  was- 
but  did  not  deal  with  the  human  element  of 
it.  If  there  had  been  a  face-to-face  contact 
between  this  individual  and  soineooe  from 
the  college,  many  of  the  problems  which 
ensued  from  it  would  have  been  solved. 

I  would  Hke  to  spend  some  time-well, 
not  too  much  time— to  deal  with  the  specific 
disciplines  whidi  I  have  mentiooed  in  the 
Act 

Initially,  we  need  to  comment  on  the  defi- 
nition of  practice  of  the  various  disciplines 
and  consider  whether  the  so-called  Practice 
Act  is  a  good  thing  or  rK>t. 

The  practice  of  pharmacy,  of  nursing  and 
of  medicine  is  not  defined  under  separate 
parts.  The  general  part  does  not  require 
them  to  define  their  practi'ce. 

Had  the  framers  of  this  Act  recognized 
it,  a  strict  legal  definition  of  each  practice 
might  impede  the  expansion  of  paramedical 
practice.  Expansion  should  be  required  to 
meet  health  needs  as  they  are,  or  maybe  are 
expected  to  develop  in  the  Mustard  report— 
the  health  planning  task  force. 

The  question  of  whether  the  practice  of 
health  discipline  should  be  strictiy  defined 
is  another  matter.  To  quote  a  line  from  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Healing 
Arts:  "Maybe  defining  practi'ce  is  sometimes 
like  a  kind  of  scratching;  it  makes  the  itch 
worse  than  it  was  before.  * 

I  think  that  the  purpose  and  the  point  is 
in  clause  52,  subsection  (4): 

A  licence  shall  be  deemed  to  authorize 
a  member  or  persMi  authorized  by  the 
regulations  to  engage  in  the  practice  oi 
Medicine,  notwithstanding  that  any  part 
of  such  practice  is  include!  in  the  practice 
of  any  other  health  discipline. 

The  various  committees  set  up  under,  all  the 
parts  to  deal  with  practitioners  who  are  in- 
competent by  reason  of  mental  illness  or 
drug  dependency  is  a  sound  addition  and 
provides  a  more  Humane  %vay  to  deal  with  the 
problems  than  by  dragging  them  through  the 
discipline  committee  wnicn  is  in  sections  61 
and  62. 

There  seems  to  be  no  provision  for  en- 
suring that  mandates  appearing  in  this  Act, 
which  require  their  inclusion  in  another  Act 
for  implementation,  will  so  appear  (section 
62,  subsection  (2)).  For  example,  if  a  college 
is   concerned   about   incapacitated   members. 


1312 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


it  should  take  positive  steps  to  find  out  about 
these  members  by  requiring  that  a  regulation 
be  placed  in  the  Public  Hospitals  Act  or  the 
Mental  Hospitals  Act,  whichever  Act  applies, 
compelling  the  body  having  control  over  the 
institutions  to  report  such  incapacitation. 

If  the  nurses  are  serious  about  requiring 
notice  of  dismissals  from  registries,  section 
87,  that  requirement  must  also  appear  in 
the  Employment  Agencies  Act.  A  clause 
similar  to  clause  4  could  be  inserted  to  en- 
sure that  these  requirements  were  directed  to 
the  institutions  and  agencies  concerned. 

Two  things  come  to  mind  about  the  can- 
cellation of  a  licence.  The  pharmacy  part 
requires  that  a  revoked  licence  be  delivered 
to  the  college,  section  164.  I  would  think  this 
would  be  necessary  for  all  the  disciplines 
because,  I  believe,  legally  the  licence  is  the 
owner's  property  and  he  or  she  could  refuse 
to  eive  it  up.  The  other  matter  is  that  licences 
and  certificates  are  issued  annually  and 
therefore  it  would  seem  necessary  that  the 
word  current  should  precede  the  word  cer- 
tificate or  licence  in  section  45(d). 

I  can  conceive  of  situations  where  it  might 
be  necessary  to  take  a  practitioner  out  of 
circulation  pendin^r  a  hearing.  Sometimes  a 
hearing  may  take  months  to  call,  particularly 
during  the  summer  months  when  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  find  a  quorum.  I  would  suggest  some- 
thing like— the  complaints  committee  may, 
by  notice  to  the  respondent  and  with  or  with- 
out a  hearing,  suspend  the  respondent's  cer- 
tificate or  refuse  to  issue  an  initial  certificate 
pending  a  hearing  by  the  discipline  commit- 
tee when,  in  the  committee's  opinion,  it  is 
necessary  to  do  so  for  the  immediate  pro- 
tection of  the  interests  of  the  respondent's 
patients  or  clients. 

Tt  may  be  that  this  is  expected  under  the 
right  to  take  such  action  as  is  deemed  appro- 
priate but  it  would  be  wise  to  clarify  this 
<^mce  it  does  interfere  with  certain  civil 
liberties  of  the  individuals  involved.  The 
pharmacists  se^m  to  have  anticipated  the 
problem  of  finding  a  quorum  in  section  125, 
subsection  ^3).  They  provide  that  someone 
mav  be  pulled  ofl^  the  council  in  this  event. 

If,  after  investigation,  the  registrar  con- 
siders that  an  allegation  of  incompetence  or 
nrofessional  misconduct  is  justified,  it  should 
be  possible  for  the  discipline  committee  to 
proceed  on  an  allegation  by  the  registrar, 
even  though  no  complaint  has  been  made; 
section  60,  subsection  (1).  This  may  well  be 
the  intent  of  section  60  but  it  would  be  well 
to  clarify  this  also. 

The  next  thincj  one  notices  about  the  Act 
is  that  the  parts  are  almost  identical  except 


for  the  nursing  part  which  stands  out  because 
it  is  different  in  some  major  respects.  The 
question  comes  to  mind— is  it  better  by  being 
different  or  is  it  weaker  than  the  other  parts? 
After  examination,  I  find  it  has  serious  faults 
particularly  in  respect  to  the  making  of 
an  inquiry. 

All  the  parts  allow  the  registrar  to  inquire 
into  a  belief  that  a  member  has  committed 
an  act  of  professional  misconduct  or  incom- 
petence, section  64,  subsection  (1).  The  nurs- 
ing part  restricts  an  inquiry  to  matters  aris- 
ing out  of  a  written  complaint  except  in  the 
case  of  incapacity.  This  prevents,  or  at  least 
does  not  authorize,  the  College  of  Nurses  to 
act  on  such  things  as  newspaper  reports.  I 
think  that  knowledge  of  possible  incompe- 
tence should  suffice  by  itself  to  start  an  in- 
quiry. 

I  think  it  is  fundamentally  wrong  to  have 
knowledge  of  incompetence  and  refuse  or  not 
be  allowed  to  act  before  some  person  has 
been  harmed  enough  to  write  a  complaint. 
Further,  I  believe  that  any  decision  to  dismiss 
knowledge  of  possible  incompetence  without 
making  an  inquiry  by  the  registrar  should  be 
justified  at  least  to  the  council  of  the  college 
concerned.  That's  section  110,  subsection  (7). 
We  should  keep  an  eye  on  the  regulations 
in  this  regard  and  I  hope  that  the  minister  is 
listening  at  least  with  a  third  eye  or  a  third 
ear  to  some  parts  that  I  am  saying. 

An  Hon.  member:  We  have  lost  him. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  think  we  have  lost  him, 
rather.  We  could  be  charitable  and  assume 
that  this  omission  in  the  nursing  part  of  the 
Act  was  an  oversight.  If  it  were  not  an 
oversight,  the  drafters  of  the  Act  should  be 
able  to  explain  it.  Maybe  we  \yill  have  an  ex- 
planation later  on.  Perhaps  it  has  something 
to  do  with  the  fact  that  nurses  are  not 
licensed  but  this  fact  does  not  make  the 
incompetent  nurse  any  less  a  danger  to  the 
public  than  any  of  the  other  practitioners.  If 
the  College  of  Nurses  did  not  ask  for  this  or 
propose  it,  one  could  well  ask  whether  the 
College  of  Nurses  is  entirely  sincere  in  its 
desire  to  carry  out  its  mandate. 

Given  that  a  complaint  has  been  made, 
it  would  be  instructive  to  know  why  the 
investigation  of  an  incompetent  practitioner 
of  the  nursing  art  does  not  require  as  much 
legislative  assistance  to  get  at  the  facts  as 
does  the  investigation  of  an  optometrist  or 
a  dentist— no  one  shall  obstruct  or  hinder  an 
investigator  from  these  colleges,  section  40, 
subsection  (2), (3), (4), (5).  The  College  of 
Nurses  investigator  must  get  along  as  best 
he  or  she  can. 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1313 


In  this  connection,  one  also  wonders  why 
all  the  parts  require  secrecy  and  confiden- 
tiality, section  65  is  an  example,  while  no 
such  restriction  is  placed  on  the  College  of 
Nurses.  I  should  think  that  this  requirement 
is  a  must  for  every  investigator  who  is  serious 
about  conducting  a  thorough  inquiry.  Mv 
feelings  about  this  are  expressed  in  the  fol- 
lowing quote  from  a  Florida  statute: 

And  as  the  board  is  seeking  to  encourage 
persons  to  bring  bona  fide  complaints  as 
to  the  conduct  of  any  nurse  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  board  in  order  that  the  board 
may  best  perform  the  duties  imposed  upon 
it  by  the  statute,  and  as  this  freedom  of 
disclosure  would  be  inhibited  to  some  ex- 
tent by  revealing  the  corresjxjndence  lead- 
ing to  the  charges  filed  with  the  board, 
all  letters  and  reports  shall  not  be  revealed 
to  any  person. 

The  last  point  is  that  all  the  disciplines  are 
licensed  except  nursing.  Numerous  reasons 
have  been  given  for  this  mainly  having  to 
do  with  protecting  the  job  market  and  con- 
cerns re  monopoly.  I  have  examined  many 
of  these  reasons  and  I  find  they  do  not  hold 
water. 

It  seems,  in  any  case,  that  considerations 
such  as  these  have  no  place  in  this  Act  and 
indeed,  are  contrary  to  the  stated  objective 
of  regulating  the  practice  of  health  discip- 
lines in  the  public  interest.  The  lack  of  fore- 
sight in  the  nursing  and  medical  parts  of  this 
Act  may  reverberate  very  strongly  in  the 
future  when  a  question  ot  shifting  some  re- 
sponsibility which  is  now  defined  as  medical 
from  a  physician  to  a  nurse  will  come  up 
for  discussion  and  possible  implementation. 

The  lack  of  teeth  in  the  HealA  Disciplines 
Board  and  rigid  codification  of  the  existing 
powers  and  responsibilities  of  the  profession 
means  that  the  Health  Disciplines  Board  will 
probably  be  very  inefiFectual  in  dealing  with 
many  of  the  problems  mentioned. 

Physicians  will  continue  to  have  too  much 
control  in  the  health  care  system,  specifically 
in  regard  to  decision-making  about  treatments 
and  patient  care.  The  new  Health  Disciplines 
Act  should  have  had  some  of  this  tight  con- 
trol loosened,  making  it  possible  for  other 
members  of  the  health  team  to  participate 
more  in  patient  care. 
A  nurse  wrote  me: 

The  nursing  profession  is  particularly 
being  stifled  by  the  present  Medical  Act. 
The  expanded  role  of  the  nurse  is  a  very 
real  and  important  issue  that  has  implica- 
tions for  government,  for  the  health  care 
system  and  for  the  public. 


The  implications  for  the  govemmoat  are 
directly  connected  with  eoononucs.  It  is 
far  cheaper  to  train  a  nurse  practitioner, 
a  skilled  intensive-care  nurse  or  a  nune- 
midwife  than  it  is  to  train  a  general 
practitioner  or  a  specialist  such  as  an 
obstetrician.  With  rapidly  rising  health 
costs,  means  of  providing  care  at  a  lower 
cost  should  be  of  great  interest  to  the 
government.  I  am  afraid  that  the  Act,  as 
it  is  designed  right  now,  will  not  help 
open  up  new  alternatives  and  new  wavs 
of  dealing  with  the  paramedical  personnel. 

The  extended  role  of  the  nurse  does  not 
mean  infringement  or  duplication  of  medi- 
cine but  means  the  nurse  is  prepared  to 
handle  the  routine  or  uncomplicated  care 
aspects,  allowing  the  physician  more  time 
to  deal  with  complications  and  problem 
areas.  The  nurse  and  the  physician  mav 
now  work  as  a  team,  in  co-operation  witli 
other  health  members.  This  would  result 
in  cohesion  and  co-ordination  of  efforts 
which  would  benefit  the  total  healdi  care 
system. 

In  regard  to  quality  of  care,  I  feel  this  is 
one  aspect  that  could  definitely  be  im- 
proved. Medical  care  does  not  mean  the 
best  care  possible  at  all  times.  A  nurse 
has  a  lot  to  offer  to  patient  care,  such  as 
the  psycho-social  aspects,  continuity  of 
care,  and  a  family  and  community  centred 
outlook.  I  do  iKjt  feel  that  nurses  are  able 
to   function   to   their  fullest   potential. 

Not  at  the  moment,  nor  will  Aey  be  able 
to  do  so  under  proposed  revisions  in  the 
Health  Disciplines  Act.  They  are  limited  b\- 
the  present  legislation  and  it  is  my  concern 
that  the  new  Act  may  even  limit  them  more 
in  some  senses  than  they  have  been  so  far. 

The  health  situation  in  Canada  is  chang- 
ing dramatically,  so  let  us  update  the  laws 
to  accommodate  these  new  trends.  I  utnild 
like  to  put  in  a  special  plea  for  nurse- 
midwifery.  I  feel  that  maternity  nursing  is 
moving  in  this  direction  and  the  use  of 
!nurse-midwives  in  Canada  is  inevitable. 
The  United  States  has  had  a  long  struggle 
over  nurse-midwifery,  where  a  midwife  has 
been  classified  more  as  a  ph)'sician'8 
assistant. 

[Another  quote:]  The  role  of  a  nurse^spedalist 
is  also  just  emerging. 

The  introduction  of  dinical  specialization 
in  graduate  nursing  programmes  in  Ca- 
Inadian  universities  is  relatively  new.  Suc- 
cess of  the  clinical  nurse^specialist  is  de- 
termined in  large  measure  by  the  employ- 
ment   situation.    There    is    a    need    for 


1314 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


physicians,  employers  and  allied  workers 
to  appreciate  the  contribution  that  may  be 
made  by  clinical  nurse-specialists  toward 
optimum  health  care  if  effective  use  is 
made  of  their  special  knowledge  and  skills. 
Without  some  degree  of  freedom  in  prac- 
tice and  the  support  of  the  staff  within 
the  system,  the  nurse-specialist  is  unable 
to  assmne  the  role  for  which  he  or  she  is 
prepared. 

Again,  I  don't  believe  that  this  is  possible  in 
the  context  of  the  present  Act. 

In  the  Act,  the  practice  of  medicine  is  not 
defined,  and  it  is  not  defined  in  the  present 
statutes.  In  the  areas  of  five  disciplines  there 
is  no  definition  for  practice  of  nursing,  phar- 
macy, medicine,  yet  there  is  a  relatively 
strict  definition  for  the  optometrists,  which 
virtually  puts  them  in  a  straitjacket,  and  a 
strong    definition    for    practice    of    dentistry. 

The  definition  of  practice  of  dentistry  is 
composed  of  two  parts;  one  part  contains  the 
usual  autological  definition  of  practice  as 
that  performed  by  the  practitioner  of  the 
practice,  but  the  second  part  attempts  to 
define  the  practice  of  dentistry  in  listing  the 
procedures  that  are  usually  performed  by 
the  dentist.  I  quote: 

In  its  submission  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Healing  Arts,  the  College  of  Physicians 
and  Surgeons  of  Ontario  proj>osed  that 
.  the  Medical  Act  should  be  amended  to 
include  again  a  definition  of  the  practice 
of  medicine.  The  precise  proposal  was  that 
the  Ontario  Act  should  contain  a  definition 
similar  to  that  found  in  section  71  of  the 
Medical  Act  of  British  Coltunbia. 

The  definition  is  still  disease-oriented 
and  is  certainly  not  forward-looking,  be- 
cause it  fails  to  take  into  account  the  role 
of  the  paramedical  persoimel.  The  com- 
mittee has  concluded  that  it  would  not 
be  in  the  best  interests  of  the  public  and 
of  workers  in  the  health  field  to  recom- 
mend that  there  should  be  a  definition  in 
the  Medical  Act  of  the  practice  of 
medicine. 

[Yet  it  is  recommended,  under  recom- 
mendation 308:] 

That  the  Medical  Act  be  amended  to 
state  clearly  that  an  act  which  if  done 
with  regularity  would  amount  to  the 
practice  of  medicine,  surgery  or  midwifery 
should  be  deemed  to  be  the  practice  of 
medicine,  surgery  or  midwifery,  notwith- 
standing that  it  was  done,  or  was  shown 
to  have  been  done,  on  an  isolated  occa- 
sion only. 


There  is  a  certain  lack  of  logic  in  the  way 
the  Act  is  applied  to  this  particular  recom- 
mendation which  has  at  the  same  time 
listened  to  the  other  part  which  is  not  to 
define  the  practice  of  medicine  at  all. 

iParadoxically,  the  very  lack  of  definition 
is  extremely  restricting  in  itself,  for  in  a  legal 
sense  the  practice  of  medicine  is  defined 
solely  as  what  the  didy  constituted  practi- 
tioner of  medicine  does,  which  virtually 
makes  illegal,  unless  exemptions  are  made, 
anyone  who  by  other  legislation  is  permitted 
to  practise  their  form  of  heahng  arts. 

Recommendation  308  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Healing  Arts  is  enshrined 
in  subsection  (3)  of  section  52  which  states: 

For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  proof 
of  the  performance  of  one  act  in  practice 
of  medicine  on  one  occasion  is  suflBcient 
to  establish  engaging  in  the  practice  of 
medicine. 

[Section  52,  subsection  (1),  states:]  No 
person  shall  engage  in  or  hold  himself  out 
as  engaging  in  the  practice  of  medicine 
unless  he  is  licensed  under  this  part. 

[Subsection  (2):]  For  the  purposes  of 
subsection  (1),  (a)  rendering  first  aid  or 
temporary  assistance  in  an  emergency 
without  fee;  or  (b)  the  administration  of 
household  remedies  by  members  of  the 
•patient  household,  shall  be  deemed  not  to 
be  engaging  in  the  practice  of  medicine. 

At  least  in  the  legislative  proposals  for  the 
Health  Disciplines  Act,  June,  1972,  in  section 
26,  subsection  (2),  the  following  were  con- 
sidered as  not  contravening  the  law: 

(a)  the  rendering  of  first  aid  or  temporary 
assistance  in  cases  of  emergency. 

(b)  constituting  similar  errands  by  the  use 
of  prayer  or  spiritual  needs  if  duly  ordained 
or  authorized  members  of  a  religious  institu- 
tion or  order  that  maintains  and  actively  and 
readily  makes  use  of  a  pliace  of  worship  in 
Ontario. 

(c)  the  administration  of  household  reme- 
dies. 

(d)  paramedical  or  ancillary  personnel  per- 
forming services  in  the  manner  and  to  the 
extent  authorized  by  their  relations. 

(e)  any  person  registered  under  another 
part  of  this  Act,  to  the  extent  that  the  actions 
and  conduct  in  question  of  that  perscMi  are 
within  the  scope  of  practice  authorized  in 
that  part  at  the  time  the  provision  of  such 
part  first  came  into  force. 

(f)  Medical  students  who  were  provided 
in  section  28. 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1315 


Two  very  key  recommendations  in  the  same 
report  are  recommendations  310  and  311. 
Section  310  says  that  the  thrust  of  the  prac- 
tice is  for  hire,  gain  or  hope  of  reward  shonid 
be  eliminated  as  a  constituent  element  of  the 
offence  created  by  section  51  of  the  Medical 
Act.  Section  311  says  the  prohibition  against 
the  practice  of  medicine  by  any  person  not 
registered  under  the  Medical  Act  should  be 
specially  provided  so  that  it  does  not  extend 
to  family  care  of  the  sick  or  family  health 
care,  persons  performing  acts  under  the 
authority  of  other  statutes,  and  persons  en- 
gaging in  acts  of  psychotherapy. 

I  have  mentioned  the  original  report  be- 
cause it  has  excluded  a  number  of  procedures 
which  legitimately  fall  in  our,  so  to  speak, 
practice  of  medicine,  yet  \mder  the  new  Act 
would  be  considered  illegal.  The  present  Act, 
by  listing  only  two  parts  instead  of  the  ones 
listed  in  the  original  proposal  and  in  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Healing  Arts, 
has  failed  to  take  into  account  what  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  the  Healing  Arts 
has  suggested  very  strongly. 

I  would  also  like  to  stress  that  any  psycho- 
therapy which  in  section  311  in  the  report 
from  the  Committee  on  the  Healing  Arts 
should  be  excluded  specifically  from  the 
definition  of  the  practice  of  medicine,  is  now 
not  excluded,  which  puts  a  niunber  of  prac- 
titioners under  a  cloud  and  I  would  say 
places  them  in  direct  conflict  with  a  number 
of  other  legislative  Acts  that  are  already  in 
existence. 

The  maior  reason  for  the  first  exception  of 
recommendation  311,  as  the  Committee  on 
the  Healing  Arts  states,  is  recommendation 
310— that  nayment  be  eliminated  as  an  ele- 
ment of  the  offence  created  by  section  51. 
The  reason  for  the  second  exception  is  a 
desire  to  minimize  jurisdictional  dispute  and 
needs  no  elaboration.  The  reason  for  the  third 
exception  is  to  be  found  in  our  views  that 
we  no  not  regard  psychotherapy  as  a  matter 
within  the  exclusive  confidence  of  physicians 
or  house  workers  to  cope  with  that  which  is 
necessarily  defined  by  statutes. 

The  inconsistency  of  the  definition  of  the 
practices  of  medicine,  dentistry,  pharmacy, 
nursing  and  optometry,  is  that  there  is  no 
definition  for  the  fields  of  nursing  medicine 
or  pharmacy,  a  straitjacket  definition  for 
optometry,  and  an  extensive  definition  for  the 
discipline  of  dentistry,  which  in  part  points 
a  dagger  at  the  head  of  the  paradental  health 
worker,  namely  denturists.  This  leaves  the 
minister  and  the  Health  Disciplines  Board 
with  no  intelligible  definition  to  be  used  in 
co-ordinating  the  activities  of  various  disci- 


pHnes.  At  least  the  semantic  framework  of 
the  definition  of  the  practice  of  dentistry, 
however  iniquitous  it  is  to  the  denturists, 
would  allow  the  Health  Disciplines  Board  to 
co-ordinate  the  activities  of  tnc  health  pro- 
fessionals. 

One  of  the  last  remarks  I  shall  make  is 
on  a  few  points  in  the  recent  controversy 
between  the  optometrists  and  the  ophthal- 
mologists. We  have  all  received  telegrams 
from  the  ophthalmologists  only  recently.  Op- 
tometrists have  contacted  us  in  a  dmerent 
fashion. 

Mr.  Shulman:  How? 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Personally. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Campaign  contribution? 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  could  ask  the  same  question 
if  the  member  would  let  me. 

I  think  I  could  make  a  couple  of  points 
or,  at  least,  try  to  find  my  own  position  on  it. 
I'll  read  a  part  of  the  proposals  from  the 
Ontario  Association  of  Optometrists,  which 
is  not  the  college  but  a  trade  organization 
like  the  OMA.  As  they  have  suggested  in 
their  brief:  "The  modem  optometrist  renuires 
the  use  of  all  diagnostic  tools  which  will  en- 
able him  to  carry  out  an  examination.  A  drug 
can  be  useful  in  detecting  the  presence  of 
an  eye  disease  in  some  cases." 

In  response  to  this,  and  in  response  to  the 
proposal  in  the  Act  that  is  now  for  our  con- 
sideration, the  Ontario  Medical  Association 
came  out  with  a  number  of  statements.  I  will 
not  read  them  all  since  they  are  much  too 
extensive,  but  in  summary,  in  the  section  on 
ophthalmology,  the  Ontario  Medical  Associa- 
tion suggests  that: 

'No  member  shall  use  drugs  in  his  prac- 
tice except  such  topical  anaesthetics  for  the 
purposes  of  tonometry  as  are  designated 
in  the  regulations.  Any  member  who  in  the 
course  or  his  practice  detects  an  anomah- 
of  the  eye  or  adnexa  that  may  be  patiio- 
logical  in  origin,  shall  refer  the  patient  to  a 
legally  qualified  medical  practitioner. 

This  is  a  somewhat  controversial  subject  but. 
in  response  to  it,  I  would  like  to  point  out 
that  the  statement  made  in  a  very  extensive 
letter  by  the  Ontario  Medical  Association 
in  respect  of  the  possible  dangers  to  the 
patients  if  their  optometrists  are  allowed  to 
use  certain  drugs  which  go  beyond  the  loctl 
anaesthetics  are— I  was  going  to  say  they're 
somewhat  tendentious,  they're  rather  strong 
statements.  They  may  be  somewhat  exagger- 
ated, especially  If  we  take  Into  account  die 


1316 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


practice    in    other    jurisdictions    outside    On- 
tario. 

I  don't  really  think  we  can  limit  ourselves 
to  treat  this  very  serious  question  only  in 
our  own  experience.  I  have,  in  front  of  me, 
a  submission  of  the  College  of  Optometrists 
of  Ontario  to  the  Committee  on  the  Healing 
Arts.  It's  in  section  98: 

Further,  the  college  wrote  to  the  Board 
of  Optometrical  Registration  in  Sydney, 
New  South  Wales,  Australia.  For  three 
years  their  Optometry  Act  was  amended 
to  permit  optometrists  to  use  cycloplegics, 
local  anaesthetics,  mydriatics,  miotics  and 
such  other  drugs  as  may  be  prescribed  for 
'use  under  certain  conditions  (ref.  Op- 
tometrists Act,  1930-1963,  New  South 
Wales)  and  the  college  was  interested  in 
obtaining  their  experience. 

It  was  learned  that  the  requirement  of 
the  statute  was  that  a  special  course  would 
be  set  up  to  qualify  those  optometrists  in 
practice  who  wished  to  use  those  drugs. 
The  special  course  has  not  been  abandoned 
but  has  been  deferred  indefinitely  because, 
as  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  University 
of  New  South  Wales  advised  the  Minister 
of  Health,  the  university  council  has 
reached  the  conclusion  that  at  the  present 
time  the  views  of  optometry  and  ophthal- 
mology cannot  be  reconciled  and,  in  the 
circumstances,  the  implementation  of  the 
special  course  in  the  use  of  drugs  in  re- 
fraction or  examination  of  the  eyes  must 
be  deferred. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  that  in  England 
they  have  been  using  not  only  local  anaes- 
thetics for  the  purposes  of  tonometry,  but 
drugs  like  atropine  and  pilocarpine  for  the 
purposes  of  examination  without  obvious 
disaster  occurring  to  the  number  of  pa- 
tients who  have  been  seeing  their  optom- 
etrists in  the  many  years  that  this  particular 
practice  has  been  in  eflFect  in  Great  Britain. 
In  a  small  summary  to  that  point,  there 
is  probably  no  real  need  for  optometrists  to 
use  all  the  other  expensive  drugs,  but  surely 
there  is  a  need  for  them  to  use  local  anaes- 
thetics to  help  with  the  tonometry.  I  know 
that  there  are  newer  ways  of  doing  tonometry 
—electronic  tonometry,  which  employs  a  very 
expensive  instrument  that  is  not  within  the 
financial  capacity  of  many  of  the  ophthal- 
mologists to  buy.  It's  quite  unnecessary  to 
go  to  such  an  extent  that  we  should  compel 
them  to  do  it.  On  that  point,  which  is  one 
of  the  few  points  on  which  I  tend  to  agree 
with  the  minister,  maybe  they  should  be  al- 
lowed local  anaesthetic. 


In  summary— and  it'll  be  a  very  short  one 
—I  would  like  to  point  out  that  the  Act  fails 
in  two  key  points  really.  One  is  that  it  does 
not  deal  at  all  with  the  form  of  making  sure 
that  there  is  a  pubhc  and  community  input 
into  the  profession.  The  way  the  Health 
Disciplines  Board  has  been  set  up  is  ineflFec- 
tual,  tokenistic,  and  will  not  deal  in  any 
other  way  except  as  a  window  dressing  with 
what  now  is  a  growing  public  concern  for 
a  public  input  into  the  five  senior  health 
professions. 

Secondly,  the  Act  will  rigidify  the  boun- 
daries between  the  professions  and  will  not 
allow  for  easy  future  implementation  of  any 
more  forward  looking  or  more  scientifically 
correct  ideas  in  health  care.  It  will  remain 
in  fact,  a  monument  to  intellectual  bank- 
ruptcy on  the  part  of  the  Ministry  of  Health 
and  the  government.  Consequently  we  can- 
not support  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all, 
in  entering  this  debate,  I  do  congratulate 
the  minister  on  bringing  before  us  a  bill 
which,  hopefully,  will  attempt  to  deal  with 
the  various  medical  professions  and  put  them 
in  a  position  whereby  the  public  will  be 
well  served  by  the  co-ordination  of  the  vari- 
ous   health    disciplines    within   Ontario. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): We'll  expect  his  full  and  undivided 
attention  to  it. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development):  That  is  a  good 
place  for  the  member  for  Kitchener  to  finish 
the  speech. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Well,  perhaps  the  Provin- 
cial  Secretary   for   Resources    Development- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  This  is  his  policy  field. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  —would  know  more  about 
the  finishing  of  speeches  in  short  words  than 
I  would. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  is  his  policy  field? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  this  bill,  Mr.  Speaker, 
it  is  important  for  us  to  realize  that,  since 
the  Committee  on  the  Healing  Arts  reported 
in  1970,  there  has  been  a  long  and  involved 
public  discussion  and  interest  in  the  taking 
of  a  common  approach  to  the  resolving  of 
various  of  the  medical  requirements  within 
our  society.  I  congratulate  the  minister  fur- 
ther on  making  the  commitment  that  this 
bill  will  be  going  to  standing  committee. 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1317 


As  you  will  recall,  Mr.  Soeaker,  in  the 
discussions  which  we  have  haa  on  certain  of 
the  revenue  bills  as  a  result  of  the  most 
recent  budget,  those  bills  have  not  gone  to 
standing  committee.  I  think  that  that  Is 
unfortunate  because  the  kind  of  pubbc  In- 
volvement that  is  necessary  to  deal  with  those 
particular  matters  is  every  bit  as  important 
as  the  public  involvement  that  is  necessary 
in  this  situation. 

\'^arious  professional  groups  have  been  in- 
volved. It  was  interesting  to  note  in  the 
Sress  reports  when  this  bill  was  first  intro- 
uced  that  generally  the  spokesmen  for  the 
professional  groups  seemed  content  and  en- 
couraged by  the  fact  that  there  was  to  be 
a  co-ordinated  approach  with  respect  to  the 
various  health  disciplines.  The  minister 
in  his  opening  conunents,  stated,  and  I 
quote;  "liiis  Act  ensures  that  the  activities 
of  health  disciplines  are  effectively  regtJated 
and  co-ordinated  in  the  public  interest." 

I  think  that  we  will  all  agree,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  approach  the  minister  has  taken  really 
divides  itself  into  two  parts.  The  first  part 
is  that  the  approach  be  regulated  and  co- 
ordinated, but  tne  second  and  most  important 
part  is  that  this  regulation  and  co-ordination 
be  done  effectively.  So,  as  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, the  matter  of  effective  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Health  ministry  is  the  important 
thing  in  this  circumstance. 

The  member  for  Parkdale  has  reviewed 
the  four  principle  changes  that  are  set  out 
in  the  explanatory  notes  to  the  Act.  I 
certainly  won't  go  into  the  same  detail  as 
he  has  done  with  respect  to  his  own  personal 
knowledge  of  the  particular  medical  matters 
which  this  bill  represents.  But  as  a  layman 
in  this  particular  area  I  am  interested  in 
these  four  principles  because  I  think  they 
will  go  a  long  way  to  the  resolution  of  some 
of  the  concerns  that  many  citizens  have  with 
respect  to  the  development  of  health  services 
in  the  province. 

iLast  year  in  the  provincial  budget,  as  I 
recall,  we  committed  some  $2.2  billion  to 
the  operation  of  the  Ministry  of  Health,  and 
that  was  approximately  28per  cent  oJF  the 
budget  of  the  province.  This  year,  I  pre- 
sume we  are  approaching  about  $3  billion, 
about  a  third  or  our  expenditures  dealing 
with  moneys  in  the  health  field.  If  that 
percentage  is  perhaps  a  little  generous,  at 
least  it  snows  that  the  commitment  of  moneys 
and  the  expenses  for  health  are  becoming  a 
vital,  and  indeed  a  most  important  part  of  the 
moneys  which  we  are  spending  on  the  citi- 
zens of  Ontario  for  the  provision  of  health 
services. 


As  a  result.  I  think  it  is  important  that 
the  matter  of  closer  supervisory  powers  by 
the  minister  is  clearly  set  out  for  those 
operating  in  the  health  disciplines  to  realize 
and  to  understand.  The  minister  must  of 
course  invcJve  himself,  particularly  in  these 
areas,  to  ensure  that  we  are  getting  the  best 
return  for  the  very  large  numbers  of  dolUn 
that  are  being  spent. 

The  matter  of  lay  representatk>n  has  been 
pointed  out  by  the  member  for  Parkdale  as 
being  one  that  seems  to  be  a  two-«dged 
sword.  It  has  the  opportunity  of  course,  of 
involving  citizens  in  the  particular  cdleges 
and  the  governing  bodies  of  the  colleges,  but 
it  also  has  the  unfortunate  connotation  that 
sometimes  in  the  past,  at  least,  these  ap- 
pointments have  been  made  more  as  a 
matter  of  patronage  than  as  a  necessary 
benefit  to  the  public  interest. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:That's  the  distinct  im- 
pression that  we  get. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  If  the  minister  is  serious 
about  involving  the  public  interest,  then  I 
am  certain  that  his  appointments,  each  one 
of  them,  will  be  well  received  by  all  sides 
of  the  House  because  they  will  be  based 
solely  on  merit. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  They  are  all  from 
Muskoka. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Well,  I  would  hate  to 
denude  Muskoka  of  its  residents,  especially 
in  the  winter,  so  that  they  must  necessarily 
all  be  serving  on  ministry  committees. 

Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon:    They   are   all   Sant»'s 

little  helpers. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  However,  it  may  be  that 
the  elves  in  Muskoka,  who  are  otherwise 
unemployed  during  the  summer  months, 
could  well  find  full  employment  on  aM  the 
boards  and  commissions  that  eventually  find 
themselves  reporting  to  the  Minister  of 
Health. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Minister  of  Health 
is  trying  to  reward  them  all. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  matter  of  lay  representation  is  an  im- 
portant one.  It  is  also  one  that  in  our  society 
should  be  co-ordinated  to  the  point  that 
our  citizens  are  aware  that  this  land  of  an 
approach,  taken  to  the  governing  boards  of 
the  colleges  in  these  areas,  is  one  which  the 
government  views  seriously  and  one  to 
which  the  government  is  in  fact  committed. 

The  matter  of  the  Health  Disciplines 
Board  will  be  dealt  with.  I  am  certain,  by 


1318 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


other  speakers,  particularly  by  my  colleague, 
the  hon.  member  for  Downsview,  who  has 
a  particular  interest  in  that  area.  It  is  of 
course  important  that  those  boards  be  inde- 
pendent in  fact  and  that  the  public  partici- 
pation on  them  be  assured  so  that  they  have 
the  breadth  and  depth  of  involvement  and 
knowledge,  as  well  as  the  expertise  avail- 
able to  them,  that  they  will  be  able  to  do 
the  kind  of  job  that  we  all  hope  for  them. 

It  is  natural  of  course  that  there  is  a 
system  of  hearings  in  review  which  on  occas- 
sion  is  going  to  involve  the  courts  of  Ontario. 
There  has  to  be  uniformity  of  procedures  in 
this  matter  and  I  think  that  again  we  have 
taken  at  least  a  reasonable  step  to  attempt 
the  co-ordination  of  the  kinds  of  hearings 
and  review  procedures  which  have  been 
called  for  by  the  McRuer  commission  over 
the  years  through  its  various  reports  and  by 
other  responsible  bodies. 

As  I  understand  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  wiU 
be  other  sections  which  will  eventually  find 
their  way  into  this  Act  dealing  with  chiro- 
practors and  therapists,  with  technicians  of 
various  kinds  and  podiatrists.  I  don't  know 
whether  there  are  other  particular  disciplines 
that  are  going  to  be  included,  but  I  think 
it  will  be  worthwhile  for  the  minister,  if  he 
is  able  to  do  so,  to  advise  us  in  his  remarks 
as  to  when  we  may  expect  to  have  these 
other  areas  brought  for^vard,  so  that  the 
whole  package  approach  which  is  being 
taken  to  the  operation  of  the  ministry  can  be 
seen  by  the  Legislature. 

There  certainly  is  a  general  agreement 
among  the  spokesmen  for  the  various  profes- 
sional groups  that  this  kind  of  an  approach 
will  hoDefu^lv  resolve  the  various  interdisci- 
plinarv  conflicts  that  exist  and  will  also  set 
a  crui'^eline  bv  which  we  can  be  assured  that 
the  monevs  being  spent  in  these  areas  are 
bpin<*^  well  and  properly  spent.  Much  has 
been  said  as  a  result  of  the  approach  that  has 
been  f^ken  bv  both  the  ontometrists  and 
ophthalmoloeists  in  the  attempt  to  resolve  the 
particular  points  that  are  raised  by  section 
99  in  the  Ml 

It  would  appear  to  me  that  the  whole 
matter  will  resolve  itself  one  way  or  another 
when  the  minister  advises  clearlv  in  the 
House  what  sorts  of  drugs  are  goincr  to  be 
pvailable  and  included  in  the  reerulations. 
Surelv  that  is  going  to  be  the  way  that  we 
are  able  to  show  whether,  based  upon  the 
training  and  exnerience  of  optometrists,  the 
various  drugs  that  are  allowed  will  either 
permit  them  to  do  the  fob  for  which  they  are 
trained  or  will  not.  This  surely  is  the  point 
that  we  will  have  to  see  when  the  regula- 


tions come  in.  I  think  that  there  are  going 
to  be  many  members  concerned  with  this 
particular  point.  I  hope  that  the  minister  will 
be  able  to  resolve  it  so  that  especially  those 
of  us  without  a  medical  background  will 
understand  just  what  the  terms  of  reference 
are  supposed  to  be— delineating  the  work  of 
these  two  professions. 

There  is  one  other  area  that  I  would  like 
to  refer  to  and  it  deals  with  a  series  of  let- 
ters that  I'm  certain  many  members  have 
received  from  those  persons  who  are  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  Science  organization. 
In  the  letters  which  I  have  had  they  have 
dealt  with  a  particular  point.  If  I  might  I 
will  quote  briefly  from  one  letter: 

We  of  Christian  Science  very  much 
cherish  our  religious  rights  with  respect  to 
the  above-mentioned  Bill  22.  We  request 
that  the  practice  of  healing  by  prayer  with- 
out prohibition  or  interference  be  reinstated 
in  Bill  22. 

Mr.  Speaker,  not  being  a  member  of  that 
particular  religious  denomination  I  am  not 
aware  in  depth  as  to  the  difficulties  which 
apparently  have  been  foreseen  by  this  religi- 
ous group.  I  am  certain  that  the  minister 
would  not  wish  to  off^end  any  group  of  per- 
sons, and  I  hope  that  in  his  comments- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Certainly  not  in  his 
position. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  —he  will  be  able  to  advise 
us  just  whether  or  not  the  concerns  that 
Christian  Scientists  have  written  about  are  in 
fact  something  that  is  going  to  take  place. 

The  minister  shakes  his  head,  and  he 
shakes  his  head  "no."  Are  we  to  presume 
then  that  these  various  letters  of  concern  are 
without  foundation  and  in  fact  this  kind  of 
problem  is  not  going  to  occur? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  minister  is  not  going 
to  persecute  the  Christian  Scientists? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  minister  at  this  point 
shakes  his  head  up  and  down  which  I  pre- 
sume means  yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  could  answer  the  mem- 
ber if  he  wishes. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  would  hope  the  minister 
will  take  the  opportunity  in  his  reply  to  set 
out  clearly  just  what  the  situation  is  so  that 
these  citizens  will  be  able  to  be  assured  that 
their  particular  religious  belief  will  not  be 
interfered  with  or  compromised. 

Mr.  Breithaupt  moves  the  adjournment  of 
the  debate. 


APRIL  23,  1974 


1319 


Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  In  accordance  with  the  provi- 
sions of  standing  orders  27  and  28,  I  now 
deem  a  motion  to  adjourn  to  have  been  made. 

The  hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur  had  filed 
proper  notice  with  me  that  he  is  dissatisfied 
with  the  answer  given  to  one  of  his  questions 
yesterday.  He  now  has  the  right  to  speak  to 
this  point  for  five  minutes. 


LAKE  SUPERIOR  OUTFLOWS 

Mr.  J.  F.  FoiJds  (Port  Arthur):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  government  of  Ontario  has  failed  to  be 
open  and  frank  about  the  regulation  of  the 
level  of  Lake  Superior.  The  Premier's  (Mr. 
Davis')  reply  to  my  questions  yesterday  was 
just  the  latest  in  a  series  of  evasive  answers. 

On  May  22  of  last  year,  I  asked  the  then 
Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  Auld)  about 
IJC  proposals  to  use  Lake  Superior  as  a 
reservoir  for  the  rest  of  the  Great  Lakes 
system.  He  said: 

Now,  what  is  transpiring  at  the  moment 
with  the  IJC  and  the  lake  level  and  what- 
ever studies  are  being  considered,  I  am 
not  totally  up  to  date  on.  I  will  try  to  find 
out  and  let  the  hon.  member  know. 

But  there  was  no  further  answer. 

On  June  18,  the  minister  admitted  that 
Mr.  Steggles  of  his  ministry  and  representa- 
tives of  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources 
were  present  at  an  IJC  meeting  held  in 
Duluth  on  that  very  day.  He  further  clearly 
indicated  that  "there  are  provincial  people  on 
the  Lake  Superior  Control  Board  Advisory 
Committee  .  .  ." 

More  interestingly,  he  indicated  to  me 
quietly  in  the  hallway  that  the  thing  that 
fascinated  him  was  the  information  that  there 
was  massive  potential  to  use  Lake  Superior 
as  a  reservoir  because  of  the  vast  surface  area 
of  the  lake. 

Then  the  IJC  released  its  spedal  interim 
report  on  the  regulation  of  Lake  Superior 
outflows  on  June  29.  This  recommended  an 
increase  in  the  allowable  water  level  of  Lake 
Superior, 

I  wrote  the  Premier  on  July  18,  asking 
him  to  make  Ontario's  position  on  the  matter 
clear  and  public  as  all  the  affected  shore- 
line on  the  Canadian  side  is  in  Ontario. 
I  suggested  that  as  this  was  the  case,  Ontario 
should  have  a  large  say  in  the  determining 
of  the  Canadian  government  policy  on  the 
matter. 


The  Premier  replied  by  saying  in  a  letter 
of  Sept.  27: 

I  hope  I  can  relieve  your  anxiety  by  con- 
firming that  the  province  has  been  studying 
the  special  interim  report  for  some  time 
and  nas  already  made  recommendations 
where  appropriate. 

But  nowhere  in  his  letter  or  publicly  since 
has  he  indicated  what  these  recommendations 
were  or  to  whom  they  were  made. 

I  might  also  add  here  that  Louis  Robi- 
chaud,  the  Canadian  chairman  of  the  IJC, 
said  in  a  letter  to  me: 

Before  final  conclusions  are  reached,  the 
commission  will  hold  public  meetings  at 
strategic  locations  in  botn  countries  in  order 
to  give  the  public  full  opportunity  to  ex- 
press their  views. 

But  no  such  meetings  have  been  held. 

Therefore,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  can  imagine 
my  surprise  when  I  learned  that  at  an  IJC 
meeting  in  Washington  on  April  2,  the 
American  attorney  and  the  Cansidian  lawyer 
attached  to  the  commission  said  that  the  two 
parties  had  reached  an  agreement  in  prin- 
ciple on  the  regulation  of  Lake  Superior.  The 
Canadian  lawyer  further  stated  that  the  Minis- 
ter of  External  Affairs  was  to  contact  Ontario 
to  obtain  confirmation. 

Subsequently,  I  raised  the  matter  with  the 
present  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr. 
W.  Newman),  who  said:  "I  will  be  glad  to 
bring  the  member  more  detailed  information 
tomorrow."  He  said  this  on  April  9. 

Thirteen  days  later,  with  an  answer  not 
forthcoming,  I  raised  the  question  with  the 
Premier  as  the  chief  administrator  of  the 
province.  The  Premier  said: 

I  recognize  the  federal  government  at 
Ottawa  and  the  American  government 
have  had  discussions  on  the  issue  and  on 
a  niunber  of  other  issues.  I'm  not  sure 
that  there  is  in  fact  an  agreement,  I  will 
check  that  out  and  find  out  whether  there 
is  in  fact  an  agreement. 

I  simply  cannot  accept  that  answer,  Mr. 
Speaker.  There  are  too  many  contradictions, 
too  many  partial  omissions  of  knowledge  on 
the  part  of  Ontario  government  ofiBcials  for 
me  to  accept  the  Premier's  statement  at  face 
value. 

There  is  an  agrement,  Tlie  Premier  should 
be  aware  of  it,  as  Ontario  is  now  consider- 
ing it  at  this  very  time,  if  it  has  rK)t  already 
agreed  to  it.  I  believe  that  the  Premier  used 
his  talks  about  pollution  control  on  the 
Great  Lakes  with  Governor  Milliken  as  a 
cover-up.  I  belie\e  he  agreed  to  the  Michigan 


1320 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


governor's  desire  to  raise  Lake  Superior  as  a 
sawoff  to  persuade  Michigan  to  clean  up 
some  of  its  pK>llution.  Ironically,  the  IJC 
admits  in  its  own  special  interim  report  that 
holding  back  Lake  Superior  will  not  sig- 
nificantly ease  high  water  levels  lower  down 
on  the  system. 

T  will  continue  to  oppose  the  raising  of 
Lake  Superior  until  I  am  satisfied  that  north- 
em  Ontario  will  not  economically  or  eco- 
logically be  damaged  by  the  proposals.  We 
in  northern  Ontario  have  for  far  too  long 
been  treated  as  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers 
of  water  for  the  industrialized  sections  of 
this  continent.  We  are  not  now  prepared 
to  become  mere  storers  of  water  in  order 
to  satisfy  either  the  United  States  or  southern 
Ontario  to  our  own  detriment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member's  time  has  now 
expired. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  believe  the  Premier  is  de- 
liberately withholding  information  from  the 
Legislature.  I  would  like  him  to  come  clean 
about  the  whole  matter.  What  is  he  trying 
to  hide? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That's  a  full  record. 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment): Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to  the 
ruling  which  was  made,  I  would  just  like 
to  say  the  Premier  is  not  withholding  in- 
formation. As  usual  the  member  for  Port 
Arthur,  with  his  fragmented  information  in 
bits  and  pieces,  certainly  has  not  got  the 
story  correct  and  does  not  really  know  what 
the  facts  are, 

Mr.  Foulds:  GWe  us  the  full  information, 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Give  us  the  facts.  The 
minister  has  the  chance  now. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  He  asked  me  a  ques- 
tion; he  pointed  out  in  his  question  to  me 
on  April  9  that  accord  had  been  reached 
between  the  federal  government  of  Canada 
and  the  federal  government  of  the  US.  This 
is  not  true.  There  has  been  no  accord  reached 
at  this  point  in  time,  as  of  tonight  even. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Has  there  been  an  agreement 
in  principle? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  There  has  not  been. 
Will  he  listen  to  me?  When  the  federal 
government  originally  last  October  rejected 
the  IJC's  idea  of  regulating  Lake  Superior,  it 
rejected  it  on  the  basis  there  wasn't  sufficient 
information.  The  federal  US  government 
asked   it  to   reconsider  the  matter  and  as  a 


result  of  the  reconsideration  of  the  matter 
the  goverrmient  of  Canada  asked  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  for  its  comments.  Our  com- 
ments were  duly  put  together  in  this  ministry, 
forwarded  to  the  Ministry  of  Intergovern- 
mental AflFairs,  TEIGA,  and  from  there,  which 
is  the  proper  channel,  they  went  to  Ottawa. 
The  federal  government  has  our  thoughts  on 
the  matter  now;  our  thinking  on  the  matter. 
We  are  now  waiting  for  Ottawa  to  make  its 
decision  with  the  US  federal  people. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Comments  on  what? 

Hon.   W.   Newman:   Pardon  me? 

Mr.   Foulds:   Comments  on  what? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  On  where  we  stand 
on  the  matter.  As  a  result  of  these  develop- 
ments the  government  of  Canada  is  now 
reconsidering  and  has  requested  our  views. 
The  proposal  was  under  study  by  our  min- 
istry and  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources. 

Mr.  Foulds:   So  there  is  a  proposal? 

Hon.    W.    Newman:    They   asked   for   our 
comments- 
Mr.    Foulds:    On   their   proposal. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  —on  the  IJC's  recom- 
mendations. Not  on  what  the  member  is 
talking  about,  two  lawyers  who  came  to 
some  concurrence.  I  don't  know  anything 
about  that, 

I  do  know  that  the  federal  government 
of  the  US  asked  the  federal  government  of 
Canada,  which  asked  for  our  comments.  We 
made  our  comments  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment of  Canada  and  we  have  said  that  the 
two  federal  governments  should  provide  com- 
pensation for  power  interests  at  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  and  property  owners  along  Lake 
Superior  damaged  by  higher  levels  on  the 
lake  if  we  go  along  with  the  regulating  of 
Lake  Superior  water  levels. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That's  a  tacit  admission  that 
the  government  is  going  along  with  the 
raising  of  Lake  Superior  water  levels. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  saying,  in 
effect,  that  if  the  two  governments  wish  to 
do  this  there  should  be  compensation  con- 
sidered for  the  power  people  and  the  shore 
property  owners.  We  have  sent  our  submis- 
sion through  the  Ministry  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs  to  the  federal  government  in 
Ottawa. 

The  Premier  has  not  been  misleading  the 
House,  nor  have  I,  The  reason  I  couldn't  give 
the  member  this  information  is  that  in   the 


APRIL  23.  1974 


1321 


question  he  asked  me,  he  said  they  had 
reached  accord.  They  had  not  reached  accord 
and  until  today  they  still  have  not  reached 
accord.  I  just  hope  when  he  makes  his  reso- 
lutions on  whatever  section  of  the  reeula- 
tions  it  is  he  will  get  his  facts  straight  before 
he  brings  it  up. 

Mr.  Foulds:  It  might  help  if  the  govern- 
ment was  frank  in  bringing  those  facts  to  the 
public. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  working  with 
Environment  Canada,  with  the  federal  mini.s- 
trv,  through  the  proper  channels  to  try  to 
resolve  this  problem.  We  are  concerned  and 
don't  let  the  member  forget  we  are  fust  as 
concerned  about  the  people  on  Lake  Superior 
and  all  the  other  Great  Lakes  as  anybody 
else  is. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Not  this  government. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  very  much 
aware  of  what  is  happening  and  we  are  very 
much  concerned. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  Tories  have  sold  out  the 
north  for  30  years  and  they  are  prepared  to 
do  it  again. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  very  much  con- 
cerned  about   what  is   happening  and   cer- 


tainly we  did  respond  to  the  IIC«  recom- 
mendations to  the  eovemment  of  Canada.  We 
are  waiting  for  them  now  to  make  thdr 
decision. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  is  a  switch. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  government  should  make 
those  representations  public.  What  is  ft 
hiding? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
Thursday  we  will  return  to  the  second  item, 
consideration  of  Bill  28.  to  be  followed,  as 
I  said  previously,  by  the  estimates  of  the 
Ministry  of  Energy.  If  there  is  any  change 
from  that  I  will  announce  it  on  Thureday  but 
at  the  moment  that  order  stands. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  is  without,  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  return  to  the  health  bill? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  now  declare  the  motion  to 
adjourn  to  have  been  carried. 

(The  House  adjourned  at  10:40  o'dock,  p.m. 


1322  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  April  23,  1974 

Health  Disciplines  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Miller,  on  second  reading  1291 

Debate  re  answers  to  oral  questions,  Mr.  Foulds,  Mr.  W.  Newman  1319 

Adjournment    1321 


JOURNALS  AND  PRCXrEDURAL  RESEARCH  BRANCH 

DIRECTION  DES  JOURNAUX  ET  DES  RECHERCHBSENFROCEDDHB 

ROOM  1640,  WHITNEY  BLOCK 

QUEEN'S  PARK.  TORONTO.  ON  M7A  1 A2