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 
g overnm ent 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, nea